The
Baptist Faith and Practice
By
Bill Hendricks
Excerpts
from speech delivered at TBC annual convocation, July 14th, 2000.
![](../../images/100Hendricks.jpg)
In
recent years, much has been said and written about the Baptist
Faith & Message and the recent changes made in that historical,
confessional document. Little has been said about Baptist faith
& practice. What we do overshadows what we say.
The
text for these remarks in Proverbs 22:38: "Remove not the ancient
landmark which your fathers have set." This is the penultimate
riches; that we should train children in the way they should go
(according to their capacities); that we should not rob the poor;
and that we should avoid angry and furious people." Mainstream
Baptists have shied away from this text because of J. R. Graves'
faux pas in reading history. Historical successionism is not the
intent of the passage. Recovery of the heritage and care for interpreting
the tradition is the point.
I
have often shaken my head in dismay and wondered where we have
gone wrong. One facetious answer leads me to say it is the fault
of Vacation Bible School. In the 1940s, when VBS and I were young,
we taught primaries (elementary school children) to sing action
choruses. The purpose was not necessarily to praise God or to
instill Christian virtue. The purpose was to use up their energy
so they would sit still for the Bible story. Two examples come
to mind:
"I
may never march in the infantry, shoot the artillery, ride in
the cavalry; I may never fly over Germany, but I'm in the Lord's
army!" and
"The
B-I-B-L-E, yes, that's the book for me. I stand alone (accompanied
by vigorous stomping) on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!"
Such
lyrics and actions stuck because we have grown a generation of
fighters and Bible stompers. We should have stayed with "climb,
climb up Sunshine Mountain."
I
want to use the text of Graves with the substance of E.Y. Mullins
to reflect on recent changes in the Baptist Faith & Message
and current practice among some Baptists.
Edgar
Young Mullins has recently been revived, vilified, misinterpreted,
and, in some quarters, staunchly defended. Mullins, president
of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out six axioms
of religion, which are landmarks that need to be set firmly at
the boundaries of the Baptist family today.
Some
have questioned whether Mullins is orthodox because he stressed
religious experience and soul competency. Mullins gave his own
authority statement in clear and simple terms: But we speak
of making experience explicit in expounding the doctrines of Christianity,
we are by no means adopting that as the sole criterion of truth.
He would be a very unwise man who should attempt to deduce all
Christian doctrine from his own subjective experience. As we shall
soon see, Christianity is a historical religion. Jesus Christ
is its sole founder and supreme authority as the revealer of God.
The Scriptures are our only source of authoritative information
about Christ and his earthly career. These are fundamental to
any correct understanding of our religion."
Baptists
did not become who they were until the 1970s by downplaying soul
competency or religious experience.
In
the minds of Mullins and Herschel Hobbs, who is being dragged
into current discussions for purpose of lining up experts, soul
competency and religious experience had nothing to do with enlightenment
individualism. And all of the pettifogging that is going on under
the buzzwords of "enlightenment autonomy" via "secular humanism"
should stop. Enlightenment autonomy and secular humanism are not
our landmarks, and we should resist the attempt to clutter up
the Baptist landscape with these rocks.
The
Theological Landmark
"The
Holy and Righteous God has a right
to be sovereign"
Mullins'
first landmark is theological. "The Holy and Righteous God has
a right to be sovereign," (I am quoting from BWA records in F.
Townley Lord's "Baptist World Fellowship": 1955, p. 8). The Baptist
Faith & Message says, "(He) God is all powerful, all loving,
and all wise."
The
Nicene Confession states, "I believe in one God, and the Father
Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth ... " (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom:
1877, II, 58). The sovereignty of God is the bedrock of Christian
theology. The problem arises when that mark is moved to the 16th
century and interpreted in a cultural worldview that reflects
the absolutism of French kings.
The
situation is compounded today in an age of political absolution,
which gives the impression of the loss of personal freedom and
human responsibility.
God
is holy. Holiness includes both love and power. Powerful theological
voices in our day assert that God's love is determinative of God's
power.
John
Calvin in the 16th century made God's power determinative of God's
love. The landmark of God's power as creator is not in question.
The interpretation of God's use of that power is at the center
of differences in the Baptist family. The practice which arises
from a commitment to God's sovereignty should be a humble acknowledgment
of our status as creatures. God is God. No person is God's infallible,
inerrant, inexorable, inquisitorial interpreter. No one!
The
Religious Landmark
"All
men have an equal right to direct access to God."
Soul
competency or the priesthood of the believer was to have been
excised from the amended BF&M this year. Fortunately, it was
not. What has not been noted sufficiently is that the intended
omission of this necessary Baptist landmark was tied directly
to a certain view of the sovereignty of God and the power of the
pastor. There is a definite irony that Mullins' admittedly anti-Catholic
comments are resurfacing today in the charges of Southern Seminary
president that Catholicism is a cult and a false church. Mullins
was content to point out the logical inconsistencies between Baptist
beliefs and the practice of the Roman church. He did not find
it necessary to make overt value judgments about ancient forms
of Christian belief that preceded the historical rise of Baptists.
But there is a further irony, an irony of practice among some
Baptist leaders whose actions are as hierarchical as any Roman
curia.
What
is important to Baptists is the baptism of believers. There is
a way of acknowledging the reality of Christian experience that
comes after catechism and confirmation. Baptists have consistently
said this order of baptism before conversion is not normative
according to our understanding of Scripture. The priesthood of
the believer is held by most Christians. It is the genius of the
Baptist witness along with others, that we affirm belief before
baptism. The practice which grows from this second landmark should
be the witness of faith before baptism. It should not be an exclusivism
which denies salvation to others who confess the Lordship of Christ.
The
Churchly Landmark
"All
believers have equal privileges in the church."
This
is a radical statement. The changes made to the BF&M in 1998
and 2000 are the crux of the divisions among us. The "gracious
submission" of wives to husbands and the specific denial of the
possibility of women as senior pastors are violations of this
landmark.
Equal
privileges are equal privileges. Granted, Mullins did not have
gender equality and feminine ordination in mind. Nevertheless,
this principle can and should be extended into the home and the
pulpit.
Titus
and 1 Timothy have been used to obfuscate the issue of women's
ordination. The author said that men seeking the office of bishop
should be blameless. Biblical literalists cannot have it both
ways.
I
have been assured that Paul did not mean blameless or perfect.
How, then, do we know that he meant men? One can pit Galatians
against the pastoral epistles ad infinitum. The issue should not
be resolved by proof-texts. The larger context of Scripture and
the Christological principle of interpreting Scripture must be
brought to bear.
If
all men (and if "men" is a generic term for human which most would
grant except in the matter of women's ordination) have equal privileges
in the church, the privilege of teaching children-boys and girls-in
Bible study is not intrinsically different from teaching/preaching
to women and men in church.
As
to the tenuous issue of ordination, certain facts bear remembering.
The Old Testament speaks of patriarchal blessing and of prophetic
anointing; but there is nothing in Hebrew Scriptures analogous
to contemporary practices of ordination. Jesus refers to himself
as pastor. He only is our true pastor, shepherd and bishop of
our souls.
The
practice that should emerge concerning ordination is that Baptists
should candidly and freely acknowledge that ordination and offices
of ministry as practiced among us today have arisen from our history
and traditions.
There
is no such thing as a senior pastor, a minister of education or
specialized ministries of music and childhood education in Scripture.
All of these and the job descriptions which have proliferated
around them are matters of history, tradition and culture. There
is something faintly amusing about an 84-year-old deacon introducing
a 24-year- old as his senior pastor.
There
are certain customs emerging among us that have sinister implications.
Not the least of these is the growing trend to call into being
boards of elders committed to promote the pastor by circumventing
deacons. Traditionally, in Baptist circles, "pastor," "elder"
and "bishop" have been considered synonyms and refer to ordained
leadership.
A
second less-than-admirable reason for reserving the offices of
pastor for men is the tax breaks and cultural privileges accorded
that office, including the double-dipping of real estate interest
and housing allowance in matter of income tax.
There
is a third reason that hordes of protest are raised against women
as pastors. Those women who are pastors, and many who would like
to be, are so effective and efficient as to pose a threat to male
ministers. Mullins was right. "All believers have equal privileges
in the church."
The
Moral Landmark
"To
be responsible, man must be free."
Mullins'
commentary sentence for this axiom makes it clear that he is thinking
of freedom from creedal and hierarchical authority. The contemporary
issue of practice is the creedal and coercive use of the BF&M.
In
contradiction to the clear statements in the preface of the document
the BF&M with all of its recent changes and, presumably, all
future changes is expected to be a requirement for employment
in all SBC agencies. This makes the confession both a religious
creed and a secular condition of employment.
The
doctrinaire attitude requiring uniformity of agreement is a hierarchical
form of coercion. To say, "If you do not like the BF&M as
amended both recently and as to be amended in the future, you
cannot work for us" is a creedal requirement alien to our Baptist
heritage.
It
is conceivable that this coercion of conscience may lead to inauthentic
signatories as well as to instances of mental reservation. Given
this litmus test of conformity, can anyone still take seriously
the preamble, which states: "Confessions are only guides in interpretation,
having no authority over the conscience." The practice is not
in keeping with the profession.
The
Landmark of Social Relationships
"Love
your neighbor as yourself."
Article
XV of the Baptist Faith & Message adds four substantive issues.
It is a Baptist landmark, shared by most Christian groups, that
Christians should "oppose all forms of sexual immorality."
Is
that general statement not enough? Or if one is going to list
the "sexual sins" of adultery, homosexuality, and pornography,
why not expand the roster to include pedophilia, sexual inversion
and incest?
The
point is does the document, as amended, give any sympathetic hearing
as to what constitutes sexual morality/immorality? Do the changes
make it easy to define who is the neighbor and under what conditions
one might love the neighbor?
In
a pluralistic culture, must we not hear divergent views before
singling out specific deviations of human sexuality? How many
segments of the human community must we alienate before we find
it impossible to witness effectively to all of our society?
The
additions to article XV address many important social issues.
Is there a way to address these issues in a positive way, leaving
room for the persuasive power of the Holy Spirit and the winsome
example of Christly love?
The
Landmark of a Free Church in a Free State
Mullins'
sixth and final landmark is "a free church in a free state." Issues
of the separation of church and state have always been a Baptist
distinction. It is to be noted, with approval, that the 2000 BF&M
left this article in its 1925 and 1963 forms.
There
is, however, a growing disparity between Baptist confession and
Baptist practice at a crucial point. "The church should not resort
to civil power to carry on its work. The state has no right to
impose taxes for the support of any form of religion." These sentences
frame the wall of separation of church and state.
The
crucial issue for Baptists today is how these statements are to
be interpreted and applied. There are Baptist voices that read
the term "state" as applying primarily to federal government.
These advocates suggest that if state or local governments, especially
those in which Baptists or Christians are in a vast majority,
it is permissible for tax-supported agencies to favor a Baptist/Christian
perspective. Federal courts that deny the right of local governments
and their agencies to permit or foster favoritist positions are
vilified.
Other
Baptist voices request a stringent separation of church and state
and recognize the rights of all minorities not to be overwhelmed
by a predominate majority position. They are torn as to where
to draw the line between civil religion, popular culture, historical
precedence and a strong view of separation of church and state
as required by article XVII of the BF&M. This landmark seems
to be, like the glaciers, in motion. I predict it will be one
of the most controversial issues to confront Baptists who seek
to understand, maintain and apply their heritage.
The
Towering Landmark
Some
buildings stand out as identifying symbols above their urban landscapes.
For example, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, the Sears
Tower in Chicago or the World Trade Center in New York City. The
lordship of Jesus Christ is the towering landmark on our Baptist
landscape. This landmark is being redefined by recent changes
in the BF&M.
The
crucial sentence, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted
is Jesus Christ" has been dropped. In its place is added, "All
Scripture is a testimony to Christ who is himself the focus of
divine revelation."
The
shift of emphasis from a Christological principle of interpretation
to an assertion that Christ is the focus of the Bible is seismic.
Behind the 1963 statement is the reformation principle, long affirmed
by Baptists, "Christ is King and Lord of Scripture. Jesus Christ
is the definitive revelation of God, is One with the Father, and
is the fullness of the Godhead bodily." To remove the living Christ
as the touchstone for interpreting the Scripture is to downgrade
Christ and promote bibliolatry.
Moreover,
I was horrified to hear one of the four primary framers of the
2000 BF&M say on nationwide television that Jesus submitted
himself to the word of God (read Bible). The debate concerned
the ordination of women pastors. The issue was poorly taken.
The
New Testament was not written in Jesus' day. Such a statement
was robbing Jesus to pay Paul, not an unknown phenomenon in current
Baptist disagreements. Jesus submitted (a favored verb of the
new BF&M) only to God. While respecting the law and the prophets,
he felt free to reinterpret them and to point out where they were
being misused by the religious leaders of his day.
In
the light of this change, the old Baptist battle cry becomes especially
relevant: "No Creed but Christ."
Another
Christological shift and the application of it occurs in the article
on the church (VI). The new version reads that the church is to
be "governed by his (Christ's) laws." The 1963 version stated
that the church is "to be committed to his (Christ's) teachings."
This shift represents a stronger attitude toward legalistic submission
rather than a reverential relationship to Jesus' message.
Conclusion
My
text was Proverbs 22:28, supplying the analogy of landmarks to
Baptist beliefs. The reference was to an independent Baptist minister's
(J. R. Graves') desire to make Baptists exclusive and exclusivistic.
There are currently heirs who eschew Graves' view of history while
wanting to affirm his exclusivistic attitude. The landmarks chosen
through which to explore the recent changes in the BF&M were
the six proposed by E.Y. Mullins in the 1905 address at the inaugural
meeting of the Baptist World Alliance, a group that has increasingly
become inclusive.
The
particular slant to this address has been that our confession
should be accompanied by a practice (usage) that both preserves
the past and gives Baptists opportunity to minister most effectively
in the present.
So
far, all has been conservative and descriptive. I would like to
close with a question that is future-oriented and provocative:
Remembering
with appreciation those things that are past, is it time to look
to the future in this new millennium by drafting a new confession
which is appreciative of the past and its landmarks, which confession
will state our doctrinal convictions in contemporary language
and give clear indication as to what difference these doctrines
make in the practice of our daily living? Just asking!
September 2000
|