EDITORIAL: Mission boards’ historic steps re-shape Baptist heritage_51903

Posted: 5/19/03

EDITORIAL:
Mission boards' historic steps re-shape Baptist heritage

Led by its mission boards, the Southern Baptist Convention took two significant strides toward creedalism this month.

“Creedalism” has been a painful word in Baptist history. Our Baptist forebears and their cousins from other dissenting Christian groups suffered and died in 17th century Europe for refusing to affirm creeds and declining to bow down to the civil and religious authorities who enforced creeds.

Early Baptists resisted creeds because of their heartfelt understanding of and commitment to the twin concepts of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer. For four centuries, Baptists have championed the concept of soul competency, the idea that God created each person with the innate ability to relate directly to God and to seek God's way and will for her or his life. Similarly, Baptists have believed that each Christian is a priest before God–a follower of Christ who does not need an itermediary, be it a priest or a creed, to stand between the individual and the Lord, and who also has a responsibility for living faithfully in relationship to God and within the community of the church.

“No creed but the Bible” has been Baptists' motto. It reflects the Baptist understanding that each Christian has the right/responsibility to search the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and within the context of the local church, but that no person or group has the right to impose its theological will upon an individual or a congregation. Since the mid-17th century, Baptists have written confessions of faith. These documents have served a couple of purposes–to declare to others the general beliefs of the Baptists who have adopted them and to guide the training and discipling of growing, learning believers. Generally, the nature of these confessions of faith has been inclusive, intended to help gather together the faithful rather than to exclude some members of the community along the fine points of theological interpretation.

That was true until recently. In 2000, the SBC adopted a new version of the Baptist Faith & Message statement and labeled it an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.” Whereas leaders of the groups who had drafted previous Baptist faith statements had taken pains to stress that those documents should not be imposed upon Baptists, the drafters of the 2000 BF&M called their document an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.” To many Baptists, that sounded like the classic definition of a creed–a statement to which a person must pledge loyalty in order to participate in and be considered a part of that religious group.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas repeatedly declined to affirm the 2000 BF&M. Many Texas Baptists resist it because, as traditional Baptists, they resist creeds. Many also believe it strays far from Baptist heritage by making the Bible superior to God's revelation in Christ, by subjugating women to men and by violating the autonomy of the local church.

SBC leaders have championed the 2000 BF&M but have denied it is a creed. Understandably, they do not wish to be associated with a concept so decidedly un-Baptist as a creed.

However, the treatment of the 2000 BF&M by the SBC's International and North American mission boards indicates it does indeed serve as a creed–defining who can and cannot participate in the life of the national convention.

The International Mission Board's action has drawn the most publicity. Early this month, the IMB board of trustees voted to fire 13 missionaries for refusing to affirm the 2000 BF&M. Some refused, not because they disagree with its theological positions, but because they believe it is a creed and Baptists shouldn't affirm creeds. Others shared that aversion for creeds but also shared some of Texas Baptists' concerns about aberrant theological positions.

Since IMB President Jerry Rankin issued his “request” that IMB missionaries affirm the 2000
BF&M, he sounded uncertain about what that meant. He said they weren't required to sign the BF&M, but to affirm a statement affirming the statement. For awhile, he declined to say specifically what would happen to missionaries whose consciences would not allow them to sign. Even when furloughing missionaries were told they could not return to the field if they refused to sign, IMB spokespersons insisted they were not being terminated. But finally, Rankin recommened those who had not affirmed by May 5 should be fired, and so the trustees acted.

That makes the 2000 BF&M a creed: Affirmation is required for participation and inclusion.

More subtly, the North American Mission Board has required loyalty to the 2000 BF&M. For months, NAMB and the Baptist General Convention of Texas have tried to work out a cooperative agreement to describe how the two groups would conduct joint ministries.

The hangup has been over requiring home missionaries to affirm the 2000 BF&M. Texas Baptists have said they would work with jointly supported missionaries who wished to sign, but they would not require them to sign. Texas Baptists also have said they would fund non-signing missionaries exclusively out of their budget. NAMB has insisted the document state that missionaries it supports must “conform to” the 2000 BF&M. The BGCT agreed to that language. But the BGCT suggested that a statement above the signatures of its representatives indicate they do not affirm or endorse the 2000 BF&M. In response, NAMB has postponed action on the agreement.

So, NAMB agrees only when it wins every point of contention and refuses to cooperate when Texas Baptists wish to state their convictions, something Texas Baptists allowed NAMB to do. NAMB's rigid requirement of 2000 BF&M endorsement makes it a creed required not only of missionaries but of state conventions willing to cooperate in order to spread the gospel.

Despite its heritage, the SBC has embraced creedalism.

–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at [email protected]