Why Stay?

“Religious persecution may shield itself under the guise of a mistaken and over-zealous piety.” – Edmund Burke

Dr. Tom Ascol addressed the question, “Why stay in the SBC?” over five years ago in The Founders Journal. In the editorial he wisely states, “Good men will no doubt disagree on the value/ wisdom/ legitimacy of working for reformation within the Southern Baptist Convention. Ultimately, every person and every congregation must seek to address this issue individually before God. No one can dictate to another what course to chart and we should be willing to grant those who disagree with us the same right that we request for ourselves, namely, to be true to one’s conscience.” I concur.

Tom makes several other fine points in his piece. I will deal with only two. First, he states one good reason to stay within the SBC is its historic theology, which is “that of the founders of the denomination.” I wholeheartedly affirm the theology under-girding the denomination at its inception, yet acknowledge that the denomination is no longer guided by these doctrines. Just as the US was once guided by Judeo-Christian principles but now finds itself as a multi-cultural, pluralistic society, so the SBC is operating from a different framework than it did at its founding. Not only this, but individuals such as SBC President Frank Page deride this framework as unbiblical with such comments as, “The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders? I think we need to go back to the Bible.” The “unknown” pastor of FBC Laneville, Texas, Joseph Regel, commented recently in the SBC Texan:

“When it comes to false doctrines, what difference does the history of the SBC make? History, associations and friendships have nothing to do with it. . . . My question is: why do we even want to walk together with proponents of false doctrines?”

Many within the SBC who are opposed to the doctrines of grace are concerned neither with their history nor with a careful examination of the Scriptures leading to thoughtful dialogue. Of course, they are not concerned with the Baptist Faith & Message, either (Article V).

Second, Tom states that reformation was impossible for Luther within the Roman Catholic Church because it would have to “necessarily be dismantled and rebuilt without its false dogmas and practices.” He then adds, “It is at just this point where the genius of Baptist polity shines brightly. Our polity makes reformation always a prospect because we do not have a ‘top-down’ structure of government. Every church is independent.” While this is true in theory, it is not so in practice. The SBC has become a bureaucratic machine with a practical top-down structure. Who is at the “top” in sending missionaries? The IMB, not the local church, ultimately determines who is qualified for service. What about chaplain service? It is not ascribing to the local congregation’s confession of faith or church covenant which determine a chaplain’s guidelines for service, but his subscription to NAMB policies. Board polices touching upon doctrinal matters are currently more restrictive than the denomination’s own confession of faith. This leaves one to wonder what stipulations will be added within the next few years. “Calvinism,” well within the parameters of the Baptist Faith & Message, could soon fall under a denominational anathema. In addition to the existing bureaucracy, popular preachers in denominational life with vast media exposure make it difficult for “Calvinists” to retain a peaceful existence. Who has more credibility with the “average” Southern Baptist, a recent “unknown” seminary graduate or Adrian Rogers? The pastor of a rural church or Jack Graham? Mega-church pastors with “media ministries” carry great weight within both evangelical and SBC life. Their influence at the “top” trickles down to local congregations, and their denunciations of the doctrines of grace contribute to conflict on the “lower” level. Deacon Bob doesn’t know the Bible real well, but he is sure Bro. Jerry does. When Bro. Jerry declares “limited atonement is heresy,” Deacon Bob believes it and becomes unwilling to listen to Pastor Joe speak about that “man-made nonsense” he learned at seminary. Pastor Joe can open his Bible and point out passages all over the place, but to no avail, because, as Deacon Bob states clearly, “My Bible doesn’t teach that!”

Tom poses a vital question in considering denominational departure, asking, “What could I do tomorrow that I cannot do today if I were to leave tonight?” He replies, “Nothing,” and sees severance from the SBC resulting in a loss of genuine fellowship around common gospel causes and joint participation in world missions and ministries of mercy. But what if missionaries are excluded from service eventually because they affirm unconditional election? What if chaplains have their endorsement revoked because they believe in particular redemption? What if prospective pastors are passed over because they adhere to the doctrinal statement required by their seminary’s charter? Then the question would become, “What could I do tomorrow if I were to stay today?” The answer, however, would remain the same. “Nothing.” Now is the time for denominational executives, not to mention the vast majority of Southern Baptists, to declare openly and honestly whether they will work graciously with their “Reformed” brothers and sisters or if they want them to find a new denominational home.