Baptist-bashing is a longtime American sport. And there was lots of it before the recent Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, which I attended as my first ever. Lots of media portrayed the SBC as a cauldron of racism, misogyny and sexual abuse. Said one tweet: tear it down like a Confederate statue.
We’re in a tear-down moment in American culture where there’s little patience with institutions amid visceral demands for emotional gratification to replace practicality. The SBC has existed for over 170 years. It dates to the national Baptist split over slavery. Contemporary Southern Baptists have lamented and renounced the stance of their long ago ancestors.
The SBC is America’s largest Protestant church and second largest religious institution after Catholicism. It has 14 million members but touches the lives of tens of millions with its outreach and charity. America’s churches provide hundreds of billions of dollars in works of mercy for the needy in America and globally. But even more importantly, the community, social cohesion and spiritual purpose they give America are immeasurable. America is uniquely a strong democracy because of its rich civil society, in which churches are central.
So nobody who cares about the health of American society can wish anything but good will for our churches, whether or not we agree with their particular doctrines. America needs strong, vital churches. Their decline is a loss for everybody who cares about sustaining the bonds of a decent and fraternal society.
The SBC is overwhelmingly conservative. It affirms scriptural inerrancy and male preachers only, while rejecting abortion and LGBTQ advocacy. On these issues there is no real debate among them. The most “liberal” Southern Baptist leader is still to the right of the most conservative United Methodist.
But every human community has its fractures, and some Southern Baptists think there is nascent liberalism among them. At this convention their organizing cause was opposition to Critical Race Theory. The over 15,000 messengers approved a resolution that did not specifically cite CRT but rejected “any theory or worldview that finds the ultimate identity of human beings in ethnicity or in any other group dynamic.” They narrowly elected a new president who stresses racial reconciliation over an alternative candidate who stressed opposition to CRT. And they urged that pastors guilty of sexual abuse be permanently bared from ministry, while establishing a task force to review mishandling sexual abuse allegations.
In a singular win for the SBC’s most conservative wing, messengers approved a resolution demanding “immediate abolition of abortion without exception or compromise.” Previously the SBC had admitted an exception for when the mother’s life was threatened. The new resolution also demanded that the “murder of preborn children is a crime against humanity that must be punished equally under the law,” implying that abortion should merit criminal punishment equal to homicide, which possibly could include lifelong imprisonment or even capital punishment, which the SBC affirms.
The SBC abortion abolition resolution perhaps goes further than any other major church in history. In contrast, Vatican State law permits “indirect abortions” to save the mother’s life. This resolution was opposed by Southern Baptist leaders, and almost certainly most messengers did not carefully consider the implications. Expect the next convention to correct this language, which exceeds and arguably defies what Christianity traditionally has taught.
Here was another example of how churches should not ratify serious public policy statements during brief convention floor debates. Protestant denominations of left and right make this mistake, often ending with a political witness that is choppy, inchoate, and disconnected from wider Christian teaching and tradition. For this reason among others, Catholic political witness is almost always more seamless and well-reasoned than what emerges from Protestant conventions.
But overall the SBC event showcased the spiritual vitality and biblical commitments of Southern Baptists. There was far more theological consensus there than at any Mainline Protestant convention I’ve attended. Ardent SBC conservatives who imagine liberal inroads clearly have no experience with actual theological liberals. Speakers routinely cited biblical inerrancy, evangelism and salvation. If anything, Southern Baptists, like most of evangelicalism, could use a thicker public theology that better enables them to speak to and relate to wider society.
But all the major Christian traditions have their particular gifts, and no one denomination is likely to encapsulate the universal church’s wholistic mission. Southern Baptists historically excel at evangelism and church planting, both of which America now urgently needs.
For most of two decades the SBC has been losing members after previous decades of growth. Last year the SBC lost over 400,000 members while still planting 857 new churches. Surveys show that many departing Southern Baptists are joining nondenominational churches that often still function as Baptists.
But nondenominational, congregationalist Christianity for all its strengths cannot replace multigenerational institutions like the SBC and other great historic denominations. Independent congregations often rise and fall based on their pastors and local circumstances. Their focus and theology are sometimes parochial. Denominations often better incarnate and activate a more universal spirit tied to historic and global Christianity.
The SBC has an institutional history of over 170 years tied to a tradition hundreds of years older. It has an ethos of preaching and revivalism that has deeply shaped America. Every southern town is marked by its tidy steeples. All of us who are not Baptist but believe strong churches are imperative for strong democracy should hope for the SBC’s renewal and pray for its evangelistic success.
Comment by PFSchaffner on June 17, 2021 at 10:15 pm
For ‘wholistic’ read (I think) either ‘whole’ or ‘holistic.’
Comment by Jeff on June 18, 2021 at 2:39 am
>> We’re in a tear-down moment in American culture where there’s little patience with institutions amid visceral demands for emotional gratification to replace practicality.
Hey Mark, that describes your idiotic emotional impractical Never Trumper deep state NoVa mentality to a “tee”!
But screw Christian America, right? At least no mean tweets! Right?
News flash: like the FedGov, *most* American institutions have been hollowed out, or worse, taken over by the wokies. A pox upon them all.
Comment by Mike on June 18, 2021 at 8:03 am
Jeff: I wonder why you even post a comment like that.
Comment by Jeff on June 18, 2021 at 5:42 pm
You’re right, Mike. I should have kept that one to myself. I apologize.
Blessings
Jeff
Comment by Ed on June 18, 2021 at 9:23 pm
This seems to ignore the pro-life argument that abortion is NEVER necessary to save the mother’s life. There is always another alternative. Thus, “Abortion in no circumstances” = “Abortion only to save the mother’s life”.
Comment by Brother Thom on June 19, 2021 at 7:17 am
At MoyockChristian.org we have a close relationship with Southern Baptist Churches. After our split from the UMC, the continued sin we saw from liberals pushed us further and further away from Wesleyanism. The Baptist pastors and preachers we work with don’t suffer from the internal strife of the UMC and other denominations. They have been on a steady walk with Jesus Christ, always entering thru the narrowest gates.
We remain nondenominational, but we have certainly moved closer to the Baptist church than any other.
Comment by Loren J Golden on June 23, 2021 at 8:52 pm
“The SBC…affirms…male preachers only.”
So do the Scriptures.
When Paul defined the qualifications for the offices of overseer/elder (Scripture uses these names for this office interchangeably; Acts 20.17,28, Tit. 1.5,7) and deacon, he included the requirement that a candidate for either of these offices must be “the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3.2,12, Tit. 1.6), or in the Greek, “μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα”—literally, a “one-woman man.” And in case this were not sufficiently clear, in I Timothy, he preceded this with the rather direct statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet (or to be in quietness).” (I Tim. 2.12)
In the 20th Century, the Mainline Protestant churches revolted against this command (among many others), and many Biblically faithful Christians (Evangelicals) in those denominations made peace with the practice of women’s ordination. Yet Paul’s injunction very clearly stands in the way. And so arguments were developed to claim that this was a temporary, local injunction, intended to address a very narrow issue that applied to the Church at Ephesus ca. AD 60 (the date and occasion of I Timothy) and is not binding on the Church today. After all, Paul mentions false teachers in Ephesus (I Tim. 1.3-11, 4.1-5, 6.3-10,20-21, II Tim. 3.1-9, 4.1-4), and that at least some young women—young widows in particular—were susceptible to false teachers (I Tim. 5.11-15, II Tim. 3.6-7). Moreover, Ephesus at the time was dominated by the virgin cult of Artemis (Acts 19.24-35), which often went so far as to forbid marriage, a problem Paul observed among the false teachers at Ephesus (I Tim. 4.3). Hence, the proponents of women’s ordination argue, this must have been the reason why Paul expressly prohibited women from “teaching or exercising authority over men,” and where these conditions are no longer present, the injunction no longer applies.
These are two major presumptions, especially considering that Paul gives reasons for his injunction in I Timothy 2, and they don’t include any examples of women teaching, exercising authority over, or even usurping the authority of men, and of the names of false teachers he does mention in his Epistles to Timothy, not one of them is feminine. Rather, he cited the creation order, in which man was formed first and then woman—just as he does in I Corinthians 11.3-16, where he is discussing male headship—and the fact that Eve was deceived (Gen. 3.13), whereas Adam was not. Further, after he finished outlining the qualifications for elders and deacons in I Timothy 3, Paul wrote, “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is a pillar and buttress of truth.” (I Tim. 3.14-15) So, what Paul has been writing to this point has not been to address a local issue with which the Church at Ephesus was then struggling, but normative principles applicable to all the churches, even today.
For those who are interested in reading further on the Bible’s teaching on the ordination of women and critical evaluations of arguments raised in favor of the practice, I have addressed the subject at greater length and much more in depth in my blog, which can by reached by clicking on my name, above.
Comment by David on June 29, 2021 at 11:29 am
When King Josiah wanted to know the will of the Lord, he sent a message to Huldah the prophetess, and not Jeremiah or the High Priest (2 Kings 22). If women can declare the word of God, why not ordain them? Ancient Greek culture treated women much as they are today in orthodox Muslim societies. They rarely left the house and were covered from neck to ankle. They never received male visitors and those you see in paintings cavorting at parties were “professional ladies.”
Comment by Loren J Golden on June 30, 2021 at 8:34 pm
David,
Before I answer your question, I need to give you some context.
In I Corinthians 11, Paul is talking about head coverings: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” (vv. 3-5) Now, when he is doing this, he is not talking about women’s fashions, how she should do her hair; he is talking about a symbol of authority. Specifically, a married woman’s husband is an authority over her, just as an unmarried woman’s father is an authority over her. This is a fundamental Biblical principle in the relationships between men and women, and has been ever since the Garden of Eden; after all, Adam named his wife both before (Gen. 2.23) and after (Gen. 3.20) the Fall, demonstrating his headship over her. After all, it is the husband, not the wife, who represents Christ (or God in the OT), and the wife, not the husband who represents the Church (or the OT people of God), and the metaphor is used in this way throughout Scripture, and nowhere in Scripture is this economy reversed (Is. 54.5-8, 62.1-5, Jer. 2-3, Ezek. 16,23, Hos. 2-3, II Cor. 11.2-3, Eph. 5.22-33, Rev. 19.7-8, 21.2,9-11, 22.17).
What male headship basically means is that a husband is entrusted with the spiritual care and oversight of his wife, whereas the wife is nowhere in Scripture entrusted with the spiritual care and oversight of her husband. This is a solemn charge from God to men, and just as the Lord Jesus forbade His disciples from abusing their authority by lording over those whose care and oversight is entrusted to them, so he expects a husband to rule over his wife in a loving, self-sacrificing way (Eph. 5.25-33).
Now, just as God does not entrust a woman with the spiritual care and authority over her husband, it does not stand to reason that He would thereby grant her authority over other women’s husbands. Thus, the principle of male headship in the home extends to leadership in the Church; that is, to the elders and deacons. When a woman prays or prophecies in church, she must have a symbol of authority on her head; that is, she must have a man with authority over her when she does.
And we see this in the account of Huldah prophesying to King Josiah. When Hilkiah the high priest went to Huldah the prophetess, she is introduced as, “Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum” (II Kg. 22.14, II Chron. 34.22). She did not prophesy under her own authority, but under the authority of her husband.
Secondly, while the Lord was pleased to reveal His Word to Josiah by Huldah the prophetess, He did not issue any commands to him by her, either to do something or to not do something. Neither did she rebuke him for any sin. She did not exercise spiritual care and authority over him. That role was filled by Hilkiah the high priest (and you will look in vain for any example in Scripture where the Lord was pleased to appoint a woman to the priesthood). Josiah sought her out only on one occasion recorded in Scripture, and there is no evidence that he consulted her regularly.
If you had taken the time to read my blog post, you would have found this answer there already. While I welcome the opportunity to engage with you in dialogue, perhaps our conversation would be more fruitful if you were to read what I’ve written on the subject, rather than approach me in ignorance with a passage of Scripture you think that I might not have considered.