*At least, not in the way people seem to want to use the term (including some Southern Baptists). I regularly hear people call the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) a "denomination", including its "denominational leaders" (tongue-in-cheek), moreso at the local and state levels. Depending on how they are using the term, they might be right. If you just want to pull out the dictionary definition, denomination, n. 1. a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things then yes, you could call the Southern Baptist Convention a denomination. Likewise, if you are using the classic Weber church/sect typology (some interpreting it as "church" being an all-encompassing social monolith, "denomination" being a set of competing church-institutions on good terms with society, "sect" being more of a protest movement and less organized, and "cult" being more centered around an individual), you could also call the Southern Baptist Convention a denomination, though I think that would overplaying the intent of the classification and overselling the organization of the SBC (I still think we would be termed a "sect" even under that system as compared with denominations). In my opinion, the real issue the relationship between a local church and a denomination. If we simply say that denominations are associations of local churches, then fine. But that's not the way I hear people use the term. Rather, I hear people speak of a church as a local chapter of a denomination, like a franchise or a chain. Do you see the difference? Our two options: A denomination is an association of local churches (fine) -OR- a church is a local chapter of a denomination (ergh). If you are using the term in the latter way, and I think many people are without necessarily realizing it, then you are using it inappropriately with Southern Baptists. A World of Chains and Franchises It's not hard to understand why people would use the term in this way. The truly independent store or restaurant doesn't have the influence it once did. Either it has been marginalized by a competing franchise (cf. Walmart) or it has been so successful that it has decided to reproduce itself (cf. McDonalds). Most of us live and operate in a culture dominated by a "parent company" in our workplace, where we eat, or where we shop. It's natural for us to think in these terms. In the case of a chain, a parent company assumes the risk of creating stores at new locations, staffing those stores, and maintaining central management for each store. In the case of a chain, a parent company offers a business model for purchase by individual investors who assume the risk of new locations and pay some sort of franchise fee. In the case of a chain, the parent company maintains "quality control" authority. In the case of a franchise, the parent company has "sold" that authority to the local franchise owner. Frankly, quite a few denominations operate according to the chain or franchise model, though they may have been doing it long before there were business chains or franchises. {Brief historical aside: both the chain and the franchise models started in the mid 1800s partly through observing the success of denominations in the United States. Over time, denominations have modified their practices to emulate the success of certain chains and franchises. There's nothing wrong with that. They're simply finding answers to questions the Bible doesn't address. My concern is that they perhaps shouldn't have been asking some of those questions to begin with, but more on that later.} We can use the United Methodist Church as an example. A regional conference (I'm using South Carolina as my source) establishes a budget. It then calculates the apportionment of that budget to be required of each local congregation based on their individual budgets. That local congregation must pay that amount to the conference. Similarly, all local church buildings and properties are held in trust of the United Methodist Church, though the UMC does not hold those titles directly. In other words, members of a local congregation can choose to leave the UMC, but they can't take their building with them. Similarly, similarly, the conference has a cabinet that appoints pastors to serve local congregations for one-year terms. That cabinet takes into account the wishes both of the pastor and the congregation, but its decision is final. You could say that the "chain" business mode grew up in observation of the effectiveness of the United Methodist Church organization. That's not how (most) Southern Baptist churches operate. But it is how many other churches operate. Just going down a list, Adventist churches, Assemblies of God, Catholic churches, Church of God, Church of the Nazarene, Episcopal churches, Lutheran churches, Methodist churches, and Presbyterian churches are all denominations by every definition. I'm too lazy this morning to go through the full list and calculate percentages, but I'm going to assume that represents well more than half of the local churches and church members in the United States. Where I serve as I write this, most of our church members have family connections with the Methodist church or Presbyterian church down the road, and quite a few have actually attended those churches. I would say that most people are well-exposed to denominational churches. Complicating matters, it is absolutely true that some Southern Baptist churches function according to a chain or franchise model, but on a small scale. Some large (and "successful") SBC churches have decided to spread by planting congregations of itself in new areas. In an efficient leveraging of assets, finances are handled by the mother church, and the mother church gives guidance in everything from small groups to even simulcasting the pastor's sermon. Members of the local group are members of the mother church. Other large (and "successful") SBC churches have made their ministry model available for local churches to use. Representatives of the large church come and consult for the new or struggling church seeking their help and import the large church's system, though the smaller church maintains the risk of success or failure. *Those* groups of churches can and probably should be called mini-denominations. Further complicating the complicated matters are perceptions and individual actions. A North American Mission Board church planter (this is an SBC agency) goes out and plants a church. His salary is paid for by the SBC agency. He has received specific SBC agency (usually an SBC seminary) training. He uses materials published by the SBC and LifeWay (which is an independent publishing house/bookstore that has lots of connections with the SBC). If such a thing existed, that seems like it would be an SBC "chain" church. Take out the agency church planter and replace him with an SBC seminary graduate who decides to plant a church. He uses the training he received at an SBC agency, works with literature provided by SBC and LifeWay, gives money to the SBC Cooperative Program, supports SBC agency funds (like Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong), and even attends SBC meetings. Goodness, that sounds like an SBC "franchise" church. All of those things put together - the prevalence of denominational churches, their similarity in business operation to franchises or chains (which are extremely successful business models), the exposure and comfort-level most people have with the franchise model, and the perception that SBC churches operate in the same way as franchises or chains - mean that a lot of people simply assume that Southern Baptist churches are part of a denomination. Inasmuch as SBC church members might think that themselves, I think that's a problem, and I'll try to explain why (biblical ecclesiology). But for everyone else, it's more a matter of explaining the difference between a denominational model and a congregational model. Yes, I'll include why the congregational model is the more biblical ecclesiology, but that's actually not the main point here. I just want to make sure that we realize there's a difference. "Southern Baptist Churches," NOT "The Southern Baptist Church" Let's go back to the confusion noted above. (Don't say it.) A denomination is an association of local churches -OR- a church is a local chapter of a denomination. The latter usage is appropriate for the denominations listed above. There is "The United Methodist Church." There is "The Presbyterian Church (USA)." There is "The Episcopal Church." Every local UMC is just a branch or location or subdivision of *The* UMC. They are organizationally and hierarchically connected. When the regional (Annual) conference makes budget and personnel demands, the local congregation obeys. When the Central Conference makes theological declarations, the local congregation is bound to them (this of course causes problems when the Central Conference speaks out of line with local Methodists). Let me not pick on United Methodists; the same can be said of any number of groups. The terms might change, but the structure is consistent. For example:
The important thing about those hierarchies is that "The Church" applies to the entire hierarchy as a unit. Every local Episcopal congregation *plus* the hierarchy all together are "The Episcopal Church." Unfortunately, some people seem to assume that the structure is similar within Southern Baptist life. They would mentally organize the SBC like this: The Southern Baptist Convention (led by elected President and employed Executive Committee) State Conventions (led by elected President and employed Executive Director) Regional Associations (led by Director of Missions / Associational Missionary) Local Congregation (led by Pastor / Deacons / Trustees) BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Now who knows, maybe there are some in the SBC structure who want things to work like that, but they would be wrong. The Southern Baptist Convention, like all Baptist groups, necessarily begins and ends with the local church. Each local church is fully autonomous ("independent" if you will allow me to clarify that term later) with full rights to conduct its own business, so to speak. Each local church voluntarily chooses to associate with any SBC entity. For that matter, Associations and State Conventions are equally autonomous. To make my point, realize that
Back to the example of the SBC church planter above . . . It comes down to freedom. Understandably, a paid missionary of the SBC has rules to follow; he must be accountable to the people paying his salary (and I'm talking about Southern Baptist church members, not his bosses). But even then, he has freedom to use or not to use SBC agency literature or branding. Moreso, a self-supporting SBC church planter plants a fully autonomous church. They can choose to use LifeWay literature and support the Cooperative Program, but they can choose not to. There are no obligations. In other words, a new SBC church plant might be easily identifiable as an SBC church, but that is by choice not command. (The advent of salary makes matters much trickier, I do understand. Pastors in local churches, just like North American church planters, even though they are called by God to their task, as long as they are willing to accept money in payment for their services are accountable to the people paying them. But more on this some other time.) Here's why this matters. Here's why I care at all about this misconception. Every local Baptist church is fully responsible for itself before God. Every local Baptist church has been given every commission by Jesus Christ for His service. Every local Baptist church has been fully equipped by God for every good in the way that God has put together that body. Consequently, every local Baptist church must take full ownership and responsibility for its beliefs and actions. Blame cannot be placed outside of itself, neither can an outside entity come in and make binding declarations upon it. If someone uses the term "denomination" to (1) try to establish significant top-down influence or (2) to abdicate one's responsibility by parroting a party line, so to speak, then that's a problem. But more on this below. This is why the academic arguments out there about what it means to be authentically Baptist (this includes competing notions from moderates and conservatives) are beyond self-defeating - they're inauthentically Baptist (see what I did there?). A Baptist church can choose to behave in every way like an Episcopal church, right down to binding itself to the Book of Common Prayer. As long as the church voluntarily took that action, it has that right. Now, let's be honest - for all intents and purposes that church has become an Episcopal church, but it has the right to call and consider itself a Baptist church. Such a decision, though, would probably come with consequences, which brings up another very important element of Baptist autonomy. Associations have rights, too. If a Baptist church in a local Association chooses to become an Episcopal church, the other churches in that Association have the right to choose no longer to associate with that Baptist church. This is where feelings get hurt, and it is certainly the messy side of autonomy, but when we are bearing our responsibility before God as members of Jesus Christ (both as individual Christians and as Christian communities) we can and should find ways to work through that. This is where the biblical ecclesiology comes in. Jesus makes it clear that we stand on our own before God in Judgment. We bear sole responsibility for our actions and decisions. No one - except Jesus Himself should we request His advocacy - will stand with us, not our pastor, parents, spouse, spiritual adviser, or anyone else. However, we don't go through life on our own. The church is the body of Christ on earth. In some sense, all Christians are members of "The Church." The Bible uses church in that sense several times. But most of the time, the Bible speaks of local churches. Local churches also bear full responsibility for themselves and their actions before God, which is why the New Testament has the apostles making requests and suggestions and recommendations to local churches. (I just noticed how long this blog entry already is, so I will recommend you to some solid ecclesiologies like those found in Erickson or Garrett or Grudem for the details.) As Associations are made up of representatives of local churches acting on behalf of those churches, Associations also have such responsibility and accountability. That responsibility is destroyed if the church or the Association does not have the right of action. Cooperation not only Works, It Is Necessary Let me not be heard to say that Baptist churches should stand alone apart from one another so as not to be confused with a denomination. That would be a misunderstanding of the New Testament. Why would we think that God has put Christians together into a local body of Christ and say that such an arrangement is necessary for all Christians and turn around and say that those Christians do not have equal responsibility to associate with those Christians who live down the street? If we are called to work together in a local church for support, encouragement, discipleship, accountability, and mutual service, then don't local churches have those same needs? If Christians are imperfect and need one another, wouldn't that make churches imperfect as well? Furthermore, there is no doubt that cooperation makes better use of resources. Could one church have supported all of the material needs in Jerusalem? Of course not, which is why Paul took a collection in all of the churches he visited. Similarly today, the work to identify, train, support, and supply a missionary force is unreasonable for one church alone. We work together. We freely associate together because we understand that we need each other and that God has given us each other. If we can understand "denomination" as a free association of like-minded churches, then we're just fine. But if people use "denomination" as a large centralized organization, then we have a problem in Baptist life. That sort of denomination works in a top-down fashion. The paid, trained professionals make the decisions and tell everyone else what to do and what to think. Baptists don't and shouldn't work that way. New Testament churches put even the apostles' words to the test; denominational leaders today cannot claim to be one of Jesus' original apostles. I don't want to call it "grass-roots theology" as if majority vote can determine truth, but I do want to call it "grass roots theology as opposed to trickle-down theology." The Spirit of God works in the people of God to inhabit the mind of Christ to help us discern truth together, not listen to some ivory-tower proclamation. That means we have to work together, to listen to one another, to respect one another, and cooperate. In a "denomination," that cooperation can be forced by the hierarchy. In the SBC, that cooperation must be voluntary. That makes it more fragile, as one church can pick up its toys and leave when someone(s) says something contrary to their point of view. This is the danger of our non-centralized, independent associationalism - we have to remain humble enough to be willing to acknowledge differences and even accept correction. The reason this should be possible is it is a Christian mindset: humility, gentleness, and perseverance. It does not mean compromising the Gospel; it does mean working with Christians who have come to different conclusions on some matters of the faith. I really do understand, as well as anyone, how difficult a line that can be to draw. Over the years, Baptists have drawn that line over a wide range of issues. For example, some Baptists isolated themselves over singing a solo in worship not as a matter of interpretation but a direct violation of the clear command of God. Others isolated themselves because they saw Finney's new measures of evangelism as a kind of Sandemanianism and not a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. When a church has decided that a matter is not open for discussion and that any other point of view violates Paul's protection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I respect their decision to isolate themselves from those churches on the other side. I just hope that we are being very circumspect and biblical in identifying those matters. Implication: We Cannot Speak for Southern Baptists Here's one of the places I want to get in this blog entry, and then I'll be done. If the SBC is not a centralized top-down hierarchical denomination (and that can certainly be said of "Baptists"), then let's tone down the rhetoric about what it means to be a Baptist or a Southern Baptist. This is one of the great errors of our theological controversialists, and I'm thinking in particular both of the conservative/moderate debate and the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate. Eventually, when one side or another feels at an impasse, someone inevitably brings out the "it's not authentically Baptist to take that position" argument. Like I've said before, it's not authentically Baptist to claim that a position is not authentically Baptist (tongue-in-cheek). I've read enough meeting minutes from 1800 to the present (not to mention my dissertation work on early English Baptists) to find support across the country for almost every position claimed today. I can also find examples where proponents of each of those positions tried to use seminaries to disseminate their position. It seems to be authentically Baptist to promote one's conviction. I get very concerned, though, when that side/person claims to have the "true" Baptist position. This is why I've gone to great length to explain that Southern Baptists are not a denomination in that sense: members of Southern Baptist churches don't have to accept those kinds of proclamations. They test it and decide for themselves. But there is one check and balance that needs to be addressed before bringing this too-long entry to a close. Associations have rights too, as I said. Associations and conventions have the right to establish theological limits for cooperation. In other words, my Kilpatrick Baptist Association can say to a church, we respect your right to take such-and-such position, but you cannot hold that position and remain in partnership with us. By doing so, the KBA is not taking away any rights from a church or kicking it out of being Baptist (and I'm saying this has even happened around here; I'm still new), it is simply setting a limit for being a Kilpatrick Baptist. I firmly defend the KBA's right to set those limits. And the truth is that Baptists have always been staunchly confessional, even creedal, regardless of what some modern pundits try to claim. Baptists have always used statements of faith to carefully identify those churches with which they will cooperate. Obviously, I'm not saying that Baptists have to do anything. I'm simply saying that those who claim Baptists cannot use confessions to that purpose are historically and theologically incorrect. Baptists can. I just hope that those confessional boundaries were not established in an ivory tower somewhere. [Update post-SBC 2016: The Southern Baptist Convention (in its proper sense) was recently held in St. Louis. One of the resolutions passed was a repudiation of the public display of the Confederate flag. As you might imagine where I currently live in Georgia, this made some people upset. On the one hand, it has offered an opportunity to talk about the continued presence of racism in our country. That is by far the most important topic. But on the other hand, it has also offered an opportunity to talk about the role of the Southern Baptist Convention. Here is a statement I found from an Alabama Baptist leader which summarizes how this works better than I could: At annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention and of various state conventions resolutions adopted by messengers are often misunderstood.
In other words, a local church has to vote to agree with a resolution for it to have any impact. Resolutions are designed to spark discussion and promote a response at the local level where the church actually exists. When I read the questions coming out of this year's SBC, I thought they would be appropriate to note here.]
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|