IT'S THE THEOLOGY, STUPID!                                                                 

A commentary by John C. Eby                                                                      Vol. XV, No. 2, February 2002

James Carville, President Clinton's campaign organizer, focused everyone's attention on the issue he believed most important for victory with the slogan, It's the economy, stupid. Not ideology, theology, ethics, morality, or personality; it was the question of whether the public was satisfied with the economy. Carville proved to be right. For us, as Christians who are Baptists, I too believe there is one essential issue we should focus on for a chance at unity: theology. Perhaps we should even adopt the slogan: It's the theology, stupid. If correct, it raises the question of our denominational focus and any Christian organization's focus.

Starting with the question, "Can any religious organization, founded on an ideology rather than a theology, maintain unity?" The answer, I believe, is a qualified "yes" and "no." "Yes," if the organization's theologies are subjective and relative. "No," if any component of membership has submitted itself to a revealed objective biblical theology which above all other theologies is able to point us to the crucified and risen Christ. The examination of two Baptist organizations, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) and the American Baptist Churches USA (ABC), provides valuable insights into the divisions which both groups are encountering as a consequence of their unwillingness to confess a common faith.

The CBF, a new Baptist religious organization consisting of some 1600 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) churches, came into existence ten years ago out of the controversies and struggles over biblical authority in the SBC. The CBF was founded on ideology rather than theology and doctrine. The founders are sincere believers who embrace an ideology of freedom with the presupposition of a diverse faith ... diverse, but believed to be close and orthodox enough not to cause conflict and division. The founders believe it is possible for diverse entities to engage in common missions without insisting on a common faith commitment (creed or confession). The CBF is committed to the principles of Baptist Freedom: Soul Freedom, Local Church Autonomy, and the Priesthood of Believers. CBF also supports ordination of women to pastoral ministry.

By embracing a generously interpreted philosophy of soul freedom and local church autonomy, the Fellowship attracts not only authentic Baptist Churches but Churches and para-church organizations that both define and exist at the fringe of Baptist "Christianity." Most notable are those generously "progressive" churches and organizations that are committed to have homosexuality welcomed and affirmed by all churches. Some ABC churches have become affiliate members of the CBF and take advantage of this added opportunity for affirming their own ideological foundations.

Recent CBF events support my opening contention and suggest that the CBF will not be able to maintain its "unity."

An embarrassed CBF discovered that theology did matter. CBF leaders were compelled to defend one of their founders, a board member, who authored a book in which he denied the deity of Christ and the authoritative inspired nature of Scripture. Not having a revealed objective biblical common faith, the CBF was officially unable to refute the erroneous claims of the book's author. This was only a hint of what was to follow.

SBC churches and leaders observed the participation in the CBF of individuals with prominent histories in the pro-homosexuality movement and raised significant concerns and objections questioning the CBF's lack of a position on homosexuality. In October of last year, The CBF's Coordinating Council adopted (by a split vote) a policy statement which drew limits around the homosexuality issue as it impinged on CBF life. This policy has been described by a CBF official as "Welcoming but not affirming."

The policy statement disallows expenditures of funds for "organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice." It also disallows, "the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual." The basis of this policy is a statement of an Organizational Value (OV) that affirms a biblically faithful view of human sexuality and marriage. The OV continues, "the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and woman and celibacy in singleness." A biblically based ethical standard had been adopted and consequently a revealed objective theology was embraced by the CBF. This was a clear victory for those in the CBF whose theology supersedes their ideology. But it was also a serious blow to the cause of unity amidst the claim of theological diversity.

The Alliance of Baptists (AOB), a progressive Baptist group, with a written welcoming and affirming policy, called on the CBF to rescind its homosexuality policy. It was reported that CBF's Coordinator, Daniel Vestal responded with the following comment. "...[I]t disturbs me that one Baptist group would attempt to intrude in the affairs of another autonomous Baptist organization. To express a difference of opinion is one thing, but to formally, 'urge support for the motion to rescind' CBF's policy crosses the line in terms of fraternal relationships between Christian organizations."

Many members of the AOB are also affiliated with the CBF. The CBF membership voted and affirmed the policy, but the vote was 701-502 indicating that the CBF is deeply divided on the issue of homosexuality. Based on the history of the debate in other denominations, the divisiveness will continue and intensify. Homosexuality is an issue where theological diversity cannot and will not be accommodated by a revealed biblical theology, and organizations based on nothing more than an ideology can claim no authority greater to refute the intrusions of outsiders, and must resort to name-calling and posturing.

Another organization affiliated with the CBF, Baptist Women in Ministry (BWIM), held their meeting in conjunction with the July 2001 General Assembly of the CBF. The meeting was reminiscent of reports from the Reimagining conferences. There were songs and prayers addressed to "Mother God." Litanies expressed discomfort at calling God "Father," "Lord," and "King." When communion was celebrated, no mention was made of the wine representing the shed blood of Jesus, and the bread was said to represent diversity "as the varieties of grains were gathered into one loaf of bread." While the CBF is supportive of women in ordained ministry, as is the ABC, they clearly will be facing other feminist issues that are more theologically critical than ordination of women. But what corrective steps can the CBF take, without a common faith, if all theologies are equally true and acceptable?

In August, the University Baptist Church of Austin, Texas notified the CBF that it was withdrawing from affiliation with the CBF because of its policy against homosexuals. By taking a stand for truth, the CBF has placed itself alongside the SBC on this issue and is being criticized by University Baptist Church in the same manner many CBF churches criticized the SBC. This must be especially troubling to many CBF churches and contains tinges of irony indeed. What they said the SBC shouldn't do, they are doing: setting limits on theological diversity.

Just think....one "small" biblically based rule has caused "disunity" and withdrawal of one member church. Revealed theology and doctrines do divide and the CBF will most probably find itself more and more embroiled in controversies which will require more theological definition to bring about correction. Or the CBF can throw all revealed theology out the window and capitulate to the Alliance of Baptists which seems to have no problems maintaining unity and appears willing to accept all theologies – except revealed biblical theologies – as equal. If so, then the CBF will be able to welcome University Baptist Church back into membership.

The American Baptist Churches USA (ABC) was, years ago, founded on an ideology of unity in common missions based on unity in a common faith (a revealed objective theology) which was subsequently replaced by the current ideology of unity in common missions with diversity in all else. This ideology was necessitated by the desire to accommodate the inclusion of growing numbers of non revelatory speculative theological constructs and non-traditional biblical doctrines.

The mechanism that allowed this sea change to take place was a revised and reinterpreted Baptist history that hijacked and redefined the Baptist and biblical principles of Soul Freedom, Priesthood of Believers, and Local Church Autonomy. These noble principles were aligned with American individualism and became a rallying cry for "minority" rights, equivalent to charges of discrimination based on belief, against those who challenged the new theologies and doctrines. Now, in the ABC, individual rights to biblical interpretation (i.e., private interpretation) are allowed to supersede the authority of Scripture and the authority of the larger body of faith to correctly interpret and define right belief. Some ABC denominational leaders insist that we must interpret Scripture through the "eyes of Christ" as if we could know how Christ would think apart from Scripture itself.

We have seen the results: not unity but division. We have seen the ugliness of the divisive actions flowing from the accommodation of multiple and diverse theologies: the championing and coddling of clergy and churches (Welcoming and Affirming) who advocate the acceptance of homosexual behavior, same-sex marriages, and ordination of active homosexuals; financial support for Reimagining, the radical neo-pagan women's movement; financial support for non ABC organizations who are welcoming and affirming ( Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Companis Mission Workers); parading of heretical theologians at denominational events (Walter Wink at the National Ministries biennial luncheon.)

The ideology of unity in common missions with diversity in all else has not accomplished unity in the ABC. Instead, the ABC faces the possibility of more serious fractures in the months and years immediately before us. Micro-fractures are happening weekly as individual churches leave the ABC in disagreement over one or more of the above divisive issues. More seismic dislocations will occur if and when entire regions, who are committed to unity in common missions based on unity in a common faith, conclude they can no longer have their good witness tarnished through association with an unrepentant and controversial ABC.

Theology does matter and, contrary to popular rumors, large associations of ABC churches can and do agree on the content of that theology. Some regions in the ABC have been able to commit to unity in common missions based on unity in a common faith. There is no lack of unity within those regions and between other regions with the same common faith. But substantial tension exists between those regions and the ABC where there is no willingness to agree on a common faith.

Some who are unwilling to accept a biblical confession of faith are now proposing formation of new non-geographic Regions where churches that are inclusive and accepting of most any belief system can belong. They understand that they can have unity in common missions with diversity in all else. But they fail to understand they are not in unity with the Regions in the denomination that claim and hold to a common biblical confession of faith. The issue is more than difference over polity or Baptist principles: it is at its heart seeking after different gods.

Where is your Association and/or Region on this issue now? If you want to be part of a united denomination, it will require work; it will require having a common confession of faith. The ABC has adopted a confession of faith but has qualified it as representing what most people in the ABC believe. Such a qualification says nothing about the truthfulness of the confession, but it speaks volumes about the denomination's lack of a common faith. Until the Regions lead the ABC into confessing a common faith, the fighting and divisions will continue. Without a common confession of faith, I believe the denomination will continue on a self-destructive trajectory.

Denominations, just like machinery, require preventive and remedial maintenance. Each of us is responsible for the proper working of the denomination. The Associations and Regions are the places where we have the greatest ability to bring about change. What are you doing to call for your region to adopt a Confession of Faith? Nothing? Then start today if nothing is being done.

But then . . . maybe you are one of those well meaning persons who is willing to have unity at the cost of theology? When unity fails to materialize and even you become disheartened at the obvious heresies and blasphemy abiding in Regions, Associations, and churches with whom you are in covenant relationship, breath deeply and try to remember: It's the theology, stupid.

[The Reverend John Eby is an ordained pastor in the American Baptist Churches, USA. He was a founder of the renewal movement within the ABC, American Baptist Evangelicals, and was its National Coordinator from 1995-2000. Rev. Eby is semi-retired and lives in McMurray, PA. He continues his ministry by reporting and commenting on the renewal efforts in the ABC and serves on the Editorial Board of the ABE Journal.]