Cutting Confusion

by Mark Coppenger                                                                                         Vol. IV, No. 2, March 1991

Let me make a few observations about some items that persist in dividing us. One of my favorite statements about philosophy comes from William James. He called it "an uncommonly stubborn attempt to think clearly." In that sense, let us be philosophers. There's a lot of wacky talk in the air. Let's try to cut through some of the confusion. I'm convinced that a lack of clarity more than a lack of love is our greatest problem as Southern Baptists.

1. Creedalism

Some are claiming that we've moved into creedalism because we've said that seminary professors should work within the Baptist Faith and Message and the Peace Committee parameters. But surely they overlook a crucial distinction.

If you wish to join an Evangelical Free Church, you must first meet with a membership committee who will question you on your commitment to their doctrinal statement, which for instance, includes an affirmation of premillenialism. That's creedalism. It's not abominable. A lot of wonderful folks operate in creedal church contexts. But it's not Baptist. We look more readily to the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Baptism followed simple confession of Christ as Savior and Lord. You have the same sort of simplicity at Pentecost. And that's our approach. When a person walks the aisle, we want to know whether he's been born again. He doesn't need to declare one way or the other on predestination or premillenialism. He can get to that later, as he pleases.

It's one thing to admit him as a member. It's quite another to make him a deacon or Sunday School teacher. And it is quite quite another to make him a pastor. And it is quite quite quite another thing to make him a seminary professor. To demand sound doctrine (to use the biblical expression) in these posts is not creedalism; it's responsibility. There's an important distinction between grounds for membership and grounds for leadership.

Imagine that a junior high Sunday School teacher is telling the kids that not all Christians have been baptized with the Holy Spirit and that when this baptism comes, tongues will likely be there. Shouldn't a church take steps to correct or replace this teacher? I think so. Is this creedalism? Not at all. It's prudence. Now understand – the teacher didn't have to renounce this form of Pentecostalism in order to join the church, nor will he likely be struck from the rolls for embracing it. He's still a member; just not a teacher.

In 1858, the charter of Southern Seminary was adopted. It contained an "Abstract of Principles" under which the professors were to teach. Its twenty sections had been forged in response to attacks on orthodoxy. In recent years, the Baptist Faith and Message was added for faculty guidance. This document too arose as an answer to theological crisis, first in the 20s and then in the 60s. In 1987, the Peace Committee addressed another crisis, and their observations on the biblical "truth without mixture of error" clause in the Baptist Faith and Message have provided the Board with the substance for another clause.

Some are now crying "creedalism." They were content with the original twenty clauses. That wasn't creedalism. But now we have creedalism with the addition of new clauses. They must be appealing to some recondite form of numerology. Twenty is okay. Thirty-seven might be. Thirty-eight isn't. Beats me.

Why add clauses? Because some scholars can be so ingenious in undermining doctrine. Who can anticipate their maneuvers?

I was talking the other day with a Southeastern grad from years back. He said that one of his professors explained the feeding of the five thousand this way: The little boy offered his food for distribution. The others who had food were inspired to do likewise, and so, through sharing, there was enough.

Our Southern Baptist founders would have found this sort of corruption of a miracle account absurd and pitiful; they didn't feel the need to even mention belief in miracles in their doctrinal statements. After all, if Jesus made the earth, he can jolly well multiply bread. When we in later years have to object to skeptics in our fold, it is heartbreaking. But woe to us if we don't.

Of course the Peace Committee examples do not add doctrine. They merely reflect the high view of Scripture, necessary for the formulation of truly biblical doctrine.

2. Freedom

Some like to say "Baptist means freedom." Well, certainly it means political freedom of religion. Roger Williams left the suffocation of Massachusetts Bay Colony in the dead of winter to found what would be Providence, Rhode Island. In this new colony, even non-Christians could live in freedom. That's our Baptist heritage. Amen!

As a military officer, I would bear arms to protect the right of a man to claim that Jesus is not God. By the same token, I would bear arms to protect the right of my Baptist brethren to say that Jesus is indeed God and that denial of this is damnable. Political freedom is one thing. Doctrinal license within one's politically free church is another.

Those who say that the discipline of our seminaries denies Baptists their freedom are caught in the Mapplethorpe muddle. You know the dispute over NEA funding for obscene art. Some call this defunding censorship. It's nothing of the sort. Mapplethorpians can snap and share pictures of one another to their hearts' content.

They should not, however, expect us to foot the bill.

The same goes for doctrine and practice. Nobody is suggesting that you be excommunicated if you say that everyone on earth will go to heaven or that Paul's epistles are errant. They are simply saying that Cooperative Program money should not be used to fund your efforts to indoctrinate generations of students in this direction. Some church will take you. They may even make you pastor. But not at our expense, thank you. It's just that simple. [Slightly condensed from The Indiana Baptist, 20 Nov. 1990.]