Dr. Cecil Sherman: Taking Stock after Ten Years

by Cecil Sherman                                                                                          Vol. XIII, No. 3, March 2000


[Introduction: Sherman served as first coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, 1992-1996, following nearly four decades as a Southern Baptist pastor. He currently serves as Visiting Professor of Pastoral Ministry at the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, VA. Below is the complete text of his article, "Taking Stock after Ten Years", reprinted from Baptists Today, the monthly newspaper affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. My commentary follows Sherman's article and is keyed to the bold print numbers inserted into Sherman's text. TCP]

We are approaching the tenth anniversary of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting that occurred in New Orleans, 1990. It has also been ten years since that Spirit-filled meeting in Atlanta when it came clear to so many of us that our old home was no longer a Baptist address.

Much has happened in the past ten years, and most of it has been good. Ten years is a marker, a decade. Sometimes we can see things more clearly after the dust settles. Here are some observations on what has happened, where we are, and where we are going.

What Has Happened

The bridges are out and the road is closed. There is no way back into the SBC for an honest Baptist. A Baptist is committed to congregationalism, meaning each congregation gets to make their own decisions based on their reading of Scripture. The SBC is doing theology by resolution at annual meetings. In subtle ways, their theology is being imposed on churches. [1] Congregations that do not conform are marginalized. These churches may send money to Nashville, but they have no substantive part in the direction of the SBC. They are not allowed into the system that creates policy and makes decisions. [2]

Is there any possibility things will change in the SBC? I don't see it. The leadership that controls the SBC is tight and intentional. Who we are and what they are don't fit very well. It is an "oil and water" situation. This is why a few congregations have been leaving the SBC.

Where We Are

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship pretty much functions as a "soft convention" for several hundred congregations. I realize that the CBF does not want to call herself a convention, but I question that decision. We've all had some painful experiences with a convention that turned on us and became controlling. Those experiences are still fresh for a lot of people and many feel "convention" is a bad word.

The SBC has become a hard convention; hard in the sense of being closed, entrenched, and intrusive. I think we need a soft one; soft in the sense of being open, focused on the future, and trusting. Why?

First of all, our ministers need a marked career path.

Secondly, our congregations need a place to call home. They need to belong to a people and a mission.

Thirdly, our polity needs clarification. People like Walter Shurden have done much to remind us what it means to be Baptist, but too many of us have not paid attention. Some folks don't know the difference between a conservative and a Fundamentalist.

Lastly, our fences need mending. Baptist churches are easily led. Change pastors and a moderate Baptist church often becomes something other than what it was. The open and trusting nature of our churches is exploited by hard-nosed Fundamentalists. At one time, First Baptist of Atlanta was as moderate as First Baptist, Greenville, S.C.

It is stylish these days to speak of "post denominationalism." I don't put much stake in such talk. Churches cluster to do their work; they have to in order to get things done. These clusters function like miniconventions. Churches will choose how they become involved in convention-type groups. Some will invest themselves in the life of a convention. Others will stand on the side and be occasional participants.

A soft convention will not require conformity, but it will provide necessary services. Baptist churches need three things: a missions delivery system, at least one excellent theological school if not more, and a curriculum for Christian education.

CBF already provides the missions delivery system, and Smyth & Helwys does a good job of meeting the curriculum needs of local churches. However, even though we have several fine, small theological schools, we do not have a great one that provides the full range of services our churches need. A "soft convention" could give us at least one great seminary, one comparable to the quality we knew before the SBC fell into the hands of Fundamentalists.

Where We Are Going

Unless we come together in some kind of "soft convention," here is what I see ahead. A few churches will step away from the SBC and become free standing, independent congregations. They will be much like Riverside Baptist Church, New York, or Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. They will basically stand alone.

For a time we will have several hundred churches who are "de facto" dually aligned. The SBC, however, does not like this arrangement and will speak ill of the churches who insist upon keeping their feet in two places. A quiet pressure will be brought to bear on non-conforming congregations. This arrangement will not work long-term. Most churches will slowly, quietly knuckle under and identify themselves as Southern Baptist again.

The issues that defined us in 1990 will grow fuzzy to the next generation. "The controversy" will be forgotten. Our reason for being will be lost. Who are we? Why are we? Why bother?

Why not say that we are no longer Southern Baptist, period? Why not make a house that leaves serious congregationalism in place and does serious mission? Let's create a "soft convention." Why not declare openly what we already are? We have a convention up and running; let's name it and go on. [3] Let's love it and give it a life.

I realize this direction means a lot of congregations would have to make difficult decisions. There will be some falling away, but that will not be all bad.

Folks, it has been twenty years since Houston and ten since New Orleans. By now we ought to be able to deal with what has happened.

Comments:

1. Think carefully about the implications of Dr. Sherman's statement here. He implies that each individual church may believe, preach, and implement any doctrine, any belief they choose and that the denomination should limply accept those actions and beliefs. And he claims that this is historically baptistic. But he is wrong. Just as the local church is autonomous, so is every other level of Baptist polity. Just as a local church has the right, indeed duty, to eject members who live in flagrant sin and refuse to repent and reform, so does a local association, a state convention, or a national convention have the right and duty to exclude from participation churches which violate its doctrinal stance (churches, not individuals, are the members of associations, state conventions, and the SBC). Two recent examples come to mind: In the early 1990's the SBC amended its constitution to exclude churches which "affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." Even more recently a local association in Indiana ejected University Baptist Church of Bloomington because it had called a woman as senior pastor, and last November the State Convention of Baptists of Indiana was prepared to not seat messengers from that church for the same reason, but the church voluntarily left the SBC and the SCBI and affiliated with the CBF.

2. An interesting criticism coming from Sherman. A few years ago many CBF adherents complained strenuously because the SBC decided not to accept money from the CBF. Now he complains that the SBC does accept funds from churches not in full agreement with the SBC's direction.

Moreover, every church continues to be represented at annual SBC conventions on exactly the same basis as before Adrian Rogers was elected in Houston in 1979, the first conservative president committed to reforming the SBC. Dr. Sherman's real problem would appear to be that people who share his views have been consistently rejected by the messengers to the annual meetings ever since 1979. He uses "marginalized" and the following statements to obscure the liberals' twenty year long record of lost votes.

3. Here I am glad to agree with Sherman. One can only conjecture, but it seems likely that the only reason CBF has not declared itself a convention is the fear such a move would force many churches contributing to it to make an all or nothing decision, to align definitively either with the SBC or CBF, and that they (CBF) would lose substantial support, a point he addresses in his next paragraph. I have long regarded Cecil Sherman as mistaken on a number of very important issues but an honest and forthright man. His position on this matter confirms that judgment.