Chapter 7

The famed Southern Baptist unity in the past has been more functional than theological. Southern Baptists have banded together to minister in missions, evangelism, and Christian education. So long as they emphasize functional ministry, the “rope of sand,” as one called it, holds; when they switch from function to doctrine, unity is threatened — Baptist historian, H. Leon McBeth.

The Southern Baptist Convention began by building on the foundation laid by earlier, freedom-loving Baptists. When the SBC was formed in 1845, the founders issued the following statement: “We have constructed for our basis no new creed; acting in this matter upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible.” A creed is an authoritative statement of doctrinal belief. Baptists have generally avoided creeds in the past because “authoritative” statements always invest “authority” in someone other than the believer — usually a denominational or governmental authority. The creed becomes a list of beliefs one must subscribe to in order to belong, and can be used against a believer who does not conform to the demands of the authorities. Instead of creeds, Baptists have historically used “confessions of faith.” Confessions are usually arrived at by group consensus, rather than handed down by higher authorities, and are not used to enforce conformity. They simply describe what the confessors already agree upon. Confessions of faith were preferred because “creeds” had been used against Baptists all too often in Europe and in the days of the colonies.

If not a creed, then what would be the basis for unity in the new denomination? In words that are still found in the preamble to the SBC constitution, the 1845 founders said the Convention they were creating was “a plan for eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the Gospel.”^{^[2]}

Those words identified the unifying principle of the SBC as a cooperative effort toward evangelism and missions. Sharing the gospel remained the unifying drive of the Convention for the first 153 years of its life. It has hardly been better explained than in two lectures delivered by the Baptist historian Walter B. Shurden, then dean and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and now Callaway professor of Christianity and executive director of The Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University, Macon, Georgia .^{^[3]}

As Shurden put it, “The new denomination was not to be united by theological uniformity.” The unifying reality, he explained, “was missionary, not doctrinal, in nature.”^{^[4]}

H. Leon McBeth’s statement which serves as the epigraph to this chapter illustrates his agreement with Shurden’s analysis.

In other words, the unity of the SBC is basically functional rather than doctrinal.

Almost the opposite view was asserted in February 1988 by four SBC presidents who had been elected by the Takeover movement from 1979 to 1987. In a formal statement, they declared their commitment to “doctrinal unity in functional diversity.”^{^[5]} In a strong break from the past, they placed strict doctrinal uniformity ahead of cooperation in the mission.

These are the two conflicting visions about what unifies Southern Baptists. The collision between these two visions has been the essence of the struggle among Southern Baptists since 1979.

On one side of the conflict, Southern Baptist traditionalists were struggling to ensure that those within the SBC can continue to work together to carry the saving gospel to the homeland and to the world, to educate, and to do benevolent work — and to do all this in a way that respects the freedom of their brothers and sisters in Christ, cherishes considerable diversity, and refrains from imposing narrow doctrinal tests.

On the other side of the struggle is the tendency to use narrow tests of orthodoxy in a militant fashion. The Takeover leadership make one human view of the Bible a prerequisite for anyone who would assume a leadership role within the SBC.

[2]. Robert A. Baker, A Baptist Source Book (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), 116.

[3]. The lectures, delivered at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest , North Carolina , are “The Southern Baptist Synthesis: Is It Cracking?” and “The Inerrancy Debate: A Comparative Study of Southern Baptist Controversies.” They are published together in Baptist History and Heritage 16 (April 1981): 2-19.

[4]. Ibid., 7, 8.

[5]. SBC Today, April 1988, 4.





Chapter 7 Two Visions in Conflict The famed Southern Baptist unity in the past has been more functional than theological. Southern Baptists have banded together to minister in missions, evangelism, and Christian education. So long as they emphasize functional ministry, the “rope of sand,” as one called it, holds; when they switch from function to doctrine, unity is threatened — Baptist historian, H. Leon McBeth. The Southern Baptist Convention began by building on the foundation laid by earlier, freedom-loving Baptists. When the SBC was formed in 1845, the founders issued the following statement: “We have constructed for our basis no new creed; acting in this matter upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible.” A creed is an authoritative statement of doctrinal belief. Baptists have generally avoided creeds in the past because “authoritative” statements always invest “authority” in someone other than the believer — usually a denominational or governmental authority. The creed becomes a list of beliefs one must subscribe to in order to belong, and can be used against a believer who does not conform to the demands of the authorities. Instead of creeds, Baptists have historically used “confessions of faith.” Confessions are usually arrived at by group consensus, rather than handed down by higher authorities, and are not used to enforce conformity. They simply describe what the confessors already agree upon. Confessions of faith were preferred because “creeds” had been used against Baptists all too often in Europe and in the days of the colonies. If not a creed, then what would be the basis for unity in the new denomination? In words that are still found in the preamble to the SBC constitution, the 1845 founders said the Convention they were creating was “a plan for eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the Gospel.”^{^[2]} Those words identified the unifying principle of the SBC as a cooperative effort toward evangelism and missions. Sharing the gospel remained the unifying drive of the Convention for the first 153 years of its life. It has hardly been better explained than in two lectures delivered by the Baptist historian Walter B. Shurden, then dean and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and now Callaway professor of Christianity and executive director of The Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University, Macon, Georgia .^{^[3]} As Shurden put it, “The new denomination was not to be united by theological uniformity.” The unifying reality, he explained, “was missionary, not doctrinal, in nature.”^{^[4]} H. Leon McBeth’s statement which serves as the epigraph to this chapter illustrates his agreement with Shurden’s analysis. In other words, the unity of the SBC is basically functional rather than doctrinal. Almost the opposite view was asserted in February 1988 by four SBC presidents who had been elected by the Takeover movement from 1979 to 1987. In a formal statement, they declared their commitment to “doctrinal unity in functional diversity.”^{^[5]} In a strong break from the past, they placed strict doctrinal uniformity ahead of cooperation in the mission. These are the two conflicting visions about what unifies Southern Baptists. The collision between these two visions has been the essence of the struggle among Southern Baptists since 1979. On one side of the conflict, Southern Baptist traditionalists were struggling to ensure that those within the SBC can continue to work together to carry the saving gospel to the homeland and to the world, to educate, and to do benevolent work — and to do all this in a way that respects the freedom of their brothers and sisters in Christ, cherishes considerable diversity, and refrains from imposing narrow doctrinal tests. On the other side of the struggle is the tendency to use narrow tests of orthodoxy in a militant fashion. The Takeover leadership make one human view of the Bible a prerequisite for anyone who would assume a leadership role within the SBC. Previous Chapter \| Next Chapter [2]. Robert A. Baker, A Baptist Source Book (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), 116. [3]. The lectures, delivered at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest , North Carolina , are “The Southern Baptist Synthesis: Is It Cracking?” and “The Inerrancy Debate: A Comparative Study of Southern Baptist Controversies.” They are published together in Baptist History and Heritage 16 (April 1981): 2-19. [4]. Ibid., 7, 8. [5]. SBC Today, April 1988, 4.
• info@SBCTakeover.com •