Why I am a Baptist: An Introduction

In an endeavor to understand why I am a Baptist, I also understand that this is going to be a series of topical style discussions. Thus, the best way I feel to go about this is to go through the The Baptist Faith and Message article by article. This document is a fairly comprehensive  statement of faith concerning Baptists. A statement of faith is simply a statement of the core beliefs of a particular religious group; in this case, Baptists.

The most recent BFM was adopted in 2000. There have been several revisions to the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM): 1925, 1963, 1998 (an Amendment added), and 2000. So, which one should serve as the grounds for understanding what Baptists think and believe? Reasonably, the 2000 edition would serve as the most up to date, and perhaps the most accurate in understanding what Baptists believe. This stands as personal opinion, I grant you, and there are many who would disagree with my last statement. After all, there are still several churches who recognize the 1963 edition, but not the 2000 addition. That could very well be attributed to them not knowing there is a newer edition, or it could be they do not want an updated edition and they feel as though the older edition serves just as well.

In either case, I do have my reasons for using the 2000 edition as I pursue this endeavor. With the help of the Preamble to the BFM, I hope to show why.

First of all, the committee that was commissioned to revise and update the most recent edition of the BFM was given the charge by none other than Dr. Paige Patterson who was serving as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Indeed, in 1999, the exact charge to Dr. Patterson was, “I move that in your capacity as Southern Baptist Convention chairman, you appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message statement with the responsibility to report and bring any recommendations to this meeting next June in Orlando.” Thus the committee was formed. He brought together a team that included Dr. Adrian Rogers (Chairman and Pastor of Bellevue Baptist in Memphis), Dr. Albert Mohler (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and Dr. Jerry Vines (Pastor First Baptist Jacksonville, Fla). These men were pillars within the Convention. These men did not take their responsibility lightly and they pursued this objective with a heart to see Jesus glorified.

Moreover, Baptists have a long history. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention alone is 170 years old. The Preamble to the BFM illustrates this point “Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.” That is all well and good, but another part of their focus in this revision was to update it in such a way as to acknowledge that as we are “facing a new century, Southern Baptists must meet the demands and duties of the present hour.” The committee understood the challenges and issues were changing, and thus, the BFM needed to be updated in order to meet those demands. “Now, faced with a culture hostile to the very notion of truth, this generation of Baptists must claim anew the eternal truths of the Christian faith…we have been charged to address the ‘certain needs’ of our own generation. In an age increasingly hostile to Christian truth, our challenge is to express the truth as revealed in Scripture, and to bear witness to Jesus Christ, who is ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’ ” Their recognition that the statement of faith needs to change and adapt to the culture and the times is one more reason why the 2000 edition serves as the underlying framework for this discussion.

Finally, even though this revision was sought and adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention specifically, it is not restricted to the SBC. The 1925 edition alludes to this idea. That edition was a “statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life.”  “That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.” Or, “as in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.” Lastly, this statement from the 1963 edition is perhaps the most telling, “certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.” This statement of faith is considered to be for all Baptists in light of their history. This is not a Southern Baptist document, as much as it a Baptist document which holds as a, “ statement of religious conviction, drawn from the Scriptures.”

My prayer as I seek to show why I am a Baptist, is that I will also come to better understand and communicate why I am a Baptist. Also, I hope that somewhere along the way, perhaps this discussion will help someone else better understand why they are a Baptist or even begin to ask more questions about their denomination. From here, we will seek to look at each article of the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM): The Scriptures, God, Man, Salvation, God’s Purpose of Grace, The Church, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, The Lord’s Day, The Kingdom, Last Things, Evangelism and Missions, Education, Stewardship, Cooperation, The Christian and Social Order, Peace and War, Religious Liberty, and Family.

The Southern Baptist Convention changed to… what?

There has not been a move officially as yet to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, the Convention’s President, Bryant Wright has suggested such an option. As I have thought about this idea, I am not exactly sure what to think. Baptist Press wrote an article outlining his idea.

This idea is not a new one. 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990,1998,  1999 (attempt at a straw poll), and 2004. Will this be the time? Unknown. However if precedence is any indicator, then probably not. However, is it a bad idea?

The term “Southern” definitely gives a regional aspect (specifically to the United States) to an otherwise international organization. S0 perhaps, changing the name is a good idea. After all, the Convention has seen a resurgence in church planting across all of our nation, and a big push to see the Great Commission fulfilled to the outer most reaches of our earth. While a large part of our Convention still stays rooted in Baptist churches of the South, there is nonetheless a growing element reaching far beyond.

Also, Jimmy Draper has agreed to serve as chairman of the task force, whose job it will be to consider the possibility of a name change.  Draper could probably be considered the patriarch of the Southern Baptist Convention having served as the Convention’s President, as a pastor, and as President of Lifeway Christian Resources. So, having him at the helm of such a task force could help ease the sting of could very well be a very divisive issue. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville has also agreed to serve on the task force (who, by the way has an insightful article of his own on the issue). So again with men such as these overseeing the prospect, I think we are at least in the most capable hands.

Wright is quoted in the Baptist Press article as saying,  ”I am going to ask this task force to consider four questions: 1) Is it a good idea, that is, is there value in considering a name change? 2) If so, what would be a good name to suggest? 3) What would be the potential legal ramifications of a name change? 4) What would be the potential financial implications?”

At 31 years of age, I have spent 31 years in the Southern Baptist Convention. It is, inevitably, part of my Christian heritage. At least to some degree. But, if I were serving on the task force and answering these questions, what would my thoughts be? Well we have already basically looked at #1.

Then on to number 2. As I have mentioned, the SBC is focusing more efforts on church planting across the United States, and fulfilling the Great Commission internationally. So, what would a new name suggest? Would the new name take “Baptist” out of it, or just the term “Southern”? Perhaps, the Great Commission Convention?  What about United Baptist Convention? Baptist Union Convention? United Baptist Association? These names, while being on my own accord, should suggest the association of Baptist churches that it represents. Then again, for the very reason of taking “Southern” out of its name, we should not call it the American Baptist Convention or anything really similar; again, for the reason of its global outreach.

What about numbers 3 & 4? Well, I am not exactly sure what the legal ramifications could be. Although, considering its 170 year old name, there very well could be legal ramifications if the SBC was to change its name. The financial ramifications would be, at least at first, astronomical. The name change itself on ALL publications (i.e. books, magazines, brochures, websites, sermon audio, etc.) associated with it. Then of course the name change would trend down to the individual churches and changing their association with the SBC to whatever it would be on all of their publications.

So is it a good idea? I am not sure. Is it a bad idea? I am not sure. I guess I am fairly neutral on the idea at this point. There are some good reasons. For example, in the Baptist Press article, Wright said, ”First, the convention’s name is so regional,” he said. “With our focus on church planting, it is challenging in many parts of the country to lead churches to want to be part of a convention with such a regional name. Second, a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century.” Granted, these considerations are well thought out. However, is it necessary? All I can say at this point is, it will be interesting to wait and see.