Exciting SBC Alternative Not Without Shortcomings (by Tony Campolo)
During the closing days of January, more than 15,000 Baptists from 30 different Baptist denominations gathered together at the Convention Center in Atlanta. Although all Baptist groups were invited to join in what was called The New Baptist Covenant, official representatives from the largest Baptist group in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, were conspicuously absent. Although they were invited, the SBC officials chose not to attend. There were good reasons for that.
First, the plenary speakers at this gathering were not speakers who would have been welcomed at the annual meetings of the SBC. They included Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Grisham - all of whom would likely be treated as persona non grata by Southern Baptist leaders.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the unspoken agenda of the New Baptist Covenant was to provide a Baptist alternative to the politics and practices of the Southern Baptist Convention. Those Baptists who did attend, representing denominations with a combined membership of more than 20 million other Baptists, were viewed by the leaders of the SBC as a kind of "in your face" demonstration that they were tired of being painted by the general public with the same broad brush that has wrongly allied them with many positions taken by the SBC.
Most of those in this New Baptist Covenant, unlike their SBC brothers and sisters, have no problem with women in the pastoral ministry, and are not necessarily fans of the Bush administration. Strong anti-war sentiment was easily discernable among those in attendance. Representing what they considered a moderate stance on such issues - in contrast with the overtly Religious Right commitment of the SBC - they went on to reaffirm historic Baptist principles. These included a belief that the local church should decide on what should be its practices (in contrast to the SBC practice that Baptist state conventions can lay down beliefs and practices that determine whether or not a given church is acceptable for membership in their respective fellowships); and the principle of "sole conscience," which abhors doctrinal conformity (in contrast to the SBC requiring the signing on to creedal statements by any who would be its missionaries or serve in its denominational seminaries or offices).
In seeking unity among the many Baptist participants, those who planned this get-together selected Concern for the Poor as their theme for the conference. Recognizing that there are more than 2000 verses in Scripture that call upon the people of God to care for the poor, the organizers of the New Baptist Covenant decided that there would be no argument among those attending this gathering, given this focus of attention.
It seemed to work! There was a sense of joyful oneness pervading each and every session. In this respect, the New Baptist Covenant was in harmony with the defining mission of Sojourners. This movement lent support to the work of Jim Wallis, who has zeroed in on eliminating poverty as the primary concern of Sojourners.
The negatives of this meeting of Baptists included the absence of significant representatives from African-American denominations, even though the gathering was planned to follow the meetings of two of America's largest African-American denominations, and was held in the very same convention hall. It was reported that many of the members of these two large groups of Baptists were unable to finance staying in Atlanta for an extra three days, which attending the meeting of the New Baptist Covenant required.
Another shortcoming of this gathering was that there was no clear-cut vision of what the next steps should be. There were important questions that were not answered. Is the New Baptist Covenant supposed to function as some kind of new informally-organized denomination? Is the call to care for the poor, so eloquently prescribed in the speeches, going to be translated into some specific programs? Will there be a team of leaders to give direction and some kind of organization to this New Baptist Covenant? It should be noted that the executives of the represented Baptist groups have an upcoming meeting planned, at which time these and other questions probably will be answered.
Whatever might have been the shortcomings and critiques of what transpired in Atlanta, however, there emerged clear evidence that this New Baptist Covenant could be the beginning of something very significant for Baptists. It could represent a movement that could transcend the partisan politics, too often evident among Southern Baptists, and could be a major step in moving Baptists into being a visible and viable partner with other mainstream denominations.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.
Add to:
Category: Black Churches, Churches, Evangelicals
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"These included a belief that the local church should decide on what should be its practices (in contrast to the SBC practice that Baptist state conventions can lay down beliefs and practices that determine whether or not a given church is acceptable for membership in their respective fellowships); and the principle of "sole conscience," which abhors doctrinal conformity (in contrast to the SBC requiring the signing on to creedal statements by any who would be its missionaries or serve in its denominational seminaries or offices)."
How terrible that they have a definite set of beliefs, and expect their members to adhere to them.
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 1:43 PM
No partisan alignment? What idiocy. The NBC was definitely aligned with the Democratic agenda, if not specifically the Democratic party. And not all Baptist groups came besides the SBC. The "Baptist Mainline" came.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | April 2, 2008 2:06 PM
"How terrible that they have a definite set of beliefs, and expect their members to adhere to them."
It all depends just what those beliefs are, now doesn't it? One can believe strongly and sincerely, and yet be profoundly misguided. It is the SBC, after all, which has removed Jesus' from the statement of faith after a century and downgraded His example. It is credible that this was done for Pharisaic reasons that have problems with a lot of what Jesus teaches, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, a kind of Jeffersonian Biblicism has come into play where a pretense can be made to being obedient to what is cherry-picked from scripture according to a predtermined theological and political self-serving bent. Kind of a manufactured inerrancy for the errant.
But there are genuine theologically conservative Christians who haven't bought into nationalism and militarism as Jesus' core principles, the way that so many have been co-opted by political operatives who profess sympathy for Christian principles, but neither live by them nor advance them in practice once elected.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 2, 2008 2:29 PM
'...15,000 Baptists from 30 different Baptist denominations...'
That is an avg of 500 per denomination. That is the size of a congregation in many denominations. It's a start - but hardly overwhelming. So - as I have said at times - it is about changing the hearts and minds of individuals. Doing 'Kingdom Work' should be what motivates us. Wallis and Co. keep wanting to make it political and 'us vs them'. (those bad southern Baptists) There is a reason that Dobson - Kennedy and Fawell never did speek for me on all issues. I AM A CHRISTIAN THAT HAPPENS TO BE CONSERVATIVE - NOT A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN - DIPSTICK! (OK - sorry I went over the edge but it is getting a little interesting on this site)
So - I'm still here and Mr. Moderator - you can remove this one too as you have others of mine in the past.
whatever - (I believe with the person that corrected me that 'blessings' might not work here as tollerance is in short supply on this site)
Posted by: Moderatelad | April 2, 2008 2:38 PM
Soujourner Truth -
"It all depends just what those beliefs are, now doesn't it?"
Agreed, but that wasn't my point. I have little use for the SBC (I am a recovering Southern Baptist), but Campolo's point seems to be that it is objectionable that they have a definite doctrinal stand. He seems to imply that because they do, they are less concerned for the poor than they otherwise might be. This seems to imply that concern for the poor is the only Christian orthodoxy that matters. I wouldn't agree with that.
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 2:41 PM
BTW -
What exactly do you mean by a "Jeffersonian Biblicalism?"
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 2:48 PM
What exactly do you mean by a "Jeffersonian Biblicalism?"
Jefferson had his own Bible that he read where all the miracles were removed from scripture. Not sure if he was a 'Red Letter' kinda guy.
whatever -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | April 2, 2008 3:16 PM
Sojourner -
I thought that was probably what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth.
That is indeed a problem with some Christian groups. I would agree it is even a problem with the SBC. I think it is an even more serious problem with Campolo.
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 3:26 PM
I think Tony is misleading here (just a little, though) about the SBC. Individual churches do not have to sign or agree with doctrinal statements which the convention itself holds (whether it is the Southern Baptist Convention or a state convention). The only places I know of that requires one to sign a creedal/doctrinal statement is if one is going to be a professor at a Southern Baptist seminary/college or if one is working for the convention directly (like the president).
Southern Baptists are all about the autonomy of the local church (even though, yes, they are a part of a larger convention). The only way this convention would change and care a little more about social issues is if the churches themselves began to implement those types of ministries. There a lot of Southern Baptist churches that do not have the Baptist Faith and Message as their creed/mission statement/purpose or whatever you want to call it.
You wouldn't find the SBC at some Baptist gathering like the one in Atlanta not only because of the speakers, but because they hold to the teaching that no one (not other churches/denominations) should tell them what to do. So in a sense I think I could actually agree with the SBC on this one for being a no show. It's not that the SBC doesn't care about the poor, it's just that they don't want others telling them that they should do it.
Now, I am not saying that the SBC has social issues figured out, if anything they are far, far behind everyone else. They really need to get on the 21st Century freight train and off the 1950's band-wagon.
This Baptist 'get together' sounds like a good thing, but until individual churches begin implementing these types of changes (Baptists and non-Baptists alike), nothing will get done. The New Baptist Covenant sounds like a good thing, but how pathetic is it to have a convention talking about how we need to help the poor when the Bible clearly reveals that we should already. This covenant thing won't work. We need to quit having conventions and actually go out and do something about the issues we're facing.
I'm tired of all of our denominations just sitting around and discussing what to do, and then never doing anything.
Posted by: Matt G. | April 2, 2008 4:04 PM
"It is the SBC, after all, which has removed Jesus' from the statement of faith after a century and downgraded His example."
Huh? He's mentioned throughout.
Why wouldn't they just join the emergent movement? Sounds like the same thing, right down to the lack of concrete next steps.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 2, 2008 4:19 PM
Kaylor wrote "As one who was actually at the gathering, let me say that it was a very encouraging time of unity and reconciliation. The preaching was great (you can watch the main speeches here: www.newbaptistcelebration.org). It was not a partisan event (there were Republican speakers), nor was it all liberals or moderates as many conservatives were there including Southern Baptists. I hope the messages from this historic gathering will continue to ripple through Baptist life."
Posted by: Kaylor | February 6, 2008 6:23 PM
I had to go back a ways to find this comment on the NBC meeting, but thought it is worth-while to relook at an seemingly objective viewpoint from someone who attended the meeting as a spectator as opposed to Campolo who was a participating party. I saw nothing in the videotaped speeches/sermons that I've watched from the recommended website that would indicate there was a resounding liberal theme, or that it was a subliminal SBC bashing. Although I did detect a "let's get out of this rediculous war" sentiment within the text of a view speakers. I still share Kaylors hope that a call for unity in the messages from that meeting are impacting all Baptist sects.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM
Thank you for this message of hope. Thank you for your candor about the shortcomings of the initial meetings. Of course your critics used your candor against you but please do not let their gratuitously nasty remarks in any way inhibit your optimism. Jesus said that we will always have the poor amongst us. When it comes to the critics, he might just as well have said the the "poor in spirit" would always be there too.
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 2, 2008 6:20 PM
I think where the mistake was made, Tony, was when the organizing committee didn't make it clear to the SBC that women would be "waiting on tables" and "supplying cookies" for the event as well as providing childcare.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 2, 2008 8:28 PM
My friend Tony C. accurately described what went on at the meeting. I was there from start to finish, and I was impressed at how it did not engage in Southern Baptist Convention bashing, even though some convention officials said some pretty nasty things about it ahead of time. The comment on removing Jesus from the SBC Baptist Faith and Message "creed" has to do with the section on the Bible. Jesus was no longer was involved in interpretation of the Bible. Our unaided minds can determine what it says because it is inerrant. We don't him to help us discover the really meaning of Scripture. Also the creed with its recent emendations regarding women submitting to their husbands and exclusion of women from the ordained ministry was made binding on the SBC foreign missionary corps. Those who refused to sign it because it is biblically on shaky grounds were forced to resign or dismissed for their stubbornness. Others agreed to it only reluctantly and with unarticulated mental reservations because they had significant ministries abroad that they did not want to damage by abandoning them, and I have heard of some who did so because they were nearing retirement and would have lost their pensions if the International Mission Board had dismissed them or they resigned. As for the denomination telling churches what to do, some churches in Alabama were thrown out of local Baptist associations for having women in ministerial roles, and in North Carolina where I live the Baptist state convention expelled a church in Charlotte that receives gay members and even allows them in congregational leadership posts (I know of no Bible passage that authorizes such a draconian action). I will leave it to the theologians reading this to debate the SBC's spiritual health, but as one who is reasonably informed in the area of religion and politics, I would say the SBC is in trouble politically and their continuing national dominance depends on a McCain victory in the fall. Since the denominational leadership solidly lined up behind the Republican Party and their official representative in Washington, Richard Land (one of America's 25 most influential evangelicals, according to TIME magazine) is an informal adviser to the Bush Administration with ready access to the White House, a Democratic victory in the fall would be a catastrophe for the SBC. It is too bad the SBC leaders thumbed their nose at the New Baptist Covenant endeavor, because they could have learned from interacting with brethren (and sisters!) who look at contemporary issues differently, and they could have contributed their two cents to the larger discussion.
Posted by: Dick Pierard | April 2, 2008 9:10 PM
After the 2000 takeover of the SBC by the Religious Right, which involved a bruising fight among the brethren, in which those willing to go to the most extreme lengths emerged in firm control, the following is excerpted from the statement then issued by the SBC:
"In 1925, the Southern Baptist Convention first adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as a public statement of our faith and doctrine. Nearly forty years later, faced with new challenges and questions, the Convention adopted a revised edition of the Baptist Faith and Message in 1963."
"Meeting over a period of several months, we reviewed the confessional history of our denomination and considered the challenges faced by the Baptists of this generation."
"We have removed the statement that identified Jesus Christ as 'the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.'"
I personally hold to many of the same moral values as the "new" religious right SBC, but I do not share their Pharasaic emphasis, which for reasons of their own political outlook have necessitated downplaying Jesus as an example, relegating him more to a ceremonial role within a legalistic system, which fits better with a syncretic nationalistic state religion that serves conservative politics.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 2, 2008 11:01 PM
From the Baptist Faith and Message:
"XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power."
That hardly sounds like a statement of a "nationalistic state religion".
How is the SBC "syncretic?"
Posted by: Gordon | April 2, 2008 11:20 PM
ST,
The reasons for removing the statement in question had to do with its theological accuracy, not to make more or less of Jesus.
"but I do not share their Pharasaic emphasis, which for reasons of their own political outlook have necessitated downplaying Jesus as an example,"
Can you point me to the text of the statement of faith that evinces a Pharisaical emphasis?
Posted by: kevin s. | April 2, 2008 11:31 PM
I think where the mistake was made, Tony, was when the organizing committee didn't make it clear to the SBC that women would be "waiting on tables" and "supplying cookies" for the event as well as providing childcare.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 2, 2008 8:28 PM
You cracked me up with that one!!!!
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 3, 2008 9:03 AM
I am a former North American Baptist, who agrees with many of the critiques of the Southern Baptists and i would add North American Baptists and a variety of other Baptist denominations and associations. The lack of care for the poor and social justce in direct contradiction to Biblical teaching drove me out to the mainline denominations. I am now ordained by the United Church of Christ and working in an ecumenical ministry that among other goals provides direct assistance to poor people.
Recently, a flood tore apart a community near here and while conservative groups were attacking and tearing down the mainline churches for not being "Christian" enough, it was only the mainline churches who helped to clean up and rebuild the community. None of the Baptist or other conservative churches even showed up in the midst of a disaster that affected everybody in this small town. I remember cleaning debris out of the backyard of this lady's house with people from my church and the Lutheran (ELCA) pastor and the owner of the house commented on how happy she was that her Assemby of God church was praying for her. The conservative churches have been effective in spreading their conservative propaganda, but eventually people are going to realize that it is the mainline churches who are following Christ's example. This convention may be a first step towards self critique by groups who feel they are the "one" way to Christ, but forgot who Christ was.
Posted by: Martin | April 3, 2008 12:32 PM
Martin -
How sad that the conservative churches in your town failed to respond, but I very much doubt that's characteristic of all conservative groups everywhere. I suspect we could find instances where the "conservative" churches responded and the "mainline" churches didn't.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 12:51 PM
kevin s says -- The reasons for removing the statement in question had to do with its theological accuracy, not to make more or less of Jesus.
kevin, with all due respect, you're in way over your head. Sit back, pay attention, and learn something from the grown-ups who post on here.
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 3, 2008 2:47 PM
"The reasons for removing the statement in question had to do with its theological accuracy, not to make more or less of Jesus."
So the SBC statements of 1925 and 1963 mean that Southern Baptist theology, until revised by the Religious Right cabal that propagated a coup over control of the denomination in 2000, was heretical for at least 80 years?
The SBC apologized for its founding roots in antebellum Southern slavery only in 1995; that act and others were seen as inflammatory by the Patterson junta that sought to return the Southern Baptist Conference to its "original intent" early emphasis as a culture warrior church, once regional but with the same cultural monomania extrapolated from the old South now to a nationalistically-colored socially and politically conservative religion.
One of the biggest misunderstandings is that being "conservative" politically makes one a champion of orthodox Christian belief. It tends to make one legalistic, favoring justice over mercy, which is hardly orthodox.
Jesus' words and examples illuminate Christian understanding of the entire biblical text, radically so from the perspective of Judaism, so any attempt to downplay that example and relegate Him to a ceremonial role within a manufactured theological framework which "keeps Him in His place" will lead one to precisely the same errors that the Pharisees made, despite their conservatism and religiosity.
I do not buy into a theology which tries to keep Jesus as Savior but will not have Him as Lord, where we follow His own example and explanations. He spoke with authority, as one with full authority to teach, to do things no mere man could be allowed, and the Pharisees loathed His rebukes of their legalistic distortions.
We cannot allow a Pharisaical biblicism to become the interpreter of Jesus according to its own understanding. Jesus Himself is the Word, and offers the only possible Christian interpretation of scripture according to what God has revealed - "He who has seen Me, has seen the Father."
"Before Abraham was, I am." The saints, humans used by God to speak into scripture, appeared and worshipped Him.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 3, 2008 3:32 PM
ST -
I would still be interested in hearing why you then the SBC is syncretic.
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 3:45 PM
"I would still be interested in hearing why you then the SBC is syncretic."
Much of the "in-the-pulpit" and "in-the-pew" belief systems are indistinguishable from those of Americanism, the best description of which is by David Gelernter, in his advocacy book "Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion." Moreover, those positions are largely held and praised by SBC leaders like Richard Land.
Although Gelernter says that Americanism is the inevitable fulfilment and working out of Christianity in the modern age, it is indeed highly syncretic, merging secular political, economic and social ideals and theories into its belief system, which becomes identical with messianic U.S. empire building.
I think it's worth reading.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 3, 2008 4:25 PM
Well, ST, I understand what you're saying, although I am not sure I'd call that syncretism (though I might well call it heresy).
I was always disturbed as a kid in SBC churches with the preaching of "America is God's special nation" that was rife at the time. But then, politics does tend to get baptised into the church, doesn't it?
Posted by: Gordon | April 3, 2008 4:59 PM
Why is the phrase "in all due respect" usually mean an insult will follow?
Posted by: Jeff | April 3, 2008 6:02 PM
I do not buy into a theology which tries to keep Jesus as Savior but will not have Him as Lord
Amen, Sojourner!
Posted by: Rachel | April 5, 2008 11:26 PM
If the politicization from the right of the SBC is such a concern (as it should be, how can this politicization from the left be OK?
One thing that the left doesn't have to worry about anymore is Goldwater / Reagan style American conservatism. It's dead! Both wings of American politics are now decidedly big government and oppressive. It is unfortunate that many of the same people who decried politics moving into (predominately white) churches have shown themselves to be hypocrites.
Posted by: G. A. Harrison | April 6, 2008 9:21 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?