As We Interpret It
Honesty is good.
For the first 80 years of its existence, the Southern Baptist Convention did not have its own confessional statement. Birthed out of the debate over slaveholding missionaries, the Southern Baptist Convention of churches used any of primarily three confessional statements: The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, The New Hampshire Confession of Faith, or The Abstract of Principles. None of these statements addressed the matter of slavery.
Thus, as those who left the Triennial Convention to form the SBC, they could stand by, as we interpret it. It being the Bible.
The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy that broke out in the early part of the Twentieth Century spurred the Southern Baptist Convention to articulate its first confession in 1925, The Baptist Faith and Message. Thirty-eight years later, amid the rising influence of German Higher Criticism, the Southern Baptist Convention revised its confession in 1963. The year of my birth.
Beginning in 1969, for the first time in its history, the Southern Baptist Convention, through its publishing arm, began releasing its twelve-volume commentary set, The Broadman Commentary. The first volume (1969) relied heavily on the Documentary Hypothesis for its content. That volume was recalled after much criticism, and another was offered in its place (1973). I’m told the revisions were slight. This was my first preacher-boy set of commentaries presented as a birthday/graduation gift (1981). My set included the re-released volume 1.
In 1998, an article on the Family was added to the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. Two years later, absent a major conflict, the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message was updated again, often referred to as BFM2K.
This short genealogy of Southern Baptist Confessional Statements came to mind while re-reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Protestantism without Reformation. Why? In his 1939 essay, Bonhoeffer mentions Southern Baptists. Under section I, The Unity of the Church and the Denomination,
Americans have been less able than any other people on earth to realize the visible uniuty of God’s church on earth. Americans have been more able than any other people on earth to envision the variety of Christian forms of knowledge and community. . . American Christendom has not central organization, no common confession, no common ritual practices [Kultus], no common church history, no common ethical, social, or political principles, North and south (the question of slavey) but also the migration from east to west (the “boundary” = “frontier”) signify changes and separations of the denominations.
. . .
The Congregationalists ordination formula is entirely free; it requires only a confession of one’s personal committment to rthe Lord Christ in personal experience, in the certainty of the call to ministry and in belief. But even in cases where there are confessional obligations, these are limited to a certain degree since most denominations mutually recognize the administration of the sacraments, of the ministry, and ordination. This is true for Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Reformed, United Lutherans, Northern Baptists, evangelicals [Evangelische]. Only the Episcopalians, the Missouri Lutherans, and the Southern Baptists have resisted such recogniton to this day. (I added the bold type.)
As we interpret it.
“We have no creed but the Bible,” is the mantra I heard often growing up in our branch of the Christian tree. The intent was to say that to be Baptist is not to adopt a creedal statement, a binding of the conscience before God, as it were. Instead, the competency of the soul before God required only a confession of faith in Jesus Christ. When it comes to beliefs, “We have no creed but the Bible.” What we learned over time is that,
We have no creed but the Bible... as we interpret it.
And we is the unspoken magisterium comprised of the celebrity class of Southern Baptists. When the Southern Baptist Convention determined to update its confession for 2000, it was no Nicea or Constantinople. There were no real dissenting interpretations. There were only those in whom power had been consolidated to work out a confessional statement,
as we interpret it.
Bonhoeffer’s description of the lack of commonality among American Christians may be expressed in contemporary terms as the denominational penchant to preserve its particular identity over against the common confession that Jesus is Lord. Not just Southern Baptists, but the die was cast, according to Bonhoeffer, that rather than admit to the legitimacy of these disparate institutions, the churches and her people suffer under the impulse to see the denomination as more important than the Church.
Each one relying on,
as we interpret it.
When I received a denominational publication recently, I read with interest the evaluation of the current controversy among Southern Baptists - women. Specifically, may women serve in title or function as pastor in a local Southern Baptist Church? The ongoing debate reveals countless qualifying conditions and nuances in nomenclature, so the zone has been sufficiently flooded that, despite Al Mohler's intent to bring clarity and truth, both are lacking.
Leaders are called to bring clarity to times like these. I appreciate the writer who offered an opinion piece from his perspective. He and I had this discussion several years ago, the first time the matter made it to the floor of an SBC annual meeting. He was gracious then, as he is in his article, even though we do not see things the same way.
In his effort to point out how this matter is really a secondary issue, not one that rises to subvert the confession that Jesus is Lord, he wrote,
“... men serving in the role of pastor/elder is not about the superiority of men over women. It is about obeying and being submissive to the authority of the biblical text as we interpret it. (Italics are mine.)
As we interpret it.
Honesty.
A breath of fresh air.
That is, the matter is one of interpretation. The we are those who find in Mohler’s amendment their interpretation. What’s more, making an interpretation authoritative in a constitutional amendment moves the subject from confession to creed, where one does not bind, the other does. Rather than church autonomy, this is one more step toward another tool in the toolbox of the unseen magisterium of the SBC.
In the end, we will have shuttered,
We have no creed but the Bible.
As if it ever was.
Illuminating Todd, thank you
Nicely stated Todd.