Mark Dever on the Southern Baptist Convention and Baptist ecclesiology

[Pilgrim]

Here are some interesting comments made by Mark Dever on his view of the SBC and Baptist ecclesiology:

Just remember, the SBC’s not a church. I mean, [saying, 'Leaving the SBC' is] like saying, ‘Leaving Wycliffe Bible Translators.’ Y’know, it’s like, I’m a pastor, and we have $4000 a year that goes to support this person who works with Wycliffe, and if I stop sending that $4000, then I’m ‘leaving Wycliffe Bible Translators.’ So, it’s not a church issue for us in that way. The Southern Baptist Convention is one means by which- certainly our congregation of Christians at Capitol Hill Baptist Church- we cooperate with other Christians through the Southern Baptist Convention and are delighted to do it. But we feel no obligation to do that; we cooperate through other groups too. We give money to the Conservative Baptists, we’ve given money to groups even associated with other non-baptistic denominations, just to encourage them in gospel work, and we certainly have given to multi or interdenominational groups- like InterVarsity or Campus Crusade- that do work. So we identify ourselves as Christians, and we certainly believe in believers’ baptism, but we would not say that our fundamental identity is Southern Baptist. We’re Christians, and we think the Bible teaches believers’ baptism and we the Southern Baptist Convention is a really good way to cooperate for international missions and can be pretty helpful in the education of ministers…

I don’t think we have the freedom under God to organize our churches in such a way that we begin to think of ourselves as one visible church. So that, let’s say we have a case of church discipline here [at Capitol Hill Baptist Church] and our congregation deals with it, and then some pastor sitting some place- y’know- in Richmond can actually say, ‘No, I reverse it, you’ve gotta put Tom back in the membership of the church. I mean, even if we obey that- let’s say we’re an Episcopalian church, which would obey that- I think we’re in sin for obeying; we’re not following what Jesus said in Matthew 18. We’re taking an unbiblical structure (because a bishop claims some authority) and we are acknowledging it. Well, I think the Lord will still hold us accountable for what we in our congregation do in obeying the words of Christ…

There may be some other church out there that calls itself Southern Baptist that’s preaching wacko stuff; well, that’s not at all in the same sense [as in my local congregation] my responsibility. Now, you can lay out a specific situation with another congregation- we may have more or less responsibility for it, and even with the non-church entities- the parachurch entities, like the Southern Baptist Convention, which is- y’know- it’s like a Christian publishing company, a Christian network of colleges or something- it’s not the same thing as a Christian church. So, let’s say I go to the SBC and somebody has a resolution saying, ‘Hey, we should have only regenerate members in our churches!’ or that’s what we should strive for, well, I go, ‘Of course, that’s what it means to be a Baptist.’ And let’s say the thing gets voted down. That doesn’t cause me to despair. I mean, I understand pastors aren’t all confused. I don’t think the SBC as a Convention has any kind of authority- it doesn’t pretend to. I think all that says is, ‘Yeah, we gotta go back to the books, and we gotta keep talking to pastors, and we gotta do a better job raising up this next generation of pastors’…

If you get your real jollies from what’s going on in the denominational press and the Convention and not what’s happening- y’know- in Mrs. Jones’ life in your congregation or Bob coming to Christ or that Sunday school class you’re teaching or that sermon from last Sunday, then you’ve just got a spiritual problem…

HT: Strange Baptist Fire, Said at Southern

 

[KMK]

I have never understood exactly what the SBC is and how its members are covenanted together. I know they deny it, but most consider the SBC to be a denomination.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's timely that you should post this Pilgrim. I was just thinking about this when folks were commenting about how the PCA has some problems and that Baptists ought not to think the grass is always greener.

It's interesting to me that Baptists have an Independent Eccelesiology but then they usually criticize Presbyterian bodies instead of thinking of the Churches within them as Independent as their convictions would demand.

I remember a couple of years ago that a Baptist minister here was critical of the glacial pace that the NAPARC congregations were moving to address the FV controversy and thought at the time: "Why do you care?" In other words, many Presbyterian congregations were not FV and had resolved, within their local Sessions, that the FV wasn't going to intrude, and so the matter would be settled in a Baptist way of looking at the universe.

I've also noticed that independent congregations tend to look toward some unifying para-Church organizations to provide unity of effort when they want to do something bigger than what they can do locally. For instance, when Franklin Graham came to Okinawa, their training program became a proxy Presbytery in terms of dictating a specific training regime to Churches so they could participate in the Festival. Churches cared little about the fact that they were abandoning their distinctives in partnering with Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc as long as the larger goal (the Festival) was successful in getting maximum bang.

What is the Founder's Movement, in fact? Isn't there a sense in which many Baptists see this as a movement that can reform the Church at large? If the Church is, by nature, ruled and reformed and grown at the local level then why the need for a para-Church movement that accomplishes this end?

I'm really not writing this to pick a fight. I just find this sense or need for something larger than the local Church to point to something that those that believe in Independent Church government ought to take stock of.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Another interesting note is that, at Central Baptist in Okinawa, when we were looking at candidates who had a Reformed background, there were a number of people from outside the congregation actively interfering with the process. One of the members of the Church echoed a sentiment that I've heard repeatedly that "...this isn't the Southern Baptist way..." whether discussing elder rule, Church discipline, or even Reformed soteriology.

 

[Herald]

It's timely that you should post this Pilgrim. I was just thinking about this when folks were commenting about how the PCA has some problems and that Baptists ought not to think the grass is always greener.

Rich, I don't think Chris started this thread to compare Baptist and Presbyterian ecclesiology. It should be a given that both hold to a different form of church governance. What should not exist is a haughty spirit towards each other.

I've also noticed that independent congregations tend to look toward some unifying para-Church organizations to provide unity of effort when they want to do something bigger than what they can do locally.

Let's separate para-church organizations from the cooperation of like-minded churches. 20 years ago I used to work for a Christian food bank in Paterson, NJ. While working at the food bank I lodged at the Star of Hope Mission which was right down the street. Both organizations were para-church in nature. They attempted to minister to local churches across denominational lines. Compare those two organizations with ARBCA, FIRE or the SBC. While they don't have ecclesiastical authority, they are made up of member churches laboring together for the common good.

What is the Founder's Movement, in fact? Isn't there a sense in which many Baptists see this as a movement that can reform the Church at large?

Some Baptists may see it that way. I don't. My church is not SBC. A few years ago Doug Mixer brought up in conversation the Founders Movement and the SBC. I'll tell you what I told Doug. Instead of trying to reform the SBC, Founders churches should come out from among them. If Founders churches have a vision to partner together, come out from the SBC and work with all like-minded independent Baptist churches. This is what ARBCA and FIRE attempt to do. Come to think of it, wasn't that the impetus for the 1689 London Baptist Confession? Like-minded churches came together to pen a confession of beliefs. There was no ecclesiastical accountability involved between the framers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Chris started a thread that talked about Mark Dever's opinion re: the SBC, which might surprise some Southern Baptists who typically view the SBC as more than something like Wycliffe. Witness some of the excitement that it stirs when the thought that Al Mohler might be nominated as its President.

This is not about having a haughty spirit but sharing some observations, such as they are. It's in the Ecclesiology forum and I'm talking about Baptist Ecclesiology and the way that some Baptists and Independents that I know practice it.

 

[Herald]

Rich, I wasn't accusing YOU of a haughty spirit. That comment was directed at how Baptists and Presbyterians should view each other ecclesiastically.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think that the trend within the SBC has been to increasingly view it as a denomination (whatever that means.) I was reading a recent SBC publication called Building Bridges: Perspectives on Baptist Unity (not the Building Bridges book on Calvinism) and Thom Ranier, head of Lifeway referred to the SBC as a denomination. I really don't have a background in the SBC and am by no means an expert on SBC history, but I suspect that denominational identity was forged in the early and middle years of the 20th century with practically all of the churches using the same Sunday School lessons, the Baptist Hymnal and organizations like WMU, Brotherhood, GA's, RA's etc. (This uniformity no longer exists and Dever's comments can perhaps be read in that light.)

The church we have been attending has the following in their constitution under "Affiliation":

Scripture warrants the association and cooperation with other churches for the
purpose of advancing the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. While the local
church is autonomous, we choose to affiliate with the Southern Baptist
Convention, the Louisiana Baptist Convention and the local Baptist association
so that we might promote visible unity with other local churches and mutually
cooperate for the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This agrees in large part with what Dever said. But if I poll the members tomorrow, my guess is that most if not all of them will think that being in "cooperation" with the SBC is something more substantial than giving money to Wycliffe Bible Translators. (Our interim pastor is now an employee of the state convention as well.) I would like to see Dever clarify some of the remarks more fully. For example, he said CHBC gives money to the Conservative Baptists. But I don't believe they are affiliated with the Conservative Baptists the way they are with the Southern Baptist Convention, so how can it be the same thing? Would he run for some position within the Conservative Baptists or Wycliffe Bible Translators the way he did for 1st VP in the SBC a couple of years ago? The answer would seem obvious.

 

[Pilgrim]

I edited the OP and pasted the full comments from the Strange Baptist Fire site. Originally I had posted the excerpts from Said at Southern because I couldn't access the SBF site.

 

[Pilgrim]

Another interesting note is that, at Central Baptist in Okinawa, when we were looking at candidates who had a Reformed background, there were a number of people from outside the congregation actively interfering with the process. One of the members of the Church echoed a sentiment that I've heard repeatedly that "...this isn't the Southern Baptist way..." whether discussing elder rule, Church discipline, or even Reformed soteriology.

Rich,

It's true that you will often find this sentiment among Baptists. A Baptist evangelist I am acquainted with responded to a woman who complained "it's not Baptist" by saying that if there's something that's Baptist that's not Biblical then we need to get rid of it and that if there's something Biblical but not "Baptist" then we need to adopt it.

But this idea of "but this is the way we've always done it" or "this is what we've always believed" is by no means limited to Baptists. You will find it or some variation of it among Presbyterians as well, wanting to do things the way they've "always been done" and having little regard for what the confession or BCO says. I would imagine this is somewhat more common in some Presbyterian denominations than others.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Another interesting note is that, at Central Baptist in Okinawa, when we were looking at candidates who had a Reformed background, there were a number of people from outside the congregation actively interfering with the process. One of the members of the Church echoed a sentiment that I've heard repeatedly that "...this isn't the Southern Baptist way..." whether discussing elder rule, Church discipline, or even Reformed soteriology.

Rich,

It's true that you will often find this sentiment among Baptists. A Baptist evangelist I am acquainted with responded to a woman who complained "it's not Baptist" by saying that if there's something that's Baptist that's not Biblical then we need to get rid of it and that if there's something Biblical but not "Baptist" then we need to adopt it.

But this idea of "but this is the way we've always done it" or "this is what we've always believed" is by no means limited to Baptists. You will find it or some variation of it among Presbyterians as well, wanting to do things the way they've "always been done" and having little regard for what the confession or BCO says. I would imagine this is somewhat more common in some Presbyterian denominations than others.

No doubt it's the case that everybody identifies with a larger body. It's just completely inconsistent for an Independent to do so.

I must say that, during the Pastor search, it was actually a good thing that some of the local people couldn't meddle in the process even though they tried by poisoning the well with some members.

 

[Herald]

No doubt it's the case that everybody identifies with a larger body. It's just completely inconsistent for an Independent to do so.

Why? It would be inconsistent with an independent church if a larger body could exercise influence in doctrine or practice against the will of the local body. That local bodies of like-mind come together to further the work of the gospel and strengthen one another is in no way inconsistent. Would we call the 1689 LBC inconsistent with Baptist practice or theology? I suppose some would.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No doubt it's the case that everybody identifies with a larger body. It's just completely inconsistent for an Independent to do so.

Why? It would be inconsistent with an independent church if a larger body could exercise influence in doctrine or practice against the will of the local body. That local bodies of like-mind come together to further the work of the gospel and strengthen one another is in no way inconsistent. Would we call the 1689 LBC inconsistent with Baptist practice or theology? I suppose some would.

I meant in the manner that the context was speaking of. In other words, "We Southern Baptists..." or "...this is not the Southern Baptist way..." is not consistent with independent ecclesiology.

 

[Herald]

No doubt it's the case that everybody identifies with a larger body. It's just completely inconsistent for an Independent to do so.

Why? It would be inconsistent with an independent church if a larger body could exercise influence in doctrine or practice against the will of the local body. That local bodies of like-mind come together to further the work of the gospel and strengthen one another is in no way inconsistent. Would we call the 1689 LBC inconsistent with Baptist practice or theology? I suppose some would.

I meant in the manner that the context was speaking of. In other words, "We Southern Baptists..." or "...this is not the Southern Baptist way..." is not consistent with independent ecclesiology.

I can see that. But I can also see, say members of ARBCA, all agreeing on a number of doctrinal points, then saying, "We ARBCA churches agree on...." It's not that ARBCA has superseded the the local church; it's that the commonality of doctrine or practice creates a common bond or identity.

 

[Pilgrim]

Why? It would be inconsistent with an independent church if a larger body could exercise influence in doctrine or practice against the will of the local body. That local bodies of like-mind come together to further the work of the gospel and strengthen one another is in no way inconsistent. Would we call the 1689 LBC inconsistent with Baptist practice or theology? I suppose some would.

I meant in the manner that the context was speaking of. In other words, "We Southern Baptists..." or "...this is not the Southern Baptist way..." is not consistent with independent ecclesiology.

I can see that. But I can also see, say members of ARBCA, all agreeing on a number of doctrinal points, then saying, "We ARBCA churches agree on...." It's not that ARBCA has superseded the the local church; it's that the commonality of doctrine or practice creates a common bond or identity.

I too can understand why this would be confusing. When I was previously part of a Baptist church, it was truly independent and only "cooperated" with other like minded churches in hosting a Bible conference three times per year. Although I've been fairly well acquainted with how things are done in the SBC, I've never been a member of a Southern Baptist church and question whether or not I would prefer a church that is independent, all things being equal. Sometimes I think I would prefer independency and wonder whether all of the bureaucracy on the various levels is the best way to do things (much less the Biblical way.) Judging from what I quoted in the OP, Dever would probably say that I just spend too much time reading about denominational politics.

My understanding is that one reason why many Southern Baptists opposed the creation of the Sunday School Board (now called Lifeway) about 100 years ago is because they feared the kind of programmatic uniformity that resulted. In other words, they were concerned with a top down influence on the churches.

I agree with Bill in that I see no problem with ARBCA, the SBC or any other Baptist or Independent association or convention of churches cooperating together and saying "We proclaim..." or "We believe...." As to Rich's second point about people who will say "it's not Baptist," the problem with it is usually the person can provide no basis as to why they disagree with something other than "that's not how mama and daddy did it" and that we've "always done it this way," which is nothing more than the kind of traditionalism that they decry in Roman Catholicism and other groups. I'm sure it's not too hard to find people who will charge Presbyterians with baptizing babies because of tradition but will be blind to unbiblical traditions and beliefs within their own churches.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones (who was no Presbyterian) said that when the foundations are sure, Presbyterianism is probably the best form of church government. But what happens, as in ML-J's day, when the foundations are anything but sure? What happens when instead of hidebound church members it's the Presbytery or the GA that says "that's the way we've always done it" or seeks to enforce some unbiblical practice or ruling?

 

[thesoveriegnist]

I have recently left an SBC church here in Northwest GA and left an SBC seminary for RTS here in Atlanta. What I have seen within the SBC is not very pleasing. For the most part SBC churches are Arminian in their theology and they are very pragmatic. I think these two things go hand in hand. As far as the SBC government the best way I could compare it to PCA is the local association (Noonday in my area) would be equal to the local Presbytery. Although the Presbytery is way more concered with "contending for the faith" and "guarding the flock". I think the ARBCA is a great movement or organization, whatever you want to call it is a good thing. I know Steven Lawson and his church is a member and I also know Mr. Lawson associates closely with R.C. Sproul.
This is my .02 worth.