The Schism in the Southern Baptist Convention

NOTE: The following commentary ONLY pertains to the status of the Southern Baptist Convention as a RELIGIOUS BODY, in comparison to other religious bodies. This issue may have little, if anything, to do with Southern Baptist theology. An understanding of current trends in Southern Baptist factionalism does not provide a meaningful understanding of Southern Baptist life and religion. Researchers interested in these subject may wish to study material provided by moderate and conservative Southern Baptist organizations. [Assorted SBC links.]

This article originally appeared on the "Largest Religious Bodies" page, with the intent to discuss the degree to which the Southern Baptist Convention remains a single religious body, although it is divided between moderate and fundamentalist factions.

This article has been moved here to a separate page both because of its length and also because the importance of this schism seems to have diminished since the late 1990s. In effect, the massive split in the Southern Baptist Convention that some people predicted would occur was abated by smaller-scale defections by a number of individual state conventions and congregations. In 1998, the largest state constituent convention of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist General Convention of Texas voted to disassociate itself from the SBC. In June 2004 the Southern Baptist Convention voted to remove itself from the Baptist World Alliance, which it felt had become too liberal. The SBC had been the largest Baptist denomination within the worldwide alliance of Baptists. These organizational realignments helped diminish the pressures within the SBC that had long festered as a result of disagreement between its moderate and more conservative factions.

Also, many congregations that have remained within the Southern Baptist Convention have simply opted to use the high degree of autonomy within the organization to de-emphasize SBC ties while strengthening association with Baptist and Evangelical organizations that better suit their particular preferences. Many congregations no longer identify themselves as "Southern Baptist" or even "Baptist," yet remain under the umbrella of the SBC.

Many observers believe that the fundamentalist/conservative wing's "takeover" of the Southern Baptist Convention has essentially already happened.
As its name implies, the Southern Baptist Convention is more of a religious convention than a religious body in the traditional sense. It promotes congregational polity in matters of practice and belief to a higher degree than most of the organizations on this list. The SBC is currently the second-largest Christian denomination in the United States, and perhaps the sixth largest in the world, but it does not represent a united community. Convention leaders have been fairly candid in explaining that the SBC has long been split between moderate and conservative factions, with irreconcilable doctrinal differences between the two factions over issues such as Biblical inerrancy and literalism, the ordination of women, acceptance of modern science, whether or not a saved Christian can reject grace, etc. Some SBC writers and leaders have said that despite the doctrinal schism, one reason the convention remains formally united as one organization is so that they won't be numerically smaller than competing religious bodies.

Scores of congregations and individual members have officially left the SBC (in fact, its membership has actually decreased recently), but many of their reasons for leaving are completely unrelated to issues dividing the moderate and conservative parties. In fact, such defections are probably not caused directly by the schism. The action that moderate congregations have more frequently taken in response to conservative control of the convention is to form alternative state conventions, such as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Baptist Alliance. Other churches have not left the SBC voluntarily, but have been expelled by their state conventions for reasons having to do with the controversy over homosexuality. Despite the ongoing internal schism, analysts believe a complete formal break between the moderates and conservatives into separate religious bodies is unlikely in the near future, although it will happen eventually. (See also: Shimron, "Dissension part of being a Baptist", News-Observer; URL: http://www.news-observer.com/daily/1998/07/24/faith01.html.)

According to Cliff Tharp, coordinator for constituent information for the Southern Baptist Convention, about 5 million of the SBC's "members" are "non-resident." Some of these are people who joined a local Southern Baptist church, moved away, but never had their membership records transferred and now nobody knows where they are. Keith Eitel (Professor of Christian Missions, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) points out that non-resident members also include college students that have moved away from home to attend University but desire to remain members at their home church and only come under the "watchcare" of a host church in or near the University they're attending. Also, missionaries serving with the SBC's IMB have resident membership at a local congregation in the U.S. while serving far from home.

Paul R. House, editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, wrote (in "Baptism, Assurance, and the Decline of Conservative Churches"; URL: http://www.sbts.edu/news/sbjt/spring98/Spr98edit.htm):

http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:XmbQ4YSRPdMJ:www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_SBC_schism.html+reasons+for+leaving+baptist+church&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=cz

 

Inerrance has been a tool used very effectively by the devil to split Christians apart. It is an article of faith to believe in inerrance and no where is the word mentioned in the Bible and nowhere is it said to be necessary for salvation. It is a man made doctrine of the late 19th century and no where, nowhere, nowhere does it appear in scripture as it is described by fundamentalists.

Were the first manuscripts totally without error, that is did the copiest make no mistakes? No one really knows. We do not have them and never will. God does not make mistakes, but people do. So, it is a man made article of faith well used and twisted by the evil one to his purpose.

Now Rev before you go ballistic note I did not say that I do not believe in inerrancy. I said it is an article of faith and is no where to be found in scripture. There is nothing fundamental in damning others because they did not agree with you on ever jot and tiddle. That is a very liberal misuse of God, scripture and makes a mockery of the way Christ lived.

 

You are wrong again in your understanding. But you touch on the more important question. I have never said that his word is unreliable. I said that inerrancy is an article of faith.

No one has a copy of the original manuscripts.
No one ever will have an original manuscript.

So it is an article of faith to say there was or that there was no mistake or error in any of them.

The doctrine of inerrancy cannot be made from scripture. It simply isn't there. Now you condemn liberals for what they do not believe. But it is just as wrong and perhaps more evil to build a doctrine and use it as a test of whether a person is a Christian or not that is not Biblical. In that regard you are just as liberal as any liberal, just in a different way.

Brother Randall posted the scripture that says:

I was sure someone would and I believe that scripture is true. However, note that is says that it is given by inspiration of God. It does not say that it was written down with no mistake nor does it say that it was written down with a mistake. So we are back to accepting inerrancy as an article of faith, not a proven doctrine.

Now to the more important issue you touched on ... and that issue is do the translations we have now contain enough of the truth about God that they are reliable for use in study and worshiping him? I believe they are and I use them for that.

To insist they are inerrant is to show a lack of faith in God's ability to make himself know to us and to all who have lived and ever will live. My stance is that God is never at a loss in any situation and is always able to use any situation to make himself know, and to bring people to him.

I expect you do not consider JW's Christian. But God can use a JW or any to bring people to himself.

A woman here in Prague told me the following story from her own life. She had become a Christian, but her mother had not. A JW came to their house and her mother agreed to begin a Bible study with her. They met for a month or so and one day the JW asked the woman, "What about your daughter."

Her mother replied, "Oh, she goes to the little church down the street." Her mother did not even know the name of the church.

"If I were you," the JW lady said, "I would want to know what they are teaching my daughter. I would go and find out."

The mother thought this a good idea and began attending and became a Christian committing her life to Christ. It was a Plymouth Brethren church.

Here is an example of God showing himself in an unusual way.

Do not attempt to force the Bible to say what it does not say. Let the Bible preach to you, not you to the Bible.

I have no problem with people to stick to the fundamentals. But I have problems and will not remain silent when I see people creating doctrine that is not in the Bible and then insisting that anyone who does not believe as they do are condemned and not Christian. That is far too liberal for me to accept.

 

And who took this position. Not I. But it is a valid question and I believe God has protected his word such that it is reliable for us to use and to worship him with.

No, it does not deny that at all. It merely asks the question. Each has to answer to his/her best ability. It is you who are taking a liberal position in attempting to make the Bible say what you want it to say and not accept it for what is really says.

And that is exactly what you are doing, diminishing the reliability of the Bible by preaching hate of other Christians who do not agree with you and in attempting to use non-Biblical doctrine as a test of whether a person is a Christian or not. So, start accepting what the Bible really say.

This is one of the reasons many Baptist churches are loosing members and why the word Baptist is held in contempt by so many people. They see the hatred preached and do not hear or see the love of God being preached or lived out in the lives of people who preach hatred!

 

And this answer shows one of the big problems that fundamentalist have created, they do not even agree with each other what the concept of inerrancy means. The most widely accepted short definition I have found is about the original manuscripts. The other extreme are those who say that all translations are without error. Now here we had a 3rd element being argued and that is that scripture is reliable. But that, from what I have read, is a totally different subject and has nothing to do with inerrancy.

The answer shows also that the author of the statement above does not seem to really understand the concept as defined by others. See the definitions below.

And yet, here is a person who is using it as a litmus test for judging all other Christians and this description does not even agree with most other definitions of inerrancy.

You would think that those who place such importance on this doctrine, which isn't Biblical, would at least come up with an agreed upon definition.

I guess it means whatever a holder of the belief wants it to mean at the moment in an given discusstion.

And, that is an extremely liberal position to take.

There are many other web sites where the concept is defined and if you check them you will find there are many ideas of what this nono-Biblical concept means. It is sad that such a concept where there is no general agreement of what it means is used to cause such damange to Christianity.

 

But is your interpretation of scripture infallable and without error? Which translation are you talking about? There seems to be much confusion amont fundamentalist about what inerrancy means. I have found many "definitions" and they certainly do not agree with each other. Also as no one has nor will ever have an original manuscript and even if we had one who would know if the translation was totally correct, then it is an article of faith that the originals were without any error. I am not saying I believe they had error, but am simply trying to show this is an article of faith and those who do not believe as I, or you, or anyone else, but are steadfast followers of Christ are also Christian.

You are saying any scripture you hold in your hand? So any translation is without error if you have it in your hand when you preach?