Editor’s Note: I have had many friends who have wondered about the recent Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Nashville this past week. Nate Brooks who is part of the SBC but works as the Assistant Professor of Christian Counseling at RTS Charlotte wrote this recent post explaining what he saw and experienced. He explains everything for the Presbyterians that he ministers alongside of. His explanation is thorough enough that I thought it would be good for others who were not there and do not understand everything related to the SBC. Many of my non-SBC friends have seen the headlines and wonder about many of the questions that he answers; from that perspective, I think this is helpful. The following article is his interpretation and opinion of what he experienced, thought, and observed while there. As always with guest authors, his opinions are his own.
Interpreting the SBC Annual Meeting for the Presbyterian Mind
The SBC annual meeting is in the news and on social media. I know a lot of my friends here are Presbyterian, and we Baptists are often something of a mystery. I thought it might be helpful to sketch out answers to common questions or charges I’ve been seeing in the media and on social media.
All of these are my own interpretations of what took place, but realize they are from someone who is a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, affirms about 99% of the Westminster Confession, and was actually in the room when it happened (the SBC meeting that is, not the writing of the confession).
Here are some questions that might be helpful to have answered. If you have other questions, I’m happy to dialogue in the comments.
- Has the SBC gone liberal?
In a word, no. The SBC’s doctrinal statement is orthodox and remained unchanged. All four of our presidential candidates believed in Scriptural inerrancy, in biblical miracles, in penal substitutionary atonement, etc. Had J. Gresham Machen been allowed to investigate them, all of them would have fallen squarely into the “Christianity” category, not the “Liberalism” category. Those who are charging the SBC with becoming liberal usually mean that the SBC did not specifically condemn CRT at this meeting – see below.
- Has the SBC embraced Critical Theory?
In a word, no. At this convention, we voted on a resolution that says, “Resolved, we reject any theory or worldview that finds the ultimate identity of human beings in ethnicity or in any other group dynamic; and be it further resolved that we reject any theory or worldview that sees the primary problem of humanity as anything other than sin against God and the ultimate solution as anything other than redemption found only in Christ; and be it further resolved, we therefore reject any theory or worldview that denes that racism, oppression, or discrimination is rooted, ultimately, in anything other than sin.”
These words are a repudiation of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. Anyone who says otherwise has not read CRT/I literature. I know this because I have. My downtime book during the convention was actually My Grandmother’s Hands, a CRT/I trauma book endorsed by Robin DiAngelo. Our resolution is incompatible with the worldview of CRT/I.
- Did the SBC refuse to adopt an amendment that explicitly denounced CRT/I? Was there a proposed resolution that explicitly denounced CRT/I that was endorsed by 1300 SBC members that didn’t make it out of the resolutions committee?
In a word, yes to both. Of the 1300 signatures, over 60% came from just five churches (out of 45,000 SBC churches). When you looked through the program, the locations of the signers were noted and they were overwhelmingly isolated to one small geographic area.
As for the amendment, we overwhelmingly elected to not denounce CRT/I by name because of the level of rancor that has been attached to the debate. Many individuals have been falsely accused of holding to a CRT/I framework, though they have clearly denied so. Explicitly condemning CRT/I could have been seen as a denunciation of them. And so, an explicit denunciation of CRT/I would have been improper because there isn’t agreement on what actually constitutes CRT/I. The above resolution allowed for us to move past disputed language to core doctrinal beliefs we agree on, rather than descending into parsing out what was meant by CRT/I.
- Has the SBC embraced feminism?
In a word, no. Now here is where the Presbyterian mind may struggle just a bit. The SBC is a big-tent denomination. Our doctrinal standards are complementarian in that they restrict the office of pastor/elder to men. Some SBC churches (a minority) permit women to preach from a pulpit, as we do not tie preaching to ordination or licensure. These women preach “under the authority” of the elders. This is not a position I agree with, but it is within the confines of our doctrinal statement.
As a denomination, we have agreed to cooperate within these ground rules. This is certainly broader than the OPC, ARP, PCA, etc. But it is narrower than the EPC and ACNA. If a woman preaching at a church within the SBC is proof that the denomination capitulated to liberal feminism, then the EPC and ACNA are in far deeper trouble.
- Has the SBC elected a heretic as its president?
Shortly after Ed Litton was elected president of the SBC, a screenshot appeared of the doctrinal statement on his churches website. The section on Trinitarianism declared that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were “parts of one God.” And all the reformed folks say, “That’s partialism, Paatriick!” And it is.
So here’s where you can operate with a hermeneutic of suspicion, or a hermeneutic of humility. This language is terribly sloppy. But Al Mohler (who lost the presidential election to Litton), was very quick to vouch for Litton’s orthodoxy and the church’s website was updated within about an hour. We have to remember that, while Baptists were originally a confessional people, the dominant approach over the last 100 years has been “no creed but the Bible.” While that sounds like a great slogan, I think this is a failing that often gets us into trouble. One trouble with not being confessional is that sloppy wording can creep in because we often don’t derive our statements from the clearest expression of orthodox doctrine. Ed Litton affirms orthodox trinitarian doctrine and is vouched for by some of our most careful theologians. We can choose to indulge in a hermeneutic of suspicion (which is driven usually by other factors) or a hermeneutic of humility that listens to explanations, retractions, and edits, and then accepts them.
- What was it like being at the meeting?
In a word, cordial. What you see online is often not reflective of real life. I had sweet fellowship with brothers and sisters across the spectrum of the SBC. I was more conservative than some, and others are more conservative than me. While we disagreed on elections, resolutions, etc. we rejoiced to be together. The things we hold in common are far greater than the things we disagree upon. Please don’t listen to a vocal, factious minority.
- Did a large section of the SBC messengers present really vote against a resolution seeking to abolish abortion and the ERLC oppose the resolution?
In a word, yes. Every messenger who spoke against the resolution was crystal-clear in their opposition to abortion. The issue was that this particular resolution rejected any measure short of absolute abolition. In other words, this resolution rejected efforts to pursue fetal heartbeat bills, bans on partial-birth abortion, etc. It rejected the methodology used by Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect to end the slave trade.
The resolution was amended to state that we should not pursue “only” incremental efforts. This amendment was rejected by the resolution’s author, but approximately 95% of the messengers overruled his rejection and added it to the resolution. In many ways, this blunted the abolitionist sentiment in the resolution. There were additional problems with the resolution (including questionable wording regarding charging mothers who sought abortion in the past being charged with murder), leading many (including myself) to vote against the resolution. In no way was there a groundswell of pro-choice sentiment at the SBC. Any voice who says so is either being dishonest or is uninformed.
Thus concludes my “Interpreting the SBC for the Presbyterian Mind” adventures. If you’ve stuck with it this far, well, either congratulations or you need to get a hobby!
Oh, and one last thing.
- Did a messenger really raise a motion in front of 15,000 people to add a fellowship meal to the Executive Committee calendar?
In a word, yes. Baptists gonna Baptist.
Nate Brooks (Ph.D.) serves as the Assistant Professor of Christian Counseling at the Charlotte campus of Reformed Theological Seminary. Nate, his wife Kate, and their children live on their mini-farm in Rock Hill, South Carolina, raise meat rabbits, and are members of Lake Wylie Baptist Church.
KevinCarson.com | Wisdom for Life in Christ Together