Posted: 1/09/04
EDITORIAL:
SBC departure from BWA follows familiar pattern
If the Southern Baptist Convention's intention to withdraw fellowship from the Baptist World Alliance feels familiar, it should.
This is exactly how SBC leaders previously behaved toward other groups that (a) included representation from other Baptist conventions and (b) they couldn't control.
Just before Christmas, the SBC released a two-month-old recommendation from a special committee created to study the SBC's relationship with the 211-convention Baptist World Alliance. The recommendation calls for the SBC to withdraw its membership and financial support from the BWA effective next October.
The SBC committee's report accuses the BWA of following a “leftward drift” and “advocating aberrant and dangerous theologies.” Like a page from the fundamentalists' playbook for taking over the SBC in the 1980s and '90s, the report smears the BWA, claiming members don't believe the Bible and don't think Jesus provides the only way for salvation.
To learn how you and your church can provide financial support for the Baptist World Alliance, contact Global Impact Department, Baptist World Alliance, 405 N. Washington St., Falls Church, Va. 22046; globalimpact@bwanet.org; (703) 790-8980, ext. 129. |
The BWA's executive director blasted the report. “The BWA rejects categorically this false accusation of liberalism,” Denton Lotz said. “The main orthodox beliefs are crucial–the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Second Coming–that's who we are as Baptists.”
A German Baptist–whom the report claims denied Jesus issued the Great Commission–called the SBC committee members liars. “What is being presented as a direct quote is neither my language, nor could I identify with such a statement, which I would dismiss as theological trash,” Erich Geldbach said, providing a transcript of the speech the committee purportedly cited. The committee “is therefore guilty of trespassing at least two commandments: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor' and 'Lie not one to another.'”
Defenses by Lotz, Geldbach and others aren't likely to count for much in the new SBC. It's been down this road before.
In the early '90s, the SBC withdrew from the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, which at the time represented nine U.S. Baptist conventions in Washington, D.C. For years leading up to their split, SBC leaders maligned the Joint Committee, always playing the trump card in the Baptist deck–“liberalism.” Ironically, the Baptist Joint Committee is one of the most truly “conservative” Baptist organizations, rigorously defending the principle of religious liberty that faithful Baptists have championed for 400 years. But since the SBC's representatives on the Joint Committee couldn't control the other conventions' representatives, they took their money and ran.
In 2002, the SBC's North American Mission Board severed its relationship with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention. Unlike other state conventions that relate to the SBC, the D.C. convention is aligned with two other U.S. Baptist conventions. From its foundation, it has been affiliated with the American Baptist Churches, and it also is related to the Progressive National Baptist Convention, one of the historically African-American conventions. The SBC called the D.C. convention names, most notably liberal and pluralistic, when in fact it has done a remarkable job of crossing cultural barriers to present the gospel of Jesus Christ in one of the world's most secular, cosmopolitan and culturally diverse cities. But since the SBC couldn't put a staff enforcer in place to run the D.C. convention, it took its money and ran.
So, no one should be surprised that the SBC again is pulling up stakes, grabbing its gold and heading out. The real tipping point was the fact the BWA last summer had the nerve to admit the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which the SBC leaders hate. Most of the 210 other conventions in the BWA are small and poor, but they're real Baptists, and they have refused to be bullied by the SBC brass or bought by their money.
As political strategy, the SBC's smear tactics have been effective for several reasons. First, most Southern Baptists are unfamiliar with Baptists from other conventions and countries, and human nature fears what it does not know. Second, Southern Baptists are instinctively conservative, so the possibility of consorting with “liberals” (even if it's a malicious lie) appalls and frightens them. Third, Southern Baptists have few resources for refuting their leaders' charges, so the charges stick.
Make no mistake, the new SBC is a convention dominated by fundamentalist leaders, and fundamentalists must control. What they cannot control, they abandon. And undermine. You can expect the SBC will use the money it has provided to the BWA ($300,000 this year; $425,000 before) to start another “international” Baptist organization. Perhaps that money can buy the allegiance of fundamentalist groups who will take the SBC's bullying in return for its bankroll.
The saddest aspect of this sordid affair is not how badly the BWA will suffer when the SBC inevitably pulls its allocation to the budget. The BWA will suffer, all right, but Baptists of goodwill will respond and close that gap, if not eventually make up the entire difference.
No, the saddest aspect is the SBC's loss. With all the SBC's wealth and power, its leaders don't know it, but they need the BWA more than the BWA needs them. Baptists from other countries have much to teach U.S. Baptists about faithfulness forged in persecution, joy born in rejection, humility bred in degradation, wisdom grounded in suffering, generosity of spirit springing from poverty, theology taught by trial.
Missions strategists and church historians already document a trend that, according to growth patterns, the center of Christianity is relocating to the Third World, to the Southern Hemisphere. Blinded by their own arrogance and impressed by their wealth, the SBC leaders are cutting their convention off from Baptists' link to the future of Christendom. But what do they care? If they can't control it, they don't want to be a part of it.
–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at marvknox@baptiststandard.com