You’ve seen reports about the steep decline in church attendance among younger generations—Millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha. You’ve witnessed with your own eyes the graying of worship services and the shrinking of Sunday school.

You’ve felt the ache of fewer children in the church.

And then there’s Vacation Bible School, that wonderful week that almost makes us forget we’re seeing fewer children in church. What if we could experience more VBS during more of the year?

VBS—happening in many churches right now—might benefit our children’s ministry more than we think. If we take a cue from its history.

VBS is popular

VBS has an obvious and immediate short-term benefit for our children’s ministries—high attendance.

First Baptist Church in Amarillo reported 1,753 children and adults for its first day of VBS. First Baptist Church in Waxahachie reported several hundred children and a waiting list. First Baptist Church in Muleshoe had 200 children. First Baptist Church in Plano had more than 300 children and volunteers.

That’s just four of thousands of Baptist churches—not to mention Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran and others—conducting VBS this month in Texas.

VBS is so popular, some churches are even charging for it. For example, Cornerstone Global Methodist Church in Houston is charging $25 per child for its June 19-22 VBS. Each child receives a t-shirt, drawstring bag, snacks and supplies.

Despite its marketability, VBS has humble roots.

VBS roots

VBS started as the idea of Virginia Hawes, “a compassionate doctor’s wife who sensed a need to get children off the streets of New York during the summertime.”

Children had few places to go and little supervision during summers in New York City. Hawes’ husband treated many of them for injuries sustained while playing in the streets. To provide a safer alternative, Hawes rented a beer hall on New York City’s East Side in 1898 and 1899, where she conducted Everyday Bible School.

In 1900, her pastor insisted she move Everyday Bible School to Epiphany Baptist Church, just a mile from the beer hall.

“After two weeks of meeting at the church, it became clear to Mrs. Hawes that children from the East Side would not attend at the church. She returned the school to a location near the beer hall for the rest of the summer.”

I didn’t know about Virginia Hawes or VBS’ history, until Abby Manes, preschool and children’s minister at First Baptist Church in Muleshoe, brought Hawes to my attention with her opinion article we will publish later this week. I am grateful.

When VBS started, it was every day for an entire summer. And it started in a beer hall.

What if our VBS returned to those roots? Or our entire children’s ministry?

Some things change

One thing that has changed significantly is VBS’s duration. Over time, VBS shrank—for practical reasons—“from the entire summer, to four weeks, to two weeks, and now one week.” VBS in some churches is a couple of days or a weekend.

Something else that’s probably changed: I’m pretty sure VBS is sillier than it was in 1900.

VBS started as an interdenominational effort. Though denominations began developing their own curriculum during the 1920s, VBS still holds interdenominational appeal and in some places still is shared across denominations.

Another thing that hasn’t changed: VBS is still about engaging children with the Bible to teach them about Jesus and how to follow him.

But what if the location hadn’t changed? As good as VBS has been all these years, what if the last 100 years of VBS have been more like the two weeks at Epiphany Baptist Church than the months in and near the beer hall?

What if, instead of holding VBS in our buildings a few days out of the year, we took VBS back to where the kids are the rest of the time and offered it as often as we had people to lead it? One place is doing just that—Mission Arlington.

VBS where the kids are

During spring break and throughout each summer, thousands of volunteers from around the United States help Mission Arlington conduct Rainbow Express Bible schools in almost 300 locations between Dallas and Fort Worth.

I’ve been one of those volunteers. I’ve helped Mission Arlington conduct Rainbow Express at several locations in Arlington, Fort Worth and Grand Prairie. Many of those locations were tough places. They didn’t look or feel like the church where I was a pastor. Some of them were closer to “beer hall” than “Epiphany Baptist Church.” Jesus was in each one of them.

What if not just our VBS but our entire children’s ministry followed this model—taking Bible school to the kids where they are instead of expecting their parents or guardians to get them to us?

Something else about Rainbow Express: No bells and whistles.

Could simply being with kids where they are, caring for them as they are, telling them about Jesus simply and straightforwardly without all the fanfare—could that be enough? Mission Arlington’s track record says it can.

In 2023, Mission Arlington counted 17,846 students attending Rainbow Express and 326 people accepting Christ. More than 150 people have made decisions for Christ during Rainbow Express in just the last two weeks, Tillie Burgin, executive director of Mission Arlington, told me this morning.

Returning to our roots

VBS is wonderful. I’m all for it. I also know if we tried to pull off VBS with all the bells and whistles all summer long, we’d wear out our staff and volunteers, we’d increase our cost and liability, and it wouldn’t be as special.

So, what if we brought it down a notch—or two or three—so we could make VBS portable? What if we took our children’s (and youth) ministry to kids where they are instead of expecting them always to come to us? What if we went back to our roots—our New Testament and Gospel roots?

It would involve the whole church and would require a significant ongoing investment. It also would grow the whole church—numerically and spiritually.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I became a Southern Baptist by accident—providence, really—but I remain a Southern Baptist by choice and conviction.

Not only am I in doctrinal alignment with the SBC, but I am convinced the Cooperative Program is the absolute best option for like-minded local churches to leverage our resources to reach the world for Jesus.

After this year’s annual meeting, my commitment to the SBC is as strong as ever.

As committed as ever

First, I love the fellowship. I can see and enjoy old friends and new.

If all you know about the SBC comes from social media, you might think we are tearing each other apart and our meetings border on a brawl. But social media is not real life. While we have some malcontents in our midst, even in our disagreements, we mostly are agreeable in spirit.

Second, the fruit of our cooperation was on full display. We participated in the commissioning of 83 new international missionaries and heard inspiring reports from our North American Mission Board about record numbers of church plants and baptisms.

We heard from our six seminary presidents and were encouraged greatly that they are all doing well and growing. We heard how Cooperative Program giving is up, as are contributions to the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong mission offerings. From platform reports to exhibit hall displays, I was reminded once again of why I am Southern Baptist.

Third, as you probably know, the annual meeting is a very long business meeting with some amazing worship and a couple of sermons built into the agenda. We conduct a lot of business during those two days. Some of it is mundane, but some of it makes headlines and can inflame emotion. I’ll give my take on a few of the weightier matters.

Weighty business

For one thing, as has happened for the last couple of years, a motion was made to defund the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The motion, as in years past, was defeated soundly. A motion to have the president of the ERLC fired was ruled “out of order.”

Two somewhat contentious debates surrounded proposed resolutions. Resolutions are nonbinding statements issued at each annual meeting to address various issues of interest to Southern Baptists.

The first debate had to do with the resolution “On Defending Religious Liberty.” In case you are unaware, religious liberty is one of the defining marks of Baptists. We long have advocated for religious freedom for all. That’s why I was surprised at the impassioned debate about this one.

Some people actually opposed the resolution, arguing Christianity should be the official—or at least favored—religion by our government. Thankfully, the resolution passed overwhelmingly.

Another emotional discussion concerned the resolution “On the Ethical Realities of Reproductive Technologies and the Dignity of the Human Embryo.” You might have seen headlines declaring Southern Baptists now oppose IVF. That is inaccurate.

The resolution, which passed by a large margin, simply raises the concern of creating embryos that later will be destroyed. The resolution was in keeping with Southern Baptists’ long-time advocacy for all human life, beginning at conception.

Women in pastoral roles

Finally, the hottest topic leading up to the meeting, and the tensest debates on the floor, concerned the issue of women in pastoral roles and a vote on a proposed amendment to the SBC constitution. Much misinformation has been disseminated about this, and even many people in attendance walked away with differing perspectives. I’ll give mine.

Before I do, however, I’ll put my cards on the table. I am a complementarian in full agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which states, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

There is, however, a full range of complementarianism, and I probably am somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Many women serve on staff and hold leadership positions in our church. However, I believe the Bible teaches the office of pastor is limited to qualified men.

I know many disagree with me on this, and I respect their position. Some of them are good friends. I do not believe they are heretics or that they have rejected the authority of Scripture. I simply see them as having a different interpretation.

Frankly my greater concern is that of unqualified men serving as pastors in our convention. My observation after 31 years as a pastor and 6 years as a seminary professor is we are too quick to ordain as pastors those who simply “feel called” to the task. I believe our standards are too low.

Big-tent Baptist

But back to convention business. To amend the constitution requires a two-thirds-majority vote two years in a row. This year was the second vote on what has become known as the “Law Amendment” first proposed by a messenger named Mike Law.

It failed to pass, having received only 61 percent in favor. The proposal would have codified in our legal documents that churches who employ a female pastor of any kind would be deemed as “not in friendly cooperation” with the SBC. I voted against the amendment. I’m glad it failed.

But if I’m a complementarian, why wouldn’t I want it to pass? For one thing, I don’t think it’s wise or necessary to put such language into our governing documents, especially when our doctrinal statement is sufficient.

But I’m also a big-tent Baptist. While I will not ordain a woman to be a pastor, I don’t think we need to cut ties with every church that has a female children’s or women’s pastor. Of course, our tent does have boundaries, and we always will disagree as to how tightly to bring in our stakes.

Over all, I left the annual meeting encouraged and inspired. I understand not everyone feels like I do. But we are Baptists. Some of the votes went my way; some did not. That’s the way it goes. We have a system, and the system works. I look forward to our future, as I believe it is bright.

Mike Miller is the senior pastor of Central Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Texas. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I write today to express support and gratitude for the congregation and leaders of First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., considering their recent public dismissal from the Southern Baptist Convention.

First Baptist Alexandria has been a beacon of gospel ministry and a faithful congregation in the evangelical, global orthodox family for decades.

In the complex ministry environment of our nation’s capital, they also have not capitulated to the winds of progressive ideology as have many other “tall-steeple” churches, nor have they bowed the knee to country over kingdom in an effort to lift up party over the person of Jesus Christ.

They have served the kingdom faithfully both locally and globally and have been a catalyst for gospel expansion.

Gratitude for First Baptist Alexandria

I and the ministries I serve have benefited from their generosity of spirit. I can attest that thousands of people in North America have found new life in the gospel and a renewed engagement in the church family because of First Baptist Alexandria.

When the Lord opened the door to launch the Fresh Expressions movement in the United States nearly 15 years ago, First Baptist Alexandria was by our side. From 2012 to 2016, they hosted what would be foundational gatherings for our movement and set the course for gospel work that eventually would spill over into nearly 100 regional or national denominational families in North America.

They gave of their time, talents and treasures to seed that work, have done the same for others and will continue to do so in the days ahead.

I remember quite distinctly when the leadership of more than 30 denominational bodies gathered in 2016 to lay hands of blessing upon an evangelical charismatic Anglican, Bishop Graham Cray, who had been pivotal in working with us to develop Fresh Expressions work in America.

Afterward, someone remarked to me, “That kind of thing doesn’t happen in a typical Baptist church.”

Indeed, that is true of most. We owe a debt of gratitude to First Baptist Alexandria.

A vast fellowship

It is not surprising SBC messengers would oust First Baptist Alexandria, as doing so is consistent with the doctrinal stances and theological culture evident in the SBC.

After all, they made the same motion last year toward Rick Warren and Saddleback Church—other stalwarts of the global evangelical movement—for having a female teaching pastor who preaches roughly 25 percent of the time.

Now apart from the SBC, First Baptist Alexandria and churches like them need to know they are not alone.

In associations like the Ascent Movement, of which I am part, and other evangelical fellowships around the globe, there are thousands upon thousands of leaders and churches that support women in the life of church leadership in pastoral roles.

In fact, the Capetown Commitment of the Lausanne Movement, widely recognized as the global evangelical family of faith, makes room for such in their Confession of Faith and Call to Action.

In many parts of the globe, it is the movements that embrace the gifts and calling of women where the gospel is growing in power. FBC may have lost the SBC, but the truth is, they may be gaining much more.

My expectation is, in time, First Baptist Alexandria will experience growth in gospel vitality and power as a result of these circumstances.

A biblical witness

As was made clear in the public written response to the SBC, as well as Pastor Robert Stephens’ remarks during his opportunity to address the messengers in Indianapolis, the posture of First Baptist Alexandria is based on sound scriptural reasoning provided within the written witness of the Bible.

Throughout the world, the Holy Spirit clearly is blessing such approaches, and there is no “grievance” of the Spirit in taking such stands.

As I stated in reference to a person’s written response and Pastor Stephens’ remarks, “If you are going to go out, at least go out with good exegesis.”

In fact, it’s the same conservative interpretive method any of us who attended evangelical Bible colleges or seminaries were taught.

A few weeks ago, in response to Al Mohler’s continued perspective that the lifting up of women in ministry is a slippery slope into other progressive postures, Andy Miller III of Wesley Biblical Seminary—which holds to inerrancy—offered the perspective that if you consider the dialogue of Scripture instead of just the monologue of Scripture, you can see why solid evangelicals exegetically arrive at the support of women in ministry.

Or, as Julio Guarneri noted in a recent written update to the Baptist General Convention of Texas: “We do not believe the topic of women in ministry is a matter of scriptural authority. We believe it is an issue of scriptural interpretation.”

Women in ministry is not an issue such as current debates on human sexuality, where one clearly must import evidence into the text of Scripture. Scripture contains support for women leading in ministry, even if it does not contain such support in every circumstance.

This also is not a matter we should lay at the feet of the “autonomy of the local church.” Autonomy itself is a slippery slope and is a weak tie in binding a people together. After all, how compelling is a vision to “join one another” in “doing what you want?”

An opportune time

Applying nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory to the ouster of First Baptist Alexandria, as much as the SBC may wish for these exits to serve as a warning, they likely are to do the opposite.

Already, I am aware of more churches who will be more emboldened in their affirmation of women leaders.

I also suspect even some soft complementarians now will determine we are not in an age when we can afford to separate from fellow evangelicals over an issue many solid, Scripture-affirming leaders, theologians, missionaries and others around the evangelical world support.

For those of us coming from an SBC heritage of some kind, we are in an opportune moment of sorts. Saddleback may have signaled the beginning of this moment. First Baptist Alexandria has demonstrated the intensity of this moment.

Now is the time for those of us who believe women are called into ministry and those of us who believe this is a matter of scriptural interpretation to step into this moment.

Will we carry out the mission of God with only half the people of God fully engaged, or will we move forward, re-center the Great Commission and invite all those who are faithful to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ into carrying out the call of the gospel in a time when the need for the gospel to go forth and go deep is as important as ever?

Chris Backert serves as the senior director of Fresh Expressions North America and the Ascent Movement.

Against Pride Month

America’s rulers “cast away the law of the LORD and despise the word of the Holy One.” “Truth is fallen in the street.” “Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom! Give ear unto the law of God, ye people of Gomorrah!” (Isaiah 1:10; 5:24; 59:14 KJV)

“God created man male and female.” “Know ye that He hath made us, and not we ourselves.” “Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever. Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it.” (Genesis 1:27; Psalm 100:3; Ecclesiastes 3:14 KJV)

“Sin is the transgression of God’s law.” “The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.” “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment.” “Saith the LORD, oh, do not these abominable things that I hate!” (Genesis 13:13; Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 22:5; Jeremiah 44:2,4; 1 John 3:4 KJV)

“Knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,” “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”—“Sodom’s example”—are Americans “ashamed when they commit abomination? Nay, not at all ashamed!” “They declare their sin as Sodom” with rainbow flags, parades, drag queen story hours/shows for children, “church” celebrations, Pride Month. (Isaiah 3:9; Jeremiah 6:15; Romans 1:32; Jude 1:7 KJV)

“Pride goeth before destruction.” “Though hand join in hand, the proud shall not be unpunished.” (Proverbs 16:5,18 KJV)

“Ah sinful nation!” “Saith the Lord GOD, Sodom hath not done as thou hast done. Thou art corrupted more in all thy ways,” “inventors of evil things”—LGBTQ+’s ever-growing alphabet, they/them singular pronouns (“My name is Legion”), child mutilations, male mothers, trans-species. (Isaiah 1:4; Ezekiel 16:47-48; Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30; Romans 1:30 KJV)

“Saith the LORD, ‘Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?’” (Jeremiah 5:28-29 KJV).

Michael W. Ellis
Belton, Texas

Opposing TBM name change

I find it inconsistent for the Southern Baptist Convention rightly to disqualify women as pastors yet support a name change of the venerable Texas Baptist Men to nongender-specific Texans on Mission.

I have supported TBM financially but will not support this surrender to the feminist agenda.

M.F. Fanelli
Duncanville, Texas

Nearly 25 years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a revision to its Baptist Faith and Message that limited the “office” of “pastor” to “men.”

At the time, I defiantly proclaimed the convention would not get rid of me that easily. But when First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., was ousted from the convention on the first night of this year’s meeting, I was prepared to write an article acknowledging I now was denominationally homeless.

But then something remarkable happened. The so-called “Law Amendment” was defeated, and I was thrown into utter confusion about my role in the denomination that has been my home for nearly my entire life.

Fool’s gold

One media outlet framed the vote as a possible victory for proponents of local church autonomy, but, as an outsider to the national meeting, I don’t see it that way.

For one thing, further reporting seems to suggest messengers who voted against the amendment did so mostly on procedural grounds, not because they think forbidding women from being a pastor “of any kind” is wrong.

After all, an overwhelming majority of messengers still voted to disfellowship a church that had a woman as a “pastor to children and women,” in spite of the fact one could construe such a position as not only permissible but wise and probably necessary for a church that size.

And let’s not forget, although the amendment failed, it still garnered the support of a substantial majority of messengers.

For another thing, Baptists still are not dealing honestly with the issue of language verses function.

Can messengers really police the functions women perform in Southern Baptist churches? Do they really have the time and the expertise to evaluate job descriptions to see whether a woman is doing pastoral tasks—especially since certain Southern Baptist leaders refuse even to consider clarifying what those tasks might be? And is that even their job?

A predictable outcome

In spite of the failure of the Law Amendment, the actions taken by the SBC the last two years constitute an almost unmitigated disaster. Not only has the convention defied the teachings of Scripture—while claiming to champion faithfulness thereto—and its own polity, but this turn of events was entirely predictable.

Article VI of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is clear there are only two “offices” in the church. That, in and of itself, is a problematic position to take, but we’ll leave that issue aside for now. Rather, we should observe the way many Southern Baptists talk about this issue is in direct contradiction to their own confession.

Everyone who works with a woman in ministry—regardless of her title—knows she functions as an officer of the church. It doesn’t matter whether you call her a “director,” a “minister” or a “pastor,” she functions with the authority of her calling, and she clearly is not a deacon. So, what is she?

This question was bound to bubble to the surface, but Southern Baptists have made things so much worse by doubling-down on the false narrative that acknowledging the calling of women to pastoral ministry confuses gender roles and undermines God’s vision for the family.

That false narrative adds urgency to the fight, and it also justifies—even if wrongly—the caricatures of critics who refuse to take the arguments made by Southern Baptist leaders at face-value.

Rather than dealing honestly and empathetically with the questions of biblical faithfulness raised by the SBC, its critics cast the debate entirely in terms of a male-dominated, politically conservative denomination trying to manipulate its founding documents so as to oppress women and ignore their pleas for justice.

The whole conversation has become a toxic waste dump of mutual suspicion and interminable enmity.

An unappetizing choice

So, I am left with an unappetizing choice. I could leave the SBC and thereby remain faithful to my convictions. But where would I go? If God moves me on from my current church position, how would I fulfill my calling? How would I help my wife put food on our table and keep a roof over our heads, much less prepare for retirement?

More to the point, how would I help Southern Baptists confront the many other challenges faced by the 21st-century church?

Maybe that is not my job anymore. Maybe a denomination that explicitly defines itself in terms of its complementarian identity has shown me the door, and I’m just too stupid or too stubborn to walk through it. But I hate giving up, and I don’t want this once-proud powerhouse of gospel missions to decay into a haunt for sub-Christian ideologies and endless disunity.

Or I could stay and fight. I could speak prophetically to a convention corrupted by generations of political, cultural, social and other factors beyond my control—all while trying to be fairer to the people I critique than other critics have been.

But how could I do that while remaining faithful to the many women whom Christ has called into his service? How could I look the women who populate my classes in the face—women of remarkable gentleness, faithfulness, intelligence and courage?

How could I claim to be faithful to my own wife as she seeks to fulfill her calling in how she leads, serves, counsels and (occasionally) preaches? Indeed, how could I be faithful to the women who already have been burned by the SBC, some of whom are my friends?

More fundamentally, how could I be faithful to my own convictions? Even if I speak prophetically, I am still identifying with a denomination whose beliefs are out of step with my own. I still would be identifying with an organization whose employment practices are, in my view, both unbiblical and unwise.

How can I stay and retain the integrity of my soul? How can I engage the impossible task of rescuing the SBC from itself without losing myself in the process? Surely Christ calls us to self-denial and self-mortification (See Matthew 16:21-27), but is this kind of self-abandonment what he has in mind?

In the end, I cannot tolerate a system in which complementarian men are assumed to be misogynists. I know too many who are not. But neither can I ignore the corruption that has swallowed the SBC whole, nor can I ignore the unbiblical subordination inherent in complementarian thought.

I do not know where this angst will lead me. All I can do is reach out for the hand of Jesus and follow him wherever he leads.

Wade Berry is pastor of Second Baptist Church in Ranger and resident fellow in New Testament and Greek at B.H. Carroll Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

On TobyMac’s 2022 Album, Life After Death, he reunites with his DC Talk bandmates on the song “Space,” a song about people, once close, who now are separated by some disagreement.

The first verse identifies the situation that led to the separation, while the rest of the song asks the question: “What do we do with this space between us? How can we start to erase this space between us?”

It concludes with the hopeful sentiment, if love keeps no record of wrongs, then “we’re never too far gone.”

Last Wednesday morning at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting, I had the opportunity to pose a question to Kevin Ezell, president of the North American Mission Board. It was one for which many Texas Baptists have been seeking a definitive answer for a long time.

Will NAMB partner with churches who are singly-aligned with the Baptist General Convention of Texas to plant churches in Texas?

Dr. Ezell’s response was similar to what we had heard before: NAMB only partners with churches who are connected to a state convention that affirms the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

A simple perusal through the responses that came through articles and the scourge known as “social media” showed Texas Baptists neither were surprised by nor happy with the answer.

Erasing the space

It may come as a surprise, then, that I was thankful for Dr. Ezell’s answer.

I was thankful—and satisfied—with his answer, because the real question I was asking him was not if NAMB would partner with BGCT churches. We already knew, or at minimum had assumptions about, that answer.

The primary reason I spoke in the presence of 10,000 people for a terrifying three minutes was simply to get to the final 14 seconds, and ask: “Will you personally commit to figuring out a better way forward so that a BGCT church like mine, who is also a dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist, can work with NAMB for the sake of God’s kingdom?”

Like in TobyMac’s song, the initial task was to identify the issue. Texas Baptist’s view of the issue has been voiced in BGCT executive reports, Baptist Standard articles and in my initial remarks on Wednesday morning.

In our minds, the current situation is clear, and the more vocal among us have voiced our collective Texas-sized angst in various forms. But, the critical task before us now requires our utmost prayer and attention.

How to do it

I’m thankful Dr. Ezell’s answer to my ultimate question has been to initiate a conversation about the distance between NAMB and the BGCT. Immediately following his report, he reached out via text. Since then, we have had, and will continue to have, ongoing dialogue, which I have faith will help us answer the ultimate question, “How do we erase this space between us?”

How can NAMB and Texas Baptists work to repair the relationship that has grown increasingly distant over the past 30 years? I want to suggest five essential elements that must be present if any solution is to be found.

1. Prayer.

You knew I would start here, and you already know the centrality of prayer in any spiritually motivated task. So, I’ll save my limited word count for the other three. (Psalm 107:28-30)

2. Repentance.

Marriage counselors will tell you, for a couple to move past a specific issue in their marriage, both parties must acknowledge their own responsibility for their part of the argument. Typically, there is some measure of responsibility on both sides.

As Texas Baptists (hopefully) approach discussions with NAMB around this issue, we both must have an attitude of repentance for our part in developing the current situation.

Jesus says in Matthew 18:15, “If your brother sins against you, go tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won your brother.”

But, likewise in Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus says, “If you remember your brother has something against you … go and be reconciled to your brother.”

Texas Baptists, we cannot sit entrenched, piously adjusting our halos, waiting for NAMB to take full responsibility for the space between us. We must approach with hearts of repentance for our own part in creating this space.

3. Humility.

This second essential is a natural outgrowing of repentance but takes it a step further. If Texas Baptists are going to have the opportunity to work with NAMB in the future, we cannot approach the subject with an air of superiority. We must admit there are certain things about NAMB’s position we do not know and certain circumstances we cannot control.

James 4:6 reminds us, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). If this is true, then we most definitely can expect our efforts to erase this space to fail if we approach without humility.

4. Temperance.

I’m not talking about abstaining from alcohol, although I highly recommend it. I’m referring to the more general definition, which says: “moderation in action, thought, or feeling; restraint.”

When applied to the topic at hand, temperance would encourage us to carefully moderate our emotional reactions. It’s easy to hit send on some angry words on a Facebook comment. Yes, we all saw those. It might seem freeing to join the social media trolls in venting about NAMB or the SBC on an X thread. We saw those, too.

Matthew 12:36, where Jesus says, “I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak,” should be motivation enough to temper our words. If Texas Baptists hope to erase the space between us and NAMB, then some among us will need to check our tones.

5. Negotiation.

Finally, this space will be erased only if we’re willing to negotiate with those on the other side of the gap.

“My way or the highway” is the wrong way. 1 Corinthians 10:24 says, “No one is to seek his own advantage, but rather that of his neighbor.” Can you imagine the outcome if Texas Baptists and NAMB both approached the table with that attitude? The space would be erased.

We are at a pivotal moment in the history not only of Texas Baptists and NAMB, but Texas Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention. The two parties have powerful erasers in their hands.

We either will erase the space between us and be reunited in a collective goal of reaching our state with the gospel of Christ. Or we will make the space permanent by completely erasing the missional relationship we have enjoyed for decades.

My genuine belief and hope is we’re not too far gone. I hope we can erase this space between us, before it’s too late.

Dustin Slaton is senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Round Rock. He serves on the BGCT Executive Board and as an adjunct professor at Howard-Payne University, New Braunfels Center. He’s a graduate of Ouachita Baptist University and a two-time graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions against Palestine, widely regarded as profoundly anti-Christian, have ignited a critical reevaluation of the SBC’s theology and principles.

Despite the moral failure of forming in defense of slavery, the SBC grew to become the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, emphasizing evangelism, missionary work and biblical inerrancy. Historically, the SBC has shaped American religious and cultural life, advocating for various social and moral issues.

Their stance on Palestine is another moral failure.

Modern parallels of historical failures

Despite their longstanding support for Israel, in recent years, the SBC has intensified its pro-Israel stance, prioritizing it over Christian principles of justice, mercy and reconciliation. This shift is deeply troubling theologically.

Foundational to Baptist tradition are Jesus Christ’s teachings urging followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

The SBC’s unwavering support for Israel and Zionism mirrors their past backing of slavery, which they justified using biblical verses, thus contradicting core Christian principles. This stance neglects the plight of Palestinian Baptists and Christians, aligning with the SBC’s historical legacy of siding against justice.

During the Indianapolis convention, the SBC passed resolutions that starkly contrasted with their stated values. Of particular note was a resolution denouncing “anti-Israel activism” and affirming “solidarity with Israel.”

This highlights the SBC’s consistent pro-Israel stance over the years. By aligning with the Israeli government and settlers, the SBC continues to echo their rhetoric, potentially disregarding Palestinian aspirations for statehood and self-determination.

Theological error and ethical inconsistencies

These resolutions lack a biblical Christian perspective, condemning Hamas without addressing broader historical and geopolitical aspects. They fail to advocate for repentance, forgiveness and Christ-like reconciliation, rejecting “moral equivalence” and failing to acknowledge the suffering of all parties, particularly Palestinians.

True justice and lasting peace are found in Christ’s reconciling work, demanding humility, compassion and solidarity with the marginalized. The SBC’s resolutions contradict Jesus Christ’s radical teachings, lacking calls for enemy-love, forgiveness and nonviolent peacemaking that should define the church’s prophetic witness.

By uncritically affirming the just war tradition and endorsing the state’s right to wield the “sword,” the SBC conflates earthly nationalism with the kingdom of God.

Impact on Palestinian Christians

The SBC’s resolutions blatantly ignored Palestinian Christians and churches, callously neglecting them amid dire struggles against severe hardship, apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, terror, genocide and discrimination.

This deliberate abandonment begs the question: Why harbor such deep animosity toward them? This stance not only repeats historical injustices, but also disregards international law and human rights abuses.

Over the years, Israeli attacks on Gaza have resulted in significant damage to Christian sites and properties, including churches and schools. The Gaza Baptist Church and its library, for instance, have been bombed and damaged multiple times.

The SBC’s resolutions also conveniently ignore the plight of Palestinian hostages, many of whom are Christians, focusing on Israeli hostages while disregarding the thousands of Palestinians languishing in illegal detention and facing torture. This double standard undermines the SBC’s moral authority.

Reclaiming the true spirit of Baptist Christianity

The recent actions of the SBC betray Baptist principles. Historically, Baptist churches have had a complex and varied relationship with justice and resistance against injustice.

While Baptists have been strong advocates for religious freedom and, in many cases, social justice, they also have supported and justified oppressive systems, such as slavery and segregation.

This contradictory legacy makes the SBC’s fervent support for the Israeli government’s occupation of Palestine even more troubling, as it appears to repeat past mistakes of siding with power over the powerless. Labeling opposition to Israeli policies as “antisemitic” ignores the systematic dehumanization of the Semitic Palestinians.

To realign with Christian principles, the SBC must reconsider its recent resolutions. This requires advocating for a just solution that respects the rights of all parties, especially Palestinian Christians.

Future generations and global implications

The SBC risks alienating a younger, globally aware generation that is critical of injustice. Young Christians, especially students, are seeking communities that reflect values of justice and equality.

The SBC’s stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict may lead to declining membership as congregants look for authentic Christian communities. Supporting policies that perpetuate oppression and conflict not only undermines Christian moral authority but also harms interfaith relationships.

Baptist tradition demands advocating for all oppressed, regardless of nationality or religion. It is crucial for the SBC to remember being Baptist means championing the marginalized and oppressed. This commitment transcends politics and strikes at the core of our faith. The SBC must pursue a Christ-centered, prophetic response that goes beyond political expediency.

This authentic spirit of Baptist Christianity requires confronting the moral lapses of our leaders and reclaiming our prophetic voice. The future of our faith hinges on this moment, demanding decisive action.

We implore the SBC to reconsider this resolution and commit to sacrificial love, forgiveness and the pursuit of true peace.

How can the SBC possibly defend its alleged commitment to justice and Christian principles while shamelessly endorsing a stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that utterly betrays and abandons the suffering and rights of Palestinian Baptists and Christians?

When the SBC abandons its principles, siding with power over the powerless, what does it truly represent?

Jack Nassar is a Palestinian Christian based in Ramallah. He holds an MA in political communications from Goldsmiths University in London and possesses expertise across sectors, driving positive change. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Who does your church connect with, and why?

If your church hasn’t had this conversation in a while, you should. Regardless of anything else, it can be a healthy conversation to have and a matter of good stewardship.

I used the word “connect,” but the technical term for Baptists is “cooperate.”

For churches cooperating with the Southern Baptist Convention—in Texas and elsewhere—the 2024 SBC annual meeting gives additional reason to have the conversation.

The point was made crystal clear at least twice during the convention that the SBC and its entities expect cooperating churches to adhere to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. If your church has not adopted the 2000 statement or does not have “a faith and practice that closely identifies” with it, there are a couple of things you need to know.

No women pastors

First, you need to know you will be expected not to employ a woman as a pastor of any kind—even though the proposed amendment to write that into the SBC constitution failed.

Churches have been voted out of the convention during the last two consecutive SBC annual meetings precisely because they employ a woman as a pastor of any kind. Each of the votes passed by a wide margin.

Discussion during this year’s meeting related to the proposed amendment and the vote to remove First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., made abundantly clear that Southern Baptists absolutely mean what the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message says: “the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

In other words, to have a faith and practice that closely identifies with the SBC’s adopted statement of faith means your church will not have a woman pastor—senior, associate, executive, worship, youth, children’s, senior adult, recreation, media and technology, women’s. Not any.

Though some wanted it made clear women leaders are valued and that their church does employ women as ministers.

So, if your church cooperates with the SBC and you employ a woman as a pastor of any kind, you will need to change her title to minister, find other employment for her or expect to be deemed “not in friendly cooperation” with the SBC during some upcoming SBC annual meeting.

NOTE: After publishing this editorial, some pointed out First Baptist Alexandria was not disfellowshipped because they employ a woman as a pastor for children and women, but because the church espouses egalitarianism rather than complementarianism. While technically true, it also is true Saddleback Church was disfellowshipped for employing a woman as teaching pastor, and the Law Amendment was less than 5 percent shy of passage.

2000 Baptist Faith and Message

Second, you need to know your church will be expected to adopt and hold to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message if you want to enjoy full cooperation with the SBC.

Kevin Ezell, president of the North American Mission Board, made that clear when answering a Texas Baptist pastor’s question following the NAMB report June 12.

NAMB has accepted money gladly from First Baptist Church of Round Rock for decades without ever asking what statement of faith the church adopted, the church’s pastor Dustin Slaton said. He asked if his church’s investment can be reciprocated.

He and his church want to partner with NAMB and the BGCT to plant complementarian, “genuinely Southern Baptist churches in Texas.” Since First Baptist Round Rock and the BGCT hold to the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message and not the 2000 version, this won’t happen, as we reported in May.

After repeating what a NAMB spokesperson communicated to the Baptist Standard the end of May, Ezell told Slaton, “I would love for you to consider, for your state convention to adopt the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”

So, if your church wants to cooperate with the SBC and has not adopted the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, you will need to adopt the 2000 statement of faith and partner with a state convention that has done the same to receive money from NAMB to plant a church in your state.

If your church is not going to adopt the 2000 statement and neither is your state convention, then you need to know the SBC’s cooperation with your church will be limited—at least, via NAMB. You are free, however, to hold to a different Baptist statement of faith, such as the 1963 version, and you are free to keep sending money to the SBC and its entities.

Making decisions

The SBC has made it clear who it will cooperate with and why. Is your church as clear? It should be.

Maybe your church has a century-old relationship with the SBC, like First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., who was voted out June 11.

If your church hasn’t examined its relationship with its ministry partners in a while, it may be on autopilot. It’s good stewardship to examine the relationship. You need to know what the relationship expectations are and whether you will or want to meet them.

Perhaps your church adheres to the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message and nothing has changed about your faith and practice in, well, decades. Your church may have principled reasons—such as autonomy of the local church—or theological reasons for not adopting the 2000 statement, or it may have none.

You need to know what your church’s faith statement is and why it’s that statement and not another one. Knowing where your church stands helps evaluate your ministry connections. You may determine nothing needs to change. Or it may be time to find new connections.

If your church believes women can be pastors, or it doesn’t; if your church holds to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, or it doesn’t; the Baptist General Convention of Texas (Texas Baptists), GC2 and Ascent are just three possible connections to know about.

Some will say this is divisive. But it isn’t divisive to know who you are and why and to connect with those who will enable God to work in and through you best. Those seeking God’s glory ought to want the best connections possible.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

(RNS)—A lifelong Baptist in the Middle East, I have found myself in agreement with many of the resolutions coming out of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis this week.

The resolution on the integrity of church leaders, the importance of the separation of church and state, and the call on church organizations to walk in the light and refrain from nondisclosure agreements all strike me as Christlike, and I and others in my corner of the Baptist world would happily sign on without any problem.

But two of the resolutions Southern Baptists approved—one concerning the idea of just war and another titled “On Justice and Peace in the Aftermath of the October 7 attack on Israel”— not only are contradictory, but are disappointing and dismaying.

Just war

In the first resolution, the drafters justify the necessity of war for defensive reasons, correctly calling for “discrimination between combatants and civilians,” so that “civilians may not be deliberately targeted for attack.”

In addition, “war must be fought with proper proportionality and the scale of death and destruction must be proportional to the scale of peace and justice at stake in the conflict,” and “military personnel should adhere to the principle of military necessity.”

Given everything we have seen in the last eight months in Gaza and the West Bank, this resolution debunks any attempt at calling Israel’s military action just.

The Israeli government’s actions have resulted in the starvation of an entire population, as well as deliberate attacks on schools, humanitarian workers, ambulances and journalists. These clearly are not in sync with the above-mentioned conditions for just war.

Unjust war

More astounding in light of the just war resolution is the second resolution, whose drafters appear to have taken a chapter from the Israeli military playbook and applied it without seeking the counsel of fellow Christians or even fellow Baptists in the Middle East.

The resolution fails in what it says but more in what it fails to say. It ignores the larger context of the conflict, which has seen 75 years of refugee status without the right of return, 57 years of occupation and 17 years of an illegal siege of Gaza. It didn’t just start on Oct. 7, as the resolution seems to want us to think.

Since Oct. 7, more than 5,000 Palestinians, including Christian Palestinians, have been detained by Israel without charge or trial, yet Southern Baptists focused solely on the Israeli hostages.

The Israelis, meanwhile, have engaged in civilian hostage taking, administrative detention and indiscriminate destruction of homes, businesses, universities, hospitals and houses of worship. The Israeli offensive action has gone far beyond its initial defensive justification, killing thousands of innocent Palestinians and displacing hundreds of thousands of others.

Christians in Gaza

This suffering—all publicly available information—did not earn a single word of recognition from Southern Baptists, not even the attacks on Gaza’s Christians, which have resulted in the loss of 3 percent of their already tiny population.

The Baptist church in Gaza, established by Southern Baptist missionaries, has been destroyed by Israeli missiles. Palestinian Christians who have taken refuge in churches have been left to die without the ability to get medical treatment. At the very least, Southern Baptists in Indianapolis could have offered words of compassion and solidarity.

Anti-hate

But more disturbing than what was ignored are the Oct. 7 resolution’s claims about the rise of antisemitism—much of it, of course, properly antiwar-ism, anti-Israelism and anti-occupation-ism. It failed to mention the increase in hate speech and hateful crimes against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

Palestinian and pro-Palestinians have been bullied and fired from their jobs for expressing support for justice and a cease-fire, both in the Middle East and in the United States, where three Palestinian students, graduates of the Friends Quaker school in Ramallah, were shot at because they wore the Palestinian traditional kaffiyeh.

Southern Baptists apparently have swallowed the pro-Israeli narrative that protests at American universities were pro-Hamas, not anti-war. While some instigators made rare pro-Hamas comments, the protests were pro-peace and pro-cease-fire. There is nothing wrong with supporting the rights of Palestinians to self-determination.

Compassion needed

Most Christians in the Middle East ache with the pain of every death and destruction of any of our neighbors, whether Israeli or Palestinian. We hoped that, of all people, Christians in the United States would understand this pain. We hoped our fellow Christians would follow the Prophet Amos’ call for “justice to roll on like a river” and Micah’s call to all of us to “love mercy.”

Instead, our fellow Baptists’ words have poured salt on a deep wound. Showing compassion to Israelis killed and taken hostage on Oct. 7 is correct and biblical, but so is the need to show compassion to Palestinians who have suffered and continue to suffer. This one-sided resolution fails on all the tests of biblical principles and must be revisited.

Daoud Kuttab is a member of the Amman Baptist Church and publisher of Milhilard.org, a news site dedicated to the Christian community in Jordan and the Palestinian territories. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

In the years following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, influential American Baptist minister John Leland wrote, “The notion of a Christian Commonwealth should be exploded forever.”

A personal and professional acquaintance of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Leland advocated for and greatly influenced the inclusion of the religion clauses in the First Amendment, which guarantees the protection of religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and the separation of church and state.

Today, Leland may find it perplexing that 235 years later, Americans—including Baptists and other Christians overly drawn to political power—need the reminder of this precious protection from tyranny and oppression.

Yet, in 2024, in an effort to counter the swirling, dangerous political winds promulgated by those promoting Christian nationalism, the Southern Baptist Convention messengers passed a resolution reaffirming the Baptist distinctives of liberty of conscience and opposition to any form of a state church.

Opposing Christian nationalism

As should be understood clearly, Christian nationalism is neither good for Christianity nor for the nation, and it should be condemned soundly by gospel-oriented believers, as well as by supporters of the U.S. Constitution.

The SBC resolution, titled “On Defending Religious Liberty,” clearly affirms: “[We] oppose any effort to establish a state religion of any nation, including the United States of America; that we refute the idea that God has commanded any state to establish any religion or any denomination; …

“[We] oppose any effort to establish a state religion of any nation, including the United States of America; that we refute the idea that God has commanded any state to establish any religion or any denomination … we object to any suggestion that our historic, God-given distinctive of religious liberty should be abandoned in favor of a state-mandated religion.”

Although the resolution faced opposition during debate at the convention, messengers eventually reaffirmed long-held Baptist distinctives with its passage.

As a previous Baptist generation once wrote in Beliefs Important to Baptists: “The church should not seek to use the state for its purposes. The state should not commandeer the church for political ends. The state should not favor one religion above another.”

However, the debate over the 2024 resolution again reveals the subset of Baptists who favor Christian nationalism, which would lead to the eradication of religious liberty for everyone except those who hold to a narrow worldview. That is why affirming this resolution is still an important action for the denomination. What comes next will be equally important.

Failings and continuing challenge

Past iterations of Christian nationalism always have failed, because Christian nationalism is not in line with the values of the United States. Instead, Christian nationalism rejects liberty of conscience and individual autonomy in favor of autocratic control and coercion.

Christian nationalism also has failed because religious leaders have refused to surrender to the attempted coopting and distortion of Christian theology, which Christian nationalism seeks in exchange for temporal political power.

Thankfully, the passage of this resolution at least reveals a majority of SBC messengers at this year’s convention do not endorse Christian nationalism.

And yet, the resolution was made because of the growing concern Christian nationalism again has found oxygen in our body politic and within our churches.

The question remains whether the American people at large, and American Christians in particular, are equipped with the fortitude to confront and defeat this current threat to religious and political freedom.

With certain media outlets and social media able to present Christian nationalism in a tempting light, it is incumbent on Christians committed to the gospel and supportive of the U.S. Constitution to not shy away from responding to the bombastic voices and tactics of those promoting Christian nationalism.

Now is the time for churches to equip their members with reasons why Christian nationalism should be rejected soundly.

Reject Christian nationalism

As John Leland stated: “The very tendency of religious establishments by human law, is to make some hypocrites, and the rest fools; they are calculated to destroy those very virtues that religion is designed to build up; to encourage fraud and violence over the earth. It is error alone, that stands in need of government to support it; truth can and will do better without.”

Additionally, Leland exclaimed: “Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for, is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration, is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest, to grant indulgence; whereas, all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians. Test oaths, and established creeds, should be avoided as the worst of evils.”

However, some have ceased heeding this advice as they grasp for temporal power.

As Tim Alberta wrote in The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: “The crisis of American evangelicalism comes down to an obsession with that worldly identity. Instead of fixing our eyes on the unseen … we have become fixated on the here and now … we have made deals with the devil.”

Baptists and fellow like-minded Americans today must reject the dangers of Christian nationalism and continue the quest for a “more perfect union.” Liberty of conscience, religious freedom and democracy are not inevitable. They take hard work to defend and promote—work Baptists throughout history have been on the forefront of defending and supporting.

The SBC resolution is one small step in that defense. It is now incumbent upon us to continue to cherish and defend religious liberty for people of all faith and no faith. It is the American ideal. It is the Baptist way.

Jack Goodyear is dean of Dallas Baptist University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I’m a no-creed-but-the-Bible-kind of Baptist. So, when four Southern Baptists proposed adding the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message, I had questions.

One question is, “Why now?”

After all, the Southern Baptist Convention seemingly has bigger fish to fry right now, such as whether it will make good on sexual abuse reforms and whether the so-called Law Amendment will pass its second and final vote. Opponents of the latter say it will make the SBC creedal.

The authors of the proposed motion do a good job answering the “why now” question in an article you can read here. But “why now” isn’t my only question. More importantly, I wanted to know why a creed. They answered that question, too.

The proposed motion

Andrew Brown, Stephen Lorance, Steve McKinion and Malcolm Yarnell broke the news on X (formerly Twitter) May 29 with a teaser and a link to their proposed amendment to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

Quite simply, they propose adding the full text of the Nicene Creed as Article XIX to the 2000 statement of faith.

In case you are not familiar with the Nicene Creed, it reads as follows:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father. By him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he descended from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again, in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and his Kingdom shall have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], and who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the Prophets. And in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

They explained their reasoning for this motion in an article, “The Need for the Creed,” published by Credo Magazine May 30.

I read their reasons, and I still had questions. So, I sent them to the authors.

I appreciate their answers, including their thoroughness. You will see from their response their motion was not something they came up with last week. No, they have spent considerable time thinking about the need for a more orthodox understanding and clear communication of the Christian faith by Baptists.

Even so, does a creed have to be added to a Baptist statement of faith to achieve that end? I have questions. So, I asked the four authors some of them. Their responses are in the aforementioned article.

Further questions are answered below.

More questions about adding the creed

Clarity

Does the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message not make Baptist Christology and trinitarian theology clear already?

“The Baptist Faith and Message on Trinity and Christology is helpful and true, but it does not go as deeply as Scripture or the creed.”

Having spent time reading and thinking about theology—and philosophy—I know just how they feel, and that it’s more a matter of what they think than how they feel. Statements of faith struggle to communicate profundity succinctly. So do creeds.

Baptism

For example, the Nicene Creed holds: “We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”

So, I asked: “As you know, Baptists have divided over this point.” And it’s not just Baptists who have differed over baptism. “How should Southern Baptists understand ‘baptism’—water or Spirit? How should they understand ‘remission of sins?’ Is baptism salvific?”

Now, I know what I believe about baptism. I was a Baptist pastor, after all, who baptized people after making sure they understood baptism the same way I and the church do.

The authors responded: “Coming under the article on the Holy Spirit, this refers to baptism in the Spirit or regeneration, which occurs with faith. Water baptism is the outward confession of that prior inward reality. … Augustine’s arguments for water baptismal regeneration, which we rightly reject, came more than a century and a half after the Council of Nicaea.”

I agree with the authors’ understanding of baptism. I suspect most Baptist Standard readers do, too.

Amendment process

If the Baptist Faith and Message doesn’t communicate Baptist Christology and trinitarian theology adequately, can those articles in the statement be amended in the same way the Baptist Faith and Message was amended during the 2023 SBC annual meeting, which changed “pastor” in Article VI: The Church to “pastor/elder/overseer?”

“This could perhaps with great difficulty be rectified by robust additions to the current articles. However, the work has already been done for us by believers in the centuries before us, and it firmly places Baptists with other believers to affirm the [Nicene] Creed,” the authors responded.

Yes, statements of faith are like tax codes. They get more complicated over time. A possible complication of adding the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message is it could begin to function as an either/or—either the confession or the creed.

Or it nullifies the work of the SBC Cooperation Group, who just released their recommendations to clarify “what makes a church ‘to be in friendly cooperation of faith and practice’ with the SBC.”

Or it becomes a redundancy, however much it clears up critical points of doctrine.

What about 1963?

I’m also a 1963-Baptist-Faith-and-Message Baptist. So, one of my questions is, “What does it matter to me if the Nicene Creed is added to the Baptist Faith and Message, since the addition will be to the 2000 iteration?”

Adding the Nicene Creed to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message presumably would have no effect on earlier iterations of the statement and therefore no bearing on those who have not adopted the 2000 statement. Correct?

“Adding the Nicene Creed should have no effect on any prior version of the Baptist Faith and Message, unless proponents adopted that change for themselves. Baptist confessions are voluntary and temporary, not automatic and retroactive,” the authors responded.

As with baptism, this has been my understanding of confessional statements, as well. But I’m still uncertain if adding a creed to a confessional statement alters the “voluntary and temporary” nature of a confession.

Ask good questions

I’m not a messenger to the 2024 SBC annual meeting. So, I won’t be voting on the motion. You may be, however, in which case you have just a few days to think about something of great significance.

The best counsel I can give you is: Ask good questions, and expect good answers. Think carefully and critically. Look past whatever political maneuvering arises. Listen to Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

This also goes for your vote on the Law Amendment and other convention business next week.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

We will try to answer questions posed by Eric Black, editor of the Baptist Standard, regarding our hope to add the Nicene Creed to our Baptist Faith and Message.

When one of our number mentioned adding the creed to the confession, we immediately said, “Yes!”

Let us share with you our heart for the glory of God.

‘Why this motion, and why now?’

Black asked, “Why this motion, and why now?”

We believe it is right, good and necessary to add the creed to our confession now. Next year is an important trifold anniversary.

The year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2025 marks the centenary of the Baptist Faith and Message, the quincentenary of the modern recovery of believers’ baptism, and the 1,700th anniversary of the initial formation of the Nicene Creed.

These three events remind us of the providential utility of the creed for two necessary activities—teaching the faith to believers and protecting the flock from false teachers.

What about Baptist heritage?

“What is your response to those who say Baptists do not descend from the Great Tradition? What of our Anabaptist heritage?” Black asked.

Heresy

First, in A.D. 325, long before the advent of Roman Catholicism and while believers’ baptism still was evident, bishops primarily from the East gathered at the Council of Nicaea to examine the teachings of Arius.

They found the heresy of Arianism so distorted the person of Jesus Christ and so undermined Christ’s work they were compelled to craft a memorable summary to remind believers of the biblical truths about our only Lord and Savior.

In affirmation of the prophecy of Paul that “heresies” or “factions” must arise to demonstrate who God’s “approved” teachers are (1 Corinthians 11:19), the battle to protect the hearts and minds of believers against those false teachers who diminish the one true God goes on.

Arianism, Marcellianism, and many other Trinitarian and Christological heresies and errors continue to assail the church. We see them in many forms today, including Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses, two groups chillingly adept at trapping untaught Southern Baptists in their webs.

Anabaptists

Second, in 1525, the first Anabaptists submitted their consciences to the lordship of Jesus Christ and began recovering the baptism of believers only. These precious men and women subsequently suffered exile, torture and death from Magisterial and Romanist authorities alike.

Some assume the Anabaptists were anti-credal because they excoriated the evil compulsion of conscience by confessional states. However, major early Anabaptist leaders like Balthasar Hubmaier, Leonhard Schiemer, Pilgram Marpeck and Peter Riedemann wrote commentaries on, developed lengthy confessions from and heartily affirmed the classical creeds.

Moreover, the three largest groups of Anabaptists—Swiss Brethren, Mennonites and Hutterites—were led to affirm classical theology in response to inroads made by Socinians—or Unitarians.

Hans de Ries—the Anabaptist leader upon whose confession John Smyth, the first English Baptist pastor, wrote an approving commentary—struggled long to bring Mennonite doctrine into orthodoxy.

The Anabaptist way of using the creeds to define doctrine should encourage Baptists who appreciate the Anabaptists to adopt the Nicene Creed.

Trinitarian

Third, Southern Baptists always have confessed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity expressed in the Nicene Creed.

In 1925, the Baptist Faith and Message article on God summarized the robust, biblical trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed. The article was amended in 2000 explicitly to exclude modalism.

After that amendment, the article, while still orthodox and accurate, still was “most underdeveloped,” according to “the dean of Southern Baptist theologians” James Leo Garrett Jr., of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Baylor University.

This underdevelopment sadly enabled some to “tamper with the Trinity,” in the language of Millard Erickson, also of Baylor and Southwestern.

The Baptist Faith and Message certainly is true in what it outlines about the Holy Trinity and the one Lord Jesus Christ, but we no longer can presuppose the underlying biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology are understood rightly.

Southern Baptists should make explicit our robust affirmations of the Trinity and the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must teach the fullness of the Christian faith and warn against errors and heresies that contradict essential dogmas of the Christian faith, both current and future.

‘Will you still make the motion?’

In light of pushback since the proposed motion was reported, “will you still make the motion? If so, will the motion be modified in any way?” Black asked.

Yes

We have seen no substantive proposal that would prompt us to alter our plans. Some have proposed we follow a different process than what the Southern Baptist Convention has used previously. Some may intend thereby to lock up the creed in a committee.

Others are innocently and understandably nervous about a hasty adoption of a change in the confession. We hope to put the minds of the latter group at ease.

The process of democracy always is dynamic, and that naturally makes us uncomfortable. However, Baptists must never surrender democratic governance, and we have yet to adopt a different process.

If we follow the current rules fairly and in good spirit, we believe God will guide the Southern Baptist Convention providentially to the truth we should all affirm. We believe Southern Baptists ultimately will agree that long-established Christian orthodoxy is absolutely necessary.

Ascribing to our one Lord God the honor, dignity and majesty true believers owe him is worth going through the Baptist process of democratic deliberation. Baptists have shown they will respond with appropriate urgency on issues of importance. There can be no more important issue than the untrammeled and unqualified lordship of Christ.

Modified motion?

As for proposals to modify the motion, we would remind our brothers and sisters the Nicene Creed reached its primary form almost 2,000 years ago. As such, we believe there should be no modification whatsoever of the substance of this creed, the most widely accepted confession of the faith in Christian history.

It is wise to heed the witness of the Spirit in the voices of true believers across space and time, as they honored and exposited Holy Scripture.

At the request of ecumenically minded Baptist scholars, we have placed brackets around the Filioque—Latin: “and the Son.” This will encourage Baptists to do their own homework in the Bible and arrive at their own conclusions about the exact form of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit (See John 15:26). These brackets also indicate we believe both the Eastern and Western editions of the Nicene Creed are acceptable.

We also decided to use the lower-case of “virgin” in reference to Mary so as to accommodate the consciences of our brethren concerned about the message it might send about popular Romanism.

While we accepted those two modifications, we believe neither is substantive.

‘No creed but the Bible’

We recognize some are arguing, “we have no creed but the Bible.” While that sentiment certainly is evident in Southern Baptist history, it always has been a minority position that belongs more with the Campbellites than with the Baptists.

Baptists who use this admittedly pithy motto typically are arguing for sola scriptura or suprema scriptura. We affirm their claim. But Liberals, Unitarians, Subordinationists and Kenoticists have used the same motto, hoping thereby to accord themselves opportunity to modify the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We deny their claim.

Yes, you should be alarmed at how some recently have begun treating the confession as a creed in a legalistic manner. Southern Baptists wisely draw a distinction between creeds and confessions. “Creeds” describe central teachings of the universal Christian faith. “Confessions” are much broader and distinguish various Christian individuals, churches and groups.

On the one hand, Southern Baptists must reaffirm the Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message as a good description of the purpose and limits of our confession.

In accordance with the Preamble’s traditional five qualifications, we believe confessions are variable, multiple and non-binding upon churches or individuals, except where a church or association deems a particular doctrine necessary for membership.

We are Baptist Confessionalists, as McKinion and Yarnell recently argued in Baptist Press. Ross Shelton shared helpful thoughts on these matters in the Baptist Standard in October 2019.

On the other hand, we contend the confession now should provide a definition of its most basic teachings through defining its existing terminology of “creeds.”

We believe the Nicene Creed defines well two of the nonnegotiable dogmas of the Christian faith—the Trinity and Christology. We would encourage individuals, churches and associations to examine these two teachings of the creed to see if they indeed are true and significant. We believe you will agree they are. We view the creed as right, good and necessary toward that end.

Confessional and creedal

Let’s preserve our Baptist distinctives by being confessional with our confessions. And let’s preserve Christian orthodoxy by being credal with the creed. We honor your liberty of conscience to come to your own conclusions about both the confession and the creed.

We would encourage all those interested in the biblical basis of the Nicene Creed to review the video recently posted at the Center for Baptist Renewal by Matthew Emerson of Oklahoma Baptist University and Luke Stamps of Anderson University. Four Southern Baptist scholars therein demonstrate the biblical basis for the Nicene Creed in its structure, articles and clauses.

We believe you will agree with us and with prominent Baptist leaders like W.A. Criswell, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas. He defined “creed” as “an expression of doctrinal belief, what the Bible teaches.” Criswell also praised publication of the Nicene Creed: “Now isn’t that a magnificent statement to be universally published as the orthodox faith?” Amen, pastor.

For the glory of Christ

We are passionate for the glory of Christ. We are convicted that the Father wants us to proclaim and defend the honor of his Son, our one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Alas, we have seen Jesus Christ diminished by new forms of the ancient Greek heresies of Arianism and Marcellianism and by the modern German error of Kenoticism. These teachings distort the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord.

We are orthodox Christians. We believe in God the Father. And we believe in Jesus Christ. And we believe in the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is our “one Lord.” He is not a second lord with subordinate authority to the Father. He is “God from God” and “true God from true God.”

Maintaining the ontological unity and simplicity of God, we believe the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.” He became man, born of a virgin. He died on the cross, and on the third day, he arose from the dead. This is the gospel that saves all who will believe.

Christ then ascended to the divine throne. He will return one day to judge everyone, and “his kingdom shall have no end.”

Maintaining the ontological unity and simplicity of God, we also believe the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father [and the Son].

Mission

Furthermore, Baptists have been a people compelled by mission. There is no meaningful mission apart from the confession “Jesus is Lord.”

We believe the Nicene Creed gives us language to help us when someone on the field asks, “Who is Jesus?”

A casual reading of the creed convinces of the undiminished lordship of Jesus Christ in a way that has been expressible in contemporary language for these 1,700 years. We borrow from the creed even when we do not officially acknowledge the creed.

Like many who have walked the faithful road of Christian confession before us, we always seek to define, articulate and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints in the Scriptures.

How can we all help ensure we are not reading the Bible like one of the ancient heresies mentioned earlier or some other contemporary heretical group? The Nicene Creed is a faithful articulation of the faith once delivered and indicates how our reading of the text is aligned with its meaning so we may exalt Jesus Christ.

Baptists are not a sect within Christianity. We, in our time, seek to make a meaningful contribution congruent with faithful Christian teaching. Reinforcing our confession with the Nicene Creed carries us further toward a meaningful contribution.

We invite everyone to proclaim the Lord by voting for every motion that will bring the Nicene Creed into our confession and by voting against any substantive modification of the creed itself.

The Nicene Creed is a right, good and just way to glorify Jesus Christ as Lord. It can be used as an effective instrument to teach the true faith and to push back heresy and error, not only now, but far into future generations.

Adoption of the Nicene Creed will demonstrate to a watching world the most important issue for Southern Baptists is not human affairs, nor human glory, but the glory of God alone. Let’s adopt the Nicene Creed, for the glory of Christ.

Andrew Brown is senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Starkville, Miss. Stephen Lorance is pastor of leadership development at Two Cities Church in Winston-Salem, N.C. Steven McKinion is professor of theology and patristic studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Malcolm Yarnell is research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and teaching pastor at Lakeside Baptist Church in Granbury. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the authors.