More Honest Churches Needed

By Jeffrey D. Vickery, Co-Pastor, Cullowhee Baptist Church, Cullowhee, NC

             Jerry Falwell’s remarks on August 24 [2004] at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel service sound, well, very much like Jerry Falwell.  The question many Baptists should ask is, “Does this sound very much like my Baptist church.” 

            Although Falwell’s political comments received much attention, his words of advice for the role of future seminarians and the churches they will serve were both horrifying and humorous at the same time: “May God lead many of you to some of these moderate churches that deserve fundamentalist pastors like you. ... Sometimes it takes a full year before that church is who you are.”

            These words are humorous in the sense that they seem absurd on the surface, yet horrifying in that a distinct possibility exists that what he predicts may come true.  That’s right, it seems that evidence has surfaced once again that signals the “takeover” of the Southern Baptist Convention is now a fight for my local church (but then again, maybe it always has been).  The churches that are most at risk for this kind of fundamentalist takeover are those churches that are dually aligned with the SBC and some other moderate Baptist organization (the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and/or the Baptist General Convention of Texas, for example).

            As it turns out, the vast majority of moderate Baptist churches maintain some level of connection with the SBC as well.  Consider CBF churches in NC as an example.  Approximately 210 churches contribute directly to the CBF of NC.  (Another large group of churches contribute to the CBF through the Baptist State Convention’s giving plan known as Plan C, but they are not all identified.)  No one has figures for how many of those are “CBF only” churches, but those in the state office who would venture a guess put the number at less than a dozen.  That means that almost 200 “moderate” churches remain aligned in some way with the SBC as well, either in financial support to the Cooperative Program, giving to Lottie Moon, or through the use of LifeWay teaching materials to their adults and children.  Among states in the south, NC is not unusual in the number of moderate churches who also support the SBC, except that the number of Baptist churches who have pulled away completely from the SBC may be higher than most.

            Is dual alignment, however, a long-term viable option for churches?  I believe the answer to be both “yes” and “no.”

            A large number of Baptist churches that maintain affiliations with the SBC and yet have some connection with moderate Baptists will always be around.  The churches that sustain dual alignment for many years to come, however, will be those who increasingly favor the SBC but only tolerate moderate Baptists in their midst.  On the other hand, those churches who find themselves more closely associated with the CBF or the BGCT but still allow for a token level of SBC membership will be forced into making a decision about their allegiances with fundamentalism.  Falwell’s statement proves that to be true.

            Any moderate church that continues to identify with the SBC in an era when fundamentalism has firm control over the denominational hierarchy will potentially one day find themselves with an SBC-indoctrinated pastor whose allegiance to fundamentalism is strong.  Patterson, Aiken, Mohler, and others expect that their pastors will find their way into moderate churches and take control.  Falwell simply put the truth into plain words for them.

            SBC seminary leadership, however, is not at fault for training their pastors to be fundamentalist or for stating their intentions.  It has been clear for almost a decade now that each of the SBC seminaries is working toward that end.  Churches that reach out to these SBC seminaries can expect pastors who align themselves with a fundamentalist perspective that they take to the churches.  Their leadership will not respect the traditional principles of the priesthood of believers, for, as Falwell’s statement makes clear, the pastor is the one who is to shape the church, not the congregation.  These SBC pastors will hold to right doctrine as superior to right practice, as was modeled for them when President Mohler stated in a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel address in 1995 that “theology and social work are not congruent.”  The SBC seminaries have not been deceptive about their intentions but open and honest in their fundamentalist swing.

            What is amazing is that many Baptist churches who do not identify themselves as fundamentalist continue to maintain strong connections with the SBC and search among recent SBC seminary graduates for their next pastor, or make use of convention supported Sunday School curriculum.  In essence, they are Falwell’s hoped-for church converts and the home for these new fundamentalist pastors.

            I believe it is time for congregations to reassess their position of dual alignment with a nod toward congregational honesty.  It is increasingly impossible to maintain a connection with the SBC and with moderate Baptists and be honestly moderate or honestly conservative.  As the SBC becomes deeper entrenched in its fundamentalism and more open about that reality, any church that remains tied to the SBC will be forced into open fundamentalism as well.

            I had a conversation many years ago about politics with another soon-to-be-pastor that went something like this (with some emendations due to the passage of time):  

“Are you really a Democrat or a Republican.”
           “Neither, I’m a registered Independent.”

“Okay, but I bet you’ve never voted for a Republican.”
            “Actually I did once.”

“Who, Reagan?”  
            “No, some county agriculture commissioner.  She was the only Republican woman running for office.”

“So did you vote for her because she was a Republican or because she was a woman.”
            “Because she was a woman.”

“So then you typically vote for Democrats.”
            “Well, yes, almost always, especially if I don’t know the candidates.”

“So why don’t you consider yourself a Democrat.”  
            “I generally do, but I like to be registered as an Independent in case I want to change my mind some day.”

“Would you really ever change your mind.”  
            “Maybe, my parents are Republicans and I’d hate to offend them.  But probably not.  I’d really like to be both a Republican and a Democrat, but I can’t register as both.”

“Can you honestly be both.”  
           “No, I don’t think so.”

             That conversation, in retrospect, reveals something about the mindset of many moderate Baptists.  We like to identify ourselves as not fundamentalist.  We call ourselves moderate or maybe even conservative, but not fundamentalist.  Yet we keep our connections with the SBC because somewhere in the past we liked them, we identified with them, and there is at least one SBC person we still like.  In fact, that person may be in our own family.  If all we see, however, is the SBC of the past, then we are fooling ourselves about the current intentions of the SBC.

            In recent times, many Baptist churches have approached dual alignment from the perspective of who we will offend if we become honestly moderate, and how much money those people we potentially offend give to the church.  Come on, admit it pastors.  I’ve heard those conversations more than a dozen times.  But is it honest?  Can Baptist churches be honest with themselves and continue to support both fundamentalism and freedom?

            Fortunately the church I serve made that choice twelve years ago, and we are stronger for having chosen to be honest with who we are.  Our sister church down the road is supporting and active in the state CBF and yet maintains a token relationship with the SBC, but could be, by the estimates of its own members, one pastor away from becoming fundamentalist.  Dual alignment makes church members, pastors, staff, and even potential new members wonder, sometimes out loud, “Honestly, are we fundamentalist or not?”  Worse still, it leaves the prospects for the future uncertain and makes trust a valuable commodity in the church.

            If fundamentalism is your church’s true identity, then embrace it.  If not, then it is time to sever ties with the fundamentalists who would be your church’s next pastor.