Allow me tell you the story of Trinity Baptist Church.
Trinity Baptist Church in rural West Texas has been a long-standing church within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). They are active in their local association and the state convention. They give faithfully to the Cooperative Program, even after times got tough in their rural community. They have been in the SBC for almost 100 years, and have the last remaining SBC Women’s Missionary Union in a 100-mile radius. Their Sunday School material has been faithfully ordered from Lifeway from long before it was even named Lifeway. They are Baptist through and through. They have never heard of Calvinism or elders. They have congregational votes every other month and take care of their pastor in the aging parsonage next door to their historic building.
But about two years ago, they started a practice in their church that was very foreign to them. The pastor made the suggested change, and the people followed his leadership. While they may have been hesitant at first to adopt this new practice, they find now that they would never want to go back to the way it was before, even though this change of practice was more recent. This new practice has allowed them to be more relevant to other families who want to be a part of the church, and it is such an encouragement to the members of the church. After all, they love Jesus and they love each other. They love his Gospel, and this practice is in no way a rejection of primary orthodox Christian beliefs. This is a mere secondary issue. The only hang-up is that this practice put the church out of step with the practice of other Southern Baptists, and also with the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM). No one could question if they were in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC. They loved being SBC. They never want to leave; this is their people.
Yet, there were some that said this disagreement put them outside of the cooperative agreements and positions of the SBC. But how could that be? This is only a secondary issue, not primary. Good Christians can disagree on this issue and not be anathematized. Why were some of their fellow SBCers so close-minded about an issue that did not affect their congregation? Have those SBCers forgotten the cherished principle of local church autonomy? Trinity Baptist has the right to do as they wish, or so they remind others. They’re not demanding that others agree or make the change that they made; they simply want to practice this secondary issue and be left alone. They still want to be in friendly cooperation—even if they disagree with the Baptist Faith and Message on this issue. One could even argue their practice is not forbidden by the Baptist Faith and Message; it is simply an unaddressed addition—but it is definitely not following the Spirit of the document.
But how could anyone want them removed from the SBC? How could anyone violate local church autonomy? How could anyone get involved in their particular practices? Can we not disagree about the minutiae of how churches practice their ecclesiology? Why are these people acting like fundamentalists, close-minded, and harshly demanding uniformity on a secondary issue? This is not how Baptists act! Why are they trying to close the borders of the tent and kick out faithful churches who preach the Gospel, who give to the Cooperative program, and have faithfully been a part of the SBC for so many years?
Why on earth would a church that now practices paedobaptism be excluded by the SBC?
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
The Defining Importance of Secondary Issues
Why would I tell this parable? Because sometimes people hear “secondary” issues, and they assume that this means “unimportant.” But the SBC is built on secondary issues. We affirm that credobaptism is the correct biblical view of baptism. We believe that paedobaptists are very wrong on the issue. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, yet we cannot gather together in churches together because the very practice of baptism would undermine any attempt at unity. We can partner with them on many things, but not on the planting of local churches. This “secondary” issue is an issue of theological identity and cooperation. Credobaptists and paedobaptists have understood this, and this is why our denominational and associational efforts are separate from one another. Secondary theological issues truly matter.
But today there is a move within the SBC to try and downplay denominational accountability on these secondary distinctives and strike at the very heart of our Baptist confessional identity. The SBC has a statement of faith for a reason. As the Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) states: “Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability” (emphasis mine). By adopting that statement, we were clarifying to the world around us what we as an association (convention) of churches believe, and we also affirm that we use this document to hold each other accountable. Secondary issues, like baptism, matter.
Let me be clear: I am aware of no one seeking to bring paedobaptist churches into the SBC. That idea seems far-fetched. This is a parable after all. But other secondary issues are under fire, as seen with the responses to the Law Amendment and the Baptist Faith and Message’s statement that: “the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” This may be a secondary issue, but it is crucial in how churches are structured and operate, and thus influences church-planting and missions. Yet, despite the importance of this secondary issue and the clarity of the Baptist Faith and Message, there are some who want us to turn a blind eye to churches not in alignment with the SBC and Baptist Faith and Message on this issue. They say the mission is primary and that any doctrinal disagreement should be downplayed in service to the mission of the SBC. They want us to include in friendly cooperation churches who contradict our beliefs on a secondary issue—and therein lies the parallel to baptism. The same people who would never fathom the idea of allowing a paedobaptist in the SBC are arguing that this is not a big deal.
I suggest this is a very big deal. Our doctrinal statement matters. It serves as a means of “doctrinal accountability” for us as a Convention. We cannot cooperate together in church planting and missions if we don’t have agreement. The mission of the SBC is very important, but it flows from doctrinal agreement. Clarity on key doctrinal issues, like baptism and church leadership, do not take away from “missional vitality” as some allege. Secondary issues define our churches and our associations. We cannot be flippant over this. We must hold the line, not in sacrificing the mission, but for the sake of the mission—for the sake of seeing disciples made and Baptist churches planted. May we not grow tired in working toward that end. Let’s pass this Amendment in June, and let us continue to work beyond then to strengthen our commitment to our Baptist beliefs as stated in the Baptist Faith and Message.
