Confessionalism: Southern Baptists and Confessions: Part 1

In 1925, Baptists in the South finalized, for them, an unprecendented move:  they adopted their first, convention-wide confession of faith.  Included with the proposed Confession, a lengthy preface was further adopted which denied any real spiritual authority belonged to any document but the Bible.  In part, it read: 

As introductory to the doctrinal articles, we recommend the adoption by the Convention of the following statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life, believing that some such statement will clarify the atmosphere and remove some causes of misunderstanding, friction, and apprehension.

Contrary to popular belief, Baptists in the south were not united concerning confessions.  Indeed, the debate was often times heated during the formative months prior to 1925 about whether or not Baptists adopt a confession.  Indicative of this debate, The Christian Index ran a series of essays--both pro and con--leading up to the historic vote in May of 1925 to adopt the Baptist Faith and Message.

Reproduced below is the first of two essays I want to post.  W. O. Carver was longtime Professor of Missions at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  His position on confessions remains interesting for us not only because he represents the stream known as Separate Baptists, who seemed to embody a natural aversion to confessions in general, but also because the Chairman of the committee who was assigned the task of producing the Baptist Faith and Message for the Convention to consider was none other than E.Y. Mullins, President of the seminary where Dr. Carver served. 

First appearing in The Christian Index, the short essay is entitled "The Baptist, His Creed, and His Fellowship."

There was no creed for the first Christians. Each man was expected to have his individual experience of Jesus Christ as his Savior, by the working within him of the Holy Spirit through the word of the Gospel. He told his experience to the brethren and if they were satisfied that it was a genuine experience of the saving power of the Redeemer they took him into their fellowship, and then avoided "decision of scruples." Thus as they grew in grace and the knowledge of the Lord their fellowship broadened and became more comprehensive. 

That has been the Baptist way all along the road, except for limited and temporary lapses in faith in the Holy Spirit and in the democratic principle, when in some parts the effort was made to formulate a man's faith for him. Whenever we are loyal to the Baptist ideal of individualism we must follow the New Testament way, and not the way of the ecclesiastical bodies which subordinate the individual freedom to a formal regularity and uniformity. 

Churches adopt "confessions of faith," but I have never heard of one that required the new convert to subscribe formally to the "confession." What I have always seen and what I have heard of among Baptists is that the new believer is asked to state his own experience. The brethren hear him. If his experience seems Christian he is taken into the fellowship. His experience is far more dependable if he states it in his own way, than if he agrees to a formula known to be demanded for acceptance. We seek to preserve the individuality, the vitality, and the fervor of experience by thus allowing each man to have his own experience and his own statement of it. 

If a church wishes to associate itself with other churches "of like faith and order" in an "Association," it is not required to adopt some specified, stereotyped, uniform creed, confession, or statement of doctrine. It submits a statement of it's faith, its ideals, its polity. A committee takes this statement under consideration, and makes a recommendation. No requirement is made that the new church shall adopt the New Hampshire, the Philadelphia, the "fundamentalist," the "Modernist," or any other specific statement. The Church is free in making, or finding its statement.

If it seems to the Association to represent the Baptist position and tradition the church is accepted, on its own statement. The State Conventions are in the habit of leaving this whole matter to the Associations and accepting the churches on the basis of their confidence in the smaller bodies. Until the restlessness of recent years the Southern convention has never meddled with such Matters at all. To do so is a violation of our history, and of our principle, and of our practice.

One feels constrained to ask what the brethren who are so intent on Presbyterianizing us want with this creed they are determined to have the convention adopt. At least one of them has frankly told us that it is desired in order to enable some undefined group to get at certain "heretics" now beyond their reach. Others have privately admitted the same thing. It is nothing to them that the "heretics" are subject to their own churches, that these churches are in the fellowship of the Associations, that in institutions they are subject to trustees. 

Now quite frankly, what do they want with the creed, unless it is to be used as an instrument for invading the rights, the principles, the fellowship of the churches, and the personal believers in the Lord Jesus. Is not the effort an expression of distrust and not of faith?

With that, I am... 

Peter

Comments

[Luke]

Good Morning Peter,
I've been giving some thought to all this about confessions and the BF&M and I have arrived at this point for the time being. I do not have a problem having the BF&M to which employess of the SBC must confirm, adopt, sign or whatever you want to do to signify adherence. This list would especially include Seminaries, Colleges, Missionaries, both home and foreign, AND Trustees and Presidents of all the different SBC entities.

When it comes to the Associational level, I believe it ought to operate in pretty much the same way. Associational employess ought to have a specific standard, the BF&M being good for that as well. Church's within the associations would be entrusted with the concept of monitoring their own association.

Why? I believe there is a certain amount of "conformity" required in order to ensure "unity". One faith, one baptism...even Paul taught unity through conformity if I may put it that way. But I confess, that when we as individuals start trying to relegate issues to first tier, second tier and so on, subjectivsm will tend in the second generation to rule the day. My ramblings at least.

Luke

[volfan007]

peter,

very interesting and thought provoking stuff.

david

[peter]

Luke,

Thanks for the input. I tend to agree up to a point that some type of "conformity" seems necessary for cooperation. The question remains, how loose or how strict does it need to be?

That said, I have the Separate Baptist DNA in me that knaws against credalism. It is a razor's edge between embracing creeds and embracing confessions but, ever how thin, I think, at least for me, it is still wise to hold the distinction.

Know, of course, Luke, I am not suggesting your fine comment leans toward credalism.

Grace today. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

David,

Thanks always for dropping by. Our history is facinating, is it not? I had no idea SBTS was split on the issue of confessionialism.

I'm posting next a great essay arguing for the need for confessions written by another professor--not E.Y. Mullins, by the way.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

I tend to side with Carver. Or, more exactly, I agree with those who argue that, for both the 1925 and 1963 BF & M statements, the introductory statement was the most important "article of faith" since it showed how Baptists had historically been confessional without being creedal.

Yes, SBTS was split on this, always. Even when they finally agreed with Boyce to have the "Abstract of Principles" several of the articles had to be re-written as compromises. For instance, Art. 1 of the Abstract on Scripture was taken nearly verbatim from the 2nd London Confession (the first Baptist confession to put Scripture before GOD!), but the word "infallible" had to be dropped. Boyce and Manley liked the word since they were Princeton inerrantists. But Broadus refused to sign until the word was dropped and "authoritative" was used in its place.
Over the years, the role of the Abstract was a point of contention repeatedly--long before the struggle over inerrancy of the 1980s.

As for me, I still resonate with John Leland's remark calling confessions and creeds "Virgin Marys" that attempt to take Christ's place as One Mediator!

The Baptist Union of Great Britain has no confession of faith; nor do the American Baptists, the Canadian Baptist Ministries or many other Baptist bodies. German Baptists only finally wrote a confession (again with a huge prologue denying that it was a creed) after WWII, when they felt compelled to distinguish the gospel from the errors of Naziism that captured so many of Germany's churches.

[Luke]

"Know, of course, Luke, I am not suggesting your fine comment leans toward credalism."

Okay. I'll have to let my ignorance shine but for a moment. I'm not sure if I'm creedal, confessional or something else since I do not presently know the distinctions between the two. But rest assured, no offense taken, unless of course being creedal is theologically a cussword.:)

Seriously though, I am going to have to research the different nuances. I wish I hadn't skipped theology that moment. Oh wait, I didn't skip, we just never covered that aspect. I graduated from the Baptist College of Florida and studied theology under Wiley Richards, who also authored, "Winds of Doctrine". I'll just blame it on him since he isn't here.

Luke

[peter]

Michael,

Thanks. How intriging about the evolving of the Abstracts. Especially of interest to me is the rejection of Professor Broadus to sign the AP until it was toned down.

I must admit, I am a deep admirer of Dr. Mullins. His systematic theology is still useful to me. Yet, I cannot rid myself of this yacking little voice in me saying we need no creed but the NT. That stated, Professor Carver's essay resonates with me.

Dr. Dement's advocacy of the confession--which I post next--is a great piece, however. I'll look forward to your remarks, Michael.

With that, I am...

peter

[peter]

Luke,

I read an essay recently by Dr. Richards in Baptist History & Heritage on the waning of Calvinism in the SBC. Very interesting. Is he still teaching there?

Peace tonite. With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

Peter,
Unless he does some adjunct work or anything like that, he does not teach there any more. I have not read the article you are talking about, but I'll get to it. I'm not sure what your impression of his writing skill or thought process is but I can tell you from personal conversation, he truly attempts to write from and objective position. A compliment to him would be, "having read your article, which position do you take about....?"

Thanks for the interesting post. You still have me thinking.

Luke

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

I like much of Mullins, although his view of church is too individualistic, lacking the earlier Baptist emphasis on covenant community. Mullins, I think, was trying to moderate two extremes. He had seen the fury of the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy in Baptist circles in the North when he pastored FBC, Newton Centre, Mass. Now that was threatening to move South full force, especially in a controversy over biological evolution. There were proposals to tie the SBC to a scholastic Calvinistic creed.
Mullins tried to head all that off with the BF & M, but he appended the huge preface to try to prevent creedalism. It worked for years--most Southern Baptists completely ignored the BF& M.
It wasn't until the 1980s that the BF& M began to be treated like a creed.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

BTW, that's a great pic of Mullins, Peter. I had only seen photos of him as an old man.

[peter]

Michael,

I think you are correct in Dr. Mullins' emphasis on local church "autonomy"--a term he may have coined. Interestingly, I do tend to agree with that, though surely not to the exclusion of the people of God as community motif.

For experiential theology in distinction to propositional revelation, Mullins may be our greatest apologist.

And, the picture is becoming, I agree. Grace. With that, I am...

peter

[volfan007]

peter,

how do you like the fact that we are treated as villains over at wade's blog? to hear many over at his blog, we are bad, bad, bad boys....even though we are the ones being talked down to, ridiculed, and have mean, ugly things being said to us. it's amazing to watch sometimes.

peter, i'm sorry, i guess i should have commented on your previous post about this...it fit better on that one. but, it's amazing to me to watch people attack and spin everything said and twist it around. hang in there, bro.

david........volfan007

[peter]

David,

I am unsure precisely why they would lump us together. Perhaps it's because we are both from Tennessee. Or it may be because we ask more questions than we offer answers. Unfortuantley, that happens to be my personal constitution.

And, as for hanging in, thank you for the encouragement, David. Like anyone else, constant attacks can start to hang on one like beggar lice. But, I learned from Daddy to just be patient and pick them off one by one. After all, beggar lice is quite harmless in the long run.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter