Tolerance, reasonableness regarding the NBC

Thank you for your analysis of the New Baptist Covenant Celebration. Much of what you said is accurate and fair.

For example, your description of the differing ways in which people interpret President Carter’s involvement in the event is on target. So far as I can tell from my memory of the addresses, you quote the speakers accurately. I furthermore think that you accurately present some of the tensions that the diversity of the various groups and individuals present at the meeting will inevitably create going forward. In addition, I appreciate your noting that President Clinton did avoid political partisanship in his address, as did all of the speakers.

I would have been pleased had you noted that many critics had predicted that the event would be immersed in political partisanship and that turned out not to be the case. Many such prognosticators were Southern Baptists, after all.

I was a little befuddled as to the point of the sentence about donation checks being made to Mercer University with a designation to the NBC. Were you implying that it was somehow surprising that Mercer was acting as the conduit for the donations? I thought that Mercer’s involvement was well known.

I agree with you that Georgia Baptists and Southern Baptists do much good work in addressing the needs of the poor and needy. I would submit, however, that the needs are so great and the instructions of Jesus to all his followers in that area are so clear that it only makes sense for more of us Baptist Christians to work together, regardless of our theological bent, to help meet more of those tremendous needs. I simply don’t see why a Christian who affirms inerrancy on the one hand and a Christian who affirms sufficiency or infallibility on the other hand, for example, cannot work together to proclaim Christ, to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked.

The heading over the final section of your analysis poses the question “How wide a tent?” There is no doubt that therein lies the main issue. Indeed, that has for a very long time been the main issue in Baptist life. For many decades Southern Baptists tolerated a wide range of theological interpretation for the sake of the greater causes of missions and evangelism. In more recent decades, Southern Baptists adopted the position that theological uniformity was a prerequisite to cooperation in those causes. It is debatable whether that change has led us down a better road.

As you know, the “how big a tent?” question continues to pose problems in Southern Baptist life. Only time will tell if the SBC tent will be large enough to hold traditional and emergent Baptists, Calvinist and Arminian Baptists, and older and younger Baptists.

You say, “Would the New Baptist Covenant be willing to tolerate the convictions of most Southern Baptists in order to admit them into their fellowship or would Southern Baptists be willing to compromise their convictions to become a part of the New Baptist Covenant?” I fear that this question implies something about the NBC that is not so: it is not a fellowship into which one is “admitted.” Anybody can, could, and did participate. Southern Baptists were there. Southern Baptists can participate.

Now, whether or not SBC leadership could or would have a leadership role is a separate question. First, the conventions and fellowships involved in NBC leadership are members of the North American Baptist Fellowship (NABF) which is a regional body of the Baptist World Alliance (BWA); the SBC has withdrawn from those bodies. Second, SBC leadership has frankly and unfortunately not exhibited much willingness to be involved in pan-Baptist efforts in which they are not the dominant voice.

You go on to say, “It is Southern Baptists’ strong commitment to Biblical inerrancy, cooperative mission endeavors, and evangelism that has been the catalyst binding us together.” I agree with you that from the very beginning of the SBC our commitment to missions and evangelism bound us together. I would suggest, though, that the recently (over the past three decades) insisted-upon pledge of allegiance to a narrow definition of Biblical inerrancy, especially the tendency to insist that folks think in terms of “inerrant=literal,” is one of the things that has driven us apart.

It might be fair to rephrase your question a bit: “Would the NBC be willing to tolerate the conviction of current SBC leadership that a stated belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is a test of fellowship that must be applied to any individual or group before cooperative missions and ministries can be undertaken?” Put that way, the question is not one of the tolerance of the NBC but one of the reasonableness of the SBC leadership.

As for how “tolerant” the NBC would be about that – well, I suspect that they would not make such an extra-biblical doctrine about the Bible a test of fellowship at all!