Mere Texas Baptists
This semester, I have been leading a group of students through C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity for a class on Christian Apologetics. When Lewis is referring to “mere”, he is playing off of Richard Baxter’s “mere” theology that was meant to describe not a shallow Christian faith, but a richer faith. Over the course of this semester, I was reminded of the way that Lewis famously described the Christian faith as a great hall with many smaller rooms just off of it. Lewis describes this great hall as “mere Christianity”. Each room, Lewis said, represented a denomination. A place where believers could live out their faith within particular traditions, while still united by the larger Christian story in the main hall.
I’ve often thought that Lewis’ metaphor works well to describe Texas Baptists. Our “great hall” is the shared conviction that Scripture is our authority, and that each individual believer, and therefore each local church, is under the Lordship of Jesus which infers that each are free & responsible to discern their own beliefs and practices. The “side rooms” represent the secondary and tertiary differences that naturally emerge in our local churches. Matters such as worship style, the calling of ministerial staff, and unique ministry endeavors don’t destroy fellowship, but display the diversity of Texas Baptist life.
Lately though, it seems the hall is shrinking. Language from leadership of our convention of Texas Baptist churches such as “affinity” and “centrism” signals a shift in my estimation. Affinity implies vague resemblance rather than clear conviction. Centrism is a borrowed political term to describe location on certain issues. These terms imply a lack of theological clarity & conviction and a tendency to indecision. Texas Baptists has never been vague about theological convictions. One should not conflate Texas Baptist emphasis on local church autonomy with sitting on the fence on issues. Texas Baptists may be all over the spectrum on issues. Local Church autonomy infers that decision are made. It’s all about where these decisions are made. Final authority lies in the local Church, not in a hierarchy. The language that leadership is utilizing doesn’t capture the heart of historic Baptist cooperation; it misinterprets it. If these terms become part of our common vernacular, we risk losing what has made us distinctly Baptist in the first place. At that point, I fear we might follow suit as some Baptist Churches have and drop “Baptist” from the name and begin to go by “Texas Christians”. This confusion that is being hashed out online via emails, articles, & social media posts shouldn’t be surprising. Many have foreseen this confusion coming a mile away due to 3 shifts that have taken place over the past few years.
Centralization: The Drift Toward Denominationalism
Our Baptist forebearers were clear that we are a convention of churches not a denomination of churches. Some may say this is mere semantics, but the two identities make all the difference in the world. A convention operates from the bottom up with churches cooperating voluntarily. A denomination operates from the top down, with decisions and directions flowing from a centralized place.
Unfortunately, today we are witnessing an unhealthy centralization of influence. Decisions and directions seem increasingly to flow from the building in Dallas rather than from the local church. The building, which was meant to serve the local church, now too often shapes the conventions’ priorities and leaders. Leadership influencing elections creates an episcopal pattern. This undermines the grassroots nature of our convention and can potentially erode the autonomy that has defined us since the beginning.
Women in Ministry: A Side Room Decision Drifting to a Hallway Decision
Historically, Texas Baptists have held that questions regarding women in ministry belong to the local church, not the convention. This is a side room issue in the Mere Texas Baptists hall. A matter where faithful churches may disagree and yet still cooperate.
But when the building begins signaling positions on this question, it effectively moves it into the great hall. This shift happens when there are political maneuvering to get a candidate elected in order to make a statement on this issue. This is not our historic tradition. The genius of Baptist life is that we can cooperate without conformity, holding a diversity of convictions under the Lordship of Christ. Elevating this issue to a convention-wide position not only violates our history and heritage, but risks fracturing the unity we claim to preserve.
Correcting the Drift: Empowering Churches with Confession Adoption
Our convention officially affirms the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message and not the 2000 BF&M. While obviously there was a tattered history to how this came to be, to affirm one version of the BF&M as a convention and not another is to reject that confession. I am not suggesting that we adopt the 2000. In fact, I believe our Mere Texas Baptist posture means we should not be in the business of affirming any confession as a convention. When the convention affirms one confession and rejects another, it ceases to be neutral and acts more denominationally rather than a cooperative body of churches. This stance of affirming one confession over another unintentionally declares that local churches aligning with the 2000 are somehow less Baptist or less welcome.
The more faithful and historic path would be for the convention to remove itself from the business of affirming confessions altogether, and instead allow local churches the freedom to affirm their own. We can as a denomination of churches choose who we cooperate with and who we don’t. I anticipate some responding that this would lead to thin Baptist theology. However, I would disagree. I see it as doubling down on our Mere Texas Baptist distinctives of local church autonomy under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Which again, is distinct from any kind of “centrist” position.
Questions of Drift
In the end, Lewis’ metaphor still provides clarity for us today. The “hall” is where we meet, not where we stay. But when those in the hall start rearranging the rooms, or worse start locking the doors, it’s time to remember who built this house in the first place. Christ is Lord of the local church, not the building in Dallas. There have been questions of theological drift in our convention. I would agree with our Executive Director’s words, that there is no drift in our convention. I believe that our convention of Churches still remain theologically conservative. Yet, I believe that the tension that exists might lay with the possibility of there being a drift in leadership. Now, let me be clear, I do not believe this drift is nefarious or necessarily intentional. I know there are good people who love the Lord in those positions of leadership. I would be willing to bet this drift is an accidental drift in language. Language though dictates practice and practice becomes patterns. I believe these practices & patterns have been demonstrated in the three concerns raised.
The health of our convention will depend on whether we have the courage to live again as a convention of churches, not a denomination. That we would remain Texas Baptists and not ecumenical centrists. In a state that is hungry for “mere Christianity” and only finding “thin theology”, I hope that those in our state can find Texas Baptists being theologically clear & convictional led. I look forward to seeing everyone gather in the “hall” in Abilene in a few weeks. I am praying that we will never forsake those gatherings nor lose what makes us Mere Texas Baptists.
*The thoughts above are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any institution that I am affiliated with.