CarpentersApprentice
New Member
What is your opinion about why the Southern Baptists Convention has chosen not to be a member denomination of the National Association of Evangelicals?
CA
CA
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are Baptists NAE Evangelical?
- Thread starter CarpentersApprentice
- Start date
Check out this link: http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8724
CarpentersApprentice
New Member
... sibling jealously... political loyalty... functional exclusivity...
The third point is interesting.
If the largest evangelical denomination and the largest evangelical organization can't agree on the definition of the word "evanglical" this does not bode well for those Christians who choose to call themsleves by that name.
CA
The third point is interesting.
If the largest evangelical denomination and the largest evangelical organization can't agree on the definition of the word "evanglical" this does not bode well for those Christians who choose to call themsleves by that name.
CA
CarpentersApprentice said:
GE
Yes! Originally 'Evangelical' indicated Calvinist-Reformed Protestant. Nowadays the word in my mind represents those hand-clapping noisy chaotic usually non-European mesmerised masses. So no longer for me that name, thanks. Luckily there is the better nomenclature to resort to, 'Christian'!
BobRyan said:
GE
In my experience and perception it's cultural and social more than anything else. It's not only what ones believes; it's not even how one believes; but it also is with whom one believes. In some Christian 'company' I am just not at ease; in another I could even differ greatly, yet feel at home and at one. Feeling of course is a doubtful standard of judgment - we have seen it already in Romans 14. Nevertheless, it will determine whether one would join or subscribe or not.
Also factor in the early participation of Southern fundamentalists such as John R. Rice and the Bob Joneses (Bob Jr. was once NAE vice president), and the inclusion and increasing prominence of Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God.
Wayne Flyn, Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, p. 408:
"Furthermore, the NAE originated in the North and tended to be transdenominational. The regional isolation of Southern Baptists, their tight programmatic organization and focus on the denomination, and their Landmark ecclesiastical heritage of believing only Baptists preserved the true faith held them aloof or at least apart from fundamentalism. They were simply too busy doing their own thing (and in the process becoming the largest Protestant denomination in the nation and the largest missionary force in the world) to quibble about words."
Leonard Sweet, The Evangelical Tradition in America, pp. 283-284
"Several denominations refused to join the NAE because they thought the fundamentalist influence was too strong. The Southern Baptists, who would have initially dominated the NAE membership with their five million members, backed away after initial interest. (Southern Baptist eminences, such as Robert G. Lee and R. J. Bateman, played prominent roles in the St. Louis conference, but did not return in 1943) Their leaders blamed Northern fundamentalists for the millenarianism, independence, and separatism that was disturbing them with new intensity in the 1940s. Since then, they have avoided contact with the new evangelical coalition. "We are not evangelicals; that's a Yankee word," huffed Southern Baptist executive Foy Valentine in 1976. "We don't share their . . . fussy fundamentalism.""
Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, p. 159:
"last thing they needed was some entangling alliance with Yankee fundamentalists, holiness come-outers, immigrants, and tongues-speakers.
The Southern Baptists' response offers an important clue for understanding the NAE's limited success in representing the whole breadth of twentieth-century evangelicalism. Southern Baptists did not sense that the NAE offered them something they needed. . . . Southern Baptists, with their great numbers and well-established agencies, did not need either the NAE's services or its collective voice. Unlike smaller groups, such as the Free Methodists, Mennonite Brethren, and Assemblies of God, which had much to gain from the legitimacy and advocacy offered by the NAE, the Southern Baptists were a force to be reckoned with in and of themselves."
Wayne Flyn, Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, p. 408:
"Furthermore, the NAE originated in the North and tended to be transdenominational. The regional isolation of Southern Baptists, their tight programmatic organization and focus on the denomination, and their Landmark ecclesiastical heritage of believing only Baptists preserved the true faith held them aloof or at least apart from fundamentalism. They were simply too busy doing their own thing (and in the process becoming the largest Protestant denomination in the nation and the largest missionary force in the world) to quibble about words."
Leonard Sweet, The Evangelical Tradition in America, pp. 283-284
"Several denominations refused to join the NAE because they thought the fundamentalist influence was too strong. The Southern Baptists, who would have initially dominated the NAE membership with their five million members, backed away after initial interest. (Southern Baptist eminences, such as Robert G. Lee and R. J. Bateman, played prominent roles in the St. Louis conference, but did not return in 1943) Their leaders blamed Northern fundamentalists for the millenarianism, independence, and separatism that was disturbing them with new intensity in the 1940s. Since then, they have avoided contact with the new evangelical coalition. "We are not evangelicals; that's a Yankee word," huffed Southern Baptist executive Foy Valentine in 1976. "We don't share their . . . fussy fundamentalism.""
Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism, p. 159:
"last thing they needed was some entangling alliance with Yankee fundamentalists, holiness come-outers, immigrants, and tongues-speakers.
The Southern Baptists' response offers an important clue for understanding the NAE's limited success in representing the whole breadth of twentieth-century evangelicalism. Southern Baptists did not sense that the NAE offered them something they needed. . . . Southern Baptists, with their great numbers and well-established agencies, did not need either the NAE's services or its collective voice. Unlike smaller groups, such as the Free Methodists, Mennonite Brethren, and Assemblies of God, which had much to gain from the legitimacy and advocacy offered by the NAE, the Southern Baptists were a force to be reckoned with in and of themselves."
I have just today listened to one Franklin - Ezekiel Franklin or whatever - He bragged a lot about 600 million converts to the charismatic showbizz in just 100 years. And then he noised about pride pride pride! Huh, I can't stomach these hypocrites!
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
Funny some criticize the SBC for withdrawing from them. Other criticize them for when they were a part of them. You cannot please everyone.
I have no problems with not being a part of it. Let me ask a question here, will anyone come to Christ because the SBC is/isn't a part of the NAE?
Also, I would not consider Ethicsdaily.com as a very reliable source on the SBC or why it does/doesn't do something.
I have no problems with not being a part of it. Let me ask a question here, will anyone come to Christ because the SBC is/isn't a part of the NAE?
Also, I would not consider Ethicsdaily.com as a very reliable source on the SBC or why it does/doesn't do something.
CarpentersApprentice
New Member
Jerome said:
Well, well... I always considered the term Evangelical to be synonymous with Baptist, or Christian. This is some very thought provoking information. I guess my uncritical acceptance of this "fact" requires some more pondering.
Thanks.
CA
CarpentersApprentice
New Member
BobRyan said:
Not necessarily...
I think if you put a Baptist and a Pentacostal in a room and asked them to come to an agreement on the complete meaning of "regeneration by the Holy Spirit" and "present ministry of the Holy Spirit" they could be in there for quite a while.
It's one thing to say "I believe that." It's another thing to define what you mean.
CA
CarpentersApprentice
New Member
PastorSBC1303 said:
The question isn't pleasing everyone, or coming to Christ. The question is understanding what it means to be an evangelical. If everybody gets to define their own terms then nobody knows what anybody is talking about. (Unless, of course, all there is to Christianity is me-and-Jesus.)
Fair enough. Why do you think the SBC is not a part of the NAE?
CA
First, your title is incomplete. You really mean "Is the Southern Baptist Convention NAE Evangelical?"
Not all Baptist are affiliated with the SBC nor does the SBC represent the thinking of all Baptists.
The question of representing Baptist churches goes back to the reasons behind the break up of the Trienniel Convention. I'll hazard many SBC churches feel comfortable with a Baptist convention but they wouldn't feel comfortable with linking up with Presbys and Methodists.
Not all Baptist are affiliated with the SBC nor does the SBC represent the thinking of all Baptists.
The question of representing Baptist churches goes back to the reasons behind the break up of the Trienniel Convention. I'll hazard many SBC churches feel comfortable with a Baptist convention but they wouldn't feel comfortable with linking up with Presbys and Methodists.
Last edited by a moderator:
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
CarpentersApprentice said:
Maybe not to you, but to me this is the central question in any partnership for the SBC. Will joining this group lead to people coming to Christ? If the answer is yes, and there is agreement on the major tenants of orthodox doctrine, then it is a worthwhile partnership. If the answer is no, there is no need to go any further IMO.
I really have no clue, and to be honest, really do not care. Again, it does not impact people coming to Christ.
Paul was disappointed with the Corinthian church because of their divisions, think what he would say today about the state of affairs today. God knew what God's desire was for his people.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1:10)[/I] Notice he didn't say organization.
They were aligning themselves with different "groups": of Paul, of Cephas, of Apolos.
Paul asks the ultimate rhetorical question: Is Christ divided? (1:13)
Rather than get into the fray Paul stays focused:
"For Christ sent me not to ..., but to preach the gospel" (1:17)
I wonder if he ever heard "if you wrestle with pigs your gonna get dirty'?
Oh that we would do the same! The world looks at these contentions ("politics" as Bob Ryan pointed out) and wants nothing to do with it.
The carnal mind wants to win, be the biggest and best, and be in THE group. Not so the mind of Christ:
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (13:2-3)
Phil 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel"
Notice he didn't say one organization. God help us.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1:10)[/I] Notice he didn't say organization.
They were aligning themselves with different "groups": of Paul, of Cephas, of Apolos.
Paul asks the ultimate rhetorical question: Is Christ divided? (1:13)
Rather than get into the fray Paul stays focused:
"For Christ sent me not to ..., but to preach the gospel" (1:17)
I wonder if he ever heard "if you wrestle with pigs your gonna get dirty'?
Oh that we would do the same! The world looks at these contentions ("politics" as Bob Ryan pointed out) and wants nothing to do with it.
The carnal mind wants to win, be the biggest and best, and be in THE group. Not so the mind of Christ:
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (13:2-3)
Phil 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel"
Notice he didn't say one organization. God help us.
CarpentersApprentice
New Member
Squire Robertsson said:
Point taken.
What were those reasons?
CA
CarpentersApprentice
New Member
trustitl said:
Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that we did the same - how would that look on a practical level?
And... isn't that what the NAE is trying to do?
CA
The commonly given reason is the antipathy of Northern Baptists to the support of slave holding missionaries. Remember, the great home mission field in the 1830s was the frontier of Trans-Mississippi region. However, the Northern churches also did feel comfortable with a national body "speaking" for "them". It all goes to the Baptist distincitive of the "Autonomy and Independence of the Local Church."CarpentersApprentice said:
CarpentersApprentice said:
What I meant by "doing the same" was not preaching the gospel, but rather avoiding things that get in the way like large national associations. The NAE may be trying to make unity but they can't.
I went to the NAE web site and found the following:
Mission Statement
The mission of the National Association of Evangelicals is to extend the kingdom of God through a fellowship of member denominations, churches, organizations, and individuals, demonstrating the unity of the body of Christ by standing for biblical truth, speaking with a representative voice, and serving the evangelical community through united action, cooperative ministry, and strategic planning.
And from their statement of faith:
"We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ."
In my personal opinion, these human attempts at making tangible unity just don't work. I think we need to leave the big picture to God and go about the clear missions that are before us: witnessing to our families, work associates, neighbors, etc.
The spiritual unity of believers is not something WE make. We need to learn to live in the unity that already exists. So on a practical level it would not look like a whole lot which makes it so hard for people to accept since we too often want to build something that we can see.
Luke 17:20 "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
This is not an easy thing to do, trust me. I grew up in a denomination this is in the NAE and am no longer a part of it. It would be much easier, more comfortable, and in many ways nicer to be a part of it. There is a price to pay for working outside these types of orgainizations but the upside for me has been that I have learned that my faith is stronger.
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
My heart is leaning on the Word,
The living Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior’s Name,
Salvation through His blood.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.