Bill Clinton and Al Gore? They were once Southern Baptists and I imagine that they remain generic Baptists.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell? An independent Baptist who led a church that became Southern Baptist. How about the Rev. Pat Robertson? He was Southern Baptist, but his second ordination was totally post-denominational (with one Episcopal bishop taking part, for what it’s worth).

President Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist, but dropped his ties to the Southern Baptist Convention. I think journalist Bill Moyers fits that mold, too. Come to think of it, so does political science professor and pastor Ryan Burge.

So what does “Baptist” mean, with or without that whole “Southern” thing? Is it up to the individual believer, the local congregation or some kind of affirmation at the regional, state or national level? After all, there are hundreds of different “Baptist” brands and thousands of totally independent “Baptist” congregations.

These questions loomed in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The topic was press coverage of the national meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, which was held in New Orleans this year.

As usual, the big SBC show drew lots of coverage — especially with the dramatic appeal by the Rev. Rick Warren, perhaps America’s best-known evangelical, for his Saddleback Church to be readmitted to the national convention, even after it plunged ahead and ordained women to various ministries.

Supporters of the ordination of women lost that move — by a wide margin. Also, the Rev. Bart Barber, the establishment candidate, was easily elected to a second term as SBC president.

That being said, what was the big news here? The best way to follow the crucial decisions in New Orleans is to dig into two Religion News Service pieces. Here is a key passage from the first, by religion-beat veterans Adelle Banks and Bob Smietana:

Warren and the Rev. Linda Barnes Popham, who leads the Louisville church, each argued that Baptists don’t agree on a range of matters — from Calvinism to COVID-19 — but that hadn’t halted their ability to have a shared commitment to spreading the gospel.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued against keeping either Saddleback or Fern Creek within the Southern Baptist fold. He said the idea of women pastors “is an issue of fundamental biblical authority that does violate both the doctrine and the order of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Newly reelected SBC President Bart Barber appeared before the outcome of the votes were announced to urge an appropriate response. “I believe in the sanctity of marriage, but I know sometimes in our churches people wind up in biblical divorce,” he said. “But we don’t throw divorce parties at our church, OK?”

A few paragraphs later, there was this:

The closely watched decisions about women pastors demonstrated that many Southern Baptists remain committed to the Baptist Faith and Message, their doctrinal statement that declares: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

The big question: Is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 document a doctrinal “statement” or a binding “covenant” that controls which autonomous SBC congregations are in, and which ones are out?

After the votes in New Orleans, it’s clear that the momentum is toward the SBC proceeding as a national convention that is willing to defend doctrines on what it sees as crucial and divisive issues in a radically divided American culture.

That’s at the national level: Banks and Smienta’s piece also noted:

Warren said he took on the appeal for the sake of pastors of other churches who don’t have the same kind of platform that he does and who worry that SBC leaders will come after them. “They can’t hurt me,” he said. He noted that Saddleback will still be part of its local Baptist association and the California Baptist state convention. 

This is a crucial point. SBC polity has always stressed the autonomy of local congregations. Then there are Southern Baptist ties that bind in regional associations and in state conventions. A few states have more than one convention, in part because of different approaches to issues such as the ordination of women.

Decades ago, at the start of the great “biblical inerrancy” war for control of the SBC, the late Rev. James Dunn — a legend among progressives — told me that it is really hard to get pushed completely out of Southern Baptist life, because of the flexibility built into its regional, state and national structures. Dunn compared the SBC to a bumble bee, noting that it’s not supposed to be able to fly — but it keeps flying.

Will churches on the left side of SBC life cling to that concept?

However, the messengers gathered in New Orleans went further than affirming, in action, a “covenant” view of the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message.

This was demonstrated in the follow-up RNS story by Banks, which ran with this headline: “Southern Baptists start constitutional step naming only men as pastors.”

Southern Baptists, after lengthy debate Wednesday (June 14), voted on new language for their constitution that would state only men can be pastors of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

The wording, which must be approved two years in a row, would be added to an article of the constitution that describes ways that churches can be in “friendly cooperation” with the Southern Baptist Convention, which the current constitution defines as churches that agree with the SBC’s statement of faith, contribute to its funding program or entities, do not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity and do not condone sexual abuse.

The new language would add that a church “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”

If this motion passes again, SBC leaders will have created — as Mohler noted — a structure that resembles a formal denomination more than it does a loose convention of congregations, a Baptist structure with both covenant “doctrine” and “order,” as in church law.

Does the current SBC establishment want to go that far? This second Banks piece noted:

The SBC Executive Committee voted Monday (June 12) to approve placing the amendment before the messengers, or delegates, during this year’s meeting. But they also noted their opposition to changing the constitution to address the issue, with some members saying during the meeting that the faith statement is the place for such doctrinal issues.

In recent years, the SBC has, with its actions, raised several issues to the level of “doctrine” and “order.” In addition to the ordination of women as pastors, the “disfellowship” option has been used against congregations that defy national SBC policies fighting racism, opposing progressive stances on LGBTQ+ issues and attempting to prevent sexual abuse.

Hot-button issues? To say the least. In part, the SBC is responding to American culture.

Is it a violation of “Baptist” tradition to punish and/or remove congregations that violate SBC “doctrine” and “order”? That depends on what kind of Baptist one asks.

There is nothing new about Baptists adopting “covenants” of this kind, noted historian Thomas Kidd, in a new essay for The Gospel Coalition: “Confessions of Faith and the Baptist Tradition.”

Then again, there is nothing new about other Baptists opposing the enforcement of doctrinal covenants, based on their understand of “soul competency,” the “priesthood of every believer” and the fundamental nature of the “autonomy” of the local church.

But Kidd is convinced that many Southern Baptists are ignoring a key truth about the complex history of Baptist faith and church polity.

Historically, Baptists have intuitively understood that confessions foster unity by setting up ecclesiological and doctrinal fences. The truth is, all churches use doctrinal tests to maintain denominational boundaries, whether they are written ones or not. For example, what would be the point of keeping a church in fellowship with a Baptist denomination if it rejected believer’s baptism? Or if its pastor was an agnostic? Would critics of confessions really say that we are obliged to maintain fellowship with churches regardless of what they believe?

All social, political, and religious groups have to set some limits, or they’d become incoherent and pointless. No one wants to join a group that is for nothing.

What about those who insist that the Bible, alone, is enough?

Traditional Baptists have always affirmed the Bible as their final authority. But anyone marginally familiar with church history knows that Christians do not always agree on what the Bible teaches. Even when the application and meaning of a text has seemed clear to people for generations, culture changes can ignite new disagreements.

Confessions, therefore, allow churches to express their official understanding of what Scripture teaches. They lay out basic tenets of Christianity like the nature of the Trinity and the necessity of personal salvation. They also distinguish churches from one another by describing positions on doctrines and practices like baptism and church government. Affirming a confession typically indicates that a church intends to teach in accordance with it and to align itself with other churches who do the same.

What about those that disagree with the contents of a covenant?

Traditionally, they form their own Baptist flocks and conventions, after losing votes to edit the covenant. Will that happen in this case, or will “moderates” and/or “progressives” simply cut their national SBC ties and remain active at the regional and state levels?

Stay tuned.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others!

FIRST IMAGE: Screenshot from a 2022 WFAA-ABC news report about voting in the SBC.