The Independent Baptist Movement - Part 1 of 3

Its Ideals, Its Integrity, Its Imperatives

By DR. SHELTON SMITH
(Read Part Two)

Although we have numerous biblical instructions which clearly teach us to take a stand and to do so with full doctrinal integrity, it is nonetheless not the norm in today’s religious climate.

Furthermore, it is very unpopular and generates a flurry of criticism for those of us who buck the tide and do it anyway.

When we insist that “ecclesiastical separation” is a Bible-based philosophy that should be practiced by all of us (see my book entitled Scriptural Fellowship, $6.95 plus $6.00 for shipping and handling from Sword of the Lord, P. O. Box 1099, Murfreesboro, TN 37133), our critics often say that we are unkind, unloving and divisive. They accuse us of “bashing” those with whom we disagree. Such criticism is unleashed, of course, with the hope that it will shame us and silence us.

The question which must then be answered is—will we stand on the authority of scriptural truth, or will we acquiesce to the whims of our peers?

Issues of Separation Should Always Be Substantive

Anytime there is a disagreement between two Christians, a break in fellowship should not be the first response. There should be a spirit of resolution built upon redemptive principles which guide us (Gal. 6:1).

Minor things do come up all the time. Such incidental matters should not divide us or cause a breach in our fellowship.

But major issues are a different matter entirely. They should not be handled as though they are minor. If the issue is a substantive one, then it must be addressed.

It is always our hope to resolve the issue, and our first response must be with an eye toward doing that. However, if it is a major issue and it cannot be corrected, our scriptural mandates require that we no longer keep close fellowship.

Aren’t All Baptists the Same?

No, all Baptists are not the same! Not by a long shot!

We obviously have common roots, a common heritage, but along the way things have happened, and some Baptists have shifted their principles and their practices. So in reality they are no longer the same.

Those changes bring stress; and when the issues become sufficiently sharp, the fellowship ruptures, and we go our separate ways. It is hard. It is costly. It is misunderstood and criticized, but it is necessary.

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”—Amos 3:3.

“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.”—I Cor. 1:10.

As an example of necessary division, consider the case of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in comparison to the independent Baptist movement. There has been this division for the last one hundred years, and there are substantive differences which necessitate it.

What’s the Big Deal Between SBC and Independents?

They’re Baptists like we are, aren’t they? Why can’t we all ignore our differences and be just one big happy family?

I understand the questions, but I am sometimes amazed at who is asking them. If it is a new convert, then we know that he just doesn’t know the issues. But if it is a preacher who has years of experience, that is another matter entirely.

If the preacher knows the Bible and has even a casual acquaintance with the issues of our day, he should know why we don’t all get together and go along with every project and every event that comes along.

Since that doesn’t seem to be the way it is, it becomes necessary once in a while for us to state our case again.

Is there a defining difference between the fundamental, separated, soul-winning, independent Baptist crowd and the Baptists who align with the Southern Baptist Convention? Should there be mixing and mingling between the pulpits and platforms of the two groups?

Should, for example, an independent pastor bring an SBC pastor to preach in his pulpit? Or are the issues within the SBC of sufficient magnitude that fundamental, independent Baptists should continue now in 2008 to separate from it—as has been the general practice for the better part of one hundred years?

When you see an event advertised where that separation is violated, should you as a Christian refuse to go? If you are a pastor, should you shield your church from it? Or should you, dear pastor, give diligence to advise your folks so they will understand what’s going wrong at the event?

Should you, as pastor, be concerned that the compromised event may build bridges for your people to the Convention? Should you voice your objections to the independent Baptist brethren who have violated your trust in them? Should you stand up publicly if they do not respond?

It is our strong opinion that the answer to all six questions is a resounding and positive yes. I believe it is important for all of us to stand up and speak up, remembering the scriptural rules for so doing (i.e., Matt. 18; Gal. 6).

It seems that we have come now to a day when too many of us (even in independent ranks) are desirous of peace at any price. In a strange sort of way, the constant clamor in religious circles for tolerance, understanding and acceptance has tethered many of God’s servants to the let’s-all-get-along bandwagon.

Doctrine is set aside! Bible principle is ignored! Clear Bible mandates are softened or supplanted entirely! Compromise eventually becomes acceptable simply because we don’t want to fight.

Oh, my brethren, there is a cause! It is a cause that deserves our love and our loyalty. There are good, solid Bible reasons why so many of us paid a dear price to become independent. We disengaged ourselves from the shackles of the Convention. We did so deliberately and, we believe, with good reason.

The heritage of the independent Baptist movement was handed to us by the generations of J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, Lester Roloff, Beauchamp Vick, Harold Sightler and Tom Malone.

They defined the issues, declared their loyalties and separated themselves decisively. The cause with which they identified was greater than the allure of personality or the appeal of mere preference.

Now here we are three generations later! Where are our convictions? Where is our discernment? Where is our sense of history? Where is our awe of this heritage? Where is our courage to stand as they stood?

The question today is twofold: How many of us will take a stand, and how many of us will cave in to pressure, thoughtlessly giving away what was handed to us?

What About the SBC’s “Conservative Resurgence”?

In 1979, the “conservative resurgence” within the Southern Baptist Convention garnered enough support to wrestle the leadership away from the deeply imbedded liberal establishment. Their rise to prominence and power instituted what came to be called a “holy war” within the Convention. The battle raged for years.

Many of the liberals pulled away. They put together a competing organization which they named the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. They opened several new seminaries. When they no longer held full control, they quickly regrouped in order to perpetuate their liberal agenda.

For the next twenty-six years (1979–2005), the conservatives held tightly to the leadership. One would assume that the Convention would soon be showing the impact of their presence. In some small measure here and there, it has done so. Unfortunately, the larger picture does not reflect the anticipated progress.

Under the conservative leadership, many, many thousands of SBC-affiliated churches have signed up for the Rick Warren and Bill Hybels style of contemporary ministry. Literally thousands of them are now fully “contemporary” (rock bands, etc.).

Under the conservative leadership, Calvinism is making strong inroads.

Under the conservative leadership, they “reinvented” the Bible once again, resulting in the official SBC version, the Broadman-Holman Bible.

Under the conservative leadership, the debate over drinking alcohol in moderation is now a front-burner debate. In 2006, it was a subject of open debate at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I will give more details in the second part of this article, but suffice it to say at this point that the claim that all is well in the SBC under the conservative leadership is totally ludicrous. It is naive and foolish.

I believe a case can be made to say that the demise and dysfunction of the 45,000 SBC churches is further downhill today than it was when the leadership of the “conservative resurgence” took control. The denomination itself is, we believe, in worse shape today (in 2008) than it was when the conservatives “took over” in 1979.

Take-Over, Make-Over

Let me remind you that in 1997 I published a small booklet entitled SBC Conservative “Take-Over” Not a “Make-Over.”

In that booklet (still available from the Sword of the Lord), I documented case after case of SBC-related issues (all of them current to 1996) which clearly demonstrated that the then eighteen-year run of the conservative leadership had not resulted in a makeover of the Convention’s ministry and business.

What I said then was right, and it is still right today (another eleven years down the pike).

It’s one thing to orchestrate a takeover, but it’s quite another to wield the power and influence in your hands to achieve a makeover.

In the SBC, the makeover was superficial and limited. It simply did not happen. To the contrary, they actually headed off into other uncharted waters such as the contemporary carnality nonsense.

The So-Called “Joshua Effect” Rose to Power in 2006

When the Southern Baptist Convention met in its annual session in Nashville in 2006, a revolt of sorts occurred. The “conservative” candidate for the denomination’s leadership was rejected. Instead a new breed of younger men (many of whom were the contemporary crowd) rose up against the conservative leadership.

They used the analogy of Moses and Joshua to assert themselves. To them it was time for Moses (the conservative) to step aside and let a Joshua (someone of their stripe) lead the denomination. I think it is obvious that they misrepresented both Moses and Joshua in so doing, but the comparison served their cause.

As a result, Frank Page from South Carolina was elected president of the SBC. He was reelected in 2007. He was portrayed as a middle-of-the-roader. He had an approach of peace with the main goal (of course) to evangelize the world.

World missions or world evangelism (though we believe strongly in both) has always been the catchphrase around which the compromise crowd camouflages their agenda. How can anyone not stand with them while they’re waving the missions and evangelism flags? It is a clever ploy, and it often works.

It is mere verbiage with them, but they use it effectively to keep their constituents on board. After all, they need their help to pay the bills. It is typically a way of spinning the story to their advantage.

Although I’m confident that some of them are sincere in their desire for world evangelism, I’m also very sure that they are not about to do what it takes to accomplish the task. In a nutshell, you cannot sell out the foundation of the faith (Scripture, standards, soul winning) and expect to get done the job of the Great Commission. It simply is not going to happen.

So at this stage of the game, the “conservative resurgence” of the SBC is in transition at best. Who knows where they will turn next. One thing is certain—all is not well in the SBC.

It has been almost thirty-two years since I left the Southern Baptist Convention. I had grown up inside the Convention. Initially I went to SBC schools. I was a pastor inside the Convention. But the day came when I could go no further with them, so I walked away.

When I made that major, traumatic step in my life and ministry, I did so out of deep conviction. I wanted to be an independent Baptist. I have never, ever regretted making that decision.

Although I will not fully catalog in this article the plethora of reasons which motivated me to leave the Convention, let me say at this point that they were many. Shortly thereafter (1979), the now well-known “conservative resurgence” got its footing and took charge of the national body, the Southern Baptist Convention. Remember, however, this does not include control of the individual state conventions or the local associations which are all affiliated with the SBC.

With the conservatives at the helm, they successfully wrested control of their six seminaries from the liberals. Their publishing house (LifeWay) and the Christian Life Commission (their social concerns agency) were also recovered.

SBC Conservatives Are Not Fundamentalists and Not Separatists

The so-called “moderates” (liberals) within the SBC are fond of labeling the leaders of the “conservative resurgence” as fundamentalists. That is far from a true description of them.

The liberals use it as a pejorative term in an attempt to intimidate and embarrass the conservatives. Often they are successful, because typically the SBC conservatives do not see themselves as fundamentalists.

They would give assent but certainly not take a strong stand on many of the separatist issues as we do. In almost all cases, they would avoid—in both philosophy and practice—any separatist principles. They would, therefore, cooperate with almost everything religious going on in their town.

All of us who watched the “holy war” being waged inside the Convention rejoiced with them in every victory won and in every liberal they displaced.

Unfortunately, the conservative leadership stopped short of full victory. They have chosen instead to be much too accommodating to the various elements. A “there’s room for all of us” philosophy has continued to be the norm. In brief, instead of a fervent pursuit for purity, they contented themselves with parity.

At the same time, many of the pastors and the people in the pew became weary of battle and began to clamor for peace in the camp. It is the chant and cry of a weak, whimpering crowd when they begin to say, “Let’s stop fighting one another and just get on with God’s business.”

Well we should know that often the enemy gets inside. He becomes one of us. We must never tire of ‘contending for the faith’ (Jude 3), or else there will soon be no one left to engage in the business of the Great Commission.

In other words, if we expect to have any preachers, missionaries and soul winners a decade from now, we had better be enthusiastic in our contending for faith, doctrine and stand.

With the leadership as well as the rank and file lying down before their victories were made secure, it was obvious that their pronouncements of success were premature and flawed.

Nonetheless, they declared that they had rescued the Convention from the liberals and that they were back on track again. While professing their belief in biblical inerrancy, the matter of biblical authority was still in question.

Some of the independent Baptist men were likewise soft in their thinking. They began to say, “The Convention is no longer an issue” and set about to chart a new and different course for themselves and their ministries.

Some Independents Ventured Out to SBC Events

A few showcase places like First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida and Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, as well as the Saddleback Church in California, have events where they conduct schools or seminars on church growth.

Some independent men ventured into those meetings. The SBC hosts rolled out the red carpet of welcome. It was easy enough to be impressed. After all, the buildings, the budgets and the crowds were there.

What the independent men did not realize was that some of the SBC leaders were laughing behind their backs about “all these independent Baptist guys” being there.

Some Independents Joined the SBC

In 1981, the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas (the church were Dr. J. Frank Norris served for forty-three years) merged with the Rolling Hills Baptist Church and in 1991 went back into the Convention.

In 1996, Dr. Jerry Falwell led the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, one of the largest independent Baptist churches in America, in taking the first steps toward aligning with the Southern Baptist Convention. Although they also maintained a dual affiliation with the BBFI (an independent Baptist fellowship), by June 1998, they were fully on board as a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Their actions were pacesetting and influenced others to do likewise.

In more recent years, churches like the North Florida Baptist Church of Tallahassee, Florida (Randy Ray, pastor) also announced their affiliation with the SBC.

In 2007, the Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga signed on with the Tennessee Baptist Convention (Southern Baptist state body in Tennessee). Their current status is listed as an “at large” member, which is a ploy that allows them officially to join the Convention without immediately seeking membership in the local Hamilton County Association in Chattanooga.

Some Independent Groups Began to Feature SBC Men

In September 2002 the Baptist Bible Fellowship held their annual national meeting in Fairfax, Virginia where they featured Southern Baptist speakers and also gave prominent place to the contemporary church philosophy.

In October 2002 the Southwide Baptist Fellowship featured two prominent Southern Baptist preachers at their annual national meeting in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Later in October 2002 the World Baptist Fellowship held its annual meeting in Jacksonville, Florida where their featured speaker was a prominent Southern Baptist leader.

Was it coincidental that these three prominent groups of independent Baptists all made the same steps of fraternizing and showcasing Southern Baptist leaders at the same time? I don’t think so.

Here are three groups who for years have been independent and maintained a full level of separation from compromised groups like the SBC, and all at once (within six weeks of one another) all of them turn their fellowships in the same direction. One would have to be naive, I think, to believe that there was not some deliberation among them about this.

By 2004, a new umbrella organization called the International Baptist Network came into being. Funded by the Rawlings Foundation, it was the brainchild of Dr. Jerry Falwell and Dr. John Rawlings.

At first, it was heralded as an independent Baptist network, but it soon came to light that the Southern Baptists were also to be included. A prominent Southern Baptist leader was, in fact, employed to be its director.

The goal was clearly to erase the lines of separation and pull all these Baptist groups together. As noble as that goal may seem, it was a finely orchestrated effort to get all Baptist groups to forget the issues and “just work together.”

Once again some of us had to remember that we pulled away in the first place over issues of compromise, carnality and corruption. If we now link back up, we simply tie ourselves to all those issues once again. It was then and is now unthinkable!

Conclusion

In the next issue of the sword, we will spell out clearly the issues which we believe are necessary for the maintaining of a line of separation between independent Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention.

We want to extend an olive branch, a word of welcome, to all who want to serve the Lord; but if we fellowship together and work together, it must be without compromise.

To offer a place in an independent Baptist pulpit to any man who has allegiances or alliances which compromise us is unthinkable!

The need to “contend for the faith” is greater today than ever before. We must not quit in the midst of the battle.

It is also unwise to build bridges to those compromised groups over which our people can easily walk.

We will be accountable to God at the judgment seat of Christ for the stewardship of the responsibilities He has entrusted to us.

Let us be vigilant! Let us be faithful! Let us stand up and be counted!

(Read Part Two)

Return to the SWORD OF THE LORD Homepage