SBC and BWA Begin Formal Dialogue

As part of a commitment initiated in 2004, leaders from the Baptist World Alliance (BWA) and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) met for the first time on December 19, 2011, in Nashville TN, in “continued dialogue between the two groups.” The meeting was described by the Associated Baptist Press (ABP) “as cordial, frank, and respectful. Participants agreed the discussion was needed not just because of the pledge in 2004 but also ‘because of the vocation of Christians to live at peace with everyone.’” (www.abpnews.com, 12/21/11).

Why would SBC leaders including Paige Patterson, Albert Mohler and SBC President Bryant Wright dialogue to try to find cause for “fellowship and relationship” with an organization that the SBC recently separated from due to its toleration of theological liberalism? Sadly, the use of the term “fellowship” in this case is distorted. In Scripture, the term is used to indicate what believers have in common with each other, namely, a close and personal relationship with Jesus Christ and what He, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, is doing in the lives of individual believers. The term is not designed to be a tool to open a theological discussion in an effort to establish a working relationship with those who deny the faith. In fact, there can be no yoke or fellowship “with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).

Clearly, no one should be treated with disrespect, nor should we ever advocate hatred, animosity, bigotry, or violence toward others even though we might have strong theological disagreements with them. We dare not use language that is degrading toward any who are God’s image bearers. Nevertheless, the facts are well documented—serious theological disagreements exist between these two groups that are impossible to bridge. The need for firm expression of the truth and exposure of error remains vital. For example, the article above cited a 2004 recommendation by a SBC committee (that included Patterson) that separation was necessary because the BWA “no longer efficiently communicates to the unsaved a crystal clear gospel message that our Lord Jesus Christ is solely sufficient for salvation.” In the years since 2004, the BWA has consistently proven this assertion. Laying aside “doctrinal differences” for the sake of unity is not just a bad idea. Rather, it is treason of the worst kind.

While many good things have been accomplished in the SBC in terms of placing theological conservatives in some strategic positions of influence, the fact remains—unbelief dwells deep within and throughout the convention. Let us not be fooled into thinking Biblical truth has won or is even winning the day. The battle is far from over, and the outcome in this sphere is definitely undecided. — Gary Freel