In 1612 John Smyth wrote: “The magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience and to handle only civil transgressions (Rom. 12), injuries and wrongs of man against man in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king and lawgiver of the church and conscience.”
The words were written by Smyth, founder of the first Baptist church in modern history, at a time when King James I of England relished his role as leader of the church. King James, who convened the assembly that resulted in the King James Bible, saw himself as defender of the “faith once delivered to the saints.”
To demonstrate that point, in 1612 King James called for Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman, who dared dissent from the teachings of the Church of England, to be burned at the stake in London. Officials threatened that other dissenters like Smyth and Thomas Helwys might also “frie at a Stake” if they continued in their insistence on religious liberty.
But the warning did not stop these early Baptists. That same year Helwys championed religious liberty for all. He wrote, “Let them be heretikes, Turcks, Jewes or whatsoever it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure” in religious matters.
Helwys bluntly warned King James to keep hands off the church for “with this Kingdom, our lord the King (King James) hath nothing to do.”
These early Baptists understood Jesus Christ is the only Lord of the church. Jesus Christ, as the writer of Hebrews declares, is the Great High Priest who stands before God making intercession for all who believe on His name. Only Jesus stands between God and man. There can be no other.
Early Baptists argued that at the great and final judgment, each soul will stand before God. Each soul will be individually responsible and accountable. That means each soul is competent to hear and respond to the Spirit of God. This means it is inappropriate for any person or thing to be placed between God and the individual. The position came to be known as the doctrine of soul competency.
In 1963 Southern Baptists adopted the Baptist Faith and Message Statement of Faith. Chairman Herschel Hobbs said the doctrine of soul competency was the foundation on which the document rested. In the preamble to the statement, the committee wrote “Baptists emphasize the soul’s competency before God, freedom in religion and the priesthood of the believer.”
As if to highlight that point, the preamble declares the confession is “only a guide in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.” Later the statement said the confession of faith was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation … .”
The doctrines of religious liberty and priesthood of believers are derived from the historical Baptist position of soul competency in matters of religion. Whenever church historians describe Baptists, soul competency is one of the defining doctrines attributed to us.
E.Y. Mullins, who chaired the committee that drafted the first Baptist Faith and Message Statement of Faith in 1925, called the doctrine of soul competency Baptists’ major doctrinal contribution.
Now soul competency itself is under attack (see story, page 4). In the story, soul competency and its accompanying positions of religious liberty and priesthood of believers are blamed for the “autonomous individualism that has infected the Southern Baptist Convention and evangelicalism to this day.”
In the article, soul competency is described as “an acid dissolving religious authority, congregationalism, confessionalism and mutual theological accountability.”
The words are strong and scary. At first glance they conjure up ideas of soul competency being replaced by some form of religious authority or some kind of official confessionalism. Such a development would echo the days of the Inquisition when religious authority rode roughshod over the souls of dissenting believers.
Perhaps the words express frustration at the idea that one can believe anything one desires and still be called a Baptist. That is a mistaken notion. After explaining the Baptist commitment to soul competency, the Baptist Faith and Message declares, “However, this emphasis should not be interpreted to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish and with which they have been and are now closely identified.”
The statement then proceeds to spell out some of those doctrines in general, inclusive terms.
In 1963 Southern Baptists understood the importance of congregationalism, confessionalism and mutual theological accountability. Each was viewed as a discipline for soul competency. They provided instruction, evaluation and guidance as one worked out understandings and convictions. But they were never seen as substitutes for soul competency.
If one found one’s self outside the Baptist community, soul competency meant one was free to dissent. No religious authority could compel agreement because the soul is responsible to God alone.
If misunderstandings of soul competency occur, they need to be addressed. But it is unfortunate when the validity of the doctrine itself appears called into question. Soul competency is how God created us — in His image. That cannot be surrendered to or taken by any religious authority without defiling the birthright of God’s children.
Share with others: