Frequently people lump all Baptist churches together as if they composed one giant denomination. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wikipedia lists 62 national Baptist bodies in the United States, and there may be more.
Baptist is not a protected term. It can be used by any group of Christians who considers themselves of that tradition. Historians tell us the word Baptist was first used as an insult to those who held that Christian baptism could only be offered to one who had made a personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
In the middle of the last millennium, infant baptism was almost universally practiced. It declared the child a member of the Christian faith and promised the child would be reared in that faith. Most people thought it absurd to “re-baptize” someone.
From insult to accepted title
Eventually this term of derision was adopted by those holding to believer’s baptism as an appropriate description of what they taught and the term Baptist was added to the various groups of Christian believers.
Over time Bible scholars have acknowledged that Baptist understanding is strongly supported by Scripture. In 1982, for example, The World Council of Churches reported, “[B]aptism upon personal profession of faith is the most clearly attested pattern in the New Testament documents” (from the Faith and Order Paper No. 111 adopted in Lima, Peru).
Baptist insistence on a personal profession of faith followed by baptism is now widely accepted, especially among evangelical believers. In fact most evangelical churches by whatever name hold to the doctrinal distinction that once characterized Baptists. Pentecostal churches, Bible churches, most nondenominational churches and many, many more preach what used to be called a Baptist understanding of salvation and baptism.
As the Baptist understanding of salvation and baptism has grown in popularity, use of the term Baptist has declined. Churches proclaim traditional Baptist doctrine but are not part of a Baptist denomination. Among Baptists, a growing number of churches as well as denominational entities have dropped Baptist from their nameplate. By obscuring their denominational history, they hoped to attract more members.
In some cases the Baptist brand has been called a hindrance. LifeWay Christian Resources reported in 2011 that 40 percent of Americans had an unfavorable reaction to the name Southern Baptists and the percentage of unfavorable reactions was higher among the unchurched. Another study reported the word “Baptist” is often associated with a type of angry, judgmental kind of fundamentalism with bickering and infighting.
The list of 62 national Baptist bodies can be cited as Exhibit A that such criticism is not entirely undeserved.
Add the cultural shift away from belonging to organizations — churches or denominations — and one finds the ironic position where Baptist theology is winning the day but Baptist denominations are declining, including the Southern Baptist Convention. Some futurists even question if large, volunteer, national denominations will be a part of the religious future of the nation.
Denominations that have a strong top-down structure may survive, some say. But free-church denominations — where local church autonomy is emphasized and denominational cooperation is voluntary — may fracture into smaller, more limited structures than modern-day denominations.
This view of the future holds that basic theology will be unchanged. Churches will continue to preach the lordship of Christ, the authority of Scripture, personal salvation, believer’s baptism and local church autonomy.
Missions and ministry will continue to be priorities.
Working together
The unanswered question is about methodology. Will churches work together for missions and ministry and if so, how?
Some argue there will be little cooperation among large churches a few years from now. With the importance of denominational ties waning, large churches will focus on their own programs for education, missions and ministries largely unconnected to other groups of believers.
Others insist that large churches or institutions like colleges or seminaries will become hubs for networks of missions and ministries. These futurists point to churches like Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, where Pastor Rick Warren networks with thousands of churches across the globe for education, missions and ministry projects. Leadership from numerically large churches or entities could allow churches without great resources to benefit from the other’s knowledge and expertise.
Still others point to existing networks for church planting, child adoption, ministry training, children’s work and other causes as the most likely model of the future. Today’s desire for participatory leadership in a flat organizational model argues for networks where churches of any size can participate, some say. In networks, most of which are relatively small compared to national religious bodies, results are more immediate because processes are simpler and personal influences are more tangible.
In each possibility, denominational identity or geographical proximity are unimportant. Theological commitments and program priorities are paramount.
Southern Baptists share the theological message that characterized Baptists across the years. We are motivated by the same impetus for missions and ministry. A distinction has been our methodology — cooperation. In a convention structure Southern Baptists banded together for missions, ministries, benevolence, education, evangelism and other causes.
Advancing God’s kingdom
State and national causes have been mutually supportive and both have been undergirded through one giving channel — the Cooperative Program. Like boats riding a changing tide, Baptist work locally, nationally and around the world rose together and fell together. Churches large in resources and those not so large sat together in associations, conventions, committees and board rooms to determine what was best for the whole.
Now the success of this approach may be its own undoing. If some of the prognosticators are right, then cooperation may be on a much smaller scale going forward.
The phenomenal changes in communications, together with increased availability of resources and ease of travel all mean tomorrow’s denomination will be different than yesterday’s, even if the exact shape is unclear. Yet it is too early to lament the death of Baptist bodies. The wisdom of cooperating as a denomination to support a wide range of programs may yet carry the day.
In the meantime those of us identified with the Baptist tradition may rejoice that Baptist understandings of salvation and baptisms continues to grow in acceptance. We also can pray about the future of Baptist denominations, remembering always that the goal is to advance God’s kingdom, not the kingdom of Baptists.
Share with others: