The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina has proposed a new Foundational Statement. Removed from this new, proposed statement is any affirmation of soul freedom and the right of the individual to read and interpret scripture for herself/himself. Whereas the current foundational documents of both the CBF (National) and CBF (North Carolina) stress role of the individual, this proposed statement completely abandons that term – individual.
Apparently the purpose of the new statement was to articulate what CBF-NC is for rather than what they are against. That’s a point which was clearly conveyed in this statement:
The current CBF-NC Foundational Statement lists under a section titled OUR PRINCIPLES:
Priesthood of All Believers – We affirm the freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. We affirm the freedom and responsibility of every person to relate directly to God without the imposition of creed, the control of clergy or the interference of government.
The Foundational Statement of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (National) states under OUR CORE VALUES also emphasized Soul freedom ["We believe in the priesthood of all believers..."] and Bible Freedom ["We affirm the freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit."]
Sadly, the new proposed Foundational Statement of CBF-NC has abandoned these cherished, historic Baptist principles. The language of individual freedom (and responsibility) has been completely scrubbed. It’s gone.
The Priesthood of All Believers section has been replaced with this:
3. We confess that the Christian faith is best understood and experienced within the community of God’s people who are called to be priests to one another.
4. We confess that under the Lordship of Christ each congregation is free and responsible to discern the mind of Christ and to order its common life accordingly.
Big change here. The current CBF-NC and CBF (National) statements affirm the right of the individual to read and interpret Scripture. However, the new proposed statement – which allows the right to “study” scripture “communally and personally” – leaves the right of interpretation in the hands of the “congregation” not the individual.
This new statement proposes a radical “reenvisioning” of the Baptist identity that has been embraced by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship for two decades now. Freedom takes a huge hit with this statement.
Without a doubt this document shares much in common with the controversial Baptist Manifesto of 1997 which declared: ”Scripture wisely forbids and we reject every form of private interpretation that makes Bible reading a practice which can be carried out according to the dictates of individual conscience.” Curtis Freeman- an outspoken opponent of soul freedom – was one of the authors of the 1997 Baptist Manifesto. Freeman also helped draft this proposed Foundational Statement.
Following the Manifesto/Baptist-Catholic agenda, this statement has created a false bifurcation of the individual and community, solely emphasizing the community to the neglect of the individual. That’s a shame.
The proposed Foundational Statement of CBF-NC will be discussed in various locations over the next few months. See the list of dates here.
If you’re a Fellowship Baptist who holds Baptist principles such as soul freedom and the priesthood of all believers near and dear, if you value the emphasis on individual conscience embodied in the witness of Baptists from Thomas Helwys to Roger Williams to John Leland to G.W. Truett to E.Y. Mullins to T.B. Maston to James Dunn, now is the time to speak out. Don’t be a silent people.
The problem here is that the Holy Spirit speaks to both the individual and the community. The new statement neglects the former.
Also, in 3) “the Christian faith is BEST understood and experienced within the community” is not the best choice of words. If “best” means the community is an essential aspect of the Christian’s experience, then the statement is correct. However, “best” tends to convey the meaning that the community trumps the individual conscience or should not leave room for it, and that meaning is wrong.
That is indeed Manifesto/Bapto-Catholic influence. Of course, some key Manifesto/Bapto-Catholic leaders are in North Carolina. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the crafters of the document gloss over/ignore Baptist history in opting against the maintenance of a balance between individual and corporate faith identity.
I am confident that North Carolina CBFers as a whole do not support such an evisceration of their faith heritage. And perhaps some of the crafters of the document did not intend to do so.
Hopefully the document will be revisited.
Rather than a radical revision of Baptist heritage, this seems to be very much in keeping with the way contemporary British Baptists, in continuity with the earliest English Baptists, articulate their understanding of the role of “church meeting” (a very British Baptist term) in discerning the mind of Christ. See, e.g., numerous publications by Paul Fiddes and Nigel Wright, along with the recent history of Baptists by David Bebbington. I’m guessing they have at least as much claim as American Baptists to continuity with the heritage of the formative years of the Baptist tradition.
Steve,
This debate is bound to become more public, and it is a debate that needs to happen in the public eye. And I hope it can happen in a harmonious, constructive and helpful way.
The big historical question is one of balance. Do you feel your view of Baptist identity is based on a balanced view of Baptist history?
Prior to the Reformation, the conscience of individuals preempted the wisdom of the church itself and led to the Reformation. The same is true of Separatist and early Baptist history: individual conscience, at critical points, overrode the will and wisdom of the established church and a new way of doing church was born.
Throughout Baptist history, individuals have time and again stood up to churches (and denominations) who were certain they had the “mind of Christ.” From early fights for religious liberty to slavery to civil rights and many points in between, key individuals put their lives and/or careers on the line and rescued the church as a whole from the will and wisdom of the majority who were adamant that they knew the “will of Christ”, but who were in reality were far from the truth, and were instead bent on preserving the institution and assuaging their own skewered self-centered views/desires/wants.
The story of Baptists, in short, is more nuanced, and more balanced between the individual and the community, than the Bapto-Catholic movement will admit.
Many young theologians in America, against the backdrop of a growing ecumenism in Baptist life (which itself is good!) find Bapto-Catholicism appealing.
Yet few historians give it much credibility, simply because Bapto-Catholicism tilts between ignoring Baptist history, dismissing Baptist history, or very selectively cherry-picking our history and painting broad brush strokes from the cherry-picking.
As it stands, Baptist theologians are talking past one another. But I think it is time we deal with this head on, in a respectful way, and in public. Perhaps the North Carolina way will be the beginning of the public debate.
Steve, my last paragraph should have read: “Baptist theologians and historians are talking past one another …”
Dr. Harmon,
Would you agree that this is a radical revision of the foundational documents that CBF-NC and CBF (National) have affirmed over the past 20 years with regard to the freedoms and responsibilities of the individual?
I hope Dr. Freeman and others on the committee will not try to downplay or dismiss the significant differences between the current and proposed documents in their discussions around the state.
Aaron,
As one of the authors of the CBFNC Foundational statement my question is: Isn’t “personal faith” a better way to describe and think about the Christian faith than “individual faith”? I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior as a 10 year old. I did not accept Jesus as my individual Savior. That’s why I believe the Christian faith is “best” practiced in community rather than individually. I recognize the value and historical reality of “individual dissenters” prior to the Reformation and afterwards. There does need to be acknowledgement of that tradition, but do we want to hold up John Smyth’s “se-baptism” as the ideal?
I welcome the questions, debate, and wrangling over this foundational statement. Thanks for the feedback.
Don,
Thanks for the comment.
The current foundational statement (like the current CBF national statement) affirms the “freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit”
The proposed statement has removed that affirmation. Instead, the only affirmation regarding the right to interpret scripture involves the congregation: “each congregation is free and responsible to discern the mind of Christ and to order its common life accordingly.”
Would you agree that this is a rather significant theological shift?
If those phrases were the only words in the foundational statement I would concede the point. But those phrases are part of a larger statement which includes “As we study and practice the Scriptures communally and personally, the Holy Spirit transforms our lives, our congregations and our world.” This statement assumes the “freedom and right” to intepret individually, but the larger context affirms this is best done in community, ie in conversattion with the local congregation.” So I would not declare a rather signficant theological shift has occurred. I view this as a more explicit awareness of the theological and practical value of the community’s involvement of biblical interpretation.
This is helpful, and I will address this at a meeting scheduled in Durham, NC today.
Thanks for the input.
This is a good discussion and I agree with Bruce that it is time that it comes out into the open. I know all of you pretty well and consider you to be friends. Steve Harmon and I have know each other for at least 2 decades and I count him as one of my closest friends. He and I would both acknowledge that we have had numerous discussions about this subject, always harmonious.
I remember talking with Steve one day and saying the very thing that Bruce says above, that the historians and theologians are talking past each other on this topic.
I must agree with Aaron and Bruce though. From my understanding of the primary sources of Baptist history I just don’t think you can escape the importance of individual conscience before God which is pervasive through not only the confessions but also the writings of Baptist theologians and even local church documents that affirm such. I don’t believe that an emphasis on individual conscience is something that 19th century, Enlightenment-influenced, American Baptists developed that was then chrystalized in the thought of E.Y. Mullins. Mullins builds his theology around it. But, it was around for more than 2 centuries before Mullins.
I don’t know how you can speak of salvation without starting with the individual soul and its liberty. Salvation begins with an individual standing in fear and trembling before a holy God. The concept of religious liberty begins with individual conscience. Local church autonomy and the idea of a democratic process in congregational polity has to be based on individual conscience. I cannot understand how the things we cherish as Baptists could exist without first starting with the right of individual conscience.
Bruce provides a good statement above about the need for balance between the community and the individual. There should be a tension between the individual conscience and the community. The Manifesto loses the tension by excluding the right of private conscience and interpretation of scripture and I believe does a serious disservice to a proper understanding of the Baptist tradition. This proposed “revision” of the foundational statement for CBFNC, without a robust statement for the right of the individual to private interpretation of scripture, etc., does a serious injustice to what CBFNC has tried to be about since its inception. Remember, as Moderates, we fought against the Fundamentalists in the SBC over this very issue! Remember 1988 and the SBC in San Antonio where the famous “Resolution on the Priesthood of the Believer” was passed and our shock? Now, CBFNC is in danger of doing exactly what the Fundamentalists did at that SBC unless this document is amended.
@ Don. Don, John Smyth’s se-baptism was certainly acceptable to a part of that first Baptist church. Helwys and part of the group accepted it and went back to England refusing to go along with Smyth and his desires to unite with the Mennonites. It was Smyth that wanted the “mulligan” and sought membership with the Mennonites because they supposedly had the apostolic authority.
I’m not going to respond point-by-point to everthing that’s been expressed in the comments thus far, for two reasons: (1) the CBFNC-sponsored listening sessions are more appropriate fora for this discussion that ought to be one among the community of CBFNC Baptists, and (2) it’s my birthday, and I’m going to enjoy a day at home with family today! That said, I think the appropriately nuanced understanding of Luther in historical context is not as an individual standing against the community of the church, but as one standing with the community of the church against individuals in the ecclesiastical hierarchy who were imposing error on the community of the church.
Steve, happy birthday!!
My comments to your post above about Luther, for now, are thus:
The Roman Catholic community at large of the 16th century did not view Luther as “with” their community, but rather against their community, and against God’s will as determined ultimately by one individual: the Pope. Within a paradigm in which God’s will was known/revealed through a holy magisterium and channeled into – and mandated to – the community at large, individualism such as Luther’s had no place nor a right to exist. Indeed, the community of faith – holders of God’s will as channeled by the holy magisterium – sought to exterminate Luther and suppress/oppress those who followed him (i.e. dissenters).
In the larger picture, even if one posits community faith as supreme to individual faith, the truth is that individual faith(s) (whether borrowed from someone in the past or novel) of certain (and only certain) individuals within any given community, steers the community as a whole. Selective individual faith(s) (through whatever structural processes are in place/play) determine the will of God and in turn directs any given community of faith toward the chosen will of God.
In other words, there is no corporate spontaneity, nor are there egalitarian processes (whether historically informed or of-the-moment reactionism), in arriving at the will of God in community. Rather, certain individuals are in the driver’s seat(s), channeling their individual understanding(s) of the Spirit of God, and everyone else who chooses to remain in the room consents to come along for the ride (some willingly, some grudgingly). You cannot truly separate individualism – and the determining influence of individualism – from the community.
Baptists were birthed in reaction to this authoritative-individual-funneled-into-community (magisterium) model of faith, positing that all are truly equal in the Spirit, and therefore freedom of conscience is foundational to true faith and true community.
The records of early Baptists – congregations and individuals – affirm that Baptist community was built upon freedom of conscience. Within the earliest Baptist communities of faith, everyone was not required to toe a party line; individuals in a given local community could choose to affirm or not affirm any given formal statement of faith that was put forth to the community – and still remain within the community if they wished.
In short, the early Baptists lived out a balance of individualism and community. And I personally do not see a reason for Baptist to abandon this early model of balanced individualism and community.
[...] You can read my post here: Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of NC to Abandon Soul Freedom & Adopt New Baptist Identity [...]
[...] statements” of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina is and Aaron Weaver reasonably argues should be [...]
Bruce, you argue for a “balance” between the individual and community (and rightfully so). As I read the new document, I believe it achieves that balance better than the previous one did. Under the old section “Our principles” it champions individual liberty, but mentions the community not once (except for autonomy). Do you believe that is balanced?
Moreover, in your post above, you call for us to be respectful in our dialogue about this issue. Yet you have accused the crafters of this document of an “evisceration of our faith heritage.” You have made other inflammatory comments on other blog posts. As a Christian brother, I want to call you to consider your words more carefully and use more respectful language. The persons involved in this discussion are good, faithful people and they deserve to be spoken to (and of) respectfully. I shall offer you that same respect.
Thank you for your contributions to this discussion.
Daniel Glaze, Ahoskie NC
Rev. Glaze,
Thanks for your comment.
If you haven’t already, I hope you will encourage fellow North Carolinians to use more respectful language. Curtis Freeman’s early comments at Tony Cartledge’s blog were quite inflammatory.
See also Ken Massey’s wild rant over at ABP.
Aaron,
Please, call me Daniel (I’m Rev. Glaze on Sundays from 11-noon only!).
Thank you for your encouragement to speak to my fellow NCers. I have and will continue to speak for the need for civility on everyone’s part. This discussion is too important to decline into mud-slinging.
How we speak to one another is absolutely as important as what we say.
I feel like a parent telling children to put down their sticks.
Aaron, here’s a fuller expression of my perspective on the matter: http://ecclesialtheology.blogspot.com/2010/09/word-about-proposed-cbfnc-foundational.html
https://beardocs.baylor.edu/bitstream/2104/5239/1/Cameron_Jorgenson_PhD.pdf
thanks for this reference, Aaron, as it does attempt to explain many things to me that I did not understand.
You know, Baptist people ARE entitled to the part of the Christian inheritance that is theirs, that was ‘cut off’ from them;
and yet does NOT go against their Baptist beliefs.
I’m glad that Baptists are exploring the Patristic writings and Church history, as well as the connections between Scripture and the different traditional liturgical practices that may, in fact, contain something of meaning to Baptist people that ties them more securely to the whole Church, throughout time.
I see this as very positive.
[...] blogging as “The Big Daddy Weave,” gets credit for breaking the story and offering an appropriate, reasoned analysis of the attempt by Bapto-Catholics to lead North Carolina moderate Baptists away from Baptist [...]