In the September 1993 issue of Christian Century Nancy Ammerman examined the state of Baptist
denominationalism at the close of the 20th century and in light of
the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC that had begun in 1979.[1]
Her analysis of the nature of the SBC and its conservative bureaucratic
organization was contrasted with the new (at that time) and emerging
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Twenty years
have passed since the writing of Ammerman’s speculative article about the new
type of denomination that was emerging from the modernist approaches to
Protestant ecclesial management. In that decade the SBC has remained
(structurally, at least) largely the same. The Southern Baptist Sunday School
Board was transformed into Lifeway Christian Resources[2]
and the Cooperative Program has been reimagined[3], but
trends in the denomination have tended toward less giving and fewer baptisms.[4]
Ammerman’s
examination is helpful to understanding what happened organizationally in the
splintering of the SBC in several entities, notably the CBF. She says that “the existing SBC structure,
now in the hands of fundamentalists, is likely to stay rather close to its
original bureaucratic form…Still, the denomination itself is settling into a
new calm that doesn’t seem to call for great change.”[5]
How right she was. Her insight into the SBC doesn’t concern inerrancy or
theological issues; rather, Ammerman is concerned with the actual structures of
the organized churches regardless of how they stand on the Fundamentalist party
line.
Ammerman
mentions the CBF as an off-shoot of the SBC whose “organizational forms are
considerably less clear and subject to considerably more tension between old
and new.”[6] At
the time of its formation, the CBF was considered “a kind of caucus within the
SBC, a shadow institution within the larger denomination, paralleling many of
the larger organization’s forms and structures but not entirely replacing
them.”[7]
Ammerman argues that such a setting for the CBF is untenable. She says that “those
who are willing to join the CBF have already demonstrated their ability to
break those bonds [with the SBC] even if they do so while saying that they are
staying within the SBC…The only viable constituency for the CBF is those who
are already “marginal” enough to think about giving up the
denomination-sponsored Cooperative Program.”[8]
Although
the CBF has completely broken free of the SBC over several
theological/ecclesial issues, Ammerman was certainly correct in her analysis of
the types of people that the CBF would attract in Baptist life.[9]
Those who were socially and theologically conservative but who were unwilling
to join with the Fundamentalists in their takeover of the SBC were looking for
an alternative denominational organization, a faction that reminded them of the
“pre-1979 bureaucracy with moderate men in charge.”[10]
Unfortunately, forming a denomination on parliamentary procedure grounds is not
enough to withstand the powerful lines that are formed in theological debates.
Since Ammerman’s writing, fights over women in ministry, alcohol consumption,
homosexuality, and the framework of missions have broadened the gap both
theologically and socially between those who would have once been considered
“moderate” in the SBC and those who were willing to remain in the CBF.
Now the CBF
and the SBC exist separately; no longer is the CBF a caucus within the SBC.
However, it is an error to suppose that there is no overlap between the two
organizations. The SBC counts as its members those who are members of an SBC
church, that is, a church which participates in the Cooperative Program. The
CBF, by contrast, counts as its “partners” any church, organization, or
individual that contributes funds to the CBF. This is a crucial distinction,
and one that makes separating the two organizations impossible in practice or
in theory. A member of an SBC church could sent a check to the CBF and be
considered a “partner” of the latter denomination without ever altering their
relationship with their local SBC congregation.
Herein lies
the amazing potential for the CBF. No longer do sweeping organizational changes
have to be made to convince entire churches to join the CBF. Rather, the CBF
counts as its own those who agree with the mission of the CBF (at least in
part) who may belong to a congregation adamantly opposed to women in ministry
or another theological dividing wall.
Ammerman
identifies four areas through which she hopes the CBF will become “a model for
new forms of denominational structures.”[11]
She lists Activities, Technology, Organization, and Relationships as the four
critical areas of emphasis for an emerging denominational organization. In
explaining these four areas of hope, Ammerman describes a denominational entity
that is local and global at the same time through the use of technology. How
she had the foresight to imagine Twitter and YouTube in 1993 is beyond me! By
communicating as a community of like-minded believers, Ammerman believes that
technology can help maintain a de-centralized model of denominational control
that has ossified the SBC. By forcing decisions, media, and planning to the
local level, Ammerman believes that the CBF can maintain the flexibility and
adaptability that will be demanded by the CBF’s “diverse constituency.”[12]
All of this
has come to pass and is, even now, being more firmly established as theological
and ecclesial issues splinter other denominations. The nature of the CBF is not
as a bounded set where every church, organization, and relationship must be
governed by a set of commitments set in stone; rather, the CBF’s organizational
genius is that of a centered-set, where the core commitment to Jesus Christ and
his gospel is what binds these Baptists together. The use of technology has
greatly increased the reach of the CBF’s message, although, even 20 years after
her writing, it seems that the CBF has yet to fully operationalize emerging
technologies.
Ammerman
was, and still is, a great prophet for our time. She saw that the
organizational failures of the SBC would be just as culpable for its decline as
its theological fundamentalism. She saw that a new, flexible, adaptable,
relational model of denominational organization was absolutely essential to the
next iteration of the Church in the world. What the CBF has become, though, is
not entirely these ideals made flesh. There are still miles to go and painful
growth to endure. However, these are but the beginnings of the birth pangs of
whatever is coming next – a new, postmodern denomination.
[1]
Nancy Ammerman, “SBC Moderates and the Making of a Postmodern Denomination,” Christian Century September 1993.
[2] http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=Corporate-History
[3] http://www.baptistpress.com/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=30619
[4] http://www.nobts.edu/publications/News/NewMethodists3-09.html
[5]
Ammerman, 898.
[6]
Ammerman, 899.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9] http://sbctoday.com/2009/09/28/why-not-join-the-cbf/
[10]
Ammerman, 899.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Ibid.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment