Are We A Denomination Or Are We A Convention?

Are We A Denomination Or Are We A Convention?

In his recent post Wade Burleson posed this very question. Let's take a look at the definitions he gave:

Webster's defines 'denomination' as "A religious organization uniting local congregations into a single body." Webster's defines 'convention' as "An assembly of delegates or messengers convened for some purpose."

If you will look at these definitions carefully enough what you will find is that the SBC meets both definitions. The Convention is an assembly of delegates or messengers convened for some purpose. Since the SBC is a religious organization uniting local congregations into a single body it is also a definition. The characteristics that makes the convention fall into the definition of a denomination is essentially the Baptist Faith and Message and its mission. It does not matter if it is one point or 20. If we agree to fall under the same standard then we are a denomination. Of course this only gets called into questioned when the BF&M gets revised and there are some who disagree with the revisions. Most recently the liberals within the convention like Wade Burleson who disagree with a stance against the un-scriptual prayer language that is practiced under the guise of the Holy Ghost. And the current debate over womens roles in the colleges.

Is it the history of the convention that the only reason we have come together is to combine our efforts in missions? Has the convention always refused a standard other than supporting missions? It becomes difficult to defend such an idea since we have had a long standing BF&M which has been revised on several occasions. And if we were to actually take up such a notion it would present a serious problem. It would allow anyone to join the group or convention regardless of the doctrinal position they held. Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Church of God, Church of Christ, etc. We would then find ourselves supporting heresy and serious doctrinal mistakes. And we would find ourselves supporting many missions possibly with no biblical mandate. The harder part is making an attempt to support a limited BF&M. Because once you have supported the smallest of doctrinal accountability then you have just become a denomination.

Since we have all agreed to become a denomination then the question is just how much accountability should we have. And since avoiding the definition of a denomination is no longer in question then we can move away from frivolous debates over what is a denomination v. what is a convention. Since we fall under both definitions. We are a single body once we all hold to the same accountabilities. Should we all in the convention be held to the virgin birth? Should we all in the convention be held to the redemption of man only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ? It is apparent that we should. On both of these issues and many others.

The truth is it all comes to this one issue. What conservatives and liberals are willing to support. What we do find is that liberal Christians are more willing to support, indirectly, doctrines they may not hold to. Conservatives are not as likely to support those in activities that are contrary to any doctrines they hold to whether big or small. Liberals do not want to be held accountable to abstaining from misplaced roles of women, and unscriptual use of tongues. Conservatives struggle to come together and support those who participate in such activities. We will not work together with those who do such nonsense. It is apparent to me that many in the convention would be more comfortable following after the CBF.

More importantly the bigger issues that need to be resolved are again the issue of the inerrency of scripture, author intent, Pastoral authority, and absolute truth. These issues seem to be perpetuated right from the Emerging Church culture. I was very disappointed with Dr. Pages support of such nonsense.These are serious issues and we should not allow them, support them, nor should we stand silent when they are being presented as truth. And I most certainly would hate to see one dollar go toward the support of any missionary who would teach, practice, and defend such false teachings. We can be certain that Dr. Pages leadership toward such a liberal direction will fail to unite anyone but will create many more debates. Conservatives will never accept the Emerging Churches worship of subculture.

So to answer the question are we a denomination or a convention the answer is both.