Rankin’s Feeble Revisionisms

One would think Jerry Rankin should have a better grasp on Baptist history than he does. In a recent article published in the Baptist Press, he makes some amazingly inaccurate statements. (...Reflections on missionaries' response to affirming the Baptist Faith and Message) He writes the following about Southern Baptist history:

Those who claim Southern Baptists have abandoned what it means to be Baptist seem to have a short view of history. Their heritage goes back no further than the last generation, when leadership and seminaries were embracing higher criticism, an erosion of biblical authority that was moving the denomination toward the precipice of liberalism over which mainline denominations had fallen.

Rankin is either deliberately revising Southern Baptist history or he is ignorant of the facts. The facts are that today’s SBC has indeed abandoned what it means to be Baptist. The denominational leaders have led the convention to abandon tradition in numerous ways. I can think of many that have occurred over the past twenty-four years. One is the mean-spirited control of the entire denomination. Prior to 1979 the idea of controlling denominational agencies, seminaries, and Southern Baptist theology was unknown. Controlling seminaries, denominational boards and agencies, denominational elections, and missionaries was unheard of.

This control now extends to the Bible itself. Al Mohler, Southern Seminary president, recently endorsed the SBC Holman Study Bible in opposition to the TNIV Bible saying: "This is an important thing for Southern Baptists to do, if for no other reason than that we will have a major translation that we can control." (Baptist Press, June 12, 2002) The desperate need to exercise control over every atom of Southern Baptist tradition is definitely an abandonment of what it means to be Baptist.

Another abandonment of Baptist tradition can be observed in the new creed-like confession of faith. Whereas the Baptist Faith and Message was traditionally viewed as being a confession of faith, the fundamentalists have used it as an “instrument of accountability” for the express purpose of controlling people and changing doctrine. Amazingly, Rankin claims , the 2000 BF&M has not changed any beliefs at all.

While dismissing the Baptist Faith and Message as a creed, critics likewise demean it for supposedly attempting to change Southern Baptist beliefs. In reality, the 2000 BF&M has not changed any beliefs at all.

Prior to 1979, Southern Baptists never had “instruments of accountability.” In fact, prior to 2000 they never had anything resembling such. For Rankin to claim that there has no change in Southern Baptist beliefs shows that he is either revising history or ignoring the same. Traditional Baptists had/have strong feelings about priesthood of believers. Neo-Southern Baptists now say that we are accountable to denominational leaders and a man-made document.

If making the Baptist Faith and Message into an instrument of accountability were not enough, the neo-Southern Baptists are using it to change doctrine. This is seen in their position on the Bible, women, and local church autonomy. Traditional Southern Baptist never had a doctrine of “inerrancy” such as the fundamentalists now possess. By changing Article 1 of the BF&M, the neo-
Southern Baptists now say that the Bible is the very “Word of God.” Jesus has been demoted and the Bible has been promoted to his place in the scheme of things. Women are now second class persons in the church and the home. Local church autonomy is out the window because denominational leaders say that local churches cannot be in good standing with the denomination if they choose women senior pastors. These changes, along with numerous others found in the 2000 BF&M, are excellent examples of doctrinal changes.

Jerry Rankin wonders why so many Southern Baptist Missionaries were unwilling to sign the 2000 BF&M. I suppose he also wonders why so many seminary professors were unwilling to sign the document. His problem is that he fails to recognize that missionaries and seminary professors understand the changes in Southern Baptist theology. Revising Southern Baptist history does not change the facts. Declaring that no changes were made in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message makes for good propaganda to non-thinking fundamentalists. It makes for good propaganda to be published in the Baptist Press.

Jerry Rankin’s revisionisms may influence numerous non-thinking Southern Baptists. But those who know their Baptist history scoff at his historical revisions. Count me among the latter...

 (This article was written for  BaptistLife.Com Discussion Forums)