Schism is nothing new among Baptists. you might remember that the first Baptist were a group that split off from the Puritans who
had split off from the Church of England. The two first leaders of the Baptist movement, Smyth and
Helwys came to a division soon after they began the movement with Smyth joining the Mennonites
and the Helwys leading the other part of the group back to England. An old joke says that the
Baptist began in Genesis, then Abraham said to Lot, "you go your way and I'll go mine. In America
the first great split among the Baptists took place in 1830. A group led by Alexander Campbell
began a process of separation which usually takes place by withdrawal, expulsion or the dissolution
of Baptist Associations. Campbell and his followers chose to be called the Churches of Christs. His
goal was to unify all Christians in one Christian Church. It wasn't long, however, until his movement
developed into a denomination, now called the Disciples of Christ. Campbell felt a need to return to
"New Testament Christianity." To him that meant a minimum of organization and an increase in the
working of the Holy Spirit. He opposed the clergy as "hireling priests" and seminaries as "priest
factories." He also opposed mission societies and Sunday Schools. It is interesting to note that the
denominations that grew out of his movement now have all these functions. Another Schism worth
mentioning was that led by William Miller. Miller computed that the return of Christ would occur in
1843. Through his
preaching many Baptists became ardent Adventists, or Millerites. After
Christ failed to return on time, he recalculated and announced the date for
October 22, 1844. After the second failure most of his followers fell away.
Miller himself said he had been wrong. Some of his followers held on to
their hopes. The reinterpreted what must have happened. This group
formed the base for the eventual founding of the Seventh Day Adventist
Church.
The major 19th century division of Baptists took place in 1845. Conflict
had existed between the Baptists of the North and those of the South. The
differing economies and cultures of the two regions made division almost
inevitable. The precipitating issue, however, was slavery. In 1844, the
Triennial Convention voted to disclaim support for either side in the slave
issue. In December of that year, however, the foreign mission society said,
"if anyone should offer himself as a missionary, having slaves, and should
insist on retaining them as property, we could not appoint him. One thing is
certain, we can never be a party to any arrangement which would imply
approbation of slavery." With this action, tensions reached a breaking point.
By May of 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention had been formed.
Because the division was over a moral issue, it would continue long after the
issue of slavery had been settled.
Because there are so many Baptist groups, we can really only look at one.
We will from this point on look at what is now called the American Baptist
Churches in the U.S.A. One type of division was covered in the study of the
Home Missions movement. Our Home Mission Society was responsible for
planting many ethnic churches. Most of those eventually formed their own
denominations. This is the source of many of the different Baptist Groups.
In 1907 the Northern Baptist Convention was formally organized. As we
look at divisions involving the churches of this denomination consider two
quotes.
In 1909, H.P. Judson said at the Convention:
Two things are at the very soul of Baptist polity. Soul liberty we love to
call one cardinal principle -- no creed, no hierarchy must stand between the
individual human soul and the eternal verities. The independent church is as
vital -- no association, no convention, no prelates, can dictate creed or
practice to a sovereign Baptist church. These are the doctrines of our
forefathers which have come down to us as a precious heritage of the ages.
We can at need abandon all else -- when we abandon these fundamentals,
we abandon all.

In 1919, the Convention adopted a statement of principles which included
the following:
Opposition to the fundamental principles of the Gospel cannot be
allowed. Otherwise evangelical Christianity commits suicide.

Most divisions in the denomination would grow out of the attempt to
balance these two principles, soul liberty with autonomy and the defence of
the core truths of the Gospel.
Beginning in 1920 the fundamentals were discussed at a preconvention
conference each year. These fundamentals were, "the inspiration and
authority of Scripture, the deity, virgin birth, supernatural miracles, atoning
death, physical resurrection and personal return of Jesus Christ. the reality
of sin, salvation by faith through spiritual regeneration, the power of prayer
and the duty of evangelism." By 1922 the Fundamentalists were attacking
the Foreign Mission Board saying it was allowing missionaries who did not
believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. An attempt was made in
1924 to have the Convention adopt the New Hampshire Confession of
Faith. That attempt failed.
Three missionaries withdrew form the American Baptist Foreign Mission
Society over doctrinal differences and to protest what they saw as liberal
policies in the Northern Baptist Convention. The Association of Baptists for
World Evangelism was formed to support these and others Baptist
missionaries who were willing to sign a doctrinal statement. In 1933 a group
of 50 churches left the Convention to form the General Association of
Regular Baptists. They began with this already formed mission society.
The General Association withdrew because of concern over what they saw
as a trend toward liberalism in the Northern Baptists. They also did not
wish to be aligned with the Federal Council of Churches, which they saw as
a "mixed multitude." This new body adopted the New Hampshire confession
of faith as their official doctrinal statement.
This first division sets the pattern for that which follows in the American
Baptists. One side takes its stand on the principles of soul liberty and
autonomy. They state the Convention and its various societies has no right
to dictate doctrine to individuals or churches, not even to its own employees
such as missionaries. The other side take sits stand insisting that unless the
fundamental principles of the Gospel are protected the evangelical church
commits suicide. The issue is then treated as an either/or choice. Little room
is left for middle ground or compromise since the matter is seen, on both
sides as one of principle with any compromise being a sell out. Sadly, since
the principles are both valuable and both in conflict compromise becomes
almost impossible.
In 1943 another doctrinal statement was presented to the ABFMS. Again
the Society refused to accept any sort of creedal statement. In 1944, the
Society did issue a statement that no one would be appointed as a
missionary:
1.   Who are not evangelicals.
2.   Who are not loyal to the Gospel of Jesus
3.   Who do not give ample evidence of union and fellowship with God
     through a vital union with the crucified and risen Christ.
4.   Who do not believe in a salvation offers on the sole condition of
     repentance and faith in Christ, a salvation which has in it the divine
     power of regeneration an sanctification through the Spirit.
5.   who do not believe in the deity of Christ in whom we see the Father.
6.   Who do not possess a faith founded on the trustworthiness of the
     Scripture and the fact that we have experienced this salvation in our
     own hearts.

This statement was a response to the formation of a new mission society
in the Convention. Called the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society
it claimed to have formed to hold churches in the Convention. A committee
was formed to attempt to find ways that the two societies could work
together. The committee could not agree on a plan. the majority view was
that the Society should only raise fund for those missionaries of the ABFMS
of which it approved. The minority wanted the CBFMS to have equal status
within the Convention with the ABFMS but not to be subject to any rules of
the Convention.
In 1946 at the Convention a motion was made to require missionaries and
secretaries of agencies to believe in the virgin Birth, the resurrection of
Jesus, the miracles of Christ, and that the New Testament was inspired of
God so that acceptance of its historical facts, revelation, teachings, and
doctrine is obligatory in Christian faith and practice. Instead the Convention
passed a substitute motion:
Be it resolved: that we reaffirm our faith in the New Testament as a
divinely inspired record and therefore a trustworthy, authoritative, and all
sufficient rule of our faith and practice. We rededicate ourselves to Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior and call our entire denomination to the common
task of sharing the whole Gospel with the whole world.

Part of the difficulty between the two sides goes back to the fact that they
were working from two important principles and thus saw the facts through
two separate sets of visions. Porter Routh would write in Foundations:
...During the days when our American Baptist Convention was having
theological difficulties... . I shared a cab with some [Southern Baptists] ...
and could not help overhearing their discussion about the controversy in the
North. Finally, one of them said, "what is behind it all?" and another
replied, "the missionaries don't believe in the Virgin Birth and neither does
the foreign missions board that appoints them." At this point I felt it
necessary to turn and introduce myself. I was serving on the Foreign
Mission Board of the ABC and knew from personal experience something
of the situation that was troubling us. I explained t my traveling companions
that the difficulty was not over belief in the virgin birth but over the matter
of signing creeds; that the virgin birth had been a matter over which a great
deal had been said, but that this was only one of a number of doctrinal
matters included in the creedal statement submitted to all of us on the
Foreign Mission Board for our signature. When we met to consider this
matter, I distinctly remember that Kenneth Scott Latourette of Yale, who
was on the Board said that, as he read the doctrinal statement, there was
not a great deal with which he would disagree; he might express it
differently here and there, but that substantially it expressed his own faith.
"however," he said, "if I am going to begin signing creeds, I might as well
unite with a creed signing communion. One of the things that has inspired
me as a Christian during my years as a teacher, and as a member of our
denomination, has been our individual freedom to discover God's truth in
his Word and to express that truth as we feel led by the Holy Spirit." The
matter ...was not a matter of doctrinal orthodoxy; it was a matter of our
historic Baptist principle of freedom and individual responsibility. But this
was not the understanding of my companions.

It was also not the understanding of those who called themselves
Conservative Baptists. They did see the issue as one of orthodoxy and
faithfulness to the fundamental principles of the Gospel. They sought to
protect the denomination against apostasy. At the same time, people who
were asked to sign the doctrinal statement chose to view the issue as one of
soul liberty and freedom from creeds. One side felt they were defending the
Bible from the undermining of liberalism. The other felt that they were
defending the Bible from the undermining of man made creeds. Neither
side was able to give in without sacrificing something it felt essential to
Christianity. In 1947, therefore, the Conservative Baptist Association of
America announced its formation as a separate and independent
organization with an adopted doctrinal statement and constitution. A new
denomination was born. Over the next ten years approximately 10,000
churches left the American Baptists to unite with this new denomination. In
Oregon 50 or 100 churches left.
In these Schisms one group felt that it was defending the Gospel against a
group which had grown cold or abandoned the faith. In the twentieth
century divisions mentioned the "defenders" were the ones who also were
without power. Thus they left and formed new denominations where they
would have the power to be sure their missionaries reflected their beliefs.
In the 1990s we may well see the development of a new division within
the ABC/USA. In January of 1991 an ABC church called as its pastor the
first open lesbian to serve an ABC church. In March of 1992 another ABC
church voted to bless same sex unions. A third church granted a pre-
ordination license to a man who was openly homosexual. By September  of
1992 nine congregations had joined to form an Association of Welcoming
and Affirming Baptists to "advocate the full inclusion of lesbian, gay and
bisexual persona within the American Baptist Communities of Faith." In
October of 1992, the General Board of the ABC/USA adopted a resolution
stating "we affirm that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with
Christian teaching.
Also in 1992 another organization formed. The American Baptist
Evangelicals declare their purpose to be "to influence the American Baptist
Churches, USA at all levels...towards a renewal of commitment to the
Gospel of Jesus Christ; to the authority of Scriptures; to our historic, Baptist
faith; to the evangelism of the lost." these two groups have appeared to be
on a collision course.
In the past year,(1995-1996) churches in Ohio and California have been
disfellowshipped for their stance on being "Welcoming and Affirming." In
1994 an openly homosexual pastoral counselor was refused endorsement by
the ABC's committee of chaplaincy and pastoral counselors. A lesbian
pastoral counselor had her ordination revoked. and the ABC of the West
voted not to ordain a openly homosexual man to the ministry.
Looking at the current controversy it might be well to go back and
reconsider the two kinds of division we have seen up to this point. The
GARB and CBA splits were over doctrine. But the Southern Baptist split
was over an issue of behavior. The American Baptists have steadfastly
refused to adopt a doctrinal statement, but that has not kept them from
taking stands on issues. As we have seen even in the 1840s the mission
societies would not commission a slave owner. Now, in the 1990s the
mission boards have refused endorsement of a practicing homosexual and
regions have refused ordination of others. 
Since churches are already being disfellowshipped and other churches
have threatened to leave if such actions are not taken we are, even at this
writing at the point where the ABC/USA could enter another schism. We
are living in a time when history is in the making and no one knows what
the final outcome will be.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page