I think I've sort of answered this in several of my other comments. I definitely think we can find fellowship in and with other denominations and I'm not so loyal to the SBC that I wouldn't serve in any other church.

As I said to Greg in a comment before yours, I think the Cooperative Program is one of the reasons I am SBC. Also, I find that my beliefs about the Bible, baptism, and other theological concerns most closely resemble those of the SBC.

It's ironic, but I've spent more time writing about the SBC for this post and in response to all the comments to this post than I have talking about it in my past 6 years here in Boston. I don't want you to get an unrealistic characterization of my passion for all things SBC. I really don't talk about it much and it doesn't really come up that much. I am committed to the Great Commission. I am committed to making disciples and being a faithful follower of Jesus. I'm just not that committed to a denomination. That shouldn't be a focus. So, we've had a great conversation here about the SBC but that doesn't mean I'm a spokesperson for the denomination.

Based on certain beliefs, convictions, and a belief in the cooperative model of the SBC, I remain SBC today and don't really have any active thoughts about changing to something else. I wrote this post simply to suggest that there are some major improvements that could be made. I know this blog has a much wider audience than SBC so it was sort of like an insider post that not everyone would care much about, but I felt like it was one that needed to be written since the SBC annual meeting starts tomorrow.

Thanks for the question though. It helped me think it through again for the first time in years. It's always good to reevaluate and since I give denominations so very little thought it was nice to refresh my own thoughts on the issue.

You've described our situation and the situation of probably every other SBC church not in the South. I do think the cooperative program, the IMB, NAMB and the state conventions have a better sense of how to engage the culture. Maybe you've helped me be more specific. It's really our annual convention that spreads everything we are against and not the partner organizations. We really need a new approach. What are we accomplishing at those annual meetings anyway? There are some things but we need a major overhaul to make our way into the 21st century and become a more missional denomination.

Like you, I think the CP is one of the main things that keeps me in the denomination. But even the CP is spending less and less on actual missions and more and more on bureaucracy and an organizational structure formed in the modern era.

Sure, I see your point that if people have made mistakes in the past, maybe we're making mistakes now but we just can't see it yet from our vantage point in history. That's a valid point. I'm sure I make lots of mistakes.

However, the same basic moral and philosophical idea underlies both anti-slavery and anti-abortion. I've written elsewhere about this issue and we are getting off topic but I will say briefly here that both movements are committed to the same thing. Everything should be done to ensure that all people have the right to life and that they should be free. If you are on the side of anti-slavery, you should be on the side of anti-abortion. God created humans in His likeness and He gave us a special status among the rest of creation. That should not be cast aside just because someone wants cheap slave labor or they don't want to be inconvenienced by an unwanted child. People matter to God. Someone can be stupid and irresponsible but that unborn child wasn't stupid and irresponsible. Is that enough reason to cast it aside like it has no worth? Isn't that the same attitude many slave owners had about their slaves? That they were worthless?

The Bible speaks to all these issues and I didn't even mention homosexuality because the Bible is way too clear against homosexuality to be misunderstood.

Now, more to the point of what I said in my post. Having said all of that, my point was that I don't appreciate the SBC making us into a two-issue denomination. Abortion and homosexuality are not the only issues the Bible addresses and I'm tired of that being our subtitle. "The Southern Baptist Convention: Anti-abortion, Anti-homosexuality, Pro-Baptism". In fact, I shouldn't have even responded to you when you raise these two issues because I want to move beyond these two issues. We do need to look to the future but we also need to consider our past. Slavery is still a huge evil in the world today and we need to continue to fight against it. Maybe in 1845 the SBC was slow to confront the problem but that doesn't mean we have to be slow today.

The bottom line is, we do all make mistakes, but you almost sound like we can't ever know what's right. We do know what's right and we can be convinced about some things. The SBC has some problems but we have some deeply held Biblical convictions that will always be worth fighting for. If you can argue from Scripture that homosexuality, abortion, drunkenness, paganism, or anything else our culture dabbles in is right, then I will certainly be willing to hear you out.

Meanwhile, I want to stay on track with this post and talk about what could be done to make our convention stronger and more relevant to our culture. The South is only one small part of the culture that we serve and minister to so it's important to have a name that reflects our broader diversity. That's what I'm advocating for here.

Great point. The SBC does truly desire to be a people of the book. We are not a creedal people. We sincerely want to follow Jesus and trust the Bible. On the other hand, we do have some Baptist distinctives.

Most confessions or creeds or statements of faith are not intended to supplant the rightful place of Scripture as the authority. Instead, denominations form around certain interpretations of the Scripture. I may disagree with someone in another denomination but that doesn't give me the right to ignore them or reject them. Our disagreements usually just mean we want to do things differently.

I think denominations are actually more often a proof of unity than they are of disunity. Imagine if you had a business idea for a pizza place. You wanted to make the best calzones in the business and you have come up with a prize winning recipe. The pizza shop around the corner has a different kind of calzone and they are very proud of it. You are also different from other pizza restaurants because of your management and business philosophy. When you open your doors, you are in competition with the other pizza places. You want them to eat at your place and not that other place.

Some denominations believe strongly that their creed or their statement of faith has really determined the truth about what the Bible is saying. But most denominations recognize the limitations and are much more cooperative with other denominations. Not too many pizza places would recommend customers to the other pizza place if they weren't satisfied with them. Most denominations are more cooperative than most businesses would be given the fact that they have different organizational styles and purpose statements and core values, etc.

We have to remember that there are some core convictions that all followers of Jesus should have but some of the other doctrines aren't meant to be black and white. We can disagree on some things and organize ourselves around some of those distinctives (elder or congregational rule / infant baptism or believers baptistm / etc.) but we are never given permission in Scripture to be disunified. In spite of our different interpretations, most of us hold the Scripture in the highest regard and don't believe we are holding our statement of faith as higher than Scripture. The Bible allows for a lot of diversity within the Body.

Anyway, I say all that to say that I don't think denominationalism "proves to the world that Christ's Body is broken". I think that it does prove that His Bride is filled with humans. As humans, we are prone to error. And, again, I don't think we recognize enough the diversity of denominations and see that there are positive aspects that should be celebrated.

A question for you Nathan, what is it that keeps you in the SBC? You mention their commitment to the Great Commission but there are other churches who share that commitment. There are other conservative denominations out there too so why stay with SBC?

I rarely mention that we are SBC. We cart it out in the membership class and among our leaders, but that's about it. I await a name change before I change my routine. I'm too convinced of the cp strategy to stray, but I don't have to refer to our southern heritage or "anti" origins to participate. I refer mostly to IMB, NAMB and our state convention when talking about our partner churches.

You've hit it on the head, Nathan. Keep up the good work.