Two weeks ago the Southern Baptist Convention gathered for its annual meeting and the shenanigans were meme-worthy. Last week I wrote about the Law Amendment and interacted with an article by venerable evangelical pastor J.D. Grear. This week, my gripe is focused on SBC presidential candidate David Allen and the Pledge of Allegiance. If you like hot takes, keep reading.
Baptist Hesitancy With the Nicene Creed
First, a clarification. Despite what you might have seen on Instagram (including from me), from what I’ve read the SBC did not reject the Nicene Creed, but rather rejected amending the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2K) through improper procedures. Proper channels need to be navigated to change a doctrinal confession, and honestly, that is a wise move.
Motions for formally adopting the Nicene Creed into the BFM2K was delegated to whichever committee handles such things. But it’s the commentary around the hesitancy to adopt the creed that is troubling.
Those comments mainly come from David Allen, and my worry is what they represent in the SBC. Allen is dean of the Adrian Rogers Center for Preaching at Mid-America Baptist Seminary and was a 2024 SBC presidential candidate (he lost). During a forum discussion, Allen discussed his opinion that the Nicene Creed has problematic language and is too ecumenical:
“Now, I’m a Southern Baptist, but I’m not a big fan of ecumenism. … I’m a little careful, a little skittish about too much ecumenism. … And I think the Nicene Creed, while generally is a very good creed and it’s certainly been accepted by many traditions, there are still a couple issues of wording in that creed that could be interpreted to foment or to produce doctrines or concepts of doctrines that we as Baptists would reject.”
Dale Chamberlain from Christian Leaders magazine reported that Allen specifically is skittish with the biblical language of “one baptism for the remission of sins” because it could lead to an interpretation of baptismal regeneration (that baptism is what regenerates a person, rather than the Holy Spirit). This is the view of many Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans.
But isn’t that why a denomination has confessions, creeds, and catechisms? The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and even the BFM2K, have expanded language to make clear the Baptist interpretation of such doctrines. Therefore, there is no need to be hesitant about formally adopting the most orthodox creed in Christendom when you have the tools necessary to disciple your people with sound doctrine.
Therefore, what this further reveals is the strong tendency towards “no creed but the Bible” in Baptist circles, despite the BFM2K being a de facto creed. Those who claim no creed but Christ better throw away their commentaries with the baby and the bath water.
The irony to the claim that the Nicene Creed is “too ecumenical” is that Baptists in the SBC are all about cooperation with churches that might apply doctrine differently. That was my gripe with Grear and the Law Amendment, an over-emphasis on cooperation rather than confessionalism. It would seem to me like Allen’s resistance to the Nicene Creed is a form of gatekeeping. Are Baptists only okay with ecumenicism as long as they call themselves Baptist and give to the cooperative program? It is alarming that a dean of a seminary, and potential president of the largest protestant denomination in the world, be hesitant to adopt the Nicene Creed for any reason, let alone for those he gives.
Pinching Incense to the State
While the Nicene Creed was hesitantly handled, the Pledge of Allegiance was nearly unanimously supported. Bryan Kaylor with Word & Way, reported how right after the first motion regarding the Nicene Creed was made, a chaplain led the meeting in prayer and the pledge of allegiance. This was discomforting to pastor Eric Sherwood, who later made a motion that the pledge not be recited at any convention gatherings so as not to pledge allegiance to any earthly kingdom.
Speaking against the motion was a Navy lieutenant who said, “The United States itself is only great when it is a nation conformed to the principles of God’s word. When we pledge allegiance to the flag and our republic, we declare at this convention and before our nation that we seek to serve God by faithfully serving this country.”
Normally I would be gung-ho for this sort of reasoning. I’m a Christian Nationalist, or at least I tend that way, and agree along with others that it would be better if America made and executed laws in a way that honors God. But I think the enthusiastic support for the Pledge by Southern Baptists is bonkers.
I share pastor Sherwood’s hesitation and reasoning. He said, “Christians from the early church would be rather awestruck at what we are doing at pledging allegiance to an earthly nation. They regularly gave their lives for not saying, ‘Caesar is lord.’ And it’s a small step from ‘I pledge allegiance to X’ to ‘X is lord.’”
I think he is right here. The Pledge, when subjected to the sovereign kingship of Christ, is not dangerous. However, I oppose its recitation because of the way the state has elevated it to the point where saying it resembles burning a pinch of incense to the emperor. Under Roman emperor Domitian, people were required to do this public act followed by declaring Caesar is Lord, a claim to deity.
“When the Christians were invited just to bow down before the Roman image, their lives could be spared if they would merely take a pinch of incense and put it on the fire that burned in the presence of the image of the Roman Caesar. The Christian died rather than compromise with a pinch of incense” says W.A. Criswell in The Offense of the Cross.
When the state has removed prayer and the reading of Scripture from classrooms but leaves the Pledge and adds pride flags, then the state is declaring itself to be Lord, not Jesus. This is the consequence of secularism. Doug Wilson says in his book Mere Christendom, “But in secular societies, overreach is not a possibility, but rather a necessity, by definition. If there is no God above the state, then the state has become god—the point past which there is no appeal. If there is a God above the state, then hubris in high places will always be dealt with appropriately” (5).
The State of the SBC
Even while putting aside the sexual abuse scandals and the flirtation with woke ideology in big eva SBC churches, the rejection of the Law Amendment, the hesitancy with the Nicene Creed, and the supermajority support of the Pledge are red flags to the current state of the convention. Others have spoken with more insight into the future of the SBC, but from where I’m sitting as a former SBC member, it seems like it is on the way out.
But this isn’t the first time the SBC has been threatened by internal infection, and it may not be the last. The conservative resurgence in the SBC, starting in ’79 and on, may yet be a model for the slow, plodding change the SBC needs to see.
However, these issues also highlight the necessity for studying the Word of God, historic creeds and confessions, and catechizing ourselves and our children. As human institutions tend to do, denominations will have mission drift. Doug Wilson says,
“…the battle for Liberty never ceases, and it never ceases anywhere. Tyrants are always waiting in the wings, looking for an opportunity. When the people become complacent, drifiting into sloth and lust, they have that opportunity—and they always take it. What do you have to do in order to have a garden full of weeds? The answer to this trick question is nothing” (Wilson, 115).
Make sure that doesn’t happen to you. Stand firm and contend for the faith of the Bible, and pray for the leaders of your church and state. By becoming more confessional we can fight the drift from being more cooperative.
Awake! Put on strength! 