THE EFFECT OF THE 2000 BFM ON THE SBC

A DOCTRINAL EXPRESSION OF FAITH OR AN INSTRUMENT OF DOCTRINAL ACCOUNTABILITY

                                                             Slayden A. Yarbrough

                                                                 October 1, 2002

In 1981 I was asked by Dr. J. M. Gaskin to prepare a presentation for the Oklahoma Baptist Historical Society on the subject “Is Creedalism a Threat to Southern Baptists?”  This was approximately two years after the 1979 SBC meeting in Houston, which is considered by most historians as the beginning of what is now called simply “The Controversy.”  I prepared and presented the paper as asked and submitted it to Baptist History and Heritage for consideration for publication.  It was accepted and published in the April 1983 issue of the journal.

As I began to research the assigned topic for this meeting I remembered the article and dug it out.  As I read what I had written two decades ago I realized how many of my concerns had materialized, especially with the adoption by the SBC in 2000 of the revised Baptist Faith and Message.  In this session I intend to address some of those concerns, as well as others, and some of the consequences and developments that have resulted from the adoption by the Southern Baptist Convention of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

It is important to note that controversy in the Baptist tradition is a source of strength, a sign of freedom.  In the controversy over the 2000 BFM, as well as the 1963 version, Baptists were fighting over theology.  When was the last time a major denomination fought so fiercely over theology?  It just doesn’t happen that often on such a grand scale.  Yet, here in the twenty-first century doctrinal beliefs are an important characteristic of the struggle of the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.  As a historian, I have always believed that controversy is a sign of life and the lack of it an example of stagnation.  Buddy Shurden’s marvelous little book, Not a Silent People, provides convincing evidence that a major source in the success of Baptists is the freedom to fight  fiercely over issues such as slavery, Landmarkism, ethical concerns, social concerns, the Bible, and yes, even theology.  However, and it is most relevant to this topic, Baptists must insist on the freedom of believers and churches, in order for these battles to be fought.  The playing field must be level and the rules of engagement must be fair.  The Baptist tradition is dialogue, not monologue.

Based upon these observations, we Baptists who are rooted in the Southern Baptist tradition ought to see the controversy over the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message from a positive perspective.  Here is an opportunity to clarify the faith, to challenge Baptists to the highest level of doctrinal thinking, not the lowest common denominator.  And the evidence indicates that we are trying to do just that.  Looking at the results and consequences of the debate over the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message perspectives will illustrate the challenge and the opportunity presented to this generation of Baptists.

Having said these things, the discussion now turns to the effect and consequences of the 2000 BFM on Southern Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention.  At issue is whether or not the new version of the BFM is a creed, or is being used in a creedal sense.  To respond to this issue, it is important to not only look at what is being said, but more importantly to examine how the 2000 BFM is actually being used in denominational organizations.

CONGREGATIONAL AND ASSOCIATION RESULTS

From the very beginning of “The Controversy” those seeking change have sought to interpret the Baptist Faith and Message in a more authoritative manner.  In Atlanta, Georgia in March 1973, a group calling itself “The Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship” organized.  It insisted upon strict adherence to the 1963 BFM and constantly opposed any doctrinal deviations that it considered inconsistent with the confession.  This group published the independent newspaper named the Southern Baptist Journal.  Interestingly, moderates responded by appealing to the preface of the 1963 BFM as a defense against encroaching creedalism.

Such conflict over the understanding and teachings of the 1963 BFM affected both local churches and associations.  A good example from Oklahoma is the debates that took place in the Pott-Lincoln Association, of which my previous church, First Baptist of Shawnee, was a member.  I am having to recall information from memory but basically here is what I understand took place. 

I think that it is important to note that as far as I know, First Baptist never took any action on the 1925 BFM.  I authored the centennial history of the congregation and discovered no records to indicate that the church responded in any other manner that did the majority of Southern Baptist churches, which was a rather laid back “ho hum” approach.  In 1983 and 1984, church documents do indicate that after some 20 years, the congregation did adopt the 1963 BFM as “its theological guidelines.”  It is important to note that “First Baptist Church recognizes and supports the right of each believer to express his or her faith . . .  Candidates for membership are expected to give consensus to this statement (1963 BFM), whose preface guarantees the priesthood of the believer.”  This approach represents the attempts of a local congregation on the one hand to voluntarily accept a confessional statement but on the other hand to restrict any control over a believer’s conscience.                                                                                

In the annual meeting of the Pott-Lincoln Association in 1996 a committee recommended changing the membership guidelines, which called for member churches to be in general agreement with historic Baptist confessional statements, such as the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.  The new wording called for member churches to “conform” to the 1963 confession.  As a messenger of my church which had adopted the 1963 BFM and as an individual who also held to the same confessional statement, I was among many messengers who spoke passionately against the recommendation and upheld the time-tested historic Baptist tradition of confessional, not creedal, theology.  After lengthy discussion, the recommendation was overwhelmingly defeated in what I consider a victory for both Baptist polity and Baptist historical theological understanding.  I was very proud to be a Baptist at that moment.

Interestingly, in the annual meeting of 2000, in the Credentials Committee report in the Book of Reports, it stated that member churches are to “Generally conform to the Articles of Faith accepted by Southern Baptist churches such as The Baptist Faith and message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention on June 14, 2000.”  The Constitution, which was approved on October 20, 1997, included in article III on Statement of Faith, “The Association subscribes to the doctrinal statement of The Baptist Faith and Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention on May 9, 1963. (June 14, 2000, pending ratification). The article on membership is similar but includes "such as the BFM.."  The Credentials Committee was seeking to apply a standard not approved by the association at that time. 

The developments related to this one church and to this one association reflect similar struggles that have or will take place between local churches and associations in the immediate future.  What will be important if integrity is to be maintained is that open, honest discussions are essential.

The most significant expression of Baptist corporate life is found in the local church.  I am a firm believer that the life and vitality of any Baptist organization begins with the local congregation.  Each Baptist believer is expected to identify with a local church.  We do this by confession of sin and of individual faith in the Lordship of Christ. The church is a body politic where we can receive nurture and through which we can serve and minister for the cause of Christ.  It is out of the life of the local church that the shape of associations, state conventions, and the national convention should take place, not from a hierarchical structure that moves downward.

 STATE CONVENTIONS

When comparing the response of state conventions to the three versions of the Baptist Faith and Message, one is struck by the change in attitude toward the 2000 edition.  W. W. Barnes, church historian for many years at Southwestern Seminary and the author of the first important history of Southern Baptists, wrote nine years after the adoption of the 1925 BFM, that it “was received with a tremendous outburst of silence.”  Though widely distributed, the 1925 confession was never used by state conventions prior to 1945.  Furthermore, it was seldom used by associations or churches.

The 1963 revision of the BFM was adopted without amendment at the SBC meeting in Kansas City.  In 1979 Walter Shurden, church history professor at Southern Seminary at the time and currently on the faculty of Mercer University, reported that of the thirty-one state conventions at that time, only seven had officially adopted the 1963 version.  None required its employees to sign the confession.

With the adoption of the 2000 BFM, however, state conventions were much quicker to act.  Twenty-four of the 41 conventions dealt with the confessional statement, and 1/3 of them affirmed the new statement (AL, CA, CO, FL, GA, IN, KS/NB, LA, MO, OK, and WV).  Also, two new state bodies that arose out of the controversy in the SBC, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, also voiced their support.  Three historic state conventions, Colorado, Indiana, and Louisiana, along with these two new conservative conventions, adopted the 2000 BFM as the doctrinal statement for their respective conventions.

Several state conventions sought more time.  Others simply delayed action until future annual meetings, where constitutional changes could be approved.  Kentucky appointed a committee to study the issue, which later reported back with a motion affirming both the 1963 and 2000 BFM.

Without going into detail on the respective state conventions, there are some points to be made.  It is apparent that there is a closer connection between the SBC and the state conventions when comparing the reactions to the 2000 BFM and to the 1925 and 1963 versions.   State conventions were not in a confession adopting mood in the two earlier versions.  That is not the case with the 2000 BFM.  With more than ½ of the conventions dealing with the issue and 1/3 of the state conventions affirming the 2000 confession, it is obvious that the struggle for control of not only the SBC but also the state conventions has made its way deeply into the state organizations.  And the positive acceptance by a significant percentage illustrates that the SBC leadership has been rather successful.

At the same time in some states rejection of the new confession demonstrates that the document has had a divisive effect that further deepens the rift between the national convention and some of the state conventions.  Texas and Virginia are among the best examples of this development.  Some state conventions, like Kentucky, have sought to take a conciliatory approach.  Time will tell whether this is possible or not, but based upon historical precedent, it will be an enormous challenge. Others, like the Kansas-Nebraska Convention voted to use the 2000 version in counseling churches petitioning membership but no cooperating church will be asked to revise a confession of faith already adopted.

Two state conventions, Alabama and Tennessee, which had no precedent on action related to the BFM, qualified their support.  Alabama affirmed the doctrinal heritage of Southern Baptists, past and present, in relation to all versions of the confessional statement.  It referenced the Scriptures as the “sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists” and described the BFM as “a non-binding document that can be used by local churches and associations.” The Tennessee Convention acknowledged the BFM “as a source of information in assisting believers to explain their faith” and affirmed the Scriptures as the “final authority for faith and practice.”  Based upon the history of Southern Baptists during the two plus decades of struggle, one can expect to see either more state conventions affirm the 2000 BFM, or one can expect continual controversy over the issue between the two parties in those conventions which have diverse opinions on the 1963 and 2000 versions of the BFM.  One thing that cannot be expected is “a tremendous outburst of silence.”

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

Trustee Appointments:  One of the most crucial strategies of the current SBC leadership is that discovered by Paul Pressler and refined over the two decades plus of the SBC controversy.  It involves the commitment of the convention president to appoint to the Committee on Committees only persons committed to the group’s agenda.  This committee appointed the Committee on boards, which would nominate for trustees of SBC agencies and institutions for election by Convention messengers only those persons supportive of this agenda.  The adoption of the 2000 BFM is seen by some as a further tightening of the grip on agencies by using the confession as a creedal test for service as a trustee.

Charles Wade, BGCT executive director, made this point during the 2000 annual session of the BGCT.  He asserted that this is the next progression in a pattern that Baptists have witnessed over the last 21 years, a period in which "there has been a rigid limitation on who can serve Southern Baptists."

"Unless a professor or a prospective trustee or committee member was prepared to use certain language concerning the Bible, they could not be considered for service. People who believe the Bible were not eligible because they would not frame their convictions regarding the Bible using the special code word," he said.

Wade then held up a letter he received within the last month from SBC President James Merritt, who was asking state convention executive directors to nominate individuals for service on SBC boards and committees.

"One of the qualifications he listed was that they 'be fully supportive of our 2000 edition of the Baptist Faith & Message,'" Wade said. "That means it is not only those who are employed by Southern Baptists, but also any pastor or layperson who might be asked to serve in a position of shaping policy or making important decisions on behalf of the rest of us who will have to sign on to the new confession of faith.  That makes it either a creed or a loyalty oath or both," Wade said.(Scott Collins, and mark Wingfield, “Wade cites SBC’s “rigid limitations” as cause for rift with Texas Baptists,” Baptist Standard, 30 October 2000.

Mission Boards: The adoption of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message has reignited the debate over the mission boards of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Although the leaders of the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board deny that the new confession is being used as a creed, at the same time the requirement that the missionaries of both agencies affirm the 2000 BFM is certainly a major step in that direction.

International Mission Board: On February 19, 2002, Dr. Jerry Rankin, president of the IMB, wrote to the 5,100 missionaries of the Board asking that they either vote “yes” to acknowledge agreement with the 2000 BFM, or to vote “no”and cite any areas of disagreement.  This position reversed a policy adopted by the agency’s trustees a year earlier in January 2001.  At the earlier meeting the trustees voted not to require missionaries already on the field to endorse the changes of the 2000 version of the confession, requiring that they work within the parameters  even if they did not agree with minor points.

        Rankin cited the ongoing controversy about the issue.  He stated in his letter that "Failure to ask for this affirmation is creating suspicion that there are IMB personnel whose beliefs and practices are inconsistent with those represented by Southern Baptists."  He wrote. "While we believe this is unfounded, we do not need an issue such as this to generate needless controversy, erode support and distract us from the focus on our task at such a critical time of opportunity around the world."

Rankin, while stating that the changes adopted in the 2000 version aren't "major" changes, said that they constitute "appropriate responses to contemporary issues and challenges."  He explained that "To assist our board in assuring Southern Baptists that all those who serve with the International Mission Board and (are) supported by the convention affirm and support the current Baptist Faith & Message, I am asking that you sign the attached form indicating your affirmation and return it to your regional leader."   In signing the form, the missionary also affirms, "In accountability to the International Mission Board and Southern Baptists, I agree to carry out my responsibilities in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith & Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention."

        Rankin did not describe the consequences for not affirming the statement, but he cautioned "I cannot overemphasize how important your cooperation is in order for us to move forward in fulfilling the Great Commission."  "We who have chosen to serve with a denominational mission agency are expected to be doctrinally accountable to those who provide our support and send us out," Rankin wrote. "There should be no reticence in our willingness to express agreement with what the SBC has adopted."

Rankin cited an editorial that he had recently written that affirmed that the 2000 BFM was a confession of faith and not a creed.  He acknowledged the freedom of the missionaries to state their concerns with regional leadership, then stressed the importance of working in accordance with what Southern Baptists believe. (“Rankin’s second letter to missionaries, International Mission Board, February 19, 2002, http://www.imb.org/bfm/letterw.htm)  This is one of those instances where one needs to examine not simply what is stated but also what is being done.

        As expected, response by those who were concerned about this development was quick.  Critics of the Board’s action charged that it violated the historic Southern Baptist aversion to creeds, and violated the Baptist tradition that the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice.  Numerous examples of criticisms could be documented, if necessary.

Beyond the anticipated rhetoric came the tension felt by missionaries who had served Southern Baptists well for most and sometimes all of their careers.  Those who in good conscience could not sign the 2000 BFM felt the pressure that their service as missionaries would soon come to an end.  A missions study committee of the Baptist General Convention of Texas created a confidential e-mail address to receive comments from missionaries on the field.  In the first weeks after this action, more than 70 missionary couples expressed their grief, anger, sadness, and concern over the IMB position. (Dan Martin, “Missionaries express concern in e-mails,” http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/3_11/page

A significant consequence of the action by the NAMB and the IMB and the response of missionaries who felt that their integrity and commitment was at risk resulted in a new direction from the BGCT.  Leaders of the Convention proposed creating a world missions network to help individuals and churches sponsor missionary work at home and around the world.  The network is to augment rather than replace existing relationships with mission boards of the Southern Baptist Convention with “fluid and flexible structures” that are church-driven and responsive to changing needs.  If the report is approved by the BGCT executive board on September 24^th, it will be presented to the messengers of the convention in November for approval.

The report calls for the Texas Convention to find ways to enable international missionaries who refuse to sign the 2000 BFM.  It also calls for a new cooperative agreement with the NAMB that would recognize the state convention’s right to reallocate funds to accommodate jointly funded state missionaries who object to signing the new confession.  One issue of concern is the NAMB decision to no longer appoint ordained women as chaplains.

The proposed network would be responsible for facilitating and supporting mission efforts, “training; screening of personnel; establishing a database of missions opportunities;, resources and activities; research; education; and helping churches develop missions strategies.” (“Texas Baptists to consider launching missions network,” ABP News, September 4, 2002, http://www.cbfonline.org/newsstand/abpstory.cfm?newsid=3319)

Seminaries - One of the areas in SBC life most affected by the adoption of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the six Convention seminaries.  It was no surprise that the trustees of the seminaries adopted the new confession as a requirement for serving as a faculty member.  It was also no surprise that the presidents of the seminaries wholeheartedly supported such action.  It was a surprise that a position of grand-fathering in those faculty members who had been employed under the 1963 BFM was not established.

The fact that the seminary presidents chose to attack Herschel Hobbs, a key architect of the 1963 BFM, illustrates the commitment and involvement of the seminary presidents in 2000 revision. A seminary study committee from the BGCT who met with the presidents reported that presidents Paige Patterson, SEBTS, R. Albert Mohler, SBTS, Chuch Kelly, NOBTS, and Ken Hemphill stated that the 1963 BFM was a neo-orthodox document and that Hobbs was “duped.” (Bruce Prescott, “BGCO Renounces Herschel Hobbs,” Mainstream Messenger, 4: January 2001.

A major concern is that seminary faculty members who had been appointed under the 1963 BFM were not grand-fathered in. A prime example of this is at Southwestern Seminary, long considered among the most conservative of the seminaries.  Two professors chose not to sign the 2000 BFM.

Jeph Holloway, 44, associate professor of Christian ethics, and Rick Johnson, 49, professor of Old Testament, informed school administrators and trustees they could not in good conscience sign the revised confession.  Other professors apparently chose simply to sign the document rather than lose their positions.  A good friend of mine and one of the most conservative men that I know who taught at the seminary for many years signed because of the obligation to his family.  He could not afford to relinquish retirement benefits, particularly in terms of medical insurance. (“Southwestern Seminary Professors Choose Not to sign Doctrinal Statement,” Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Press Release, 2 May 2001)

Observations on the SBC: The 2000 BFM follows the previous versions in it’s preface in narrowing the usage of confessions in Baptist life.  At the same time in relation to SBC institutions and agencies it is being used in a creedal sense as an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”  Teachers, missionaries, and convention workers are expected to adhere to the confession.  If they refuse, their appointments are jeopardized.  This approach has a trickle down affect upon state conventions, associations, churches, and individual Baptists.

General Observations: Where do we go from here?

Firstly, when a controversy like the one over the 2000 BFM takes place, one of the positives is that it makes all of us take inventory of what it is that we believe.  We need to revive our understanding of the confessional nature of Baptist theology.  We need to remember why we take a confessional approach and how we go about the task of doing theology.  We need to defend without reservation that historic Baptist confessionalism is the absolute best approach to doing theology.  It allows debate of important issues, creativity on the part of believers and organizations of believers, and growth and maturity in our theological commitments.  It avoids creedalism which stifles thought, coerces opinions, and devastates the very life and liberty of Baptist churches and organizations.

Secondly, we need to “confess” our faith theologically.  It is an opportune time for us as individuals, as churches, and as organizations to express our faith anew.  We may want to reaffirm the 1963 BFM, or revise it, or even start all over.  I often told my students that it would be a good thing for their churches to look at their confessional statement every ten years are so and see if it is relevant to their needs and world.  I still believe that.

Thirdly, we need to look back and see where we have been in the journey of confessional theology.  We need to become the best Baptist historians we can become, especially since we no longer have a Historical Commission to assist us in the process!  What were the causes that led Baptists to confess their faith in the past?  What were the crises, conflicts, cultural characteristics, challenges, etc. that made Baptists feel the need to express for the first time or anew their theological foundations.  Then, we need to carefully look at the contemporary scene and evaluate where we are.  Our theology must be relevant to the present if it is to have any value.

Fourthly, we must look to the future.  As a historian I have observed that one of the characteristics of Baptist life in the past two plus decades is that we spend so much time fighting old battles, exorcizing old demons, and castigating old enemies or opponents.  Our identity must not be defined by those with whom we disagree!  We need to start over and know who we are , what we believe, why we believe it, and why it is important.  We aren’t worth much if we are simply better than those with whom we disagree!

Concluding Thoughts:

The adoption by the Southern Baptist Convention of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message actually brings with it several important positives. 

Firstly, it enables us to see how much we have in common with other Baptists, even with those whom we have engaged in “meaningful dialogue” for more than two decades.  We have an opportunity to be statesmen rather than swordsmen.

Secondly, the 2000 BFM places leadership of the Convention clearly on record as to it’s views concerning confessions of faith, the Scriptures, and the role of women in the home and the church. This is an opportunity for those Baptists who believe that the leaders have gone too far to make their case.

Thirdly, it is an opportunity to recover the significant role and the historical limitations of confessional statements.  Knowing Baptist history is very important because in the eyes of many of us the changes to the preface of the 2000 version have gone much too far and contradicts earlier statements.  And being in touch with the 21^st century will give us an opportunity to shape our confessions in a way that they are both Biblical and relevant.

Are instruments of doctrinal accountability what Baptists need and want to keep us balanced when it comes to our doctrinal convictions?  Or, is free discussion of all theological views and opinions, which tests the Biblical acceptability in light of contemporary needs, a better way to refine our confessions of faith to fellow Baptists, Christians and the world?  Are confessions a test of faith, or are they the result of faith, a faith that should continue to mature and grow in every generation, while protecting the Biblical foundations of all that we believe?

Fifthly, we have an opportunity to remind all Baptists that majority vote is not necessarily the correct view, and that the greatest contributions, such as the modern missions movement and religious liberty and separation of church and state, made by our denomination to the Christian faith and the world came from a lowly group of dissenters, a small minority whose dedication and passion changed the way that not only churches but nations do things.  We must never cease to remind all Baptists that the views of the minority must be allowed, yea even encouraged, if a great denomination is to maintain its credibility and integrity. We might even need to nominate a candidate as president of the SBC, in a system that for more than two decades with only one exception, has become a one party system.

A final thought.  It is crucial to demonstrate the relationship of our theological convictions to both personal conduct and to service and ministry to a diverse and rapidly changing world.  The key word is the old word from a generation or two age - relevancy!   In the end we need to know how our theology fits with the other expressions of confessing our faith.  And we need to understand and communicate how our theological convictions address the 21^st century.  How do our confessions of faith theologically fit into the demands/the necessities of making a faith relevant to a world which is filled with hate, anger, divisiveness, poverty, ignorance and yet a world that has demonstrated the enormous potential of the human mind and spirit?  How do we elevate humanity through our faith in a way that breaks down barriers rather than builds them, that addresses problems rather than condemns them, that looks for common ground rather than differences?  Baptists need some committed creative thinkers to put the pieces of this puzzle together.  We will not find them in places where conformity is elevated over diversity.

Theology is an important expression of a believer’s faith.  But when theology becomes the primary focus of our faith so much that it is elevated above all else, when it becomes the criteria by which we judge one’s commitments, actions, service rather than complementing them, then it becomes a hindrance to true faith, and obstacle that prevents us from serving effectively in the name of Christ.  When we place intellectual ideas above the responsibility to show love, compassion, empathy, justice, liberty (not tolerance) we will develop a cold, insensitive orthodoxy that disregards humanity in the name of theological conformity.

If we confess our faith by complementing our commitment, our worship, our ethics and our theology, our theology will be alive, vibrant, and changing as we respond to our changing world.  If we take a creedal approach, our theology will become simply a cold, rigid orthodoxy by which we just simply make it a test of faith, not a response of faith.  

In 1981 I warned of the danger of over-emphasizing theology and lowering  ethics, missions, ministry to an inferior position.  I wrote that “True faith expresses itself not just through thinking, but also through worship, mission, and ministry.  Overemphasis of any of these expressions of faith, including theological, to the neglect of others, will result in an imbalanced and retarded faith.”   That same warning is relevant today.

One of the great but seldom sung hymns in the Baptist tradition is “My Faith has Found a Resting Place.”   The first verse, the chorus, and the third verse put the Baptist approach to theology into proper perspective.

My faith has found a resting place, Not in device nor creed;

I trust the Everliving One, His wounds for me shall plead.

I need no other argument, I need no other plea,

It is enough that Jesus died, And that He died for me.

My heart is leaning on the Word, The Written Word of God,

Salvation by my Savior’s name, Salvation through His blood.    

 

 

Should we change this hymn for those who don’t want to think to read:

 

My hope has found a resting place, in instruments sure and true;

Doctrinal accountability’s the way, for clones like me and you.

I’m allowed no other argument, espouse no other plea;

I’m told here’s what I must believe, and that’s enough for me!  

My head it spins on every word, I need not trust in Him;                       

Orthodoxy by our leader’s views, found in the BFM!

 

I think not!!!

 

Please keep in mind that this is an attempt at humor to make a point.  Hyperbole is good!  But I would assert that we are all accountable to God for our faith, including the theological expression of it.  We are responsible for what we believe and we need to take that responsibility seriously.  We are answerable to God, not to any human, for our beliefs.  And that is called being Baptist!