The
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches has been in a controversy about
Cedarville University ever since the school accepted endorsement by the State
Convention of Baptists in Ohio. This endorsement provided Cedarville with a
formal link to Southern Baptist circles that paralleled its relationship of
approval and partnering in Regular Baptist circles. Though both Regular
Baptists and Southern Baptists are formally committed to the fundamentals of
the faith, they are different in important ways. One difference is their
attitude toward church leaders who deny the fundamentals. The GARBC has not
been willing to tolerate churches that deny fundamentals of the faith. It has
not even been willing to tolerate churches that tolerate others who deny
fundamentals. It has separated from apostates and from those who were willing
to fellowship with them.
The Southern
Baptist Convention has a more ambivalent attitude. Though Southern Baptist conservatives
have controlled the presidency and thereby shifted the operational control of
Convention agencies into the hands of conservatives, they have made no
recognizable attempt to expunge apostates from the denomination. Liberal
professors and ecclesiastics simply regrouped under the shelter of state conventions
or ad-hoc organizations while remaining within the Southern Baptist fold.
I do not
intend this observation as an attack upon Southern Baptist conservatives. What
they have accomplished is genuinely amazing. I admire their commitment to
theology and their willingness to pursue a decades-long course of action in
order to restore orthodoxy to dominance within their denomination. Nevertheless,
the GARBC and the SBC have seriously different perspectives about whether to
tolerate churches and church leaders that deny fundamental doctrines.
This
difference is exacerbated by the long-standing opposition of the GARBC to
convention-like organization. From the very beginning, the GARBC refused to
form its own mission society or to operate its own institutions of higher
learning. It has always objected to the notion of a cooperative program,
insisting that the biblical way of financing the LordÕs work was for individual
Christians and churches to direct their own monies toward the ministries that
they found most compelling. The most that the GARBC was ever willing to do was
to recommend certain institutions to the churches as worthy of supportÑa
process that was called Òapproval.Ó The Southern Baptist Convention, however,
has placed major emphasis upon theÒCooperative Program,Ó and has occasionally
disfellowshipped churches and pastors that would not support it.
While the
difference between the GARBC and the Southern Baptist conservatives must not be
overstated, it is nevertheless real. In their attitudes toward convention machinery
and toward people who deny fundamental doctrines, the SBC conservatives and the
GARBC are basically incompatible. Furthermore, if pressed to change its
position, each side would quickly insist that its view was too important to
abandon.
By
seeking to identify with both movements, Cedarville University placed the
leadership of the GARBC in a difficult situation. Many Regular Baptists thought
that by accepting Southern Baptist endorsement, Cedarville was tacitly
affirming a policy that the GARBC had historically opposed.
Furthermore,
Cedarville issued public statements to the effect that it had coveted and
pursued the relationship with Southern Baptists over a period of decades. This
came as a surprise to many Regular Baptists, who had been given reason to think
that Cedarville shared the perspectives of the GARBC on issues like
conventionism and separation.
The GARBC
leadership tried to solve the problem by eliminating all formal structures for
approving, endorsing, or partnering with independent agencies. What they
discovered, however, is that some form of approval always returns. Someone had
to decide which institutions would be permitted to advertise in the Baptist
Bulletin, to
sponsor Talents for Christ, and to set up displays at the annual conference.
Then the
fact surfaced that Cedarville University was unwilling to subscribe to the
GARBC statement of purpose. Consequently, the Council of Eighteen determined
that sufficient commonality did not exist between the GARBC and Cedarville
University to allow the university to advertise itself through official GARBC
channels. That decision was challenged by friends of Cedarville University and
brought to a vote at the annual meeting this year. By a wide margin, the
messengers adopted a statement upholding the formal position of the GARBC on
separation. By a much narrower margin, they upheld the councilÕs decision not
to allow Cedarville to advertise in the Baptist Bulletin or at the conference.
What does
all of this mean? In the first place, it does not mean that Cedarville has
become a neoevangelical institution. Neo-evangelicals were people whose
attitude toward apostates was to tolerate them in their organizations, to
cooperate with them where necessary, and to infiltrate organizations that were controlled
by them. Cedarville University has never displayed these attitudes. Its
theology is thoroughly orthodox. It would not for a moment tolerate a
theological liberal or any other apostate within the institution. If nearby
Dayton were to host an ecumenical evangelistic campaign, Cedarville University would
surely abstain. No, Cedarville is not neo evangelical and cannot rightly be
treated as if it were.
Cedarville
University differs with the GARBC over the question of how to relate to those
Christians who are willing to tolerate liberals or other apostates at some
level. For the GARBC, the answer is Òno organizational alignments.Ó For
Cedarville University, the answer has become Òpursue and accept a formal, organizational
endorsement.Ó Not surprisingly, the GARBC is uncomfortable with the idea of recommending
Cedarville University. Their difference is not incidental. It touches upon a
fairly important point, namely, the importance of separation from apostasy.
This point does have biblical implications.
Some
critics have asked whether the GARBC has a Scripture that requires this action.
While a case could be made that it does, such a Scripture really is not
necessary to justify the decision of the GARBC. The association and the
university have understood New Testament requirements in incompatible ways. If
each is to carry out its vision with integrity, then some degree of separation
seems necessary.
Does this
rebuff mean that the GARBC is separating from Cedarville University? If a
refusal to endorse can be construed as separation, then yes, it does. All
separation, however, is not created equal.
Ecclesiastical
separation from apostates must be complete and total, but separation between
brethren is not an all-or-nothing proposition. The New Testament reveals
various levels of separation that are inversely proportional to various levels
of fellowship. Some erring brothers must be treated as gentiles and publicans (i.e.,
as adversaries). Others, however, are to be avoided, yet treated as brothers
and not as enemies.
In other
words, even though a formal check has been placed upon the institutional
relationship between Cedarville University and the GARBC, this check does not
necessarily constitute an air-tight bulkhead. It is not unthinkable that the
National Representative of the GARBC could preach in chapel at Cedarville
University. It is not impossible that the president of Cedarville University
might be invited to preach at the GARBC. It is not unimaginable that Faith
Baptist Bible College (a very separatist institution) could use a professor
from Cedarville to teach a course. None of these things is very likely under
the present spirit of controversy, but these are different levels of
involvement that do not necessarily carry the same connotations as a formal
advertisement.
At the
end of the day, the individual churches of the GARBC will make their own
decisions about Cedarville University, and it is right that they should. If a church chooses to support or to
advertise Cedarville, that is no business of Schaumburg. Cedarville will probably enjoy as much
support from Regular Baptist churches in the future as it has enjoyed in the
past. So what has changed?
What has
changed is that the GARBC has formally and publicly shown how seriously it
takes certain aspects of its ethos. It has visibly upheld its position, not
only as true, but as important. This process of definition will undoubtedly
repel some, but with equal certainty it ought to attract others.