A blog curiously titled “SWBTSUnderground” recently featured a short piece called “Retribution.” For those of you not familiar, the letters “SWBTS” stand for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the second largest Southern Baptist seminary, behind Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville (where I did my M.Div.). The blog title is perhaps best captured in this piece: the (anonymous) blogger feels that any outspoken concerns and/or criticisms of the seminary, and the SBC as a whole will result in retribution of some sort.

I recognize that many of my readers are not only not Southern Baptist, but actually have little to no interest in the convention. However, it is part of my world, it’s my blog and the idea presented by the SWBTSUnderground interests me, so I want to briefly examine this idea of “retribution,” not only at Southwestern, but within the larger Southern Baptist context and any possible implications about larger denominational life.First, what is meant by this idea of retribution? It seems that there is a fear (founded or not) among many, particularly at Southwestern Seminary. There is a fear of openly holding to Reformed or Charismatic beliefs, there is a fear of openly disagreeing with officials. In other words, there is a fear that if one “crosses” the wrong person or says the wrong thing, there will be consequences, possibly of losing employment. Whether or not these fears are founded, the fact that they exist and are widespread means that we must be willing to examine the fact that something has gone wrong.

Within the larger Southern Baptist context, many feel that there exists a “good ol’ boy” network: a framework of high-level SBC relationships that groom their successors and pass “power” from one approved “good ol’ boy” to another. Therefore, if you’re not part of this “approved” network, your chances of rising within the SBC are slim to none. All of this raises the question of positions of “power” and anyone’s desire to rise to those positions. This is simply the nature of politics and it is also a substantial reason why many younger evangelicals are moving away from denominations.

This is honestly where my primary interest lies in some of these discussions. The simple fact that people are (even if it is unfounded) worried about speaking out means that there are dire problems in the Southern Baptist Convention. However, I’m not so sure the problem is uniquely Southern Baptist. Any time we function within any sort of bureaucracy, there will be those who want to rise to power (whatever that perceived “power” might be), those who want to keep power and just about everything in between.

The questions raised by these Southern Baptist issues are valid and essential for all believers as we examine how to best pursue the Kingdom of God. Denominations have typically been as much about exclusion as much as they have been about cooperation. They have been about the of drawing borders, typically along such lines as baptism and polity. While these issues are important, there seems to be a move among many believers to view them as secondary while the deeper truths of the Gospel are causing many to cross those borders. Yet, denominational structures also provide vast opportunities and resources that might not otherwise be available to local churches so there is certainly a benefit to the idea of a denomination. The question becomes whether or not the benefits outweigh the growing difficulties.

This is a crucial time for denominations, particularly Southern Baptists. As many become increasingly (and more vocally) jaded by its tactics, the leaders have some crucial decisions. Will they continue to heep criticism at bloggers, or will they recognize that there are indeed many valid concerns gaining momentum. Will they continue to hold on to power and practice exclusion or will they gravitate towards a greater ecuminicalism (within the bounds of orthodoxy)? Will those raising the concerns truly foster a desire to work together, or will everyone involved become jaded and resort to exclusion?

It seems that the current challenges facing evangelicalism call for a unity that has been lacking in a strict denominational approach. It will certainly be interesting to see how we rise to meet these challenges. There seems to be a large move that incorporates the idea of keeping “denominational distinctives” (whatever those might be: baptism, polity, spiritual gifts, etc.) while at the same time recognizing the need to not only dialogue with but cooperate with those outside those specific boundaries yet within the larger bounds of orthodoxy.

This in and of itself poses the larger question of orthodoxy. As I’ve written before, the very notion of orthodoxy has been questioned by some who have sought to make its boundaries as “generous” as possible, trying to convince us that humility does not recognize nor point out theological error. These are exciting times, both within the Southern Baptist Convention and the larger realm of evangelicalism. I pray that, rather than buckle under the burdens, we, together, strive towards the greater vision of a humble orthodoxy.