The best answer would be "yes."
And this is the best answer for convention-wide policies in the SBC as well as personal spiritual formation. When it comes to convention-wide policies, both "Charleston" and "Sandy Creek" are in our heritage.
Writers have long used these two designations as a kind of short-hand for identifying the historical source of Southern Baptist convictions. The terms refer to statements of faith that came out of two historic meetings: one held at First Baptist Church, Charleson, and the second held at Sandy Creek Baptist Church. Here's good example of this use of the short-hand, from the Florida Baptist Convention's "What We Believe" page:
Historians have challenged whether the use of the statements from these two historic meetings can really serve to identify distinct streams of Baptist thought and life. And, admittedly, there are those who have used the "Charleston-Sandy Creek" shorthand irresponsibly to endorse any manner of diversity within Southern Baptist life.The Charleston group stressed an educated ministry and structured worship. The Sandy Creek Baptists emphasized evangelism, revival and freedom to express feelings in worship. All these elements can be found among Southern Baptists today.
Still, I find it useful to see contemporary SBC life as this uneasy confluence of two streams. The one is more Calvinistic, structured, and intellectual while the other is more revivalistic, free-form, and pietistic.
Order and ardor.
I agree with Trevin Wax that the Southern Baptist family is better for it. In a recent book review Wax wrote:
Being forced to decide which stream I belong to – Charleston or Sandy Creek – is like someone asking me to take sides in Grandpa and Grandma’s divorce. I’m an intellectually-inclined high church guy who loves aspects of Grandpa Charles, but I’ve been nurtured by Grandma Sandy’s distinct version of piety too. I love them both, and I want them to stay married. Keeping them together makes for a stronger Southern Baptist family.
No comments:
Post a Comment