Not Opposed, but Distinct: Why Sola 5 is Not the Baptist Union

It is not surprising that, with the recent launch of Sola 5, which is intended to be an Association of God-centred Evangelicals in Southern Africa, a number of questions have been asked, which surely deserve an answer. One such question has been, “What is the difference between Sola 5 and the Baptist Union?”

An answer to such a constructive question must cover at least the following aspects.

First, in asking and answering this question there must be absolute clarity that Sola 5 is not designed to be in opposition to the Baptist Union of Southern Africa. The formation of Sola 5 is not to be regarded in terms of protest or resistance to anyone in particular, but has arisen out of a godly desire for unity and cooperation amongst likeminded Baptists and to provide a home and an identity for many independent and isolated individuals and churches throughout our sub-continent.

Second, it is specifically envisaged that some churches who will desire membership of Sola 5 may currently be members of some other association or denominational structure. This is no hindrance to their belonging to Sola 5. Experience and logic do lead us to believe, however, that one cannot with a clear conscience belong for any significant period of time to two distinct families that seem to be heading in different directions and are run on what appears to be vastly differing ethos. In Sola 5 we desire for there to be a consistent emphasis upon godly Christian character, meaningful relationships and integrity. These desires will of necessity be casualties where churches choose to belong, for the sake of expedience, sentiment, or tradition to Sola 5 as well as to some other grouping that appears to be significantly at variance with that for which Sola 5 stands.

Third, if a comparison must be drawn between the Baptist Union of Southern Africa and Sola 5, then let the following issues be considered:

Sola 5 as an association of churches wants to unashamedly promote the five solas of the Protestant Reformation, and has consequently been constituted on the basis of a detailed documentation of our 23 Core Values and Doctrinal Statement. These have been (painstakingly!) formulated because of a deep desire for clarity and definition.

In heading in this direction, the members of Sola 5 are fully aware that some equally sincere fellow believers may of necessity therefore be excluded from constructive fellowship with us. While it is not our desire to be exclusive for the sake of exclusivity, we do recognise that true and lasting unity can only really be based on a shared commitment to common convictions—convictions that can and must be carefully defined and articulated. In debate, it is simply not possible to defend a fuzzy and uncertain position. We want to know what we believe and we want others to be in a position also to know what we believe and hold dear so that they can make an accurate assessment of their own identity in relation to ours.

This means that we must state our beliefs as clearly and as succinctly as possible, without violating principles of charity and liberty. Let it be stated that we are expressly in opposition to “hyper-orthodoxy” (note the final item in our list of Core Values). But we are also in opposition to doctrinal indifference, and the kind of approach to orthodoxy that either deliberately defines things so vaguely and broadly that a heterogeneous and disparate group develops, or which resists careful definition out of a desire not to exclude anyone who might vaguely desire fellowship.

Without being uncharitable, it must be observed that some members of Sola 5 have been driven to the conclusion that within the Baptist Union there is a desire to remain “undefinable,” precisely because of the room it provides for manoeuvring oneself out of potentially uncomfortable positions in the future. Taking up this middle-of-the-road position where you have the freedom to swerve either to the left or to the right as the situation requires, this ability to be almost chameleonlike, is apparently viewed positively within the BU as a mark of big-hearted maturity and grace! By contrast, our desire within Sola 5 is to “assume the centre” by being definite and specific about our doctrinal convictions, even at the expense of broad acceptance. This is a critical area of divergence in ethos between ourselves and the Baptist Union.

(As a discussion point, one may want to investigate for instance the practical commitment to and outworking of the article in the 1924 Statement of Belief to the fact that “Christ died for our sins, a substitutionary sacrifice.” We want to ask, In one’s efforts at self-definition, can one with integrity, use the word “substitutionary” with reference to Christ at Calvary and at the same time promote a broad acceptance of an Arminian position regarding the universal focus of the atonement? We applaud the desire to stand with orthodox believers in using words like “substitutionary.” But we wonder how this commitment links with a willingness practically to smudge the central issue of the atonement, namely its outcome, by promoting the idea of the universal application of that sacrifice. Is this duplicity not culpably inconsistent and illogical—and dishonest?)

Make no mistake: When doctrinal convictions cannot and do not form your foundation and the basis of your identity because you do not think it expedient to define yourself too narrowly, then something else will fill that void.

It appears as if institutionalism has done this within the Baptist Union. It appears as if the structures and the offices within the hierarchy of the organisation are the motivation and the glue behind much of what is done and expected. Decision-making and communication follow certain organisational lines. Ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) plays an almost nonexistent role in financial decisions and accountability for ministry decisions.

The hallmarks of institutionalism are typically man-centredness, a programme-orientation and a pragmatic and even manipulative approach to decision-making. These marks are evident in the BU it would seem, when the financing of theological training and missions, for instance, are considered. Churches wisely associate together to achieve what none of the churches can achieve alone—such as in the training of pastors and the support of missionaries. And yet within the Baptist Union these vital ministries are divorced from the oversight of the local church and rest in the hands of institutional office-bearers, being run and financed independently.

Institutionalism has huge administrative costs associated with it. The meeting of these costs demands as broad a base of donors and contributors as possible. Strategic decisions must now pragmatically be made on the basis of what will keep the donors paying, rather than necessarily on what is right and in line with our stated biblical convictions. Such is the very fabric of institutionalism, which is what Sola 5 is ardently opposed to.

Man-centeredness within the institution tolerates the development of administrative personas who become larger than life, unattached and unaccountable in any meaningful way to any local congregation. As much as “servanthood” is part of the institutional vocabulary, “leadership” and the status and power that accompany it, as well as a “head office mentality,” is closer to reality in the life of the organisation.

Sola 5 is intent upon doing all that is necessary to maintain and promote biblical local church structures and lines of authority and accountability. Visible role players are first and foremost members of local churches, and only secondarily leaders and servants within the association of churches.

The number of churches in membership with the BU has consistently been of importance within the institution. Consequently, despite the stated process of assessment and scrutiny of prospective members, the integrity of the Baptistic identity of these member churches has been secondary to the consideration of their initial and their continued membership. As a result, the spectrum of churches has become increasingly broad, and the existence of inactive “dead wood” an acceptable reality.

In Sola 5, by contrast, relationship and integrity are key issues. You simply cannot belong indefinitely if you do not participate and communicate. Within Sola 5 we are not interested primarily in growth in numbers or in “keeping churches on the books.” We are interested rather in effective ministry to individuals in vibrant and robust partnership with member churches.

It has been the sad but undeniable experience of too many people that, in BU circles, one seldom hears reference to the Bible in debates and decision-making. This raises the unavoidable conclusion that within denominational circles there is an erosion of confidence in the sufficiency and authority of Scripture—despite numerous claims to the contrary. On paper, it would appear, the Bible is expressly of vital importance. But in practice, the debate is conducted in such a way as to lead to the inescapable conclusion that much of what we face today in our decisions and choices is simply not adequately addressed in God’s word.

Sadly, one of the hallmarks of life within the Union, especially evident at the annual BU Assembly, is the absence of deep and trusting relationships. As a means of emotional survival, it appears as if the “system” conditions one to “play the game,” even at the expense of a clear conscience. Consequently, much activity is pursued in the unspoken context of fraternal insecurity and distrust.

In Sola 5, we want to depend upon the Spirit of God to keep us humble and honest; to help us avoid the formation of organisational hierarchy that encourages “ladder-climbing”; to encourage the asking of the unpopular questions regarding consistency and integrity and motive; to repent of and desist from loose talk and slander; and to encourage healthy debate.

The five issues mentioned above—namely apparent doctrinal indifference; institutionalism; indiscriminate growth; biblical debate and trusting relationships—are surely areas of deep concern for any Christian or family of churches. The fact is that we cannot hold ourselves responsible for the actions and values of future generations.

Some people have cynically remarked regarding Sola 5: “Yes, the Baptist Union in its infancy was what you now are. In due course you too will evolve into a denominational institution suffering from all the maladies you have identified within the BU. What is to prevent Sola 5 also in due course falling prey to all the inter-personal politics, manipulation and conflicting personal agendas?”

How can one respond, but to pray that God the Holy Spirit would help us consistently to live according to first principles? We invite you then: Please pray with us and for us—that, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of other churches and associations may be, God would graciously and powerfully allow us to put forth our salt and light so that the kingdom of Jesus Christ would advance in this world, and this to the glory of God alone!