A Glossary for the Confused, the Concerned, and the Convictional
BY BEN LACEY & BEN ROBIN
Words are not neutral. They carry ideas and histories, convictions and consequences. To use a word carelessly is not merely an intellectual failure—often, it is a moral one.
In the life of an association like the Southern Baptist Convention, imprecise language has fueled unnecessary conflict, shielded bad theology from scrutiny, and allowed honest disagreement to degenerate into name-calling. As messengers gather in Orlando, the same words will be thrown across lunchroom tables and messengers’ microphones with wildly different meanings. If we want biblical cooperation, we must see words have meaning, and how we use those words matter.
In this brief glossary, we extend an invitation to speak carefully and hear charitably.
Pharisee
What people mean when they use it: Anyone who takes matters of religion more seriously than me. Especially someone who is rigid, rule-bound, and joyless in their religion.
What it actually means: The Pharisees were a Second Temple Jewish sect distinguished by commitment to oral tradition as the interpretive fence around Torah, emphasis on ritual purity, and a tendency to use religious performance as a mechanism for self-justification and social status. Jesus’s sharpest rebukes were not for their rule-keeping per se, but for their pride, hypocrisy, and substitution of tradition for the heart of God’s Law (cf. Mark 7, Matthew 23).
The problem: “Pharisee” has become a conversation-stopper, deployed against anyone who holds firm convictions or aims to maintain standards. However, this usage is historically and theologically sloppy. A pastor who insists on doctrinal fidelity is not a Pharisee. A person who loves God’s Law—because they love God—is not a Pharisee. The Pharisee’s sin was pride and hypocrisy, not conviction.
Liberal
What people mean when they use it: Anyone to my theological left. A person driven by feelings and experience, not faith and conviction.
What it actually means: Theological liberalism has a specific historical pedigree. Emerging in nineteenth century Germany (e.g., Schleiermacher, Ritschl) and flowing into American mainline Protestantism, theological liberalism is characterized by the subordination of Scripture to human reason, the reinterpretation of doctrines like the atonement, resurrection, and miracles to fit post-Enlightenment philosophical assumptions, and a general optimism about human nature and social progress. Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Auburn Affirmation (1924) represent the epitome of its American expression.
The problem: Calling someone a “liberal” because they reach a different conclusion on a secondary matter is an abuse of the term. Worse still, it’s a violation of God’s Law to love your neighbor by telling the truth about him and preserving his reputation. Furthermore, true theological liberalism is more like a worldview, than any single position on a specific issue. Precision here matters enormously.
Moderate
What people mean when they use it: A reasonable, non-extreme person—or, conversely, someone starting out on the slippery slope to liberalism, especially for allegedly compromising the full authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture.
What it actually means: In the SBC’s Conservative Resurgence (1979–2000), “moderate” became the preferred self-designation of those who resisted reform, many of whom held to a form of limited or nuanced inerrancy, or rejected inerrancy altogether. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (est. 1991) emerged largely from this coalition. The term carries genuine historical meaning in this context.
The problem: Today, the word floats free of that history. “Moderate” is sometimes used as self-flattery (implying opponents are extremists), and sometimes as a caricature (implying doctrinal drift).
Conservative
What people mean when they use it: Someone who holds traditional positions, theologically or politically.
What it actually means: In theology, conservatism is commitment to received orthodoxy, treasuring and preserving the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It means testing innovations against Scripture and the historic consensus of the church as she confesses biblical truth faithfully. Historically, “conservative” designated those who fought for the affirmation of biblical inerrancy as the convention’s confessional standard—and we praise God they were victorious, by grace.
The problem: “Conservative” has been stretched in two directions. Some use it as a synonym for any culturally right-leaning position. Others wear it as tribal identity without the theological substance that originally defined it. A conservative without convictions about Scripture is just a traditionalist in the cultural sense—but these two are not the same.
Fundamentalist
What people mean when they use it: An angry, anti-intellectual, separatist reactionary—rigid and culturally backward. Often a near-synonym for “extremist” or “someone whose conservatism embarrasses me.”
What it actually means: Fundamentalism has a specific historical pedigree. It names the early twentieth century movement that arose to defend essential doctrines against modernism, taking its name from The Fundamentals (1910–1915). Following the Scopes Trial (1925), the term increasingly denoted a posture of ecclesiastical separation: the conviction that fidelity requires separating from those who deny orthodoxy. This separatist strategy is precisely what distinguished mid-century fundamentalism from the new evangelicalism of Carl F. H. Henry, Harold John Ockenga, and Billy Graham, who shared the doctrine but rejected the method of separation.
The problem: “Fundamentalist” now does double duty as both a historical category and a term of abuse, and the two are routinely confused. Used loosely, it dismisses anyone whose doctrinal firmness feels excessive. As such, it’s a close cousin of the misused “Pharisee.” However, there is a real distinction between a historic fundamentalist and a conservative who simply takes doctrine seriously.
Reformed
What people mean when they use it: Calvinist—usually in a suspicious tone, or perhaps sometimes as a badge of pride. More specifically, someone who holds to at least four of the five points known by the acronym TULIP.
What it actually means: “Reformed” properly refers to the theological tradition of the sixteenth century Reformation, particularly as codified in documents like the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, or the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. It encompasses all of the so-called “five points” (i.e., total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints), but extends far beyond them to include a robust doctrine of God, covenantal theology, the regulative principle of worship, and a particular ecclesiology.
The problem: Some use “Reformed” to mean nothing more than “believes in election.” Others reject it entirely because they associate it with paedobaptism or theological elitism. Both are imprecise. A Baptist can be meaningfully Reformed, as the 1689 Confession demonstrates. Though many use “Reformed” as a trope due to a bad experience with someone, the theology itself aims at reforming all of life according to God’s Word to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Pragmatic
What people mean when they use it: Flexible, results-oriented, focused on what “works” for this or that; sometimes, simply doctrinally squishy
What it actually means: Philosophical pragmatism, associated with William James and John Dewey, holds that truth is determined by practical outcomes. In short, what works is what’s true. In ministry contexts, pragmatism tends toward the prioritization of numerical growth, cultural relevance, and program effectiveness as the primary measures of faithfulness.
The problem: Pragmatism is perhaps the most corrosive force in evangelical theology and church life, precisely because it rarely announces itself. It simply asks, “but is it working?” But we must pause to humbly ask, “working toward what end, to meet what standard?” The church’s calling is faithfulness. Any “success” short of such faithfulness dishonors God. God grants fruitfulness in His own time and manner.
Complementarian
What people mean when they use it: A term of pride or suspicion for someone who believes men and women have different roles.
What it actually means: Complementarianism rests on the view that men and women are equal in dignity and worth before God (Galatians 3:28), but have been created for different-but-complementary roles, particularly in marriage (Ephesians 5) and the church (1 Timothy 2–3; Titus 1). The term was popularized by the 1991 volume Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Piper & Grudem). It is the position reflected in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
The problem: The word has become a spectrum rather than a position. There is now a significant difference between what might be called “soft complementarianism” (“a woman can do anything an unordained man can do,” perhaps even “preach under the authority of the elders”) and a more robust complementarianism that aims to apply the biblical household codes consistently and broadly. These are not the same position, and conflating them serves no one—whether to make so-called soft complementarians out to be egalitarians or to erase any kind of distinctions among complementarians.
Egalitarian
What people mean when they use it: Someone who believes men and women are entirely interchangeable, often said as an accusation.
What it actually means: Egalitarianism understands Paul’s commands to Timothy and Titus to be contextually conditioned, not permanently binding; therefore, all church offices are open to both men and women. Within evangelicalism, this position is associated with organizations like Christians for Biblical Equality and scholars like Gordon Fee, I. Howard Marshall, F. F. Bruce and Roger Nicole.
The problem: Evangelical egalitarians affirm biblical authority; thus, they are not theological liberals. The debate is a genuine hermeneutical one over how to read specific texts. Caricaturing egalitarians as simply capitulating to feminism, or dismissing complementarians as merely baptizing patriarchy, obscures the real exegetical and theological questions that demand and deserve charitable, convictional engagement.
Baptist
What people mean when they use it: A member or church of a Baptist denomination, often used as if the meaning of the word is intuitive and obvious to all, requiring no elaboration or distinction today.
What it actually means: Historically and theologically, “Baptist” refers to a cluster of convictions: (1) the authority of Scripture alone, (2) a regenerate church membership, (3) believer’s baptism by immersion, (4) congregational church polity, (5) the autonomy of the local church, (6) religious liberty and the separation of church and state, and (7) cooperation among like-minded churches for mission. The roots are found in seventeenth century English Separatism and broader Reformation convictions.
The problem: “Baptist” is increasingly used as a cultural or tribal identifier stripped of these theological commitments. A church that abandons regenerate church membership, or a denomination that effectively governs local churches, has moved away from historic Baptist ecclesiology, regardless of what the sign over the door says.
Cooperation
What people mean when they use it: Working together, often invoked to resist accountability or to shield institutions from scrutiny.
What it actually means: Southern Baptist cooperation has historically meant voluntary, mission-driven partnership among autonomous churches through shared mechanisms like the Cooperative Program guided by shared convictions—specifically the Baptist Faith and Message. The genius of Southern Baptist cooperation is that it links local church autonomy with collective missionary ambition. It was never designed to be an obligation that trumps faithfulness, nor a mechanism of institutional self-preservation.
The problem: “Cooperation” is frequently invoked to silence legitimate concerns—as if any critique of an entity, any motion on the floor, or any call for accountability is inherently uncooperative. This usage is an abuse of the concept. Genuine cooperation requires trust, and trust requires transparency, accountability, and shared doctrinal conviction. You cannot call for cooperation while resisting the conditions that make it possible.
A Closing Word
If we want biblical cooperation aimed at taking the gospel not just to all nations but to all generations, we must resist the temptation toward sloppiness with our words.
Sloppy language produces sloppy theology, which builds sloppy churches—and ultimately dishonors the One who gave us the mission to begin with.
Southern Baptists have a remarkable doctrinal, missional, and institutional inheritance. We will not steward it well if we cannot discipline ourselves to say what we mean, and mean what we say.
Words have meanings. Let us use them accordingly.