|
MAINSTREAM MESSENGER Vol. 3, No. 3 July 2000 Editor: Bruce PrescottSBC Adopts Revised Baptist Faith and MessageBy Mark Wingfield Reproduced by permission of the Baptist Standard. It was Jesus versus the Bible. After months of speculation about proposed changes to the Southern Baptist Convention's Baptist Faith & Message statement (BFM), debate on the convention floor June 14 focused on the relative authority of Jesus and the Bible. The recommendations of a study committee appointed by SBC President Paige Patterson were overwhelmingly approved by convention messengers, who soundly defeated three attempted amendments. Leading Baptist moderates and conservatives
alike agreed afterward the debate clearly capsulized the tensions that have torn
apart the SBC over the last 20 years. The moment was, in this sense, the
culmination of the battle for the Bible launched in Houston in 1979, critics and
supporters agreed. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is what it all comes down to. The issue is whether the Bible is the word of God or merely a record of God's word," Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said from the platform at one point during the debate. Mohler was a prominent member of the SBC study committee. He was responding to a motion offered from the floor by Anthony Sizemore, pastor of First Baptist Church in Floydada, who attempted to restore most of the BFM section on Scripture to its 1963 language rather than the language proposed by the study committee. The 1963 version described the Bible as "the record of God's revelation of himself to man," while the new version said the Bible "is God's revelation of himself to man." The 1963 version identified Jesus as "the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted," while the new version said, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation." "The Bible is not merely a record," Mohler said to a standing ovation from convention messengers. "It is the revelation of God. It is always a triumphant moment when this convention states clearly its belief that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. ... Pray tell, what do we know of Jesus apart from Scriptures?" Sizemore and others argued that the committee's proposed changes elevated the Bible above Jesus. "I believe the Bible is God's word, and I strive to obey the standards it prescribes," Sizemore said. "The Bible is a book we can trust. ... That being said, the Bible is still just a book. Christians are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, not a book. "I implore the messengers of this Southern Baptist Convention to look closely at a major doctrinal change found in the committee's proposal, Sizemore added. "For one must see that the Bible is a record of what Christ has done. Christ is the revelation of God. He is not the focus of divine revelation. ... We must be careful not to elevate the written word above the one to whom it points." Sizemore's point was supported by David Currie, a member of Southland Baptist Church in San Angelo and executive director of Texas Baptists Committed. Currie related how he had become a Christian as a child through the work of the Holy Spirit convicting him of his sin, even though he knew little of what the Bible said. "In Galatians, Paul said, 'I want you to know, brothers, this gospel I preach was not something I made up, ... rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ,'" Currie said. "I'm glad this committee was not around when Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ." Currie's comment drew a sharp retort from Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a member of the SBC study committee. "The Apostle Paul was an apostle," Land said. "The illumination we get from the Holy Spirit must be guided by Scripture because you and I are not apostles, sir." Sizemore's amendment was soundly rejected
by messengers, as was an earlier amendment proposed by Charles Wade, executive
director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The study committee had begun the morning by offering an additional two sentences to the preamble inserting the words "soul competency" and "priesthood of believers" but noting that these liberties should be tempered by "our accountability to each other under the word of God." Wade proposed going a step further toward the 1963 preamble by reinserting these sentences: "Baptists are a people who profess a living faith. This faith is rooted and grounded in Jesus Christ who is the 'same yesterday and today and forever.' Therefore, the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ, whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. "A living faith must experience a growing understanding of truth and must be continually interpreted and related to the needs of each new generation. Throughout their history, Baptist bodies both large and small have issued statements of faith which comprise a consensus of their beliefs. Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority." The amendment is "crucial," Wade said, to affirm the supremacy of Christ. "We are indeed people of the book, but we are also people who bow only before Jesus Christ our Savior." The amendment also is needed to prevent the Baptist Faith & Message from being used as a creed, Wade argued. The study committee's new preamble replaced the 1963 language with this statement: "Baptist churches, associations and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world and as instruments of doctrinal accountability." Members of the SBC study committee strongly urged messengers to reject Wade's amendment. "All of us believe in the lordship of Jesus Christ," Land explained. "But we believe the only Jesus Christ we can know is the Jesus Christ revealed in Scripture. "I fully believe that a demonic spirit could come and sit on the foot of my bed tonight and say, 'Richard, I am Jesus. I want to tell you everybody is going to heaven and you don't have to worry about it any more. But that would be wrong. ... Why? Because Scripture stands in judgment of my experience, not my experience in judgment of Scripture." Wade's amendment was supported by Bruce Prescott, a member of First Baptist Church of Norman, Okla., and director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists. "There is a difference in the way we understand soul competency in the old Baptist Faith & Message and the new version that is being proposed," he said. "Soul competency as defined by E.Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs was soul competency under God. That means we are responsible to Jesus Christ. Soul competency as defined by this committee ... is soul competency under the church. That means we are accountable to each other's interpretations of the word of God. "We really need to leave us free to be accountable to Jesus Christ," Prescott said. "He is the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted. He is the only infallible and inerrant interpreter of Scripture." In interviews afterward, both Wade and study committee members characterized the floor debate over Jesus versus the Bible as illustrative of the differences between SBC moderates and conservatives. Wade agreed with Mohler's statement that "this is what it all comes down to." The question, he said, is "Can you have a high view of the Bible but have a higher view of Jesus?" "It all comes down to this: The Bible, as high as we hold it as a source for doctrinal understanding -- Jesus Christ is the criterion by which we interpret the Bible." If Jesus is not the guiding principle for biblical interpretation, Wade asked, "then who or what is?" That question was put to four members of the study committee during a news conference minutes later. Mohler spoke for the committee to explain there were "dangers" in the language identifying Jesus as the criterion for biblical interpretation. "We do believe in a Christological hermeneutic" or framework for biblical interpretation, he said. However, "the danger is when Christ is set against Scripture," he added. Making Jesus the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted allows anyone to assert anything and claim Jesus told them that was truth, he suggested. Others opposed to the committee's recommendations refuted that notion, claiming the words of Jesus in the New Testament, for example, must be given precedence when conflicting passages are found in the Old Testament. The Bible is not a "flat" document, argued Wayne Ward, emeritus professor of theology at Southern Seminary, during a speech on the convention floor. "You could follow Moses and stone adulterers," he said. "It would clear out Congress and empty some pulpits," but it would not be true to the greater revelation of God found in the New Testament. "The Bible is Scripture, God's written word, yes, but it does not say anywhere, 'Believe on the Bible and thou shalt be saved.' We have to decide whether we're going to stop in the Old Testament with Moses or whether we're going to go on and interpret Moses by Jesus." Chuck Kelley, president of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the SBC study committee, said in the news conference that this debate formed a "magnificent textbook illustration of why we had a denominational struggle." "If anyone had any doubt about whether a new stream of theology began entering our denomination in the '60s," listening to the floor debate about the relative merits of Jesus versus the Bible should have dispelled those doubts, he said. Mohler agreed: "There are two different visions of Baptist life and the Baptist faith." |
|
Online since April 7, 1999
E- mail questions or comments about this web site to bprescott@mainstreambaptists.orgCopyright © 1999-2003 MAINSTREAM OKLAHOMA BAPTISTS P.O. Box 6371 Norman, OK 73070-6371 (405) 329-2266.
|