|
Response to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement by Jeffry R. Zurheide, Pastor, The First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City I appreciate the opportunity to respond to these Baptist Faith and Message revisions, and feel the need to share with you that I am a Baptist by conviction. I was raised a Presbyterian, played the denominational field during the Jesus movement of the late 60’s and 70’s, and then became a Southern Baptist based upon the 1963 BF&M. So if I appear to be passionate about these changes, you are reading me well, because I do feel passionate about these changes. (Now, in saying this, I in no way want to minimize the deep emotions you life-long Baptists may feel on the subject. I just want to give you an insight regarding my vantage point.) Let me also state at the outset a conviction (based upon “soul competency”) that as a Baptist, I can really only speak for myself. These are Jeff’s views – I encourage you all to pray, study, and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these matters. Baptists over the centuries have been known as “a people of the book,” and, additionally, as believers “having no creed but the Bible.” As a Presbyterian who had been raised to repeat such authoritative doctrinal statements as the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed, such an overtly biblical emphasis was very attractive to me. However, as of this past June 2000, (not to mention the last 20 years), big changes have taken place. I have continued to experience, what I will call, “the creeps.” A new BF&M was authored and approved. Suddenly concepts like “doctrinal accountability” found their way into our Baptist statement of faith. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Roman Catholics (because of their creedal orientations) would be quite at home with such language, but not Baptists; at least, not this Baptist. “Doctrinal accountability” is creedal talk. Historically, Baptists have shied from bowing to human made documents, not to mention outside control by the State or any denomination. It was equally daunting to read in this new BF&M 2000, that there are now certain ingredients which are “essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” Who decides that?! Whatever became of local church autonomy? Whatever happened to the free and fresh air of God’s spirit that used to blow through this convention when I first encountered it back in the mid-1970’s? What became of our cherished Baptist freedoms? The ’63 version of the BF&M stated that the church (section VI) is to be committed to (Christ’s) teachings.” The new version reads that the church is to be “governed by (Christ’s) laws.” The ’63 version left out those issues that were contentious, thus allowing the “consensus of the competent” (that is, the Spirit led “decisions of the local church on spiritual matters” E. Y. Mullins, H. H. Hobbs, You Are Chosen), to hold sway. The 2000 version proceeded to address such red hot issues as “women in ministry” with more clarity than the New Testament itself. And even as the ’63 BF&M states in its preamble, that, “Baptists emphasize the soul’s competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer,” these terms barely made it into the 2000 version. They were inserted back into the document in the eleventh hour! Beyond these, there are several other even more earthshaking changes that I would like to highlight for us, as we compare the ’63 BF&M to the 2000 version. Bear with me as I seek to do justice to these issues in this relatively short article. The ‘63 statement on scripture reads: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” This statement was stricken from the 2000 BF&M. Now, what is a criterion? By definition, a criterion is “a rule, standard, guiding principle, or benchmark.” In saying that Jesus is the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted, I believe two rather weighty points are made: First, Jesus is a higher authority than the Bible. The Protestant Reformers called Jesus “King and Lord over scripture” centuries ago. Think of the many New Testament texts which bear this out. Matthew 5:17 reads: “Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.” This word “fulfill” means “to satisfy” or “to complete.” In Matthew 5:21f, Jesus proceeds to do precisely that. “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times ‘you shall not murder …’ but I say to you …” Verse 27, “You have heard that it was said ‘you shall not commit adultery…’ but I say to you …” Verse 33, “You have heard that is was said ‘you shall not swear falsely…’ but I say to you …” Did you catch it? “But I say to you …But I say to you.” Time and again, Jesus fulfills and completes the Old Testament scriptures. He as sole (or the only) criterion for interpreting scripture, breathes new life into those same scriptures. One of the members of the BF&M 2000 revision committee was heard to remark on national television, regarding the women in ministry issue, that “Jesus submitted himself to the word of God.” Really? My sense is that it really ought to be the other way around. Namely, that the Bible, the word of God, must submit itself to Jesus, the living Word of God. In John 8:3f, a woman who had been “caught in the very act of adultery” was brought before Jesus. The Scribes and Pharisees proceed to test Jesus by quoting the Scriptures they know so well: Deuteronomy 22:22f. To paraphrase, these verses basically state: “You shall stone such guilty parties to death and thus purge the evil from the midst of you.” Now if Jesus had submitted himself to the word of God [the Old Testament at that point], I imagine he would have said, “Lady, this is out of my hands; go ahead boys, administer capital punishment.” But no, as the Lord and living Word, Jesus completes the Law and the Prophets in their very presence. He ushers in a New Covenant, and a new realm called the Kingdom of God. A new chapter wherein there is moral and ethical structure, to be sure (“Go and sin no more”), but little in the way of condemnation (“Neither do I condemn you.”). The second point made by “Jesus as the criterion,” is that without Christ as King and Lord over Scripture, the Old Testament quickly takes on the status of the New Testament. That is, when we lose Jesus as sole criterion and “initiator of a New Covenant,” the New Testament also loses its preeminence. The Old Testament’s “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” mentality would then be in full force again. The Old Testament’s bloody revenge texts could be brought to bear on the ways we treat our neighbors. The Old Testament’s emphasis upon theocracy (that is, “God’s most favored nation status”), could again be embraced by this country. The Puritans, from the early days of this country, are a good example of those who lacked a “Jesus as sole criterion” priority. They viewed themselves as God’s “chosen people,” and justified the taking of the land from the American Indians by calling them “Philistines.” I imagine you can think of a few OT texts they quoted way out of context! “What would Jesus do?” is a good “sole criterion” question. Let’s not lose that christological priority and focus. Another term that’s missing from the 2000 document is “record.” The ’63 BF&M states that “(The Bible) is the record of God’s revelation of himself to man.” The 2000 BF&M reads “The Holy Bible is God’s revelation of himself to Man.” Now, that’s quite a shift. The Bible moves from being a record of revelation to the revelation. I prefer “record” for two reasons. One, it puts the Bible in its proper place. Way back in 1979 at Golden Gate Seminary, Professor William Hendricks taught us ministerial students the ladder of authority: The Triune God (first rung) The Scriptures (second rung) Heritage (third rung) Personal experience (fourth rung) Now, if one mixes up this order, there is trouble in River City. And the trouble I believe the BF&M 2000 gets into is that they have put the Bible on an equal footing with God, Jesus and the Spirit. That’s called bibliolatry – that is, worshipping the Bible, or making a god of the Bible. No, the Bible is not divine, it is “inspired” (to use a good New Testament term), but it is not divine. Secondly, I like the Bible as the “record of God’s revelation,” rather than “the Bible is the revelation,” because it in no way limits the ways God can be revealed. The Bible is not the revelation of God because the Bible is not the only revelation of God. Paul claims in Galatians 1:11 that he received the gospel directly through a revelation of Jesus Christ. That is, it came to him, I presume, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit who is to “convict or convince the world of sin and righteousness and judgment.” (John 16:8) My own experience bears this out. I bowed my life before Jesus as Savior and Lord long before I knew anything substantive concerning the Bible. I will affirm that the Bible is the primary way of us knowing who God is, but it is not the only way. The Bible is the “record” of God’s revelation. As our own Oklahoma Baptist Messenger was reporting on the Southern Baptist Convention this past June, the words “just a book” kept popping up. Do you recall the article? To give us some background, one Anthony Sizemore, a messenger and Pastor, commented from the convention floor that as we compare the status of Jesus to the Bible, the latter is “just a book.” Now , even though the editor/reporter put a negative spin on the comment (everyone purportedly “gasped” and asked themselves “How could anybody say that?!), I wholeheartedly agree with Rev. Sizemore’s statement, in context. To use my own words, whenever we compare Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, to the Bible, the Bible will always and forever remain “just a book!” Let me close with a rather prophetic word which Herschel Hobbs wrote back in 1971 in his book, The Baptist Faith and Message: “At times one hears the prediction that Southern Baptists are about to divide over their faith. In this writer’s judgment this is most unlikely. Baptists have always agreed on basics, but have had their differences on details. This is because they have a living faith rather than a creedal one. The tensions created by these differences have kept their faith vibrant. In all likelihood the only thing that would divide Southern Baptists with regard to their faith would be for one group – to the right or left of center or even in the center – to attempt to force upon others a creedal faith. So long as they hold to the competency of the soul in religion they will remain as one body in the faith.” The reality of our situation is, that what Dr. Hobbs feared might happen, has happened, as of June, 2000. A creedal faith has now been forced upon us. Again, if I was a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran or Roman Catholic, I would feel very much at home with the revisions and tenor of the new BF&M. But, since I am a Baptist, my Baptist sensitivities are offended by this 2000 revision. What is your response?
|
|
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.
|