MAINSTREAM MESSENGER
Vol. 3, No. 5 Sept. 2000 Editor: Bruce Prescott
BF&M Forums A Success —
State Leaders Seem Moderating Toward Enforcement of the 2000 BF&M
by Dr. Bruce Prescott
When the 2000 Baptist Faith &Message (BF&M) was adopted in Orlando, some state leaders apparently expected Baptists simply to give “rubber stamp” approval to it, without review, in their state conventions, associations and churches.
A few days after we sent letters inviting more than twenty Directors of Missions to speak and participate in our BF&M forums, we received a letter from Wade Robertson, DOM of the LeFlore Association, that said,
“Since the SBC has already approved the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message, what is the point of discussing it further? Whether one agrees or disagrees with the revision, it is done. Discussing it now will not accomplish anything positive. It seems to me that if you have genuine concerns about the revisions to the BF&M, you should have conducted these forums prior to the SBC meeting in Orlando when such discussion would have had some significance. . . . The time for meaningful discussion on this issue is past.” (Click here to view an image of this letter.)
A couple days later, the Oklahoma DOM’s met and discussed a resolution endorsing the 2000 BF&M and encouraging “the pastors and members of the churches to consider seriously the adoption of the June 14, 2000 edition as their generally accepted confession of faith.” Then, after BGCO Executive Director Anthony Jordan spoke strongly in favor of it, the resolution passed with only one dissenting vote.
For some DOM’s and pastors, however, serious consideration must not involve public examination and discussion of the changes in the BF&M. A couple weeks after the DOM’s passed their resolution, when we began advertising forums that could help Baptists seriously consider the implications of the 2000 BF&M , many Baptists were being discouraged from attending the forums. Some pastors advised church members from the pulpit not to attend our meetings and John Allen, DOM of Enon Association, placed a notice in an Ardmore newspaper saying he would not participate in our open forum and instructed Baptists to call him or their pastors if they had questions about the new BF&M. (Click here to view an e-mail response from Enon Association)
Ironically, such heavy handed attempts to control Baptists frequently backfired and sparked increased interest in our forums. Several forum attendees insisted that they believed they were accountable only to Christ — not to “each other” or to their pastors or to their DOM’s. At nearly every forum, such attempts to stifle discussion served as illustrations of Mainstream concerns about the hierarchical top down authority that the 2000 BF&M encourages.
Many forum attendees discovered that they had been misinformed about the beliefs of Mainstream Baptists. Contrary to what some had heard, they learned that Mainstream Baptists do believe that the Bible is “totally true and trustworthy.”
Many also discovered that when the 2000 BF&M’s says the Bible “is God’s revelation of Himself to man” it obscures the truth that Jesus is the supreme revelation of God to man. The 1963 BF&M made that clear by saying the Bible “is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man.” When people perceived that the article on scripture in the 2000 BF&M makes the Bible equal to Jesus, very few found it preferable to the 1963 BF&M.
Questions were raised at several of our forums concerning the source for any knowledge of Jesus apart from the Bible.
Participants responded in a variety of ways. Some spoke about how, in the first century, saving knowledge of Jesus was shared entirely through personal witness and preaching because nearly thirty years had passed before the testimony of the apostles was written down. Some described the way a personal testimony from another believer introduced them to Jesus and how, after accepting Him as Lord, they learned more about Him through the pages of the Bible. One response was simply to read 1 John 5:7-12.
When objections similar to those raised in Robertson’s letter were raised at our forums, participants noted that “meaningful discussion” prior to the Orlando SBC Convention had been precluded (deliberately?) by the late date on which the 2000 BF&M revision was released. Unlike, the 1963 BF&M committee which released its report three months prior to the vote of the convention, the 2000 report was released just three weeks prior to the convention’s vote.
In 1963 those who opposed the changes to the BF&M had ample time to make arrangements to attend the convention and voice their concerns. In 2000 those who wanted to challenge changes had little time to make travel arrangements and those who did attend the convention saw debate cut off after a 40 minute discussion in which few were permitted to speak.
These facts seemed to weigh heavy on the minds of those who were wondering whether the 2000 revisers were correct in asserting that the 1963 committee had been “naïve” or “duped” into writing liberal language into the BF&M. Several of those who attended our forums wanted to know why the Baptist Messenger has kept them uninformed about such accusations. More than one adamantly insisted, “Anyone who thinks Herschel Hobbs was ‘duped,’ didn’t know Herschel Hobbs.” Many concluded that the possibility of Baptists being “duped” is most likely when Baptists are deprived of adequate time to carefully study and consider proposed changes.
Concerns about the unprecedented creedalism expressed by the 2000 BF&M’s statement that confessions are “instruments of doctrinal accountability” were voiced at every forum.
Oft repeated was Herschel Hobbs prediction that, “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.” (Baptist Faith and Message, p. 11)
Most encouraging to Mainstream Baptists are recent signs that leaders within the state are moderating their stance toward the 2000 BF&M.
In an e-mail to us BGCO Executive Secretary Anthony Jordan advised us that he has been urging the DOM’s not to use the BF&M as a creed. (Click here to view an image of this e-mail) In a letter to us he wrote, “I am committed to work with our churches no matter whether they use the 1925, 1963, 1998 or 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.” (Click here to view an image of this letter.) We trust that that means that he will stand with us in opposing any effort to use the 2000 BF&M as a litmus test for service and employment within the state convention and at Oklahoma Baptist University.
We have also heard that the administration at OBU prefers to maintain a neutral position regarding the adoption of the 2000 BF&M and that there are no plans to require the faculty to affirm it.
Some of the DOM’s who attended our forums, among them Wade Robertson, assured us that churches that refuse to adopt the 2000 BF&M could remain in their associations. Several pastors said their DOM’s told them that churches in their associations would be free to adopt any version of the BF&M — 1925, 1963, or 2000. Mainstream Baptists applaud this kind of openness to doctrinal diversity and trust that that means these DOM’s will also stand with us in opposing any effort to use the 2000 BF&M as a litmus test for service and employment within their associations.
Greg Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Norman, has also advised a group of CBF pastors that Tom Cole, DOM of Union Association, has agreed to encourage his Association to work with First Norman and the Cooperating Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma in planting a new mission in the Norman area that would be free, if led by God’s Spirit, to call a woman as pastor.
These signs of moderation among Oklahoma Baptist leaders are especially welcome when compared to the creedal stances taken by SBC leaders and leaders in other states. When Texas DOM’s met with SBC leaders and asked whether any SBC agency would allow someone to work there who affirmed an earlier version of the BF&M but not the 2000 version, Southeastern Seminary President Paige Patterson responded that he anticipated that “trustees will require adherence to the 2000 document.” In Florida the state executive committee is recommending that the 2000 BFM be “applied as a qualification for nominees for convention boards and agencies; churches seeking ‘at large’ status; and new convention employees.”
The “creedal faith” that is being forced on faithful Baptists in the SBC and in states like Florida is precisely what Herschel Hobbs warned would divide Southern Baptists. Since its inception Mainstream Baptists have been committed to preserving unity within our convention by opposing such creedalism. We are encouraged by signs that Oklahoma Baptist leaders are beginning to see the wisdom of cooperating with Baptists who adhere to “non-binding” confessionalism and reject the “doctrinal accountability” of creedalism.