|
Mainstream Report on the 2002 SBC by Bruce Prescott Mainstream Baptists reject the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M). It replaces the historic Baptist motto “No creed but the Bible,” with a creed that calls itself an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.” Then it denies the 1963 affirmation that, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Any faith that substitutes accountability to a doctrinal statement for fidelity to the “written word of God” as interpreted by the “Living Word of God” defiles the name Baptist. Worse than that, the 2000 BF&M demotes Jesus from His place as the supreme revelation of God and elevates scriptures to the point of idolatry. It denies the 1963 affirmation that the Bible “is the record of” God’s revelation of Himself and asserts that “The Holy Bible . . . is God’s revelation of Himself.” This makes “the Word (that) became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) subordinate to the “record” of “things” that were “written to you who believe . . . that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 4:11-13 KJV). Any faith that subordinates the incarnate “Living Word of God” to the Bible defiles the name Christian. No informed Baptist and no undeceived Christian could conscientiously affirm the 2000 BF&M. Tragically, this sub-Christian creed is being imposed on all those who receive funding from the SBC. Most recently, missionaries have been asked to affirm the 2000 BF&M under threat of losing their places of service. Some have resigned. Others have refused to sign the creed. In June, as messengers registered at the SBC meeting in St. Louis, the fate of the missionaries who refused to sign the 2000 BF&M was unknown. At the first business session I introduced the following motion: I move that the messengers of this convention in session at St. Louis, MO on June 11-12, 2002 vote by ballot to instruct the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board to “grandfather in” those missionaries appointed to serve under the 1925 and/or 1963 Baptist Faith and Message by rescinding any policy that would require them to sign and/or affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a condition for continuing service. Southern Baptists want our mission agencies to be fair with our missionaries who have been called by God, duly approved and appointed by previous administrations, and who have served the Lord and Southern Baptists faithfully but cannot sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message in good conscience. At a sparsely attended second business session, the Committee on the Order of Business informed the messengers that my motion and a similar motion made by Bob Casey of Florida were both being referred to the trustees of the IMB and NAMB. In effect, killing the motions. Bob Casey appealed the ruling and asked that his motion be debated and voted on by the messengers at the convention. Casey objected that the actions of the trustees toward the missionaries were in violation of article IX of the Convention’s Constitution: IX. Missionaries’ Qualifications: All missionaries appointed by the Convention’s boards must, previous to their appointment, furnish evidence of piety, zeal for the Master’s kingdom, conviction of truth as held by Baptists, and talents for missionary service.” Casey added, “I feel it is basically unfair and unjust for the missionaries appointed under our biblical standards and our guidelines. These men and woman have served faithfully. . . . They were appointed prior to the adoption of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.” Speaking against Casey’s appeal, Ron Rogers, Chair of the Committee on the Order of Business, denied that the trustee’s actions violated the Convention’s constitution and said, “We are looking at the character of men and women. It is an issue that each entity – NAMB and IMB – is responsible to take care of.” Speaking for Casey’s appeal, I supported Casey’s contention that the trustee’s actions violated the Constitution and said, “We’ve heard a lot about ‘accountability’ since the adoption of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. If the trustees hold missionaries accountable, who holds the trustees accountable? I submit that it is the messengers gathered here at this Convention in St. Louis this week.” The vote on Casey’s appeal, while garnering significant support, failed to gain the two-thirds needed to overrule the chair. The decision to refer the motions to the IMB and NAMB was sustained. Another significant motion was made by Bob Stephenson of Norman, OK regarding the inconsistent treatment afforded to multiple state conventions in Texas and Virginia, Missouri. In Texas and Virginia, Mainstream Baptists prevailed in state convention elections and Fundamentalists organized competing state conventions which were recognized by the SBC. In Missouri, Fundamentalists prevailed in the state convention elections and mainstream Baptists organized a competing state convention that the SBC refused to recognize. Stephenson moved, That the messengers of this convention in session at St. Louis, MO on June 11-12, 2002 vote to instruct the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to limit the number of state convention that are recognized, and from which the Southern Baptist Convention will receive funds, to one convention per state and thereby resolve the inconsistent policy which receives funds from two competing state conventions in Texas and Virginia while refusing funds from a new Baptist convention in Missouri. An indication of how our motions were being received by SBC leaders came at the press conference after Jack Graham was elected president of the SBC. Graham likened our missionaries to “employees in a business” who are expected to be accountable to the “corporations” that employ them. He asserted that, “All who serve us will share our faith, it’s a matter of integrity.” When asked about the fate of the missionaries he responded, “It’s a matter of integrity to me. . . . No one should serve Southern Baptists without accountability,” and promised that the matter “will be resolved quickly.” A couple weeks after the meeting, I wrote letters to the IMB and the NAMB requesting permission to appear before their boards to discuss the merits of the motion I made on the floor of the convention. In those letters I objected to public attacks by SBC leaders impugning the “character” and “integrity” of missionaries who refuse to sign the 2000 BF&M. I asked, Is it right or fair or just for long-tenured missionaries who were hired under the 1925 or 1963 BF&M and who can conscientiously affirm those confessions, but cannot affirm the 2000 BF&M to be publicly denigrated as being deficient in “character” or “integrity?” In response to Jack Graham’s characterization of missionaries and “employees” of a business, I wrote, Overlooking the insult of treating missionaries “called by God” as though they were “hired hands,” is it right or fair or just for an employer to change the terms of employment and then publicly slander the employees and defame their characters when they conscientiously seek to negotiate for better terms? I also complained that, “Had they been allowed to vote on this issue, I believe the messengers would have sustained my motion,” and said, Much has been said about SBC leaders holding “accountable” those whose livelihoods are funded by Southern Baptists. Is it right or fair or just for SBC leaders to hold others “accountable” when they themselves are party to a refusal to be held “accountable” by permitting the convention itself (as constituted in the messengers) to vote on the appropriateness of their policy requiring our missionaries to sign the 2000 BF&M? Finally, I challenged the self-serving double standard by which SBC leaders are defining “character” and “integrity” as Baptists: Much has also been said about the 2000 BF&M being “an instrument of doctrinal accountability” and about it’s being the place where we “draw the line” about “what we believe.” If the 2000 BF&M is a mandate to no longer support those who cannot affirm the 2000 BF&M, then it is equally a mandate to no longer receive support from those who refuse to affirm the 2000 BF&M. If the “character” and “integrity” of missionaries falls under “suspicion” when they seek continued support from a convention whose current statement of faith they cannot affirm, then the “character” and “integrity” of SBC leaders who continue to receive funds from state conventions that refuse to affirm that same statement of faith falls under equal “suspicion.” The theme of the double standard was also taken up by Bob Stephenson in a letter that he wrote to the Executive Committee of the SBC requesting that he be permitted to appear before them to discuss the merits of the motion he made on the floor of the convention. He wrote: The current policy by which the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes and receives funds from state conventions appears to set a double standard. This double standard is especially egregious when questions are being raised about the “character” and integrity of Southern Baptist missionaries who cannot conscientiously affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) receiving salaries from a convention that has affirmed the 2000 BF&M. In my opinion, if our missionaries’ “character” and integrity fall under “suspicion” for their willingness to continue to receive funding from a convention whose statement of faith they cannot affirm, then the “character” and integrity of those executives, administrators, board members and trustees of the convention who are willing to continue to receive funds from state conventions that refuse to affirm the 2000 BF&M fall under equal “suspicion.” To date, neither Bob Stephenson nor I have received replies from any SBC board or committee regarding our requests to appear before them. The fate of the faithful missionaries who have refused to sign the 2000 BF&M continues to hang in the balance.
|
|
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.
|