MAINSTREAM MESSENGER

Vol. 4, No. 1     Jan. 2001    Editor:  Bruce Prescott

BGCO Renounces Herschel Hobbs

by Dr. Bruce Prescott

During their first annual meeting of the new millennium Oklahoma Baptists renounced Herschel Hobbs three times and disavowed a nearly four hundred year old legacy of anti-creedalism.

First, Oklahoma Baptists rejected an amendment to a resolution that was offered by Bill Mitchell, a retired OBU professor. Mitchell’s amendment would have changed the proposed resolution to reaffirm the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M) rather than to affirm the 2000 BF&M. Herschel Hobbs was the chief architect of the 1963 BF&M. Mitchell’s amendment was defeated.

Second, Oklahoma Baptists rejected an amendment to the same resolution that was offered by David Flick, Director of Missions of the Grady Association. Flick’s amendment would have changed the proposed resolution to affirm both the 1963 BF&M and the 2000 BF&M. Flick’s said, “A numbers of churches prefer the 1963 edition,” and indicated that he felt his amendment would preserve unity within the convention by leaving churches free to affirm either confession.

Flick’s resolution reflected the way several associations handled the controversial 2000 BF&M at their annual associational meetings. For example, messengers of Union Baptist Association (Norman) acted to preserve the unity of that association by adopting changes that permit churches to affirm “any” of the BF&M statements. Messengers of other associations, such as Capital Baptist Association (OK City), preserved unity by simply ignoring the 2000 BF&M in official actions.

Despite promising that the 2000 BF&M would not be forced on Oklahoma Baptists, BGCO’s Executive Director failed to speak in favor of Flick’s resolution.

Flick’s amendment was defeated after members of the Resolution Committee spoke against the amendment because they believed affirming both BF&M’s would cause division. They felt that in order to walk together Oklahoma Baptists needed to decide once and for all whether the Bible “is God’s revelation of Himself to man.”

Mainstream Baptists had no difficulty discerning that the Resolutions Committee was signaling its disapproval of the language that Dr. Hobbs and the 1963 committee used to describe the Bible.  Hobbs and the 1963 BFM described the Bible as “the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man.” (underlining added)

At stake in this issue is who or what is recognized as the supreme revelation of God. Fundamentalists hold that the Bible is the supreme revelation of God. Dr. Hobbs and Mainstream Baptists believe that Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. We refuse to elevate the Bible above Jesus.

Mainstream Baptists say the Bible is a trustworthy “record” bearing true witness that Jesus Christ is God’s full, final, and complete revelation of Himself to mankind. As God’s supreme revelation, Mainstream Baptists hold that authoritative understandings of scripture begin and end with Jesus. Jesus is the “Word of God” who inspired the biblical writers, He is the One of whom they wrote, and He is the only infallible and inerrant interpreter of what was written. That is why Hobbs and the 1963 BFM said, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” That is also why they said doctrinal “statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandantory authority.” (Preamble to 1963 BFM) Jesus is Lord of all — even over the scriptures and all interpretations of them.

The Fundamentalists controlling the SBC forcefully disagree with Herschel Hobbs and Mainstream Baptists on these issues. They insist that doctrinal statements are “instruments of doctrinal accountability.” (Preamble to 2000 BFM) By their account, Hobb’s addition of the criterion statement in the 1963 BF&M’s article on scripture is evidence of “neo-orthodox” theology.

A few months ago, Baptist General Convention of Texas sent a committee to study SBC seminaries. The committee talked with the six SBC seminary presidents and their trustees — all appointed since the Fundamentalist takeover. They asked for opinions concerning the convictions that Herschel Hobbs led Baptists to confess in the 1963 BF&M. The committee reported, “Presidents Patterson, Mohler, Kelly, and Hemphill, along with their trustee representatives, stated that the 1963 BF&M is a neo-orthodox document.” (BGCT Seminary Study Committee Report, p. 8) Patterson, an architect of the Fundamentalist takeover, presides at Southeastern Seminary in North Carolina. He appointed the committee that produced the 2000 BF&M while serving as president of the SBC. Mohler and Kelly both served on the 2000 BF&M committee. Mohler presides at Southern Seminary in Kentucky, Kelly at New Orleans Seminary in Louisiana, and Hemphill at Southwestern Seminary in Texas.

The BGCT study committee also reported that these Seminary leaders stated a “theological disconnect” from “conserva-tive Baptist theology” took place as a result of the 1963 BF&M. Two of the four seminary presidents said, “There was not a professional theologian among the 1963 BF&M committee. The closest thing they had to a professional theologian was Herschel Hobbs, and he was duped.”(p14)

Mainstream Baptists are not surprised at such statements from the SBC Seminary presidents. They have been taking pot shots at Herschel Hobbs and E.Y. Mullins, chief architect of the 1925 BFM, for more than twenty years. We are surprised that Oklahoma Baptists have followed their lead with such docility.

Since the Baptist Messenger failed to report what the architects of the 2000 BFM were saying about Dr. Hobbs and the 1963 BFM, we suspected that few Oklahoma Baptists knew about it. That is why we made a third and final attempt to rehabilitate Herschel Hobbs’ reputation and restore some honor to his memory.

The Baptist Messenger reported that I wanted an apology from the SBC seminary presidents. While I certainly believe that Dr. Hobbs and all those who affirm the 1963 BFM deserve an apology, I did not ask for one. Word for word, my motion was, “I move that the messengers of the BGCO meeting on November 14, 2000 instruct the Executive Director/Treasurer of the Convention to write a letter to the Presidents of the six Southern Baptist seminaries and inform them that Oklahoma Baptists do not approve or appreciate their impugning the memory, character and theological integrity of Herschel Hobbs, deceased pastor of First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City, by saying that he was “naïve” or “duped” and put “neo-orthodox” language in the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message and that this letter to our seminary presidents be printed in the Baptist Messenger.”

My motion was defeated after a pastor made an emotional response saying that writing such letters was “not the Oklahoma executive director’s job to do.” He advised, “If anyone wants to express their opinions to the seminary presidents, let them contact the trustees and presidents.”

While I agree with the pastor’s last suggestion, the silent acquiescence of both the

Executive Director of BGCO and the editor of the Baptist Messenger in regard to the posthumous vilification of Herschel Hobbs is unconscionable. It is more than regrettable that current Oklahoma Baptist leaders neither accept nor assume responsibility for preserving the memory, character and theological integrity of the greatest Baptist churchman in Oklahoma history.

The Executive Director’s silence is particularly troublesome since his actions otherwise demonstrate that he is very quick to assume responsibility for defending the reputations of current Oklahoma Baptist leaders, as well as his own, from suggestions that they give him undue deference or that he exercises authority in hierarchical fashion.

Home     Join Us    Contents     Search

Online since April 7, 1999

E- mail questions or comments about this web site to bprescott@mainstreambaptists.org

Copyright © 1999-2003 MAINSTREAM OKLAHOMA BAPTISTS   P.O. Box 6371  Norman, OK  73070-6371 (405) 329-2266.