A Layman's Look at the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message
|
By Bob Stephenson The real significance of recent changes to the SBC’s doctrinal statement was underscored by Jim Richards, the Executive Director of the Fundamentalist breakaway convention in Texas. In his column in the April/May issue of the Southern Baptists of Texas magazine, Richards wrote: “It is not enough to say we believe every word of the Bible to be true to be a Baptist.” The Baptist Faith and Message as revised by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 is the answer to this theological problem because it “leaves no wiggle room for neo-orthodoxy.” If Richards’ statement doesn’t cause a chill to run down your spine, then it should. It is not enough that the 2000 BF&M elevates the Bible to the point of idolatry and removes Jesus as the criteria for interpreting scripture, Richards and other SBC leaders are also placing the 2000 BF&M above the Bible. Before you put on this theological “straight-jacket,” you ought to know that removing the “wiggle room for neo-orthodoxy” means no space has been left for the Holy Spirit to move and breathe in the hearts and lives of God’s people. The priesthood of every believer, local church autonomy, and democratic church government are all being squeezed out of Baptist life. Every Baptist should carefully consider whether or not they want to surrender their “wiggle room” to anyone except God. Since the 2000 BF&M is now the Southern Baptist litmus test for faith and piety, every Baptist ought to know the difference between what was expected of them before the year 2000 and what is expected now. The difference in those expectations is evident from the divergences between the 1963 and the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Below I discuss what I believe are seven major differences between the two documents. |
What is Neo-Orthodoxy? In a chapter on “Neo-orthodoxy: the Rediscovery of Orthodoxy” William Hordern writes, “After the liberals had revolted against orthodoxy, a number of theologians began to find new relevance in many doctrines of orthodoxy such as sin, revelation through Christ, and salvation through grace.” William Hordern, A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology. Rev. ed. 1968, pp. 111-112. Who are they calling Neo-Orthodox? "The 1963 committee was in many ways naive and they permitted neo-orthodox language to be inserted unbeknownst to most of them." — Jerry Sutton, SBC historian, quoted in the 6/21/2000 Baptist Press post-convention wrap-up story: “6 words: ‘defining moment’ between conservative & moderate Baptists"
Current SBC Seminary “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
Current SBC seminary leaders say a “theological disconnect” from “conservative 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.” — BGCT Seminary Study Committee Report, p. 14
|
|
Preamble 1963 BF&M 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. |
Preamble 2000 BF&M Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability.
|
The first point of the difference between the 1963 and 2000 BF&M is very subtle. The 1963 BF&M uses the word “issued “ as it is being set forth. The 2000 BF&M uses the word “adopted .”
The difference is quite significant. The 1963 BF&M was “issued” and assumed no authority for itself. Its purpose was to speak to the world about Baptist beliefs. The 2000 BF&M was “adopted” which implies authority. It speaks to Baptists and its purpose is to regulate our thoughts and convictions.
This is but a preview of the authoritative control that the 2000 BF&M revisers intend to impose on all Southern Baptists.
The second point of difference is more obvious. The 1963 BF&M explicitly denied that our statements of faith are “official creeds carrying mandatory authority.” This language is deleted in the 2000 BF&M and replaced by the assertion that statements of faith are “instruments of doctrinal accountability.”
This strikes at the very core of the historic Baptist belief in “the priesthood of the believer.” Under the 1963 BF&M, every Baptist is free to interpret scripture, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, without getting the approval of any individual or group, including the pastor. Under the 2000 BF&M we are required to be accountable “to each other” for holding approved interpretations.
Is the Holy Spirit no longer sufficient to guide you and hold you accountable? Who will be calling on you whenever someone in your church thinks you need to be held accountable for holding beliefs or expressing opinions that differ from the 2000 BF&M? Who is going to assume the role of official “accountability keeper” in your church?
Does such a thought seem preposterous to you? Two years ago it seemed preposterous to professors in our seminaries. A year ago it seemed preposterous to missionaries on the mission field. A few months ago it seemed preposterous to lay people in SBC churches in Oklahoma. Now accounts of such activity are becoming commonplace.
Although the 2000 BFM does not name the pastor as the official “accountability keeper,” that is the understanding that prevails among its revisers. They all share the late W.A. Criswell’s conviction that, “The pastor is the ruler of the church.”
The idea that the pastor should be a “servant-shepherd,” rather than a “ruler,” is foreign to their thought.
|
Preamble 1963 BF&M Baptists emphasize the soul’s competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer.
|
Preamble to the 2000 BF&M We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.
|
In April 2000, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, stated that the emphasis on “soul competency” in evangelicalism “infested” the Southern Baptist Convention with an “autonomous individualism” that undermined biblical authority.
That May, the 2000 BF&M revision committee, on which Dr. Mohler served, released the 2000 BF&M with no affirmation of soul competency or the priesthood of the believer. Then there was widespread criticism about its omission.
Hours before the convention voted on the statement in June, a sentence about soul competency and the priesthood of believers was inserted into the 2000 BF&M. Notice, however, that it reads “believers” (plural) and a new system of accountability has been added. The resulting redefinition limits the individual’s liberty to think, speak and act in opposition to the will of a momentarily prevailing group of fallible, human “account keepers.”
Under the priesthood of the believer (singular) individuals were expected to think, speak and act as they were guided by the Holy Spirit and held accountable by God.
|
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of himself to man.
|
2000 I Scripture The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of himself to man.
|
The difference in these two statements is profound. The 1963 BFM says the Bible is a record of God’s revelation whereas the 2000 BFM says it is God’s revelation of himself.
To me, it makes far more sense to say the Bible is a record of God’s revelation than it does to call it God’s supreme revelation. God revealed himself in more than words. He revealed himself in his actions. Our God is a God who acts. He creates. He speaks to his people. He hears our prayers and acts to deliver us. He revealed himself most clearly by sending His son. He redeems us. He calls us to serve him. He empowers us for service.
The Bible could not possibly record all that God has said and done. It records the most important, significant and representative acts of God in time and history.
Writers inspired by God gave us the biblical record. They recorded events as they remembered them and they wrote in the thought patterns of their own day.
This approach makes it easier to answer some of the questions that arise when modern practices are at variance with those of Bible times.
I believe the Holy Spirit guided modern men to realize that slavery is at odds with God’s will and is opposed to the Spirit of the gospel. Slavery, however, is not denounced in scripture. In fact, our Southern Baptist forefathers held up their Bibles and shouted out verses defending the institution of slavery. Sometimes literal interpretations from supposedly “inerrant” Bibles don’t do justice to the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
I believe the writers of scripture just wrote in the thought patterns of a time when slavery was acceptable. If the Bible were a perfect revelation of God, why would God permit the writers to leave any impression that He approved of slavery?
If God, in some magical way, moved the hands of the writers or, if the writers merely took “dictation” from God as they wrote the scriptures, then good Christian men must have fought against God as they sacrificed their lives to free the slaves.
|
1963 I. Scripture The criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ
|
2000 I Scripture All scripture is a testimony to Christ who is himself the focus of divine revelation.
|
Not only is Jesus is no longer viewed as God’s supreme revelation, he has been demoted to being merely the “focus” of God’s revelation.
Jesus has also been demoted from being the criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted.
Texas Baptist’s Executive Director Charles Wade asks, “If Jesus is not the criteria by which the Bible is to be interpreted, who or what is?”
For Baptists like Jim Richards (see p. 2) the 2000 BF&M has clearly displaced Jesus as the criteria for interpretation.
After elevating the Bible to the point of equality with Jesus (demanding faith in a quaternity, rather than a trinity), a man-made confession of faith is being viewed as more authoritative than the Living “Word of God.”
This is heresy!
|
1963 VI. The Church This church is an autonomous body operating through democratic processes under the leadership of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation, members are equally responsible. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.
|
2000 VI. The Church Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. The scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for services in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by scripture.
|
This is one of the most onerous of the additions to the 2000 BF&M.
Although the wording only prohibits women from serving as “senior pastors,” in actual practice the ordination of women to any kind of ministry is being disputed.
Since 2000, a woman was removed from positions serving the Florida state convention after she was ordained to a staff position. More recently, the SBC announced that women ordained as chaplains would no longer be endorsed.
Regarding the closing part “as qualified by scripture.” Who determines what the scriptures actually mean?
Many biblical scholars use scriptures to prove that women should not be relegated to secondary status in the church.
Other than Jesus, who can legitimately claim to interpret the scriptures infallibly? That’s why Jesus is the only proper criteria for interpreting scripture.
|
1963 XV. Christians and the Social Order 6A. The Christians should oppose in the spirit of Christ every form of greed, selfishness and vice. 6B. Not present
|
2000 XV. Christians and the Social Order 6A. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness and vice, and all forms of scriptural immorality, including adultery, homosexuality and pornography. 6B. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.
|
6A. Both the 1963 and the 2000 BF&M state “Christians should oppose in the spirit of Christ every form of greed, selfishness and vice (the 2000 BF&M adds “racism.”) In the view of many, this statement is sufficient to cover all transgressions.
The 2000 BF&M adds sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality and pornography. No one would argue with the seriousness of those issues. The Bible, however, doesn’t rank sins in order of severity.
The listing implies that sexual sins are worse than murder, robbery, treason, embezzlement or the transgressions at Enron and Worldcom. In the future there will surely be a clamor to add more sins to the list of sins that need special disapproval.
What do such lists have to do with the gospel? Doesn’t it remind you more of Old Testament legalisms than of the grace emphasized in the New Testament?
6B. In the 2000 BF&M, opposition to abortion without exception is added to a confession of faith. This is a very controversial matter. Most Baptists oppose abortion as a form of birth control, but many Baptists are not opposed to first trimester abortions in the case of rape, incest, or severe deformity of the child (for example, anencephalic infants who would have a brain stem, but no brain). Few Baptists are opposed to abortions in any trimester if they are necessary to protect the life and health of the mother.
The point of all this is that, in my opinion, it is both foolish and unnecessary to lock an unyielding pro-life measure into a statement of faith.
Should this “wiggle room” be eliminated from health care by civil legislation, our wives and daughters could easily pay for it with their lives.
|
1963 XVII. The Family No statement.
|
2000 XVII. The Family A wife submits herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.
|
This clause has created much division throughout the SBC and has subjected Baptists to ridicule all across the country. Such sexism is a stumbling block when witnessing to women in Western Civilization.
Many Baptist scholars have contended that the Bible teaches mutual submission rather than male supremacism, but everyone in the SBC who has said so publicly has been forced out of their place of service.
Those who silently condone such injustices and continue to support them with their tithes should remember that they will be required to give an account for this before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10).