WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE 2000 BF&M

Slayden A. Yarbrough

September 30, 2002

INTRODUCTION:

During the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000, messengers adopted a report from a blue ribbon committee approved at the 1999 meeting, which the SBC president, Paige Patterson, had appointed “to review the Baptist Faith and Message.”   Members of the 16 person committee included many familiar names of those who had been involved with the “conservative resurgence” of the Convention.  Adrian Rogers was appointed chairman and other committee members included Charles S. (Chuck) Kelly, president of NOBTS, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, T. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, T. C. Pickney, chairman of the Implementation Task Force, and pastors Nelson Price and Jerry Vines.

The recommendation and adoption of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was an expression of Baptist confessionalism as an approach to theology.  Southern Baptists at all levels have the right, and certainly even the responsibility to express themselves doctrinally when needs arise or when they have a desire to do so.  This is consistent with Baptist polity.  The desire and responsibility to “confess” one’s  faith begins with the individual believer and continues through the local church and through all associations of Baptist churches.  It is important to note that Southern Baptists took 80 years before adopting their first complete confessional statement.  It is interesting that the 1963 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message took place 38 years after the initial confession was adopted in 1925 and the 2000 revision took place 37 years after the 1963 version.

At the same time the revision of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 became the source of increased tension and controversy in the dysfunctional family called Southern Baptists.  The purpose of this conference is to examine the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, especially when compared with the 1963 version.  That will be done this evening.  Secondly, tomorrow evening the conference will look at the results and consequences of the 20000 BFM and hopefully will draw some positive conclusions related to the direction that Baptists who are uncomfortable with the changes can travel.

I want to begin this evening by going back beyond the Baptist Faith and Message and provide some foundational work which I think is important in the understanding and evaluation of where we are today.  There are several questions and topics that need examination.

I.   How do we do theology?

A. Revelation of God

B. Faith Experience of the Believer

C. Scriptures

D. The Church responding to God and to the world

E. Conclusion: Theology for Baptists is a result of faith, never a test of faith!

II.  Creedalism vs. Confessionalism

A. Creedalism - What all persons must believe at all times to be orthodox - a creed  is a test of faith

B. Confessionalism - What a particular person or group believes at a particular time - a confession is a result of faith.  It is what it says it is: a “confession” of faith.

III. Baptists and Confessions

A. Why do Baptists do confessions of faith?

1. William L. Lumpkin in his Baptist Confessions of Faith gives a number of reasons why Baptists produced confessions.  They include distinguishing themselves from others or demonstrating kinship with other Baptists or Protestants; refuting false charges or heretical teachings; theological summaries, or aids in studying the Bible. 

2. Leon McBeth gives 4 ways in which Baptists used confessions:

a. To clarify the Baptist faith

b. To inform and instruct their own members

c. To provide a basis for fellowship

d. To deal with controversy

3. Both historians point out that Baptists were always careful not to give confessions too much authority.  Any attempts to do so often resulted in a decline in the usage of confessions

B. Early important confessions

1. John Smyth and Thomas Helwys - early 1600s

2. First London Confession of Faith of the Particular Baptists - 1644

3. Second London Confession of Faith - 1677/1688

4. Philadelphia Confession of Faith - 1742

5. New Hampshire Confession of Faith - 1833

C. Southern Baptist Confessions of Faith

1. Early incomplete statements

a. Pronouncement on Christian Union - 1909

b. Fraternal Address - 1914

2. Baptist Faith and Message - 1925

3. Baptist Faith and Message - 1963 - Herschel Hobbs chaired the committee

a. Article 18 on “The Family” - 1998

4. Baptist Faith and Message - 2000

IV. 1963 and 2000 BFMs

A. Surprises and positives in the 2000 BFM

1. In Article I: The Bible the polemical terms of inerrancy and infallibility were not used.  This is surprising in light of the fact that rationale for “The Controversy” focused on the nature of the Bible and the views on inspiration.      

2. The statement on religious liberty did not remove the language of church and state being separate. With the increasing union of the political right with the religious right, one would have expected a modifying of Article XVII: Religious Liberty.  There was no change at all in the statement.

3. Article X: Last Things affirmed no particular eschatological position.  This may indicate that disagreements over specific millennial interpretations were no longer the issue that they had been in previous years.

4. After criticism over their deletion, the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers were reinserted, although usage of the plural “believers” instead of the singular became a source of debate.

5. The document was sensitive to gender-inclusive language, which is a plus.

6.  When examined overall, there is a lot in the 2000 BFM upon which most Baptists can agree.

B. BFM - 1925/1963/2000 - All three documents begin with the same introductory statement that includes five characteristics and limitations that help define the Baptist understanding of confessions of faith. (See transparencies of 1963 and 2000 BFMs).

Beyond these five statements, however, there are some important differences.

C. BFM 2000 - Redefined the definition of a confession of faith reflected in relation to Baptist confessions and authority

Preface, p.5 - “Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability.  We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”  Questions: If these beliefs found in this confession are essential, can one disagree with any of them and still be considered a believer and a Baptist?  Furthermore, who has the authority to enforce this “instrument of doctrinal accountability?

These statements seem to be inconsistent with #s 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Preface from both the 1925 and 1963 versions of the BFM, which are also included in the 2000 BFM.

It also seems contradictory to the previous paragraph in the 2000 BFM which states “Baptists . . . deny the right to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.  We honor the principle 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.

Lest you think I’m exaggerating, hear what R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, said in the fall of 2001 in response to concerns expressed by the BGCT in response to the use of the 2000 BFM as an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”  He responded “Without a confession of faith, there is no legal or disciplinary procedure for accountability.”  Legal, disciplinary! A Baptist confession of faith?  This is an oxymoron, if I ever heard one!  (Baptist Standard, 6 November 2000, p. 12)

1. The 1963 BFM in the preface included an important statement regarding Christ and the Bible.  It said “The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”  That statement explains statement # 4 in the preface, which says “That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.  Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.  The Scriptures have no authority outside the authority of Christ.  Why is it so hard for some in the SBC to believe this fundamental Baptist and Biblical truth?

Article I: The Bible

2. Article I in the 1963 BFM on the Scriptures described the Bible as “the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man.”  At the end of the article the 1963 version added to the 1925 version that “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”  The revelation of God in Jesus appeared years before the first New Testament book was even written and over three centuries before the NT canon was accepted in its entirety, 27 books, no more, no less.

Article I in the 2000 BFM changes both statements.  It begins by stating the “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man.”  It concludes that “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who Himself is the focus of divine revelation.”

So Christ is no longer the revelation of God but the Bible is.  And the Bible is no longer a record (I would prefer “witness”) to God’s revelation but the revelation itself.  Christ is simply the focus of God’s revelation, the Bible. This is a terrible inversion.

3. Claims of Jesus - Sermon on the Mount - “You have heard that it was said . . . but I say unto you.”  Jesus was asserting authority over the Old Testament Scriptures.

Early church - no Bible in terms of a New Testament but the Spirit sent by Christ - What to do about Hellenistic Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles? - If the Spirit approves, how could they reject?

Paul - Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor: 10:31); Let all things be done decently and in order (I Cor 14:30).

Article II: God and Article IV: Salvation

1. The statement on God was expanded in the 2000 BFM to include a decidedly Calvinistic stance.  This is reflected in the statement that “God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.”

2.  In section “B: God the Son” the 1963 version states that “He (Christ) honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and in His death on the cross.”  The 2000 BFM changes the statement to read “He honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.”  None of us would disagree with the position stated, but it does seem to take care to emphasize a view of atonement essential to the Calvinistic position.

3. In Article IV: Salvation, part “B: Sanctification (1963)”, which is part “C” in the 2000 version, the opening line states that “Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual perfection through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him.”  In the 2000 version it reads “Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him.”  The 1963 version may have sounded too Wesleyan for the committee.

4.  Such changes may seem rather subtle but they do indicate a sensitivity to the theological heritage of Calvinism as openly held to by some key members on the committee.

5. Recommend Glen Stassen’s articles in Baptist History and Heritage.

Article VI: The Church

1.  Some critics have expressed concern over a weakening of the autonomy and freedom of the local church.  They point out that the 1963 confession states that a New Testament church is “an autonomous body; operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Christ.”  The 2000 BFM changes one word, stating that the church is “an autonomous local congregation . . .”  Critics believe that this de-emphasizes the importance of the local church.

2.  Both confessions describe the officers of the church as “pastors and deacons.”  The 2000 BFM, however, adds that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”   This addition is interpreted as a direct intervention into the church’s right to choose it’s own ministers.

Article 18: The Family

1.  This article was added by convention vote in 1998.  All Southern Baptists are for the family. 

2.  However, the statement which says that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ” became the source of heated debate with those who believed that this advocated a hierarchal model for the family.  Opponents pointed out that the previous verse (Eph. 5:20) to the one being used to justify this position called for husbands and wives to submit to one another.

V. Consequences

A. If you hold to the 1963 BFM but do not accept the 2000 BFM you cannot serve as a professor at a Southern Baptist seminary, you may not be able to serve as a missionary appointed by the North American Mission Board or the International Mission Board even though during the 35 years prior to 1998 you could and were expected to affirm the 1963 version.

B. If you hold to the 1963 BFM but not the 2000 BFM you cannot be nominated to serve as a trustee of any of the agencies or institutions of the SBC.

C. However, if your church accepts the 1963 version of the BFM but not the 2000 version, you are free to continue to send money to the Cooperative program and the SBC.

Conclusion:

General Observations:  When I examine the changes between the 1963 BFM and the 2000 BFM, it confirms in my mind that the leadership involved in the struggle for the control of the SBC was correct, at least in part.  The controversy was theological in nature.  And it was over the Bible.

At issue is the Baptist understanding of theology itself.  The confessional approach to theology in my mind is the highest approach to theology.  Baptists have never been shy in affirming “This I/we believe; this we confess.”

1. In the confessional approach our theology matures as we grow in our faith.  As we respond to the world about us we respond to the Living Lord in communicating and making relevant our faith.

2. But there is always the danger of our confessions becoming creeds, or should we say “instruments of doctrinal accountability.”

3. The 2000 BFM includes language that presents the possibility of the document being used in a creedal sense, regardless of protests to the contrary by it’s designers.  The second session will address this topic.

Concluding Thoughts: In a more specific sense, there are several issues that I would like to comment on, maybe even do a little predicting.

1. It’s time that not just moderate leadership but all Southern Baptists recognized that the SBC leadership was right on the issue related to the Bible.  Compare the 1963 and the 2000 versions of the BFM in their articles on the Scriptures.  The battle over the Bible is about the nature of the Bible and the leaders of the SBC who rode to power on this horse are all wrong.  They practice selective literalism, picking and choosing those passages which support their views and ignoring those which challenge them.  It is essential that thinking Baptists have the courage and conviction to revisit the issue of the nature of the Bible and place this great book back in the hands of the people.  Failure to do so with clarity has resulted in the SBC leaders getting away with replacing the living Word with the Written word.  They have reversed the order of revelation and such an approach will distort the truth of the Bible.  Nothing is clearer in this regard than the changes in the 2000 BFM.

Of essential importance is to take the testimony of the Written Word to the living Word, and to apply those principles to the culture of the 21^st century.  We can fight over views, interpretations, and the meaning of the Bible.  But if we do not learn to apply the teachings of the Bible in this dysfunctional world, our orthodoxy will mean nothing.  Orthodoxy absolutely must be consistent with orthopraxy, or we do the Bible the most grave injustice that one could imagine. 

I was asked to write an article on the topic “Biblical Authority in Southern Baptist History, 1845-1945,” which appeared in the January 1992 issue of Baptist History and Heritage. Early Baptist individuals, churches, and associations of churches produced confessional statements.  Originally, these confessions began with articles on God.  It was not until the Second London Confession of the Particular Baptists in 1677 that the Bible became the first article of a major Baptist confessional statement, a result of the influence of the Reformed tradition.  I personally like starting with God when it comes to my theology.

These early confessions were not afraid to use the term “infallible” but they qualified the term in it in a very significant way.  For example, the Second London Confession (1677, 1688, 1689), which was the model used by both the Philadelphia Confession (1742) and the Charleston Confession (1767), described the Scriptures as “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience.”  It added that “the whole Councel of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory, Mans Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressely set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.”  Similar statements are found in other Baptist confessions.  What is important here is to understand that the authority of the Scriptures, yea its infallibility, has to do with matters of faith , practice, conduct, ethics, and thought.  I have absolutely no argument with that.  At the same time on issues such as science, or the lack thereof, history, and inconsistencies, there seems to be an open attitude indicated by silence on the issues.  

I believe that essential to proper understanding and application of the Scriptures is an awareness of the cultural background in which the Bible was written.  Just as we would not expect the autographs to be written in English, which of course did not even exist at the time, we should not expect the Bible to reflect the culture of the twenty-first century.  How do we deal with the ever present polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon who not only had 700 wives and 300 hundred concubines but also more mothers-in-law than any one man deserves?  How do we deal with advice to slaves and slave-owners as found in Paul’s teachings?  How do we understand the attitude towards women in both Testaments?  We can use selective literalism.  Or, we can recognize that God made himself known in mighty ways in a specific time and place, a world which was much different than ours today.        

We need to be honest about the Bible and the questions that we have.  In so doing I believe that we can have a view of the Scriptures that excels that of those who simply ignore issues.  I often told me students that they should not just defend the Bible.  They should read it!.  They should hear what it is saying.  And they should form their understanding of the Bible not on a preconceived theory but on what they find in the Scriptures.  Charges of not believing the Bible will come rapidly.  But being able to believe the Bible while still recognizing the challenges that it places before us will result in a people who love the Good Book with courage, honesty and integrity.                                                           

So, what do I suggest.  I suggest that we view the Bible as infallible in matters of saving faith, knowledge, and conduct without equivocation. That is the historic Baptist approach.  We can read and study the Scriptures in light of the context of it’s time and culture, we can discover the Biblical principles resulting from the commitment to the Lordship of Christ that were relevant then, and make them relevant today or in any generation by applying them to the contemporary circumstances, needs, and problems.

2.  Calvinism is not a relevant theological approach for Baptists in the 21^st century.  Despite claims to the contrary, it was not the source of the rise of modern missions and the evangelistic fervor of English Baptists in the late 18^th century.  The Particular Baptists, led by Andrew Fuller and William Carey, launched the modern mission movement by moderating their Calvinism, which in many places had led to a stagnation of churches.

One should go back and read Glenn Stassen’s two articles in Baptist History and Heritage in which he points to two sources of Baptist beginnings.  One was the English Separatist movement with it’s Calvinistic roots.  The other was the Anabaptist heritage of the Mennonites.  The Particular Baptists published the First London confession in 1644.  They followed the Calvinistic teaching on most issues but when it came to issues related to salvation and redemption, Stassen does a superb job in tracing the source of these views to free church tradition of Menno Simons.  The English Particular Baptists became mission-minded and evangelistic despite Calvinism, not as a result of it.

The evangelistic heritage of Southern Baptists can be traced to those illiterate, uncouth, passionate Separate Baptists who arose out of the Great Awakening in New England.  Led by Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, and John Leland, they exploded onto the Southern scene, establishing churches, sending out evangelists, and opposing not only creeds but also confessions.  Without the benefit of bus or tv ministries in 17 years they established 42 churches and sent out 125 evangelistic ministers. They believed in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man, and never worried about theological inconsistencies.  Their success was based upon their passion for the lost, not theological conformity. Their heritage shaped the evangelistic tradition of Southern Baptists.

Should we believe that God has chosen before the foundations of the earth to save all who are in Christ through faith (check out Ephesians 1 and 2), or that has he selected some and rejected others and nothing can be done to change this?  Why did Southern Baptists look to the New Hampshire Confession rather than the Second London/Philadelphia/Charleston Confessions with their strong Calvinistic influence?  Throughout our history Southern Baptists have chosen evangelism and missions, not Calvinism, as the identifying characteristic of who we are.  Do we need to change now?  I think not.

A few years ago Bill Estep presented the Gaskin Lectures at Oklahoma Baptist University.  He argued passionately and caustically on the point that a primary problem with Calvinism is that you really don’t need Jesus Christ.  If God has predestined who will be saved, and for the double Calvinists who will be lost, then why did Jesus have to give his life for the salvation of the elect?  It is a good question.

The bottom line is that the Calvinism of many in leadership roles in contemporary Southern Baptist life will result in a decline in evangelism and mission emphases.  If this theological path continues to be followed, it will result in a stagnation and demise of a great denomination.  It has and will contribute to an autocratic hierarchy centering around denominational leaders that will eventually be challenged by future Baptists who will look to their history for guidance.

Does the historic Baptist practice of congregational polity need to give way to the Calvinistic model of ruling elders or an authoritative ministry?   Calvinism is very dangerous for the leaders of the SBC.  It leads to a confidence that whatever one does, it is rooted in God’s sovereignty.  In the end, the leaders are not accountable for their actions, if such actions are a part of God’s predetermined plans. Therefore in the end one is not responsible for whatever he does.  In the end, God is the justification for everything, since He has predetermined all that will happen.