|
Further Thoughts From Slayden Yarbrough Related to Questions and Discussion at the Oklahoma Forums on the 2000 BF&M We are correct on our approach to confessional theology. We are correct on our view of the Bible. We are correct on our view of women in the church and in the home. But simply having the correct views is not sufficient. We must “confess” our faith not just theologically but in terms of ministry and service. We must work intellectually and diligently to apply the Scriptures to the world. We must elevate the status of women to Biblical proportions. In a real sense the debates and battles over the Baptist Faith and Message brought about by the adoption of the 2000 version really is a litmus test over whether one supports or disagrees with the Convention leadership at the national level, not over what one believes. I seriously doubt that very many individual Baptists, pastors, or denominational employees have carefully read either the 1963 or the 2000 BFM. During my teaching days I would always poll my Baptist History class each semester on whether or not they had actually read the confession. Always, only a very small minority had ever read the document and some had not even heard of it. I know that would be the case in our local churches, and even in our staff at the various levels of the denominational organizations. But if I told them that certain SBC leaders held to one position or the other, that was good enough for many of my students. What this indicates is that we will let others do our thinking for us, or we really don’t care one way or the other and will simply go along with those that tell us we should trust them. Is the 2000 BFM a creed? Not according to those who proposed it. But look at what it says and how it is being used - an “Instrument of doctrinal accountability.” Missionaries and seminary teachers are expected to accept it and teach according to it. If they don’t they risk losing their positions. Can an individual be appointed to an agency or institutional board of trustees and not accept the 2000 BFM? Can a person hold to the 1963 BFM and serve as a trustee or as a staff person or administrator in an SBC agency? Before 2000, yes; after 2000, no. Does this carry down to some state convention work or associational work or even to our local churches? If it hasn’t happened, stay turned. It surely will.
Yesterday’s orthodoxy has become today’s heresy. Do we want each generation to establish new doctrinal statements that can simply be overturned and rejected by the next generation who state eternal truth for all until someone else comes along? Or, should we recognize our humanity, remember those historic doctrinal convictions of earlier generations, respond to our world, and constantly confess our faith theologically to a changing world.
Is the 2000 BFM a confession or a creed? With the restrictive language in the new version, does this mean that at any time in any place a group of Baptists can produce a confession and assert that it is applicable to all Baptists of all generations, i.e. a creed? The bottom line is not whether or not we accept the 1963 BFM or the 2000 BFM. The bottom line is “What do we believe as individuals and as churches?” We need to know the joy of studying, debating, and confessing our faith.
Would Herschel Hobbs have signed the 2000 BF&M? Herschel Hobbs, superb pulpiteer and pastor, without question the most revered, respected, and influential Oklahoma Baptist in the last half of the 20th century, president of the SBC and denominational spokesman and statesman, theologian for the common man, preacher for the Baptist Hour for many, many years, and author and teacher of the Scriptures through his commentaries and SS lessons on the entire Bible for much of his career, Herschel Hobbs would not be nominated to serve as a trustee on any of the SBC agencies or instituion today; he would not be appointed as a missionary for NAMB or IMB, he would not be apppointed as a faculty member of any SBC seminary, and he would not be asked to write Sunday School lessons and books for Lifeway Christian Resources. Why? Because he could not pass the doctrinal test of the 2000 BFM if he continued to hold to the 1963 BFM, which he not only contributed to enormously but also defended many times at the SBC annual meeting, in writings, in the pulpit, and in interviews. Herschel Hobbs, probably Mr. Baptist for a generation, based upon everything that we know would no longer be orthodox enough. The same people who accused him of being "duped" and chairing the committee that produced the 1963 BFM also are trying to say that he would agree to the 2000 BFM. They can't have it both ways and there is absolutely no evidence beyond what the man said and did during his life and career that would indicate that he would cast aside the 1963 BFM and adopt the 2000 version. All of this leads to the question, "How many others from our past who have so influenced us would find their credentials lacking today when it comes to their theology? Too many I'm sure. And the same holds true for the current generation.
|
|
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.
|