As Mainstream Baptists in Oklahoma
sponsored forums on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000,
the Baptist Messenger ran some articles distributed by Baptist Press that
endorsed the 2000 BF&M. Dr. Slayden Yarbrough, retired professor
emeritus at Oklahoma Baptist University, responded to one of those articles.
Below is Yarbrough's original letter. He later reduced it to 250 words at
the request of the editor. The Baptist Messenger finally printed
it after we posted this early letter.
The
Baptist Messenger still hasn't printed our letter.
The Baptist
Messenger has been very reluctant to let Oklahoman's know that
the reason SBC leaders give for needing to revise the 1963 BF&M was because Herschell Hobbs was "duped," "naive," or created a "neo-orthodox" document.
They know that Oklahoma Baptists know better. That's why they prefer darkness
to the light of open discussion.
October 8, 2002
Letter to the Editor of the
Baptist Messenger:
I appreciate the series on the 2000 BFM. It is
important for Baptists to
understand their faith and to "confess" it theologically.
All of us have a
lot in common with the views presented in the new document. However,
some
concerns need to be addressed.
First, many Baptists are more comfortable with the 1963 BFM than the new
version. R. Albert Mohler represents a view that
redefines a confession more
rigidly as an "instrument of doctrinal accountability." Such
language moves
the BFM toward creedalism and away from the definition by the committee
chaired by Herschel Hobbs in 1963, which clearly stated that "The sole
authority for faith and practice among Baptists is JESUS CHRIST WHOSE WILL IS
REVEALED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES." The view also
contradicts the earlier
statement of point 4 in the preface, which states that "Confessions are only
guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience."
Hobbs and his committee also felt it important to add a statement in the
Article on the Scriptures, which affirmed that "The criterion by which the
Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." Yet
Mohler and the rest of the
committee felt that was too strong and placed Jesus under the authority of
the Scriptures. Perhaps that is why several of
the seminary leaders insulted
the memory of Hobbs by asserting that he was "duped" while other 2000 BFM
supporters absurdly and speculatively claim that Hobbs would have signed the
2000 BFM. You can't ridicule a man and then
claim he is one of you.
Here is the bottom line based upon what we know with certainty about Hobbs's
theological convictions expressed not only in the 1963 BFM but in his
numerous defenses of the confession at the SBC and in other settings.
Herschel Hobbs, the most influential Oklahoma Baptist in the second half of
the 20th century, preacher on the "Baptist Hour" for two decades, president
of the SBC and denominational statesman, profound author of commentaries and
Sunday School lessons that covered the entire Bible based upon his views as
we know them, would not be nominated to serve as a trustee of any board of
any agency or institution of the SBC, would not be appointed a missionary by
the NAMB or the IMB, would not be appointed to teach at any of the six SBC
seminaries, and would not be asked to write for the Lifeway Christian
Resources Board based upon the criteria requiring adherence to the 2000 BFM.
Yet, those who would hold to the changes found in the 2000 BFM would have not
been denied a place at the table of SBC agencies or institutions for
confessing their faith differently, as evidenced by the diversity found in
the trustees and employees of said agencies and
institutions beginning in
1963.
One final point on the issue of the Scriptures and Jesus. In
the Sermon on
the Mount He stated regarding the Scriptures of His day "You have heard that
it was said . . . but I say unto you . . ." He
asserted his authority over
Scripture, not demeaning it but taking it to a higher level. No
NT books had
been written and it would be over 300 years before the NT canon would be
finalized. But the authority of the living Lord was sufficient for
believers. Some of us who love the Scriptures would confess the same thing
today, as we did for 37 years by affirming the 1963 BFM.
For Baptists confessional theology is the result of faith, not a test of
faith. I would encourage every Baptist to read
and study both the 1963 and
2000 versions of the BFM. Then decide for
yourself and confess your faith
theologically.
Slayden Yarbrough
Denver, CO