Those Who Make the BFM Say What It Doesn't

H.G. Wells once said, "I write as straight as I can, just as I walk as straight as I can, because that is the best way to get there." The best way to get to an understanding of the role of women in the SBC should be the straighforward wording of the Southern Baptist Convention's Confession of Faith. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message makes the following statement about women under Article VI entitled The Church:

"While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

This statement is clear. Whether or not one agrees with the premise, it should be granted that the 2000 BFM prohibits women from serving in the office of pastor ; which is defined in Article VI as an office within a church. There is no prohibition regarding women serving as Hebrew professors at our seminaries; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Vice-Presidents or even Presidents of our Southern Baptist agencies; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Strategy Cordinators with the International Mission Board; there is no prohibition regarding women teaching men; and as and there is no prohibition regarding women serving as chaplains. The only confessional prohibition is that women cannot serve in the 'office of pastor.'

The 2000 BFM Committee also used clear language to express their belief in the possible fallibility (error) of their interpretations of the sacred text. The 2000 BFM Committee displayed the same humble approach that the 1925 and 1963 Committees exhibited in acknowledging their ability to err in interpretating biblical doctrines - while at the same time believing the Bible itself is without error. This acknowledgment is spelled out in in their report to the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention:

As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. Any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so. 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.

If this generation of Southern Baptists does not understand the significance of such humble language and experience heartfelt gratitude for it, there will one day arise another generation who will express appreciation that their Southern Baptist forefathers had such wisdom. All Southern Baptists readily concede that unless the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is revised, women are officially prohibited from serving in the 'office of pastor' within a church that wishes to cooperate with other Southern Baptists churches or be identified with the Southern Baptist Convention. My goal is neither to revise or amend the 2000 BFM; I desire to show Southern Baptists how the phrase 'office of pastor' has now been taken by hard-line complementarians in the Southern Baptist Convention and used as the basis for the removal of women from performing any Christian function or ministry that involves men. These ministries from which Southern Baptist women have been prohibited include, but are not limited to, the 'indulgence' of exegeting Scripture in the presence of men, participating in any public leadership or administration of the ordinances with men present, and serving in Southern Baptist positions or jobs that require supervision of men. Integrity demands that we Southern Baptist should say what we mean. The intentional and clear phrase 'office of pastor' means what it says. To now use it to justify the complete removal of Southern Baptist women from any ministry involving men is both deceptive and unacceptable.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Southern Baptists, including Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin and others, serve on the Board of Directors of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. There are some fine men and women across the evangelical spectrum who serve on the board of directors, council and board of reference of CBMW. They write some excellent articles and materials from a complementarian perspective, and I have profited from them. I am grateful for Christians like those who serve on the Council, including the Southern Baptists named above, because they think seriously about such issues as manhood and womanhood and write for the profit of others. There are as many other conservative, evangelical men and women who write for Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization that holds to egalitarianism, and I have profited from their scholarly approach to biblical manhood and womanhood as well. Contrary what some assert, not only is it possible for a conservative, Bible-believing Christian to hold to egalitarianism. thousands of inerrantists do.

It is interesting to me, however, that complementarians often seem to lack either consensus or precision related to the question of whether or not it is only the senior pastor position that is banned for women. Hard-line complementarians on the CBMW have not reached a consensus with softer complementarians on whether or not women can lead worship, serve on pastoral staffs, teach men in the academic setting, etc . . . Unfortunately, it seems as if those advocating the hard-line complementarian position, which limits women far beyond the role of 'pastor' or 'elder,' may be currently winning the day at CBMW. I would love to be proven wrong by the CBMW revealing publicly which ministries they believe to be barred to women, with clear biblical warrants given. Otherwise, the kingdom is harmed by a kind of blanket discouragement for women to think of themselves as being able to minister according to their gifts, or to pursue ministry positions within the church other than the 'office of pastor.'

It is time that we Southern Baptists recognized that there may be a few people in leadership positions within our Convention who would seek to force upon the convention things regarding women that we have never offically adopted - like prohibitions on missionaries possessing a private prayer language, or prohibitions on women teaching Hebrew in our seminaries, or prohibitions on women serving as chaplains, etc . . . In my next post (I'm still researching for it) I will tell you the story of Regimental Army Chaplain, Major Paige Heard, who is now stationed at historic West Point Military Academy. Major Heard is a life-long Southern Baptist, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, and has faithfully served Christ as an endorsed chaplain of the Southern Baptist Convention. Paige is a conservative. She believes the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and sufficient. Yet, she is now only one of five female Southern Baptist chaplains left in the Army. In 2004 the trustees of the North American Misson Board voted to stop endorsing female chaplains. Major Heard had been endorsed prior to the 2004 prohibition and was 'grandfathered' in.

Ironically, the North American Mission Board in 2003 had initially said they would not 'ordain' women. But when they learned that the Army did not require ordination for a woman to serve as Chaplain, just an endorsement from NAMB, the trustees scrambled to stop the endorsements in 2004. In explaining why the trustees would no longer endorse 'women' to be chaplains for the Army, the NAMB Chairman of the Trustee Board said, "we will not endorse a woman where where the role and function of the chaplain would be seen the same as that of a pastor."

Do you notice the difference in language? The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message prohibits a woman from 'the office of pastor' in the local church. Somebody, somewhere, drove the NAMB trustees in 2004 to change the prohibition from 'office' to 'function' or 'ministry.' Now, a Southern Baptist woman, according to those who wish to force this narrow view on the rest of us, cannot minister or serve in any manner that might smack of what a pastor might do. As in . . .

(1). Indulging in the exposition of Scripture with men present.
(2). Having 'authority' over men in ministry.
(3). Leading men to faith in Jesus Christ.
(4). Leading in the observing of the ordinances in the presence of men.
(5). Leading worship in a worship service with men present.
(6). Teaching Christian history to men who will be pastors.
(7). Teaching anything spiritual to a boy over the age of twelve.

At the rate we are going to have some leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention who may very well take this prohibition of women holding the 'office of pastor' and do something ridiculous like establish a homemaking program at a seminary to teach women to sew, cook, clean, iron, etc . . . since they are prohibited from doing anything else in terms of ministry. Oh, wait, that's already happening.

More Monday.

Wade Burleson

Creeping Creedalism, Clericalism and Sacerdotalism: The Unintentional Error of Good People Who Lose Sight of What Is Important

I am very positive and hopeful about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention and the cooperative efforts of all our churches to reach the world for Christ. I intend this post to be my last post expressing any disagreement with the 2005 IMB baptism and private prayer language policies/guidelines - the impetus for the beginning of this blog, Grace and Truth to You. I will emphasize in this post, again, what I believe to be the major error the majority of trustees (not all) made in adopting two doctrinal policies that exceed the 2000 BFM, and in my opinion, violate the teaching of Scripture. As such, this post represents my final public disagreement over the adoption of the Board approved 2005 doctrinal policies and guidelines.

As I have stated from the beginning, the IMB trustees who served with me in 2005, many of whom are now no longer serving, are all godly men and women who desire what is best for the SBC, and they would never dream of doing anything to harm the SBC - nor would I. There is simply a difference of opinion over whether or not the new policies are healthy for the SBC, and with this final post, I will articulate why I believe the baptismal guideline is creedal, clerical and sacerdotal - and very unhealthy in the long run for SBC cooperative mission work.

The Issue Explained

In my December 10, 2007 post, I rejoiced over the missionary efforts of a team from Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee while in India. My post was written to point out that the baptisms of these women, according to the new 2005 IMB baptismal guideline, would be considered invalid. Read carefully the fourth part of the statement on baptism in the new IMB guideline:

"Baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation."

Further, the IMB Position Paper that interprets this new guideline states:

"Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer."

My point in the December 10, 2007 remains clear and unrefuted: "There was no 'local church' present at the baptism of these Hindu women." The baptisms did not take place, as the guideline requires, in a local church.

How is that hard to understand? The baptisms of these Hindu women would be deemed 'invalid' according to the guideline. If some wish to argue that the baptisms in India ARE valid - go for it! That is exactly what I am saying. These baptisms in India, conducted OUTSIDE (not 'in') a local church ARE valid, ARE biblical, and ARE the norm on how a convert should be baptized on the mission field. But, these baptisms are in violation of a poorly written IMB guideline. In visiting with Steve Marcum, the missions pastor at Bellevue Baptist Church, it is clear that these women had 'connections' with local churches from where they came, and there were pastors of 'local churches' at the conference where these baptisms were performed, but they were NOT performed "IN A LOCAL CHURCH." They were all performed before many witnesses, in front an 'assembly' (not a local church) of Christians from many backgrounds, and at great personal sacrifice to the converts (threat of persecution, disownership by family, etc . . .), BUT THE BAPTISMS WERE NOT ADMINISTERED IN A LOCAL CHURCH. These baptisms were performed OUTSIDE a local church. This is exactly how Baptist theologian John Gill stated a biblical baptism should be peformed in his classic work 'A Body of Practical Divinity:'

Baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a (local) church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

I commend Bellevue Baptist Church and Missions Pastor Steve Marcum for their mission work and for their desire to see the lost in India saved. I also commend the India pastors who were present at the conference for their desire to involve the converts in discipleship through local congregations of worship in the ladies' home towns. I, and everyone else, should applaud Bellevue for holding the conference and providing a place of security for these women to be baptized. However, don't lose sight of the point of my post -- there was NO LOCAL CHURCH PRESENT - in assembly, in communion, in worship, or in function as a witness to the baptisms or granting 'authority' (whatever that means) - for these baptisms.

The Women LEFT the Conference to JOIN a LOCAL Baptist Church?

The following Sunday, all around the India - in the towns from whence these women came - 'local churches' received these newly baptized converts into their membership. As we would do at our church, the 'local church' Baptist pastors, some of whom may have even been at the conference, would introduce the new convert to the congregation and have the woman share her testimony of faith in Christ and that woman would petition to join that 'local assmbly' upon examination of her faith AND BAPTISM. The woman probably said something like this . . .

"The Spirit of God has led me to see my need of Jesus as my personal Savior and Lord. Last week I had the glorious experience of making public my faith in Christ at a conference sponsored by Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee. I, along with several other women from across our state made it known publicly that we were followers of Jesus Christ. I had the privilege - before many witnesses - to declare my solemn faith in Jesus Christ through baptism. I WISH YOU HAD BEEN THERE!"

The pastor of the local church might then stand and say something like this:

If you rejoice in our sister's testimony of conversion and wish to receive this sister in our fellowship, say, 'Hallelujah!' The congregation would then 'affirm' or 'vote' for this new convert to be a member of the 'local church.' But the baptism this convert and the vote for membership into the 'local church' WERE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

Why Is This Such An Important Issue?

Allow me to relate a personal story that by now is a familiar story to many of you. A young man from Africa came to Enid, Oklahoma. He grew up Muslim. But years ago he was led to faith in Christ by a Youth With a Mission (YWAM) evangelist in his native Niger. This young man was radically saved. He asked the YWAM evangelist if he would baptize him as a testimony of his faith in Christ before his entire family. Several Christians from the area gathered together, along with the new convert's family (who were all Muslim), to witness the baptism. When the young man gave his testimony of faith in Christ and then went down into the waters in believer's baptism, the Christians witnessing the baptism (much like those witnessing the baptisms in India), applauded and wept. The young man's family witnessed the baptism and promptly disowned him.

Eventually the young man made his way from Africa to Enid where he shared with Emmanuel Baptist Church, the 'local church,' his very moving testimony of faith in Christ and the account of his baptism - which cost him everything of material value (his home, his family, his job, etc . . .). Our local church (much like the local churches in India), was NOT present at the convert's baptism. Yet, we heard his testimony of faith and the story of his baptism and we promptly shouted 'Hallelujah' when asked if we desired to receive him into our 'local church' membership.

This Muslim convert, a member of our 'local church' for the next several years, eventually desired to be appointed for missionary service (late 2005)through the IMB. His pastor (me) would be told that he would not be appointed for missionary service through the IMB because his baptism did not qualify. According to the new 2005 baptism policy the Muslim convert was not baptized 'in a local church.' When I pointed out that 'our local church' had received his baptism as valid, I was told by trustees pushing the new policy that the administrator of this young man's baptism was not a valid administrator of the ordinance, and thus, the missionary candidate's baptism was not valid. When I asked to be shown biblically how, and why, this young man's baptism was not valid it could not be done. I was simpy told for the young man to qualify as a missionary for the IMB - according to the new guidelines - he would have to be 'baptized' again "in his local church - Emmanuel Baptist Church." We refused on the basis that we would not denigrate Christ's ordinance of baptism by ruling invalid that which God himself calls valid. I was then told that for the young man to become an IMB missionary he would have to join another Southern Baptist church that would be willing to baptize him. Soon after I began this blog to register my dissent to such an absurd, unbiblical policy.

What Is At Stake for the Southern Baptist Convention

When we come to the place in our convention that we are more concerned with the tightening and narrowing of the qualifications of the person who can legitimately baptize than we are that a sinner is actually being baptized upon his profession of faith in Jesus Christ, we are in danger of becoming more sacerdotal than our Roman Catholic friends.

When we are more concerned about the 'authority' of the local church than we are the authority of Jesus Christ, the Southern Baptist Convention is becoming more clerical than the Vatican.

When an agency or a board of the Southern Baptist Convention can tell a 'local church,' that the baptism of a missionary candidate from their church, which they (the members of the church) have received as biblical and valid (by immersion, after coming to faith in Christ, etc . . . ) is NOT a biblical and valid baptism according to the trustees of the IBM because the administrator of that baptism was not part of a 'local church that believed in eternal security,' then the Southern Baptist Convention is becoming more hierchial than Roman Catholicism herself.

Last time I checked, I was a Southern Baptist. And, until Jesus comes or calls me home, I will do everything in my power to keep our beloved Southern Baptist Convention from giving in to what I perceive to be a creeping creedalism, clericalism, and sacerdotalism that could eat away at the soul of our Convention if left unchecked.


In His Grace,


Wade

Postscript

For those who may be interested, the seventh performance of this year's Emmanuel Baptist Church Christmas Pageant will be broadcast over the internet LIVE tonight, December 12, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. Central Time. The Christmas Pageant will also be archived for later viewing. My son Logan and I are the narrators for the last half. It's been a hoot working with Logan. He's a natural!

When Aberrant Policy Births Inconsistent Practice

A November 25, 2007 news article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported on the missionary work in India of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee. Bellevue is the home church of many professors and administrators of Mid-America Seminary - a seminary whose leadership that is pressing for far tighter and narrower doctrinal parameters on the authority of the baptizer and ecclesiology than Scripture demands and the Southern Baptist Convention has approved. Bellevue is the congregation that has acted as the patron and bankroller of the seminary (at least in its current location). International Mission Board Trustee Chairman John Floyd and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Trustee Chairman Vann McClain are employees of Mid-America.

Though I am not sympathetic with the anti-missionary viewpoint of the article’s author, I was struck by a little detail or two related to baptism and ecclesiology. It appears that women from many villages across the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh came to a training center run by an Indian evangelist named Sathuluri who hosted a training program for village women that was fully - and solely - sponsored by Bellevue Baptist Church. During the course of the training event, at least one village woman, and implicit within the article - many more women - were baptized. There was no local church involved in the baptism. Women from all over the state were baptized by an evangelist, but they did not become members of any 'local' church that day. The women identified themselves with Christ - baptized at the hands of the evangelist who led them to Christ. This non-local church based baptismal service raises questions of inconsistency when juxtaposed to Dr. John Floyd’s, Mid-America's, and the 'new' (2005) IMB Baptism Position Paper that all posit an inflexible insistence that proper baptism is to be conducted only as an ordinance of the local church.

The following is a direct quote from the Memphis newspaper article:

“Sathuluri [the Bellevue sponsored evangelist] isn't as easygoing as his neighbor. When he discovers that an interpreter, who is Hindu, is in the compound the day he [Sathuluri] is to perform baptisms, Sathuluri threatens to call police to remove her and a Commercial Appeal reporter and photographer from the property.” (p.4). And then this: “The Bellevue missionaries watch from a viewing area next to the pool. Some offer tears, others camera flashes. None get close to the baptismal pool and wet women.”

I find it hard to believe anyone could be opposed to the good work that Bellevue is doing. I praise God for this Indian brother, Sathuluri, who is advancing the Kingdom among village women. Unless you have been on the mission field yourself, and personally understand the dangers new converts face for being baptized upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, you cannot fully appreciate Sathuluri's concern for the Hindu interpretor's presence. The evangelist is concerned for the safety of the converts he is about to baptize.

Again, pay careful attention. There is no 'local church' involved in these baptisms. There is no 'local church' into which these woman are being 'baptized into.' They are being baptized biblically, into identification with Jesus Christ. What this newspaper article reveals is the ironic and incongruent position of anyone who insists upon imposing tight definitions and parameters on our IMB missionaries while then finding it impossible to implement such rigid norms when they actually find themselves on the mission field.

The 2005 Paper Explaining the IMB’s Position on Baptism reads as follows:

First, that the only biblical mode for baptism is immersion. Second, that the only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ. Third, that the act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit. Fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation.

Further, the IMB Baptism Position Paper states:

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

It is this last statement that baptism is 'in a church,' in conjunction with the fourth point above, which has created the baptism controversy at the IMB. This peculiar position on baptism is directly contradicted by The 1644 Baptist London Confession of Faith:

Article XLI

THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

John Gill, the great Baptist theologian of the 18th Century says this about baptism:

Baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

Where Scripture is clear (as in the mode and candidate of baptism), we should be clear and unflinching. But, likewise, when God has chosen for Scripture to be ambiguous or ambivalent, we must resist the temptation to become dogmatic and prescriptive (as in 'baptism in a church that embraces the doctrine of eternal security').

I think the Memphis newspaper has done all Southern Baptists a good service in showing the danger of establishing a policy that reaches beyond the 2000 BFM, adds to the sacred Word of God by placing additional qualifications regarding the administrator of baptism, and is in the end, impractical in terms of implementation on the mission field. What's ironic to me is that the benefactor church of Mid-America and the home church of many Mid-America seminary professors is being used to show us the inconsistency.

I think it would be helpful if we, the trustees of the International Mission Board, focused on our duties of giving oversight to the work of Southern Baptist missions, but we refrain from seeking to implement tight doctrinal 'policies' or 'guidelines' that far exceed the 2000 BFM and make it very difficult for actual missionaries on the field to implement. In my opinion, the 2005 baptism 'guideline' is far worse than the 2005 'private prayer language' policy in terms of its overall effect on our Southern Baptist mission work.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The SBCT-Texas International Mission Board

Baptist Press reported on the 2007 Southern Baptist of Texas Convention held in Arlington, Texas last week. I was interested in reading about the officers of the convention and the resolutions coming from the convention and the relationship each had with the International Mission Board.

The Officers

The immediate past President of the SBCT, Steve Swofford, is a current trustee of the International Mission Board.
The new President of the SBCT, Bob Pearle, just completed eight years of service as a trustee of the International Mission Board.
The new First Vice-President of the SBCT, Nathan Lino, is a current trustee of the International Mission Board.
The new Second Vice-President, Jimmy Pritchard, is a current trustee of the International Mission Board.

The Resolutions

Eight resolutions were passed, several of which speak directly at the mission and work of the International Mission Board.

First, the SBCT Resolution on the Role of the Baptist Faith and Message calls upon "all Southern Baptist entities to employ it as the minimum theological standard" in direct opposition to the Southern Baptist Convention's Garner Motion. The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention said just this year regarding the Baptist Faith and Message:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

If entities were to follow the SBCT Resolution instead of the Garner Motion and the understanding of the SBC Executive Committee, there would be all kinds of doctrinal policies implemented that exceed the BFM 2000. These policies then would exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists, who affirm the BFM, from missionary service, and narrows the doctrinal parameters of cooperation at the whims of individual trustee boards - like what is happening.

Second, the SBCT Resolution on the Importance of Sound Doctrine for True Unity states "churches, denominations, and conventions have compromised their doctrinal distinctives in modern days in an ecumenical attempt to include people by excluding sound doctrinal principles" Those who are familiar with the papers of Keith Eitel, missions professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, know that some criticize IMB administration, feeling that our missionarys' are being led to cooperate with other Great Commission Christians on the mission fields, and as a result, there is growing doctrinal compromise.

Third, the SBCT Resolution on Evangelistic Outreach states that "we acknowledge the necessity for all Southern Baptists to be in the world but not of the world and therefore distinct from the culture without abrogating our God-given responsibility to reach the culture"

The Principles of Contextualization recently adopted at the IMB arose out of a fear of some that some missionaries may be watering down the gospel by adapting too much to the culture in which they lived and were contextualizing the gospel beyond appropriate Biblical parameters to reach varying people groups.

Fourth, the SBCT Resolution Reaffirming Regenerate Church Membership states "a New Testament church is formed through covenant by a group of Christians intentionally gathering in the name of Jesus Christ and under his lordship (Matthew 18:19-20; Colossians 2:10, 19); and WHEREAS, baptism of only believers by immersion in the Triune name is the only proper means of entering a local New Testament church . . . "

The above resolution reaffirms that there is no true church but a Baptist church - one who understands the ordinance of baptism properly. It implies there is no other church under the Lordship of Christ but a Baptist church (one who obeys the ordinance of baptism properly). It also affirms there are only local Baptist churches - implying there is such thing as a universal church, or Bride of Christ, that encompasses all true followers of Jesus Christ whether they have been properly baptized or not.

Finally, the Resolution on Alchohol Abstinence states that all elected officials and trustees from the SBCT will vow to abstain from alcohol as a beverage. (Correction: The resolution on abstinence passed last year. This year the resolution became a bylaw change. The SBCT is working hard to codify their resolutions (wink)).

Conclusions

There are very eerie similarities between what is happening at the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas and the International Mission Board.

I would suggest if we desire to continue to narrow the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist missions and ministry cooperation beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message; if we desire to have more and more doctrinal policies added to the 'minimal standard' of the BFM 2000 for requirements of service at our SBC agencies; if we desire to isolate ourselves from Christians who are not Baptist on the mission fields; if we desire to recognize only Baptist churches as true churches; if we wish to force a vow of abstinance upon all Southern Baptists; if we wish to emphasize doctrinal purity in tertiary matters to the neglect of evangelistic cooperation; if we wish to continue to ignore the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention as expressed at our annual meetings . . . then . . .

Let's elect more SBCT leaders as IMB trustees. Good men, all, but seemingly insistent that all Southern Baptists conform to their ideological, philosophical and theological ideals - and willing to do everything necessary to ensure this conformity occurs.

In His Grace,


Wade

Update: It seems some think I have erred in writing SBCT instead of SBTC. I have not. I believe it is more accurate to identify are neighbors to the south as the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas instead of Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. The first recognizes our brothers to the south can do as they please - for they are their own convention. The latter implies they are typical of all Southern Baptists. I prefer to identify our brothers and sisters to the south as the SBCT.

On Caveats, Consistency and Good Compromise

There has been a particularly thoughtful dialogue over at SBC Outpost on a problem identified by Alan Cross as "Gnostic Creedalism Creeping into the SBC." Alan says,

There are voices of substantial weight in SBC life who are telling us that there is a “Clear Baptist Identity” beyond what is articulated in the BF&M. When we ask what it is, they tell us that it involves doctrine regarding the church, private prayer language, and baptism, among other things. It has shown up in actions taken by trustee boards of our entities. But, this “Clear Baptist Identity” is known as being absolute nowhere else in Baptist life, least of all in our confession of faith.

Dr. Greg Welty, a professor at Southwestern Seminary and one who believes that the BFM 2000 should serve as the minimum doctrinal standard of cooperation and that SBC agencies and institutions should have every right to add other doctrinal requisites as they please, responds to Alan's concerns by bringing yours truly into the conversation. Dr. Welty says,

Wade speaks of dividing up the BFM into “essentials” and “non-essentials”. But the BFM says in its own preamble that the doctrines contained within it “are doctrines we hold precious and as *essential* to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice”

Dr. Welty must be referring to the two minor points of doctrine in the BFM 2000 that I have publicly stated disagreement over. The BFM 2000 teaches 'closed communion' and I and my church both believe and practice 'modified open communion.' The BFM 2000 also teaches God does not condemn a human until that human being personally and actually sins, but I and my church congregation both teach and believe that condemnation comes to every human being because of the sin of one man (Adam) regardless of personal or actual sins. Personal sins only compound the judgment already in place.

I believe that the majority of Southern Baptists agree with me on the first caveat, and probably close to a majority of Southern Baptists agree with me on the second caveat. My point is simply that there is disagreement on these two minor doctrines among Southern Baptists. However, I believe these two disagreements illustrate the difference between a confession and a creed. You can't disagree with a creed and keep your denominational identity. But since Baptists are a confessional people, and the BFM 2000 is a confession, cooperation can occur in the midst of minor differences over doctrines that are not essential to the Christian faith or Baptist identity. The two tertiary doctrines I have identified in the BFM 2000 are examples of how not every doctrine in the BFM 2000 is an essential doctrine of the faith or Southern Baptist identity. I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Southern Baptists would agree with me, because many of us are beginning to awaken to one of the major problems in our convention in recent years: Some Southern Baptists are attempting to make every doctrine an 'essential' doctrine and removing people who disagree. Even the BFM 2000 in its preamble states:

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.

When I, or anyone else for that matter, expresses written caveats to the BFM 2000 on minor doctrines, we are displaying a clear Southern Baptist identity. :) But here is where the rub comes: What doctrines are to be considered 'minor' and 'who' is the ultimate final authority on the subject? Dr. Welty asks these same questions in a little more accusatory tone when he says to Alan:

You want the BFM to be a maximal standard, beyond which no one can go, but you can’t even manage to affirm it as a *minimal* standard! Which position shows less respect for the BFM? I’ll let you make that call. . . If you and others don’t come clean about these palpable inconsistencies in your position, it’s going to be hard to take your criticisms seriously.

In reading all the comments offered by Dr. Welty, I can't help but feel he must be confusing Alan Cross with me. Poor Alan. :)

Alan has never given any written caveats to the BFM 2000. I have. So, to me, it seems rather silly for Dr. Welty to ask Alan to 'come clean.' However, since Dr. Welty has used me as the example of someone who 'can't even manage to affirm the BFM 2000 as a *minimal* standard' I think I will answer his charge of 'inconsistency' and show how we as Southern Baptists can be very consistent in this matter of who the ultimate authority is regarding the doctrinal boundaries of cooperation.

The messengers of the SBC make the decision on who should serve as trustees of their insitutions, not fellow trustees (at least, that is the way it is supposed to work). If a trustee has caveats to the BFM 2000, then that trustee should make those known to the convention as a whole, and if the convention wishes for that person to continue to serve as a trustee, even with his stated caveats, then let them give their approval.

The same should be true of any board of trustees who wishes to go beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing doctrinal requisites for Southern Baptist cooperation.

By the way, the boards of trustees of SBC agencies and entities have already been advised by the convention to bring all doctrinal requisites beyond the BFM 2000 to the convention for approval. This is clearly what the Garner motion was all about -- and it passed by a 58% majority of voting messengers. I expect boards who take seriously the wishes of the convention to do just as the convention asked.

And by the way, I have absolutely no problem falling under the same rules. I should be brought before the convention. In fact, I predict I will be brought before the convention in two years when I am up for renomination as a trustee of the IMB. My written disagreements regarding two minor doctrines in the BFM 2000 are known, and will be made known. Let's see whether the convention votes to keep me as a trustee. If the convention determines I should serve, we will all know, by that one act, that the BFM 2000 is a confession, not a creed, and cooperation in the SBC is around the gospel and the essential doctrines of the faith with room for disagreement over minor doctrines.

I, of course, will abide by the convention's wishes since I am a duly elected trustee of the SBC. Likewise, every other duly elected trustee, and trustee boards as a whole, should also abide by the wishes of our convention. In light of the adoption of the Garner motion at the 2007 convention, every SBC board of trustees should make it their official practice to never implement doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000 without first getting convention approval.

That, Dr. Welty, is consistency. And I think you will find that a 'Clear Baptist Identity' will be discovered in the process. Baptists are people who affirm the essentials of the faith, but give freedom to disagree in areas of non-essentials, for we are a confessional people, not a creedal people.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Transcript of the 2007 SBC Debate Over the Motion to Adopt the Executive Committee's Statement on the Baptist Faith and Message

There are some on the losing side of the Southern Baptist Convention's vote to officially adopt the SBC Executive Committee's statement on the Baptist Faith and Message who are now saying the SBC messengers did not understand what they were voting on when they voted to officially adopt the Executive Committee's statement. Even worse, a few are so bold as to suggest that the adoption of the statement does not mean what those of us who voted for it understood it to mean. The messengers of the San Antonio Southern Baptist Convention voted to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000 by a 58% majority vote. I personally think it is in poor taste to question the intelligence or wisdom of Southern Baptist messengers just because the majority did something different than the minority would have desired.

Prior to the debate on the motion to adopt the Executive Committe statement on the BFM, Dr. Morris Chapman, the President of the Executive Committee, had already given his address to the entire convention. Though I have not spoken with him about this issue, I can understand and comprehend his words. During his official report to the Convention, Dr. Chapman said:

"(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession."

It is my desire in this post to show the intent of the messengers when they voted for the motion to officially adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BFM. The messengers intent was to implement exactly what they had already heard the President of the Executive Committee say we needed in the SBC. Of course, an additional way to know what was in the mind of those who voted FOR the adoption of this statement is to hear those who articulated the reasons why this statement SHOULD be adopted. Likewise, to listen to the intelligent and articulate arguments AGAINST the adoption of this motion informs the impartial reader why this motion was not voted for by its opponents.

The following transcipt is taken from the video archives of the SBC Tuesday night's session entitled Previously Scheduled Business.

Again, the purpose of posting this is simply to prove that there can be no doubt in any fair-minded, non-partisian person as to the intent of the SBC messengers in adopting this statement, and further, the debate shows very clearly that SBC messengers present in the hall knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they voted by a 58% majority to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000.

Rick Garner is the messenger and conservative pastor from Liberty Heights Baptist Church in Liberty Heights, Ohio who had made the motion to adopt the statement earlier that morning. The Committee on Order of Business believed this motion was important enough to be dealt with by the entire convention, and when it came time to debate this motion, President Frank Page encouraged messenger Rick Garner, if he was present, to move to a microphone. While the convention was waiting, President Page read the motion in order that the convention would be clear what it was we were about to debate and ultimately vote upon.

I move that this convention adopts the statement of the Executive Committee issued in February of this year, and included in the Executive 's report found in the 2007 Book of Reports, Page 17, which reads 'The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.'

After reading the above motion, President Page then said, "The Committee of Order on Business has decided that this particular motion should be dealt with at this time, and so, we would like to know if Rick Garner is in this hall and, if so, would he like to speak to this motion.

President Frank Page: Bro. Rick, are you at microphone nine?

Pastor Rick Garner: Yes, sir.

President Rick Garner: You moved. (Laughter)

President Frank Page: Would you like to speak to your motion sir?

Pastor Rick Garner: Yes, Mr. President.

President Frank Page: All right.

Messenger Rick Garner speaks FOR the motion:

Mr. President, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 stands as the doctrinal capstone of the conservative resurgence. It is the only consensus, and therefore, the only sufficient basis for doctrinal accountability among Southern Baptists. It is the privilege, it is indeed the sacred responsibility, of this convened body to inform our entities, agencies, and institutions of our continued and firm commitment to this instrument of doctrinal accountability.

The question before us this evening is this: Is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 sufficient in its current form to guide the Southern Baptist Convention and all its agencies, entities and institutions? An affirmitive vote is for its sufficiency. A negative vote is a vote for its insufficiency and will effectively render the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 anemic to accomplish its purposes. I believe it is sufficient. My church believes it is sufficient. The Executive Committee report affirms it is sufficient, and this Convention believes it is sufficient.

If the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is sufficient for the Southern Baptist Convention at large, then it should be considered sufficient for all Southern Baptist entities, agencies, and institutions.

Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together unless they are agreed. We have all agreed that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is our convention's confession of faith. The only remaining questions is, 'Will we walk together?'

Mr. President, thank you.

President Frank Page: Thank you. I would like at this point (uh) what we are going to do, in case you are knew, normally in these situations we allow persons to speak for, and in fairness to speak against, if there is someone - and we do believe because the button is pushed. And let me say this very quickly -- we have a fancy box up here. It's nice, it's real nice. And it tells us who is pushed what buttons, but it doesn't show us who it is. We don't know who it is, but it does tell us if you are pushing for or against, so I hope it is correct. Number 2 says their against this. Would you like to speak against this?

Messenger: Yes I would

President Frank Page: Name, church, and . . .

Messenger: Mr. President, it's another Robin. Robin Hadaway, Missions Professor, Midwestern Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri, messenger Pleasant Valley Baptist Church, Liberty, Missouri.

Wade Burleson's commentary: (Read very carefully the following arguments professor Hadaway gives on why the motion should be voted down. Notice what he calls 'doctrine' and why the BFM 2000 falls short of being 'sufficient' -- to me he articulates very clearly the problem we Southern Baptistts would face had his view prevailed).

Messenger Robin Hadaway speaks AGAINST the motion.

I served as an IMB missionary for 18 years and as an IMB regional for 6 of those years and I enforced the IMB policies. The IMB has long had a policy that divorced persons cannot be appointed as long-term missionaries. This is a doctrinal interpretation of I Timothy 3, and is also based upon the fact that divorced persons are not normally called to Southern Baptist pulpits in the USA and are especially problematic for our Baptist partners overseas. The Executive statement on page 17 of the Book of Reports says, "The BFM is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the convention." Guide does not mean an exhaustive list. Let me list several doctrinal issues the BFM does not speak to.

Speaking in tongues or private prayer languages are not mentioned in the BFM, but do you want a seminary professor like myself, at your six seminaries, practicing glossalalia? This is not in the Baptist Faith and Message.

Last year's Resolutions Committee of which I was a member, and I am a member of this year's Resolutions Committee, passed a resolution on alcohol consumption. Our committee quoted Scripture making it a doctrinal issue. The IMB does not appoint missionaries that drink alcohol, and neither do the seminaries. Alcohol is not in the Baptist Faith and Message.

The Resolutions Committee a number of years ago passed a resolution on gambling. Scripture was quoted making this a doctrinal issue. Gambling is not mentioned in the BFM either.

Neither is the usage of tobacco.

Let's not make a creed of the BFM, let's keep it as a guide and allow the trustees of your boards, agencies and entities to design policies and procedures to select godly men and women as missionaries, professors, and employees to serve in these agencies.

Otherwise, you may have missionaries and professors like me, with practices not in keeping with the vast majority of Southern Baptists. I urge the defeat of this motion.

Wade Burleson's comment on Dr. Hadaway's speech: (Other than the fact I am amazed that the good professor believes 'quoting' Scripture makes something a doctrine, I would like to point out three problems with what Dr. Hadaway said. (1). To equate the Holy Spirit gift of glossalalia with divorce, tobacco, and alcohol would cause every mainline, conservative systematic theologian to raise his/her eyebrow, and (2). Dr. Hadaway well illustrates the problem the Southern Baptist Convention is now facing -- there are some who are attempting to force upon the entire convention their particular interpretations of holiness -- and worse, they are attempting to make EVERYTHING a 'doctrinal' issue and dismiss from service anyone who disagrees, and (3). A few of my fellow IMB trustees ought to be glad I am uninterested in enforcing the good professor's 'doctrine' of tobacco (wink). Of course, the passage of the motion rules null and void Dr. Hadaway's attempt to make everyone look like him.)

President Frank Page: Thank you Robin. Now do we have at microphone number nine again someone to speak for this particular motion?

Messenger Dwight McKissic speaks FOR the motion.

Yes, Mr. President, my name is Dwight McKissic, I pastor the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas.

It's really a simple matter. Are we going to let the parents make rules for the house, or our we going to let the children rule the house? The agencies and entities should be subordinate to the Southern Baptist Convention.

When I gave my church a doctrinal statement, all of our leaders are asked to read it and believe it, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We buy into the convention based on that document. Then, when agencies circumvent that document it leaves a church like the one I pastor in a quandry. "Pastor, you sold us on the Southern Baptist Convention based on the contents of this document. Now decisions are being made that are not consistent or compatabile with this document that affects the identity and image of our church."

I don't let my four children decide what the McKissic household believe. Dwight and Vera McKissic decide what we believe and what we stand for. Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." We need the convention itself to speak to this issue and not the children.

(Loud Applause)

President Frank Page: Thank you Bro. Dwight. One more. Microphone number five do you speak against this motion.

Messenger: No sir, I'm here to speak for this motion.

Wade Burleson's comment: (It was here that the messengers could see Art Roger's at the microphone, the messenger ready to speak for the motion. Behind him one can see on the video screens Dr. Hershael York and Dr. Richard Land prepared to speak AGAINST the motion. You could see Dr. York adamantly attempting to get the microphone monitor to allow him to speak, but Art was at the microphone first and by rule, Art did not have to give up his spot until he had the opportunity to speak).

President Frank Page: To be fair, we've got to go with someone against. All right, we'll try number eight. Microphone number eight over yonder.

Messenger: Yes, sir. My name is Barbara Turner and I am a messenger from the Mountain View Baptist Church in California. And uh, I did not grow up in a Christian home, however, I had people who took me to church and so forth, and I accepted Christ after a Baptist camp, not a Southern Baptist. However, when I moved I had a neighbor who took me to the closest church, which was a Southern Baptist Church. And, as I started learning about that church I picked up a little paper, really a little card, that was called the Baptist Faith and Message. And as a young teenager, really preteen, I read that and thought about it quite a bit. And, you know I believed the things that were in that document. I felt like, yes, this is what I believe - this is what I want to subscribe to - and this is a body of believers that I want to join with. And I put a lot of thought in that, even as a young person, just as I did my salvation, knowing that God would want to call me to things. That document was written in 1963. It was put together thoughtfully with many great leaders, including Herschel Hobbs, who many people still read his commentaries. I have nothing against the 2000 as far as submission or whatever. However, I have a problem with saying you must subscibe to this particular Baptist Faith and Message or you can't serve. I guess I cannot serve because I believe in both of them. And I think there's a problem, and so I believe it should be Baptist Faith and Message - period, and not Baptist Faith and Message of a certain year. And I also believe, as it is stated, that it is a statement of faith - this is what we believe - but we are autonomous. I believe when we are saying we must set this as a guide - we are not using this as a guide - we are using it as a creed, and that goes up against who we are as Baptists. Thank you.

Wade Burleson's Commentary on Barbara's Speech: (Barbara is a very bright individual. She knew exactly what she was saying. However, what she may not have been aware of was that those who were AGAINST this recommendation desire to tighten the BFM even further, 'de facto,' by tightening the doctrinal parameters and narrow the definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist by using trustees of Southern Baptist agencies changing the doctrinal parameters 'out of the view of the entire Southern Baptist Convention.' I promise you, if Barbara listened carefully to the two speeches by Bob Cleveland and Jeremy Green that followed hers , she saw it).

President Frank Page: Thank you Barbara. Let me ask at this time microphone number one you have pushed a button saying you have a motion, would you please give me your name and your church and clarify what you are asking please?

Messenger: Leroy Cole, West Tyler Baptist Church, Alabama, I call for the question.

Wade Burleson's comment on the call for question: (I do not know Leroy Cole, but his motion to cease debate and vote on the recommendation passed by a two/thirds majority raising their ballots in favor to end debate -- at least according to the ruling of the chair. It was at this moment that one of the lower points of the convention occurred. Several who were AGAINST the motion (and possibly a few who were for it) booed and hissed and shouted at the chair because they didn't feel the motion to end debate had actually passed. Dr. Page graciously ruled that debate would continue for five minutes because it was a close vote, but then he said, "Do not holler at me (applause). Do not holler at me. I have a litte bit of redneck in. Don't holler at me." (Good for the President).

The Continuation of Debate for Five Minutes

President Frank Page: Five more minutes. Microphone number three speaking for.

Messenger Bob Cleveland speaks FOR the motion

I'm Bob Cleveland, lay messenger from First Baptist Church, Pellham, Alabama. I came to the Southern Baptist Convention, to a Southern Baptist Church, from the United Methodist and the Presbyterian churches. In each case I was given, in those denominations, a book and they said "Here's what we believe." And I actually read it. And when I came to our church, I asked Bro. Mike before I ever joined, if we had such a book and he said, "Well, no. We have no creed but Christ." But here's the Baptist Faith and Message which is a consensus statement of our faith. And I read it. And I went back to him and said, "You know, there's a lot of things this doesn't cover."

And he gave me Hershel Hobbs book on the Baptist Faith and Message, and I read that, and I read about what Hershel Hobbs said the fundamental Baptist distinctive is and that's soul competency in religious matters. And I said, 'Woe' this is the most responsible doctrine I've ever seen because it says it's me and God and I'm responsible for what I believe. I cannot blame it on somebody else.

Now if I wanted to change what Southern Baptists believe confessionally I would never attack the Baptist Faith and Message, I would go to missionary sending organizations, both US and foreign, and change what they can be to be missionaries. And then I would just wait until the Southern Baptist Convention changed what they believed.

And if I wanted to accelerate the process I would go to some of the seminaries and change what you had to believe so that they would believe just like me to be a professor. And that would send out pastors into churches here that would believe just what I wanted them to believe. I would never have to touch the Baptist Faith and Message.

We are like the frog in a pot of hot water. You can put him in cool water and turn the heat up and the frog will literally boil to death before he knows he is in trouble. We will change the Baptist Faith and Message because we will change what Baptists believe if we don't vote for this recommendation. Now I know we can't tell the entities what they have to do, but we can tell the entities of the SBC what we believe being a Southern Baptist means, and this is it, and I urge you to vote for it

(Applause)

Wade Burleson's Comment on Mr. Cleveland's speech: (Bob, who is a layman, understands better than anyone I've ever heard that Southern Baptists better be very, very careful in handing over the ability to define what a Southern Baptist IS to either a seminary or an agency)

President Frank Page: Thank you Bob. Now, we will call on microphone number twelve and ask if you are speaking AGAINST this particular issue.

Messenger Jeremy Green Speaks AGAINST the motion

I'm Jeremy Green, pastor of First Baptist Church of Joshua, Texas. According to the Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message our confessional statement includes only those doctrines that we hold precious and as essential to the faith. If Southern Baptists believe that these doctrines are essentials, then why are certain trustees and employees now not even affirming the bare minimum doctrinal standards of our convention as adopted by each entitity. Baptist polity and our trustee system both necessitate that each individual trustee boards maintain the right and responsibility to employ other doctrinal paramaters as needed.

The Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient guide, but it is not the ONLY guide. I believe that voting FOR this motion is the first step in the wrong direction. I encourage the messengers to vote against this motion. Thank you Mr. President.

(No applause)

Wade Burleson's Commentary on Jeremy Green's comments: (I thank Jeremy for making very, very clear - right before the vote - what a vote FOR the motion means, and what a vote AGAINST the motion means. He couldn't have said it any better. He's dead on. The convention heard it, and they voted. Contrary to his desire, and others, to move our convention way beyond the BFM to reflect their narrow doctrinal views on matters that are NOT essential to the Christian faith and Southern Baptist identity, the convention said let's keep our parameters of cooperation as broad as possible).

President Frank Page: Thank you Jeremy. Now, here is where we are. Our time is up. If you would like to extend the time, it will require a motion and two thirds majority to extend the time for discussion.

The vote to extend time to debate the motion to adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BFM failed.

Then, the vote occurred on the original motion.

It passed by a 58% majority.

I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can listen to the debate, or read the words of this transcript, and say anyone was confused on what we voted upon.

The convention told the International Mission Board that any doctrinal guideline or policy, based on the IMB trustee board's 'doctrinal interpretation' that has not been APPROVED by the SBC, is not appropriate. Especially when that guideline excludes otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary participation.

The Southern Baptist Convention has spoken. Boards are more than welcome to establish policies and guidelines on practical, ethical or moral considerations, but to move DOCTRINALLY beyond the BFM 2000, and exlude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service unless who disagree with their demands for conformity to their additional doctrinal guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000, is not within their purview.

Only the entire convention sets the parameters for cooperation and true Southern Baptist identity. No seminary, no whitepaper, no trustee board, no President -- no one has the authority to narrow the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist cooperation but the convention as a whole.

Now, let's see if the boards are listening.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. Listen to Dr. Chapman's entire address here

A Historic Vote No Amount of Spin Can Change

Last night the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio passed by a clear majority the recommendation to adopt the Executive Committee statement on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. The official tally has not been released, but I was sitting in the back of the convention and saw with my own eyes the recommendation passed by a clear majority. The convention adopted the following statement:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

This statement is clear, concise and incredibly important.

In essence, the convention said that the agencies and institutions of our convention do not have the right to narrow doctrinal parameters beyond the BFM 2000.

This does not negate agencies establishing policies because of 'moral,' or 'ethical,' or pragmatic concerns -- but it does let the agencies know that no tightening of the doctrinal parameters shall occur without full convention approval. The agencies are children to the mother (the convention), and the children do not tell the mother what is, or is not, a Southern Baptist in terms of doctrine.

It seems to me that trustees of our agencies must take into account the action of this convention before they attempt to narrow the doctrinal standards of their insitution through policies, guidelines, or additional doctrinal confessions.

The mother has spoken.

I would encourage everyone to watch the debate at the SBC.net video archives. There was no confusion over the issue from those debating the motion, and there was no confusion on what the convention was being asked to vote upon. Some people are very upset because they believe the wheels have fallen off the doctrinal bus of the SBC (not true, but that's how they feel).

Some of us are absolutely ecstatic because the children of our convention (the agencies) have been given a little spanking by the mother. They have been told they have no right to say who is, or isn't a Southern Baptist. If agencies draft policies or guidelines that go beyond the BFM 2000, and then exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from participation in missions or evangelism ministry based upon those policies or guidelines that reach beyond the Baptist Faith and Message -- then they are violating the very convention who elected them to serve as trustees.

Now, let's see if the kids listen.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. The vote was 57% in favor of the recommendation.

The Most Important Vote at the SBC in 10 Years

Some might believe that the most important vote at the SBC this year will be the vote for First Vice-President between missionary David Rogers and SBCT Executive Director Jim Richards. Though this vote is important, it is not the most important vote.

Some might believe the ballot cast Wednesday for any number of resolutions that will be presented to the SBC tomorrow could be the most important vote at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Though there are several worthy resolutions, no vote for a resolution will be the most signficant vote cast by messengers at this 2007 convention.

I believe the most important vote of the Southern Baptist Convention this year, not to mention the last ten years, will take place sometime Tuesday night, during the previously scheduled business portion of the agenda, when the seated messengers of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio will debate, and then ultimately vote for, or against, the adoption of the Executive Committee statement regarding the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which reads:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

The above statement was adopted by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention this past year in response to a motion made at the 2006 Greensboro Southern Baptist Convention by Dr. Boyd Luter, former Dean at Criswell College.

If the Convention herself adopts this statement, it will send a strong and irrefutable message to the trustees of Southern Baptist boards and agencies that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the only consensus statement of doctrinal belief approved by the SBC, and to establish doctrinal guidelines or policies that exceed the BFM 2000 is an act contrary to the wishes of the Convention herself.

Again, in my mind, this recommendation to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the most important vote to come before the SBC in many years. I pray that the adoption of the statement passes at the Convention, as it did in the Executive Committee of the SBC, WITHOUT opposition.

Why Should The Executive Committee Statement on the BFM 2000 Be Adopted by the SBC?

(1). It will give trustees the authority to lead out in the prevention of any SBC agency from demanding absolute conformity on interpretations of tertiary doctrines, doctrines that are not addressed by the BFM 2000, before there can be participation in SBC missions and ministry.

(2). It will communicate to men who pray in tongues like Dwight McKissic and Jerry Rankin, and men who believe in Calvinism like Al Mohler and Tom Ascol, and men who believe in cessationism like Paige Patterson and Russ Moore, and men who believe in Arminianism like _________ (fill in the blank), and pastors who hold to Landmarkism in their local church, and pastors who don't hold to Landmarkism in their local church, that there is plenty of room in the SBC for both interpretations of these tertiary doctrines, and that not one side, or the other, is free to demand that others take their position in order to cooperate in missions and ministry in the SBC.

(3). It will help us focus on the main thing - sharing the gospel - and will stop cold the continuing narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by insisting we Southern Baptists unite around the essentials and cease making tertiary doctrinal interpretations issues over which we divide.

Probably the more significant question one might ought ponder is this: "What does it mean if people speak out against - or vote against - this Executive Committee statement on the BFM 2000?"

It would seem to me that opposition to this statement would represent a belief by some that the BFM 2000 IS NOT sufficient, and there is definitely a movement afoot by some in the SBC to narrow the doctrinal standards of cooperation by doctrinally adding to the BFM 'post de facto' by changing agency doctrinal policies and guidelines without Convention approval --- a charge that I have consistently made over the past two years.

We'll see how right I may have been by watching carefully the debate. Notice closely 'who' opposes the Executive Committee statement. Listen to the reasons 'why' a person opposes it. You will learn a great deal by just listening. You can watch (and listen) to the convention LIVE by clicking here.

Other Items of Business On Tuesday at the SBC

There will be several interesting reports from our agencies, not the least of which are the Lifeway Report, where I have already heard some are attempting to question the President of Lifeway on the tongues survey released a week before the convention. As most of you know, the Lifeway survey found that over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believed that tongues was a legitimate gift of the Spirit.

The International Mission Board report will be offered Tuesday night, and the Southwestern Theological Seminary report will be given Tuesday afternoon at 4:45 p.m. There will be other interesting items presented to the convention in the form of recommendations and resolutions. I will update everyone Tuesday night.

The Election of First Vice-President

Tuesday afternoon, right before the supper break the election for First Vice-President will be held. There is a clear choice this year between ideologies of conservative cooperation vs. fundamentalist separation. David Rogers, IMB missionary to Spain and son of legendary Southern Baptist Adrian Rogers represents the fresh wind of cooperation among conservatives around the essentials of the gospel, and freedom to dissent on the non-essentials. Jim Richards represents the ideology that there are no tertiary doctrines in the Bible, and you must agree with me on every issue or you cannot be considered a true Southern Baptist.

Jim Richards is in his home state of Texas and he is expected to win because of the huge number SBCT messengers in San Antonio -- but don't rule out David Rogers pulling off what would be the biggest upset in recent memory.

A Review of the Events at the SBC on Monday, June 11, 2007

Due to the lateness of the hour, I only wish to highlight a couple of events that occurred today at the SBC. Though the Convention officially begins tomorrow, many thousands of Southern Baptists are already here enjoying the Pastor's Conference and the fellowship with other Southern Baptist people.

First, Dwight McKissic did a phenomenal job in debating Dr. Russ Moore of Southern Seminary on the issue of tongues. In the portion of the debate where the two positions were defended from Scripture, Dwight was the hands down clear winner. Someone told me later that Dwight reminded them of Luther at the Diet of Worms where the Catholic bishops excoriated Luther on his lack of knowledge of Catholic history, only to be handed their own heads on the proverbial platter when Luther expertly defended his views on justificaton from Scripture.

I also listened to the talk given by Dr. Patterson on KCBI Radio as he was asked questions by Jerry Johnston, President of Criswell College, about his 'concerns' over the SBC. I couldn't help but smile as Paige articulated his belief that the new enemy in the SBC (again)is the 'liberals.' I was around during the early eighties when Pressler and Patterson made stump speeches about how to 'rescue' the SBC (I was Pressler's driver in Oklahoma), and I really believe if you were to take today's tape and play it against one made by Dr. Patterson 25 years ago, the two would have sounded the same.

Of course, a great deal has changed in the SBC over the past quarter century, not the least of which is the fact that all the liberals are gone.

People are beginning to wake up to the fact that the old mantras don't work anymore.

Finally, it was my pleasure to eat dinner with all the messengers from my church, three of which are attending their first ever Southern Baptist Convention. One of those three, Dr. Cyril Kumar, heads up our orphanage and school in Bangalore, India. I have never seen a man work harder than Cyril, and literally thousands of lives and families have been saved through his ministry called 'Touch India.'

Sometimes I get concerned that Cyril might get jaded by what he sees. However, today, I was thankful to learn that he was excited to be at the SBC and he learned a great deal about Southern Baptists, including that there is propensity in all Southern Baptists to say, "Have a good day" even when it has gotten dark, is night, and the 'day' is almost over.

I pray that tomorrow is 'a good day.'

In His Grace,


Wade

San Antonio: Welcome To The Big Leagues

For nearly two years now I have been concerned that the there is a brand of leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention that would treat our cooperating convention as if it were a local church. Rather than championing cooperation in missions and evangelism ministry by uniting on the essentials and granting liberty on the non-essentials, authoritarian leaders at a few of our SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to issue, by fiat, the terms of Southern Baptist identity.

I warned that if we did not draw a line in the sand we would soon see efforts to bring conformity to our convention 'post de fact,' by simply changing policies and guidelines at agencies and then a few years down the road pointing to those changes and saying, "See, how can you not agree with this doctrinal interpretation of Scripture: The _____________ (insert any SBC agency's name you please) has had this as a doctrinal guideline for ten years?"

Some who initially doubted me have now seen the light. The issue before us is very clear. There are those who would, using artful and sophisticated language, make it clear that ANY AGENCY OF THE SBC can move beyond the BFM 2000 and establish any doctrinal standard it chooses. Read carefully the following section of this proposed resolution on the BFM 2000:

RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the appropriateness of entities adopting and enforcing additional theological standards such as the Abstract of Principles as a part of the unique responsibility of the board of trustees of each entity, operating in conscientious accountability to the convention, to govern the entity in its charge in all matters theological and otherwise; and be it further

Other than the fact the Abstract was in force at Southern long before the BFM 2000 was even conceived, there are HUGE problems with this very, very dangerous statement:

(1). If an entity of our convention establishes a policy or guideline that goes well beyond the BFM 2000 (by way of a hypothetical example: you can't pray in your closet in a language our trustees don't understand), there is no way under the sun the Southern Baptist can order, demand, or actually remove that policy or guideline. It CAN'T happen. The only thing the convention has control over is the election of trustees. But the convention cannot INSTRUCT an agency to remove an adopted policy or guideline. Our agencies are autonomous.

Likewise, the agency cannot remove a trustee. Only the Southern Baptist Convention has that authority. So, if an agency does not like the fact a trustee is questioning why a particular SBC agency is narrowing the parameters of our cooperation by establishing a doctrinal guideline that goes beyond the BFM 2000 and demanding conformity by ALL SBC churches in order to participate, then that agency just can't get rid of that trustee because they don't like his challenge -- the Southern Baptist Convention alone has that authority.

Therefore, the trustees of the SBC actually control the direction of the SBC. And the President of the SBC controls the appointment process of all our trustees. I believe we need trustees who are committed to not move our agencies, particularly those that represent the ENTIRE convention (the IMB, NAMB, Lifeway, etc . . .) BEYOND the BFM 2000 and make demands for conformity on interpretations of tertiary doctrines a standard of cooperation. We RIP the delicate fabric of cooperation in the SBC if we do that.

Personally, I don't have near as much of a problem with SEMINARIES having confessions that are narrower than the BFM 2000. If you wish to study at a Calvinistic Seminary -- go to Southern. The Abstract of Principles, the document that all professors must sign, is far more narrower doctrinally than the BFM 2000 --and, it is a Calvinistic document. If you wish to attend a semi-Pelagian seminary, attend Southwestern, for the anti-Calvinistic tendencies of the President are well known, and the policies and guidelines of that school will reflect his views. People in the SBC should have a choice on where, and how, they wish to be trained theologically.

But if we don't wake up we will find every single one of our agencies has overnight decided to be anti-Calvinistic, hyper-dispensationalist, Landmark, cessationist and non-cooperative in our work with fellow evangelicals. I have often called the above 'Fundamentalism' simply because my independent, fundamentalist Baptist brothers and sisters at Bible Baptist Church right down the street here in Enid believe exactly like the above. Some have asked me to use a different nomenclature than 'Fundamentalist', and if I could figure out another descriptive adjective to use, I promise, I would. All I know is I don't want our agencies to become like Bible Baptist Church, and only the trustees can insure we don't.

(2). I get confused. Initially the BFM 2000 was supposed to be the document for 'doctrinal accountability' and though those SBC missionaries, who were initially commissioned under the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, were told they would not have to sign the BFM 2000, over time, leaders either forgot - or intentionally broke - their early pledge and demanded all missionaries sign the BFM 2000. In one day, more missionaries resigned from mission field service than at any other time in the history of the SBC. These men and women refused to sign what they saw was becoming a 'creed' rather than a confession.

Someone might ask, why would they not sign? Were they liberal? No, those who resigned ALL affirmed the essentials of the Christian faith and true Baptist identity(they never would have been appointed if they had not) - but they were now being told EVERYTHING in the BFM 2000 is ESSENTIAL to believe in order to be identified as a Southern Baptist. Frankly, in some regions, missionaries were rightly told they could sign the BFM 2000 and express in writing their disagreements on tertiary doctrines, and after review, they were allowed to stay in the field. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. There should be unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, and charity in all things. (By the way, I have shown my disagreements with the BFM 2000 on tertiary doctrines including 'closed communion,' 'the innocency of infants prior to personal transgression,' a statement that the Holy Spirit 'baptizes' us when the Bible teaches Christ baptizes us in the Holy Spirit, and the statement that 'justification' is simply acquital and not the declaration of being righteous, but of course, I wholeheartedly affirm the doctrinal essentials of the BFM 2000).

It is very, very evident that there is a growing demand that EVERY single Southern Baptist believe EXACTLY like those who 'are in charge' demand you believe. Now remember -- those in charge are those who are running the agencies -- trustees.
I am of the firm opinion that trustees should be focusing upon the business that the convention gives us and should STAY COMPLETELY AWAY from establishing doctrinal guidelines that go way beyond the BFM 2000, not to mention the Bible.

HOWEVER, if some trustee group, somewhere, gets an itch to narrow the parameters of cooperation at one of our agencies, and then issues an edict that "ninety five percent" of all Southern Baptists believe the way we have written this doctrinal guideline, and then tries to remove that trustee from service who has the gall to stand up and say, 'Wait a minute, that's not OUR JOB' to narrow the our doctrinal standards,' then maybe in the providence of God that becomes the impetus to turn the entire convention around. Maybe.

The man who wrote the BFM resolution to be submitted in San Antonio for convention approval is saying, "IT IS THE JOB OF OUR TRUSTEES TO NARROW THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF OUR CONVENTION -- AND WE SHOULD TRUST THEM." I will borrow a word from my thirteen year old son to describe my feeling to that view -- 'Beans.' :) It's not our job. It's not an issue of trust, it is an issue of responsibility -- we trustees don't have it.

(3). There is a clear choice as to how people should respond to this narrowing of the parameters of cooperation and demands for conformity on interpretions of tertiary doctrines -- conscientiously vote for those resolutions, recommendations and candidates that (who) say, 'Enough is enough.'

Allow me to conclude today's post with the following comments from people who have frequented this blog:

R. Graneemann writes:

The debate is about two SLIGHTLY different views of what Baptists are. One side glories in Baptist distinctives, the other in a broader evangelicalism. One side wants denominational power to enforce their view, the other is affronted by the attempt. One side wants to sign creeds to protect the mother denomination, the other side's conscience is offended. One side sees security in rule making, the other the very death of the denomination. Perhaps it's about two human temperaments, one authoritative and the other free-spirited.

T.D. Webb states,

"Apparently, those who want to impose their view of Baptist doctrine as a prerequisite for anyone holding a SBC leadership position, are sufficiently aroused to do their best at what they do best, especially when they can't specifically address the issues you raise . . . that is, to distract readers from the focal issues of your remarks with clever rhetorical sophistry coupled with personal attacks on the messenger!

In my opinion Chris Hilliard nails it when he write:

We acknowledge that there are Christians (who meet 1st tier essentials) who don’t agree on the 2nd tier doctrines. We won’t declare them unsaved but we believe these doctrines are clearly presented in the Word and should not be compromised. Thus, it’s what separates us (Baptist) from the others. Third tier doctrines are simply ones that we all acknowledge we aren’t quite sure about. We have our opinions (even convictions) but we aren’t dogmatic about them.

Personally, I believe we have allowed some 3rd tier doctrines to come into the argument and confuse us. Is baptism by immersion a 1st tier, 2nd tier, or 3rd tier? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it clear in Scripture? Yes. Thus it’s second tier. Is being a continuationist/cessationist a 1st tier doctrine? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it a second tier issue? Is it absolutely clear in Scripture? Debated, in my opinion. Thus, it’s a 3rd tier doctrine.

If the BFM is simply a confession of 1st tier doctrines, then I believe we should be held accountable to them. If the BFM is a confession of 1st and 2nd tier doctrines we must ask whether or not we should be held accountable to it as well. If 2nd tier doctrines are as I defined them, I could possibly see the merit in saying yes. But, the problem with the BFM is that it contains what I believe are 1st, 2nd, and possibly even 3rd tier doctrines. Plus, I believe many are beginning to confuse 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines. And as long as the possibility lies that 3rd tier doctrines are currently a part of the BFM or might be in the future, we must not let the BFM become a “creed”.

Chris Hillard does not agree with me on everything. He has let me know that often. :) However, he is an example of a person that I not only could be friends with, but a fellow conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist pastor with whom I and my church are honored to serve with in missionary and evangelistic cooperation. His logic is crystal clear.

There is nothing wrong with a confession containing third tier doctrines, as long as the convention acknowledges that the confession is 'a consensus of opinion,' a 'mutable (changeable) document,' and dissent and disagreement over third tier doctrines is allowed. In other words, it is a confession - not a creed.

That's the way ALL Southern Baptist confessions should be viewed.

Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, charity in all things.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. Tomorrow, my most meaningful post of the year - preventing child sexual abuse in our churches and our convention.

The 2000 BFM: A Confession, Creed, Or A Club?

At Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma we have a wonderful group of conservative evangelical men and women who are doctrinally sound and able to articulate various theological positions in soteriology, ecclessiology, eschatology and pneumatology. We have Calvinists and Arminians, proponents of elder rule and advocates of congregationalism, dispensationalists and preterists, and cessationists and continuationists. But yet we all get along in fellowship, cooperate with each other in missions, and love each other without conditions. Our basis of fellowship is around Jesus Christ and the essentials of the gospel. Our unofficial motto: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

Allow me to give an example. Recently I gave a series of messages on the end times. Since this was a departure from my usual expositional manner of teaching, I resolved to not spoon feed people a particular viewpoint, but rather, I taught all four major positions held by evangelicals: (1). The historic premillenial view, (2). The dispensational view, (3). The amillenial view, and (4). The preterist and/or postmillenial view(s) -- and only at the end of teaching the entire series did I give my opinion, but I tell people that they must come to a conviction on their own as to what Scripture teaches. Every time I teach a series that allows me to articulate various opinions or viewpoints of people regarding the same doctrine, I will always emphasize that evangelicals who hold to those various viewpoints often also hold to a high view of the authoritative, sufficient and inerrant Word of God. When asked how conservative Christians can arrive at different interpretations I remind people that all of us sometimes slip into frail, insufficient and fallible interpretations of the infallible Word. Only Bible teachers filled with pride will never question whether or not they may be wrong in their interpretations.

This is where Al Mohler's brilliant proposal to establish a theological triage system whereby people may know the difference between first tier (primary), second tier (secondary), and third tier (tertiary) doctrines would be healthy for our SBC. There are some who say that everything in the BFM 2000 is PRIMARY DOCTRINE, and if a Southern Baptist expresses any disagreement with any portion of the BFM 2000, he is not a true Southern Baptist and is not worthy of leadership in the SBC.

This kind of thinking is very, very dangerous. Why? It is more 'cultic' than it is Baptist. If a Southern Baptist cannot point out where he/she believes the BFM 2000 is in contradiction with Scripture we are in trouble. In fact, if a Southern Baptist voices a disagreement with some of the interpretations of tertiary doctrines found within the BFM 2000, and we then begin to 'question' that Southern Baptist's conservative credentials, we have prostituted our heritage as Baptists. Why? We will have placed ourselves in the very bizarre place of having people in the SBC being called 'liberal' when they champion their belief of the authority of the Bible over a man-made confession. Think about it -- in 2007 it is possible for Southern Baptists to call 'a liberal' someone within the convention whose conscience is bound to the Word of God, and not the BFM 2000!

Even worse, we now have people in the SBC who are attempting to move the entire convention to an acceptance of interpretations of tertiary doctrines that go far BEYOND those contained in the BFM 2000. Those who are demanding conformity to policies and guidelines that are based upon specific interpretations of tertiary doctrines, without giving room for disagreement, will ultimately destroy our cooperating convention.

Southern Baptists have fallen asleep at the wheel. We had better wake up and speak up. Someone needs to have the prophetic courage and fortitude to show, RIGHT NOW, that to publicly disagree over tertiary doctrines, even those tertiary doctrines found in the BFM 2000, is NOT A REASON to disfellowship, end cooperation, or remove people from leadership in the SBC.

By the way, one might advocate the following as a possible definition of Fundamentalism -- any philosophy that adds to the sacred Word of God. Liberalism takes away from the sacred Word of God; Fundamentalism adds to it. Both ideologies are dangerous, and whereas it seems we successfully resisted the dangers of liberalism in the latter portion of the 20th Century, we must now resist the dangers of fundamentalism in the 21st Century

Allow me to illustrate. It is possible for me to point out at least five tertiary doctrines in the BFM 2000 where solid, conservative evangelical Southern Baptists disagree. Unlike fundamentalists who wish to exclude those who disagree with tertiary doctrines in the BFM 2000, I believe it is a healthy thing for people to discuss and debate various interpretative views on those doctrines that are not essential to the faith, but contained in the BFM 2000. Some wish to remove people who publicly disagree with ANYTHING in the BFM, even if it is a TERTIARY doctrine. Bart Barber recently suggested that I make a list of those places in the BFM 2000 where there are differing interpretations on tertiary doctrines. Dr. Barber believes everything in the BFM is a PRIMARY doctrine, and I'm sure he wishes to prove I can't point to disagreements among Baptists on tertiary issues in the BFM 2000.

I can, and I will.

Listen carefully: Even though I am pointing out five differing interpretations of non-essentials doctrines below, I am not saying these doctrines are not important. They are. And we should debate them, discuss them, and try to come to some consensus. However, I am saying as clearly as I know how that differing interpretations of the doctrines below should not be a reason to cease cooperation in SBC missions, or exclude from SBC missionary service or leadership.

EXAMPLE ONE: The BFM 2000 Teaches Infants Are Innocent And NOT Under God's Condemnation Until They Personally Sin

My blog has contained an interesting discussion about the point at which people are condemned by God.

The BFM 2000 in Article III says infants come under God's judgment 'as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.'

Dr. Greg Welty and Dr. Bart Barber of Southwestern Seminary have both publicaly agreed that BFM 2000 does not teach infants are condemned for the sin of Adam.

However, The Abstract of Principles, the institutional confession of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary teaches:

"Adam transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation . . ."

This 'condemnation,' according to the Abstract is BEFORE anyone has committed 'actual transgressions' or even are capable of 'moral action.' It is interesting to note that the Abstract of Principles is consistent with the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message on this point of condemnation. We are all condemned, according to the Abstract of Principles, for the sin of ONE man (and of course I would say this is very consistent with Romans 5).

The fact that the Abstract says people become 'actual transgressors' when they are capable of 'moral judgment' only compounds the judgment those without moral judgment (infants) ARE ALREADY UNDER due to the sin of Adam.

These two statements on the fall of Adam, one in the Abstract and the the other in the BFM 2000, are NOT compatible.

However, read carefully -- there is room for both interpretations in the SBC regarding the point at which people actually fall under the just condemnation of God, either, (1). At the impartation of the soul (the Reformed view), or (2). When that soul grows to maturity and is capable of moral action (the 'age of accountability,' the Semi-palagian view).

For the purpose of missions cooperation this particular doctrine is tertiary and not essential. Nobody, neither the Calvinist nor the semi-palagian better DEMAND conformity to his viewpoint in the SBC or there will be an irreversible rip in the fabric of our cooperation.

EXAMPLE TWO: The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Teaches Closed Communion

Article VII states: Being a church ordinance, (baptism) is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Baptism has already been defined in Article VII as baptism by immersion, and since the very word 'baptism' (Gk. 'baptizo') means 'to immerse,' one would be hard-pressed to call himself Baptist without believing in baptism by immersion.

However, there has been disagreement for years among Baptists over whether or not Baptists could share communion with believers who have not been 'properly' baptized. There is no question that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper (or fellowship/communion) with other believers, but the question becomes, if someone is not baptized by immersion, can they still be a partaker of 'communion' with the family of Christ?

Spurgeon said, yes, absolutely! His church welcomed at the table of communion all Christians, whether properly baptized (by immersion) or not. Why? There was the belief that the Kingdom of Christ transcends the 'local' church, and if we will all share the 'Marriage Supper of the Lamb" together in heaven, even with Christians not 'properly' baptized - as we Baptists define it - then why would we withhold the cup of fellowship and communion from believers here? Like Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle, our church invites all Christians, regardless of the 'mode' of their baptism, to the Lord's Table. Our local church 'membership' is strict (only believers who have been baptized by immersion), but our table of 'communion' is open.

Nathan Finn, a professional historian and an employee of Southeastern Seminary, has written that he believes a large majority of Southern Baptist Churches practice the same form of modified open communion our church practices. I believe there is room in the SBC for both views and if there are attempts by either side on this view to DEMAND that the other side do it their way, then a rip in our fabric of cooperation takes place. I can't sign the BFM 2000 without expressing my disagreement to this article, and if there are people who believe that I should not serve as a trustee because of my disagreement with closed communion, then we have lost our moorings. Closed communion is a legitimate interpretation of the Scripture -- but it is not the only, conservative Southern Baptist view.

EXAMPLE THREE: The Baptist Faith and Message Teaches Justification Is Simply 'Acquittal' and Makes NO Mention of Christ's Righteousness Received.

The BFM 2000, in Article IV B, states, "Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ."

Dr. Sam Storms has done an excellent job in pointing out the weakness of this statement in his post entitled Two Theological Concerns With the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

(Justification) is defined/explained in the BFM 2000 as "God's gracious and full acquittal . . ." But justification is not simply acquittal; it is not simply God saying "Not Guilty." It is the positive and forensic declaration that the believer in Christ is righteous. Acquittal alone won't get anyone into heaven. We need the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Protestant theologians in the tradition of the Reformation have traditionally defined justification in terms of forensic or legal declaration of righteousness because of the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to our account.

Now certainly it is true that justification includes the notion of "acquittal" or the declaration: Not guilty. But acquittal is not itself justification. Justification is the declaration by God that we are reckoned righteous through faith in Christ.

Now, in my opinion, there is room in our convention for people who have the defective view of justification as defined in the BFM 2000. I would never seek to remove those who hold to it; though I would hope they could be taught better, and in accordance with the Scripture. In addition, even though The Abstract of Principles is different from the BFM 2000 and correctly states that justification includes receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, I don't believe we should demand SWBTS and other agencies of the SBC to sign the Abstract. There is room for both interpretations on justification for the purpose of missionary cooperation.

Let me say it again -- if there are demands for TOTAL CONFORMITY to what the BFM 2000 teaches, without allowing for disagreements on issues like this, then anyone who believes justification is more than just simple acquittal will have to step down from SBC leadership or missionary service because he can't 'endorse' such a low view of justification. (By the way, I just noticed this discrepancy between the BFM and the Abstract today through Dr. Storm's blog).

EXAMPLE FOUR: The BFM 2000 States, Contrary to Scripture, That The Holy Spirit Baptizes Every Believer Into the Body of Christ

In Article II C, on 'God the Holy Spirit,' the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states, "At the moment of regeneration He [i.e., the Holy Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ."

Again, read carefully Dr. Sam Storms on this subject . . .

I agree with the BFM that Spirit baptism occurs at the moment of regeneration for all believers. The classical Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism as separate from and subsequent to conversion lacks biblical warrant.

But this statement asserts that the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. The problem is that there isn't a single, solitary biblical text which says that the Spirit baptizes anyone into anything. It is always and in every text Jesus Christ who baptizes believers in the Holy Spirit, the result of which is that we are incorporated into the Body of Christ.

Some have argued from 1 Corinthians 12:13 that Paul is describing a baptism "by" the Holy Spirit into Christ or into his body. Part of the motivation for this is the seemingly awkward phrase, "in one Spirit into one body," hence the rendering, "by one Spirit into one body." But what sounds harsh in English is not at all so in Greek. Indeed, as D. A. Carson points out, "the combination of Greek phrases nicely stresses exactly the point that Paul is trying to make: all Christians have been baptized in one Spirit; all Christians have been baptized into one body" (Showing the Spirit, 47).

The translation of the ESV is certainly the most accurate in 1 Cor. 12:13. It reads:

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (emphasis mine).

Much the same terminology appears in 1 Corinthians 10:2 where Paul says that "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Here the cloud and the sea are the "elements" that surrounded or overwhelmed the people and Moses points to the new life of participation in the Mosaic Covenant and the fellowship of God's people of which he was the leader (see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 768).

In the other texts referring to Spirit-baptism (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16), the preposition en means "in", describing the element in which one is, as it were, immersed. In no text is the Holy Spirit ever said to be the agent by which one is baptized. Jesus is the baptizer. The Holy Spirit is he in whom we are engulfed or the "element" with which we are saturated and deluged, resulting in our participation in the spiritual organism of the church, the body of Christ.

If the biblical authors had intended to teach that the believer is baptized "by" the Spirit they would most likely have used another preposition, probably hupo followed by the genitive, not en with the dative. This is what we see in such texts as Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:5, and Luke 3:7 where people were baptized "by" John the Baptist; or texts such as Matthew 3:13 and Mark 1:9 where Jesus was baptized "by" John; or Luke 7:30 where the Pharisees had not been baptized "by" John.

I can only conclude that those responsible for writing the BFM 2000 were misled by a mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13. As I said, the Holy Spirit doesn't baptize anyone in anything. I encourage all to read again the prophecy of John the Baptist that Jesus "will baptize you with [lit., "in", the Gk. Preposition en] the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16).

Dan Wallace, noted Greek scholar, disagrees and argues that the preposition en is an example of "means". He writes: "the Holy Spirit is the instrument that Christ uses to baptize, even though he is a person" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 374). However, Wallace is also clear that it is still Christ himself who is the agent of the baptism, i.e., he baptizes, not the Spirit. So, even if one accepts Wallace's understanding (which I don't), the point is still the same: Jesus Christ baptizes either "by means of" or "in" the Spirit, but the Spirit himself, contrary to the BFM, never baptizes anyone.

I have yet to fully digest this statement by Sam Storms, but I can assure you, I am sharper theologically after having read it. Were we to exclude a man from SBC leadership like Dr. Sam Storms, simply because he points out his disagreement with the BFM 2000 on this particular doctrine, we would be like the blind man who doesn't see his own medicine bottle lying on the counter. We put people in leadership who can't even articulate the issues, and ignore the very person who can help us get a better understanding of the Bible. Championing free and open debate on doctrinal issues allows the cream to rise to the top.

EXAMPLE FIVE: The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Says That All Southern Baptists Should Do All IN Their Power to Put An End To War

Article XVI on 'Peace and War' states, "It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord.

All I will say about this is to give a simple anecdote: If we applauded more at the 2006 SBC when Dr. Condoleezza Rice when she said that we will obliterate the terrorists with our bombs than we did when Dr. Jerry Rankin stated we should do more to win the world for Christ through our mission efforts, are we actually in fulfillment of the BFM 2000?

Now a time for confession. I am a George Bush fan. I am, frankly, in agreement with the Iraqi War. I have never wavered on this, and believe if we do not militarily move preemptively against Islamic extremists, we will find ourselves attacked by them.

My point, however, is this -- I would never seek to promote my political ideology upon our convention. There is room enough in our convention for people with differing views on the Iraqi War -- and if and when our convention is identified too closely with any political party -- either Democratic or Republican, we are in violation of the BFM 2000. Let's keep our focus on the gospel.

I do believe this post is probably the longest one I have ever written. I hope you read it carefully. If you did, you will then understand my closing three thoughts.

Conclusions:

(1). Demands to 'sign' the BFM 2000 and 'remove' from leadership anyone who expresses disagreement with the BFM 2000 on the tertiary issues mentioned above is evidence of a seismic shift in the historic understanding of what it means to be a Baptist. Many of us were silent when 'liberals' were attacked, but now, some of us who are 'conservative' are being attacked because we dare express disagreement with a handful of tertiary doctrines in the BFM 2000. Friend, the BFM 2000 is NOT the Bible -- and nobody should pretend it is. The BFM 2000 is fallible and mutable. God's Word is infallible and unchangeable.

(2). Among the reasons scholar J. Gresham Machen opposed Fundamentalism in his day, according to John Piper, were these: (a). The absence of historical perspective; (b). The lack of appreciation of scholarship; (c). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions; (d). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine.

My concern is similar to Machen's: If we close our eyes and let people act as if 'orthodoxy' is 'signing a creed' and forget that Baptists have historically debated quite vigorously different and various tertiary doctrines, while at the same time working together for the furtherance of the kingdom at large, we will eventually lose our spirit of cooperation. Let's work toward better, more doctrinally precise confessions of faith -- but let us never succumb to the temptation of believing 'signing' something is 'evidence of orthodoxy.' Confessions are a consensus of belief, but majority views are not necessarily orthodox views. That's why we never sign confessions without the ability to express dissent on those interpretations of tertiary doctrines with which we disagree.

(3). It is time that Southern Baptists realized that doctrine is important -- but so is debate. You never really get more precise doctrinally unless you champion free and vigorous dissent. We should NEVER seek to remove from missionary or ministry any Southern Baptist who affirms the primary doctrines of the faith, but believes differently on tertiary doctrines from those who are 'in charge.' Frankly, if we let 'those in charge' demand conformity to their particular interpretations of tertiary doctrinal issues -- letting them convince us that to agree with them is synonymous with 'Baptist' orthodoxy -- we wind up losing the very Baptist orthodoxy we seek to protect.

I affirm wholeheartedly the major doctrinal and gospel tenets of the BFM 2000, but unless we begin to realize that debate of tertiary doctrines is not harmful to the gospel and come to the place where our convention is characterized by unity in the essentials; liberty in the non-essentials; and charity in all things, we will be unable to figure out how to keep the main thing (the glory of God in the proclamation of the gospel) the main thing.

All of us should approach any resolution or recommendation that demands Southern Baptists to treat the BFM 2000 like a cultic creed and refrain from 'public' disagreement as a huge caution flag. We are a confessional people who champion the freedom of dissent and debate. I for one do not believe doctrinal preciseness is a bad thing -- it's the growing demand that SBC'rs sign faulty, skeletal creeds that contain interpretative 'fiats' regarding tertiary doctrines that will get us in trouble. Soon, leadership may very well begin to issue interpretative fiats they wish to worm into the BFM 2000 (i.e. 'A cessationist's view of the gifts' or Landmark view of ecclesiology' etc . . .).

The restoration of a cooperative spirit among Southern Baptists around the gospel of Jesus Christ and the freedom to express conscientious dissent on interpretations of tertiary Biblical doctrines is essential to the expansion of His kingdom through the sharing of the gospel and our own growth in understanding Biblical doctrine.

The stifling of public dissent on doctrinal matters, and the inability to base our cooperation in missions on agreement over the fundamentals of the gospel alone, ultimately dumbs down the entire convention to the point of real Biblical illiteracy.

Let's work toward a more doctrinal preciseness as a convention, but let us be crystal clear that confessions that form the basis of our cooperation in missions and ministry should be as broad as possible, for until we see Christ face to face, all of us see in a glass darkly and will struggle with fallible interpretations of tertiary doctrines of the infallible.

Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, charity in all things.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson