|
Bob Webb Letter
March 21, 2001 Dear Friend, I am glad you are taking the time to investigate attacks the new Southern Baptists of Texas group is making against Texas Baptists. We could avoid a lot of suspicion and misunderstanding if more lay people would do the same thing. Most Baptists want to do the right and fair thing, so I would suggest that you have an open meeting at your church with a representative from each group present. I am not talking about a confrontation, or even a debate. However, I have found that people are more truthful with their accusations when they have to make them in the presence of those they are accusing. A meeting like that would not only help your church to discern the truth, but it also would force both groups to talk to each other face to face. It works with my wife's second graders, and it might work with them. Let the people hear the truth, encourage them to pray about it, and let them make their decision. I am a Baptist because I believe God can speak as clearly to a Baptist layperson with a sixth grade education as He can to a pastor with a masters and a doctorate. Trusting the people to discern God's will is the Baptist way. It is also the right way. Unfortunately, many persons and groups have pushed churches to make a decision without hearing both sides. At best for all practical purposes, they invited a token spokesperson from the BGCT after they had made the decision. I cannot understand how people who claim to love the Bible can so easily ignore what it says. Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." That is inspired, biblical, common sense. Even our lost society operates on the principle that a person should have the right to face his accusers. How can our churches get a hearing from a lost world if we accept a lower standard of fairness than they do? As a pastor, I rely on the fact that my people understand and practice the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). I make mistakes and I have my share of critics. Nevertheless, I know if some group in my church decided I was no longer fit to be their pastor and tried to fire me, the overwhelming majority of our members would demand that I be given a fair, unbiased hearing. Like most Christians, they do not like to fuss and I have not been their pastor forever, only 11 years! Nevertheless, if someone attacked me, the members would not turn their heads and look the other way. That is only fair and right. Yet, some churches are breaking or drastically changing a family relationship with Texas Baptists that has existed for decades without insisting on hearing all the facts. I do not get it! I am at a disadvantage because I do not know what some of your churches may have been told about the BGCT. I recently got a call from a friend in another state asking me if Texas Baptists really believe homosexuality is an acceptable, alternate lifestyle! It is hard to believe people can repeat such awful lies. Ironically, when you check it out, you can trace most of the lies to a man named Roger Moran, founder of a group called the Missouri Baptist Layman's Association. I do not know a nice way to say it--he is spreading lies. He uses hearsay and guilt by association to slander people he has never met. Using his brand of reasoning, I can prove that any member of your church who ever voted Democrat OR Republican is pro-homosexual. After all, there ARE open homosexuals in both parties so voting for and cooperating with either would indicate a tacit form of approval according to his logic! Do not take my word for it. A group called Texas Baptist Laymen sent a letter to every Texas Baptist church to correct "false and misleading statements" (primarily his) that were being circulated around our state. Almost every past president of the BGCT signed it. Among them were: D.L. Lowrie, Dick Maples, Jerold McBride, Paul Powell and every past president of the Woman's Missionary Union of Texas. WMU signers were: Amelia Bishop, Gerry Dunkin, Ophelia Humphrey, Mary Humphries and Mauriece Johnston. All these are people of integrity, known and respected by many Texas Baptists. How anyone could ignore them and take the word of a man who has never lived in Texas and has no first-hand knowledge of the people he attacks is beyond me. Get a copy of the letter and look at it. Anyway, you asked me why I do not support the new Baptist Faith and Message and will not sign it. My reason is simple--I did not sign the 1963 version! Nobody told me I had to! I have been a Baptist for most of my life. I spent my early pagan years in a Baptist nursery. I learned about Jesus from my mother and a saintly Sunday School teacher who did magic with a flannel board. As a teenager, I did study the 1963 BF&M, however, I learned that Baptists do not allow any man (or man-made creed) to tell us what we believe. We said it this way: "NO BOOK BUT THE BIBLE, NO CREED BUT CHRIST." I still believe that. Of course, I do read other books, but none of them stands above the Bible. I also have strong doctrinal beliefs, but I have never put them on a level with Jesus Christ. I do not believe we can capture our Living Lord in any man-made creed about the Bible. Some have claimed the 2000 BF&M is not a creed. One of its main spokesmen, the president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently said, "A creed exists when the church exalts church tradition, making it equal to or above Scripture and then requires agreement with that tradition." He went on to say that -- unlike a creed -- the 2000 BF&M is "not binding over an individual or a church." He continued, "We respect the right of any individual, church, or state to affirm the 1963 confession. We would only request that those persons, in turn, respect the right of Southwestern to affirm the 2000 confession as prescribed by our bylaws." He concludes this way: "Don't let rhetoric confuse you. No one is trying to tell you what to believe. There is no creeping creedalism." Well, he is right about one thing--I am confused. Moreover, my confusion comes from the obvious contradictions between his rhetoric and the text of the new BF&M. Help me understand this: If the 2000 BF&M is not a creed and is not binding on individuals and churches, as Southwestern's president Dr. Kenneth Hemphill says--why is there a need for churches to risk division by taking votes on whether to adopt it or not? If it is not a creed, why is a seminary professor who has taught the Bible faithfully for years now required to sign a man-made statement interpreting the Bible rather than affirming the Bible? If the BF&M 2000 is not a creed, why are some associations suggesting that churches be required to sign it before they can be included in the fellowship of that association? If it is not a creed, why did the BF&M 2000 add these words to the 1963 version: "Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability..." (emphasis added). How can a confession that states, "Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches" be an "instrument for doctrinal accountability"? I do not want to accuse anyone of lying. However, there is a lot of double-talk going on. It is one thing when politicians play with words to obscure the truth, i.e., "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." It is much worse when Christian leaders do the same thing. If the 2000 BF&M is being used as a creed to decide who can be part of an association (it is!), who can teach at the seminary (it is!), and who can serve as a trustee of a Southern Baptist institution (it is!), then it sounds a lot like a creed to me! Why not just tell the truth? Can you still doubt this is a creed? Listen to this from the main author: "Those who opposed the revisions adopted this year by the Convention are out of touch with Southern Baptists, out of step with the great tradition of faithful Christians through the centuries, and out of line in their intemperate language,"(Albert Mohler, Fidelitas, June 28, 2000). That is right--according to him, Southern Baptists for the past 37 years (those who adopted the 1963 BF&M) were "out of step with the great tradition of faithful Christians through the centuries." That includes all who taught in our seminaries, all who were presidents of our convention, all who served as missionaries, and all who led the greatest times of growth in Southern Baptist history. It also includes your church and the church where I grew up. Since I did not realize I had to affirm the 1963 version, it must mean I have been out of step all my life. You may be thinking, "Surely he doesn't mean that! No one could be that arrogant and still be considered the primary spokesman for the 2000 BF&M!" Do not be too sure. Remember, this is one of the men who used the words "naive" and "duped" to describe Herschel Hobbs. I hope none of your church's members was "duped" by the "naive" teachings in Hobb's Sunday School material! Remember, the SBC Executive Committee president said about him: "he would be a great pope if Southern Baptists had one." Remember, this man tried to remove references to "the priesthood of the believer" from the new BF&M. When Baptists raised an outcry, he put it back. However, he changed it by simply adding an "s" to "believer" and redefining the meaning. That is dishonest. Forgive me if I seem harsh. It bothers me when he makes condescending and insulting statements about a great servant like Hobbs after his death when he cannot defend himself. More importantly, I will not bow down before his words or the words of any man. From the beginning, this BF&M was set up to be different from the previous one. In 1963, the committee included every state convention president so there could be no question that it represented the Baptist mainstream. That is how you write a confession. In 2000, the committee included only those who agreed with one viewpoint. That is how you write a creed. Some results are: * Two paragraphs that were added to the 1963 preamble to insure that the BF&M would not be used as a creed were removed. Hobbs, chairman of the 1963 committee, wrote that these paragraphs were "as much a part of the overall statement adopted in 1963 as are the various elements of faith found in the body of it. If this be denied or ignored, then the statement becomes a creed." * They also removed this sentence from the 1963 version: "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." I have heard many wordy explanations about why this was necessary, but they do not hold water. * Without Jesus as the criterion by which we interpret the Bible, we can use the Book of Esther to make a strong case for hating your enemies. Jesus said as much in His Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But, I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven"(Matt. 5:44-45). * Several times in that chapter, Jesus corrected the teachings of the religious leaders. Religious leaders get it wrong sometimes! He did not "abolish the Law or the Prophets"(Matt. 5:17), but he did fulfill them. It comes down to this: If Jesus, as revealed in the Bible, is not the criterion by which we interpret Scripture, then who or what is? A Baptist Pope? A man-made statement about the Bible and the new BF&M? I am going to have to stick with Jesus. I believe these people are coming from a position of fear. They fear who might re-interpret who Jesus is by using their own ideas instead of the Bible's revelation. That is a valid danger and we should guard against it. However, de-emphasizing Jesus is not just a poor solution, it is wrong! I have heard lots of double-talk, but no one has given me a good reason why it was necessary to remove Jesus as the criterion for interpreting the Bible. Doing so opens the Bible to all kinds of unhealthy, unchristian interpretations. I cannot believe they intended to do that, but they did it, nonetheless. I should mention one other thing. As a businessman, you do not live in an ivory tower so it should not surprise you that this is mostly about money and who controls it. The same SBC leaders who are complaining about people not supporting the Cooperative Program are among those who called it a "golden calf" when they did not control it. Even worse, they have never given it strong support themselves. In other words, "Do as I say, but don't do as I do." For example, their most recent spokesperson is Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas. On February 7 this year, he led a campaign by Southern Baptists of Texas to restore funding to the SBC that may be decreased because of BGCT actions. Now hear this! His church's giving to the SBC CP in the 1990s averaged 1.32 percent of their total receipts. According to their own report, his church's CP gifts last year totaled a whopping 0.59 percent--that is right -- less than one percent. Do not misunderstand me. As pastor of a local church, he has every right to lead his church to give as little as they choose to the CP. Nonetheless, he was one of three main spokesmen at that meeting who called for "Southern Baptist Churches in Texas to be encouraged to give generously their undesignated offerings to the Southern Baptist Convention's CP." I am sure he could teach my church about some things, however, he is not qualified to tell us anything about undesignated giving to missions. Regardless of what your church has given through the CP over the years, I doubt he has much to teach you either. The CP would be bankrupt if most churches followed the example that he and SBC leadership have set over the past 20 years. Check it out--if you can find four presidents of the SBC from the past 20 years whose churches give more than 3 percent of their receipts to the CP, I want to see your research. Most of them give less. However, they expect churches that have traditionally given three and four times that amount to ignore their example and keep giving. Is that good stewardship? I could go on and on, but this letter is too long already. Let me close with this. Today, I ministered to a family whose 17-year-old son was killed in a car wreck. I visited an older member of my church who is recovering from bypass surgery and I prepared two children for baptism this Sunday night. I spoke by phone to the son of a dear friend in her 90s from my first church. She is in bad health and wants me to do her funeral. I called one of our youth and invited her to go with me to see Howard Payne when I go next week for our trustee meeting. I did my best to make it clear with my words and actions that my relationship to Jesus is the most important thing in my life. There is no close second. I mention these things only because I suspect your church is doing the same kinds of things. If the people of your church knew my church members and me, they would not feel a need to break fellowship with us. We believe the Bible, and we love Jesus Christ. We are not perfect and we probably would not agree on everything. In fact, the people in my church do not agree with me--or each other--on everything. We could never be part of SBT because--in their own membership form--they require FULL AGREEMENT with their doctrinal position. That kind of allegiance belongs only to God. Nevertheless, the people of my church do agree on Jesus Christ as God's Word reveals him. Most of you would fit as well in our fellowship as you do in your own. In addition, whether you recognize it or not, we are some of the people with whom your church is being asked to break fellowship. That is a drastic step, and I hope you will make it carefully and prayerfully. I can almost guarantee, if God had led me to your church as pastor, your people would love me and I would love them right back. We are not as different as some people suggest. Feel free to use this letter however you wish. I have nothing to hide. I have tried to be careful to avoid overstatements and to document the facts I have mentioned. If I am wrong about any of them, I would appreciate being set right. These are my convictions. I do not work for the SBC, SBT or BGCT. I have never felt any need to check with any of them before I preach or state my convictions. You do not have to agree with me--if we can continue to agree that following Jesus is the most important thing in life; we will continue to be brothers. Just be clear about one thing. I oppose the 2000 BF&M as they are using it because I believe the Bible. I belong to Jesus Christ as that same Bible reveals him. "I do not believe the Bible???" Get in his face! You know better! Your brother in Christ, Bob Webb, Pastor, FBC, Denver City, Texas P.S. One of the great tragedies about this whole mess is the way some people have demonized anyone who disagrees with them. I have done my best to avoid doing that in this letter while still telling the truth. Most of the people I know who are part of SBT are not evil people. Most are very good people. They just honestly fear the freedom that comes with a belief in soul competency and the priesthood of the believer. They prefer a more authoritarian style of leadership by the pastor and denomination. I do not believe that is Baptist or biblical, yet, I do not question their right to believe that way. My
problem with SBT is this--everywhere their organization has gone,
Moran's lies have been spread. I hope that is not an organized
strategy, however, you should weigh what they say with how they
behave. |