TEN REASONS WHY THE BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE 2000
is perhaps the most divisive document ever produced by the
Southern Baptist Convention
By Mark Ray
Minister of Education, FBC Hartselle, AL

Some changes in the updated Baptist Faith and Message are good: its affirmation of traditional marriage, a positive word about race relations, omission of the divisive and politically-charged term “inerrancy,” and its retention of the phrase “church and state should be separate.”

For decades, Rotary International has promoted its “4-way test” for making decisions and relating to others: (1) Is it true? (2) Is it fair? (3) Is it beneficial to all concerned? (4) Does it promote goodwill and better friendships? These principles are consistent with Scripture. But did they guide drafters of Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Consider these concerns…

1. Never before has an SBC document described itself as “a measure of doctrinal accountability.” This phrase was quietly inserted into the new version. To whom besides God will we now be accountable? Make no mistake: Those deemed out of step will be accused of not believing the Bible. SBC leaders have publicly declared that anyone not supporting BF&M 2000 either “has a problem with the Apostle Paul” or “rejects the clear teaching of Scripture…” Seminaries, state conventions, associations, missionaries, SBC National Agencies, and local congregations are now being pressured into adopting the BF&M 2000 as a referendum on loyalty to the SBC “conservative resurgence.”

2. Jesus removed as our “criterion” for interpretating the Bible. As Texas leader Charles Wade asked: “If not Jesus Christ, then who or what?” A denomination? The pastor? Other lay leadership? Granted, references to “Jesus as criterion” did not appear until 1963. But when considered alongside concern #3, this omission remains highly disturbing…

3. Appears to make the Bible equal or superior to Jesus Himself. In fairness, the committee said this was not their intent. Surely they were aware Fundamentalists have long been stereotyped as people who “worship the Bible,” as was the accusation against Pharisees (“You search the Scriptures, yet they point to me…” John 5:39-40) In our 1963 BF&M, the Bible is named as “the record of God’s revelation…” But in BF&M 2000, the Bible is now identified as “God’s revelation.” Jesus is identified as merely the “focus” of divine revelation, rather than the revelation Himself. Are we nit-picking? Didn’t Paul write: “I know WHOM I have believed?” Jim Jones of The Ft. Worth Star- Telegram declared: “Who would have thought omitting three little words (‘the record of’) would cause such disruption among Baptists? But it has!”

4. “Priesthood of the believer” was changed to “priesthood of believers” (plural). Our ancestors endured persecution in order to secure freedom of “soul competency” for future generations. Individual access to God through Christ alone –no other human mediator – has been a hallmark Baptist doctrine. BF&M 2000 rekindled old fears. A new plural wording of “believers” suggests individual views are less valid than majority edict. And despite having been called its most important section by Herschel Hobbs, they omitted the 1963 preamble – which explains confession (what Baptists generally believe) vs. creed (what Baptists must believe). After nationwide protest, a few watered-down references to freedom were reinstated.

5. The new version was requested by one of the most controversial Southern Baptists ever known. Few Fundamentalist activists have been so zealous, for so many years, toward so many enemies, as General T.C. Pinckney of Virginia. A longtime editor of The Baptist Banner, he has been praised by Judge Paul Pressler as a stalwart of the SBC “conservative resurgence.” In the 1980s, General Pinckney kept a sophisticated data bank with profiles of virtually every church and pastor in his state. Each were labeled liberal, conservative, or unknown, with a goal of placing his version of a “Bible-believing” pastor in every pulpit. The discovery of his meddling made nationwide news, including a strong rebuke from Editor Julian Pentecost of The Religious Herald: “This level of precinct-style politics, from a member of one of our Virginia Baptist congregations, is deplorable.” But in 2001, T.C. Pinckney was elected vice-president of the SBC. His influence continues.

6. If the committee wasn’t balanced, isn’t it likely that neither was its final product? While every revision to the BF&M was triggered by controversy, efforts were made in years past to find common ground. The 1963 committee was drawn from state convention presidents, in consultation with leading theologians, ensuring a level of trust. By 2000, no such “checks and balances” were evident, nor any efforts toward consensus. Committee members were drawn solely from the hardline Fundamentalist wing of the SBC. Herschel Hobbs, they declared, was “duped” by “neo-orthodox liberals” on his committee. Such is now their view of the greatest pastor-theologian ever produced by Southern Baptists.

7. A watered-down Lord’s Day? In a bizarre twist of logic, BF&M 2000 presents a weaker view of “keeping the Sabbath holy” that is arguably more liberal than its predecessor. Christians are encouraged to structure Sunday activities in keeping with the dictates of one’s own conscience (a freedom disallowed in other sections). Some believe this wording appeals to less-committed, younger Baptists; which is, of course, an insult to their generation.

8. “Wifely submission” emphasized, yet “mutual submission” ignored. Despite a national outcry when the 1998 “Family Amendment” was first presented to the public, the BF&M 2000 committee rejected every appeal to include Ephesians 5:21 if they were determined to emphasize Ephesians 5:22. One wonders why on earth a Christian denomination, already perceived by a secular world to be among the least supportive of women in society, would choose to fuel a negative stereotype rather than lessen it? Or, as pondered aloud on CNN by Robert Parham of the moderate Baptist Center for Ethics: “What are the greatest challenges facing young families today? Time management, materialism, or lack of wifely submission?” (www.ethicsdaily.com)

9. Punishes churches traditionally supportive of women in leadership. Most Baptist congregations still do not ordain women as deacons or pastors. Others, particularly on the east coast and in Kentucky, have done so since the 1800s. Women deacons served in the First Baptist Church of Waco, Texas while Southwestern Seminary founder B.H. Carroll was pastor. Can a Baptist church holding a minority interpretation no longer remain in good standing with its peers? That answer remains in doubt. The SBC has adopted a statement even more strict than Dr. James Dobson’s own Nazarene denomination. Who could ever forget a profoundly chilling letter to The Alabama Baptist, sent shortly after the Piedmont, Alabama tornadoes a few years ago? Declaring that due to her mother’s violation of Scripture, it was God’s wrath which killed the daughter of Methodist pastor Kelly Clem.

10. Implies that only a “verbal” witness is fully valid. Through the years, Christians have been encouraged to share the gospel in ways most comfortable to them. In fact, we are commanded to do so! Because I Cor. 12 teaches that our spiritual gifts are a strength and not a weakness, traditional Baptists have affirmed many types of “witness”: social ministries, church planting, Campers on Mission, relationship and “lifestyle evangelism”; distribution of Bibles, tracts, use of Internet resources, and yes, tried-and-true “knocking on doors.” All of it is important! When one style of worship, prayer, or witness is elevated as being more righteous than another, spiritual snobbery can quickly follow – and usually does.

Conclusion

It is only God’s Holy Spirit, working within each individual, that ever keeps any of us faithful to Christ and the Scriptures. The need to eliminate all “wiggle worm,” as some have admitted as one reason BF&M 2000 was written, is neither realistic nor does it prevent liberalism. If that were the case, reciting The Apostle’s Creed every Sunday, as in the United Methodist tradition, would prevent any leftward drift within that denomination. But to Fundamentalists, more in the tradition of Independent Baptists, there must be ongoing efforts to “police” one another’s doctrinal viewpoints. Is that what we really want?

With this revision to our longstanding confession of faith, Southern Baptists appear to have flunked the “4-Way Test.” At worst, a document has been produced which injures the very biblical witness we claim to uphold.

June 2002