Parks: Creedal use of 2000 BF&M ‘differs radically’ from historic Baptist practices
By Keith Parks

Jerry Rankin and I have a lot in common. We were both missionaries to Indonesia. We have both served as area director for Southeast Asia and as president of the International (Foreign) Mission Board.

We agree on several basic beliefs. We agree the Lordship of Christ and the authority of God’s Word are foundational to the kind of Baptists we have been historically. We agree churches should expect missionaries they support to have sound doctrine. We agree those who reject absolute truth and embrace theological relativism deny our heritage, dilute our witness and erode the potential of fulfilling the Great Commission task. We both have given our lives in the cause of reaching all people with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

When asked to write a response to Rankin’s editorial, I was reluctant to do so. I did not want to re-engage in the distasteful controversy that has so damaged our witness and our denomination. But in reading what he wrote, it was clear what he and I believe has happened and why are very different. So I feel obligated as a Baptist concerned about missions and missionaries to state a different view. I believe strongly in the old Baptist saying that we must “Trust the Lord and tell the people.”

In recent years, the “official Southern Baptist Convention position” is that Baptists can no longer be trusted to make up their own minds on issues. Editors have been fired and some state papers print only what is acceptable to the SBC’s elected officials. But it is important to challenge some of Rankin’s presumptions. Most of his views mirror those of other leaders who now control the SBC. They differ radically from our traditional Baptist heritage.

Baptists reject hierarchical structure

Rankin presumes that elected leaders, both of the SBC and IMB, have priestly authority over Southern Baptists. He believes that because committee members who revised the Baptist Faith and Message prayed and brought recommendations that were affirmed by a few thousand Southern Baptists voting at the SBC annual meeting, everyone should accept them as being from God. Then he makes the astounding claim that those who do not accept this and still believe in the priesthood of every believer are denying the very basis on which we practice church and denominational polity! He believes in the doctrine of “priesthood of the believer” for committee members, but denies it to rank-and-file members. Baptists have never believed in a hierarchical church—with authority from the top down.

His editorial ignores the most glaring fundamental change in the 2000 BF&M. The Lordship of Jesus (the Living Word) is supplanted by making Him secondary to the Bible (the written Word). The statement, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” in the 1963 BF&M is removed from the 2000 BF&M. One committee member defended this, declaring this phrase was being used to justify too many heretical views. Does this mean that, rather than Jesus, SBC leaders who define orthodoxy have become the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted?

The official SBC view of polity reflects drastic changes made in the SBC. Prior to the mid-’80s participation in the convention was based on financial support of missions and other agreed-upon causes. The originating documents state the convention’s purpose was to “elicit, combine and direct the energies of Southern Baptists for the propagation of the gospel at home and abroad.” Churches that contributed to these causes qualified for messengers. The shift from being the kind of Baptists who cooperated around missions to the kind of Baptists who control with doctrine culminated in the 2000 BF&M.

After asserting that “the 2000 BF&M has not changed any beliefs at all,” Rankin then defines the importance of the changes. He declares it affirms “what Southern Baptists have always believed and practiced” about pastoral leadership and the spiritual order of the home. Actually Southern Baptists have never agreed on the authoritarian role of the pastor. Nor have they previously accepted control of one Baptist body (the convention) dictating requirements for leadership (pastor) of another Baptist body (the local church).

Nor is it appropriate Baptist practice to deliberately exclude part of scriptural teaching because it fails to buttress one’s viewpoint. The committee adamantly refused calls to include Ephesians 5:21 stating husbands and wives should submit to one another when quoting Ephesians 5:22-25 to emphasize “a wife’s gracious submission to her husband’s servant leadership.”

Rankin is correct when he declares Baptists believe in the Word of God. It is our interpretation that differs.

Another significant reshaping of our Baptist heritage is the way the 2000 BF&M is used. It is the very first Southern Baptist confession to claim its purpose as “doctrinal accountability.” In describing confessions of faith, the 1963 BF&M states, “Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority.”

As used in religious terms, a creed is defined and enforced by religious authority. A confession is defined and expressed by individuals. A confessional group says, “This is basically what we believe. If you agree and want to, let’s walk together.” A creedal group says, “We have determined what you must believe to be acceptable. Otherwise, you cannot join with us.”

The confessional approach affirms individual Christians are to be trusted when they declare their study of Scripture leads them to be Baptist. The creedal approach insists that some denominational authority will determine who really is Baptist.

If BF&M is unchanged, why sign?

If the 2000 BF&M changes nothing in belief or practices of the past, why was it mandatory for missionaries to sign? When have veteran missionaries ever been required to sign such a document? If it is no different, why is it the only decision that has resulted in so many missionary resignations and early retirements? (The numbers reported by the IMB do not cover the numbers who resigned quietly because they were afraid of losing retirement and insurance benefits if they protested openly.)

Rankin seems to imply that, prior to the recent compulsory signing, no attention had been given to missionaries’ doctrinal views since 1881. The truth is that biblically-based doctrine as understood in our Baptist heritage has always been of serious importance. But, in fact there has not been a problem with the basic Baptist beliefs of FMB staff or missionaries for at least the past 50 years.

He accuses those who reject the 2000 BF&M of postmodern theology, which he seems to define as a rejection of absolute truth as revealed in Jesus Christ and recorded in Scripture. Let it be understood that liberal, postmodern theology was never accepted among staff or missionaries of the Foreign Mission Board! Never once was I accused during my 38 years with the FMB of unsound doctrine. My offense was that I would not support the divisive politically motivated ultra-conservative resurgence.

During my tenure as FMB president, out of nearly 4,000 missionaries, 10 were accused of unacceptable doctrine. I personally reviewed every case in consultation with missionaries, staff, board members and other Baptists. Only two were dismissed because their doctrine had become unacceptable after their appointment.

Historically, most Southern Baptists have rejected a Baptist creed, believing a confession of faith was adequate.

The 1963 BF&M declares, “The sole authority of 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.”

By contradicting this, Rankin has joined other current leadership in seeking not only to rewrite history but in accusing anyone who rejects a creed of not believing in absolute truth.

Countless missionaries and other Southern Baptists who have a high view of Christ, the Bible and the work of the Holy Spirit have contradicted this false presumption. They have demonstrated their steadfast belief in absolute truth to such an extent that they refused to compromise their integrity even at the cost of their calling and livelihood.

It is unfortunate that all Southern Baptists cannot hear the testimonies and read the writings of all the godly, veteran missionaries forced to resign their posts, give up their calling and forsake their people because their consciences would not allow them to subjugate their God-given convictions to the dictates of human religious authorities.

I am aware many committed missionaries continue to serve faithfully. I know the gospel continues to be preached, churches are being started and God continues to bless those who serve. The same is true of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and many other mission efforts. Unfortunately, trying to impose control over all Baptists has hampered cooperative mission efforts that had worked so well for more than 150 years.

‘Regrettable changes’ alter mission effort

Rankin’s editorial reveals some of the regrettable changes that have created a different kind of Baptist mission effort, such as:

• The presumption that a select few have exclusive access to biblical truth.

• The rejection of Christ’s promise that His Holy Spirit will enable every “believer priest” to interpret His teaching.

• The loss of trust in the integrity of denominational agencies, missionaries, individual Baptists and local churches.

• The assumption that messengers at the SBC annual meeting have the prerogative to dictate doctrine to Baptist churches and individuals.

• The implication that there is only one,very narrowly defined, acceptable expression of Baptist doctrine.

• The accusation that anyone who rejects the 2000 BF&M creedal statement does not believe the Bible.

• Requiring a mass creed-signing to assure Southern Baptists of missionaries’ doctrinal integrity, rather than trusting in their personal confession of belief and calling.

Southern Baptists are a drastically different denomination with a radically altered mission program. Baptists who are committed to biblical truth and missions will examine these changes and decide if they are consistent with their own interpretation of God’s Word.

If they cannot agree, they must find ways to obey Christ’s command to take the gospel to the whole world. They cannot allow disillusionment to cause them to turn inward and disobey the God of missions. We must be missionary because God is missionary. And there will be new, exciting ways to join Him in this task.

October 2003