When I was in seminary, a chapel speaker said that someone asked him one time, “If you were not a Southern Baptist, what would you be?” He said that his response was, “I would be ashamed.”
This is the context in which I was born and bred. In 1998, I made the leap to what I believed was a more progressive Baptist tribe. Between 2005 and 2008, I moved even further into positions where I could work with a more diverse family of believers. Those experiences have been rich and rewarding.
There are many reasons for my decision (one that I did not make lightly). One was the theological shift of the Southern Baptist Convention that sought to bring all of those in convention life—not only employees but churches—into lockstep.
Baptists have not traditionally been a creedal people, but groups of Baptists have historically adopted confessions of faith such as The Philadelphia Confession (1742) and The New Hampshire Confession (1833).
In 1925, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted The Baptist Faith and Message which was characterized as “an expression of faith generally held by Baptists.” This statement was prompted by the evolution controversy and was intended to provide guidance for Southern Baptist educational institutions.
The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963) grew out of controversy over the interpretation of Genesis and “drift toward liberalism.” Midwestern Seminary professor Ralph Elliott had published The Message of Genesis and contributed to the Genesis volume of the new Broadman Bible Commentary. Elliott took a symbolic rather than literal approach to Genesis by stressing its “theological and religious purpose.” The controversy prompted a committee headed by Oklahoma pastor Herschel Hobbs to produce the BFM 1963, but the committee emphasized it was for “information and guidelines not a creed.”
As the convention was transformed by the “conservative resurgence” (as its supporters termed it), leaders believed it was time for some changes and this resulted in The Baptist Faith and Message (2000).
Two items in this revision stand out for me. First, the new document removed the assertion that the person of Jesus Christ was to be the exegetical standard by which the Bible was to be interpreted. The BFM of 1963 stated, “The Criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” This was deleted from the new version of the BFM. Supporters of the change justified this by stating that the words of Jesus have no more authority than any other part of scripture. As a Christian, I believe this is an affront to the person and work of our Savior and rejection of a sound hermeneutical principle.
Second, for the first time in SBC history, provisions were added to define male-headship gender roles in both the ministry and in marriage. The BFM 2000 states, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Again, this is based on not only a shallow interpretation of scripture but an attempt to marginalize over fifty percent of Baptist church members. When every believer should be encouraged and empowered to serve our Lord, this limits the mission of the church—God’s mission.
The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 became a binding document for missionaries, convention employees, and institutions, but is now being used to determine which churches are in “friendly cooperation with the Convention.”
In an era when God continues to speak and the Spirit of God is moving, such restrictions on biblical interpretation, the priesthood of every believer, and the autonomy of the local church only serve to harm Kingdom work. I prefer to find out where God is at work and join God there. This is a freedom that the current Southern Baptist Convention cannot abide.
Comments