The EC Statement on the BF&M: A View from a Distance

       Two important votes were made at this year's SBC in San Antonio:  The decisive election of Jim Richards as First Vice-President of the SBC and the adoption of the Executive Committee Statement on the use of the Baptist Faith and Message. 

The former flexed the hefty muscles that, regardless of the neo-moderates' tireless efforts to tarbaby the entire Conservative Resurgence as now misguided, Southern Baptists definitively said "NO" to their revisioneering of the SBC.

The latter, while personally offering me no real satisfaction since I possess an undeniable spiritual gene in my DNA, thanks to my Separate Baptist forefathers' inherent aversion to confessions--that is, the less we must appeal to them, the better--also reinvigorated our Trustee System to employ the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a "sufficient" guide in matters of carrying out their responsibilities for Kingdom enterprises.

The statement in its entirety 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 statement, as it stands, seems fairly clear.  Already, however, attempts are being made to offer "the real story behind the statement" similarly to the many books on the shelves of book stores suggesting "What Jesus *Really* Said" or "What The Bible *Really* Says About Sin," etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Others, like Bart Barber, offer a simple, salient, "face value" approach to the statement. 

And, for what it's worth, approaches like Barber's, contra Burleson's, not only jives with the perception most will probably take, having not personally attended, like myself, the debate sessions--need I say, most SBs did not attend the sessions?--but it also corresponds with what Trustees themselves will probably think as they meet in session. 

Simply put, the EC statement only reaffirms what Trustees have been doing along, despite some who insist they were being spanked.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[SWBTS Student]

"... the neo-moderates' tireless efforts to tarbaby the entire Conservative Resurgence as now misguided..."

This is simply inaccurate. I assume that the people that you would term neo-moderates are those aligned with Wade Burelson. This group is not decrying the ENTIRE CR. They are simply decrying certain things about the CR especially the way in which they are trying to squeeze people out of the SBC to maintain a firm hold on their leadership positions. They also affirm and even were participants in CR. I know that you are using some words for effect but I beg you to be more accurate in your statements.

A Simple Student @ SWBTS

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Simple Student,

Glad you stopped by and thanks for the fingerprint. Perhaps you view it as inaccurate, simple student. Granted. You possess my deepest respect for your view.

However, some of us who have experienced numerous exchanges with the dissenters in question do not think it inaccurate to suggest, as I have here, that they view the CR as presently misguided.

Grace, simple student. With that, I am...

Peter

[Geoff Baggett]

Peter,

I concur with your analysis. Last night's motion seemed a bit redundant to me. Indeed, I thought that the SBC had already affirmed the BF&M 2000 as "sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention" when it adopted the statement as the SBC's confession of faith.

As far as the polity involved in the SBC and the trustee structure, this changes nothing. As I understand SBC polity, the only recourse that the gathered convention has with a board of trustees that is feels is "out of line" is to remove those trustees and replace them. Is that not correct?

From a practical, day-to-day operation of the SBC agencies and seminaries, I don't see that this changes a thing.

[peter]

Geoff,

From my view, you are precisely correct. In essence the statement *was* voted on when we adopted the 2000 confession.

Thus, the SBC vote similarly was like a church *voting* for $2,000 to be spent on Evangelism this year but the Pastor having to bring every item to be spent before the church floor and them *voting* again to spend it every church business. Most of us have been there. We Baptists do strange things sometimes :^).

As far as replacement of Trustees go, the SBC could unilaterially replace them if it wishes. It is virtually unheard of, I think, in our history--surely, at least very rare.

Trustees deemed "out-of-line" may be partially censored by Trustees themselves (like Wade Burleson was) or refused to allow to be appointed on sub-committees to serve Southern Baptists (unfortunately, like Wade Burleson again :^(.

Though taking the most time, the Trustee system usually is self-cleansing, similar to a "self-cleasing oven." Trustees not sympathetic to the overwhelming majority of SBs' thinking about any/all matters, find themselves eventually "ousted." That is the ideal, at least from ym view and one I would desire to maintain.

Grace, Geoff. With that, I am...

Peter

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Peter, how can you utterly fail to see that your Separate Baptist/Sandy Creek opposition to confessions of faith stands at complete odds with the authoritarianism of the so-called "Conservative Resurgence," which is not conservative, but is thoroughly creedalist? The incompatibility of these two views seems obvious to everyone but you, my friend.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Michael,

There is some degree of truth in what you say. Conservatives sometime tend to tease out too "authoratarianly", I grant. I do not grant, however, that conservativism is inherently so.

You are wrong about one thing: the tension which exists between my Separate's blood aversion to confessions and our current obsession with the BF&M2K, not only is not hidden from me, but I feel its blade ever slicing my flesh.

I do not like tinkering with the BFM. I do not want to tinker with the BFM. I think it is a mistake tinkering so much with it and when possible, I say so. So far, my aversion falls on deaf ears.

In the end, I am a Southern Baptist because I choose to pitch my tent here. For all the dispicable warts we possess, I must, ultimately, confess that some of those warts are mine. Not all, but some. I is what I is.

My hope for Southern Baptists is not a political makeover--a "Them-out-Us-in takeover"--for which my brothers and sisters in Wade Burleson's entourage seem to lobby. Rather, it is an inside-out transformation brought about by authentic, Spirit-driven processes whose sense can only be explainable by people who Believe.

Thanks for stopping by, my Brother Michael.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Peter, as my frustration-driven, less-than-kind comments on Bruce Prescott's blog indicate (comments for which you rebuked me), I have given up much hope for the SBC either way. A cure would take a miracle. I am open to miracles (not a cessationist), but I do not know if God has not pronounced "ichabod" on the SBC.

BTW, there are many non-cultic, non-fascist Southern Baptists--maybe the majority. My unkind remarks were made only about the denominational structures as a whole. I see it in the militaristic Bibles put out by Lifeway (about which I've blogged--and which are in direct contradiction to the BF& M's article on war and peace--to say nothing of contradicting Jesus!), in the obsession with non-issues while the world goes to hell, in the slavish political partisanship, etc.
So, while I can repent of the tone of my words on Bruce's blog, I fear that the reality they describe is quite accurate. I have just seen too many lives ruined by the SBC--including by people you profess to admire, but which do not appear to possess your spirit.

[Bart Barber]

Peter,

I agree with your agreeing with me. :-)

No...seriously...I appreciated and enjoyed the post.