The BF&M and Communion

[Matt Richard]

According to this, over 52% of Southern Baptist Churches practice the Lord's Supper in a way that requires less of participants than what the Baptist Faith and Message sets forth.

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=53

Why is this not an issue?

[Haruo]

Oh, how awful.

I can't quite imagine how the messengers let that slip through.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

I guess it does make a difference since the BFM2K expressed itself as a creed. It just doesn't say how the requirements are to be enforced.

[Neil Heath]

I suspect the BF&M is totally irrelevant to most churches unless they need to use it as a club on someone. They do what they want to do and never consider whether it "fits" into someone else's idea of what a Baptist church is or does.

I also suspect many church members don't know of its existence, much less what it says--unless again, their pastor has used it to make an issue of something.

[Haruo]

[Tom Parker]

The 2000 BF&M CREED is only used for hurtful things in SBC life.
Don't sign it and lose your Home or International Missions job.
Don't sign it and you can not teach at one of the 6 seminaries.

There are plenty of folks willing to make you pay (help you lose your job) if you do not follow the parts they feel strongly about.

And wink wink some would say it is not a creed.

Go and figure.

It is all about CONTROL!!

[Haruo]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

There is a continuing misconception, and perhaps a bit of deliberate misrepresentation, of the role of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, or any prior Baptist Faith and Message for that matter. The document has been adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention as a statement of faith which applies to the institutions and agencies it operates. So Tom is correct in that those who want to work for those agencies and institutions, primarily the six seminaries and two mission boards, must be in agreement with it. That's nothing new, though. There are state conventions and associations that have also adopted the BFM2000 as their statement of faith, and institutions and agencies that have done so as well. There are some churches which have adopted it. But there's no denominational enforcement of it in the churches, because the churches are independent and autonomous, and adopting it as a statement of faith is not prerequisite to cooperation with the SBC.

In any of the SBC churches to which I've belonged over the years, prior to serving communion, the pastor has explained the symbolic meaning of participation, and what the church believes about participating in it, and asks those present to search their own hearts and make their own choice. I think the BFM statement reflects common belief among Southern Baptists, which is essentially the purpose of it. Specific practice from church to church is not the point.

[Tim Bonney]

So Sandy, it really doesn't matter if the official statement of the SBC on Communion differs widely from the practices of most of the local churches?? If Baptists believe in bottom up doctrine then shouldn't the national statement reflect what the churches do?

This is why I think the Convention/Messenger system is out of wack. It seems to come up with positions and decisions that don't actually reflect the practice or beliefs of the churches it serves.

[Tom Parker]

What I believe some folks in the SBC want is for someone to be in total agreement with the 2000 BF&M or you are absolutely not wanted and you must go even if it requires firing you.

Sarcasm alert--Someone or someone(s) in the SBC must root out all of these folks, churches, etc who are not died in the wool believers in the 2000 BF&M CREED.

Sadly there are folks in SBC life who are always on the lookout for anyone who they "feel" is out of step with the 2000 BF&M and then if possible all heck will break loose.

What has happened to the SBC that I used to love so dearly?

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

You said:" Contrary to what Tom, and a lot of others believe, there is wide latitute in interpretation."

Sandy, I know it will surprise you but I think you are wrong. Just the other day I was blogging someone in the SBC world and he said he was in favor of firing anyone who works in SBC life who does not conform to the 2000 BF&M and think there are plenty more folks in SB life just like him.

The 2000 BF&M has been, is being, and will continue to be used to exclude people.

[Haruo]

[Tom Parker]

Haruo:

I keep wondering when the SBC is going to find a way to stamp someone who has conformed to 100% ofthe 2000 BF&M so anyone else can tell if someone has been stamped or not and make it easier to exclude "him."

[Tim Bonney]

Well over the years the whole thing seemed more bizzare to me all the time. Why have faith statements that are binding on denominational staff which don't reflect what the churches actually do/believe? I can see value in expecting denominational employees to conform to what their churches believe. I can see no value to a faith statement that noone has to believe but the denomination employees and that such a statement is different from the actual practices of most of the churches.

[johnfariss]

Tim,

You wrote, "Why have faith statements that are binding on denominational staff which don't reflect what the churches actually do/believe? I can see value in expecting denominational employees to conform to what their churches believe. I can see no value to a faith statement that noone has to believe but the denomination employees and that such a statement is different from the actual practices of most of the churches." If I had to take a guess on why such statements are often ignored by local churches, I would say there are several reasons for it. One, already mentioned, is that relatively few laypeople are aware of it, and not all pastors are concerned with it. The second is that it is a historical development. Local church autonomy is given lip service in the 2000 version while calling itself an "instrument of doctrinal accountability," which I agree with Tom (and others) that it makes the 2KBF&M into a creed, although without obvious or automatic enforcement proceedures. But even while that is "fact," most SBC churches are still grounded in the earlier understanding of various BF&M statements in which church autonomy is a reality. Furthermore, our "historical DNA" tends to emphasize a grassroots approach rather than an institutional or organizational one, in which contradictions are simply ignored rather than conformed to or changed. This is why there has been no action to your question, "If Baptists believe in bottom up doctrine then shouldn't the national statement reflect what the churches do? "

All this adds up, as Tom & Neil suggest, to its use as a club, but only when it is a significant isssue by someone in or wanting more control.

BTW, the church I serve is in the majority, for once. We observe Communion monthy, any with a saving relationship with Jesus are invited to participate, and I pointed say we have no communion police who will check up on you.

John

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

I see nothing in Baptist life used to exclude people like the 2000 BF&M has been. It was the finishing masterpiece of the CR folks!!

But they still have people they want to exclude.

When all is said and done will there even be three SB that can agree not to exclude each other?

[David Flick]

[Tom Parker]

David Flick:

I have often wondered how many volumes it would take to detail the many folks like yourself who lost their ministerial jobs due to the CR.

The CR folks always try and say there was only a few people.

It has always been a part of their marketing the CR.

I've said it before and will say it again the effect of the CR are being felt even as I type these words.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

My heart breaks for every man, woman, missionary that was hurt by and continues to be hurt by the Takeover. I do not know how the folks who harmed these people can even look in the mirror.

[Tim Bonney]