The BF&M and Communion

[Dave Roberts]

For William and Sandy: I sat at a strategy table at the St. Louis Convention in 1987 with a group of moderates. We discussed strategy for how to gain traction for the election. It was agreed that to win, we had to adopt the tactics of the Takeover Group. That meant (in the opinion of the group) that we would need to use what we knew about certain conservative leaders in a campaign of character assassination and half-truths like those being constantly hammered at moderates and moderate leaders. It was decided at that table that if we did that, we had lost anyway. The choice was to preserve our integrity rather than become like those who had done so, knowing that decision probably meant we would lose. I don't think I had ever placed that piece of history here on the board.

[Tim Bonney]

Thanks for to both David's for sharing corrective information to Sandy's spin. The fact that doctrinal standards for the denomination can be so easily changed is a problem. Doing something like that should require multiple votes over more than one year of meetings. The SBC structure just doesn't have fail safes that it ought to have to protect the integrity of its own doctrine and heritage.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

As to the binding nature of the BFM, I realize Ed that the BFM in its 1963 form at least was never intended to be binding on anyone. But I think this is where Baptists may have been a bit naive. What is the point of people rallying around a doctrinal statement if after you do all the work no one anywhere has to agree with it? I believe in my reading about even the 1963 statements some Southern Baptists were hoping that this would lead to more denominational doctrinal cohesion. No they didn't think it was "binding" but they at least hoped it would be descriptive of what the denomination held to be true.

I used to be as big a pusher of the idea of "Baptist Freedom" as anyone I know. Now I have come to believe that there has to be a core set of beliefs for any group to stay together and not continue to splinter and splinter. That is part of the reason I went with a connectional denomination which has core doctrinal beliefs which are expected to be held in common if you want to be a part of that Church. By having a core set of beliefs which do not change you know at least that you stand together on the basics.

For some reason the only time Baptists want to put together a core set of beliefs is when they want to use them as a club. United Methodists doctrines don't change and in fact cannot be changed by the General Conference alone. Changes to the faiths statements have very very high bar you have to get over to change them. It has never happened.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

You said:"If they'd have been more inclusive, patient, and less arrogant, it might have worked."

Are you kidding me? You are simply apologizing for the wicked actions of the folks involved in the TAKEOVER.

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

David Flick stated:"2) 2000 Revision of the Baptist Faith and Message: Like the addition of the addition Article XVIII to the 63BF&M, the BF&M2000 was created by a committee that was not elected by the SBC. In 1999, similar to what Tom Elliff did in 1997, Paige Patterson simply appointed the committee. The revision committee was comprised of a veritable who's who of radical SBC Fundamentalists. Here's the list. The revised BF&M2000 made profound changes in the official SBC interpretation of the Bible. The fallout of the changes caused the firing or dismissal of scores of missionaries and seminary professors. The bottom line is that in the short space of just three years (1997-2000), two very powerful Fundamentalist SBC presidents affected profound changes that ended the careers or excluded literally hundreds of good and faithful Southern Baptists. The pain and hurt experienced by these good and faithful Southern Baptists will never completely subside. Count me among the number of those who experienced this massive pain. You are very naive if you think SBC presidents are not powerful or that it takes many years to affect change in the SBC."

Do you deny these facts, Sandy?

Does it bother you at all that these folks in SBC life were hurt and excluded?

[William Thornton]

I suppose another CR/TO topic would be better than continuing this under this topic. One of you might start over if you have not had enough already.

[Stephen Fox]

I appreciate his witness in this conversation. I hope Dave Miller is reading for a little Truth Serum.

Lately I have been rereading Grady Cothen's book on the Takeover. I was honored he stopped by my house the year before it was published. We talked about two hours.

See my letter from Ellen Rosenberg in the Expository Writing thread at Baptist History site of this website.

[Tom Parker]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

SBCers and the BF&M (any year) are just like Fundamentalists and the Bible. Either document is used selectively based on their real source of authority which is local tradition (etched out in informal ways within some “circle” of influence). Go against that “circle” of influence at your own peril even if you have BF&M or Biblical support.

No one takes all of either written authority (BF&M or Bible) at face value. It is all filtered through that “circle” of thought sometimes aligned with the truth for good, sometimes not.

And when those circles of thought fail to overlap perfectly at edges that are deemed “critical”, new denominations or faith groups are formed amidst great clamor.

Would that the real source leading us into “all truth”, be the Holy Spirit which is not written on stone, parchment, papyrus, books or files (.doc,.ppt,.pdf,.html). And our interest be in our own life, not standing in judgment of others using the BF&M and/or Bible as a hammer or dividing rod. Jesus’s condemnation of Pharisees is stark and adamant.

As far as communion frequency goes, we can “do this in remembrance of Me” anytime we so choose privately or among friends (be they in our “circle” or not). It can be just as worshipful or guidance-seeking as any like-minded, church-hosted communion.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

You said:"As much as a agree with most of your views about Baptist life in the SBC the BF&M isn't a creed nor is it official church doctrine. "

I agree with you creed is the wrong word but whatever word matches being used to exclude people is the word that applies to the 2000 BF&M.

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

You said:"First of all, the changes weren't that "fluid." In some cases, they were interpretive clarifications of statements that had been vague and undefined to the point where fringe elements were able to cite them in support of practices that were well outside the expectations and beliefs of the vast majority of Southern Baptists."

I could give a lengthy reply but let me sum up what you said above in one word--BULL!!

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

I meant in the year 2000. What they may add next is anyone's guess since the document has been revised three time in the last century.

[Tom Parker]