by johnfariss » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:25 pm
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