There is conflict within the Southern Baptist Convention. For many who are likely to read this, this is probably not new information. If that statement does come as a surprise to you, you may not be interested enough to read the rest of this.
There are undeniably (at least) two groups within the tent of the Southern Baptist Convention. Defining these groups, however, seems to be complicated. Some see it as conservatives versus those drifting toward liberalism. Others see it as conservatives versus fundamentalists, or at least those who are “more” conservative. Some say that conservative and liberal are too political to use as terms, while others say that politics is exactly what this is about.
Those who are in the category that some would label “liberal” deny that there is liberalism within the Southern Baptist Convention. Their contention is that the Baptist Faith and Message, the document that binds Southern Baptists together, does not allow for liberalism, that everyone who adheres to it as their statement of faith is necessarily conservative. Let me give reasons why I don’t believe that to be true.
The BF&M is not comprehensive in regard to all sins. In June of 2021, Ed Litton was elected president of the SBC. Shortly thereafter, it was noticed that many of his sermons were word-for-word copies of other preachers’ sermons. The discussion of this would occupy another post. But nothing was ever really done about this. And one of the reasons offered up as to why nothing was done was that he had not done anything that violated the BF&M. That seems to be true, but there are multiple things that are not listed within the BF&M. What if the SBC president were violent? Or a slanderer? What if he knew about an accusation of sexual impropriety by a staff member and did nothing about it? Would we really do nothing about any of these things that could be shown to violate Scripture, simply because they weren’t on a list in the BF&M?
The BF&M is not comprehensive in regard to the times. When the BF&M 1963 came out, the seismic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision permitting abortion was still ten years down the road. When the BF&M was updated in 2000, one of the changes made was the inclusion of defending the unborn. Any edition of the BF&M will be doing good to cover those issues that we have seen in the past or are dealing with in the present, but will generally not be able to keep up with the twists of the future. In 2000, it would not have been imaginable that same-sex marriage would be legal, but within 15 years it was. And now, just six or seven years after that, we are dealing with ethical issues we couldn’t have guessed then. If one believed that sexual identity and gender identity were two completely different things, and that a person could biologically be a male, but “really” be a woman, they could potentially still affirm the BF&M.
The Bible is easy to twist. One can sincerely affirm the BF&M, swearing a belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, but then point to a Scripture text and say, “That doesn’t mean what you think it means” or “That was for the cultural situation during which it was written, it doesn’t apply to us now.”
The BF&M is easy to twist. During the Conservative Resurgence, it became evident that the BF&M from 1963 needed to be revised. One of the main reasons for that was that the way it was worded allowed those who didn’t believe the Bible was the inerrant, infallible Word of God to understand the words of the statement in a way different than most Southern Baptists and affirm the BF&M without alarming their conscience. So the SBC sought to make it more clear. But just as Scripture itself can be warped to say what God would never convey, the BF&M is perhaps even more easily manipulated.
The BF&M is easy to ignore. As an example of this, the BF&M 2000 clearly states “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Yet we have churches in our convention where one or more women are listed with a title that includes the word “pastor.” Some try to twist the BF&M by saying that the statement comes from a time when having multiple pastors was more unusual, and that it is specifically referring to the head pastor/teacher of a church. The problem with that is that while one could make a good Biblical case for having multiple pastors for a single congregation, one couldn’t make a case that the requirements for some pastors were different than others. They are all pastors, so they all must conform to I Timothy 3. Meanwhile, nothing has been done about many of these churches with a female pastor on staff. The issue is just being ignored.
I think the Baptist Faith and Message is a good document, a well-crafted statement of faith. But it clearly cannot be the only keeper of the gate for who or what should be considered conservative, because it is simply too easy to maneuver around. An update is likely in order, but even that will not clip all the deviations from Scripture that people will find a way to grasp while still affirming the revision.
No comments:
Post a Comment