C. Lacy Thompson
LBM Associate Editor
A trio of efforts to make wording changes in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
were defeated easily by Southern Baptist Convention messengers last week.
A trio of efforts to make wording changes in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
were defeated easily by Southern Baptist Convention messengers last week.
The efforts were among 26 motions presented by messengers during
last weeks annual meeting – and the only three proposals to be considered
on the floor of the convention. The other 23 motions were referred to convention
agencies or ruled out of order by officials. (The Baptist Message will review
some of those proposals next week)
All three motions related to the Baptist Faith and Message
sparked debate – but the outcome was not close, with each one falling well
short on show-of-ballots votes.
In each instance, messengers were opposed from the convention
platform by members of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message committee.
In the first instance, Fred Malone sought to amend the Baptist
Faith and Message article on the Lords Day. Malone is pastor at First
Baptist Church of Clinton.
The final passage of the article reads, “Activities on
the Lords Day should be commensurate with the Christians conscience
under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.”
Malone sought to amend the sentence to read, “Activities
on the Lords Day should be commensurate with the Christians conscience,
informed by Holy Scripture, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.”
While affirming the overall work of the 2000 Baptist Faith
and Message committee, Malone suggested it weakened the article on the Lords
Day.
He said the exisiting article places greater emphasis on individual
conscience than Scripture. “When we do not test our conscience by Holy
Scripture, we create problems. Im afraid were losing the sanctity
of the Lords Day in the church as a day that belongs to the Lord and not
to us. …
“We need to make sure that the Christians conscience
is informed by Scripture, not worldly attitudes and subjective consciences under
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,” the Louisiana Baptist pastor emphasized.
The change was opposed by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
President Al Mohler, who warned against ongoing tinkering with the faith statement.
“We believe that every single article of the Baptist Faith
and Message is – and must be – informed by Holy Scripture,”
Mohler noted. “And after Article 1, we need not repeat that in every article.
…
“Your committee would plead with you not to be about the
business of continually revisiting the Baptist Faith and Message,” the
seminary leader continued.
“It is confessional reckless. It is irresponsible to continually
debate such an issue on the floor.”
Mohler noted that continual changes to the Baptist Faith and
Message would not be fair to other bodies that already have adopted the 2000
document.
“We took a stand last year, …” Mohler stressed.
“Article by article, that confession of faith seeks to be resoundingly
and solidly biblical. …
“Your committee would ask you that … in terms of all
and any motions to amend … the Baptist Faith and Message, that we make very
clear that on these truths we take our stand and from this stand, we will not
give an inch.”
Bill Ascol then spoke in favor of Malones motion. Ascol
is pastor at Heritage Baptist Church in Shreveport.
“It seems to me for us to move away from the Scripture
on the Lords Day article is inconsistent with the article on the Scriptures,
…” Ascol said.
“(And) To say that this (Baptist Faith and Message) document
is in its final form, never to be revisited is a contradiction to Article 1,
which says that the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and
religious opinion should be tried is the Scripture, not the newly-revised 2000
Baptist Faith and Message.
“Theres nothing wrong with inserting three, or four
words that take a strong inerrantist position on the Lords Day,”
Ascol explained.
Adrian Rogers of Memphis opposed the motion, noting the Bible
itself does not offer guidelines on the Lords Day but on the Jewish sabbath,
which is on Saturdays.
Rogers noted that the Bible is not a book of minute rules but
great principles. When it comes to the Lords Day, all one can do is “look
to Holy Scripture, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that is what the
Baptist Faith and Message statement has said over and over again. … We cannot
make rules that Gods Word does not make but simply submit the day to Jesus
Christ.”
The motion failed easily.
The next two motions focused on Article 1 of the Baptist Faith
and Message, which addresses Scripture. Debate on them came after a messenger
had asked if all persons speaking on the motions could do so from floor mikes.
During the debate on the Malone motion, messengers supporting
the action spoke from floor mikes, while Mohler and Rogers spoke from the main
podium.
Allowing persons to speak from platform gives the appearance
that the convention chair is endorsing their position, the messenger said.
However, SBC President James Merritt disagreed, noting that
Mohler and others were on the platform because they had been members of the
committee that drafted the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. He said the chair
did not mean to construe support of the positions they express.
Debate on the next two motions followed the same pattern then,
messengers supporting the action from the floor and committee members opposing
it from the main convention podium.
In the second motion, Tony Woodell of Arkansas sought to add
the phrase, “the criterion by which Scripture is to be interpreted is Jesus
Christ” to Article 1.
“The rock of our salvation is Jesus Christ, …”
Woodell said in speaking for his motion. “If we do not recognize that Jesus
Christ is Lord over Scripture, then we fail to recognize that Jesus Christ is
Lord over all. …
“The Lordship of Jesus Christ allows us to go to the Scripture.
The Holy Spirit allows us to interpret the Scripture. So, Jesus Christ must
be the criterion by which we interpret the Scripture.”
SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission President Richard
Land opposed Woodells motion, noting that the proposed phrase is virtually
the same as the one resoundingly defeated last year.
He claimed such phrases have been used by some to create a
“false dichotomy between Jesus and Holy Scripture” that allows them
to dismiss biblical statements.
Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Director Charles
Wade disagreed. “This idea that there is a false dichotomy proposed between
Jesus and Scripture is a false statement,” he said.
“Those of us who believe the sentence … should have
been left in the 2000 statement want to be on the record that we do believe
in the full authority of Scripture. We do believe that the Bible stands above
conscience. …
“We also believe … that the New Testament interprets
the Old Testament, and Jesus Christ interprets all the Scripture.
“It is not an appeal that we are free to do whatever we
think we ought to do, independent of Scripture, …” Wade continued. “We
have been falsely accused of that. What we are appealing to is the conviction
that Jesus … is the one who helps us know more than any other interpreter
how to understand the Bible. … We are asking for fidelity to Scripture and
loyalty to Jesus Christ.”
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary President Chuck Kelley
countered Wades argument, suggesting the existing article affirms both
the supremacy of Christ and maintains a strong biblical stance.
Once again, the motion failed easily.
In the final instance, Steve Barrett of Minn., called for removing
the word “religious” from the Article 1 sentence that reads, “The
supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should
be tried.”
Barrett argued: “The Bible is applicable to our lives
24 hours a day, seven days a week. … We are diluting the Bible when we limit
it to only religious opinions. … If we continue to limit the application of
Gods Word to religious opinion instead of all opinions, we (limit it).”
Mohler responded, saying he agreed that Gods Word is
not limited to religious opinions but disagreed that the existing article sets
such a limit.
“By no means does the word religious seek
to limit,” Mohler emphasized. “The word only does not
appear. The word merely does not appear. …
“Your committee feels the historic language used ever
since 1925 … should be maintained,” Mohler continued. “(But) We
also want to state our emphatic agreement that Scripture is not only totally
true and trustworthy in religious opinions but in all opinions and all matters.”
Following Mohler, Wiley Drake of California also spoke against
the proposed motion.
“My mother said, Dont try to pick the black
specks out of the black pepper. … Lets dont argue until
Jesus comes. Lets get on with preaching the gospel. … Lets go,
and quit arguing and picking the black specks out of the pepper.”
The motion failed easily.