The Southern Baptist Faith and Message Statement

Great Debates
1

I thought a general thread on the 2000 Faith and Message Statement, recently passed by the Southern Baptist Convention, might be a good idea. While certain items in the Statement have grabbed the headlines, especially their stance against ordaining women (already being discussed in a thread started by NTG, so let’s leave that out of this thread), many other parts of the Statement have interesting things to say, both good and bad, IMO. Some of these are in text carried forward from the 1925 and 1963 Statements, and others reflect changes. But either way, we’ll all be a lot older before they do this again, so it’s worth commenting on new and old aspects of the Statement at this time.

One thing I’ll say in advance: when I’m debating the usual run of religious issues with my Southern Baptist brethren, I hope to have a copy of this Statement in my back pocket, because it’s got some useful things to say.

2

To lead off, the Statement discusses Scripture. It of course affirms the Southern Baptist belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but it gets a little more interesting. The 1963 Statement concluded its section on Scripture with the following: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” This was removed from the 2000 Statement because it had been “subject to misunderstanding.” I’ll bet it was; it indicated that Christ had a standing higher than that of Scripture. That has been rectified: the Statement’s transmittal letter states:

In short, the Southern Baptists have formally raised the Scriptures to a status co-equal to, and indivisible from, Christ.

I expect that most Christians, to the extent that we think of such things, have a more commonsense view of the matter: God is God; Scripture is a means by which God communicates with us. God exists, whether or not there are Scriptures; the Scriptures are subordinate to God.

As a born-again Christian, I find particularly off-putting the passage that says, “We must not claim a knowledge of Christ that is independent of Scripture.” Well, excuse me, but born-again Christians - and this used to include Southern Baptists - believe that we have a personal relationship with Christ; if Scripture should suddenly cease, and every copy disappear, would that relationship collapse as a consequence? Somehow I doubt it. And it’s quite possible, as we see it, that Christ could instruct us in matters not dealt with in Scripture: for instance, I returned to grad school for my doctorate because I felt that Christ was calling me to do so. While that’s not inconsistent with Scripture, it’s certainly independent of it, in the fundamental sense that no word on the subject is found in Scripture.

3

You have a link to the BFM… I didn’t find that. :slight_smile:

Give me a bit to read it then I’ll jump in.

4

Cool, I was at Microsoft TechEd the week before that convention and was wondering what all those welcome Southern Baptists signs were about. Thanks for enlightening me.

PeeQueue

5

I have not read the Faith and Message statement (either old or new). But I can tell you that I do not agree with the statement that you posted above. I know that there are a couple of other statements that I do not agree with either (my pastor mentioned a few that he was concerned about which I happen to agree with).

While a Faith and Message statement may be a good thing to let people know what you believe, the Southern Baptist are an association not a heirarchy, so we do tend to have some variations on our beliefs. I believe the bible but Christ is the ultimate source of my belief.

Jeffery

6

Well, there is another issue for the born-again.

Is it possible to have a personal relationship with Christ without the Bible? If one never knows of Christ’s works, there’s not much basis for even seeking a relationship.

I think the 1963 statement on Scripture was just fin the way it was. I confess to being a bit concerned at what appears to be a dogmatic movement in what has traditionally been a Christ-based sect.

7

Jeffery - missed you, guy; good to see you around.

I hope my post didn’t come across as an attack on Southern Baptists generally; given that I’m married to one, suffice it to say that that would not be my intent.

Like andros, I’ve been worried for awhile about the direction the denomination seems to be taking; even though I’m not a Southern Baptist, it’s still all one Church, not in earthly organization, but somewhere deeper. I can’t say that what my brothers and sisters in Christ are doing has nothing to do with me.

Despite the fact that there’s nothing hierarchical about the SBC, what the Convention says still carries a fair amount of weight and (in many circles) authority. And a revision of the Faith and Message Statement is a major doctrinal statement on their part, seeing as how it’s only the second time they’ve done that in 75 years. So I think it’s worth a serious look-see to see what it says, and what the implications are.

Do you know how the committee that revised the Faith and Message Statement was chosen? While the info provided on the committee members was pretty slender, it still seemed, at first glance, that even by the standards of a denomination that isn’t known for reflectiveness, the committee seemed to be tilted strongly toward preachers, doers, and organizers, and away from theologians. (I know there were a couple of seminary presidents there, but knowing how different an animal a college president is from a college professor, I’ve got to assume that a similar phenomenon happens at seminaries.) I just wonder if these were really people who knew how to think through the implications of their words to the necessary depth.

andros - one way of looking at it: in the next life, we’ll have a personal relationship with Christ, but Scripture will presumably be a memory, an artifact.

And, of course, at some point in the Old Testament, Scriptures didn’t yet exist, but there were tribesmen in Canaan who believed in the same God that Jews and Christians believe in now. The OT, when it was written, recorded that some of these people had a personal relationship with that God. So it might be reckoned the other way around: Scripture is dependent on the relationship.

8

This doesn’t say much for the concept of spirituality does it? I don’t know what spirits are but they sure aren’t words printed on page. Surely it’s possible to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ after listening to and believing someone else who’s having one.

If someone says to you, “Look, I think this Jesus Christ thing isn’t real, you’re just pretending”, you can’t just point to the Bible as proof any more than you can point to a copy of Lord of the Rings and claim you’re having a relationship with Frodo (or rather, point to a biography of Joan of Arc and claim you’re having a relationship with her).

If there’s any chance that these relationships we’re having with Christ are real, it can only be because something is happening inside ourselves, and that transcends any book.

9

My understanding about this statement is that it is saying you can’t say “Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) told me it was OK for me to worship Baal” —or commit some other sin that is expressly forbidden in scripture, we all know what some of the more currently in-vogue ones include. The point is, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God will never contradict His written Word. The example of someone going to grad school is a great one, God calls us to do all kinds of things that we may not see clear direction “THOU SHALT”-so to speak, in the Bible. But where God’s will is expressed in His Word, we must never allow our personal “experience” to contradict it. That’s what Eve did. God said, “don’t eat of the tree”, Satan (using an oldie but a goodie that he still employs) said, “Did God REALLY say…” Once we question God’s Word, or set up ourselves as having a revelation equal to God’s Word yet contradictory to it, we’re in trouble.

For me, an experience our Pastor shared (who was THERE) says it all. They had been having discussion on the passage changing the statement that the Bible is “Man’s record of God’s revelation” to “God’s revelation to man”. The discussion had gone on for the allotted 30 minutes, then had been given an additional 10 minutes, then extended again 5 minutes to allow for as many as possible to share their concerns. Finally someone opposed to the change shouted, “It’s just a book!” Silence. That’s the dividing line. If you believe the Bible is just a book, then how is it any more valid than the Qu’ran, The Book of Mormon, or the Official Teachings of David Koresh (I made that one up, don’t think he had a chance to write a book.) Point is, if it’s just a book, why bother? It’s just one opinion (OK, a compilation of 66 opinions) Why would I devote my life and trust my eternity to that?

When the vote passed overwhelmingly (changing the statement to reflect the fact that we believe the Bible is GOD’s WORD, not man’s word about God) about 300-500 people stood and walked out. The speaker was thanking those who had sacrificed their time to work on the revised statement, and one man was heard to say as he left, “You’ve had your time, now sit down and shut up.”

Personally, I wouldn’t bother standing up for something I thought was “just a book.” And I certainly wouldn’t encourage others to base their life on it.

10

It seems to me that in the early church, ALL Christians were having relationships with Christ without the benefit of a New Testament record of Christ’s message and deeds. It was not until 170 AD that the Muratorian Canon was adopted that essentially laid out what we know as the New Testament. Until that time Christians shared experiences and messages to spread the Good News.

If anyone is going to claim that a relationship with Christ without having a copy of scripture is impossible, is going to have a hard time explaining how the early church was able to do so much for God’s glory. I personally am not going to walk up to Paul when I get there and say “Hey, don’t you wish you had a copy of the KJV so that you too could have had a relationship with Jesus?” I would trade all my Bilbles to have half of Paul’s faith and relationship with the Lord.

Having said that, it is important to measure all claims of divine revelation against scripture. Christ will NEVER contradict himself.

11

I suppose one could interpret the statement as merely saying that “we, as a body, must not claim to have knowledge beyond Scripture”, and not saying anything about indicidual claims. I don’t know enough about SBC to know if this is a reasonable interpretation.

12

I put the question to a man I respect very much. He coaches the Jesus Chapel baseball team and has been a Baptist all his life. He is uncomfortable with the wording because he believes Jesus should be a personal experience.
He felt that the change in wording of the Faith and Message statement was a step toward “legalism.” And he made a statement that a legalism approach was more in line with the Church of Christ than it was Baptist.
With that I will join Ryan as an interested observer.
Thank you.