The debate over the Executive Committee statement regarding the Baptist Faith and Message is being hotly debated in the blogosphere since its adoption this past week. For some interesting reading regarding the ways this adopted statement is being viewed, the dialogue at Wade Bruleson’s blog and Hershael York’s blog will provide some helpful information.

Here’s the statement as it was adopted:

“The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.”

What I Think Is Good About This Statement

The statement reflects what Baptists do indeed believe about confessional statements: they are not creedal statements that bear authoritative weight over local churches and they do not address every possible element of what Baptists (or Christians) believe. The BF&M is not the final and only word on key doctrinal issues limiting debate or discussion, nor is it an infallible statement (such is reserved for Scripture).

Also, the BF&M is indeed “the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the SBC.” We have a statement of which local churches can affirm historic Christian doctrinal truths and particular issues that make us Baptisticly unique from other denominations and religious groups. In fact, in our church we have every potential member read this statement and in a pastoral interview, ask them if there is any area of disagreement or question. If there are, such disagreements will not necessarily keep them from membership, we simply note it in the interview. Some disagreements, however, may allow a person to be a member of the church but perhaps limit them in some future leadership positions, especially those involving teaching. The BF&M is a good, solid and helpful tool for describing the fundamental basis from which churches can agree to come together and support missions, relief, church planting and theological training.

Using this statement as such a foundational element for Convention trustees, employees and entity heads to use as a guide is a necessary requirement in my opinion. I have greater confidence in the direction such leaders will move the Convention and her entities if I know they are guided by our common confession of belief. In fact, as I understood it, this is indeed what these institutional leaders have all been doing since the conservative resurgence was completed in our Convention.

What I Think is Lacking About This Statement

In reality, little is lacking in the statement itself. What I have found lacking is the intended use of this statement by those who crafted it and introduced it to the floor of the convention. It appears to be the case that the authors of the motion do not believe that the Convention trustees or agency heads are ignoring the BF&M, they simply do not want them to use anything but the BF&M in their hiring practices. In short, those who put forth the statement to the Convention want to ensure that Convention trustees cannot limit a person from serving as a missionary or presumably a seminary professor by asking questions of such a candidate or requiring for their service a doctrinal issue that is not directly addressed in the BF&M. Those who put forth the statement believe that the BF&M is comprehensively sufficient for any and all areas of doctrinal agreement for anyone to serve in any capacity within the Convention, including professors, missionaries and Convention supported church planters.

Here is where I begin to part company from my good brethren. In my opinion, the BF&M is a sufficient guide for our trustees and agency heads in those areas it specifically addresses. It is not comprehensively sufficient, however, for any and all areas of doctrinal inquiry that should be made when hiring a seminary professor or putting a missionary on the field. In fact, the BF&M could bring up a host of doctrinal implications that should be addressed and evaluated of a potential employee of an agency.

The BF&M seems to recognize this very issue. In its statement about “The Scriptures,” the BF&M states that the Bible is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” In other words, there are issues apart from (or even within) our doctrinal statement by which conduct and belief are to be evaluated and the only sufficient source from which to make such an evaluation is the Bible iteself. Our own statement gives us the freedom to use the Bible in its totality in determining those who would serve in our Convention.

I cannot imagine limiting my discussions with a potential new pastor for our congregation to the statement of the BF&M. While I have no problem cooperating with churches who may disagree with our pastoral team’s position on eschatology, for example, we probably will not bring on to the primary leadership team someone who holds a vastly different position. So should our seminary boards and presidents take every pain to discover the belief systems and hermeneutical approaches taken by potential professors. Though the BF&M does not address issues regarding the Emerging Church movement, I would still expect the IMB trustees to ask questions to find out where a potential missionary stands on such doctrinal subjects.

Ways I Believe the Statement Is Being Misused

It is my observation that some in our convention seem to have a personal angst against a number of our convention and seminary leaders. It is this begrudging group that pushed forward this motion. I believe that this personal angst is the primary motive behind their support of the motion. Evidently they believe that men like Paige Patterson and Albert Mohler are attempting to push a personal theological agenda upon the institutions they lead against the will of the grass roots members of the convention and somehow in violation of or far beyond the theological bounds of the BF&M. I have yet to see any hard evidence of this claim.

For example, Wade Burleson, a pastor in Enid, Oklahoma, wants to ensure that no one can be kept from serving as a missionary because they believe in and perhaps even practice what he terms is a “private prayer language,” i.e., speaking in tongues. Since the BF&M does not directly address this issue, Pastor Burleson says, it should not be a means of disqualification. The IMB Trustees (of which Pastor Burleson is one), however, have taken a different position.

As I see it, the group that posited the BF&M motion this year wants to limit Convention heads to only using the BF&M as a comprehensively sufficient guide on all matters of doctrine and practice in determining who should teach or serve. I would have to say then, that the Bible cannot then be a “supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” when considering a seminary professor. The Bible itself cannot then be the basis by which a potential employee is questioned. The BF&M would then become a source whose sufficiency now trumps that of the sacred text. Needless to say, I’m not comfortable with that.

Perhaps Pastor Burleson and his supporters would respond that since the Convention has not spoken to other issues not covered in the BF&M, trustees and agency heads should not move beyond the BF&M. Convention heads and trustees, then, are limited only to those matters the Convention has spoken to through the BF&M. I can’t quite go this far either. Since the use of a private prayer language is one of the key issues in the current debate, I do wonder why Pastor Burleson did not instead bring a motion allowing the Convention to speak to the issue directly. In other words, why not bring a motion calling for our Convention agencies and trustees not to limit men and women who hold to and practice using a private prayer language from service? This would have been direct and specific and clear. It would have allowed the Convention to speak to an issue of doctrine not covered in the BF&M, but still important in selecting who can and cannot serve. Perhaps Pastor Burleson knows that such a direct motion would no doubt fail if brought to the Convention as a whole. Instead, he wants Convention heads to bring any issue not covered by the BF&M to the Convention for approval. This would be a logistical nightmare.

Furthermore, because the SBC agencies operate under a trustee system, whereby the agencies are governed, not by the Convention in session, but by the trustee boards whose members are elected by the Convention in session, such a direct motion as described above may have no teeth. The Convention cannot demand force or direct the boards to do anything. So, how can change be made if it is needed? The way the conservatives regained control since 1979 – elect the kind of Convention Presidents who support your sort of approach to change. They will then appoint members to the Committee on Committees who will recommend trustees who will elect agency heads who support the overall tenor of the one the Convention elected as President. In other words, if a major shift is needed, making vaguely worded motions from the floor of the convention and then arguing from the blogosphere as to how the motion must be interpreted is not the way to bring lasting change.

The Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient guide in all of the areas is addresses. I agree with Chuck Kelly, Albert Mohler and Daniel Akin that many doctrinal implications of cardinal issues within the BF&M must be probed and discussed before a professor is hired. Honestly, though I disagree with their exegesis and practice, I have no problem with a continualist serving as a missionary (Danny Akin publicly said he was a continualist and serves as the President of Southeastern Seminary), as long as they are not making their private prayer language issue a major tenet of their church planting and missionary endeavors. However, if I felt strongly that Convention agencies should not limit private prayer language supporters from serving, I should come to the floor of the Convention and offer a motion saying so, asking the Convention to go on record. I would rather debate such issues on the floor of the Convention and let the Convention speak directly to the issues, rather than make official changes to the BF&M each year or offer vague motions calling, in essence for the bowing of biblical authority to that of a fallible statement such as the BF&M.

I look forward to how the Convention speaks to such issues in the future and plan on keeping myself informed from this point forward as to the progress of the discussion.