A Bit about Burleson's Burst and The "Sufficient" Guide of the BF&M

What would I have said had I gotten to the mike before the vote on the sufficiency of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a guide for our agencies? Well, in a nutshell I would have said this:

While the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a marvelously crafted statement of faith, it is not nor can it ever be sufficient to foresee all of the theological and social problems that our agencies and institutions have to deal with. The practical application of that theology often requires thoughtful deliberation and prayerful guidance for matters not spelled out in the Baptist Faith and Message. Are we willing to have seminary professors, for instance, who advocate being slain in the Spirit? Will we appoint North American Missionaries who are crossdressers? Can the IMB put divorced people on the field, or someone who once had transgender surgery? None of those things is forbidden in the Baptist Faith and Message, but we have a trustee system that can grapple with these issues and make policy decisions. While you may think that a vote for this is a vote to support the same conservative values that brought us the Baptist Faith and Message in the first place, do not be misled. This is a blatant attempt to introduce practices that historically have been foreign to Southern Baptists but are now slipping in the back door. If the proponents of this measure want Southern Baptists to approve of speaking in tongues, then be honest enough to bring that up. Don't try to sneak it in simply because it isn't forbidden in the Baptist Faith and Message. The president earlier ruled a motion out of order because it usurped the authority granted to our trustee boards and this is a blatant attempt to do it another way. If we pass this we will run the risk of micromanaging our agencies and annually amending the Baptist Faith and Message in order to keep up with the latest faddish controversy.

For all of Wade Burleson's insistence that Southern Baptists weren't confused about this, I must accuse my brother of being disingenuous about that. I don't mind the gloating about the vote, but just be honest and say that the confusion worked in favor of the motion's proponents. To my dying day I will believe that if an articulate and passionate antagonist to the motion had ever gotten to speak, the motion would have gone down. I had at least 50 people ask me how they "should have" voted, only to gasp in horror when I or someone around me explained our perspective. "I didn't understand that," was the frequent reply.

The convention, however, is the only one who gets to interpret what the convention meant. If any agency or institution seems to go beyond this, then the convention is free to determine if the trustees were not "guided" by the BF&M. I don't know about anyone else, but I will feel guided by the BF&M in every vote I cast as a trustee of the IMB. I will feel guided by the BF&M when I vote on a budget. I will feel its guidance and instruction when I cast my ballot on matters of policy. I will be true to the spirit of the BF&M when I help make personnel decisions. In fact, I think the board has done that all along.

The original wording of the Executive Committee statement was much stronger. At least this one was finally crafted with input by the seminary presidents to reflect language they could all agree with and support. Dr. Mohler's response to questions during his report indicates precisely how they can support it--by being guided by the Baptist Faith and Message to do what Southern Baptists have commissioned them to do.

I do not have either the time or the will to respond thouroughly to Wade Burleson's original rant or his later, more thoughtful reflection. I will, however, make a couple of points. First, I hope Wade has contacted Dr. Mohler and apologized for the way he originally characterized his report. Disagreeing with Dr. Mohler's interpretation is fine. He can handle that and as a seminary president he should be willing to accept criticism. To characterize it the way Wade originally did, though, was offensive and wrong. Changing it isn't enough. An apology is in order.

Second, Wade's inconsistency in fleshing out exactly how this should be applied would be comical if it weren't indicative of precisely the kind of confusion so general and broad a statement makes. First Wade says this:

Any policy or guideline at an agency, that is based upon a doctrinal interpretation that EXCEEDS the Baptist Faith and Message, is not in line with the convention's vote to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM.

Then he apparently excuses seminaries:

There are some agencies, like seminaries, that need tighter, narrower, and more defined confessions - like the Abstract of Principles.

Then he reverses himself:

. . .but if Southwestern Seminary were to desire to 'tighten' her institutional confession, the proposed doctrinal confession would need to be voted upon by the convention as a whole.

Then he restricts the mission boards because they are "convention wide (sic)." That is an interesting concept. I suppose that means because there are six seminaries they aren't convention-wide. Here is the statement:

If trustees of any agency, particularly convention wide agencies like the International Mission Board or the North American Mission Board, were to refuse to abide by the convention's wishes of not demanding conformity on doctrinal interpretations not found in the BFM, then those trustees should be answerable to the convention.

Then he gives the exceptions--not exceptions spelled out in the statement the convention approved, though. Exceptions that are approved in Wade's World:

This does not mean there cannot be guidelines or policies that are implemented for moral, ethical or pragmatic reasons (weight, homosexuality, adultery, etc . . .), but new 'doctrinal' guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000 cannot be implemented unless there is a convention-wide consensus.

Aside from the obvious fact that homosexuality and marital fidelity are actually covered in the BF&M, this is an interesting view because it seeks to define what is doctrinal (whatever those strange quotes around the word mean) and what is something else. The something else is apparently okay to add, but anything doctrinal that is not forbidden in the BF&M is apparently off limits to our trustees.

Then, to totally confuse the situation, he proceeds to admit that he has some disagreements with the BF&M (I think Dale Moody used to say the same thing when he taught at Southern). He characterizes them as "minor," to be sure, though I don't recall the BF&M actually making that distinction. One man's minor is another man's major, but we can always consult the blogs for the line between them I suppose. Isn't this the new repository of truth?

I just don't get it. I really don't. How did this clarify anything?

Forget the confusion that existed before the vote; it's the confusion after that gets me. One of its major proponents can't cogently answer: 1) why the trustees can't enforce anything NOT in the BF&M but he can serve as a trustee when he disagrees with something that IS. 2) How we can categorize policy between doctrinal and practical, behavioral and theological (which one is "slain in the Spirit" practice? I think it depends on whether or not a fat missionary is doing it!).

By the way, since the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 defines baptism and then says that it is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, it absolutely precludes open communion. Is that major or minor? Shouldn't trustees be guided by that and begin to enforce it?

There. That should be sufficient.