The Very Best Statement I Have Read In This Whole Debate
Les Puryear, on Bart Barber's blog made the most clear statement that I have yet read regarding the current disagreement with the IMB that I have been writing about so much lately. I had to reprint it here:
The BFM2000 is a statement of what the SBC believes. To go beyond that statement is to go beyond what the SBC has agreed is what they believe.
Since our commonly held beliefs are part of BFM2000, then the intention of leaving out statements on things like tongues, alcohol, etc., is to allow freedom on that doctrine. If the SBC intends freedom on that doctrine, then why should an agency of the SBC autonomously decide to override that freedom? I don't think they should.
If the SBC believes that tongues should not be practiced, then our statement should say so. Otherwise, freedom is assumed. That freedom should not be negated by any small group of people, i.e., the BoTs, without bringing it before the entire convention.
Well, Les said in just a few words what I have spent many trying to say. I completely agree. If the SBC had wanted to address this issue, they would have. Since they haven't, we can assume that freedom is allowed. If they want to address it, they can through the Baptist Faith & Message. Wow. That's so clear it makes you wonder what all the argument is about, doesn't it. Way to go, Les!
Tommorrow, I plan to write about something else. I promise!
What a joy to hear Les come to this conclusion. I know that He and I would find ourselves on different sides on some issues. But we both can agree that the BFM is the statement that guides cooperation among SB. When SB entities refuse to recognize this, then cooperation is hurt.
TC
Posted by: Tim | February 07, 2007 at 09:55 PM
Something else? !GASP! What else is there in the world to discuss?!?
Good to have you back, Alan.
Posted by: Joe Kennedy | February 07, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Aw shucks, folks...I'm speechless. :)
Les
Posted by: Les Puryear | February 08, 2007 at 08:33 AM
Alan,
Agreed. I also share your lack of optimism in SBC life, particularly when I read comments by the like of Jeremy Green. Please tell me that his views are in the minority, for if his tribe is the majority view in our convention, then we are in more trouble than I ever thought. And frankly, I don't want to be a part of it (besides, they have already told me through their resolutions that they don't want me to be a part, though they will still take my money).
I find it odd that the movement that was birthed in soul freedom and bible freedom (baptists) has degenerated to creedalism and taxation without representation. How far we have come.
Posted by: Todd | February 08, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Alan:
And Les ... give yourself one "waytogo" and a couple "attaboys".
I think things like "optimism" and "success" are not necessarily productive in the Lord's work. As I understand it, Bobby Welch's goal was to see a million baptisms while he was president of the SBC. I abhor that. That silently implies that we have something to do with the winning of souls and whether folks are converted. Without even being a Calvinist, I think we can acknowledge that all we can to is to be faithful to our calling, and leave the results up to God. And we cannot base our obedience on simply what God does with our efforts.
He did say that victory is HIS, despite the fact that we want to describe and prescribe what that victory will be.
God has used folks on all sides of all these "issues" to win people to Jesus. I'm hoping everyone can remember that.
Posted by: Bob Cleveland | February 08, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Well said.
We could get into some real problems if one institution goes beyond the BFM on an issue like private prayer language, and another institution takes the opposite position and makes it a requirement.
I believe the intention of those who helped institute the Cooperative Program was to leave the doctrinal door open wide enough to accomodate as many people who wanted to cooperate as possible, without compromising the basic and essential beliefs of Christianity as interpreted and practiced by Baptists. It worked remarkably well until 1980.
Posted by: Lee | February 08, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Great point, Lee. What if another agency decided to make tongues a requirement? Would that be o.k. as well? No one has thought of that example. Interesting.
Posted by: Alan Cross | February 08, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Great points. I've been asking this same question on Wades site for weeks. Well said both of you.
Posted by: Kevin Bussey | February 08, 2007 at 09:33 PM