99% of missionaries affirm BF&M

I, and a few friends, are working through the 2000 BF&M. In looking for an explanation of the Ordinances section I came upon an article on the baptiststandard website with ref to the IMB and affirming the 2000 BF&M. It noted that in the case of minor disagreements the missionaries should work in accordance with and not contrary to the document. As a Southern Baptist since birth and a deacon in the Baptist church, I have disagreements with the BF&M. Who will define "minor" ? Many seminaries require a sign-off on this statement. Why ? Can those who are responsible for assigning (hiring ?) men and women as missionaries not determine their beliefs through all the other processes required. And how will they enforce it ? Truth begets doctrine, but doctrine does not always beget truth.
P.S. - Why Baptism and the Lord's Supper as "Ordinances" ? What is the definition of an ordinance ? Did we choose these two activities and define them as ordinances or define ordinances and look for what fits that definition ?

 

Excuse my ignorance......what is 2000BF&M?
yours, Jon

 

Seminaries/agencies dont ask you to change yourself and BELIEVE everything in BFM, just not teach contrary to it. I served with NAMB and signed it. No problem. If one feels the need to teach contrary to it, then he/she can go teach in another place. There needs to be some form of accountability. And what is wrong with "ordinances"? All that means is an observance of something. What do you think needs to be added/detracted?

[ October 29, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: TaterTot ]

 

Tatertot - Don't know that anything is wrong with ordinances. My interest lies more in the history of including these in the BF&M. Didn't mean to come across negative, my apologies.
As to history, what were the prerequisites for including these two practices ? Have been unable to find answer on several Baptist websites. May be a benign point in the end, just wanting to know.
Agree with the accountability, but again, how do you enforce it ?
A minor disagreement I have (minor because of the only 4 Baptist churches I have been a member of in my 44 yrs - I know this is not strictly enforced)is requiring someone from a different denomination to be baptized when joining a Baptist church. Symbolic of salvation, obedience to Christ - but denominational membership ? I don't know the reasoning. Thanks for any help.

 

Sorry for sounding defensive. Its a good question you pose. Yes, the baptism thing can be a booger. If they were dunked in a previous denomination, but were saved already, I dont have a problem with it. As for the ordinances, I havent looked in any books yet, but the only thing I can think is that baptism and communion are/have always been activities observed by a congregation outside of cultural activities (like funerals, weddings, etc.). Hmm. I'm a-gonna study on that one.
TaterTot

 

This shatters the bromide about "What about all those people who can't sign it?" Charges of coercion and the like are also bogus. The left no longer has a strangle-hold on the SBC. Glory!

 

Norm: Not so fast, Tom. There is a missionary couple that will not resign and if they do not sign the creed, they have been told that they will not be returned to the mission field after stateside furlough. They have been serving faithfully for around twenty years and now somehow they are no longer faithful to God's call? How many people have to be coerced to sign a creed before coercion is a valid description? One, two, 100, half or more? In terms of stangle-hold, the left (typically referred to as a few liberals, some moderates, and likely more conservatives), as opposed to the right (some conservatives, likely many more fundamentalists and latter-day conservatives (i.e., fundamentalists that dislike their earlier preferred term of fundamentalist for the more reasoned-oriented term of conservative) has not held power in the SBC for a number of years. I recall Stanley saying that when his ilk were in control numbers would skyrocket, but as we have seen over the past twenty years, such has not occurred. In fact, the number of foreign missionaries has decreased over the last decade.

 

B. H. Carroll, founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, had this to say:

"A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness.

The modern cry: 'Less creed and more liberty,' is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy--it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.

Just so it is not good discipline that created backsliding and other sins of Christians. But discipline is oftentimes the only means of saving a church. To hold to discipline for immoralities and relax it on doctrine puts the cart before the horse and attempts to heal a stream while leaving the fountain impure. To Christ and the apostles false creeds were the most deadly things, and called most for the use of the knife. . . .

Again, I solemnly warn the reader against all who depreciate creeds, or who would reduce them to a minimum of entrance qualifications into the church (An Interpretation of the English Bible: Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, pp. 140-41, 150).

 

B. H. Carroll also stated:

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."

 

Thought you might want to read a little more from the esteemed president...

"You just might as well proclaim yourself a simpering idiot as to stand there and say, 'Oh, let's not have any dogmas, creeds, and confessions of faith; let's just have religion.' How can you have a creedless religion? You had just as well adopt as your god a jelly-fish floated up on the beach, that has no backbone, merely a pulpy mass, as to say, 'I want a religion without a creed'. . . . It really reflects upon the intelligence of a reasoning man to say that he has no creed or that he objects to creeds or that he objects to a confession of that creed."

 

I strongly suspect B.H. Carroll was not talking about signing a written creed created by others in order to serve the denomination.

For what it's worth, last Friday my company rented the Jack MacGorman conference center at Southwestern for a company customer service meeting. It was my first time in the building (I tend to avoid the Southwestern campus) and I was struck by the fact that the new conference center is named for a highly esteemed man who is not allowed to teach at Southwestern because he cannot in good conscience sign the BF&M 2000.

 

Bro. Timothy Eaton,

Saw your post, you and my brother and a preacher I know share the same name. I know this is no big deal, it just intriqued me.

You can find Biblical support for the Ordinances of the church (Baptism in the Commission of the Church; and the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ Just Prior to being crucified). We find these two adhered to in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the N.T.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Hello Baptist Believer,

As Rev. G has pointed out B. H. Carroll also stated:

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."

It's kind of hard to get around that one.

At SEBTS we have a building that is named after the last of the great liberal presidents at Southeasten it is Lolley Dorm. Just because we do not agree with someone's theology or hermeneutical meathod of interpreting the Bible does not mean that we cannot recognize the fact that they once served at the school. Watch out and don't let the root of bitterness take hold of your heart.

Yours in Christ

[ November 11, 2002, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Hello Baptist Believer,

As Rev. G has pointed out B. H. Carroll also stated:

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."

It's kind of hard to get around that one.</font>[/QUOTE]"It is a declaration of what *you* believe." (emphasis added) Note that he did not say that it is a declaration of what *we* believe.

At SEBTS we have a building that is named after the last of the great liberal presidents at Southeasten it is Lolley Dorm. Just because we do not agree with someone's theology or hermeneutical meathod of interpreting the Bible does not mean that we cannot recognize the fact that they once served at the school.</font>[/QUOTE]

Jack MacGorman is hardly a liberal. Of course they didn't ask him to sign anything until they had raised all the money for the conference center (using his name) and the construction was completed and building dedicated.

No, I fight against bitterness all the time.

My last semester as a seminary student I wrote a letter to the student newspaper regarding the danger of bitterness for those of us who did not agree with how and why the trustees replaced Russell Dilday. Before I mailed it I showed it to people on both sides of the controversy and everyone agreed it was a good letter and was not bitter or offense -- just honest about feelings that many people had. I mailed it. A few days later I found myself summoned to the President's office and was thoroughly chastised for writing such a letter. I politely stood my ground and did not back down, but I knew I had no future in SBC life after that meeting.

I'm just dealing with the reality of the situation. Professors and some students are harassed were/are harassed at Southwestern, trustee rules and procedures have not been followed is certain situations, and the firing of Russell Dilday (whatever you believe about the merit of the firing) was an exercise in dishonesty and hypocrisy.

It's not bitterness, I just don't think they represent the Kingdom very well.

[ November 11, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Norm: For those who would like to view a broader picture of how the SBC's International Mission Board is handling its present situation, click here.

 

Norm

Thanks for the link. Reminds me once again of why I am no longer a Southern Baptist.

So they refused to sign the BF&M2K and IMB fires them for trumped up charges of being heretical. And what is this nonsense about only being able to visit the locals with an escort. Well at least IMB can say they didnt fire them for not signing.

Sounds like Rankin and the boys think Mein Kampf is innerant as well.

Russell