IMB BF&M2000 issues etc.

As a conservative who does not have too much trouble with the BF&M 2000 personally, I honestly don't see it this way.
I see it as an employment issue in which people are hired according to a certain agreement, they perform according to those terms satisfactorily, and then unilaterally those terms are changed in an onerous fashion.

My inlaws and we had employees in a family business for many years. I just don't see the unilateral attempt to change an employment contract as something that can be so quickly or easily done. Many SBC conservatives while agreeing theologically see the move to require signing as mere power politics.

I still maintain that next year or five years from now some view of my own (such as non-Calvinism)COULD be proscribed in an amendment to the BF&M by a majority of the messengers who happen to attend the convention that year.
In that theoretical example, should a non-Calvinist missionary who has served faithfully for 35 years be forced to sign or resign?

Karen

 

*I do not agree with inerrancy
*I do not agree with the idea of "womanly" submission being taught in the BF&M 2000
*I do not agree with the prohibition upon women pastors, although I am still not decided myself
*I do not agree with the written Word being place over the living Word
*I do not agree with the emphasis being removed from the role of the individual believer and placed on the role of the denomination via the pastor as "king"

 

Clarification:
*I do not agree with inerrency beyond the originals

 

Joshua- you are right about how Baptists are viewed in different parts of the US. That is why I hate labels like Fundamentalist and Moderate. There will always be someone to the left and right of each of us, whether it be politically or theologically. In the grand scheme of US religion all Baptists are Conservative.....just varying degrees.