Trustee McKissic endorses prayer tongue during chapel sermon at Southwestern

As I understand Baptist polity, and the way the CP works, this isn't true.

When a church gives to the Cooperative Program, with few exceptions, it gives to its state convention which distributes the funds to its own institutions and agencies, and forwards a percentage that the state convention has agreed upon previously to the SBC. Each church does that voluntarily, as they feel led. There is no requirement incumbent upon them to subscribe to the BFM2K. There are several state conventions that still use the 1963 BFM, and many others who utilize both versions.

The Baptist Faith and Message itself states that it represents the view only of the particular group of Baptists who approved it at the specific convention in 2000 where it was passed, and any subsequent convention can change or alter it as it feels led to do. Our church gives to the CP based on our desire to participate with other Christians in a cooperative missions and ministry effort that allows stability and efficiency in the use of resources. As an independent and autonomous congregation that freely enters into this relationship, we have our own statement of faith that we have written, discussed, prayed over and adopted as a church, and it is different from and more detailed than either of the Baptist Faith and Message documents.

The SBC surely realizes that there are thousands of individuals, and thousands of churches, which do not agree completely with all points of the BFM. Cooperation in Baptist life isn't based on doctrinal conformity. It is based on the leadership of the spirit and the need to work together to fulfill the Great Commission. It is quite obvious that there will never be universal agreement on the finer points of doctrine in this life. The time has come when Baptists need to stop acting like they are the only ones who have the truth and anyone who disagrees is a sinner bound for hell.

 

I interpreted drfuss as saying that churches give while assuming that the funds will be administered in accordance with the BFM.

 

That is correct. It is reasonable to assume that funds given to any organization will be used for its publically announced objectives and beliefs, i.e. the BF&M.

drfuss

 

Well wupdeedoo, let's allow speakers to down Budweisers to make their point in seminary chapels because, after all, "it's not in the BFM". Of all the things to speak on in the Bible and he chose the one he did...it was obviously to make a point, regardless of the continuing divisive consequences.

 

That is my problem with the BFM2k - it does not cover what we believe. It only covers enough to be loosely interpreted.

The Bible should be our creed . . .

 

Yes, he chose to make a point. He honestly believed something needed to be said.

The attitude of "sit down, shut up, and tow the party line" leads to destruction.

People thought Martin Luther was a rabble-rouser, too.

 

Patterson responds the McKissic incident:

General coverage:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=7865

Patterson's letter to the editor (second letter on the page):
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/local2/15425724.htm

 

So true!

So true.