The BFM 2000 and the 2007 TBC

As a new pastor to the state of Tennessee, I did not know exactly what to expect when I attended the Tennessee Baptist Convention that was held this week in Kingsport. It was refreshing to me to see that every candidate that was up for election in the convention was required to answer whether or not they affirmed the year 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp). It also came as no surprise to me that some stood in opposition to this question concerning the BFM 2000. There were two separate motions made to change that question; both portraying the question itself as a "litmus test" for being able to be an officer in the convention or even a baptist in Tennessee. What this question actually provided was a guideline for messengers like me to know where a candidate stands on the issue of the BFM 2000. A person does not have to affirm the BFM 2000 to hold office in the Tennessee Baptist Convention, but a person does have to affirm the BFM 2000 to receive a majority vote from the messengers at the convention.

Some would say that this controversy is simply a fight over words, but it is rather a fight for God's Word, the Bible. This becomes very clear when one examines the revisions that were made between the 1963 version and the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message. The Southern Baptist Covention website provides a side-by-side comparison of the 1925, 1963, and 2000 versions (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp). Most of the content was left unchanged between the BFM 1963 and the BFM 2000, but the little that was changed and the little that was added has been the center of the controversy ever since the BFM 2000 was adopted.

The focal point of this controversy is found in the very first article of the BFM 2000, concerning the Scriptures. When comparing the BFM 1963 and BFM 2000, it is easy to see that the BFM 2000 more clearly states what the majority of baptists believe about the nature of God's Word. For example, the BFM 1963 says, "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man." This statement was changed in the BFM 2000 to say, "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man." On the surface, the change appears to be insignificant, but by saying that the Bible "is God's revelation" rather than "the record of God's revelation," the BFM 2000 is confronting the view that the Bible contains the Word of God rather than that it is entirely the Word of God. In making this change, the BFM 2000 is clarifying and affirming that the entire Bible is God's revealed Word in a much better way than the BFM 1963.

The BFM 1963 does make an excellent statement concerning Scripture, saying, "It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter." The BFM 2000 added a new, and logical conclusion to that statement, saying, "Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." This is a simple statement of belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the entire Bible. Simply put, because the Bible is perfect, inspired by God, and free of error, all of the Bible is true and worthy of being trusted. But this small addition to the BFM has been one of its most attacked portions. That is because many of those who will not affirm the BFM 2000 are affiliated with a group of baptists called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The CBF represents a group of Baptist Churches that have not entirely abandoned the Southern Baptist Convention, but oppose its current leadership and policies, especially the adoption of the BFM 2000. Why would they oppose the BFM 2000? Mainly because it stands in direct opposition to their view of Scripture. Concerning the Bible, the official website of the CBF says, "We want to be biblical – especially in our view of the Bible. That means we dare not claim less for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself. The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching" (http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/FAQ). The Bible itself stands in opposition to this assertion by the CBF. For example, the Apostle Paul explained, saying, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Timothy 3:16a, NKJV), which means that it is entirely from Him. David also spoke of the inerrancy of the Bible, explaining God's ability and commitment to maintain the purity of Scripture, saying, "The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever" (Psalm 12:6-7, NKJV).

There is yet another point of contention in comparing what the BFM 1963 and what the BFM 2000 have to say about Scripture. The BFM 1963 says, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." On the other hand, the BFM 2000 has changed that statement to say, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation." Inexplicably, there were those who said from the floor of the convention this week that the BFM 2000 has taken Jesus out of His position of pre-eminence in the Baptist Faith and Message. On the contrary, the BFM 2000 has only made the position of Jesus more prominent there. The BFM 2000 does a good job of taking that vague and open-ended statement in the BFM 1963 and making it a strong statement concerning the purpose of Scripture, to point to and reveal Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Jesus made a similar statement concerning the point of the Scriptures, saying, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39, NKJV). In other words, to miss the point of the Scriptures is to miss out on receiving Jesus Christ and His salvation.

In conclusion, I would like to say this: I am glad that it can be known where the potential leadership of the TBC stands on this crucial issue concerning the BFM 2000. Although there are many areas of dispute over the revisions and additions that were made in the BFM 2000, the most important one by far is the area of Scripture. If a candidate could not affirm the BFM 2000 for at least its stronger stance on Scripture, I would personally never vote for that person to be in a position of leadership within the Tennessee Baptist Convention. To be perfectly honest, if I did not affirm the BFM 2000, then I would hope that no baptist would even consider me for a leadership position, pastor or otherwise. It was a privilege for me to stand for the Word of God by defending the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message at the 2007 session of the Tennessee Baptist Convention. Some would say that I and others were being divisive for doing so, but I pray that most would say that we were being faithful to the Lord and His Holy Word. We can only stand together as baptists and be effective for the glory of God, when we stand in agreement on God's Word. The majority of Tennessee Baptists stand in agreement on God's Word, as stated in the BFM 2000. That is why the Baptists in this state have great potential to have an impact on this culture, through reaching people with the life-changing, soul-saving Gospel of Jesus Christ!