I’m all for building bridges with whoever out there feels like they’re being left out of the SBC love umbrella, as long as it doesnt mean that we have to give up secondary doctrines that we hold dear as SB’s…things that are very important in us holding to the clear teachings of the Word of God as a SBC. But, in terms of getting along with others, I always try to play well with others. I love people.

Well, I guess that’s all that I need to say for right now, cuz I’d hate to bring up anymore strawmen. Strawmem seem to make some people get very angry.

David

“Finally, my brethren …” (as I have better things to do) …

“Minimal, maximal, this debate has been going on forever.” Actually, Alan, no, this debate about the nature of a baptist confession of faith has not been going on for years. Historically baptists have understood the confession of faith as a mimimal statement of their beliefs that can and will change, be amended etc. The idea that the BFM2k is a maximal document is a new one, generally held by those who have a particular agenda.

“The problem with some of you guys is that you think that if anyone disagrees with you on a few issues, that they must be closet liberals plotting to take over the SBC and turn all of your children into Democrats or something.” Again, Alan, you really need to stop trying to put words into people posts. This statement is absurd.

“I have no desire to get into discussions about female pastors/elders.” This was not the only issue I raised. I believe I also mentioned “tongues” and alien immersion. But, as you have said, you have no interest in engaging. You already have all the facts.

The IMB BoT hasn’t done anything it hasn’t always been doing Alan. Its just that this time they disagreed with you.

As Debbie said – Case closed.

Grace,
Wes

I must confess that I have mixed emotions about writing this post. On the one hand I see it as rather pointless, on the other – I do believe in hope.

What makes you think that I am not willing to build bridges? I mean, good grief – I work to build bridges constantly. For example(s) – I believe in maintaining baptist identity (SB in particular), but I also believe it is possible to work with others in the evangelical world in spreding the gospel to the lost. I am a strong 5 pointer – who works side by side with others who are barely holding on to one point.

I could go on, but I make the point – I too believe in building bridges, and I agree with the heart of the GCR as presented by Dr. Atkins. It is building on the foundation layed down by the CR which has (to answer your question) to a degree accomplished its purpose (we must alway maintain diligence). However, I never considered inerrancy and infallibility as the end in themselves of the CR. So you have an inerrant and infallible Bible – now what? Unless your life reflects the teachings of that inerrant and infallible Bible you are simply paying lip-service to an idea. That Bible, which is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, sets parameters for people in life, faith and practice – parameters that I am not willing to cross just to be buddy-buddy with those who accept alien immersion, charismatic tongues or women pastors.

I fully realize that there are those in our SB family who, though they may not practice these themselves, are willing to allow others to practice them. I’m not – and honestly Debbie, I don’t believe I am in the minority. We heard this same logic (“inclusion, openess,” etc.) thirty years ago. It didn’t float then and I don’t see it floating now. We are Southern Baptist – we have a histroy and we have a future. Case closed.

Grace,
Wes

Minimal, maximal, this debate has been going on forever. The problem is, Wes, SBC churches agree to the BFM2000 and then find themselves outside of the realm of cooperation because a fringe group happens to take control of a trustee board and they push their pet doctrinal issues. Whatever our polity may be, it is incredibly frustrating.

What is interesting about me not responding to you? Are you talking about comment #40? The problem with some of you guys is that you think that if anyone disagrees with you on a few issues, that they must be closet liberals plotting to take over the SBC and turn all of your children into Democrats or something.

I didn’t respond to you because I was not interested in engaging in that topic. I have no desire to get into discussions about female pastors/elders. It bores me to tears. Is this not a settled issue? I do not feel the need to roll out my conservative credentials constantly.

Now will they continue on that road? Time will tell. Meanwhile, I am going to build bridges, I am going to remain Southern Baptist. I am going to keep up on Convention issues. I am then going to build more bridges. Evidently the leaders feel this way too. I am satisfied that in the end your, Tim Rogers, David Woolery’s views will not win out. It’s just too extreme, beyond what both the Bible teaches, and the BFM. Case closed.

“All that I am arguing is that those baptists who affirm the BFM2000 should be cooperated with, lest that document be found worthless in creating any type of workable theological consensus.”

Yes, this point has been argued for a while now. The problem is that you (and others) view the BFM2k as a maximum statement whereas myself (and others) understand the baptist princple that confessions or statements of faith are in actuality minimial statements. This is why they are re-written (in the case of SB, about every 40 years or so).

Alan, did you know that it is the policy of the IMB (and NAMB I think), not to appoint people who have been divorced to a mission field? That has been their policy for more than 40 years that I know of (unless it has recently changed). Is divorce addressed in the BFM2k?

The BFM2k is NOT the all in all of Southern Baptist life – as great a document as it is. Nor do I believe that those who drafted it and voted for it intended it to be such. It is not saying that the BFM is a worthless statement when an elected BoT seeks to address other issues they believe to be biblical that are not addressed in the BFM2k. They are using it as it has always been used – as a guildline, a skeleton if you will – which is further fleshed out in the beliefs and practices of our churches.

BTW, I’ve noticed that you haven’t even addressed any of the issues I raised in my first post. Interesting.

Grace,
Wes