It’s good to talk to you again. How’s the fam?

Well, Chadwick, I wasnt really trying to give a list of what makes Churches affirm the BFM2K, or not. I was just trying to come up with examples of Churches that do things that might cause us to not accept thier members as leaders in the SBC. IOW, they would still be accepted in the SBC, but they wouldnt be seen as Churches that we would want to duplicate thru one of them doing seminary training nor by church planters out of their Churches. Do you see what I’m saying?

Like, a KJV only, mountain Church that doesnt give any money to the CP, nor to Lottie, nor to Annie, can still be a SB Church. But, do we really want them on the BOT of the IMB? No. It doesnt appear that they care too much about missions.

Or, if you had a Church in Kansas that wanted to send a divorced man and his new wife to be Church planters in El Salvador, because they believed that divorced men could be Pastors; then they could certainly be a part of the SBC. Correct? But, we wouldnt send thier member to be a missionary to El Salvador.

The Gentle Giant,

David

As for my usage of the word MUST. If one wants to be than one would think they agree. It was not intended to be spun as BDW spun but that was my bad.

WesInTex,
Same goes here. I was in a hurry and made a generalization. I do however hold to the concept of Confessional Identity putting the ball in the court of the church that sends money thus one would think they confessionally agree.

Who would send money where they do not agree?

As an Elder in your local congregation in the hills and hollers, would your brothers and sisters think you are ruling well?

If the answer is affirmative, as I have no reason to think otherwise…may your kind aspire in number among your congregation.

Blessings,
Chris

I too would be greatly interested in how you arrive at the position that churches with divorced men as pastors, or who use wine for their Lord’s Supper or have women deacons or divorced men as deacons somehow violate the BFM2K and thus exclude them from leadership positions within the SBC. Are you saying that B. H. Carroll should have been excluded from his leadership of the SBC and particularly SWBTS because of his divorce?

BTW, Brother David did include “women pastors” as he always does, but I am glad to see you disagree with him on Eldership. I trust you hold a more biblical position than does our brother from the volunteer state on that issue.

While I agree with Brother Wes’ original position that as a confessional body we do not hold to individualistic interpretations, none of these issues raised by Brother David, except the women pastors and Lord’s Day worship are addressed in current confession (or any previous confession that I’ve found) of our Southern Baptist people. Again, I would humbly ask you to direct us to the article(s) which would so prohibit such.

Grace Abundantly,
WesInTex

Come on now, Tim. You know that there are quite a few churches that prefer 1963 over 2000 and have disagreed with the leadership over the past decade or more. Those churches are comprised of members who have been Southern Baptists for 50 years or more. They’re not willing to abandon the Southern Baptist Convention. Nor in most cases are they willing to support other non-SBC Baptist organizations. Quite a few BGCT-affiliated churches would fit the description that I have described above.

CB,

Tim also stated:

“But to call oneself SBC, one MUST agree confessionally with the SBC Identity.”

Emphasis on Must. Sounds like a statement that will exclude others. Whether they affirm your identity or not, people don’t like being dictated to what they MUST believe in order to be a good Southern Baptist.

My use of McBeth has distinguished a confession from a creed. Tim G’s choice of words indicate that he’s crossed over into the creed zone by not simply declaring what Southern Baptists believe but by declaring what Southern Baptists MUST believe in order to call themselves Southern Baptists.

Volfan wrote:

“Why would we tell Churches to not send thier money? We need thier money.”

Apparently you have not followed the recent news coming out of the Georgia Baptist Convention. I’m not a big fan of slippery slopes. But now that the GBC will not be passing along CP gifts to the SBC from churches with a female in the pulpit, what’s to stop state conventions (or even the SBC) from rejecting CP gifts from churches that practice open communion.

Actually, the Georgia Baptist Convention could now do that. The GBC defines membership as “messengers from cooperating Baptist churches.” A cooperating Baptist church is one that is in “harmony and cooperation with the work and purpose” of the convention. The GBC’s new financial policy ties “harmony and cooperation” with whether a church agrees with the BFM2000. So, at the moment, the GBC is rejecting CP gifts from churches that clearly disagree with the statement, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

If Bart Barber is correct – as you all seem to agree – that the BFM2000 supports only closed communion, what’s to stop the GBC from rejecting money gifts from churches that practice open communion? It seems that consistency would demand that state conventions like Georgia with a similar policy would take such a measure.

My anti-spam word is: goodness!

Let me ADD to it: goodness gracious!

Is your copy of the 2000BF&M a special edition or a revised copy?

I need your help:

WHERE does the 2000BF&M state these violations?:
1. No women deacons:
2. No divorced pastors:
3. No divorced deacons:
4. No wine for communion:

Respectfully,
chadwick

Where in the BFM are women deacons, divorced pastors and deacons, or communion wine addressed?

I just looked and can’t find them but maybe I missed them.

1. Yes they do violate
2. That is there choice
3. No one is running them out
4. Members from these church may not qualify for Missions service – their choice to not confess the SBC confession.

And, though David and I agree on much, I would not agree with his use of the Elder system in his comment along with the other things and yet I would also say he should have included Woman Pastors for they would be in contradiction to our Confession.

My anti-spam word is gentleness . . .

You stated:
We have some Churches out there who affirm . . . . women deacons, divorced pastors, divorced deacons….there are some churches that use real wine in their Lord’s Supper observance…. (I did not include women pastors)

Do the churches that affirm the above violate the 2000BF&M?

Sincerely From the Gentle Squirt,
chadwick