It is not as bad as it sounds. I am in 99% enthusiastic support of the Baptist Faith and Message statement of 2000. I also agree that we need to have a confession of faith that defines our common doctrine and practice. I do not view the BF&M as an authoritative document – it is not a creed. But it is a useful doctrinal statement to which I give my essential support.
But I do not completely and fully adhere to the document. Some of my disagreements are picky and essentially insignificant – quarrels over wording. I have one area in which I stand in strong disagreement with and violation of the document.
Picky Disagreements
Here are a couple of small points at which I disagree with the document.
- From Article II, Section C (on the Holy Spirit) – I think the wording on inspiration is unfortunate. It says, “He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures.” I’m being incredibly picky here, but it is the Scriptures that are inspired, not the men who wrote them. Perhaps it is all part of one process, but it seems significant to me. The writers of scripture were “carried along” (2 Peter 1:20-21) but it is the Scripture itself that is “God-breathed” or inspired.
- Also from Section C – I do not like the wording of the statement on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. “At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.” I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who DOES the baptism, but that he is that into which we are immersed. John (Mt 3:11) promised that Jesus would baptize us “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 seem to buttress that view. Jesus baptizes us in the Spirit.
Again, I said these were picky, minor points. If I wordsmithed this document, I could find a number of points at which I find minor disagreements or where I wish the statement had been worded differently. You may agree with the document and not with me at those points.
The BF&M is a human document and therefore carries human imperfections. We do not, nor should we, treat it as if it were inspired and authoritative. Many of the statements are sufficiently vague so that while the BF&M does not specifically state my position, it leaves enough wiggle room that my position fits there. I think that is a good thing, generally.
A Major Point of Contention
There is one place where I disagree with the BF&M and in which the practice of my church is in violation of what the document says.
Article VII, on Baptism and Lord’s Supper, is the sticking point. It says, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.” That seems to be advocating some form of closed or close communion, which was the dominant practice a generation or two ago.
However, my church practices a more open communion policy. We invite every person who has been born again by God’s grace to share in the Lord’s table, whether they are members or not. I try to put the sacred nature of communion on display in my messages before the celebration and in the practice of the Supper, but we put almost no other fence around the table.
LifeWay research has revealed that the majority of SBC churches practice a communion closer to what we do at SHBC, and not as it seems to be defined in the BF&M. I consider myself SBC through and through. But I am leading my church to operate contrary to what the BF&M defines as SBC belief.
So, What Do We Do?
Here we have a document that defines our common belief and practice and the majority of our churches do not either believe or practice in line with it. What ought we to do? How ought we respond to churches that do not operate in line with the BF&M 2000?
I do not have the answers, but I do have some thoughts.
1) We may need to review the BF&M if it has provisions that over half of churches ignore or violate.
I know the proponents of close communion won’t like this, but if only a little over 40% assent to the document, it probably ought not be our guiding statement. The fact is, the BF&M statement on the Lord’s Supper does not represent Baptist belief and practice today.
2) Churches, being autonomous, do not have to conform to the BF&M.
My church has the freedom to believe what we believe and practice what we practice. In our most recent Bylaws revision, we wrote a limited open communion into the document. Not a single voice was raised in protest. No one at Southern Hills wants to practice closed or close communion. We are free to do as we please.
3) The purpose of a Confession is to express our common belief.
The BF&M has no biblical or ecclesiological authority over us. It is not a creed with which SBC churches must align. It is an expression of common belief. But what do we do when either the statement no longer expresses common belief or churches do not teach or practice in line with that common belief?
4) The only enforcement of the document is withdrawal of fellowship.
We cannot enforce the BF&M in our autonomous churches, we can only withhold fellowship (refuse to seat messengers, refuse to receive offerings, refuse to allow participation in Guidestone – that’s the one that hurts!) from those in non-compliance.
The exception to this, of course, is a church that is receiving denominational assistance to meet expenses. With the receipt of that money comes a greater scrutiny.
5) If we do not enforce at every point, how can we enforce any point?
As far as I know, there is no movement to refuse to seat messengers from my church at Houston SBC 2013. (I shouldn’t put that thought in anyone’s mind!) Most churches, evidently, agree more with me about the Lord’s Supper than they do with the BF&M. So, it seems I am safe in my disagreement.
But if they do not enforce that point, how can they enforce any point? If SHBC started worshiping Buddha, I’m guessing there would be a movement to disfellowship us. I hope there would be. If we denied inerrancy or the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith, we ought to be shown our Baptist walking papers. And, if we ordained a homosexual or performed a homosexual marriage, we would be on the way out. I hope (although there is a question on this) that if we refused membership or participation to a black person on the basis of their race, we would be excluded from fellowship. We certainly should be!
But the fact that I believe that we are baptized IN the Holy Spirit, not BY him – does anyone really want to seek enforcement on that issue?
What about a clear violation like open communion? Or, perhaps, blurring the edge of congregationalism with a strong elder system?
- If we do not enforce ALL of the document, can we enforce any of it?
- If we are not going to enforce a point, why is it in the BF&M in the first place?
6) Our seminaries and other entities should enforce a stricter conformity.
As an autonomous pastor, I have a greater freedom than do seminary professors and entity leaders. To me, that is the key purpose of the document – to keep aberrant theology from disintegrating our denomination as it has so many others.
But, again, do we want to fire an entity head who believes in or attends a church that practices some form of open communion? Do we really want to go that far? Should professors who advocate less traditional ecclesiological positions be brought under scrutiny? Are we not “People of the Book” first and foremost?
I really don’t have simple answers, but I think it is an important issue, one we need to discuss. We need to be constantly refining our confession so that it represents the core of Baptist belief. And we also, in this day of doctrinal divergence and heterodoxy, need to figure out how we are going to enforce this document in our entities and within our fellowship.
Maybe you can help me figure all this out.
I guess I can expect a motion in Houston to refuse to seat me as a messenger!
It might depend on whether or not you’re wearing the lime green suit.
green is the traditional Christian color of ‘hope’ 🙂
Yes, that’s right!
As long as it’s not Dorm green (also known by other, more offensive terms). I’m not sure if lime green qualifies for this or not.
First the Preamble to the BF&M states that any group of Baptists is free to write and publish their own statement of faith, so if your church wishes to differ on communion, that’s OK. That’s your local church’s statement of faith, de jure or de facto.
And the BF&M does define ” a New Testament church” as an autonomous local body. It further states “the church” also applies to all believers of all generations. So I think you’re free to interpret that phrase in Section VII as applying to all believers, who would thus be perfectly eligible under the BF&M to partake at your church.
So, we invoke the Inigo Montoya clause: “I do not think that (BF&M Section VII) means what you think it means”.
I can do some gymnastics, but it seems clear to me that the document advocates some form of close communion or closed communion.
I can see how the wording might give that impression, but it is not a necessary conclusion. While it is a remembrance that the members of the church observe, the church is free to invite other believers from other gospel-believing churches to participate. The document does not prohibit (or even address) that practice.
It seems that if the document did intend closed communion it would be an extra-biblical practice. Did the early churches have membership? I realize the conditions were different, of course. But closed communion would potentially deny the Lord’s Supper to people who are in spiritual communion, but without membership in that particular local assembly.
It absolutely addresses that practice. Can the statement that baptism (i.e. immersion) is prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper mean anything else?
Now I notice that Dave (probably inadvertently) did not quote the pertinent part of that article. The pertinent sentence is “Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper. ” And this is not unique to the BF&M. It’s found nearly verbatim in nearly every historic Baptist statement of faith.
Anybody raise the issue of whom Jesus served at the “last supper”? We do call it the “Lord’s Supper” now & then and I wonder if He might be the one to establish eligibility.
a thought. . .
suppose you interpreted the BF&M phrase ‘members of the church’ in a broader context . . . would that make a difference?
I’m not really looking for a loophole here. I think it is clear that the majority of churches do not practice the close communion which is the teaching of the BF&M.
My purpose in writing this was not to find some way to bring myself into compliance, but to start a discussion on how we should apply and enforce the BF&M.
I believe the BF&M2000 is our creed because it summarizes our core beliefs. Although I think it should read closed communion.
Dave Miller I want to point out how much respect I have for you. I would like to explain what I mean. I don’t know of another person that has a more solid Biblical belief than you. I’ve noticed any answer you give to anyone is straight from the Bible. I thank you for that.
As you have seen already I differ with you on the BF&M.
There is a closeness in one local congregation that makes it different from
another local congregation because we know the folks in our own congregation. This is why I’m such a supporter of closed communion.
I know how people live their lives in my church, but I can’t say that for people that are not members of my congregation. I think we have a reponsibility to take care in administering the Lords Supper.
Dave, I have always understood and interpreted the word “church” in the Article on Lord’s Supper as the unviversal or all of the “called out ones,” the ecclessia. I have not interpreted it as the specific local church. That may have been the intent, but it is not so stated. Your thoughts, agreement, disagreement? Is there something in the article that disignates the “church” as the local church, and I missed it? God bless.
Given the usage of terms by Baptists, I think it’s pretty clear that “church ordinance” means local church. This is why a good many Baptists oppose baptisms at Association events, for example.
Dave,
I would mention two things:
1. First, I’m not sure how accurate the Lord’s Supper survey was. You will notice how different the results were in 1948 – http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/western.recdr.survey.1948.html
I know a lot can change in 60 years, but I’m not so sure the wide open communion numbers are as high as you might think they are.
2. Second, I would say the close / closed communion numbers are only going to get higher in the future. There were no Southern Baptists promoting open communion in the 20th century. Then W.O. Carver, Frank Stagg, Dale Moody, Eric Rust, Roy Honeycutt, etc. came along. It was the liberal professors in the seminaries after WWI that started promoting open communion. And in the 1950’s-1980’s they were pushing it hard. But today things are different. Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Paige Patterson and Mark Dever may disagree on a lot of things, but they all believe in some form of close communion.
If anyone disagrees that close communion is not being promoted more today, just look at the issue of SBC Today last year. Three leading Southern Baptists were asked to write articles about the participants in the Lord’s Supper. 2 defended closed communion and 1 defended close communion. Not a single one defended open communion.
Ben,
Good stuff!
Dave,
Ive been asking this question a lot lately…. I dont have any better thoughts than yours.
I simply know that I personally and my church have a few disagreements with the BFM2k, even though we happily affirm well over the majority.
Should we withdraw from the SBC because we dont affirm every sentence? If that is the case a whole lot of churches, more than half, probably need to back out.
I disagree with communion, as you do, how the congregationalism section is stated, and The Lord’s Day section.
(I dont have enough energy or motivation to go look them up, copy and paste them, and define my disagreements specifically).
Yeah, I think this is a discussion we need to have. I’ve said it for years – many of our issues are identity issues. What is a “real” Southern Baptist? We need to figure that out.
Hey, if they want to kick me (and a majority) out for holding to open communion, have at it.
“”Hey, if they want to kick me (and a majority) out for holding to open communion, have at it.””
Dave, you will no doubt disagree and take offense at this reply, but I offer it only suggestively and believe you really don’t mean it as it might sound. I could be wrong and please correct me if you mean it exactly as it sounds.
It sounds like you really don’t have strong ties with the SBC and it would be no skin off your nose to leave over an interpretation of the BFM.
Of course, you have a right to express your opinion in whatever way that you choose. However, you are an elected official of the Convention and I’d think that would call for a measure of propriety.
Frankly, I think this post is not one of your best. It seems nitpicky and overly divisive based on a highly semantic issue.
I don’t think there is any identity that could survive the microscopic inspection you propose in this post.
Frank, it sounds to me like he just has some concerns and wants to talk it out openly and get some feedback . . . there are worse ways to deal with concerns, I’m sure.
Some of your comments have been on target. This one missed the mark by a country mile.
Frank, maybe you should take a nap, and when you are less grumpy, actually read what I wrote. You might not make wildly inaccurate assumptions.
Dave,
That’s the classic, “you’d agree with me if you read what I wrote.” I could cut and paste and show you where you admit to being “nitpicky,” etc.
I could cut and paste and show you where your microscopic dissection of the wording in the BF&M leads to never-ending identity battles if adopted on a large scale by SBC pastors.
I could do all that, but perhaps a nap would serve better.
And, had you actually read what I wrote you would see that I actually only was speaking “suggestively” of how your post could “suggest” something you don’t actually believe.
Hey, I used that “if you actually read what I wrote you’d agree with me” thing.
Did it work for you?
Oh, nighty-night 🙂
I read what Dave wrote several times. I cannot for the life of me get what you got Frank. My wife the therapist would have a heyday with all these comments. Relax. Take a deep breath.
Doesn’t seem like there is such a thing as a ‘real’ Southern Baptist. Perhaps it’s better to acknowledge the diversity that exists. Instead people keep trying to make it over into their own image.
Frank L. Interesting comments. Do you actually know Dave? As one who does, I haven’t met anyone more committed to the Scripture and he is, as he stated, about as thoroughly sbc as one can get. Dave is simply not afraid to think, which is what this forum is about. I, for one, am not interested in an sbc where the document is an enforcable creed. The humanity in us would mean that .one camp or another would gain dominance and their particular slant would win the day. Dave would not nor should not
“split the sheets” over his view of the Lord’s Supper. I had the distinct privelege of serving in the same city as he and observing his work and knowing his reputation, and this is the perspective I come from. I am quite pleased he has been elected to a high SBC officem and cannot think of any reason he should not serve there.
What Dave is not is the kind of man that insists everyone agree with him. So, I offer this simply as one who knows the man and is grateful to call him friend. He is rather “odd” when compared to pastor’s as a whole personally, but a fine pastor he is.
and I celebrate his oddness. When I say odd, I am saying he is not afraid to think and facilitate this forum, and actually discuss his ideas in a non threatening manner. And, he is a little wierd.
But I love my brother all the same. After all, non of us are all the same. We have our own special brand of wierd.
Dave,
Out of twelve ducks the truly odd duck is the one that thinks the other eleven doesn’t have it going on.
Jess,
Would B.H. Carroll, if he were alive today, be considered an odd duck for his conflict of words with the BF&M 2000 on Spirit Baptism?
I quoted the conflict above in the comment stream.
“odd” Amen, scriptural most certainly.
Me? Odd? I am deeply hurt, Mark. I always considered myself the normal one in our interactions.
Dave:
That’s one of the odd things about you.
Dave, I don’t believe you want this discussion to become one of the Lord’s Supper. I do believe you are in a minority in viewing the BF&M as being closed to the point of having to belong to the local church administering the supper. Hobbs in his book on the BF&M says most baptist churches hold that any member of any Baptist church is eligible. “The church” is seen in a more universal sense in the paragraph by most.
Now to the topic of your article, it matters little if any if a church or a pastor does not agree with every detail of the BF&M. However, if an officer of the convention does not agree with a portion of it at the time of his election I would appreciate knowing that. Trustees will handle making sure our paid employees adhere to it and if it matters where they might not. By the way, if I had heard your opinion on the Lord’s Supper section of the BF&M it would not have kept me from casting my vote for you as our 2nd VP.
As for the first two differences it appears you have hung around these YRR guys to the point you too are looking for ways to think rebel against the establishment 🙂
It’s a good thing you closed with a 🙂 or you would be sent to nap time with me.
I’m going to stain some gnats and swallow a few camels before I go to bed.
Good thoughts, Dean.
I would like to add, I don’t think the BF&M should be changed any more,
unless we go back to the BF&M63 then I’m all in.
Does it matter? Depends, and you did a good job of explaining how and when it matters.
Has not doctrine been more of a major focus at the associational level? Do no all associations have lengthy doctrinal statements or either have adopted the BFM?
I probably made a mistake by elevating the issue of elder rule to the SBC level, although I do wish Frank Page’s Calvinist committee would have an open discussion of the matter. Bloggers here are generally brilliant and insightful but I’d like to hear from the heavyweights.
I’m over 300 pounds. How big do I have to get to qualify as a heavyweight?
Interpreting the “members of the church” for the Lord’s Supper to a closed view only is interpreting with preconceived ideas. The original article from LifeWay’s research was skewed and quickly showed it’s preconceived ideas.
If we are going to let the BF&M be speak for it’s self, it clearly defines “the church” in the previous article. It clearly describes “the church” as a local body of baptized believers and as the universal church. Thus if you take the BF&M definition of the church, it opens up the Lord’s Supper to any baptized believer. Therefore since Southern Baptist are not the only denomination that practices immersion baptism it is really open.
But you can make it closed and restrictive if you limit it to “members” of that particular local church. But to do that you will have to make assumptions on the specific church polity of every SBC church membership requirements. The problem is that their is no defined or requirements of church membership in the BF&M. Can you impose a restrictive view based on this document supported by generally accepted church polity that are not universal to all SBC churches in the area of church membership?
I agree SBC needs to settle into what it’s real identity is. Or are we going to continue down the path of trying to look non-denominational and unspecific in doctrinal beliefs.
2 option solution:
Either the pastor and leadership actually know the people in their church and administer the Lord’s Supper properly.
Or we can issue SBC membership phone identification cards!
Let’s suggest that ID card as a resolution in Houston.
I know of a church in South America that has membership tags that folks must use on Lord’s Supper days in order to limit participants to approved members.
Wow. Fascinating.
Here in northern Minnesota we would have to have members only jackets to stay warm and identify ourselves for Lord’s Supper days. 🙂
Though I’m a little young to remember the jackets, I’m definitely sure some my other saints in the church have them tucked away in the closet. I’ll try that. Dear church, for theological reason we all need to where our members only jackets for Lord’s Supper days but don’t forget to invite your friends because we want them to enjoy the fellowship meal afterwards.
A+ comment.
Dave,
Our church just voted on a revised constitution and by-laws. Though we only had a handful of votes it’s my assumption that a vast majority of people did not agree with every line in it. Though if you asked them if they approved the constitution they would say, “yes”.
In some sense I believe that’s what it means to affirm the BF&M. No I understand that’s dangerous but I think that’s what we have with any document. I know historically John Newton had a difficult time with a few of the aspects of the Anglican Confession of Faith and the Book of Common Prayer. But he was able to talk it over with some and say something similar to what those in our church probably would say in affirming our constitution and by-laws.
At the end of the day, though, I think I’m in the same spot as you. What are THE things that make one no longer a Southern Baptist? Or worse yet no longer a believer? I’d say that so long as someone affirms these and wants to unite with us I’m good with that. Am I setting the bar too low?
Just my thoughts.
I agree with you in principle, but the problem with agreeing with the BFM “in principle” sort of means “not completely.” And then the issue becomes which issues are we gonna take seriously and which are we gonna treat like they don’t matter as much.
Interesting discussion on The Lords Supper… I have been under the impression that well over majority of SBC churches practice open communion.
Some of you assert that definitely isnt the case. I would love to see a mass survey on this within the SBC.
LifeWay research would say that open communion would be the norm.
Dave,
That’s the problem. How accurate is this Lifeway research? I know a lot of closed communion Southern Baptist pastors, but I don’t know of one that was contacted in this survey.
Also, as you know, the wording of survey questions is very important. If those questions had been worded slightly different, they would have gotten a much higher response for close and closed communion. Wording such as:
1. Do you think a Christian who refuses to submit to believer’s baptism by immersion should be invited to participate in the Lord’s Supper?
2. Do you think the Lord’s Supper should be observed in a regular service with plenty of visitors and guests present, or in a more intimate service with only the members of that particular church?
Dave,
You wrote, “However, my church practices a more open communion policy. We invite every person who has been born again by God’s grace to share in the Lord’s table, whether they are members or not.”
I’m just trying to understand. Realizing you don’t ask to see any proof, do you say that the table is for “professing Christians?” That sounds like what you are saying.
Or, as I remember in my years pastoring in the SBC, we said something like, “If you have professed faith in Christ and are a member in good standing in an evangelical (or something like that. maybe member where the gospel is proclaimed) then this table is open to you.
Obviously that was not restricted to Baptists. We would welcome E Free, etc. So, I’m wondering if you really say a little more than what you wrote?
Others?
Basically, I say that if someone has repented of their sins and placed their faith in Jesus Christ, they are welcome at the Lord’s table. I cannot see denying communion to one whom Christ has redeemed.
We then leave it up to each individual whether to take the supper or not.
Dave, by my understanding, you fit in he ‘close’ spectrum. ‘Open’ does not even hold forth the requirement that one be a believer to participate. I do think the BFM is a wise statement because Scripture indicates, in 1 Corinthians 11, that we encourage believers to examine themselves…also placing the observance in the care of the local churches which we believe is constituted of regenerate people walking in obedience which would include biblically faithful baptism—as a believer and by immersion.
Well, looks like my old BI card is still at least partially valid. 🙂
Sounds like he may be a “modified open communionist,” like me.
“modified open communionist”
“communionist”???
David Rogers,
Your spelling has much to be desired. Let me help you.
You meant “communist” didn’t you? You meant to state, “Dave Miller is a modified open communist.”
Actually, I think he may be an insurrectionist.
Thanks Dave.
Regarding the thrust of the article… how and to what degree do we enforce BF&M?
Perhaps we could use the term “reasonable agreement.” For the most part, the document is broad enough on some areas and specific in others to insure orthodoxy with reasonable room for disagreement (where appropriate). Therefore, if someone is in “reasonable agreement” with the BF&M then they can in good conscience serve in the convention and partner with associated churches.
Of course, the sticky point then becomes determining what is “reasonable.” Well… the churches and its messengers would determine that. If, hypothetically speaking, a SBC officer expresses discomfort with the wording of article concerning the Lord’s Supper, and a majority of SBC either sees no disparity or consider the variance “reasonable” or “within bounds,” then everything is fine.
If however, the difference is serious enough to warrant action, again it is the churches and the messengers who ultimately decide.
Does that seem “reasonable”?
Yes.
And of course, as practitioners of congregational polity, I guess we could say that if enforcement is needed, the church, association or convention will take the appropriate action.
Of course, we leave ourselves open to accusations of hypocrisy, etc.
Of course… this position demands consistency within issues. It requires that we act on conviction and with wisdom instead of posturing in an emotional and reactionary way.
Concerning hypocrisy in regards to which issues are addressed and which are not, that charge is invalid. If there is consistency within an issue, there is not hypocrisy in saying, “This issue is serious, and the other is not.” (Although, that would not stop people from playing the “hypocrisy card”… which incidentally is why I don’t play cards.)
I was specifically thinking of those who think we make too much of the homosexuality issue.
Actually, the biblical case is clearly in favor of the closed communion observance, that is, only the members of the local church can participate in the communion of that local church. No one else can participate. PERIOD. And the reason is obvious. The answer is in one word; DISCIPLINE. A local congregation can only discipline its own members; it cannot discipline the members of another church. In favor of collegiality, present day believers and ministers observe open communion in some cases, but the biblical and scriptural case is clear and plain and obvious. I do profess that after I gave up the Landmark explanation, that is, the exclusive reference to the local church as the only ekklesia there is, I gave up closed communion. But when I look at what happened to John Bunyan’s advocacy of open communion and what happened to his church, it is an open and shut case that Baptist congregational church government and practices were preserved by the closed communion practices of Bunyan’s opponents in the debate, namely, Keach, Kiffin, Knollys, and others. We are here today as proof that the latter produced the present day Baptists.
I, too, agree with you David, because the BF&M speaks to strongly of the issue of male dominance, giving second class citizenship to females. It is true that the inspiration is of the words and not the writers, and, since the Bible is inspired by Omniscience, there is a depth to the Book which has truths that are yet to be seen by its students. As John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims said, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to shine forth from God’s word.” Our problem with the word of God is its clarity and perspicuity. Because we can read its simple words, we think we fully grasp what it is teaching. The truth is, however, that we are ill-equipped to discern and understand the depth of that which we are perusing. The ideas are set forth in a manner that challenge our wherewithal to think. I pointed out this problem in my address as chairman of the Historical Committee of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina in 1985 on the subject, “The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses.” It is the intellectual depth of the simple and transparent teachings of Holy Scripture that try our powers of understanding. When you think you understand and grasp its meaning, you need to be very carefully as that seemingly indicates that you do not. Just consider the issue of slavery and the matter of brotherhood and Paul’s comments on the same.
Consider also the matter that the study of the ideas suggested to me, as one trained in Intellectual History, that such concepts are so structured as to create a desirable tension in the mind which enables one to be balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. In short, this is the real reason why the Christian Faith has often been in the forefront of the thinking of Western Civilization. Even a believer who does not have such training can become an admirable advertisement of the Christian Faith by the evident change which the Book produces in the individual by way of transformation. Just think of the move from murderous rage to being clothed and setting at the feet of Jesus in one’s right mind, and that isn’t just a biblical reality. It was a thing I observed in the Hell of the home in which I grew up in Arkansas, a home that went from the normative madness of the human heart (Eccles.9:3) to a sweetness of spirit and the gift of a good death.
Anecdotal evidence: Today in a class of 20 college seniors–all Christian Studies majors–I polled them on this very issue. Of the 20 students in that class today at our Georgia Baptist college (representing a wide variety of SBC churches in the area) NONE of their churches restricted the Lord’s Supper to the membership of the local church.
In Him,
Adam
Interesting.
I don’t think closed or close communion is very common in the Midwest – not that I’ve heard of anyway.
Adam,
This is not surprising as strict closed communion was never widespread in Georgia. It’s in states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc. where you will find good numbers of Southern Baptist churches practicing strict closed communion.
Did you also your class how many of their churches restrict the Lord’s Supper to baptized believers or to members of churches of like faith and order? (close communion) Those results would be interesting.
Ben, I did not ask that question but agree it would be interesting to know the answer.
On topic: we do not enforce the BF&M because it is, in its own words, no authority for the life of churches:
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
The BF&M is not the authority for the behavior of Baptist churches. The Bible is. If a Baptist church wishes to support work that is done based solely on the BF&M, even though the church disagrees with 95% of that statement, our system allows them to be part of the SBC. As long as they do not affirm homosexual behavior, that is.
Do we really want to change to a collection of churches that is run that way? Where a minority of churches send representatives to rubber-stamp the recommendation of a “blue-ribbon panel” that are then mandated to all churches?
I would suggest that we do not want to become that group of folks. If anyone prefers that, there remain many church groups with a central authority telling them what to do. I am certain they would welcome you. If, of course, you are willing to toe the line the central authority has drawn.
Otherwise, don’t make an authority out of a guide. Especially when the guide itself disclaims any intention of being used as an authority.
Dr. Willingham, you seem very right. If a local church can only discipline its own gatherers, than communion should perhaps be open only to them.
Dave,
Not being picky here but I believe you stopped sooner than you should have to express a close/closed communion within the BF&M 2K.
This part doesn’t really call for a close/closed communion. If one looked at this part only one would have to admit that an argument could be made that “the church” speaks of the church universal. However, what placed the close/closed argument intact is the quotes that are the same in the ’25; ’63; and 2000 BF&M which are as follows:
Thus, the issue that one has when we speak of close/closed communion is the issue of baptism by immersion. We define baptism by immersion as the only biblical valid baptism. Others define baptism as an act that does not need to be by immersion. Dr. Nathan Finn uses the term called “consistent communion” to express the point of baptism before the Lord’s Supper. Even the 1644 London Confession states it clearly;
While I would have to concede that there may be a majority of the churches in the SBC that do not openly promote baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper, I could not concede that if you placed them all in the room and discussed the theological discourse they would still be at that position after they left the room. We do so much in the name of pragmatism today that most pastors have never really sat down and thought through the theological implications.
Tim, I would agree that a reasonable and sound case can be made for some form of close communion. I lean a different direction, but I’ve seen some pretty strong arguments (I think Nathan Finn had some good stuff on this a while back).
But, while there may be some pragmatism in my position, my main belief is that it is the Lord’s Supper and no one who belongs to him should be excluded, even if they are not members of my church.
Good comment.
Dave,
That first exchange went well enough so let me push my luck. 😉
Here is where I see the pragmatism taking over in your logic. You say that “my main belief is that it is the Lord’s Supper and no one who belongs to him should be excluded.” Agreed, but what about the exclusion of one in church discipline. Are you saying that when we discipline someone by removing them from the roles of our local church they are no longer in “the church”?
What about that person that accepts Christ but refuses to be baptized by immersion? Would you exclude them from the table? If not, why?
Your position is a good position as long as everyone is doing right. But the fact we tie church discipline to the Lord’s Table is strong enough to tie Baptism to the Lord’s table. We discipline people because of open disobedience to the commands of Christ on the life of a believer. The BF&M clearly states that Baptism is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith…”
If you have someone come to you and say they were saved but refuse to be baptized you would not allow them to join the church, and rightly so. However, you say you would allow someone to partake of the Lord’s Table because it is God’s and you have no right to turn God’s children away from God’s table.
But, isn’t the church God’s? What gives us the right to reject people from His church? We hold that Baptism is a prerequisite to church membership, not because we are Baptists, but because we believe that is Biblical. We are Baptists because we believe Baptism is by immersion.
Thus, for me, your pragmatism encroaches on your theological position that you say you hold. If I believe Baptism is the first step of obedience in following Christ, which I believe you hold to also, and I know the Bible teaches only those who are following Christ in full obedience are invited–by the Lord–to take of His table, then I am left with only one position to take. I warn people that the table is open to those who have trusted Christ as their Savior and followed that in obedience through Baptism.
I don’t have a lot of time here, Tim. I’ll give a brief answer.
In NW Iowa and other northern parts, where Lutheranism and various Reformed positions prevail, the concept of biblical baptism (by immersion of believers) is a real issue.
We encourage people to be baptized scripturally and we do not lower the bar to membership. Only baptized believers (by biblical standards) are eligible for membership.
But, when it comes to the LS, I am willing to share it with anyone who has experienced the body and the blood, even if they have not experienced Baptism.
Inadequate response, I know, but time prevents something more extensive. Honestly, your questions would almost require another post to answer.
Appreciate the interaction. Maybe I can do a little better this afternoon.
Dave,
Good article. The BF&M is a confessional statement of what Southern Baptists believe. The Preamble clearly states, among other things, “That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.” This itself is a restatement of the 1963 BF&M, which many churches still affirm. While I am sure there are some within SBC life who would dearly love to enforce the BF&M on the local church level (entities and churches receiving financial assistance are a different matter as you point out), that would be next to impossible, both from a practical matter and an SBC Constitutional matter. From a practical perspective, to begin enforcing 100% conformance of the BF&M at the local church level would not only violate the Preamble of the document itself, but would also violate Baptistic principles and would lead to such divisiveness and discord that would make what happened with the GCR and Name Change look like a spring picnic. It’s simply not going to happen.
But, even more importantly, the Constitution of the SBC — which defines membership — does not reference the BF&M. Most people probably do not realize that fact, although I’m sure that some committee, if it was so inclined, could do an end-run around this, much like the Name Change Committee did with “Great Commission Baptists.” Like you and your church, we practice a modified open communion which does not require participants to be baptized prior to partaking. I respect other churches’ decisions to practice close/closed communion and I would not demand that they change their practice, regardless of what the BF&M says. I would hope that those churches would likewise respect your church and my church and other autonomous SBC churches who see it differently.
Thanks again for the article. The weather in NM is getting perfect. You’ll have to come out for the Bataan Memorial Walk this March. God bless,
Howell
No Bataan for me this year. Going to Israel instead,
Here is an issue that I think we should take seriously. Every Baptist should love fellowship at their own place of worship, and to miss a church service should bring sorrow upon the believer.
There are too many hit and miss believers who visit all the time. Every time a preacher says something that gets under their skin they are off to another church. If we play their game and treat them as if they are members of our congregation allowing them to take part in communion,
why should they settle down? They should want to take communion in their own church or move their letters to the church where they think God wants them to be and then observe communion.
On this issue I think the churches are much to liberal. Closed is the answer.
Okay, you believe in closed communion. No problem here.
My question is whether people like me who don’t believe in it have a place in the SBC.
Dave Miller,
I believe we as churches should do all we can to conform to the confessional of the SBC. Unless the SBC gets way out of line then we should maybe think about separating. If the SBC is not out of line
and we voted in place the existing confessional then we as Pastors and churches should stand behind it 100%. I might add, with no questions asked.
For me to violate my convictions to conform to the BF&M would actually be contrary to Baptist principles. We are people of the Book, not the creed.
I struggle with all this.
Dave,
What you said. Except, I do not struggle with this in the least 🙂 And, I would take a trip to Israel over the Bataan Walk any day! Have a great day and God bless,
Howell
Dave Miller,
Again, I want to say you are a man of the word. We all have certain convictions, and you are no different. Our convictions differ, sometimes we are pretty far apart on certain issues.
That doesn’t mean we cannot come together for Christ and
win souls.
I would ask one question here. What church did Philip baptize
the Eunuch into? Was it the local church, or Christ’s church?
Dave, some things we have to wink at and go on, I don’t want the SBC through the BF&M dictate to me that I have to administer the Lords Supper to non-members. If the wording can be changed that would protect my church and it’s closed communion, I reckon I can go along with you on open communion, although I’m a firm closed type of guy.
It seems there is a bit of confusion in the comment stream over the difference between close communion and closed communion. As I understand the BF&M (because of the same reasons Tim Rogers gives above), it leaves room for the practice of either close or closed communion. In other words, the BF&M does not demand that the Lord’s Supper be restricted to only the members of the local church in which it is observed. But it does demand that only truly baptized believers (i.e. baptized by immersion as believers) be invited to partake.
Even so, the Lifeway study indicated that a majority of those responding to the survey do not practice either close or closed communion, but some form of open communion.
As the BF&M is intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive, I believe there needs to be some effort made to amend it to reflect the actual beliefs and practice of the majority of Great Commission Baptists.
The only problem is there are a number of people in the SBC who are dead set against this change, and, as a result, such an effort could prove to be quite divisive. I think we are at sort of a Mexican standoff right now, since, although a lot of people would be in favor of an amendment, most people don’t think it is worth dividing the SBC right down the middle over. It is best to continue as are now, and sort of “wink at” this issue, not making a big deal about those who disagree on this point of the BF&M.
The one thing that might bring this issue more out in the open would be the publication of evidence that SBC institutions are systematically denying employment to otherwise worthy candidates because of their stance on this issue. This would amount to a sort of a de facto “taxation without representation,” something a lot of people, when they find out about it, don’t take too kindly to.
Someday, I wish you’d take all of your blogposts about baptism and the Lord’s Supper and put them in book form.
You give me a publishing contract, and we’re on.
Oh, and what happened to the recent comments feature? I want it back!!!
You can use my publisher….oh, wait, never mind
David,
I heard your father say one time that his belief and practice was that if someone got saved on the morning Sunday morning they were taking the Lord’s Table he would advise them not to partake of the Lord’s Table that morning. While that is stronger than I am comfortable with, he was the one that chaired the BF&M Committee.
I think the “wink at” point we find ourselves is due to the fact we have lost church discipline in our churches. We find it easier to adopt open communion stances because we don’t like telling someone in the church they are living in disobedience. Some take the position when we come to this debate that we are speaking about being Lord’s Supper Police. We do not have the Deacons passing out the elements asking people if they have been baptized by immersion. But, it is my position that we warn the people concerning Baptism by immersion. Shoot, in a Baptist church you very seldom even hear the warning any more. I visited a large church of a well known Baptist pastor when they had communion. His only warning was “If you don’t love Jesus then you shouldn’t take of this supper”. I sat there and refused the elements when they were passed. Why? 1 Corinthian 10:21 reveals that type of warning open the Lord’s Table up to being an idol. You see, allowing the participation at the Lord’s Table without a biblical warning about obedience through the first step of Baptism by immersion is a pragmatic way to keep from offending people when one deals with the truth of obedience to our Lord.
Tim,
I’m not saying my dad didn’t say that, because if you were there, and you heard him, I’m sure he did. But I’m not sure what the point is. And I don’t remember ever hearing him saying that myself. Was he just saying it would be better to wait until someone is baptized? If that is the case, I actually agree. The only exception I would have is the case of the principled paedobaptist, not the newly converted believer who has not yet followed through on the command to be baptized.
And I agree with you about church discipline as well. Of course, this implies a massive restructuring of most of our churches, though. As I see it, the only way to effectively do church discipline is, a) for a congregation small enough that the everyone in the church knows everyone else by name; or b) a well-organized small group system in which small group leaders are charged with the responsibility of keeping up with the spiritual state of the members of their group. If someone is under discipline, and refuses to repent, I agree: they should not be invited to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The only difference, once again, as I see it, is the visiting principled paedobaptist. If they are not under discipline at their church, they should not be considered as under discipline at my church, unless I consider their church to be a false church. And I am not ready to say that a paedobaptist church that is faithful on the essentials of the gospel is a false church.
Also, I somewhat resent the inference that those who don’t hold to close or closed communion do so because of pragmatic reasons. If you have read my defense of “modified open communion,” (and I know you have), it is plain to see that the position I hold is due to reasoned scriptural exegesis, not due to pragmatism. You may or may not agree with the exegesis, but it is clear that is the motive driving my position.
David,
What I understood him saying was that he was so strong on baptism being the prerequisite to the Lord’s Table that he would advise them to wait until after they were baptized to take communion.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying I disagree with him. What I am saying is that I understood from his statement in a conference he was saying that he taught “close” communion.
Please do not misunderstand me as I am just trying to follow your logic. If you can make an “exception” for a “principled paedobaptist” for the Lord’s Supper then why can’t you make an exception for church membership? If we are viewing baptism as being merely a symbol and this “paedobaptist” actually believes that he is baptized why would we make him get dunked? If it is not our table to guard, then it is certainly not our church to guard.
You see, David, for me it comes back to obedience. My daughter tells me she is going on a date and will be back at 11pm. At 11;15 pm I have not heard from her and neither have I seen any signs of a car heading toward my house. At 11:30 pm she finally pulls into the driveway and she is home safe and sound. When I question her on this issue she tells me that she pulled into the driveway at 10:45pm so in principle she was home by 11 but decided she and her date needed to spend some more alone time. Her motives were truly those of just spending time alone and she in her mind came home before 11pm. What should I do? Should I accept her principled response or should I go with the fact that 11 means 11? How can we call something that is clearly spelled out in scripture as being biblical ok to violate because of principle?
If we agree that baptism is to be prerequisite to church membership and the Lord’s Table, then we are left with one response when we take a “principled” approach. That is we violate the truthfulness of Scripture.
We are getting a bit off-topic, so I will try to be brief. I believe there is a difference between fellowship and cooperation. A local congregation is a setting for both fellowship and cooperation. If you agree to be a member, you should at the same time agree to walk in solidarity with the particular emphasis and program of that particular congregation. If you do not agree, and are not content to live in harmony with it, it would be best for you to seek another congregation that more closely matches your own convictions. That doesn’t mean you cannot continue to have fellowship with the members of that congregation, though. As a matter of fact, I believe Scripture commands us to walk in fellowship with all true believers, whether or not we cooperate with them in this project or that project.
I believe that celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a matter of fellowship (but not necessarily cooperation).
Congregational membership is a matter of both fellowship and cooperation. That is why the circle of congregational membership is more narrow than the circle of fellowship and participation in the Lord’s Supper.
Here is another example that helps illustrate my position. You move to a new town. There are two Baptist churches in that town, one which accepts women pastors and one that does not. Since you do not believe the Bible allows for women pastors, you decide to join the church that does not accept women pastors, because it is more in line with own convictions. But that doesn’t mean that you necessarily disfellowship all the members of the other church. And it doesn’t mean you should not allow them to participate with you in the Lord’s Supper. It just means, because of your difference of convictions on the particular issue of women pastors, it will be impractical and unproductive for you to try to cooperate together for the advance of the gospel in the context of the same congregation.
David and I don’t agree on much bot he is right here. It would be “quite divisive.” As a matter of fact it would be all-out war with numerous churches either leaving the sbc or sending their money elsewhere.
Ben,
Actually, I think we almost certainly agree on many, many things. Knowing what I know about you, I think we with all likelihood agree on the essentials of the gospel, and even many Baptist distinctives that go beyond the essentials of the gospel.
I know you probably didn’t mean it that way. But I don’t think that point should be lost in this discussion.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of us here that ever comment on SBC Voices are in basic agreement on the essentials. I think that is an important point not to forget.
As an employee for an SBC entity….
I agree that SBC employees should be held to a pretty tight standard on the BF&M. I support the IMB’s requirement that I and my colleagues sign a statement affirming the BF&M. While churches are autonomous, entities are not.
Yep. Bravo.
So should Jeremy transmit closed or close communion to the churches he starts as an employee of an entity of the Convention? Or is the church he starts autonomous like yours, Dave?
Your “Bravo” suggests you’ve deeply considered all of the consequences of treating the BF&M creedally at the entity level. But the points you make point to both minor and major defects in the construction of the document. Defects in a confession are somewhat irrelevant if they don’t force compliance. But when you administer a confession including requiring a signature without qualifications you step very close to the line of violating either the conscience if the believer or–if the document is faulty (as the BF&M might be on closes/close communion)–the authority of the Holy Spirit to directly guide the church.
I think we overlook these kinds of problems because it’s simpler to deare ourselves unwavering, loyal members if the tribe than it is to wrestle with them.
And, of course, because pretending we fully understand our faith in all of its nuances and details makes it true…
My bravo suggests that I appreciate his understanding that he has to teach in line with the BF&M.
1 Cor. 11:28 calls for a man to examine himself. The NT never calls a church to examine the participants of Communion.
So do you believe lost people should partake of communion? Of course not. You’re going to tell them they are unqualified to partake in the same way I will tell those without scriptural baptism they are unqualified.
I’ve been attending SBC churches all my life. I’ve never seen anyone do any kind of vetting procedure.
IT IS SAD THAT MOST SBC CHURCHES ALSO IGNORE THE STATEMENT ON ELECTION AND HAVE SUBSTITUTED DECISIONAL REGENERATION FOR SPIRIT REGENERATION.
CLOSED COMMUNION IS BIBLICAL. THE LORD’S TABLE IS GIVEN TO THE LOCAL ASSEMBLY.
WE ARE BAPTIZED BY THE SPIRIT INTO THE BODY–I COR. 12;13 IN THE AV 1611 AND GENEVA BIBLES
Btw: though I’m not a moderator, by convention all caps is interpreted as shouting in most internet fora and is considered rude.
The Body is the Universal Church, not the local church.
While I buy closed communion, communion limited to the local church, due to the discipline issue, I Cors.12:13 with I Cors.1:2 are the key verses that brought me out of the local church only view of Landmarkism. After all, if we are baptized by one Spirit into one body, then we are certainly talking about a church that is more than a local visible body. Paul addressed I Cors. to the believers at Corinth and to all who call upon the name of Jesus in every place. When I compared various Landmarkers’ interpretation of I Cors.12:13, I found that they could not develop an exegesis consistent with their ecclesiological views. J.G. Graves, B.H. Carroll, and John R. Gilpin were three in particular who varied in their interpretations of the passage under consideration, suggesting at the very least that Landmarkism could not be sustained. The one contribution which Graves’ made to the ekklesia discussion and scholarship was his findings concerning Acts 19 in his work on Intercommunion, demonstrating that the ekklesia of Ephesus had to be distinguished from the ochlos (mob). When I read K. Schmidt’s discussion of this issue in TDNT (Kittel’s), it was apparent that his presentation was wanting. Sometimes, even a minor and, more or less, sectarian figure can make a contribution to scholarly understanding of issues.
First of all, I dont believe that the BFM2K teaches close, closed, or open communion. I think it’s teaching that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed by the Church…that it’s a Church ordinance. Now, who you invite to participate would be left up to the Church. I think it’s also assuming that all Believers would be baptized, if they’re true Believers.
Secondly, of course, some Churches in the SBC can disagree on some of the things in the BFM2K, and still be SB. But, when we talk about SB missionaries, and SB Seminary Profs, people serving on committees and boards, and other denominational type servants….THEN, is where the BFM2K comes into play in a much bigger way….whether they adhere to the basic beliefs of SB’s, or not.
Also, I’d say that there are some Churches, who are so far out of liine with SB’s, that they need to be put out….for example, a Church allowing homosexuals to be members, and/or ordaining homosexuals as Pastors….
David
But David, that sort of skirts Dave’s main question and the point of his post. What if the BF&M does not actually reflect “the basic beliefs of SB’s” on a particular issue, such as close/closed communion? Should denominational employees be obligated to go along with the BF&M, or should they be obligated to go along with the majority of SB’s? Or should there be freedom for either one?
David Rogers,
Do you see any similarities in this discussion with the basic discussion during the CR? I’m not wishing to discuss who was right or wrong, but the issue of how we identify ourselves.
The phrase, “too narrow of a tent” (also heard in politics often) was bounced around with some regularity.
I know what side Dave was on, so I am a bit confused that this post would try to draw such a tight net in regard to the Lord’s Supper.
My question is: doesn’t the doctrine of autonomy make this a mute question? Therein, I see Dave’s argument play out: just how can we ever agree on a statement of faith to the degree that we parse words so narrowly.
I just don’t see any hope of resolving the issue of “identity” if we cannot even resolve the issue of the Lord’s Supper.
I would have no problem following Dave’s lead to better word the BFM in this regard, but there seems to be a caveat. Where does such narrowing of the language end?
My fear is at a time we need unity among our churches more than ever before we are parsing words so narrowly that I’m not even sure I agree with what I’m saying.
Frank,
Not sure how to answer your question. Maybe if you reworded it I would have a better idea.
That’s OK. Thanks.
Denominational employees should be able to agree with the BFM2K.
David
That is certainly true, no matter how we might think the BFM applies to churches.
As a statement, it is a confession of what we agreed was the general consensus of belief in 2000. It is also the doctrinal guideline for all SBC entities–alongside a few other guidelines in certain cases. Those additional docs can only narrow the BFM2K, not broaden it.
So anyone drawing a paycheck from theological work in the SBC should be able to affirm, with a clear conscience and no duplicity, the BFM2K. Perhaps with an explanation from that individual whether they see “Church” in the Lord’s Supper section as local member or universal–but either way, they should be able to affirm.
(I don’t think that would apply to non-religious employment in the SBC: does a custodian really need to affirm the BFM2K to change light bulbs or sweep floors? Not really)
Even if that means going against the beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptists?
And not one caveat. No, not one.
CB,
Not sure if you are just being tongue-in-cheek here, but I suppose you do realize that position eliminates over 60% of otherwise eligible candidates, who are members of participating Baptist congregations, right from the get-go.
David,
Who does it eliminate?
David
Me, Dave Miller, and a whole lot of other folks who think more or less like we do.
David,
How is that? as long as you believe that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance…the BFM2K does not teach closed, close, or open communion. So, how does it eliminate someone, who believes the truth of God’s Word about the LS?
DAvid
I agree with Tim Rogers, Robert Vaughn, and others here who see that the BF&M makes believers baptism a prerequisite for participation in the Lord’s Supper.
CB, would my disagreement with the statement on the HS eliminate me from service? Is the BF&M so sacrosanct that believing that Jesus baptizes us in the Spirit instead of the Spirit doing the baptizing is enough to eliminate someone from consideration for a denominational position?
My consternation over this whole issue would be greatly relieved, Dr. Worley, if I saw this as you do.
As I read the BF&M, I see some form of closed or close communion advocated. If he does, as you say, leave things more open, then my quandary is negated.
That would be comforting to me if your view turned out to be the more official view.
“That would be comforting to me if your view turned out to be the more official view.”
Therein lies the problem, and why the BF&M can never be an absolute litmus test for denominational participation. While it is clear on many matters, there is a degree of intentional ambiguity on every article – and places that may not be intentionally ambiguous but are nonetheless. At those points, there is no official view, no official interpretation, and no one with the authority to arbitrate disagreements. For instance, are certain non-Calvinists right that Article III restricts the Reformed view of inherited sin and guilt? Are Calvinists right that Article IV, particularly point A, teaches regeneration precedes faith? Are you right that Article VII teaches closed or close communion? Who gets to decide who is right? The only body with authority is the convention as a whole, and it is ridiculous to think of the convention meeting to resolve every difference. Which leaves us… I don’t really know where. With a confession that contains what I think is often intentional ambiguity so that we can have some theological leeway on certain issues without having to seek some sort of arbitration. What happens when someone disagrees with plain language of the BF&M? That’s harder to say.
Maybe we need a BF&M Talmud to explain the BF&M Torah.
Volfan007 (David Worley) has always stated the same position on the practical purpose of the BF&M as have I and other guys who did not sleep in class during their seminary years.
Dave, David, Tim, and All, sit at the feet of the Great Tennessee Volunteer known as Vol and learn. . . . and try to stay awake this time.
Thanks, CB.
The BF&M has a good bit of wiggle room regarding the Lord’s Table. But unless one is determined to make it mean what he or she wants it to mean, it cannot mean what is typically described as open communion. Contra SA Gordon’s comment above, the definition of open communion in Baptist churches typically means that it is open to all professed believers. The meaning of the words of the BF&M does not allow for openness to all believers. According to the BF&M, the Lord’s Supper is limited to immersed believers. Why? It says that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. That means it must precede or come before it. A prerequisite is a thing (baptism) required as a prior condition for something else (Lord’s Supper) to happen. The baptism that comes before it “is the immersion of a believer in water…symbolizing the believer’s faith….” This excludes anyone baptized before belief, even if it were by immersion. It excludes anyone who was immersed in order to be saved (e.g. Church of Christ). It excludes any believer who is baptized by any mode other than immersion. I’m not telling you what to practice; I’m talking about what the article says.
Dave, you wrote, “What is a ‘real’ Southern Baptist? We need to figure that out.” Simply put, a Southern Baptist is a member of a Southern Baptist church. A Southern Baptist church is a church that sends messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention and cooperates in (at least some of) its ministries. There are no specific doctrinal requirements in the Constitution of the SBC, and exclusions almost never occur at the national level (do they?).
Dave,
While I have gone back and forth with you on close/closed communion that is really not the issue for me in your post. Your post is being presented from where you are as Pastor of your post. A couple of things that you state in your post also causes me concern.
First, your understanding of your “Picky” disagreements. You say
I do not understand your desire to separate the person writing from the Scripture written. The Bible is clear that these men did not sit down one day and decide they were going to do some writing today and it will be one of the books of the bible. These men never worth something that was in their human imagination in their own insight, nor did they speculate. In the way that you have spoken about this leaves no room for God to inspire anyone. Yes, the writers were inspired. Their very thoughts were inspired and through that inspiration the Words they were writing were the Words of God.
I know you may say that is being “picky” but really you are making it appear that these men just put words on a paper and God miraculously placed them in an order.
The other issue that causes me concern is your position in writing this article. You are the 2nd Vice President of the SBC. Yours is an elected position that you won election to based on a nominating speech that told everyone you would rally everyone around the Baptist Faith and Message. Now, in less than 8 months you are telling the world publicly that you “disagree with the BF&M”. Then your tag line comes across more as a challenge then a question. It is like you are saying “what are you going to do about it?”
We have people who have signed their names to this document and as an elected official of the SBC you are saying you disagree with it. Yours would be like the Speaker of the House saying he did not agree with the Constitution. Not, mind you that you have some areas of concern, but that you disagree with it. Not, mind you that you have can identify areas where the practice of most churches are not in line with the BF&M, but that you “give my essential support.” Dave, that sounds so much like the rhetoric that came out of the leaders before the CR. I honestly do not understand your desire to place this up in the way that you have. You basically have told the entire SBC that our doctrinal statement is really of no importance.
Tim, the fact that I was elected 2nd VP has evidently caused you a lot of consternation. Be of good cheer, I will be out of office by the third week of June.
I am an employee of Southern Hills Baptist Church, an autonomous SBC church. I am not an employee of the SBC, and have never been asked to sign anything before or after my election. It is of no consequence in this discussion that I was elected 2nd VP.
Why do you feel the need to make your comments accusatory and insinuatory? I’ll never understand that. We can talk about things like brothers in Christ. I’m a pastor of medium to small church in Iowa who is really outside the power structures of the SBC (ask anyone who’s ever been 2nd VP – it means little).
I am a solid conservative who went to many conventions from 79 to the end of the shooting war of the CR and voted conservative. Your constant insinuations that I am somehow moderate just defy imagination. Why would you go there? Anyone who knows me or reads my writings knows that insinuating I am moderate strains credulity and does not advance the credibility of your arguments.
And I am about as SBC as they come. I said in the post that I gave 99% assent to the BF&M and the whole point of my article was to say it IS important and that we need to figure out how to enforce it. Anyone who read my article, then read your statement that I “told the entire SBC that our doctrinal statement is of no importance” would wonder where on earth you read what you read.
If you want to have discussions, let’s talk. But if you want to engage in insinuation and accusation, you are on your own. I engaged your first couple of comments, and thought the discussion was productive, but nonsensical comments like your last one with either be ignored or deleted.
You can do better than that.
Dave,
My consternation is not with your election. My consternation is with the fact that you were nominated and placed before the SBC as one who will unite the convention around the doctrines of the SBC as found in the Baptist Faith and Message. I am not making this stuff up go back and look at Allan Cross’ nomination speech. Less than 8 months after that you release an article titled; “I Disagree with the BF&M”. In this article you do not say you support the BF&M but that you “essentially” support the document. Meaning, that it really is not that important and you are supporting it because you have to because you do not agree with the document. Now, this is not “nonsensical” as you purport it to be but is in fact what you are saying.
Now, only you can clear this up. Stop riding on your Daddy’s coattails and your Grandparents involvement in SBC missions and state clearly. Do you or do you not agree with the Doctrinal statement the SBC has affirmed.
For the record, after my election I talked to some people (whom I cannot name) who would be considered experts on what it means to be an officer in the SBC. I asked them if blogging was an issue. Obviously, I’m the first person known primarily as a blogger who has been elected.
However, they told me that my position as an officer did not affect my blogging.
I have been a little more careful about leveling criticism because of that position, but we are Baptist and we do not have a hierarchy. I have been assured by people with expertise in Baptist polity that being elected as an officer does not impinge on my right to hold or publicly express my views.
I try to be responsible, but I am free – and the repeated questioning of my views on the basis of the fact that I got elected in June is a point not well taken.
Dave,
For the record, I was not criticizing you for having an opinion and being an “elected” official. You have every right to question, criticize and complain all you want.
I did not phrase that post as well as I should have. My issue with this issue is why it is such an issue. Is there anybody anybody knows of who has been denied a position because of a view on the Lord’s Supper being “close, closed, or somewhat open?”
I don’t know anywhere this is being talked about but on Voices. I do get what you are saying about the difficulty of “enforcing” the BFM especially at the local church level.
That is a different issue and one not likely to be resolved — ever!
The close versus open is a consequence of the fact that we moved from a generally rural (close, pocketed) society to an urban one (more open, more diverse). I can see where this cultural shift may require a slight rewording of the article you cite. What I am not sure of is that once we start down that road, will we be able to stop before we crash into the wall at the end of the street.
After taking a nap and reading through this thread, I can see why this post is a bit more needful than I saw at first. I think I missed the subtle essences of the post.
This comment was in reply to Tim’s above, not to yours.
It is sometimes a bit confusing who is talking to who. I really do respect you and consider myself a guest on your blog. Also, for the last six months I’ve been trying to be more “big hearted.”
I felt bad be “grumpy” the other day, but it has been a pretty trying time.
I also believe that this post points out the “identity crisis” we have as SBC ers. Not just having an identity, but how to even go about identifying one in light of the place autonomy holds in our polity.
It’s all about the identity crisis, from my observations!
Dave, are you sure you are not experiencing burn out? Why don’t you take a break and pray about it a while. It might be worth your time.
Not sure what you are talking about? I’ve been through burnout a time or two and right now I’m pretty energized.
Dave,
I can feel your energy in the last few months, maybe a year.
Personally, I’m on the other end of the “burn out” stick. These are some of the hardest months I have had in ministry — partly because of some success we are having, partly because of health issues I’m having, partly because of health issues with my daughter and grandson to be (three weeks).
I should take Jess’ advice. He always has good advice, but it just comes at the wrong time for the wrong person.
Frank L.
I was talking to Dave, but I was thinking Frank. (Grumpy).
David Rogers, CB, Worley, Tim, etc – does this discussion take you back a few years to “good old days” of blogging?
Dave,
Not really. In the “good old days” of blogging we would sit up all night and blog. The blog comment stream was an IM for many of us. 🙂
Yeah. How about just “old days.”
Here is what Herschel Hobbs said about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in a book entitled “The Baptist Faith and Message”:
“New Testament baptized believers are eligible to take the Lord’s Supper. Some Baptist churches hold that one should be a member of the church in which he partakes of it, holding that he should be in the fellowship and under the discipline of the church which administers it (1 Cor. 11:20-34). Most Baptist churches hold that any member of any Baptist church is eligible…All Christian groups which practice baptism hold that it should precede the Lord’s Supper. Baptists say the same thing. The question is, What constitutes New Testament baptism? Thus the difference between Baptists and others is at this point, not about the Supper. Therefore, if Baptists are ‘closed’ anything they are ‘closed-baptismists’!” (Pg. 90-91)
Interestingly, the SBC does have a page where they “officially” unofficially state they have no official stance on requirements for the Lord’s Supper. http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp #12
I do hope that the next revision of the BFM attempts to resolve the issue of dancing, I know there are many blog posts in the queue here about this hot button issue (#13).
Interestingly indeed. I wonder what this means. Does it mean, for instance, that, since each congregation is autonomous, they are free to follow or not follow the BF&M? Or does it mean that the BF&M itself does not mandate requirements for the Lord’s Supper?
It would appear the second one. That sure seems like an odd way to interpret the BF&M, though.
IOW, “[Baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper” seems to me to mean “[Baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
How else can you read this?
Stephen,
Good point. I can get my dancing articles out of storage and blow the dust off of them now.
Problem with your link is the same problem we have with the blog articles. The person who placed that out there evidently did not hold the BF&M in high regard. Don’t know who the author was of the material you referenced. Maybe that would be helpful to understand why they would say that the SBC does not have an “official” stance on something that three different meetings of the SBC affirmed the same wording–’25, ’63, & 2000. I mean, how much more official can one get than three conventions of Baptists agreeing on the same wording?
Also, to add more thickness to this plot. Richard Land answered this challenge in Orlando in 2000 when it was questioned from the floor. When the question came to the floor Dr. Mohler backed away and recognized Dr. Land for the response from the committee. Dr. Land’s basic response was that all orthodox denominations require baptism before the Lord’s Supper.
There have been confessional baptists.
There are also these historical Baptists [the latest quote being “1909”] who were, on some level, not confessional:
1. R.P. Johnson, Moderator of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association, said in a BR article entitled “The Characteristics and Mission of the Sandy Creek Association” in 1909:
“…some of the characteristics of an association are…9 It has no confession of faith and no book of discipline other than the New Testament, and ‘is not shackled by human creed.'”
2. Francis Oliver, Moderator of the Neuse Baptist Association (1815):
“They cast contempt upon the Scriptures, and their authors, assuming the prerogative of Christ, they presuppose that the Scriptures are imperfect, and short of being in themselves a sufficient rule for a Church; forasmuch as they add traditions that are not to be found in the word of God and bind them upon their adherents by which they are led to read and consider those writings more than the Scriptures, thereby lay a greater stress upon them, and so to be like those that seem somewhat in the Church and less regard Christ and his word. This is contempt indeed.”
3. John Leland, a predestinarian, said in 1791:
“Why this Virgin Mary between the souls of men and the Scriptures? Had a system of religion been essential to salvation or even the happiness of the saints, would not Jesus, who was faithful in all his house, have left us one? If he has, it is accessible to all. If he has not, why should a man be called a heretick because he cannot believe what he cannot believe, though he believes the Bible with all his heart? Confessions of faith often check any farther pursuit after truth, confine the mind into a particular way of reasoning, and give rise to frequent separations.”
4. George Purefoy, who wrote a history on the Sandy Creek Baptist Association (1859):
“There are two peculiarities of the Baptist churches, that will eventually free them from error, and bring them to see eye to eye, and speak the same things in Christ, namely: That each church is an independent body, and that they will hold nothing as a tenet of faith, that has not for it a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ They are not shackled by a human creed, and have no Confession of Faith, and no Book of Discipline, but the New Testament”
5. W.B. Johnson, the 1st President of the SBC, said in 1845:
“We have constructed for our basis no new creed; acting in this matter upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible.”
Benji,
How about we look at it from the writings of B.H. Carroll (1843-1914)?
Now, if you want to travel the road of “No Creed but The Bible” then you will travel it with the Cambellites and you will find down that road a group in the 1980-90’s within the SBC called “moderates”. I think that Carroll has given us a clear understanding of the reason we needed the BF&M.
I think this is one of those eternal battles for us. We do follow the “no creed but Christ” ethic – we have no official arbiter or interpreter of biblical truth. But on the other hand, we have a confession that guides our fellowship.
No church is forced to believe anything, but we do hold ourselves doctrinally accountable.
A confession is an important bridge between creedalism (which we reject) and a complete lack of doctrinal standards (which we also reject).
Tim,
My first line was “There have been confessional baptists.”
I also did not say that I agree or disagree with either being confessional or [non]confessional.
I quoted historical Baptists themselves.
God Bless,
Benji
Tim,
B.H. Carrol also said this:
”Suppose we take the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. If you want to get muddled you should read what the commentators say on the subject. What is it? It reads in the King James Version this way: ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.’ It reads in the new version, ‘In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.’ Notice the difference in the two renderings. The King James Version makes the Holy Spirit the administrator, ‘By one Spirit.’ The Holy Spirit never administers baptism. He is the element, not the administrator.” (”The Holy Spirit”; Pg. 29 from AGES software)
However, the BF&M 2000 says this:
“The Holy Spirit…He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ”
Question for Tim Rogers et al: Does your association exercise scrutiny of the communion practices of member churches and, if so, are any found to be not in accord with the associaiton’s doctrinal statement?
I have served in three associations. None have ever attempted to investigate the communion practices of churches. Seems to me that this is a non-issue these days, as is alien immersion. No one has much interest or sees much profit in attempting to enforce any conformity in these areas.
Answer for William Thornton,
What does my association have with “exercising scrutiny” over the practice of anything its member churches do? My association is an autonomous body, just like the church I serve is. My association does not have a doctrinal statement. The only thing most associations do today is make certain the ACP is gathered and sent in.
Your association doesn’t have a doctrinal statement?
Mine doesn’t.
“New Testament Baptist Churches” in the immediate geographical area are welcome to join the association.
Their have been several associations in Kentucky that have disfellowshipped churches in the last decade because they received alien immersion. And the attention this post is receiving shows closed, close / open communion is not yet a dead issue either.
Dave you said, “Maybe we need a BF&M Talmud to explain the BF&M Torah.” That was hilarious and I just wanted someone to acknowledge that. I loved it.
But I will say this, I understand where the brothers have a problem with equivocation on the BFM2K. That document was set up so that there will never be a need for a CR2.
It’s been interesting (frustrating) to watch the activity of pastors/elders at certain SBC church plants in my area in relation to the BFM, particularly those which have an affiliation with or allegiance to Acts 29. They essentially refer to the BFM as their statement of faith to receive an SBC covering, but then throw parts of it away in actual belief and practice … local autonomy, you know.
Russell Dilday addressed some of the items noted in this comment stream in his 2001 analysis of the BFM2000 revision. The “troubling factors” section of his review of things has proven to be prophetic: http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html
Benji,
I suppose it depends on who you are talking to, doesn’t it?
Jess,
I doubt anybody is going to tell me Carroll’s an oddity based on his conflict with the BF&M 2000.
And if they did, I would like to see how their interpretation is better than his on 1 Corinthians 12:13. They may pull out all the Greek they like.
Benji,
This is not the baptism of water here, but the baptism of the spirit.
Paul is telling the church at Corinth “local church,” that spirit baptism
is common to all believers. You must be saved to and baptized into the local church to partake of the Lords supper. 1Cor. 11:17-20. We come together ” into one place,” not every place, but the local church.
Which makes it closed communion.
Jess,
I am referring to the difference between the Spirit being the administrator of Baptism (BF&M 2000) versus the Spirit being the element one is baptized into (Carroll).
I am not referring to different interpretations in relation to the Lord’s Supper.
I am late to the party since I have been out of town. However, I like to make several quick comments:
1. I much as I appreciate Dave Miller’s posts, I believe that this time he is seeing something that is not there. I do not believe that the BF&MK endorses only closed communion, but uses church in the universal meaning. Actually, I have never thought such when I have read the confession of faith.
2. Closed communion was an idea that was endorsed and emphasized by the Landmark Baptists, you know, those who fought the Convention over sending missionaries to other countries. They believed that missions was to be accomplished only through a local church, not an association or convention.
3. I own a token that was used at the Presbyterian Church in Scotland where Horatius Bonar was the pastor. He would present it to the members he deemed ready for the Lord’s Supper.
4. Regarding the brother who shared that in 1909 that the moderator of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association spoke against confessions. It should be noted that the association voted and accepted their own Confession in 1845 that was similar the the New Hampshire Baptist Faith and Message.
5. Dave, just how many angels did you count on the head of a needle? Just kidding.
But do you believe the BF&M limits the choice to either close or closed communion, as opposed to open or modified open communion? That, to me, is the real issue at stake.
David Rogers,
I believe the BF&M limits the choice to closed communion. Since Baptism is prerequisite to “church membership, and the “Lords Supper.” David, it’s true we become members of the bride that Jesus is comming for one day, we also become members of the local church
which is also the Bride. We are members in particular according to
Apostle Paul.
We become members of the local church with Christ being the head.
We are to carry out God’s will in the local church. No one can dictate to us how to carry out his will. This is what makes the Local church different from the universal church. We are unique and members in particular. If not we Baptists would be like the Jeovahs Wittness’s, the same sermon would be preached by every pastor in the United States
on any given Sunday.
The local church administers the Lords supper when it desires to members of it’s congregation, “which is local.” Not universal.
Each member of a church should want to partake of the Lords supper
in their own local congregation.
Jess,
We can discuss the merits and biblical arguments supporting close, closed, open, and modified open communion elsewhere, and there are plenty of posts on that. But I don’t see how the BF&M specifically mandates closed communion. It says, 1) baptism is a prerequisite to church membership; and 2) baptism is a prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper. It says nothing about where you have to be a member (or, even, for that matter, if you do have to be a local church member) to participate.
Or, if not, I am totally missing something when I read it.
The BF&M does also say that baptism is a church ordinance. I understand where some people read that to mean it should be done in the context of and under the supervision of a local congregation. But I think it is also possible to read it as referring to the Universal Church. And it says the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance as well.
But to jump to any further conclusions than that is to connect the dots where there is no warrant for doing so.
David Rogers,
It cannot be the universal church when Paul was talking to a local congegation in particular, the church at Corinth.
I belive this is good instruction for all local churches, and we should adhere to the Apostle’s teachings, but the fact remains
this is to a local church, a church in particular. 1Cor. 11:17-20.
You actually answered the question yourself, Under the supervision of a local congregation.
Jess,
First Corinthians is actually addressed,
“To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints TOGETHER WITH ALL THOSE WHO IN EVERY PLACE call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2).
And the fact the Lord’s Supper is administered under the supervision of a local church says nothing about who they allow to participate.
David,
Either I am not reading this correctly or you and I agree on the interpretation of the BF&M. 🙂 I choose to believe the latter. I think I would have to say I believe you to push the envelope to interpret it as referring to the Universal Church. The reason is the BF&M is the BF&M of the SBC. The SBC at no place references the Universal Church, only the “local church”. In the preamble, your dad penned the following words;
In this preamble he makes clear we are speaking about the local churches that make up the Southern Baptist Convention. He concludes this Preamble with
In order for one to affirm the reference to the Universal Church one would have to also affirm the Universal Church
The section just before the Lord’s Supper and Baptism certainly speaks of the Universal Church. However, if one uses the last paragraph in the article of “The Church” as the basis then one would have to affirm that the Universal Church is made up of only those who have experienced baptism as is described–immersion.
Tim,
I think we are in basic agreement over our interpretation of the BF&M. I don’t think I have ever said otherwise. I have said I have a personal caveat with the one phrase: “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” But I basically agree with you on what it means.
I do think, however, that the following phrase does indeed recognize the existence of the Universal Church:
“The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
And I don’t see where you get from that, that only those who are properly baptized are members of the Universal Church. As a matter of fact, it says, to the contrary, it “all of the redeemed…”
Are you insinuating that you believe in baptismal regeneration?
I forgot to finish my sentence. It should read,
“As a matter of fact, it says, to the contrary, it includes “all of the redeemed…”
Joe,
If we use your information, it looks like this:
1758: Sandy Creek Baptist Association Constituted: (with no Confession of Faith)
1816: SCBA adopts “Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association”:
1845: SCBA adopts New Hampshire like confession
1909: Moderator (R.P. Johnson) speaks as if they do not currently have a confession.
* It may be that the Sandy Creek association ceased having a confession (I don’t know, but it seems to me that Johnson’s comment points in that direction).
The Neuse Baptist Association used to have a confession (New Hampshire, I think), but ceased having it many years ago. Thus it does not have one now.
David Rogers,
Yea, I went back and re-read my statement and realized is said something I did not mean for it to say. What I meant wasn’t that the BF&M didn’t recognize the Universal Church but that it was not the focus of the document. The focus of the document, from my understanding, is what we as local congregations believe. Thus, to speak of reading Universal Church into the meaning of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism would not be logical.
Dave,
I think you will find these quotes relevant to your post.
In David Benedict’s “A General History of the Baptist Denomination…” (1813) he says this about the Regular & Separate Baptists:
“…the Regulars complained, that the Separates were not sufficiently explicit in their principles, having never published or sanctioned any confession of faith… To these things it was answered by the Separates, that a large majority of them believed as much in their confession of faith, as they did themselves, although they did not entirely approve of the practice of religious societies binding themselves too strictly by confessions of faith, seeing there was danger of their finally usurping too high a place:
Benedict quotes from the General Committee as saying this:
“To prevent the confession of faith from usurping a tyrannical power over the conscience of any, we do not mean, that every person is bound to the strict observance of every thing therein contained; yet that it holds forth the essential truths of the gospel, and that the doctrine of salvation by Christ, and free and unmerited grace alone, ought to be believed by every Christian, and maintained by every minister of the gospel. Upon these terms we are united…”
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/benedict/baptistdenomination/virginiaorigins04.htm
Interesting.