Chapman on BFM Statement: "It says what it says."

Morris Chapman discusses the statement about the BFM 2000 that was passed in San Antonio in a First-Person article on Baptist Press. Here's a quote:

Although the Executive Committee did not recommend it to the Convention, it is not a confusing statement. I encourage you to tune out all the rhetoric surrounding the issue and read the statement carefully, taking it at face value. It says what it says, nothing more and nothing less.

Here's the statement that was adopted:

The Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible; nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.

Now, dictionary.com consistently defines "creed" as something like "a set of accepted or authoritative beliefs." Is the BFM a creed or not? But, I'm assuming that by "creed," we Southern Baptists mean something different... something that we must hold to strictly or be kicked out of the denomination. So, it's not that.

And it's not a complete statement of our faith. So, we believe other things that are not contained in the BFM 2000. Further, it's not final (we may change or revise it) and it's not infallible (we may see that we've made some mistakes and correct them).

That being the case (it's not a creed, it's not a complete statement of our faith, it's not final or infallible), it's the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the SBC. So, what is consensus? Again, trusty dictionary.com defines "consensus" as the "majority opinion" or "general agreement."

The BFM 2000 is the only "generally agreed upon" statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the SBC. We may generally agree about other doctrinal statements (the Abstract comes to mind), but, no, they haven't been approved by the SBC. As such, the BFM is something that is meant to be somewhat broad. General agreement, or majority opinion does seem like a minimal statement (though Chapman says to say that misses the point).

Now we come to what I consider to be the "tricky" part of the statement. Since the BFM is the only consensus statement approved by the SBC, it is sufficient. We all know what "sufficient" means. It is "adequate" or "enough." But what is it enough for? It is adequate to guide 1) trustees in their establishment of policies; and 2) the practices of entities of the Convention.

The question is, What does it mean that something is sufficient to guide? Some think it meant one thing, while others think it means something entirely different. Here are the two views:

First, you might say that if something is sufficient to guide, then you don't need anything else to guide you. If you have a set of rules that are sufficient to guide you in how to play basketball, then you don't need anything else. That set of rules is sufficient to guide you in playing. If this sense is correct, then the Burleson camp has won quite a victory. Also, if this reading is correct, then it means a strengthening of the BFM, but a weakening of the SBC. For, then you have a minimum document (you must affirm these things to be an SB missionary) turned into a maximum document (this is all you can be tested on to see if you qualify to be an SB missionary). If you read the statement in this way, then if you want to add some new limitation or qualification, it must be brought before the SBC.

I assume that Wade Burleson and Rick Garner hold to this first view. Burleson was quoted by ABP as saying "This is the biggest decision in the Southern Baptist Convention in a decade," and "The SBC has said it doesn’t want the agencies going against the convention." In that same article, Garner, who introduced the motion said, "If they feel like they need to go beyond that … they will need to come back to the convention floor."

Second, you might say that if something is sufficient to guide, then it is generally a good place to start and finish. If the trustees do make some policy changes, they must not stray far away from the BFM. For it is the only consensus doctrinal statement approved by the SBC. If this view is correct, then it doesn't seem like the motion does very much (if anything). The trustees could have made the same policy change on the "tongues" issue and said that they were guided by the BFM, but felt that other considerations weighed into their decision.

The more I have thought about this statement, the more I have come to the conclusion that the first view above is the correct one (and that's not a good thing). Rick Garner introduced the motion and that is clearly his understanding of it. Burleson says that it is the biggest decision in a decade (is that the case if you take the second view?).

Is the statement clear to you? Which of the two views (or a third or fourth option) do you think is correct?