It is only Section I of 7, so more will come tomorrow.
The purpose of this document is to inform the membership of MBC of trends, teachings, and practices currently guiding the BGCT. Many of you will ask if this even matters. Here is a brief list of why you should be concerned with the happenings in our State Convention:
· 10% of your tithe goes to the Cooperative Program which pays for BGCT and Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) institutions and individuals to operate. Simply by giving financially you are declaring your support. If you tithe to MBC and do not stipulate otherwise how those funds are allocated you are affirming the efforts of the BGCT and SBC.
o Currently 10% of all undesignated offerings at MBC are allocated to the Cooperative Program. 72% of those funds remain in Texas with the BGCT and 28% is sent on to the national convention, the Southern Baptist Convention.
· Your tithe goes to support the colleges and seminaries of the BGCT. Your tithe is a vote of confidence in the administration and teachers of these schools.
o These colleges and seminaries train the pastors, missionaries, ministers, and lay-leaders of tomorrow. Their theological positions are critical for shaping the theology of future ministers, missionaries, and churches.
· Your tithe goes to fund particular mission efforts and strategies through the BGCT to reach those outside the state of Texas.
o This historically and practically has not been the role of the State Convention but the role of the National Convention.
o You may ask, Aren’t more missions better than less missions? Yes, but when mission monies are allocated for the duplication of administrative personal this does not help missions but takes necessary funds out of the mission field and puts it in the BGCT Baptist Building for state-side non-missionary staff.
· Church Planting
o This historically and practically has been one of the functions of the State Convention; helping churches in Texas plant churches in Texas.
o The BGCT has recently announced affiliation with the Emerging Church Network and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) in regards to church planting.
· Specific Theological issues of concern
o The BGCT’s unwillingness to affirm and defend the inerrancy of Scripture
o The BGCT’s open support for, special training of, and call to the churches to hire women as senior pastors.
o The BGCT’s unwillingness to defend the biblical teaching that God knows the future while supporting those who teach Open Theism which denies God’s knowledge of the future.
o The BGCT’s obvious support for the Emerging Church Movement. This movement often denies the existence of truth as defined by Scripture or the person of God.
I. Specific concerns regarding the direction and theology of the BGCT
A. Intentional movement away from the biblical and historic Baptist position affirming the inerrancy and innate authority of Scripture.
1. In a workshop at the 2007 BGCT Annual Convention discussing the development of the canon of Scripture (what books make up the Bible) Dan Stiver, theology professor at Hardin-Simmons, drew the conclusion that the canon should still be open allowing us to add books to the Bible when we feel it is appropriate.
2. Take note that when a person/entity is only willing to affirm the authority of Scripture it is generally because they are not able to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. Among BGCT leadership this is the current position.
4. If you would like to see a comparison of the 2000 and 1963 BF&M you can find one at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp
At 10:02 AM, 
Um. Yes I was there. Front row, your left, with a beard. And I believe you said, "If we could get the entire church (all denominations together) and agree that, for example, the recently discovered gospel of Judas, contained some sayings of Jesus, and they rang true for us, should we add them to the canon?...Maybe."
After re-reading my comment after I posted it, I realized that it may have come across un-gracious. Forgive me for sounding that way, it was not my intention. I appreciate that you stopped by, let alone comment.
When my pastor and I left the workshop, however, this was the impression we were both left with.
If wrong, we will gladly correct ourselves, and give you the opportunity to respond.
Aaron
At 8:17 PM,
I'm curious as to your comment that the BF&M 2000 made inerrancy a primary issue. The fact of the matter is, the article on the Bible doesn't use the word "inerrancy" in its description of the Scriptures. I find that amazing given the insistence throughout the Conservative Resurgence on the use of the term. When the SBC redacted its confession of faith, it failed to use the terminology that CR leaders had insisted on and utilized to oust conservative scholars from their posts.
At 12:45 PM,
From Paul Duncan-
The 2000 BF&M brought issues to the front thereby making inerrancy an issue. The 2000 BF&M did not use the word inerrancy but through the additions concerning God's knowledge of future events, women's roles in ministry, and the family the BF&M 2000 made inerrancy an issue.
If we say we believe the bible is truth without any mixture of error we're making a statement that must be defined. It means something to be a Methodist and it means something to be a Baptist. It means something to be a liberal, moderate, conservative, or fundamentalist.
Did things get out of hand? Yes. We're sinful things said? Yes. The ends do not justify the means. But a stand needed to be taken. I hope that given the opportunity to do it over things would be handled differently but a firm stand would still have been made.
At 12:47 PM,
From Paul Duncan concerning Dr. Stiver
Dr. Stiver, thank you for your comment and there is obviously some confusion between what you said and what we heard. I was there in the workshop as well and was surprised to say the least at the conclusion you appeared to be making. When I read your comment about bringing the issue up to refute the position that we can add to the canon I was equally as surprised. Last night I read the chapter from your upcoming book that you gave us in an attempt to better understand your position. Here are my thoughts:
1. I hold to a verbal plenary view of inspiration. Your comment about this view of Scripture being closer to an Islamic or Mormon view of Scripture is inflammatory and more of a straw man than a helpful dialogue between Baptists.
Your focus in the chapter on the role of tradition, "We continue to re-examine tradition as well as Scripture, and often find ourselves revising our understandings" (pg 15) could be equally construed. This chapter sounds a great deal like the Catholic understanding of Scripture with an expanded canon and the Mormon understanding of Scripture with the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, and the Bible. I don't think it's fair to equate you with a Mormon so please give me the same benefit.
2. After reading the chapter and hearing your lecture, though you may have attempted to refute the idea of an open canon, I still believe your ideas lead to this end.
"Why would we expect that such a complex, marvelous event could be exhausted by any number of books...The early church recognized that one book could not do justice to the events without the aid of other books" (3). If they recognized it then shouldn't we as well? This leads to an open canon.
"Such acts of spiritual discernment and acknowledgement, which can be seen as "illumination" as a counterpart to "inspiration," are as important as the works themselves; otherwise, we would likely not have the works at all, and even if we did, we might not value them. In fact, this is a continuing process. Every generation of Christians must continue this valuation, or likely it will be lost" (pg. 5). You go on to say that the judgment of inspiration is actually a continuing task for the church (pg. 5). Inspiration as affirmation and this continuing today leads us to an open canon. What if we don't affirm it? Well it's not inspired.
I have to go for now. Hopefully I can post more later.
Paul Duncan
I just wanted to clarify as Dan Stiver to whom you refer, I brought up the issue to REFUTE the position that we can add to the canon. Just to set the record straight! Were you there?