I believe you misunderstand. This statement by the convention says that the SBC would prefer that its agencies and institutions not add any more rules and regulations beyond what we already share together. It is not about restricting liberty, but restricting restrictions.

As for reaching the lost world, that is exactly why I think it is important to quit creating additional tests of fellowship that hinder our ability to do that.

By adhering to the BFM as the letter of the law… we are becoming legalistic and forgetting that the BIBLE is not a book of rules, but rather a book of guidelines. By allowing the BFM to be the maximum “law” we are saying that the BFM can only rule over what is listed inside its articles. So what of the major issues that are not listed within these articles?

If your response is that it reverts back to the first article stating that it is governed by scripture, then you are contradicting the very idea that the BFM needs to be the maximum defining rule. If the BFM is submitting authority to the Bible, then the BFM cannot be the maximum rule. The Bible is the maximum authority and the only authority. There is no need of another “document” to present itself as maximum authority because that goes against the idea that the Word of God is inerrant and the only authority we as Christians need. Thus, the BFM should rightly only be a minimum guideline… a starting point whose existence should serve to attempt to maintain the path that the Bible has already carved out, not try to reign in what the Bible states.

Tell me, is this the most important piece of activity that has occurred today? The problem with the politico in the convention is that they focus on the letter of the law and not the real problem…. 4% of our current generation are turning to Christ. That should be what we work towards instead of leveraging for some political movement within our own ranks.