An Interchange with Tim Guthrie within BFM2000: Cavernous Caveats, Three Tiers or a “Canon within the Canon?”

In the comment stream related to my guest essay on SBC Outpost, “The Garner BFM2000 Motion: An Exegesis/Exposition,” posted last weekend, I ended up interacting with Tim Guthrie, who has another concern besides the spotlighted issue of the integrity of the BFM “in its current form,” which is currently under external attack by non-consensus de facto doctrinal additions by some entity trustee boards.  Tim apparently believes that the internal integrity of the BFM is also in grave danger from “caveats” (i.e., qualifications and explanations as to why you cannot agree with something).  I had noticed him pursue this passionately on other blogs, so I know this is not a sudden curiosity at all.

Well, to be completely candid up front, I do not agree at all with Tim that what have agreed to discuss deserves to the “front burner” issue in SBC circles right now in regard to BFM2000.  However, I do fully recognize that, as the Apostle Paul cautioned the Ephesian elders, it is always necessary to be vigilant in regard to both external and internal dangers to the Lord’s church (Acts 20:28-30).  So, in that light, let’s go for it, to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

The following are the relevant comments that brought us to this point:

(Boyd) “… If this something you are vitally interested in, Tim, maybe you and I could do a recurring exchange of views, much like what David Rogers and Malcolm Yarnell are doing in regard to the Great Commission on David’s blog.

Here’s what I’m proposing: if it could be done in an edifying, iron sharpens iron manner, I am wide open to a dialogue on what you are calling the “minimum”–although I actually think you are talking about theological tiers.

What saith thou?”

(Tim) “Your invitation is accepted. Please email me at tim@winningtruth.com.

I think the whole triage issue is the real debate and everything else is fluff I have been trying to figure out how in the world a layered approach could possibly work.

I look forward to the dialogue.”

(Boyd) “Even though I do not think that the tiers of BFM2000 is the real issue at all, I am certainly willing to talk it through and see what we can learn together.

Tim, I will contact you tomorrow on your blog and see what we can figure out.”

As soon as I finish writing this, I am going to post it on my blog and email what I’m saying here to Tim, to see whether he is in agreement as to whether/how we will proceed.  I hope he is still interested, because, even though this interaction will take time I really can’t spare easily, this is a very important subject and should come up for serious discussion at some point, even if it does not deserve SBC “center stage” right now.

Tim, since we are going to be discussing your chosen subject, I respectfully insist on the following ground rules and progression/ procedure.  If you are in agreement, we’re off to the races:

Progression: So that either or both of us does not lose perspective, we need to keep “A text without a context is a pretext” out front at all times.  In that regard, in discussing BFM2000, I would suggest that we look first at relevant biblical data on a question like theological tiers/caveats, second at the wider historical/theological context and SBC historical/theological context in which BFM2000 has emerged, third at the various numbered (I, II, etc.) doctrine areas of the BFM in an overview sense, and finally at whatever specific specific doctrinal wording you are really troubled about right now (yes, you may have “carte blanche” authority to set the agenda at that point, if you wish).

Procedure: Like the way David Rogers and Malcolm Yarnell are dialoguing about the Great Commission, let’s do consecutive letters which we will both post on our blogs the day received.  Each letter will both answer the last one from the other and lay out additional ideas or questions.  We will continue going back and forth until we both agree that we’re “beating a dead horse” and decide to put the dialogue out of its misery. 

Ground Rules:

1) We will “agree to disagree agreeably” at every step along the way.  We are brothers in Christ and we must not let the sun go down on our anger, or we are making available to Satan a huge “place” to do his thing (Ephesians 4:26-27), at the same time that the Lord’s name is dragged through the mud.

2) We will each field only the comments/questions that come to our own blog, since we have different readers, and we will stay out of the comment stream on the other’s blog–which would just “muddy the water.”  If a (non-political) comment/question comes in that seems worth raising in a subsequent letter, so much the better. 

3) In that regard, we resist the temptation to bring current SBC politics into the discussion, at least until we are right at the end and in a position to make application from what we have learned together.  If we do not do so, things will become emotionally charged and counter-productive.  One thing I have learned over a lot of years of experience in both the local church and the classroom is that, when the heat (emotional) level goes up, the light (insight into truth) level goes way down.

and 4) Both of us pledge to refrain completely from going on anyone else’s blog and commenting about what we are discussing.  This is our dialogue and it is not for “export” (other than through our readers’ comments, who we can’t effectively police) until we have worked our way carefully through the issues.  Point: If we are going to take the time/effort to take on a subject like this, let’s do its right and pledge ourselves to be disciplined enough before the Lord and respectful enough of each other to not “go off half-cocked” and throw out some “half-baked” idea, just because it’s tittilating at the moment.

In closing (for this lead-off stanza): Tim, I very much look forward to getting to know you through this interaction!  Now, if you have any initial thoughts to lay out on how Scripture might speak to the issue(s) of tiers/caveats, the ball is in your court, so to speak.

I’ll pray for you in responding,

Boyd