Why do some Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) churches use the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) while others use the 2000 BFM? I want to take a deeper look at this question so we can have a better appreciation for the statement of faith we use, which is the 2000 BFM.
Every generation of believers face the same challenge: stay faithful to the gospel while navigating a changing world. For Southern Baptists, the BFM serves as a guidepost to clarify what we believe about Scripture. While the 1963 BFM served its time well, the 2000, which is the most recent SBC statement of faith, is better suited for the theological and cultural climate we face today.
Let’s talk about why.
A Little History
If you know anything about the history of the Southern Baptists (and it makes for an interesting class in seminary!) then you will know that we have a checkered past. The denomination was started in the 1800s with a pro-slavery agenda. Not a good start! In the mid-1900s, it drifted in a theologically progressive, liberal direction. For example, in 1961 a seminary professor published a book that said Genesis 1-11 was mythological literature and that and that Melchizedek was a priest of Baal. In 1971, the SBC convention messengers passed a resolution in favor of abortion in certain situations. These, and many other theologically liberal leanings, led to more and more people fearing that the SBC was headed in the wrong direction. This began to change through the 1980s in what is called the Conservative Resurgence (you can read about that on Wikipedia). By the 1990s, many theologically liberal churches left the denomination.
Why is this important to know? Because the dates of the two BFMs reflect the leanings of the denomination at the time. It is no wonder that the 1963 BFM is seen as more liberal and the 2000 is seen as more conservative.
I don’t want to overwhelm you with every single detail of the BFMs, but I do want to highlight some of the major differences, and why the BFM 2000 is a better statement of faith if you hold more theologically conservative beliefs.
| Topic | 1963 | 2000 |
| Scripture | Jesus is the criterion for interpretation | All Scripture testifies to Christ; truth without error |
| Pastoral Leadership | No mention of gender | Pastor role limited to men as qualified by Scripture |
| Family | Not addressed | Marriage between one man and one woman; biblical roles for husbands, wives, and children |
| Social Issues | General opposition to vice | Specific mention of racism, homosexuality, pornography, and more |
| Salvation | Basic affirmation of grace through faith | Clear breakdown: regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification |
- A Stronger View of Scripture
The 1963 BFM affirmed the authority of the Bible, but it included a phrase that opened the door to some unintended theological detours:
1963: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”
While intended to elevate Christ, the phrase was increasingly used to dismiss or downplay parts of Scripture that seemed too harsh or controversial. The 2000 revision corrected this, grounding biblical interpretation in the integrity of the whole Word:
2000: “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”
By removing the “criterion” language and emphasizing the Bible’s total truthfulness, the 2000 reaffirms that Scripture doesn’t bow to culture or selective readings—it speaks with unified authority from Genesis to Revelation.
The authority of Scripture is vital in laying foundation for everything else. This was one of the big issues that led to the Protestant Reformation back in the 16th century. Therefore, there cannot be ambiguous language that might lead to wrong interpretations of Scripture.
- Clear Teaching on Gender Roles
The 1963 BFM didn’t address pastoral qualifications specifically. After all, in that time, it wasn’t an issue most churches were debating. But by the late 20th century, things had changed.
The 2000 BFM addressed it head-on:
2000: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
- Definitions of Family and Marriage
The 1963 version didn’t contain an article on the family at all—mainly because it wasn’t needed at the time. But the 2000 revision added an entirely new article to make clear the biblical view of marriage.
2000 (Article XVIII – The Family): “Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. […] A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family.”
- Moral Clarity on Cultural Issues
The 1963 BFM encouraged Christians to influence society for good but stopped short of naming specific moral issues:
1963: “In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose every form of greed, selfishness, and vice.”
It was a good start, but by 2000, the need for specificity was undeniable. The revised confession expanded the moral framework and addressed issues like abortion, racism, and sexual ethics:
2000: “In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography.”
- A Fuller Picture of Salvation
Both confessions affirm salvation by grace through faith. But the 2000 version offers a more detailed and theologically precise explanation:
2000: “Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. […] It includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.”
The 1963 version touches on these elements but with less clarity. The 2000 BFM reflects decades of theological refinement, offering a well-rounded, biblical view of how God saves and sanctifies His people.
In Summary
The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message is not a bad confession, but it did reflect where the denomination was at that time. Times change and thankfully, the SBC changed as well… for the better. The 2000 revision does a better job for the present culture that needs more clarity on issues like the ones mentioned above.