Let me say first that this will not be a long nor detailed article. I did not stay for the Southern Seminary report. My messengers were leaving to get home so that they could go to work tomorrow, and I wanted to spend a little time with them before they left. I have not seen them much this week and they deserved some time. Not to mention that I enjoy their company.
For the next two paragraphs, all that I am saying has been relayed to me by others. I have not yet read other blogs, but I am also told that they reacted pretty strongly.
I understand that Dr. Mohler used his time during the Southern Seminary report to “disagree” with the convention’s adoption of the EC report.
The impression I received from others (obviously biased against his position) is that he told the SBC that they didn’t understand what they had done, people took those resolutions very seriously, but he and Southern would be doing as they saw fit.
I wasn’t there and the video is yet to be available, so I will withhold personal opinion.
I do understand that Southern and Southeastern have the Abstract of Principles as their faith documents and this motion puts them in opposition to the report now adopted. However, if Dr. Mohler had asked for special permission for the SBC to vote to affirm the Abstract for Southern, I can’t imagine a vote against. I would have spoken for it. Southeastern’s report is tonight and Dr. Akin could have done the same thing.
And, for all you parliamentarians out there, the convention can suspend its rules for governing business with a 2/3 vote. If the leadership would have brought this jointly to the SBC, it would not have been an issue.
Seeking unity under the Convention’s expressed will is not what is being done, here. We now have both Chuck Kelley and Al Mohler explaining to the convention that we don’t know what we are doing.
It smacks of elitism. I have more to say to the issue of elitism, but I am praying about it and am disinclined to pass on to you some personal experiences with it yesterday, but only pass on that I had some.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Den
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 5:52 pm:
There is precedent for the attitude of Mohler and Kelly. Remember the Peace Comm. Report? Good ideas, adopted by convention, cost a fortune, ignored by SBC leadership. Same approach will rule this time.
Gregory Pittman
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 7:25 pm:
Art, I watched Dr. Mohler’s report and, while I didn’t agree with the way he answered the question, I don’t think the account relayed by others to you is quite fair. I would encourage you to watch it for yourself (as you’ve already said you would do). Dr. Mohler actually did say he was supportive of the BFM motion and voted for its adoption (unless I misheard him).
What we have here are vastly different understandings of exactly what was passed last night. Unfortunately, six months from now, intent of the motion will be pointless. The actual words will be what folks refer to, and there are words that everyone can point to and come to extremely different meanings. While I am in support of the spirit of the of motion, as expressed last night, I fear that the wording is insufficient to accomplish its goal.
Another example of words vs. intent is the definition of what the Cooperative Program is. The definition states that in order to be considered in cooperation with the SBC, churches must give through their state conventions. But, when asked about churches that choose not to cooperate with their state convention(s) for one reason or another, the committee indicated they would accept those funds and consider the church in proper cooperation with the SBC. Well, which one is it? Do we have to give through the state conventions or not? Two different understandings, one written and the other spoken.
Lucas Defalco
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 8:46 pm:
I too have not seen Dr. Mohler or Dr. Akin’s comments on the motion. But I must confess strong mixed feelings about this resolution. On the one hand I understand and accept the notion that we must not allow our agencies and entities to enact policies that take strong doctrinal stands that are decidedly outside the parameters of the BFM.
On the other hand, the independence of the trustees of these agencies and seminaries must be respected to. Our goal must be to make these boards as apolitical as possible. Doubtless these boards are heavily swayed by certain movements and factions within the convention, but using the conventions political infrastructure to influence them is really not that much different.
I really have mixed feelings about this.
Pablo
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 10:27 pm:
Unless something has changed since I graduated (in the official documents) SWBTS does not use the Abstract of Principles as a guiding document. But I do seem to remember B. H. Carrol (SWBTS founder) referring to it in his writings. Based on the description during Patterson’s answers to questions, the BFM 2000 is the only document used there. The formal signing ceremony he described is new since his coming to Ft. Worth. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Pablo
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 10:42 pm:
My bad — I misread the reference to Southern and Southeastern as SWBTS. Apologies, delete if necessary.
Wayne Hatcher
on Jun 14th, 2007
@ 7:47 am:
I would have to chime in as well that Mohler wasn’t being elitist. He always sounds that way. I regularly listen to his chapel and week-day radio podcasts, and he is always a firecracker. If you haven’t you should listen to his chapel messages this last spring on the 10 Commandments.
On the other hand, if the messengers can’t seem to see the need for an integrity in church membership resolution, maybe we don’t know what we are doing.