12 Witnesses

First let me say that all other motions, I believe, have either been referred or ruled out of order, so Resolutions tomorrow and Ed Stetzer’s sermon tomorrow night will be the highlights, in my view.

I believe the BFM motion passed at about a 60/40 split. David Troublefield cited some numbers in a comment section earlier, though I am unsure where he got them. Here are a few thoughts.

It is a majority, but not a “slam dunk.” Nevertheless, the Convention has spoken definitively on the issue of narrowing our parameters beyond the BFM. We should be very precise, from this point forward.

Several people had lists of items not covered by the BFM that agencies and institutions had rules about, which they now felt were contrary to the report and the motion, such as divorce, homosexuality and others. I was asked, after the vote, if a similar situation were covered in the BFM. I said, “yes.” The BFM, in Article I, affirms the Bible as authoritative and, therefore, to those things clearly defined in Scripture, the BFM does cover doctrinal statements not listed in other articles. On those things that are not clearly addressed, our agencies and institutions should not establish doctrinal qualifiers on which the convention has no consensus. It is dismissive and arrogant to say there are tons of other things that these institutions adopt as policies that aren’t in the BFM. Behavior restrictions aren’t doctrines. Clearly defined Biblical doctrines are a part of the BFM and are covered. It is only the things around which we have not all gathered upon which our institutions should remain silent. Insert Morris Chapman’s quote from Boyce here, or his own blog article Leading by Example!, or read this applicable article: Boyce answers the bloggers of his day - 3 tests for Doctrinal Unity.

On a practical note, while I don’t want places like SWBTS to have an extra Biblical, extra BFM doctrine as adopted policy, I don’t think it inappropriate for cessationist professors to teach the Bible as they understand it. This statement from the convention does not limit that.

Another practicality is that this motion has the weight of a resolution. The Boards of Trustees can not be instructed by the convention to do a thing. The Boards will continue to vote their conscience before God. If their conscience is bound to represent the convention’s action on this, they will do so. If they feel so firmly that the convention is wrong, they will not change and it will be up to the convention to remove them if they see fit, change its mind on the issue, or live with that of which they say they do not approve.

In other words, this is not over. Those on the Boards who feel that the extra Biblical, extra BFM parameters are not appropriate will point to this motion as leverage to attempt to move their Board back to the place where the restrictions are absent. Success is yet to be determined.

Finally, it is time for the leaders who have indicated that they are in agreement with these sentiments to come out and lead. It is incumbent on leaders to take heat and to address issues that are uncomfortable. Leadership is a responsibility, not a door to privilege. Morris Chapman did this without hesitation today, and Frank Page did so as well, in the introduction of his sermon this morning. Everyone else, to the line, please. Several of our statesmen addressed these issues at the Baptist Identity Conference this year. We need them to make their way to the mic. When I am the one at the mic to defend these issues while men of far greater leadership and academic prowess are absent, the future of our denomination is in jeopardy.

Leaders, you must pick up the issue and be the ones to make of the situation we have revealed something that will be a positive future for all Southern Baptists. You can not continue to allow bloggers or those opposed to our ideas be the ones setting the agenda on these issues.

I’ll post more tonight, but I think the motion passed, and did so decisively.

In depth analysis after I get back from supper with the Alabama contingent.

David Dykes and Mac Brunson gave nomination speeches that were not room swaying speeches. Brunson was passionate, but Dykes was reserved. At one point, Mac said that Jim represented a list of varying viewpoints that his state convention had, among many other things, charismatic churches in it. Oops. I think he just got carried away. Also, he dusted off the Resurgence code phrase, “He’s one of us,” four times. He closed his speech with the fourth recitation, just in case anyone missed it. Also, if Dykes said that David Rogers was kin to Adrian, I didn’t hear it. Someone did start talking to me in the middle of the speech, though, so he may have.

The room was emptying of everyone but Texans, it seemed, who roundly applauded Dr. Patterson and the majority of whom bowed their heads toward their ballots when asked to punch chad number 5 for Jim Richards. If there were 6,000 messengers in the room, I’d be shocked.

Again, folks will try to paint this election as a referendum on the narrowing issues, but its just not. It may be in the minds of some, but it is not the primary reason they are voting. I sat next to some folks from Texas at lunch who had no idea David was Adrian’s son. Richards should win this election on name recognition alone. That and the absence of messengers during that election disproves that people think this is a referendum of any sort. They just think its a nothing vote, and they prefer supper to waiting in lines, which is what they will have to do if they stayed through the vote. The real referendum is on the BFM motion, which is specifically on topic here. That motion is to receive the report of the Executive Committee which has answered a question from last year - Is the BFM sufficient to guide our entities and institutions? They say it is. The debate is scheduled for tonight at 7:35 pm. It has the weight of a resolution authored by the Executive Committee.

Speaking of being in Texas and home court advantage, Bart Barber was overheard telling someone that he had some “politics” to attend to - lining some guys up at the mics for the SWBTS report. The only problem was that there weren’t any others who wanted to ask any questions, so it only served to allow Paige a few shots at others. Wes was first up, and he asked if it were true that SWBTS was offering a “homemaking” program for women. Dr. P. proudly affirmed that it would start in the fall. There were a few others - there were folks at every mic and Marty observed Bart directing traffic, or so it seemed to him. The final question was about signing the BFM only (without caveats). This allowed Paige to wax eloquent about bringing out the desk during chapel and having each professor attach only his (or her?) name. Obviously, this is a shot at Wade. My mind pictured Dr. Klouda at the desk in that picture I have seen on someone’s blog.

Dr. P had a few other shots in the report, but I’ll let you watch it for yourself.

I did ask a question in the Lifeway report, and some of you saw me on the net. A few months ago, at the Baptist Identity Conference, Thom Rainer asked me what Lifeway could do for my church. I mentioned Fuel, the video Bible study for Youth, and asked if we could get more things that relate to younger generations. My questioned followed up on that, asking what we could look for in the future. A few others had some questions. Watch it for yourselves.

Dr. Page is re-elected without opposition.

Wade’s and Les’ Motions are referred to the Executive Committee. This is expected and is in order.

Rick Garner’s motion regarding the BFM is scheduled to come to the floor at 7:35 pm tonight.

There were several other motions - most relevant among them are a motion to amend the by-laws by Tim Rogers; a motion by Lee Saunders to impanel a committee to research the PPL issue in the SBC; and Bart Barber’s motion to impanel a study committee to deal with Seminary professors’ salaries.

Frank has echoed Morris’ thoughts about intra-denominational fighting while the culture is out flanking us.

Give a watch at sbc.net.

Edited

You simply must watch Morris Chapman’s address to the SBC.

He has called us in the most powerful terms to adhere to the BFM alone and not allow these tertiary issues keep us from reaching the lost.

Thank God for leadership willing to do this.

By the way, dude can preach.

[addendum] In the speech he quoted Boyce who said that when the Convention can’t decide on something, the Seminaries should remain silent.

Wow. This reveals where the other leadership of the SBC is. This is not a blogger issue. [/addendum]

The first motion was to ratify the Executive Committee Report that affirms the BFM as the sole consensus of SBC theology. In other words, the referendum of this convention is this. This must come to the floor. My concern is that this vote may, in fact, be lost. It is this exact issue that has been dividing us over the last 18 months.

And you can forget the election of David Rogers over Jim Richards as a referendum. It’s not. This is his home state and if he doesn’t win, it would mean that the Inner Circle has lost all credibility. I don’t think they have.

Rather, they seem to be emboldened. Paige Patterson was interviewed by the Criswell College radio station. In that interview he said that every 25 years the SBC has to throw out Liberals and that it was time to do it again. When asked if these men might be Conservatives who disagree with methodology, he replied that they were Liberals who knew not enough Baptist History to fill a thimble.

I fear we may be greatly divided. I hope it is not beyond repair.

Wade made his motion for the EC to study the issue of a watch list for pedophiles among our ministers.

Les Puryear moved that the Boards of Trustees make available the information concerning votes public to the convention online and offline. I’m afraid that it is probably out of order, but it is much needed.

All of these will be referred to the Committee on Order of Business to be ruled out of order, referred to an entity or committee or brought to the floor for a vote.

I unwittingly sat in front of Emir Caner and what appears to be SWBTS students. During the meet and greet he warmly shook my hand and introduced himself. I was so surprised to see him, that I forgot to introduce myself.

I think that he might have recognized me after he saw me typing on my Treo. There was some furtive whispering a few minutes after we sat back down.

I grieve that this has taken on the mood of sharp division and political maneuvering.

Just got back from the Missional Leader Dinner hosted by NAMB. I met Geoffery Hammonds and sat with a crew of bloggers at the back table - also the table nearest the food. Troublemakers? Maybe. Here are a few observations, bullet point style:

• Great food and atmosphere. Picking an off campus site was a good decision and transportation was quick and effective.
• Tons of older folks at the Missional gathering. It was a reflection of the Convention in ratio, to my eye. I was a bit confused when standing amongst the crowd, waiting for the trolleys to show up and haul us off. Some thought that many had just found the meal and made the reservation. Others thought that the younger leaders are terrible about signing up for things early, and so were frozen out of the reservation list. 150 came, and another 200 were on the waiting list.
• Stetzer was his normal gregarious self. He was yucking it up with the miscreants troublemakers bloggers in the back, while making his rounds in the room.
• The questions for the panel were pretty good. “What is missional?” was first and it was pretty easy, but then I remembered the room was at least 80% older brothers and sisters and I realized it was a necessary question for them.
• Another question was what we should look out for in “emerging networks?” Did someone send a plant? Answered well - stick to the Bible and the Mission.
• Marty’s question was for Bob Roberts, “How do Missional and Glocalization integrate?” Answer: Engaging the culture gives us the opportunity to share Christ more than just walking up to someone with a gospel presentation. (or something like that - Micah and Marty were talking to each other and I was between them. Those guys can gab. )
• My question for Bob Roberts, “How does the building of infrastructure rate as a priority in the strategy of evangelization and why?” The best answer yet: It is not enough to simply preach the Gospel and gain converts. Conversion is not the goal, changed societies are the goal. The early church radically shaped the society they were in with the Gospel lived out in every aspect. We have made it about a prayer and we’re done. It’s not enough. Moreover, when we invest in these societies, we have many, many doors opened to the Gospel and evangelization is better. - I knew the answer to that, having read Glocalization, but I knew quite a few in the room wouldn’t. It was the last question asked - though we didn’t know it would be at the time, and when he answered it, our table stood and applauded. The others in the room seemed confused. They didn’t know what to make of it, I think, and were a bit confused. At least some of them, anyway.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch… Dwight McKissic and Russell Moore had a debate in the Exhibition Hall over the PPL issue. I caught a pastor (former Criswell College student and employee) who told me his impression. He said it was like a fight between a smaller faster boxer who was gaining points with many soft blows versus a crusher who was not as fast on his feet, but hit like a freight train when the blow landed. Guess who was who?

Russ waxed Dwight with rhetoric, but Dwight kept saying, “but the Bible says…” In a denomination that has gone through all that we have gone through so that we can call ourselves “people of the Book,” answering with “what the Bible says” is never a wrong move.

I just realized that I can only post so much with my Treo. This picks up where the last finished.

Calvin Whitman moved the disbanding of the Finance Committee, an ad hoc committee commissioned to study the CP funding formulas.

Morris Chapman encouraged the EC not to pass the motion and it did fail as did an amendment to disband it in one year. As it stands, there are no restrictions on the committee.

This committee continues to discuss the responsibilities of funding the SBC’s agencies and institutions - including Seminaries and Colleges.

Roger mentioned before was Roger Moran, who has now met as an EC member for the last time.