Danny Akin, just endorsed the motion adopting the BFM, separating himself from Mohler, Patterson and Kelley.

He also said that no issue would be adopted by SEBTS that would keep people from going to share the Gospel. Clearly, in context,
this is a statement that they would not go beyond the BFM with doctrinal issues.

When asked by Marty whether or not he was a cessationist or continualist, Danny said he was a continualist.

When asked by Ben whether or not the Abstract of Principles differed from the BFM, he replied that though there may be nuances, they are not significant. He has specifically separated himself from Al Mohler’s presentation distinctly.

This is an answer to my personal prayers for leaders to step out and deal with these issues.

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.

There is not a lot here, but there are some things in which you may be interested, so I’ll tell you what I think/know.

Almost every resolution published on the internet was either folded into another resolution or declined. This is true for all sides of discussion within the SBC Blogosphere.

CB Scott’s resolution on rescuing victimized children was merged with what he thought were at least two other resolutions. He was very happy with it and it passed, I believe, unanimously. This is not always the case as most resolutions will receive a smattering of votes against for some reason or another. There was some vocal response and some clapping for it.

All BFM/PPL resolutions were declined. The committee did not care to take a specific stand on this issue, but the motion handled it anyway. I thought, perhaps, that someone might try and call one of these motions out of committee to attempt to moderate the adoption of the EC report last night.

Tom Ascol’s resolution on integrity in church membership did not make it out of committee, yet again. This really surprised me. Several people wanted to speak for it, and those that spoke against were Malcolm Yarnell, who thought it wasn’t strong enough, and another pastor who thought it infringed on autonomy. Where was this guy when the Disney Boycott came out? Good grief. The vote looked to be a 50/50 split to bring it out of committee, but a 2/3 majority is needed to override the committee.

It amazed me to see so many Southern Baptists voting against a public stance on integrity.

As you may know, my church dealt with our inflated roll last year, taking our membership roll from just under 1,700 to 255. This had the effect of putting us over our actual membership in attendance on most Sundays now and giving us actual statistical data that is helpful in locating our weaknesses as a congregation.

This topic has gained steam across the Convention with so many, I predict it will continue to do so until it is passed. It may well be that next year’s resolution will be called out of committee, if not brought out by the committee.

I am interrupting my live blogging for a time of much needed sleep.

When I wake up from my nap, I am going to blog about the resolutions from this morning, the “report” from Dr. Mohler, and the overall landscape.

Stetzer speaks tonight and you can expect highly readable material regarding that and other things from me tonight and tomorrow morning. I have several essays that I consider foundational that I will release.

I hate spin. Honesty is so much more refreshing. I try my best to be honest without spin, but am sometimes found having fallen to the temptation.

Morris Chapman’s address yesterday seems to be spin central in the blogosphere.

If you are reading this, you probably know that I believe he made it clear that he and the EC report sided against the additional doctrinal parameters.

Rather than debate this further, I think Morris Chapman can best speak for himself:

Leading by Example! can be found at morrischapman.com or by clicking the link.

An excerpt:

Only a very few years ago it seemed sufficient for all missionaries and Convention leaders to sign the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of loyalty to Christ and the Convention. Now other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, “Where does it end?” Let me propose two suggestions for future consideration:

(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.

Can you spin that to say he hasn’t come out against additional parameters?

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.