Moderator: William Thornton
SBC Jargonese - Q: Had the suggested new language been in effect at the time of the Conservative Resurgence, would it have been possible to correct the course of the convention in the manner that was accomplished in the 1980s?
English Translation for those who don't speak SBC jargonese - Q: Had the suggested new language been in effect at the time of the SBC Takeover would it have been possible to abandon the original doctrine and polity of the convention by the use of political chicanery as it was accomplished in the 1980s?
Executive Committee of the SBC Proposal wrote:Article III. Composition: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of Baptist churches in cooperation with the Convention at levels which the Convention, from time to time, determines. The following subparagraphs describe the Convention's current standards and method of determining the maximum number of messengers the Convention will recognize from each cooperating church to attend the Convention's annual meeting.
1. The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a "cooperating" church as that descriptive term is used in the Convention's governing documents) which:
(1) Has not intentionally operated in any manner demonstrating opposition to the doctrine expressed in the Convention's most recently adopted statement of faith. (By way of example, churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.)
(2) Has formally approved its intention to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. (By way of example, the regular filing of the annual report requested by the Convention would be one indication of such cooperation.)
(3) Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention's Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.
2. Under the terms above, the Convention will recognize to participate in its annual meeting two (2) messengers from each cooperating church, and such additional messengers as are permitted below.
3. The Convention will recognize one (1) additional messenger from each cooperating church for each full percent of the church's undesignated receipts or for each six thousand dollars ($6,000), whichever is less, which the church contributed during the fiscal year preceding through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention's Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity.
4. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by their church to the Convention, but the Convention will not recognize more than twelve (12) from any cooperating church.
5. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he or she is appointed.
6. If a church experiences a natural disaster or calamitous event and, as a result, the church is not qualified to appoint as many messengers as the church could appoint for the Convention's annual meeting immediately before the event, the church's pastor or an authorized church representative may, for no more than the three (3) annual meetings after the event, certify the facts to the registration secretary and obtain the same number of messengers it could have certified for the Convention's annual meeting immediately before the event.
Sandy wrote:Perhaps the messengers will vote that part of the proposal down. It would be difficult, at any rate, to enforce, especially as it related to communion practices, elder rule, or even women in leadership unless they were a "senior pastor."
Sandy wrote:I don't see any "creedal" requirement in here at all. The statement in #1 doesn't specify a "creed" to adhere to, nor does it require a church to actually adopt the denomination's statement of faith. It only requires churches not to deliberately be in opposition to it. I can't think of a reason why a church that desired to be in friendly cooperation would want to oppose something they are supporting.
Sandy wrote:It's hard to think that this turns the BFM 2000 into a "creed" since it only applies to the seating of messengers at a two day annual meeting, and then only if a particular church shows up, and there is a seating challenge. The requirement is not to adopt it or make it the church's official doctrinal statement. I think that takes it way out of the category of a creed.
William Thornton wrote:The linking of the BFM in the SBC constitution is a bad idea. I would vote against it but, unless someone gets some noise going about it it will be incorporated. The route to challenge it would be (a) why this, why now? (b) ethnic churches would be alienated.
The SBc executive committee hasn't even offered any rationale for its inclusion. That's an insult to all SBCers, in my view, and presumes that they would rather operate without having to deal with actual Baptists.
William Thornton wrote:I think not, Timothy. There's no easy way to make wholesale expulsions at the SBC level. Individual churches would have to be identified, researched, probably contacted, and then voted on. It's the idea that I don't like.
William Thornton wrote:I call the change the "Cooperative Program Reduction Plan."
William Thornton wrote:Probably not but it cannot help, it can only hurt.
Timothy Bonney wrote:William Thornton wrote:I think not, Timothy. There's no easy way to make wholesale expulsions at the SBC level. Individual churches would have to be identified, researched, probably contacted, and then voted on. It's the idea that I don't like.
I see. William, who does vet credentials? I'm assuming there is a credential committee? As you point out, they'd have to research individuals, maybe impractical. That being the case, the new rule seems like a waste if it isn't very enforceable.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests