Proposed Changes for Seating SBC Messengers

[Sandy]

http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=42114

It's about time.

[Dave Roberts]

Goodness, Charles Stanley and Bailey Smith might never have made it to be SBC President knowing how small a percentage their churches gave, and Adrian Rogers would not have been far behind .

[William Thornton]

This is old news. The change in messenger allocation is a wash, IMO. Every church would get two for next to no contribution, and more for either percentage points or each $2500.

The bigger news is in tying the BFM into the SBC constitution for the first time.

[Tim Bonney]

[Stephen Fox]

This one pretty serious:

http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print- ... cat_art=10

[William Thornton]

Stephen, if you had read my blog back in February you would have been up to speed on this already. bob Terry agrees with me and thanks for the link.



exerpt:

1. Do we really think it necessary in 2014 to inform thousands of SBC churches that their communion practices are liable to cause them to be dismissed from the SBC? It is not allowed to say, "Nah, we will never wield this sword. It's just nice to have."

2. Is the CBF still such a problem that we think it necessary to find a clean, neat way to get rid of them altogether?

3. Do we want to invite scrutiny on this basis of all SBC churches that are happily supporting our work, missionaries, and entities which churches may not be adhering to the BFM in all of its entirety and subject to the varying interpretations of this SBC sub-group or another? While the BFM is a good guide for our employees, entities, and personnel, would it be better used as a club against churches that might tweak this or that part of it.

4. Aren't we happy to have considerable numbers of dually affiliated African-American churches who might differ in some small degrees from the BFM?

5. Will we have a call to further tighten the BFM or distill it for the essence of what being in friendly cooperation really is.

6. Do we want yet another Cooperative Program reduction plan and isn't Frank Page hopeful, finally, for a slight "uptick" in it?

Of several quirks about we Southern Baptists, one is that we all have two eyes, a nose, innumerable opinions, and pockets full of agendas. Whose agenda is best served by these changes?

[William Thornton]

Stephen, I will delete any and all references to Molly Worthen. You did good with the link. Discipline yourself enough to actually address the subject at hand.

[Jerry_B]

This is only an issue when the votes are close. Until then, you could base the number of messengers on views to a churches website and the difference would be negligible.

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

Number 1, subsection (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.)

The example given is old, having been added several years ago. The wording that adds "statement of faith" i.e., the BFM, is the change. The convention up to now has not required churches to affirm the document and does so here in a backhanded way by adding this provision whereby a church could be declared not in friendly cooperation if they "intentionally operated in any manner demonstrating opposition" to the BFM. This is vague enough to snare, according to the view of some SBCers, a church that practices some degree of open communion, a church that has a woman in any executive ministry position such as student minister, or other churches in various ways. Even after the CR, there is much variation among SBC churches.

There are considerable numbers of ethnic churches now in friendly cooperation with the SBC who are more open to women in church leadership. There are considerable numbers of churches that have an elder polity that appears to run counter to the BFM. There are vast numbers of churches that are very relaxed about communion. Do we wish to place all these in jeopardy? I think not.

Look at it this way. Even during the CR no con proposed amending the constitution in this way. Why?

[Sandy]

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."

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

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.

Maybe William has some insight from his circle of the SBC world to guess on the odds of that part of the proposal getting passed at all. The few Southern Baptists I know up here who are planning to be in Baltimore are pretty intense when it comes to the financial requirement, not so much when it comes to that particular requirement. But then, churches up here are heavily dependent on NAMB funding for church planting.

[William Thornton]

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.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

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]

I call the change the "Cooperative Program Reduction Plan."

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

Probably not but it cannot help, it can only hurt.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

Actually, an XComm member said that the move would force dually affiliated churches off the fence and make them choose either the CBF or SBC. Hard for me to imagine that after all these years we would think purifying the convention of dually affiliated churches has any value. Such might be the best growth plan the CBF can envision, though. If that movement were to happen, that would be a CP reduction plan.