by Sandy » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:05 pm
It wouldn't be a Southern Baptist Convention without some controversy surrounding the resolutions. It surprising that the nuances which get brought into the discussion don't create a controversy over a resolution expressing gratitude to the host city. I'm sure there are those among the perpetually attending messengers who could find a way to pick a fight over that.
Resolutions seem to increasingly be a way for the SBC to make doctrinal statements and send messages about how scripture is to be interpreted. Not only is there an emphasis on the inerrancy of scripture, there is an emphasis on claiming inerrancy for their interpretation of scripture. These two guys were right on target with their analysis of the resolution on the Reformation.
Many Southern Baptists can't separate their belief in the inerrancy of scripture from their beliefs and interpretations of scripture being inerrant. That's exactly what this resolution that makes a doctrinal statement affirms. It's a doctrinal statement with that little wink-wink at the end, which indicates that we know our interpretation is right, and that of other denominations is wrong. I mean, we all know that, right?
An SBC gathering of 15 years ago would have ignored McKissic's motion altogether, and done as they pleased with the other resolutions. So there's some measurable progress from the way it used to be. However, in acknowledging that things have changed in the SBC, rejecting Dr. McKissic's original motion, and going with a more watered-down version later on, only after pressure from messengers pushed it forward over the resolution committee's desires, had the effect of zapping some of the energy out of the progress. I don't understand the hesitancy in condemning something that is antithetical to the core values of Christian faith, rooted in scripture.
Last edited by Sandy on Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:55 am, edited 2 times in total.