by Sandy » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:58 pm
The SBC hasn't done anything for thirty years that wasn't approved in advance by a small group of leaders who ran the convention by virtue of the status they gained when they initiated the "conservative resurgence." The individuals who introduced resolutions or bylaw changes to rectify a problem that was easily solved, even in a denomination governed by congregational polity with independent, autonomous churches, were not pre-approved or part of the agenda that was driven by resurgence leaders. Basically, if Patterson hadn't addressed it in a letter, it wasn't happening. Pressler was a bit more temperamental, screeching publicly once that "these people aren't voting the way we want them to" but later on, they managed to resolve that problem. The first time any serious changes were proposed, Wade Burleson, one of the victims of a Patterson letter-writing campaign to oust him from the IMB trustee board, was the one providing the information and making the recommendations. All of his motions were "referred to the appropriate committee" which in SBC language means "It ain't a gonna happen!".
Some of these high profile cases involve some of the inner circle of SBC megachurches and resurgence-supporting pastors. Bellevue, First Jacksonville, Second Houston. All three knowingly hired, or did not dismiss in a timely manner, individuals who committed sexual assault, one of them on multiple individuals in the same church. If the convention added "condoning by hiring or harboring and refusing to dismiss individuals who have committed sexual assault" to the reasons for disfellowshipping a congregation along with condoning homosexuality, those three churches would not now be "in full cooperation" with the SBC. The date of the initial failure of Patterson to report or properly handle the rape case at Southeastern was prior to the convention when Burleson made his motion. So the independent, autonomous nature of SBC churches is not why the SBC has failed to act on this issue.