« Southern Baptists Resolve to Change Name by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Redux: Epilog: Changing the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins »

Sep 21, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cody

What would you do if Acts 29 completely took over the SBC?

Chris Roberts

In what sense did the executive committee formally recognize the task force? My understanding is Wright told them about it, two motions were made to try and change his approach, those motions failed, and that was it. I'm still trying to see anything improper about Wright's actions or the EC's response (or lack thereof).

peter lumpkins

Chris,

Thanks. By receiving the president's "task force" appointments and accepting the president's "task force" appointment, the EC acknowledged the president's "task force" appointments. If they were not acknowledging his "task force" formally, then how could other motions that were made, in your words, "to try and change his approach" be defeated and fail? Of course they were affirming him and his "approach" (i.e. "task force").

I'd be happy to acknowledge my own mistake in surveying the bylaws if you or another can point to a single hint in the bylaws where the president is empowered to appoint special "task forces" for projects he deems worthy, projects especially voted upon and unhappily voted down by the full convention only recently.

With that, I am...
Peter

LMalone

"I'd be happy to acknowledge my own mistake in surveying the bylaws if you or another can point to a single hint in the bylaws where the president is empowered to appoint special "task forces" for projects he deems worthy, projects especially voted upon and unhappily voted down by the full convention only recently."

The last part is KEY. That is WHY he appointed a task force. This is basically a done deal. Otherwise Mohler would not be on it.

Scott

Peter,
Could a motion be made from the floor of the Convention to change the bylaws so that this does not happen in the future? As for the decision being made, if I understand Bart Barber correctly this will have to come before the Convention two times and get a 66% majority both times. I cannot imagine a scenario where that would happen.

Cody,
Call me crazy, but a network of 400 churches is not taking over a Convention of 45,000 churches. Plus, I really think that they have no desire to take us over.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

Yea, a motion could be made. However, it would be referred to the Bylaws committee where it would be DOA. Perhaps only a sophisticated, mounted effort could change our bylaws. However, a resolution, which I'm personally thinking about drafting, could be an avenue which could get traction.

With that, I am...
Peter

CASEY

Some of you need to review the 'recent history' in the Missouri Baptist Convention about an "ACTS29 takeover". It has NOTHING to do with "400" churches being able to take over "45,000". That's one of the most naive comments ever....it's a matter of "influence" and "leadership". The 'stealth'(a new tactic for Acts29 in Missouri) tactic is to gradually get the "Acts29 sympathizers" in elected and nominated positions. They have done that in Missouri. The Pastor's Conference is now a fully elected "Acts29 sympathizer, alcohol moderationist" leadership. Make no mistake about these peoples agenda. It is to "CHANGE and LEAD the SBC" or they will leave(where they'll go is any one's guess). But sadly we have two Seminary president's who live in fear of losing these students and bend at their every whim. They feel they can 'rescue' their declining student numbers with the Y-R-R crowd. We've got a lot of work and prayer to do to just maintain the SBC to what the CR pointed it to.

The comments to this entry are closed.