Must answers from the platform to questions from the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention be ostentatious?

pic source

UPDATE: Arkansas Baptist News published a letter to the editor from John Wofford, pastor of Armorel Baptist Church in Blytheville, Arkansas, the messenger who questioned ERLC's president, Russell Moore, at the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention (video below). I appreciate my brother Arkansan's explanation and thank him for offering further context to his question. I also agree with Pastor Wofford that Dr. Moore failed to answer exactly the question he posed. Platform respondents are notorious for bloviating rather than speaking to direct questions. Indeed many times I've observed them running on and on and on about nothing really until the coveted Moderator's refrain, "time for questions has expired" is sung. This can be very frustrating.

Nevertheless, even after Pastor Wofford has been given public airtime, so to speak, to "rebut" Dr. Moore's answer, my main reservations I offered below remain substantially unchanged; namely, the way Pastor Wofford framed the question to Dr. Moore invited the response he got. In other words, the question couldn't have been more perfect for a response like Dr. Moore gave.

More specifically, consider the pastor's question as he clarified it in his letter to the editor:

'So, the question is: “Would Jesus Christ stand in a court of law, defending the rights of a false religion to erect mosques, temples or other places of worship which are clearly in violation of the First and Second Commandments of God?” I think not.”'

In response, first of all, I'm personally uncomfortable staging scenarios in which we put words & actions in Jesus' mouth and life. While "What would Jesus do?" kind of rhetoric makes good for a spiritual novel, I'm unsure it actually assists us all that well for making moral decisions in real life. The fact is, Jesus continually did and said the unpredictable in the gospel narratives often surprising His closest comrades. Hence, what makes us think we can accurately predict what Jesus would say or do within a staged setting having little to no parallel circumstances? Indeed a better question(s) perhaps proving more helpful would be: "What did Jesus, in fact, do?" "What did Jesus, in fact, say?"

More significantly, the question the pastor raises even in clarified form seems to me to be entirely too difficult to defend. For example, would Jesus defend the rights of Disciples of Christ to baptize persons in order to be saved, a doctrine most Baptists I know find in clear violation of biblical revelation? Would Jesus defend the rights of Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians to baptize infants, a practice of which most Baptists I know find clearly unscriptural? (note: Presbyterians do not baptize infants for the same reason as either Lutherans or Catholics but they baptize infants nonetheless).

The point seems clear: Pastor Wofford's question raises serious doubts as to exactly how universal religious liberty might be possible in a nation made up of anyone but a Baptist population--and a particular kind of Baptist population at that!

I hope I'm wrong.

Second, I think my pastor brother conflates the principle of religious liberty with pushing religious belief. The good pastor concludes that

"to enter into coalitions or allegiances with unbelievers, especially as it pertains to their false worship. If we enter into an inter-faith group and begin to lobby for or to assist them in the erecting of their places of worship, we have violated the clear teachings and instructions found in the word of God and we have become partakers with them in their sin."

In response, given the very nature of a democratic polis, it would appear virtually impossible to live in a democratic society where all coalitions or allegiances with unbelievers remain absent. But that is precisely what Pastor Wofford seems to suggest. Second, I'm unsure Scripture "especially" notes an added evil premium when liaisons with unbelievers happen to pertain to false worship. Wouldn't a liaison (i.e. social contract) with unbelievers to allow abortion mills to legally operate without governmental interference, yes, even operate with cash from our Christian taxes, not also qualify as public evil as much as constructing a chapel for false worship?

Third, while we agree that Dr. Moore and the ERLC appear to offer poor reasoning for their involvement in the Maine mosque fiasco (since it's questionable religious discrimination had actual factual presence in the case denying the mosque a building permit), it's clearly a leap in both reasoning and Scripture to infer those who lobby for religious freedom "become partakers with them in their sin." Embracing the principle of religious liberty for all does not imply compliance to the religious belief of all. 

For my part, Pastor Wofford would have been far more persuasive had he argued along the lines of Georgia's Christian Index's editor, Gerald Harris, by affirming the religious liberty of all (including Muslims) while questioning whether Islamic terrorists as a "Geo-political movement" can hide under the protective rights US citizens have under our constitution. In other words, there's good reason we can embrace universal religious liberty and reject absolute religious liberty while remaining faithful to both Scripture and our constitution.

================================================================         

 

Here's my take:

A) While I sympathize with what I perceive as the intent of my Arkansas brother's question to Dr. Moore, I most certainly would not have phrased it the way he chose (Fact is, he should have had his question written out). My brother's framing of the issue in terms of universal religious liberty--a teaching Baptists have virtually always embraced for all religions and no religion--rather than absolute religious liberty--a teaching that Baptists have not necessarily embraced--set up Dr. Moore perfectly to skirt the real issue with his leadership on this issue. For the issue is not whether American Muslims can and should worship in mosques according to their conscience. The constitution guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. That is, all Americans are protected under first amendment rights. And, we as Baptists must (or, at minimum should) support that universal right for all Americans.¹

Thus, Moore was correct so far as he spoke on universal religious liberty. But the real issue is not with Islam as religion per se. Instead the real issue concerns whether aggressive Islamic terrorists can and should be empowered by first amendment rights to hide under the protective cover of our constitution in order to systematically exterminate Western democracy. So all Moore's rhetoric about religious liberty including Muslims too reduces to little more than useless verbiage from the SBC platform.  Moore skirts the real issue. Unfortunately for the questioner, the way he framed the question to Moore invited the response he got.

B) What is more, Moore continued on speaking senselessly about discrimination on building mosques in certain areas, alluding of course, to his decision to join 16 groups (many groups of which are reportedly made up of radical Muslims) on May 11 to file an amicus brief in federal district court arguing a New Jersey district "improperly applied different legal standards to a mosque simply because it is a mosque." But as Baptist Press reported, given local testimony, it's entirely unclear actual discrimination was in view. Moreover, Moore failed to mention his noteworthy absence concerning religious liberty when Georgia Baptists were recently needing assistance from the ERLC.  

C) Most concerning of all with Russell Moore's answer offered to my fellow brotherly Arkansan is what can only be called an ostentatious posture toward his fellow Southern Baptist. Listen again the way Moore sets up his response. He basically says to the brother,

Some questions are worthy of consideration. I like good questions, and love to ponder good questions. And some questions are excruciatingly difficult to answer. But your question is so entirely stupid and ignorant, no thought whatsoever is called for to give you a response. 

This kind of "dressing-down," put-you-in-your-place attitude coming from Southern Baptist leaders has simply got to stop. Who in Sam Hill do some platform leaders think they are? I hear some of them over and over publicly speak so humbly as if they are our servants. They are there to serve Southern Baptists. I even heard one say once something like, "Look brothers and sisters. I work for you. You are my boss!" If there's even an iota of truth in that, where is the humility when questions come from the floor?  Sometimes the duplicity hangs ominously at gag level.

Nor is it just the platform.

Note the crowd jeering and encouraging Moore on as he pulverizes his prey with, "That's about the stupidest question I've ever heard." Why is a culture of intimidation promoted at the Southern Baptist Convention?² 

While we cannot control what an unpredictable crowd might do, we surely can and must expect our platform leaders to get their act together and make darn sure the personalities who speak from the platform do so humbly and respectfully toward all messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention.

The fact is, the Chair could put a stop to any ostentatious posture by whispering in his cocky ear, "Either speak respectfully to sincere questioners or don't speak at all. If you insist on putting him or her in their "place," the Chair will rule you out of order."

If that was done just one time, I'm quite sure we'd be set for five or more conventions before it'd ever be brought up again.

 

¹Though I'm neither a legal expert nor a vocational ethicist, we should note that while first amendment rights apply universally to all Muslims who are legal citizens of the United States, there exists neither legal nor moral reasons why first amendment rights must be extended to illegal immigrants within our borders. In the end, I'm simply suggesting this: while there's every reason to embrace universal religious liberty, it remains questionable at best whether any society could sustain the notion of absolute religious liberty.   

²Frankly, I know personally how it feels to get "dressed-down" when asking questions from the floor. Not only that, the crowd also jeered and whistled during the "dress-down."      

Comments

[Scott Shaver]

Russell Moore has a view of the world and Christianity which seem more influenced by some weird impressions from his childhood than anything "biblical" and he's never grown up.

Trump (like him or not) was absolutely right about Moore being a terrible representative of evangelicals...or a least "baptist" evangelicals anyway.

He was certainly very quick to burn a lot of his bridges among Southern Baptists. In turn, here's hoping/trusting that Moore's notoriety and pronouncements will be the same kind of short-lived flash-in-the pan nonsense for which the SBC has become poster-child in recent years.

Little men with big mouths and big budgets supplied by the objects of their scorn.

This ain't Christianity, it's mental illness.

[Scott Shaver]

"Why is a culture of intimidation necessary."

Because these jerks can't get their way without it.

SBC Messengers gathered in St Louis or elsewhere these days usually seem to represent the sickest element of SBC life all gathered together in one place. Even if the gathering exists for no other reason than to stuff their guts and show their arses.

Don't take my word for it, watch the videos.

[Lydia]

I am stunned he said that from stage. It shows how protected they think they are and they know that most of the crowd is just like them. The rhetoric has been heating up with these guys for a while now. I think it is about image management. Racism, confederate flag, immigration, etc. they have gone full on social gospel. They might as well admit it. Personally I abhor the thought of a theocracy. The idea that they think they can tell us whether we are Christians or not by our stance on political issues falls under that theocracy umbrella. Funny that. Islam is similar in thinking.

Some factions of Calvinism went the same way years ago with a social Gospel. Calvinism is inherently mean and produces entitled arrogance. I think the last few years of constant scandals showing how controlling and mean they are, not to mention how they deal with people on church discipline and predators-- made all this necessary to them. They want to be seen as culturally nice. Views that get media attention. Media face time. And change the subject.

Btw, exactly how was Moore NOT being like the Trump he despises with that response? It is uncanny! And hypocritical.

Moores prior big issue of us needing more Patriarchy would get him laughed out of the secular media so he ditched it. Guess he did not really believe it.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia:

You mean Patriarchy doesn't play well at home, DC or Hollywood?

Moore is being impaled on the horns of his own self-created dilemma.

[Scott Shaver]

If that's what he'll say from a stage, can you imagine what it must sound like in private?

[Scott Shaver]

The only place these "giants" have the courage to interact is among public crowds of sychophants, on Twitter or TV where lobbed uninformed softball questions. REAL biblical MEN. What a joke, spare us the irony.

[Scott Shaver]

They could just spare Southern Baptist churches half the expense of next years 2017 Nevada convention by rolling into existing budget and combining programs/personalities with newly led SBC Pastors Conference. It's all the same personalities. Rent out a 6000 seat local church or ELKS lodge for 2 day and save enough money to put a dozen terminated missionaries back on the field.

By the looks of new line-up, the meal tab alone on the Pastors Conference will run in excess of 150 k

[Mary]

The SBC Elite are following the same disastrous path that the Republican Elite have taken. They see them selves as superior and not accountable to lowly plebes. How dare these peasants ask questions? How dare these idiots dissent from the Elites superior wisdom and intellect? People will be treated like trash for only so long and then they decide they're not going to be treated like trash anymore. The SBC is already in decline and I think that decline is only to going to increase the more out of touch the SBC Elite show themselves to be. Those who show up at the Convention are not the SBC. It's funny that the people who mock the Trad Statement for what they consider a pitiful number of signers somehow don't extrapolate that out to what goes on annually at the convention. Unity is defined as dissent will not be tolerated. Those who dissent will be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed such as having a blog of Pastors bragging and laughing at "Mic Drop." It's like cliques in High School.

[Lydia]


If that's what he'll say from a stage, can you imagine what it must sound like in private?

Moore often sounds like Trump from stage or writing with his arrogant declarations. And he surrounds himself with like-minded people like Joe Carter, the non Baptist who has quite the history of going on blogs and Twitter and insulting people.

[Lydia]

Mary, your comment is exactly why the elite end up talking about issues like racism and immigration. They think these issues make them look compassionate as they are being authoritarian and elitist. The Liberals have done this for decades if they sought to be the thought police and micromanage Our Lives. The Republican establishment is exactly the same now.

[Scott Shaver]

SBC should underdo a name-change for sure.

It should be called the NCC which is short for Neutered Corporate Church and George Soros should be its elected leader.

[Max]

"This kind of 'dressing-down,' put-you-in-your-place attitude coming from Southern Baptist leaders has simply got to stop."

And everybody said AMEN! (or should have)

As highly respected theologian Dan Smith used to say "God don't like it and I don't either!"

P.S. Brother Peter, I just noted today that you are back on the air waves. Glad to see your blog moving again. I'll be back!

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Max! Yes, I'm back but not at the same pace. Far too pokers in the flame.

Lord bless, brother...

[Max]

Mary wrote "Those who show up at the Convention are not the SBC."

Those traveling to SBC-St. Louis comprised only 0.05% of SBC's alleged 16 million members ... or 0.10% of the probable membership which is closer to 8 million. Of the masses showing up on any given Sunday at SBC's 45,000+ churches, only a handful of pew-sitters appear to really care about what's happening in the denomination. The rest don't give a big whoop about things like theology, as long as you don't mess with their potlucks. Destiny of the whole denomination appears solidly in the hands of a dozen or so big dogs.

[JND]

"Why is a culture of intimidation promoted at the Southern Baptist Convention?"

Because it's what elites do?

Because it was so successful destroying the opposition starting in 1979?

Because the elites cannot prevail on the merits of their arguments?

Because the churches roll over for this foolishness?

I'm guessing there are many other reasons.

[peter lumpkins]

"Because it was so successful destroying the opposition starting in 1979?"

Uh, no. At least not at the convention per se. To be sure intimidation was attempted by Moderate elites on the floor of the convention. As it turned out, however, intimidation lost to persistent conservative gadflies...

[Scott Shaver]

"Elite" as in lime green suits and censored press?

"Big Dogs" in size or character? Please clarify

[Scott Shaver]

"Elite" among 4000 messengers and bow-tied seminary students or "elite among 45,000 churches?

The SBC these days more closely resembles the Nation of Islam in both mentality and operation.

[Scott Shaver]

Watching Russell Moore and Bart Barber clinging to the only Baptist distinctive they've not disparaged on behalf of Muslims in order to verify their "Christianity" is hilarious to watch.

A thank-you note from some Ayatollah might well be in order.

I'm sure the families of some beheaded Coptic Christians will want to sign the note as well.

[Scott Shaver]

Southern Baptist convention messengers are hostile toward Christians.

Look at the wording of the resolution by Alan Cross on "immigration".

Christians are treated like dung in the wording of that resolution. They are cads who "demonize" Muslims while, on the other hand, immigrants are special children created in the image of God.

Cross may seriously need to think about changing his vestments. As far as I'm concerned, he already has.

[Scott Shaver]

As long as these guys (SBC) and their sycophants are a "merry band of bloggers".

We can be the "anti-bloggers".

Let the games begin.

[Scott Shaver]

Russell Moore declares: "Trumps meeting with Evangelical Leaders Marks the End of the Christian Right".

Well la dee da. In that case, I as a lifelong SBCer are glad to see the "Christian Right" go down the toilet.

[Scott Shaver]

Again, if this is correctly attributed to Moore...Very glad to see the thing going to Gehenna.

[Scott Shaver]

Even the Bart Barbers of the world will readily admit they're not "historians".

Hey guys: correct me if I'm wrong but don't think Islam is or was ever compatible with a Judeo-Christian framework.

The articulation for the "freedom of religious conscience" in THIS COUNTRY, seems to be set against the back drop of state-sponsored churches which, at that time, were "Christian" by CONFESSION.

Are they really this obtuse despite their "outstanding" academic degrees?

Islam flying in harmony with Judeo-Christian principles....buckle your seatbelt.

[Lydia]

Thanks for the update. I fear this pastors position is a totally wrong direction to take. Our Lord had very little to say about the pagan Roman occupiers but a lot to say about the religious leaders of his own tribe. One of the things our Lord did say about the Roman occupiers was not to lord it over others as they do.

Believers are to influence --not be in control of others.

And there is nothing wrong with pointing out how true Islam cannot coexist with our Constitution. That debate needs to happen. Because a lot of ignorant people believe it is a religion of peace. But that does not translate into promoting a theocratic Christian government.

I would think over 1000 years of "Christian" church state government and tons of murdered Anabaptists should be enough to learn a lesson from?

Leonard Verduin's, "Anatomy of a Hybrid" is an excellent source on this topic.

As far as Russ Moore and his comrades are concerned, this is a topic that gets media attention and they think makes them look compassionate. It will get him airtime. Yet, considering Moore's past laser focus on patriarchy and authoritarianism --he has a lot in common with Muslims.

[Lydia]

"Hey guys: correct me if I'm wrong but don't think Islam is or was ever compatible with a Judeo-Christian framework."

This is a big topic but I think one of the biggest problems with the Catholic and Protestant movements in history is they eschewed Jewish scholarship. They cut Hebrew thinking out of the equation of Jesus Christ. He became European. And His Semetic roots forgotten. And I don't mean that in a way that the Jews behaved well. They did not. But they would have never understood the idea of "totally unable" and born guilty. And the fact they begged for a king and that may God angry because he was their king . And they allowed themselves to be influenced by the pagans around them instead of God. But they understood the concept of metanoia and their responsibility for it. NT Wright said that each generation needs to seek the historical Jesus. It took me a long time to understand what he meant. Now I get it. What if the Lutheran Church in Germany before the 1930s had been seeking the historical Jesus?

I say all that above (of which I left out a lot) to say that sadly what progressed Westward from Augustine to Calvin has more in common with Islam than with Jesus Christ.

Russ Moore does not believe we have the ability to govern ourselves. Neither dodds Islam. We need those special philosopher kings, like them, to guide us and tell us what to believe.

Jesus Christ is about each one of us, as adults, growing in wisdom and maturity as we model that and influence those around us with our love, compassion and deep sense of justice .

[Scott Shaver]

Hopefully Russ Moore will meet that Jesus now that he's pronounced the death of the "Christian Right". To what quarter does he turn for solace now? ...back into the arms of "democrats" from whence he came. Did him a lot of good to court the RNC under an ERLC Umbrella

Watch this, Ben Sasse will be his boy now.

[Scott Shaver]

Let's see. Anybody care to guess what Hobby Horse Dwight Mckissic will sail through on a race card next year?...monetary reparations at the top of my guesses. LOL

[Mary]

Scott, there will surely be some event within the next couple of years that will require the SBC publically denounce to prove they're not really racist. There will never be enough apologies.

[Scott Shaver]

Precisely Mary.

That's why my suggestion would be to title-deed the whole thing to the NBC or collective of McKissic's choosing.

[Lydia]

Scott, Russ Moore is using Christian Right the same way leftists do. The phantom boogie man. The facts don't bear it out. The Christian Right was pretty much a non entity after Bush SR. Even with Perot, Clinton got a sizable block of their votes and his second run- doubled that.

IOW, there is no Christian Right. But it sounds good as a whipping boy. The lines continue to confuse and blur. This current Presidential election is proof. I crack up every time I hear a black democrat call into a talk show complaining about how Trump is treated. Black pastors here are furious with our new republican governor because he did not make charter schools a priority- first. Say what? Things are changing. The establishment is trying to figure out how to spin it.

Russ Moore and the Neo Cal wing are not politically conservative. They are establishment. The Republican Party is establishment and has a lot in common with Hillary. They are about power and using any issue they can to draw the millennials. They are trying to change their image and Moore is helping them using SBC time and money. The guy is a parasite.

[Lydia]

Think of this. Moore is more likely to be invited to visit the Oval Office with a Hillary Presidency than a Trump one. Hillary would use Moore in a heartbeat and he would love it. Unity, right?

This was all about Moore having gravitas in DC. Being a player. Now he is acting like a petulant boy and pushing Hillary-establishment issues. This is about being on the inside.

[Max]

Scott wrote "Hey guys: correct me if I'm wrong but don't think Islam is or was ever compatible with a Judeo-Christian framework."

But, but ... what about Chrislam, The New World Order, and Rick Warren?!

[Scott Shaver]

Can appreciate your perspective Lydia.

The term "parasite" or "parasitic" is appropriate considering how the dollars are appropriated.

Had lunch with my pastor today for reconfirmation of existing giving mechanisms to keep my coins out of and away from Nashville, NAMB, IMB. We have an international missions ministry already doing work in Africa, Mexico, Europe.

Over last seven years church has begun to look less TRADITIONAL, And NEVER WAS REFORMED, so SBC has already lost its relevancy to at least one multi-site congregation before this last annual circus in St Louis.

[Tom]

Scott:

I wonder how many more churches will attempt to keep their coins away from Nashville, NAMB, AND IMB? The SBC "leaders" just think they can do anything they want and people and churches will follow along.

[Max]

Tom wrote "I wonder how many more churches will attempt to keep their coins away from Nashville, NAMB, AND IMB?"

I know of numerous long-time Southern Baptists who are opting to direct their giving away from national SBC causes right now. For a church to do so would be to commit the SBC unpardonable sin. In the FAQ section of the SBC website, you will find:

Q: I believe our pastor (or my church) has acted inappropriately. What will the SBC do about it?

A: ... According to our constitution, if a church no longer makes a bona fide contribution to the Convention's work ... it no longer complies with the Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention and is not permitted to send messengers to the annual meeting ...

Good Lord, out of 45,000+ churches, how many are bothering to send messengers to the annual meeting anyway?!

[Tom]

Max: You said:"Good Lord, out of 45,000+ churches, how many are bothering to send messengers to the annual meeting anyway?!"

I would love to know that number. What will happen in the SBC if the money for NAMB and IMB dries up substantially?

[Scott Shaver]

Russell Moore is crying publicly again because Trump has placed "prosperity preachers" on his advisory counsel.

Strange duck that he is; the man doesn't even realize he is the image and profile of a "prosperity preacher"... An ill-tempere one to boot🙈

[Robert Vaughn]

To me it seems, based on his later explanation, that the intent of Pastor Wofford's question was not whether the government should provide religious liberty for Muslims, but whether Southern Baptists ought to facilitate it. That certainly was not clear in what Pastor Wofford said to Russell Moore, and we can't blame Moore for not understanding it. As far as his answer, he gave standard boilerplate Baptist religious liberty language that (I think) no Baptist would disagree with -- but it does not touch on any difficult issues such as their involvement with Muslim groups and others in the amicus brief. (I notice that as soon as he starts saying "What it means to be a Baptist" -- before he really said anything substantial about religious liberty -- those behind him light up and start clapping. Very poor form, IMO, and almost seems "scripted".)

I wonder, based on the Mission Statement of the ERLC (e.g., "exists to assist the churches"), whether involvement in non-Southern Baptist matters is part of what is expected of them? There may be other documents that delineate their purpose in detail, but the basic mission statement seems to engage their work toward churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Of course, one could argue that standing up for universal religious liberty does assist the churches. How do you see that, Peter? (or anyone else for that matter.)

Thanks.

[Scott Shaver]

This historic purpose of the now defunct SBC was evangelism and cooperative mission (i.e. strengthening and promoting the proliferation of Christian churches).

"Boiler-plate" religious terminology or not, Moore needs to answer the question of whether or not "religious liberty" is even possible apart from a Judeo-Christian framework.

As for the "evangelization" and "proliferation" of Christian churches...don't see how spending money on amicus briefs for the construction of mosques addresses that objective.

[Scott Shaver]

Someone asked "How many of 45,000 churches are sending messengers?"

Better question would be how many non-messengers are redirecting funds?

[Scott Shaver]

Golly, even ole blood-n-guts Patterson was willing to apologize publicly to the SBC for admitting a Muslim student.

Will Moore apologize for filing an amicus brief to voice SBC support for construction of a mosque?

Don't hold your breath.

[Scott Shaver]

Trads and Cals scratching their heads together at Pravda over Islam and "religious liberty".

Hilarious.

"FEAR" OF not being media, social-subculture, and politically correct is what drives the stressed rhetoric Bart Barer, Alan Cross and Russell Moore.

That ain't "Gospel".....:)

[Scott Shaver]

FEAR of independence.
FEAR of liberals.
FEAR of Evangelicals
FEAR of Anglo Saxons
FEAR of Veterans
FEAR of Police.
FEAR of Washington DC.

Shall I go on?

[Scott Shaver]

UNITY IN THE SBC HAS BEEN FINALLY ACHIEVED.

Ex ERLC Director solidly behind Trump.

Current ERLC Director solidly behind #Never/Trump

Will the real SBC please stand up?

[Scott Shaver]

Anybody notice that most black and white photos of the Klan in its heyday shows them sporting the stars and stripes as opposed to stars and bars.

Expect SBC to take a position next year against Old Glory?

[Scott Shaver]

I mean after all, if we're going to "sensitive to the weaker brother"....slaves came to the mainland of the United States under Old Glory, not the stars and bars.

Let's at least be consistent here fellers.

[Lydia]

I forgot about their outrage over the Muslim anthropology student at SWBTS.

Moore and the YRR have a lot in common with Islam. The oppression of women and the determinist God. They both love the caste system.

[Max]

Tom, without knowing the exact representation of SBC churches at SBC-St. Louis, based on the attendance one can assume that only 10% or so had messengers there. That would not be recognized as a quorum by most organizations to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. Of course, all it takes to set agendas in motion at SBC is for a handful of ruling elite to agree among themselves. SBC decisions and direction are set long before SBC messengers travel to an annual meeting. The best they can do is scratch out a few resolutions to make it look like their travel expense was worth it (but even those are carefully filtered by a biased resolutions committee). Congregational polity, locally and nationally, is becoming rare and endangered within SBC.

[Scott Shaver]

"Ruling Elite" is a bit of of an overstatement there Max.

Regardless of what these guys think of themselves, they only thing they have power or the demonstrated punch to rule over is the moderation sequence on their "blog sites".

"Congregational Polity", autonomy, independence and missional efforts solely funded or in partnership with like-minded Christian churches is the rule rather than the "rarity" in the Baptist church where my family holds membership.

The SBC, like the Babylon Bee, is nothing more than a religious gag reel in terms of its bottom-line effect on at least one local blowing and growing baptist church that I'm aware of.