Executive Committee should drop the BFM linkage in their constitutional amendment proposal

Although the SBC Executive Committee adjusted the language in proposing to link the Baptist Faith and Message to the definition of churches "in friendly cooperation" to the convention, my view is that they should drop it altogether for the time being. Since the proposal will be made on the floor, one hopes that an amendement will be offered that deletes this portion.

Here's some brief background:

1. The SBC Constitution does not define what constitutes a church "in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work," save for stating that homosexual-friendly churches are not in friendly cooperation and that a church must be a "bona fide" contributor to the SBC's work.

2. The EC, in a bit of a runaway train mode, decided that while they were looking at the messenger formula, might as well fix this definition and thus proposed the following:

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.) 

This was a very poorly formulated amendment for several reasons, noted here. A constitution is not the place for a clause like "By way of example..." and the back door linkage to the BFM, while I understand some of the reasons the EC chose to address with this, is ill considered.

3. Yesterday the EC amended the wording to read as follows:

...a faith and practice which closely identifies withe the Convention's adopted statement of faith.

This is an improvement in that it makes a positive rather than negative linkage. Still, this part of the proposed constitutional amendment should be scrapped. The formula changes that involve contributions is fine. Let it stand and adopt it.

Here are some reasons why this should be scrapped:

1. No one asked the EC to take a few hours among themselves and propose the most momentous changes to our constitution in decades, perhaps ever. I don't presume that they acted out of any motivation other than to address some issues that they thought needed addressing but the process is flawed. If we are going to do something like this, then let's be clear about (a) why it is necessary, (b) why we need to do this now in light of the fact that we have never made such linkage in the history of the SBC, (c) why we wouldn't choose a broader-based, more deliberate and transparent process in doing so.

What the EC has not done is to offer much of a rationale for making this change. The following few word was made by the EC chairman in a Q & A on the changes:

By making participation in the convention more than just about money, it sends a signal to churches that may wish to give a token contribution to the convention in order to benefit from such things as seminary tuition discounts... 

That's it? Yep. That's it.

If this is worthwhile, then the least the EC could do is make a persuasive case. I suspect that there are far more important reasons than tuition discounts. Make the case. Make it out in the open.

Since this hasn't been done, let's deep six this for now and start over if it seems wise to do so.

The Executive Committee's New and Improved SBC Constitution

When Baptist Press reported last Wednesday about our Executive Committee's meeting and a part of that which was covered under the rubric of "Updated qualifications weighed for messengers" I was curious. I'm a bit of a numbers junkie and stuff about the dollars per messenger or percent per messenger and how that might be received interests me.

Outstanding Texas pastor, and current SBC First Vice President Bart Barber soon informed me and others through his comments under my blog article at SBC Voices and then later in his own article there, that the Committee's proposal included far more than just inflationary adjustments to the dollar amount. The proposal includes a linking of the Baptist Faith and Message to the definition of being "in friendly cooperation" with the Convention. Barber wrote:

It defines friendly cooperation with the convention to exclude from friendly cooperation those churches who deliberately and publicly demonstrate their opposition to the convention's statement of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message

Barber, who was in XComm meetings on the subject, is going from memory, since the proposed change hasn't been published.

The way this has unfolded reminds me of the old joke about the man whose wife sent him to Walmart for a loaf of bread. He came back with a new lawn tractor, flat screen TV, rod and reel, and a new vacuum cleaner...and the loaf of bread. When asked by his wife, he could only answer sheepishly, "Well, I was in the neighborhood and these looked like some things we could use."

The Executive Committee delivered the loaf of bread, and a proposal for the most significant change in our constitution that I can recall. Our SBC Constitution doesn't mention a statement of faith or link it to membership and award of messenger credentials.

Being a hacker and plodder in the SBC hinterlands, I ask my more erudite colleagues if this is deliberate and why so? I am the least networked person in the SBC, defiantly so. Surely there is a prof, SBC junkie, or insider who can rehearse the history on this with explanations of the causes and potential dangers if this is changed.

So far, only the estimable Dr. Barber has attempted explanations and expansions. I appreciate his effort. His writing and comments indicate that including the BFM in the definition of "friendy cooperation" would:

1. Solve the problem of fence sitting Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches who have relationships with both the SBC and the CBF. Presumably, these churches have not adopted the BFM, not unlike the vast majority of SBC churches.

2. Put a majority of SBC churches' SBC membership in jeopardy as a result of their practice of "open communion." LifeWay Research found that a majority of SBC churches practice this, in violation of the BFM.

3. Fix the problem of continually adding specifics to the membership article, as we did to have grounds to exclude churches that "act to affirm approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." No need to add a proviso to spell out a laundry list of churches that whose actions are so offensive as to deserve exclusion. The constitution will be brief and tidy.

4. Simplify the problem of non-SBC churches who want to give a few dollars to get cheaper seminary tuition.

5. Name the Cooperative Program in the Constitution (though gifts through it are still not required, I think).

6. Make a provision for membership by both updated dollars and percentages (the loaf of bread).

The only other reaction from SBC officials were rather desultory, decidedly non-positive, remarks in the BP article. One was from Frank Page ("...if the perception is that this would hurt small churches, this is DOA") and the XComm chairman Ernest Easley ( the proposed change "is not a hill on which to die"). Neither mentioned the BFM.

It's time for some questions:

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?

Maybe we should take the lawn tractor, TV, rod and reel, and vacuum cleaner back and keep the loaf of bread. Best I can see the new system for dollars and percentages looks OK.