Well, not really. But I don’t recall any SBC annual meeting that has such little interest.
One has to be honest about a few things in SBC life one of which is that there is absolutely nothing that will ever cause an SBC annual meeting to be cancelled partly because pastors and denominational employees have expense money budgeted that absolutely must be spent.
What would the Red Lobster do without all those gluttonous, rotund reverends squeezing in their booths?
How could the brethren survive without all that backslapping and lying about how great it is to see each other. The best quote about the SBC annual meeting I’ve ever heard is that the meeting is where folks greet you with a big smile and firm handshake while looking over your shoulder for someone more important than you.
Where would pastors be without this backdoor job fair?
I will make some predictions nonetheless:
The Acts29 network will take some shots somehow, some way. After all, what good is demonizing something or someone if you’re not going to follow through on it?
Bryant Wright will be reelected. He certainly has been quiet.
Kevin Ezell, the man with the SBC’s toughest job, will be praised as a shining knight who is rescuing the moribund and problem-plagued NAMB. But look for him to be vilified in the hallways by some of the brethren who, presumably, like the old NAMB with it regular meltdowns.
Lamentations will be generously but gratuitously ladled upon the messengers about how the SBC is dying.
Phoenix will be ridiculously hot. Plodder recommends not taking an afternoon to see the desert botanical garden nearby, although it is a nice place…unless you are hungering and thirsting for your first heat stroke.
Resolutions will generate some degree of indignation and pontification. I’m not sure but that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship took the better way by eliminating them.
A couple of nutcases will get to a microphone. This is how Wiley Drake, our top generator of deep feelings of buyer’s remorse, got to be known.
A multiplicity of motions will be made – some interesting, some intriguing, some absurd but some that are probably helpful. The Order of Business Committee will try and bury almost all of them.
A mere cursory visual survey of the convention hall will confirm that SBC pastors are the most obese group of folks around.
Plodder regrets that he will not be present but there is a Red Lobster here that I can visit to try and get in the mood.
Showing posts with label SBC motions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SBC motions. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Dwight McKissick's motion on racism and bigotry
Sorry for the length of this...
Dwight McKissick (blog article on the motion here), the most prominent black pastor in the SBC, brought a motion at the SBC annual meeting on racial discrimination. The motion would amend the SBC constitution as follows:
As is the usual practice, the motion was among a number referred to the Executive Committee who will look at it and recommend what to do with it.
So…where’s this going?
It is difficult for me to imagine that the EC would recommend against incorporation of that wording, although pinning down “racial discrimination and bigotry in any form” might be difficult.
What constitutes such? We know it when we see it?
Who identifies such?
A few questions:
Presumably, action against churches would start with complaints to the EC after which someone there would make a preliminary determination if there is possible cause for actions, after which an investigation would be conducted followed by a motion at the next annual meeting to withdraw fellowship.
This is about what happened with Broadway Baptist over the homosexual issue.
If the same is applied to McKissick’s motion, any SBC churches who have members who affirm, approve, or endorse racial discrimination or bigotry in any form should be kicked out.
An EC member quoted over Broadway/homosexual: “
To be clear about this case, the EC spokesperson indicated that action was taken because the church condoned members who were open homosexuals. Should a church that condones members who are open racists or bigots likewise be kicked out? It's hard to see how consistency would not demand the same treatment.
So, do SBC churches harbor racists and bigots. Most certainly. Well, let’s be pragmatic and examine a few questions. Should these churches be kicked out?
1. I once supplied at a church who had in their statement of beliefs an article that they believed “God has ordained the segregation of the races…” (I’m going from memory but the church had it printed on the back of their weekly bulletin, right along with the deity of Christ.)
2. How about a church whose pastor preaches that interracial marriage is unbiblical?
3. A church whose student minister teaches young people that interracial marriage, while not unbiblical, should be avoided because of the difficulties such a marriage would face?
4. How about a church that has a member who uses the “N” word, unrepentantly?
5. How about a church that has never had a minority deacon, staff member, or any person in leadership position. Is this de facto racism?
I'm certain that one can move from hypotheticals to real examples quite easily. It should be noted that McKissick, when commenting on his motion, assailed even “latent” racism in SBC churches.
I don’t know what the EC will do and while I’ve never met an SBC pastor or denominational employee that wouldn’t wholeheartedly condemn racism and bigotry, these are present in the SBC. Honesty would force most pastors to admit that they now have members in their churches who were to some degree racist.
So what will we end up with if the motion is successful? I offer three possibilities. There are others.
1. Some feel-good wording in our constitution but nothing that will actively be ‘enforced’?
2. A crusade to root out racist members from our churches,
3. Some sort of SBC investigatory movement to handle complaints and take action.
If we have the wording, someone, McKissick or others, will be a conduit for accusations. These will have to be addressed and the results will be public.
Speculation at this stage but I would like to hear the discussion of this motion when the EC takes it up.
By earlier adding the clause that singled out homosexuals, the SBC opened up somewhat of a can of worms.
Dwight McKissick (blog article on the motion here), the most prominent black pastor in the SBC, brought a motion at the SBC annual meeting on racial discrimination. The motion would amend the SBC constitution as follows:
I hereby move to amend Article III, Section 1 of the SBC Constitution to read: “1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior or racial discrimination and bigotry in any form.
As is the usual practice, the motion was among a number referred to the Executive Committee who will look at it and recommend what to do with it.
So…where’s this going?
It is difficult for me to imagine that the EC would recommend against incorporation of that wording, although pinning down “racial discrimination and bigotry in any form” might be difficult.
What constitutes such? We know it when we see it?
Who identifies such?
A few questions:
Presumably, action against churches would start with complaints to the EC after which someone there would make a preliminary determination if there is possible cause for actions, after which an investigation would be conducted followed by a motion at the next annual meeting to withdraw fellowship.
This is about what happened with Broadway Baptist over the homosexual issue.
If the same is applied to McKissick’s motion, any SBC churches who have members who affirm, approve, or endorse racial discrimination or bigotry in any form should be kicked out.
An EC member quoted over Broadway/homosexual: “
In Broadway’s case … the church was in effect saying that it was OK to have members who are open homosexuals,” Wilson told Baptist Press.
To be clear about this case, the EC spokesperson indicated that action was taken because the church condoned members who were open homosexuals. Should a church that condones members who are open racists or bigots likewise be kicked out? It's hard to see how consistency would not demand the same treatment.
So, do SBC churches harbor racists and bigots. Most certainly. Well, let’s be pragmatic and examine a few questions. Should these churches be kicked out?
1. I once supplied at a church who had in their statement of beliefs an article that they believed “God has ordained the segregation of the races…” (I’m going from memory but the church had it printed on the back of their weekly bulletin, right along with the deity of Christ.)
2. How about a church whose pastor preaches that interracial marriage is unbiblical?
3. A church whose student minister teaches young people that interracial marriage, while not unbiblical, should be avoided because of the difficulties such a marriage would face?
4. How about a church that has a member who uses the “N” word, unrepentantly?
5. How about a church that has never had a minority deacon, staff member, or any person in leadership position. Is this de facto racism?
I'm certain that one can move from hypotheticals to real examples quite easily. It should be noted that McKissick, when commenting on his motion, assailed even “latent” racism in SBC churches.
I don’t know what the EC will do and while I’ve never met an SBC pastor or denominational employee that wouldn’t wholeheartedly condemn racism and bigotry, these are present in the SBC. Honesty would force most pastors to admit that they now have members in their churches who were to some degree racist.
So what will we end up with if the motion is successful? I offer three possibilities. There are others.
1. Some feel-good wording in our constitution but nothing that will actively be ‘enforced’?
2. A crusade to root out racist members from our churches,
3. Some sort of SBC investigatory movement to handle complaints and take action.
If we have the wording, someone, McKissick or others, will be a conduit for accusations. These will have to be addressed and the results will be public.
Speculation at this stage but I would like to hear the discussion of this motion when the EC takes it up.
By earlier adding the clause that singled out homosexuals, the SBC opened up somewhat of a can of worms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)