Trevin Wax points out the “novelty” of removing churches from the SBC—that we went through the entire conservative resurgence without doing it.
But if you want to understand why such attempts are so common now when they hardly ever happened previously, there’s really only one date on the timeline that explains our current situation. It’s 2019.
One development in 2019 explains why we had very few challenges in the past but have so many now.
In 2019 as a part of abuse reform, the SBC amended Bylaw 8 to make the Credentials Committee a standing committee. And they opened up a portal online through which anyone could report churches for being out of friendly cooperation. That one act is what led to the current proliferation of challenges.
Before 2019, the CC only existed for two days every year. Their responsibilities were largely administrative. After 2019, they exist all year round, receive membership challenges all year round, and have the power to recommend removal of churches between conventions.
Before 2019, a “membership challenge” required a messenger to come to the annual meeting and challenge the seating of another church’s messengers. After 2019, anyone can go to the online portal (which is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) and make a membership challenge. They don’t have to be a messenger. They don’t have to attend the convention. They don’t even have to leave their home.
At the time in 2019, the rationale for this sweeping change was focused almost entirely on the ability to remove churches who aided and abetted abuse. It’s like no one considered the possibility that Southern Baptists might be interested in using the new structure to enforce close identification with the BF&M. But Southern Baptists have been interested in that, and here we are.
Had this structure been in place during the conservative resurgence, does anyone doubt that things would have proceeded much differently than they did?
When the history books are written about the SBC in our era, I predict they will identify 2019 as the key date that set in motion a chain of events that very few anticipated.
Spengler's take on art (and why western art is in terminal decline) is fascinating.
For all cultures, the first true art form is architecture. This is the most immediate expression of a culture's "world-feeling". All other art forms then spring out from the architecture...
For Western culture, upward-reaching cathedrals were inspired by the forests of Northern Europe.
The prime symbol of Western culture is the perception of infinite space — a yearning to reach out of the darkness of the trees to the light beyond.
Later art forms all came from the cathedrals. Notice how sculptures of saints were originally attached to the cathedral, but later stepped out of the architecture to stand on their own feet.
Likewise, fresco paintings became detached from the walls as standalone oil paintings, and even classical music came from Gregorian chant, for which the cathedral was designed to carry and amplify.
Even western drama came from religious ceremonies (Spengler talks about how western drama is confessional in nature).
This is because all art forms (and all non-natural expressions of life) originate from religion. They may separate themselves physically from the church over time, but are still fundamentally tied to that metaphysical expression.
You cannot define individual art forms because they all blend into each other. Sculpture, painting, and music are merely words, and they are nothing without the prime urge that created them. This is why to define what art is you have to extract the cultural form, or the "inner form-language".
The artists of the present (in the Western culture) aren't really engaged in "art" at all, but merely a kind of craftsmanship. It lacks the spontaneity and necessity of the word-feeling that birthed the culture’s artistic expression.
"Of great painting or great music there can no longer be, for Western people, any question. Their architectural possibilities have been exhausted these hundred years. Only extensive possibilities are left to them."
Election Officials Assure Everybody Things Are Looking Good And You Can Go To Sleep And They'll Take Care Of The Rest Of The Counting Overnight
https://t.co/973JGezd5K
The messengers have been well served by @bartbarber moderating skills. Kind, humble, fair, and without condescension.
Numerous times he helped a messenger form an action when they didn’t know the proper language.
That’s the job of the moderator and he did it well.
The messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention just voted on a motion to unseat the messengers from FBC Alexandria because of their views on female pastors. I would ask my fellow messengers to consider two things about this vote:
1. The motion to unseat the church’s messengers was correct, and the Credentials Committee was right to recommend their removal. I expect for this to pass overwhelmingly, and that will be a good thing.
2. The opponents of the Law Amendment will argue that this vote is evidence that we don’t need the Law Amendment. They will also point to last year’s vote to remove Saddleback as evidence that we don’t need the Law Amendment.
But that argument against the Law Amendment is fatally flawed. Here’s why.
The Credentials Committee delayed a year before taking action on Saddleback, and they delayed two years before making a recommendation concerning FBC Alexandria.
The Credentials Committee only recommended Saddleback’s removal after their inaction was exposed on the floor of the Anaheim convention. The Committee only recommended the removal of FBC Alexandria after the committee’s inaction became public right before this year’s convention.
I am not saying that the committee is in bad faith. I’m sure these are good brothers and sisters, and I am grateful for their faithful labors. I’m simply saying that the Credentials Committee said that they were not clear about how to define a pastor in Anaheim. And it appears that they still lack clarity about how to act in cases like Saddleback and FBC Alexandria.
How many other churches like Saddleback have come before the committee without the committee recommending removal? I am aware of a handful, but they are still unknown to messengers.
All of this suggests that the committee needs the clarity that the Law Amendment provides. We need the committee to act expeditiously and not delay for years on end on churches like Saddleback and FBC Alexandria.
Don’t fall for the argument that the Saddleback and FBC Alexandria votes remove the need for the Law Amendment. Two conventions have come and gone since FBC Alexandria was referred to the Credentials Committee. They have had the opportunity to seat messengers for two conventions without any recommendation from the committee. Only when their messengers were challenged on the floor of the convention this year did the committee finally make a recommendation.
If you want the Credentials Committee to have clarity about how to act on churches like Saddleback and FBC Alexandria, then vote for the Law Amendment.
#SBC24
Whoever thinks women pastors and Nicene orthodoxy are matters of doctrinal precision ought not to be a pastor. Those are elementary Christian doctrines