The Southern Baptist Convention is meeting in Indianapolis this week. Thus far, the convention has been marked by low attendance, an establishment victory for president, and a bushel basket of diverse motions from the floor.
I'm not attending the SBC meeting this year, and owe all of what I know to web-based news accounts, the most welcome of which is a running blog by Marv Knox, editor of the Texas Baptist Standard.
When six candidates announced that they would run for president this year, some wondered if the SBC might be becoming more diverse. Hardly ... few of the candidates were well-known, and had little chance. N.C. pastor Les Puryear received only 188 votes, and perennial gadfly Wiley Drake garnered just 45. Establishment favorite Johnny Hunt, a pastor from Woodstock, Ga., won on the first ballot, taking 53 percent of the vote.
Hunt's 3,100 votes came from a total of just 5,856 ballots cast for president. At the time of the election, according to Baptist Press, there were 7,196 registered messengers, a number than will rise a little, but not much.
Last year's meeting in San Antonio drew 8,618 messengers, and the last meeting in Indianapolis (2004) attracted 8,600. Meetings in 2005 (Nashville) and 2006 (Greensboro) saw about 11,600 messengers. All are a far cry from messenger totals of the past.
Motions presented from the floor are always interesting, though most are typically referred to a committee or ruled out of order. This year, motions to amend the constitution to disallow "churches which have female senior pastors" and to dis-fellowship Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth (which welcomes homosexuals) were referred to the Executive Committee.
Motions to disallow presidents of SBC agencies from serving as president of the SBC, to reconsider membership in the Baptist World Alliance also landed in the Executive Committee's lap. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler had been a leading contender for president this year before pulling out of the race due to an illness. The SBC withdrew from the BWA in 2004, claiming the organization was too liberal.
Seminary and trustee accountability were also on the list. A motion to devise a standardized form for SBC seminaries to report enrollment data was referred to the Executive Committee, as was a recommendation that the rules be changed so that all prospective SBC trustees
“give evidence of having received Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior,” hold membership in a church that supports the SBC Cooperative Program unified budget, be in good standing with a local church, abstain from using alcoholic beverages and recreational drugs, and “support all the principles” in the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M) doctrinal statement.
Another motion called for translations of the BF&M into the five most dominant languages in the Convention. That motion was referred to LifeWay Christian Resources, which publishes the document. LifeWay was also the target of a motion from an apparent fan of the King James Bible. Messenger Eric Williams of Belle Rive, Ill., moved that program personalities at SBC annual meetings be forbidden from reading from or citing LifeWay's Holman Christian Standard Bible “or any translation that questions the validity of any Scripture or verse” during any official convention meeting or in any SBC literature. The HCSB, like virtually all modern Bibles, includes a note indicating that Mark 16:9-20 is not included in many ancient manuscripts. The motion was ruled out of order on the grounds that messengers cannot tell Convention boards what to do.
And so it goes. To keep up with developments at today's session, check out "Marv's unnamed blog" for updates.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

8 comments:
Hey big guy, I love your blog. But, I'm curious about something. You wrote:
"This year, motions to amend the constitution to disallow "churches which have female senior pastors" and to dis-fellowship Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth (which welcomes homosexuals) were referred to the Executive Committee."
Did you mean to communicate that Broadway Baptist Church does Welcome and Affirm the homosexual lifestyle, or is that just what was said in the motion. I've lived in Fort Worth for a little over 5 years now, and I've come to this understanding (from speaking to various BBC members): They welcome everyone, for all are sinners in need of God's redemption. However, they don't affirm the homosexual lifestyle, as a church. Sure, there are some (a minority) in the church that would like it (BBC) to; but there has been a continued emphasis on welcoming, but not affirming.
I would hate for there to be a miscommunication of BBC being both welcoming and affirming, when they aren't.
Thanks,
Tim Dahl
Sounds like we both said "welcomes." I'm not close enough to the situation to know more than that.
Hey Tony. Sorry you're not at the SBC this year. We'll miss your reports. I was lurking and surfing through the bloggers. Ben Cole has an interesting tribute to Frank Page. Some of the comments pertained to the role of the SBC president. The comments, or apparent lack of knowledge by some of the posts, about the role of the president were revealing. Maybe it's true now that the prez doesn't do much except appoint a few committees and be a public face for the convention. But I remember a time as do you when the politics of the office was all important. It will be interesting to see what happens with the SBC and the BWA. The BWBC and SBC definitions of "welcome" seem to be fuzzy if not equivocal. I've found more interesting that the debate has migrated from ordinations, to unions, to baptism, to membership, to the church directory. My hunch is that all are "sacramental" in some way, so the directory pics are quasi-iconic. Who says were all Zwinglian iconoclasts? Did you happen to read Jimmy Draper's comment about free fall? That one wasn't on the blogs, at least not yet. Thanks for your moonlighting job as a Baptist blogger and sometime journalist!
It has never ceased to amaze me how such a small percentage of people from the SBC (only 8,000 out of 16,000,000?!?!) can even begin to presume to speak for the entire convention. *shakes head*
Ok, thanks Tony. I'm afraid that some in the SBC are trying to make them pro-homosexual, and I think that is a mischaracterization. They are pro-people; but then again aren't we all.
Thanks for doing what you do.
Tim Dahl
Tony:
Was looking to see where your Setzer blog published in current issue of Baps Today is.
Was gonna throw that in the discussion at bl.com in wake of Hunt election.
Two sidebars on Hunt. If not same class he and Page were close to graduating with up and coming novelist Ron Rash at Gardner Webb.
And Hunt's Woodstock BC made headlines not long ago in regard Jane Fonda's salvation experience and Ted Turner's apologies to the church.
Don't know if Ted made the remarks on site or where.
But you got the right framework in your Setzer comments when you ask how long with saddle striding churches continue to CP fund the mess?
Curtis; love to see you write something about the Ghost of Criswell inflecting Obama's campaign, and focus on Helms and North Carolina.
Greetings Tony. About the HCSB's footnote for Mk. 16:9-20: it does not say that "many ancient manuscripts" omit these verses. It simply says, "Other mss omit bracketed text."
Only two ancient Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 omit verses 9-20: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space after Mk. 16:8, indicating that the copyist knew the missing 12 verses. Sinaiticus does not have its original pages for Mk. 14:54-Luke 1:56. Meanwhile, in the 100's, over a century before the oldest extant MSS of Mark 16 were made, Justin Martyr, Tatian, the Epistula Apostolorum, and Irenaeus support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 in one way or another. (Irenaeus explicitly cited 16:19.)
All of this is of course difficult to convey in a Bible-footnote without distracting from the text. The consistent references to "Other mss" alert readers to the presence of variants, without misleading them in the way which a reference to "many ancient manuscripts" would at Mk. 16:8.
(If you're curious about the details of the evidence for and against Mark 16:9-20, follow the link
www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
(That should all be connected.)
Thanks, James. Perhaps I should have put the direct quote from the HCSB -- I was generalizing that virtually all modern translations include a note that the verses aren't in some manuscripts. As I recall, I started to say it is not found in "the best" manuscripts," because most text critics I'm familiar with regard the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus families as textually superior to manuscripts from the Western family of texts, which include the longer ending of Mark and was used as the basis for the translation of the KJV. I suspect I substituted "many" for "best" in an attempt to avoid what some would consider as a pejorative judgment.
Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment