At the annual Convention gathering in Baltimore this coming June, SBC messengers will be asked to consider an Executive Committee proposal on revising Article III of the SBC Constitution.  The relevant details, along with some Q&A, can be read here.  For our purposes, let us consider the proposed wording here:

Proposed Article III, to be Considered in June

Article III. Composition: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of Baptist churches in cooperation with the Convention at levels which the Convention, from time to time, determines. The following subparagraphs describe the Convention’s current standards and method of determining the maximum number of messengers the Convention will recognize from each cooperating church to attend the Convention’s annual meeting.

1. The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that descriptive term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which:

1. 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.)
2. Has formally approved its intention to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. (By way of example, the regular filing of the annual report requested by the Convention would be one indication of such cooperation.)
3. Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.

2. Under the terms above, the Convention will recognize to participate in its annual meeting two (2) messengers from each cooperating church, and such additional messengers as are permitted below.

3. The Convention will recognize one (1) additional messenger from each cooperating church for each full percent of the church’s undesignated receipts or for each six thousand dollars ($6,000), whichever is less, which the church contributed during the fiscal year preceding through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity.

4. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by their church to the Convention, but the Convention will not recognize more than twelve (12) from any cooperating church.

5. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he or she is appointed.

6. If a church experiences a natural disaster or calamitous event and, as a result, the church is not qualified to appoint as many messengers as the church could appoint for the Convention’s annual meeting immediately before the event, the church’s pastor or an authorized church representative may, for no more than the three (3) annual meetings after the event, certify the facts to the registration secretary and obtain the same number of messengers it could have certified for the Convention’s annual meeting immediately before the event.

I will be voting against this proposal because of the wording of 1(1):

1. The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that descriptive term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which:

1. 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.)

While the example of “churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior” is given, strategically, as an example of how this will be used, the following example could also be used:  “churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse open communion.”

See?  The 2000 BF&M speaks against both.  It speaks rightly against gay marriage by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman in Article XVIII and wrongly against open communion in Article VII.  Both are disfellowshippable offenses, according to this proposed wording.

This sword cuts both ways.

Now, apparently over 50% of SBC churches practice some form of open communion in violation of Article VII of The Baptist Faith Message.  I have discussed this fact, as well as some possible resolutions, here, here, and here.  But what is important to understand is this:  if this proposal gains Convention approval, SBC churches that open the Lord’s Supper to infant baptized believers in Christ will, de facto, be “deemed” churches that are NOT “in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work.”

I repeat:  over 50% of our churches will be “deemed” churches that are NOT “in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work” if this passes.

Some have attempted to put our concerns at ease by saying, in essence, “Oh, don’t worry, of course open communion churches would not actually be disfellowshipped.  This is just a tool that enables us to disfellowship churches who have taken up truly grievous offenses.”  To which I say:

• The insult is not in being actually disfellowshipped.  The insult is in being told you are right now disfellowshippable…and that is the status that approval of this proposal would confer.

• Furthermore, as a matter of principle is it wise to adopt a policy which would literally disfellowship over 50% of SBC churches if consistently applied?  Is it wise to adopt a policy you cannot consistently apply without destroying the SBC?

• Furthermore, forgive me if I am not comforted by assurances from on high that, “Oh, we won’t come for you.”  The very nature of fundamentalism is the elevation of secondary issues to primary status.  I would prefer not to be in the position of saying to a group of folks whose motives appear a bit unclear to me, “I’ll just put my head on the chopping block here trusting your word that the axe will not fall for me.” (Sorry for the hyperbole, but the analogy is apt.)

• Furthermore, functionally speaking, if this passes, how is the BF&M not a creed?

• Furthermore, surely supporters of this proposal can see the profound insult inherent in calling good SBC churches who work hard to support SBC causes and raise funds for SBC missions and ministry efforts NOT “in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work.”  Instead of telling me and the church I pastor that we are potentially disfellowshippable, how about just a, “Thank you guys for all you do,” instead, and drop this nonsense.

This is a very, very bad idea.

The suggestion has been made that Article VII of the BF&M will likely be revised in due time, thus solving the problem.  Sorry, no dice:  it does not solve the problem until it is revised and, until that time, the problem should not be unnecessarily brought into the SBC.  If the Executive Committee is proposing an idea that they know cannot be consistently carried out, then let the Executive Committee propose a revision to Article VII of the BF&M first so as to avoid this nonsense.