I’ve written about internal Southern Baptist Convention issues more than I care to recently (here, here, here, and here), but the proposed changes to the Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention are noteworthy and significant. As SBC Messengers prepare to travel to Baltimore for the annual meeting, the summer edition of SBC Life, the news organ of the Executive Committee, touched again on the issue, and, in particular, on the controversial proposed changes to Article III. The entire article can be found here, but I will provide the relevant portion here:
|
Question: Why did the Executive Committee include the phrase, “Has not intentionally operated in any manner demonstrating opposition to the doctrine expressed in the Convention’s most recently adopted statement of faith”?
Easley: At its September 2013 meeting, the EC Bylaws Workgroup tried to envision a “blue sky” approach to Article III; that is, if Article III did not currently exist, what should an article on messenger composition of the Convention look like? Numerous ideas were expressed and considered. Some were immediately added; others immediately discarded; and a few were retained for further consideration. One that was retained was the idea of making reference to our confessional statement. This idea seemed to make sense and was retained in the draft proposal presented to the EC in February.
Since the February EC meeting, individual Baptists have emailed us at article3@sbc.net, and bloggers and state paper editors have debated the wisdom and value of this sentence. Some pointed to the potential upside of how such a statement would clearly identify who we are. Others expressed alarm at how such a statement could be used to command a rigid doctrinal conformity even on matters which historically we have agreed to disagree. We have monitored this debate and I am sure this sentence about our confession of faith will be carefully reviewed by the EC at its June 9 meeting.
|
|
Let us hope this means that the disputed wording will not make its way into the final proposal.
