The Executive Committee has amended the language of their Article III Constitutional recommendation to the Southern Baptist Convention (which will come before the Convention tomorrow), changing the original language which defined churches deemed to be in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention as "those who do not operate in a manner which demonstrates opposition to the BFM 2000" to language which describes churches in friendly cooperation as those who have "a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention's adopted statement of faith."
So, in summary, the Executive Committee was going to recommend a Constitutional change which defined cooperating SBC churches as:
"...those who do not operate in a manner which demonstrates opposition to the BFM 2000."
The new Executive Committee recommendation contains language which defines cooperating SBC churches as those which have:
"...a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention's adopted statement of faith."
The questions would be (1). Who makes the determination which church is or is not 'closely identifying' with the Convention's adopted statement of faith? Is it the association? Is it the State Convention? Is it a committee? (2). Why do we continue to feel the need to narrow the doctrinal parameters of our missionary cooperation? We separate much further from one another, those we once called brothers we will actually begin calling 'cousins.' Just wait.