Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Both Interesting and Expected Motions Introduced at the 8:30 AM Business Session

The motions introduced at the first business session of the 2010 Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando, Florida, ranged from the expected to the surprising to the funny. Here's a sample:

(1). Wes Kenney moved that the SBC reject (again) churches affirming or approving homosexualty, this time his motion addressed specifically the Alliance of Baptists and their affiliation with Baptist churches that support homosexuality (edit: thanks to Steve Devane who correctly points out the motion is addressing churches associated with the Alliance of Baptists and not the BWA).

(Opinion: When will we pass a motion to refuse messengers who make it a practice to lie? Homosexuality is not the only sin in this world.)

(2). Les Puryear moved that Article 4.1 of the SBC Consitution be amended so that committees and board members of the SBC will be formed by those messengers elected from churches with the following attendance scale:


40% of elected board members from churches with less than 200 in attendance

35% of elected board members from church with more than 200 but less than 1000 in attendance.

25% of elected board members from churches with more than 1,000.

(Opinion: Won't pass).

(3). A messenger moved that the Executive Committee move in the next five years to amend the SBC unified budget so that the International Mission Board will receive 60% of the total CP receipts.

(Opinion: Until there is greater evidence that the IMB administration and trustees are showing greater fiscal management in the continual reorganizations of field work, trustee board meetings, and practice a refusal to reduce missionary benefits in efforts to "save money,"  I would be opposed to the IMB receiving a greater percentage of CP funds).

(4). One messenger, a West Virginia pastor, moved that the 2010 Convention call for a National Solemn  Assembly of prayer in July, and that all SBC leaders convene for this purpose.

(Opinion: It doesn't look real good for the SBC to vote down a motion to convene for prayer, but the logistics of such a meeting require much more planning than one might think).

(5). One brave messenger moved that "the minutes and audio of the GCR Committee be open for review for all Southern Baptists" and not sealed for fifteen years as was previously stated.

(Opinion: This, in my opinion, is one of the most important motions made at the SBC. If it fails, it will say a great deal to me about where we are as a people).

(6). One messenger, the colorful T.C. Pickney of Virginia,  moved that Article 5 of the SBC Constitution dealing with "officers" of the Convention be amended. He wants the President, Vice-Presidents, and all other SBC officers to come from churches  "that contribute at least 10% to the CP."

(Opinion: Almost every SBC officer since 1979 would have been ineligible for election were this amendment to have been in effect at the time of their election).

(7). One messenger voted that "Great Commission Giving" be defined as that money given ONLY to SBC associations, states, and the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong Offerings.

(Opinion: This is a slap at the GCR Report).

(8). Dwight McKissick moved that Article 3 Section 1 of the SBC Constituition be amended to refuse to seat messengers that come from churches that practice "racial discrimination."

(Opinion: Everyone is symathetic to the motion, but it might be hard to prove that a church is practicing racial discrimination).

(10). One messenger moved that the U.S. Christian flag adopted as the banner of the SBC Great Commission Resurgence.

(Opinion: Won't pass).

(11). The motion that received the most applause was the pastor who asked that the Executive Committee investigate the price of the parking passes at all future Conventions and PREPUBLISH the price so messengers won't be surprised by the amount the pass costs. Great applause everywhere.

(Opinion: Must be quite costly to park in Orlando).

(12). Keith Eitel, Professor of Missions at SWBTS, moved that the GCR Committee define "missional and contextual" BEFORE the vote on the GCR Report.

(Opinion: This should give everyone a clue that some of the opposition to the GCR Report and the cool reception to Frank Page during the Executive Committee yesterday originates from SWBTS administration).

There were other motions, mostly insignificant ones, including a motion for the SBC to make recommendations on partisian political bills in Washington, D.C.. These motions will either be referred or ruled out of order.

I am now listening to Morris Chapman's report on behalf of the Executive Committee.


Joe Blackmon said...

Opinion: When will we pass a motion to refuse messengers who make it a practice to lie? Homosexuality is not the only sin in this world.

Name one church that says lying is not a sin and that we should just accept liars as God made them and that prohibitions in the Bible on lying are just Paul's cultural prejudice.

Yeah, I didn't think you could.

wadeburleson.org said...

The motion deals with our Convention, not our churches.

Leah Belle said...

Orange County Convention Center parking is $11.00. If you leave for lunch or any other reason, you pay the $11.00 again when you return.

Mark Hollingsworth said...


What is meant by "the U.S. Christian flag?"

Mark Hollingsworth

Steve DeVane said...

Hi Wade,

I didn't hear the motion regarding homosexuality, but I'm thinking that it might have been aimed at churches in the Alliance of Baptists, rather than the Baptist World Alliance. Might be worth checking.

Steve DeVane

wadeburleson.org said...

Steve Devane,

You, sir, are correct. Thanks for the information. I have corrected the post.

Scott said...

Homosexuality is the scapegoat sin right now.


Because it is an outward sin and it invokes strong reactions from all corners of our faith and denomination.

It's easy to cast stones at the homosexual and "claim" that we're trying to reach them, meanwhile we appoint liars, thieves, adulterers, child molesters and any number of other people stuck and mired in any number of sins to positions of lay leaders, Sunday school teachers, youth pastors, music pastors, senior pastors, and even leadership at our seminaries and state/national offices.

It's easy for people like Joe Blackmon to line up the homosexuals and knock 'em all down, but he'll think twice before rebuking that big money member who's sleeping with his neighbor's wife. Why? Because what that member's doing is obviously his business and it's not gay.

Seriously, sin is sin and we're the ones setting up levels of sin.

then again, we're also the denomination more interested in cards signed at a "revival" rather than actual discipleship of its membership...er...half membership since our rolls are so off whack...

Joe Blackmon said...

It's easy for people like Joe Blackmon to line up the homosexuals and knock 'em all down, but he'll think twice before rebuking that big money member who's sleeping with his neighbor's wife

Get over yourself. I'm not suggesting or implying that anyone gets a pass on open, unrepentant sin. Christ calls everyone to repentance. The reason that motion was necessary is because of pretend christians like you and Wade that refuse to call homosexuality a sin and call those involved in that sin to repentance.

Joe Blackmon said...

The convention has not, nor have any of the churches of the SBC, taken this mythic position that you allege where they say that lying is not a sin. However, churches of pretend christians such as Broadway and that other Texas church HAVE taken the position that homosexuality is not sinful, all fat people have to repent of gluttony before we'll EVER call homosexuals to repent.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Joe & All,

Wes Kenney's motion struck me as odd. Who are these dually-aligned Alliance-SBC churches? Did Kenney mention any specific churches in his motion?

Broadway and Royal Lane in the Dallas-area are not Alliance.

I can't think of a church that is Alliance AND also supports the SBC via Cooperative Program.

Maybe Kenney's motion was aimed at Calvary Baptist in Washington D.C. which claims affiliation with ABC-USA/SBC/CBF and Alliance. But that church has not given to the SBC in many many years and has not sent messengers to the SBC in many years as well.

The Alliance made their position on homosexuality in the mid90s. Why this motion 15 years later? Any ties between Alliance-SBC churches were cut years ago.

As an aside, I wrote the history of the Alliance of Baptists which is featured on their website: http://www.allianceofbaptists.org/learn/about/history

Bennett Willis said...

It seems that the courts have ruled that seminaries are churches--at least SWBTS. If seminaries are churches, Townes said that Caner's problems were neither theological, ethical nor moral--and he certainly would qualify as an elder. Have we found a church that says that lying is not a sin? Seems like the "Church on Liberty Mountain" might fit that description.

wadeburleson.org said...


Your logic is impeccable.


wadeburleson.org said...

Big Daddy,


wadeburleson.org said...

Kenney's motion makes no sense.

Scott said...


Absolutely where did I say homosexuality is not a sin? Seriously. Point that out to me. Then again, you are a fan of the smokescreen. Ergun Caner ought to get your resume there, Baghdad Joe.

But hey, it's you that wants to avoid the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Then again, that's pretty much the norm for most "conservatives" which should read "lemming" in this day and age. I'm sure you'll respond with some blase comment about me being a moderate or a liberal when you know absolutely nothing about my theological beliefs. Namecalling is all you have left to defend yourself isn't it?

You absolutely wink at all manners of sin, despite the commands to do otherwise, simply because they aren't homosexuals and as long as people view sin like you do: cast out the homosexual but hold out for repentance from all the other sin, then Christianity as a whole has serious problems on their hands.

It's been proven time and time again that pornography and other sexual sins not called homosexuality eventually cannot satiate the overarching sin of lust. Why else do we constantly hear of pastors either molesting children, women or casting aside their ministries and marriages for affairs?

Sin is sin. I'm calling for an end to the practice of having a convention-wide scapegoat sin.

Call me a pretend Christian again if you want, I'm sure that you'll have a seat in hell right next to me. I'll even save it for you if I get there first. And yes, if I'm going, then I know for a fact that you'll be right there with me.

By the way, Joe, since all the liberals and moderates don't have a seat at the table of power, who are you going to go after now? Calvinists? Women? How long until we have age limits on pastorships since the younger ones are proving to have a better grasp of ministering to the lost than the old guard? Where do you go from here?

Craig Dunning said...

BDW asked, "The Alliance made their position on homosexuality in the mid90s. Why this motion 15 years later?"

Perhaps the motion had been sealed! :-)

Scott said...

So did the messenger with the motion to unseal the GCRTF documents make it out of the room alive?

And when do we begin the ritualistic slaughter in effigy of Mark Driscoll this year? I don't want to miss that!

wadeburleson.org said...


You're funny.


It began.

Questions about Driscoll were given to the President of the Southeastern Theoligical Seminary after the President's report. Danny Aiken handled the questioner quite well.

New BBC Open Forum said...

"What is meant by 'the U.S. Christian flag?'"

Well, I thought it was just the old solid white flag with the red cross in the blue square in one corner. Alas, I was wrong.

It seems there really is a U.S. Christian Flag that's been duly copyrighted and which is sold by this company. To me this motion smells like a commercial effort on someone's part. Do you happen to know who made the motion?

wadeburleson.org said...

New BBC,

No, I do not know the messenger, but if you go back and listen to the recommendation, the man's pitch got higher and higher, and his words faster and faster, and his voice louder and louder the more he spoke of the need for Southern Baptists to adopt the Great Commission and the flag as our banner to save America.

wadeburleson.org said...

His motion has no chance of passing.

Ron said...

I wonder what kind of game T.C. Pinkney is playing for years he has supported nominess who give 1 or 2 percent to the CP. Is he mad at somebody?

Joe Backmon, as far as naming a church that says lying is not a sin, T.C. Pinkney's church may be one of those if they have not disciplined him for his lies. He once wrote on his website that nominees for state convention offices in Arkansas that were not part of his politcal CR organization were liberals. This was a lie. I wrote him several times and those he wrote about wrote him and asked for an explination or an apology. He refused to reply. I spoke to this on the floor of our state convention and asked that Morris Chapman of the executive committe censor him. Morris refused to hold him accountable also.

Mark said...

Concerning McKissick's wonderful motion.

(8). Dwight McKissick moved that Article 3 Section 1 of the SBC Constituition be amended to refuse to seat messengers that come from churches that practice "racial discrimination."

Why is the statement below also not an acceptable reply to what amounts to racism along the lines of the opinion given about homosexuality?

When will we pass a motion to refuse messengers who make it a practice to lie? Racial discrimination is not the only sin in this world.


New BBC Open Forum said...


I didn't hear the motion as I tuned in late (feed's not working at all now -- bandwidth overload?), but I found the connection. Right before the feed stopped the name of the person who proposed that motion was given -- Harold Phillips.

Harold Michael Phillips is the pastor of Pleasant View Baptist Church and U.S. Christian Flag is a "ministry" of his church. The woman who designed it is a member of his church.

This motion was nothing but a shameless advertisement for a business.

Evangelical Orthodoxy said...

That flag is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen.

New BBC Open Forum said...

I'm not offended by the flag itself but by the way the group that markets it tried to drum up business by getting a motion brought to the floor of the SBC under the pretense of making their flag the symbol of the SBC. I'm really surprised it got out of the gate, but they referred it to the EC in the end. Who knows what happened to it (or will happen to it) from there?