James Merritt, in the debate over the Great Commission Report, said "This Committee is not asking you to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic. This task force is asking us to turn this ship around ... It really is very simple: If you think we are headed in the right direction, if you think doing the same thing, getting the same results is enough, then vote against this report. But if you think we can do better, and if you think we can do what we did in 1979 when we said no to liberalism, then I encourage you to vote for this report."
Smile. Anytime you threaten Southern Baptists that if you vote against a particular motion you are a liberal, then the SBC most likely will pass the motion.
The only question now is whether or not the debate records will be open. The vote at 8:50 a.m. eastern on Wednesday morning will be a very, very important vote. I predict that the report will be passed, but there will be a GREAT effort to ensure the records of the debate within the committee will be sealed.
Southern Baptists should ask one simple question, "Why?"
Why would we rejoice at passing a GCR report but not want the debate public?
19 comments:
at 4:00 pm i lost a connection to the live feed... is anyone else having this problem?
3:16 Networks scheduled the feed for four hours, from 1:00 p.m. eastern to 5:00 eastern - and the service abruptly cut off before the GCR vote.
However, everyone who watched the debate knows the GCR report has about as much a chance of not passing as the elect have of not being saved.
Smile,
Wade
I lost connection at 4:00 p.m. just when I really wanted to hear what the young man was saying. Please keep us posted.
Thanks Wade...
Has there been any mention of Ergun Caner?
Well, on sbcvoices, there's a post saying it passed w/ an overwhelming majority... however that's defined?
No mention of Dr. Ergun Caner, nor will there be.
There was a mention of Caner on twitter: he will be with Dr. Fallwell at the Liberty reception. I am not at the SBC but have put in a request for an autograph. Hopefully Wade's Christmas Present will be in the mail soon!:)
I watched the vote on the 'net. Maybe you needed to refresh...Anyway, the report was amended (I don't know how), and then it passed by show of hand, so it apparently wasn't close enough to need a written ballot.
Presidential runoff between Traylor and Wright. Jackson was very close to, but behind Traylor. Wright got 36% on the first ballot. It's going to be interesting to see how Jackson's supporters fall on this.
Not only does it abruptly cut off after four hours, it's been spotty the whole time, frequently freezing up. (I'm having intermittent internet issues now, but that doesn't explain everything.) I cannot connect to the SBC's main site (www.sbc.net) or the BP site at all today, and the 316Networks feed connected to "call this number if you need technical support" message on their site most of the afternoon.
If they're going to stream the proceedings on the internet they need to (1) provide enough bandwidth to handle all the traffic and (2) cover it from gavel to gavel, not just cut it off when the allotted time is up.
Twitter was "over capacity" last night as well but seems to be working now. I've thoroughly enjoyed this guy's tweeting (twittering?). I've rather enjoyed this one, too.
I may agree with much of the GCR Report--but I'm getting irritated by the rhetoric that says "only if you agree with the Whole GCR Report do you love the Great Commission".
That demonizes conscientious disagreement--Maybe that's why some want to seal the records for 15 years.
It is also very similar to those who say that in order to be a "real" Southern Baptist you have to adhere to the BF&M2000 without any questions, hesitations, caveats or addendums.
Different topic, same tactic.
I was a messenger and was there and voted against GCR. I was not in favor of all of the recommendations. However the negative tone and rheatoric was disappointing and made me even more adamant about my vote against. I agree with Kelly it seemed like many implied that if you didn't vote for it you were "turning a blind eye to lostness" direct quote from Ronnie Floyd. Not to mention Johnny Hunt's convention message mentioned the ten spies and he alluded to those who didn't support GCR to be like the ten spies. Disappointed but we must move forward.
I'm here at the Convention and yes i am playing hookie from the last session on tuesday night...anyway, the amendment was to section three of the recomendation basically adding in that the GCR giving is not to take the place of the CP giving. As for how it all went down, it was not nearly as heated nor were either side demonized as much as i have read people thought they were. for those of you who are irritated at the possible connection with the GCR and having to agree with all of it or you don't believe in evangelism, that isn't how it was. Dr Chapman tore the GCR apart in his last address and much of what was said was in reply to his statements. Overall the vote was not even close to affirm the recommendations (with the amendment).
"It is also very similar to those who say that in order to be a 'real' Southern Baptist you have to adhere to the BF&M2000 without any questions, hesitations, caveats or addendums."
Exactly, Kelly. As I posted in an earlier thread, we have the documented words of Steve Gaines, one of the drafters of the BF&M 2000:
I was part of a 15 person group that wrote the BF&M 2000, but I would never quote it as being "absolute truth."
Even one of the BF&M 2000 committee members, who I'm pretty certain would agree with your statement, is now saying the document cannot be considered "absolute truth." Perhaps it all depends upon how one defines and then applies the definition of "absolute truth."
A lot of the polarization/demonization was not during the actual debate. It came through the various preachings and messages Monday and Tuesday prior to the actual report.
So, the debate was, perhaps, civil, though we lost a lot of debate time due to not handling parliamentary procedure right on the amendment offered.
And yes, I'm here in Orlando too.
Tomorrow brings the debate on opening the records. Foolish that we should even debate it. Open up. You are not the College of Cardinals. If we do not apply our principles at all times, they are not principles, they are conveniences.
John
Only if you disagree with the human need to improve on the Great Commission, do you love the Great Commission.
Greg Harvey
"Tomorrow brings the debate on opening the records."
The optimist in me wants to see the motion pass. The cynic in me wonders if there will be 18 1/2 minutes missing from the records if the motion does pass.
At worst, outside individuals, such as a team of state Baptist paper editors who have not been involved so far, should have unfettered access to bring a report of the relevant parts. If there are things that need to be held back, like Al Mohler's plan to plant tulips in Paige Patterson's yard, then let a trustworthy third-party handle it. Not anyone answerable to anyone on the GCR.
At worst. At best: it should all be online tomorrow.
John
Based on the focus of their discussions, why would they have felt the necessity to "promise" confidentiality up front to "invitees"?
What bothers me most is this is not the only change I see coming down the line for the SBC Wade...Had chance to go to the Baptist21 meeting on Tues. afternoon to hear more on the GCR taskforce....In meeting Dr. Akin made the statement that the GCR is only one change of many he'd like to see...."I'd like to see us change the name Southern Baptist to something else" this coming from a man who makes his living off of CP giving???
Post a Comment