After messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting this month passed a resolution critiquing in vitro fertilization, an advisor to the SBC’s Resolutions Committee said he hopes it will spark conversations in local Southern Baptist churches. While it
Brian, you know I love you, and I'm so grateful for your work, but I have to take issue with your characterization of the resolution approved (almost unanimously) by the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) last summer. While we did not list specific examples of how mainline congregations promote White Christian Nationalism, we absolutely did recognize our own culpability and called ourselves to repentance.
The second to last "be it further resolved" clause says: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Church in all its expressions will continue to prayerfully discern, confess, and repent of our own complicity with Christian Nationalism;
As the person who wrote the first draft of this resolution, I will say, that clause was originally the second one, after the generalized one introducing the actions that need to be taken, because I wanted it to have a place of prominence. It was moved to second to last (just before the generalized concluding clause), because the secondary editors wanted it to have a place of prominence.
Disciples pastors have been having conversations about flags in sanctuaries for years now, usually strategizing quietly with one another about how to broach the subject, with an awareness of the issue being a potential "third rail" that you might end up being rode out of town on. This resolution has made it possible for those conversations to be held in a different light, offering support and theological rationale for pastors wanting to do the right thing.
In the workshops that were held at this Assembly on this issue, we addressed many ways to have these conversations, looking not just outward but inward at how we have been complicit. It is not fair to lump us in with those who are merely trying to point fingers at others. I am glad that more and more denominations are joining in this struggle, and it's not really about who got there first. But mischaracterizing early actions does no one a good turn.
You are absolutely correct. It's been too long since I reread the resolution. The piece has been updated to reflect that & I appreciate you pointing out the error (and more so for your work in pushing forth the important statement). Thanks!
"Baptizing America" really brought home how small seemingly innocuous steps can lead to larger problems later. When attending Vacation Bible School in the Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, the literature always instructed the parading in of the American flag. the Christian flag, and the Bible. Once in place the children were led to pledge allegiance first to the American flag then the Christian flag and then the Bible. Do I blame the adults leading the program of inserting this into VBS? No, because they were following the program and at that time no one really questioned why we did this. Now I can see that the seeds of Christian Nationalism were being sowed however,unknowingly.
Thanks for another informative column. A few words about resolutions at the SBC. First, messengers, unless their local congregation has specifically instructed them on given topics which maybe the subject of resolutions, are not representing any local Baptist church in their votes on resolutions. Remember, under historic, classical Baptist polity, no Baptist speaks for another Baptist unless specific authority has been given. Therefore the net effect of the passing of any resolution is simply that it is the expression of the number of messengers who actually voted in favor of the resolution. It means nothing more for any local congregation. A local Baptist church, affiliated with the SBC, is no more bound by a resolution passed by the SBC than it is by a Papal edict. On the whole resolutions passed by the SBC or any local Baptist association are on the whole bad from the perspective of soul and religious freedom because the resolutions are held up as being the position of Southern Baptists in general, when all they are is an expression of a very, very small, dare I say de minimus, group on a given day at a given location. Take note - for the forgoing reasons (and additional sound logic) CBF has specific Bylaw provisions which prevent resolutions, etc. from coming forward from the floor of the General Assembly. If local SBC congregations really want to wade into the controversial waters which are often at the SBC annual meetings, they would be much better served to simply address such issues on their own, ignoring what such a small group of Baptists may have decided.
The IVF resolution is a good example of the problem you note. There was significant opposition. Passing a resolution with just 50% + 1 adds to the problem since it means they are not necessary a consensus position among the messengers (let alone the churches more broadly).
Brian, you know I love you, and I'm so grateful for your work, but I have to take issue with your characterization of the resolution approved (almost unanimously) by the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) last summer. While we did not list specific examples of how mainline congregations promote White Christian Nationalism, we absolutely did recognize our own culpability and called ourselves to repentance.
The second to last "be it further resolved" clause says: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Church in all its expressions will continue to prayerfully discern, confess, and repent of our own complicity with Christian Nationalism;
https://ga.disciples.org/resolutions/2023/ga-2341/
As the person who wrote the first draft of this resolution, I will say, that clause was originally the second one, after the generalized one introducing the actions that need to be taken, because I wanted it to have a place of prominence. It was moved to second to last (just before the generalized concluding clause), because the secondary editors wanted it to have a place of prominence.
Disciples pastors have been having conversations about flags in sanctuaries for years now, usually strategizing quietly with one another about how to broach the subject, with an awareness of the issue being a potential "third rail" that you might end up being rode out of town on. This resolution has made it possible for those conversations to be held in a different light, offering support and theological rationale for pastors wanting to do the right thing.
In the workshops that were held at this Assembly on this issue, we addressed many ways to have these conversations, looking not just outward but inward at how we have been complicit. It is not fair to lump us in with those who are merely trying to point fingers at others. I am glad that more and more denominations are joining in this struggle, and it's not really about who got there first. But mischaracterizing early actions does no one a good turn.
You are absolutely correct. It's been too long since I reread the resolution. The piece has been updated to reflect that & I appreciate you pointing out the error (and more so for your work in pushing forth the important statement). Thanks!
-Brian
"Baptizing America" really brought home how small seemingly innocuous steps can lead to larger problems later. When attending Vacation Bible School in the Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, the literature always instructed the parading in of the American flag. the Christian flag, and the Bible. Once in place the children were led to pledge allegiance first to the American flag then the Christian flag and then the Bible. Do I blame the adults leading the program of inserting this into VBS? No, because they were following the program and at that time no one really questioned why we did this. Now I can see that the seeds of Christian Nationalism were being sowed however,unknowingly.
Thanks for reading & sharing! The order of the pledges really is revealing.
-Brian
Thanks for another informative column. A few words about resolutions at the SBC. First, messengers, unless their local congregation has specifically instructed them on given topics which maybe the subject of resolutions, are not representing any local Baptist church in their votes on resolutions. Remember, under historic, classical Baptist polity, no Baptist speaks for another Baptist unless specific authority has been given. Therefore the net effect of the passing of any resolution is simply that it is the expression of the number of messengers who actually voted in favor of the resolution. It means nothing more for any local congregation. A local Baptist church, affiliated with the SBC, is no more bound by a resolution passed by the SBC than it is by a Papal edict. On the whole resolutions passed by the SBC or any local Baptist association are on the whole bad from the perspective of soul and religious freedom because the resolutions are held up as being the position of Southern Baptists in general, when all they are is an expression of a very, very small, dare I say de minimus, group on a given day at a given location. Take note - for the forgoing reasons (and additional sound logic) CBF has specific Bylaw provisions which prevent resolutions, etc. from coming forward from the floor of the General Assembly. If local SBC congregations really want to wade into the controversial waters which are often at the SBC annual meetings, they would be much better served to simply address such issues on their own, ignoring what such a small group of Baptists may have decided.
The IVF resolution is a good example of the problem you note. There was significant opposition. Passing a resolution with just 50% + 1 adds to the problem since it means they are not necessary a consensus position among the messengers (let alone the churches more broadly).
-Brian