Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Motion on BF&M Passes

[Edit] I should make clear to everyone, this is my read of the voting, not the official report of the convention. The ballot count will not be announced until tomorrow. [/Edit] And I'm thrilled with the fact that the motion passed. I cannot imagine that Southern Baptists would have failed a motion stating that the BF&M is a sufficient guide to our trustees in discharging their duty to set policies and practices. I'm thankful that the statement clearly recognizes the authority of trustees to set policies and practices. I'm thankful that it calls upon trustees to consult the guidance of the BF&M in making those discussions. I doubt that any board of trustees has adopted any policies or practices without at least consulting the guidance of The Baptist Faith & Message, which is entirely sufficient to serve as one guide to our trustees in making such decisions. It was strange to me that, of the discussion offered, none of it dealt substantially with the actual wording of the statement. This morning's speeches charged the issue with a set of extraneous interpretations of the statement that are not actually contained in the text. This should be a statement that all Southern Baptists can come together behind, in my opinion.


Ron P. said...


The spin from the Burleson Cole McKissic camp is going to make us all dizzy.

Ron P.

Rebecca Illingworth said...

It's a good day for Southern Baptists. Thanks to our messengers in San Antonio for speaking clearly. Thanks to the prayer warriors that have paused and bowed the knee during this time. And thanks to you, Bro. Bart, for carrying the torch on Praisegodbarebones. I learn much from your insight and sweet manner.

Les Puryear said...


It was a pleasure spending some time with you today. You're a gentleman as well as a scholar.

I also am hopeful that the BFM motion passed. If it passes, I think the Convention will have spoken loud and clear about SBC agencies who try to make doctrinal parameters beyond the BFM2K.


Bart Barber said...


I think not at all. The convention will have said that the BF&M is sufficient as a guide to our trustees. I agree that it is quite sufficient to serve as a guide. No board of trustees should ever set a doctrinal policy or practice without consulting the guidance of the BF&M—nor has any.

cameron coyle said...


I agree with you that there is an important difference between what the actual text of the statement says and how that text is interpreted by many. As far as the statement itself goes, I'm fine with it. The BFM ought to be a guide to our trustees, and I believe that it has been. The statement clearly stops short of saying that trustees should be limited to the BFM alone. However, I think Les' comment above is an accurate reflection of the intent behind the motion which was made. That was certainly the way the motion was discussed. Those who spoke in support of the motion clearly wanted to use it to force a particular action onto the trustee boards (hmm...seems like someone else's motion was ruled out of order for the remote possiblity that it might be construed as forcing an action onto the trustee boards...) That's why I voted against the motion, even though I have no problems at all with the statement itself. The intent of the motion ought to count for something.