Of course, the Mexican food in San Antonio is great but County Line BarBQ is good also (try the cobbler ala mode).
I was very blessed by the general tone of the Convention and it's focus on repentance and holiness. The reports of the various agencies were very enlightening and uplifting. I especially enjoyed the IMB report and their "Tell Me" emphasis.
In response to the blogging and spinning that has taken place since the Convention concerning the motion that was passed affirming the BF&M as a "guide" to our entities, I would like to speak as one who didn't know what I was voting on when I voted. I honestly thought we were voting to affirm the BF&M. I only learned after the fact that this was the "most important vote in ten years." I had no idea that this motion was an attempt to limit the entities of the SBC to the BF&M ONLY as a basis for hiring and policies. I suppose I was in the minority as I sat and listened to the debate and wondered what on earth all the rhetoric was about. I thought to myself, "haven't we always used the BF&M as a guide for our 'statement of faith'? Why wouldn't anyone be willing to agree to that unless, like the dastardly liberals of old they don't like the positions of the BF&M?"
Well, much to my amazement I have since learned that this was an attempt to stifle the entities of the SBC from having any other possible guidelines. Now that strikes me as odd. As one editorial I read later said, this would mean that were the IMB interviewing a potential "overseas personnel" (can't say missionary anymore) who practiced snake handling the IMB could not refuse him/her on those grounds because the BF&M doesn't address snake handling. Or, I thought, what if there were an interview with a potential church history prof who held to the position that the Reformation was a mistake and we should all go back to the Roman Catholic church? I can't imagine any SBC'er being in favor of hiring that person or of any SBC'er seriously wanting to take time on the floor of the Convention to debate and vote on that.
And on that note, did I hear Morris Chapman's suggestion correctly? Is he seriously suggesting that SBTS and SEBTS bring the Abstract of Principles back to the SBC for the messengers to vote on? Wasn't that settled about 150 years ago or is this supposed to be an "annual call?"
Poor little naive me. I thought using the BF&M as a guide meant just that. I never have thought of a "guide" as a limit. The BF&M is used in our church but it is not a limiting document, only a guide.
And on another note, WHY can't all these bloggers and microphone speakers get it through their head that there is no such thing as the "BF&M 2000?" There is only the BF&M. We don't refer to the Constitution of the U.S. as the "Constitution 1992" which was the year of the last revision. No, it's simply the Constitution. The same is true of the BF&M.
So now we have a new fight going. Too bad that seems to be what we do best at times. God forgive us. Which brings us back to the repentance and holiness themes. I wish we could have stayed with that in San Antonio.
I was very blessed by the general tone of the Convention and it's focus on repentance and holiness. The reports of the various agencies were very enlightening and uplifting. I especially enjoyed the IMB report and their "Tell Me" emphasis.
In response to the blogging and spinning that has taken place since the Convention concerning the motion that was passed affirming the BF&M as a "guide" to our entities, I would like to speak as one who didn't know what I was voting on when I voted. I honestly thought we were voting to affirm the BF&M. I only learned after the fact that this was the "most important vote in ten years." I had no idea that this motion was an attempt to limit the entities of the SBC to the BF&M ONLY as a basis for hiring and policies. I suppose I was in the minority as I sat and listened to the debate and wondered what on earth all the rhetoric was about. I thought to myself, "haven't we always used the BF&M as a guide for our 'statement of faith'? Why wouldn't anyone be willing to agree to that unless, like the dastardly liberals of old they don't like the positions of the BF&M?"
Well, much to my amazement I have since learned that this was an attempt to stifle the entities of the SBC from having any other possible guidelines. Now that strikes me as odd. As one editorial I read later said, this would mean that were the IMB interviewing a potential "overseas personnel" (can't say missionary anymore) who practiced snake handling the IMB could not refuse him/her on those grounds because the BF&M doesn't address snake handling. Or, I thought, what if there were an interview with a potential church history prof who held to the position that the Reformation was a mistake and we should all go back to the Roman Catholic church? I can't imagine any SBC'er being in favor of hiring that person or of any SBC'er seriously wanting to take time on the floor of the Convention to debate and vote on that.
And on that note, did I hear Morris Chapman's suggestion correctly? Is he seriously suggesting that SBTS and SEBTS bring the Abstract of Principles back to the SBC for the messengers to vote on? Wasn't that settled about 150 years ago or is this supposed to be an "annual call?"
Poor little naive me. I thought using the BF&M as a guide meant just that. I never have thought of a "guide" as a limit. The BF&M is used in our church but it is not a limiting document, only a guide.
And on another note, WHY can't all these bloggers and microphone speakers get it through their head that there is no such thing as the "BF&M 2000?" There is only the BF&M. We don't refer to the Constitution of the U.S. as the "Constitution 1992" which was the year of the last revision. No, it's simply the Constitution. The same is true of the BF&M.
So now we have a new fight going. Too bad that seems to be what we do best at times. God forgive us. Which brings us back to the repentance and holiness themes. I wish we could have stayed with that in San Antonio.
3 comments:
Walter, it appears that to stay with the "repentance & holiness" themes we would have to know what we are repenting of and what holiness really is. When we refuse to even consider what meaningful membership looks like and yet want to nit-pick over what "guide" means (sounds like what "is" is) we are in deep trouble. I pray that we in the SBC wake up and realize it is OK to not have a fresh fight going on.
BROTHER Walter!! What a joy to see an SBC statesman in the blogosphere. I and my Convention compatriots found the County Line and enjoyed the all you can eat "Cadillac." I'm still not over it. And yes (as I was prepared to vote against the gluttony resolution) I did also try the cobbler ala mode!! OOOHhhwee!
Hope you don't mind, but I'm linking you and will point all three of my readers to your new site. If I can ever help with your intro to the blogosphere, let me know. I'll share my limited insights :)
btw - that is a GREAT mug shot!
Bret,
If I can figure out how to do it I'll link your site THE Capranica (isn't that a mafia hotel on Sicily?).
I didn't have the nerve to try the "Cadillac."
Post a Comment