|
|
Post by charliedale on Jun 20, 2011 11:13:52 GMT -5
Dr. Miller,
In your opinion, what are SBC resolutions good for? How do we go about deciding if something is important enough for the SBC to pass a resolution? Is there a certain point when they become more of a distraction than actually helpful? Is there a point to where they bring unnecessary division? What is that point?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jun 20, 2011 13:55:48 GMT -5
Charlie,
In my opinion, SBC resolutions aren't technically good for much. They are non-binding statements expressing the convictions about certain issues as expressed by the messengers at the annual meeting. As such, they have no real teeth.
So, why do we do them? Well, some of them are to extend good will, such as the resolutions each year expressing appreciation to our host city. While something like that doesn't really accomplish much practically, it's really a good thing to do. We are essentially saying a corporate "thank you." It's good manners.
More than that, however, resolutions are meant to affirm or clarify the SBC's position on any number of moral, ethical, or theological issues. For example, we have resolutions on alcohol, same-sex marriage, and homosexual behavior. When we pass those resolutions, we are stating to the world what we believe. Is the world listening? Well, the homosexual community has gotten mad at us, so I guess so. But are we doing any good? I guess that depends on whom you ask. Our Baptist Faith and Message is pretty clear, but I think the intention is to let politicians and business owners know where we stand in order to influence their policy making. Whether they care or not is probably debatable, but it's important that we be clear on contemporary issues that affect society.
We just passed a resolution on the reality of hell. I'm not sure why since the BF&M is very clear on the issue. I guess Rob Bell's book inspired that resolution, but it seemed kind of redundant to me. Has anything changed? No. Will we get more passionate about evangelism now that we have passed a resolution? Unlikely.
How do we decide if something is important enough? The resolutions committee typically decides that. People submit resolutions, and they decide which ones make it to the floor.
Can they be more of a distraction or even cause division? Possibly. Did we really need the distraction of our 63rd resolution against alcohol a couple of years ago? I understand that it was passed in an effort to confront the recent debate about alcohol use among some younger Southern Baptists, but it seems to me it only served to drive a wedge over a nonessential issue (hey, you did ask for my opinion). Brothers were pitted against brothers, and tempers flared. Why? With baptisms declining and missions money drying up, did we really need to make this an issue? Some think so. I do not. In fact, I think it made us look silly and irrelevant to many.
I know this was a long answer to a short question, so to summarize: I think resolutions have their place. Some are good manners, and some things need to be clarified. However, the force of them is probably less than we think, and my opinion is that we need to stick to major issues that are not already articulated in the BF&M.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliedale on Jun 20, 2011 14:51:46 GMT -5
Thanks. The alcohol resolution is a good example. I thought the resolution on the existance of hell was probably a good thing in light of the fact that Bell's book was a media sensation. I thought NIV2011 was more of a distraction. Different translations do different things.
It seems that there was a time when the media reported on our controversial resolutions (controversial to the world, I mean). It also seems that the more resolutions we pass at one time, the less impact they have.
Just one more question. I really meant to ask by what criteria should we be deciding which issues are important enough? I think I understand the formal process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jun 20, 2011 15:38:28 GMT -5
I really don't know if there are completely objective standards to use. Each resolutions committee has to make that determination. Some people favor lots of resolutions about everything under the sun. Some (like me) favor very few. I would only address those issues that are (1) current and relevant, (2) not addressed in our BF&M, and (3) have never been addressed by a resolution. I would also ask whether the issue is one that will will divide our people or marginalize some within our ranks. If it's not a core doctrinal issue, we don't need to be divisive. I would also ask if we will glorify God and advance the Gospel with the resolution or if we will actually look silly. I really wish we were known more for what we are FOR than what we are AGAINST.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jun 21, 2011 12:01:37 GMT -5
|
|
