Thread by @JaredLongshore

#SBC21 Resolution 1 was an argument for Resolution 2 (the far more controversial one) as written (not naming CRT/I). Resolution Committee leadership stated that there was a strategic order to the resolutions. A good one word amendment to resolution 1 was rejected by Resolution

Committee. That amendment would have made Resolution 2 harder to pass as written (not naming CRT/I). If you understand the logic between resolution 1 and resolution 2, then you will better understand what is wrong with the SBC. #SBC21

A Resolution on the “Incompatibility of CRT/I with the BFM2000” was not accepted but attached to resolution 2 by the Resolution Committee. The “Incompatibility” resolution had 1300+ signers. No other resolution came close to that many, most signers to others was only about 5.

The good amendment to resolution 1 would have added the word “secondary” before “theological” to resolution 1. That one word amendment was rejected by Resolution Committee.

Then came Resolution 2 which rejects bad theories and worldviews in general without naming the one SBC19 resolved to use as an analytical tool. Again the 1300+ signed “Incompatibility” Resolution was not accepted but attached to Resolution 2 by the committee.

So the logic is that naming CRT/I in the resolution 2 rejection would be permitting “our personal, social, theological, or political interests to supersede the urgency of evangelism” (Resolution 1). “The world is watching” was the sentiment, and naming CRT/I in the rejection

would be a bad witness. #SBC21

Theology cannot supersede evangelism. Evangelism supersedes theology. And evangelism requires not naming worldly theories when rejecting them (sbc21) and also naming them when we resolve use them (sbc19)

And that’s about where things are. Pray.