Thread by @AdamGreenway

Last year at #SBC22, I moved what the SBC Credentials Committee deemed a friendly amendment to forestall any action against @Saddleback until the Convention could more precisely determine/define how "closely identified" w/the BFM a cooperating church's faith/practice must be. 1/

While my amendment narrowly failed (in my view, b/c some messengers didn't understand what I was trying to do or mistakenly believed I was advocating for women pastors), it did not mean the question of what "closely identifies with" was either a settled issue or unimportant. 2/

Yesterday's action by the @SBCExecComm to disfellowship Saddleback was, in my view, both premature and unwise, regardless of one's view of "women pastors." The SBCEC should not seek to use its ad interim authority to take actions in areas where the SBC is divided in opinion. 3/

An easy retort is, "The SBC has spoken! The BFM is against women pastors!" Despite what others may claim, the issue is not that simple. The SBC has NEVER required any church to affirm positively the BFM in toto in order to be deemed "in friendly cooperation" w/the Convention. 4/

Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, I believe an accurate reading of history reveals that the SBC consensus in the year 2000 was that the BFM revision referencing the "office of pastor" was clearly understood to mean then what is meant today by "senior" or "lead" pastor. 5/

I realize that my claims here are subject to the retort, "That's just your interpretation." Perhaps so. But the contrary is also true that the opposing view is itself an interpretation. And that's exactly my point. By taking action, the SBCEC imposed their interpretation here. 6/

Article III of the SBC Constitution contains the elastic clause of "closely identifying" w/the BFM as the requirement for cooperating churches. But that same article specifically enumerates three and only three clear disqualifications: affirming homosexuality, racism, abuse. 7/

These three disqualifying conditions provide an objective basis for determining SBC church cooperation. Anything beyond these three moves are simply subjective judgment calls. By taking the action they did, the SBCEC became a magisterium, authoritatively interpreting the BFM. 8/

I believe this act establishes a terrible precedent, and one that, regardless of what side of the "women pastors" issue one falls on, should concern the SBC. The Convention has provided no direct instruction to the SBCEC to take such an action. The BFM is not the SBC's creed. 9/

Again, lest I be misunderstood, I'm not an egalitarian, nor for that matter am I in favor of open communion, Arminian theology, dispensationalism, or other matters that I am quite confident all run afoul of the BFM in one form or fashion. I have and still do affirm the BFM. 10/

But I am also a convictional Baptist which means I resist making the hermeneutical leap of thinking that the power to determine what "closely identifies with" is settled simply by reading the BFM text and then saying "it's clear!" b/c my interpretation is obviously correct. 11/

There seems to be a sentiment in today's SBC that wants to purify the Convention, and sees "women pastors" as a huge threat to biblical authority and a slippery slope toward liberalism and drift. A few years ago it was Calvinism. Perhaps it will be something else later on. 12/

Whatever the issue may be, if it becomes clear to Southern Baptists that its time to make it a test of fellowship, then let's amend Article III and take three to four or five or more. But let's do it w/full SBC debate and consideration of all that we stand to gain or lose. 13/

Until then, I hope Southern Baptists will work to expend less energy and effort trying to kick out more churches who want to be in friendly cooperation with us. Let's give our best to being the kind of SBC churches want to affiliate with, not the kind they want to leave. 14/end