The Executive Committee can expel churches without messengers being involved.
Absolutely true. They just did it in a closed meeting without votes being recorded or discussion on the record. Shameful.
The Executive Committee may expel a church for any reason.
Trick question but sorta true. Even though there are reasons listed, the broad requirement of “closely identifies” with the BFM and the last two enumerated reasons (being discriminatory and acting not inconsistently on sex abuse) are not defined. The EC can doggone well do what it wants in regard to any church. Same for messengers.
The SBC Constitution specifically lists five reasons that a church may be excluded.
Well, sorta, true. Endorsing or affirming homosexual behavior, giving to the CP or another SBC entity, sex abuse, and racism are all specifically listed. The constitutional amendment that is proposed would add a sixth specific enumeration, women as any kind of pastor, presumably using or allowing the word “pastor” to be used in regard to her service to a church.
The EC and messengers the ability to expel individuals as well as churches from our body.
False. The SBC is a convention of churches, not individuals. There is no way to expel any individual although if, for example, Vlad Tepes was to be found alive and were to join an SBC church, that church could be excluded but not dear old Vlad. Notably, the SBC is creating a blacklist of individuals, the controversial “Ministry Check” database of abusers. Presumably, a church can be excluded for hiring or even hosting anyone on that list. The response is open ended at this point.
A congregation must be a part of a local SBC association and an SBC state convention to be an SBC church.
Once a church is on the Executive Committee SBC church list, it stays on unless specifically excluded by either the EC or the SBC in annual session.
True, as far as I can tell. Once you’re in, you stay in. It is not insignificant that at least two churches recently excluded denied being SBC churches. I understand the mechanisms, I think, but our policies guarantee an endless stream of black eyes.
A church has to adopt the Baptist Faith and Message Statement to be SBC.
More churches have been excluded from the SBC for having female senior pastors than for approving, endorsing, or affirming discriminatory behavior.
True. Many times more. Explain this to the public. We have countless buildings, streets, etc., named for long dead slave owners. We more than 40,000 churches in the deep south, yet I can only think of one SBC church that was excluded for racism. It’s just an area we pay little attention to on the church level. Contrast that to what might be coming on women “pastors.” Since anatomy is far easier to spot than racism, exclusions should increase manyfold on the former, yet racism is an enumerated reason to exclude.
In our SBCAM coming up in June in New Orleans the messengers will approve or reject the EC’s recommendation to exclude Saddleback and several other churches for having women senior pastors?
False. As noted above, the Executive Committee already acted, in closed session with no vote or discussion recorded. If any of my colleagues plan to speak to this in New Orleans they may consider that every syllable they say at a mic, every word will be broadcast publicly and recorded for posterity. Not so the Executive Committee which is a disgrace.
UGA’s average margin of victory in the last CFP was over four touchdowns per game?
True. The scores were 42-41 and 65-7. Average 53.5 to 24, a 29.5 point margin of victory. But this year is a new year. We will see how it goes.
The relevant section of the SBC constitution.
- Has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. (By way of example, churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.)
- Has formally approved its intention to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. (By way of example, the regular filing of the annual report requested by the Convention would be one indication of such cooperation.)
- Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.
- Does not act in a manner inconsistent with the Convention’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse.
- Does not act to affirm, approve, or endorse discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity.