It appears that 16 resolutions were submitted and 13 are being reported out, though some were produced by the committee. Many are completely rewritten by the committee.
Ten of the 16 are listed as declined, yet some of them appear to have been the basis of resolutions brought forth by the committee.
I am going to publish this now and then edit this as the discussion goes forward.
What will happen (based on previous years) – we will go resolution by resolution until time runs out, then vote the rest as a group. Interesting that some of the most controversial are at the end!
Resolutions
1. On Pro-Life legislation in state legislatures
Good things have been happening and we rejoice!
Passed by overwhelming majority.
2. On the evil of sexual abuse.
Prepared in support of the sexual abuse effort.
Amendment offered adding words accepted by committee as friendly amendment.
Passed.
3. On local church autonomy
Autonomy has been attacked and this defends it historically and theologically.
Another friendly amendment (by our Scott Gordon)
Passed.
4. On religious persecution and human rights violations in North Korea
Nasty stuff!
Another Amendment. Wants to add Sudan to the resolution on North Korea.
Amendment failed.
Another Amendment failed.
Passed
5. On sexual and personal identity
We believe in men and women and marriage. Deals with SSA.
Amendment to change attraction to temptation. Failed.
Friendly amendment.
Passed.
6. On cooperative culture in the SBC
Group hug! Well written.
Passed
7. On biblical justice
Reasonable statement on justice
Passed
8. On contextual and cultural awareness for ministry
In favor of cultural awareness
Passed
9. On Critical race theory and intersectionality
May be controversial and discussion will follow. As I understand it, the committee brought a much more moderate statement than the partisan one brought forward by the submitter.
Tom Ascol amendment failed.
Passed.
10. On expanding selective service to include women.
We do not think women should be drafted.
Passed.
11. On opposing human germline editing.
This is being condemned.
Passed.
12. On gospel allegiance and political engagement.
Engage in political activity but keep our eyes on the gospel.
Passed
13. Resolution of Appreciation
Thank you, Birmingham.
Passed
The one I submitted was declined but the one about women & selective service approved by the committee. Ridiculous!
Contact a member of the committee
I have especially since the last time the draft was utilized was 1972 and the last time the lottery was used was 1975. Was this resolution really necessary?
Amy; I know Dave’s not literally wanting you to do that. I had to work most of the day on business so I got to attend very little of today’s session. I got in as they were discussing the resolution on Critical Theory and Intersectionality. Most of the people had left. Maybe 2000 or so left. I got to hear a couple of comments about the CT&I resolution and an amendment that had been made. The amendment was ruled as having failed but in most circumstances they would have had a ballot, but due to time the chair made a… Read more »
Actually. I think committee members are often willing to give explanations of their decisions.
Can someone clearly elaborate on the Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality as to what the resolution would mean to the lay person sitting in an SBC pew. Seems to me like a slippery slope that gives an umbrella for many social justice topics as the base of the theory is that white people do not know they are racist because they do not know they are racist even if they do not act in a racist manner. I am a little confused on the actual purpose of this resolution. Thanks
In a nut shell, anything labeled with critical in front of it, has to taken down and rebuilt, re-evaluated, dismantled.
In a nutshell intersectionality is, everything is/ can be a trigger
Steve: I first became introduced to CRT in law school in the 1980s in its initial form, Critical Legal Theory. It would take a while to unpack it all. Wikipedia has a good basic article. In the law, CRT rejects the notion of rational thought and empirical data as the basis for analysis and instead relies on personal narrative and storytelling. These thought trends are foreign and antithetical to the foundations of Western jurisprudence, but they are embraced by people who think they will help the US and the church overcome racism and sexism. The discussion about the resolution was… Read more »
Louis, I think I agree with you and that is a pretty good recap of CRT. Basically to take it to the extreme as CRT can go anywhere it is a rejection of western civilization thought. Everything is open to critical thinking and feelings/emotions overrule history and proven success pathways. Do away with SAT or water them down with points for economic background, zip code racial quota, community involvement for academic achievement, substituting Shakespeare for new age current pop culture literature and leave no room for any “critical” disagreement. Actually on TV last night I saw Dr. Cornell West from… Read more »
Unfortunately, it’s (CRT) not confusing at all, to anyone who takes a little time to read about it. It is a Marxist philosophy intended to be used to destroy the foundations of Western civilization in particular, and Christianity in particular. As Dr. Mohler noted, there is no way to invoke it consistent with the Bible.
Why was there a need for resolution #9? Does anyone know. Where did the need to affirm the use of some parts of CRT and intersectionality come from?
I have seen on Twitter one guy claiming that he submitted the resolution originally, but that the committee redrafted the resolution in such a way that it did not capture what he had intended in his original resolution. He has posted a copy of what he submitted, but I haven’t taken the time to read it. If that’s accurate, in a sense, the committee was addressing something that a messenger had suggested addressing. There is also the incident involving the SBC professor who told a NYT reporter that he used arguments from CRT proponents, but did not identify where the… Read more »
The SBC professor in question was a member of the resolutions committee, as well as one of the deans from his school, though neither man spoke from the platform during deliberation of the CRT resolution. It seems to me in hindsight that the resolution would have been more appropriately handled in the form of a seminary white paper or something similar, rather than a floor vote with truncated time for debate.
The Resolutions Committee radically changed the author’s resolution on Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality. Unethical.
Not at all unethical. The committee may, and sometimes does, do this. The body may reject the Committee’s resolution, amend it, or whatever. The desire of the body of messengers was carried out.
So you would have or did vote for the resolution?
Note for you Robere. We don’t link some sites. Here is what Mark Coppenger wrote on his facebook page: _____________ “A perspective on the Critical Race Theory/Intersectionality Resolution at the SBC, from one who served on and with the committee for six years (as member, chairman, & EC staff rep): Our resolutions focused on 1. thanks to our hosts; 2. giving Southern Baptist voice to something they really wanted to say (e.g., re Pres Clinton’s gays-in-the-military initiative; re the massacre in Tiananmen Square); 3. alerts to threats the messengers might have missed (e.g., the nature of RU-486; wording in a… Read more »
Thank you, William.
It’s not unethical unless they present as “this is the resolution that X author submitted.” It’s fully normal for the committee to present their own resolution on matters, even one drawn from other people’s submission. They may have had no intention to resolve on CRT/Intersectionality until they saw that submission and then decided to present a resolution that offered the opposite viewpoint from the initial submission. As such, his resolution is handled and listed in disposition as “See #9” where what they want him to see is that they disagreed with him and presented #9 instead. Again, it’s entirely normal,… Read more »
Inasmuch as it is within the committee’s powers, it is not unethical.
Al Mohler has published some excellent comments about the Resolution.
That which is allowed is not always ethical.
Is “submitted by” included in the presentation of the resolution before the convention?
No it is not.