I’m seeing a strange suggestion being floated around social media of late and it concerns me. Most recently in the form of a tweet from the Conservative Baptist Network. On December 3rd 2020 someone from the organization posted…
The post states, in part, “Furthermore, we look forward expectantly to the presidents’ cooperation with us in rescinding Resolution 9…”
I believe the suggestion of rescinding any resolution is a misguided one with significant challenges and unfortunate consequences. Likely well meaning, but concerning nonetheless.
For those who have expressed concern over Resolution 9, might I offer an alternative approach? In place of moving to rescind would you please consider presenting and submitting a new resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention scheduled for June, 15-16 in Nashville. I’m certain that the passing of time has allowed most people to better understand CRT and a newly presented resolution would be much better received by the full body this time around.
First let me admit my bias…
I am not here to argue the merits of Resolution 9, although I should offer a few things for transparency’s sake. I’ve been familiar with Critical Theory (including Critical Race Theory) for a number of years thanks to a wonderfully insightful PhD seminar at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on Philosophical Hermeneutics. The seminar introduced students to most of the worldly analytical tools employed by philosophers, sociologists and theologians which help us to identify how certain people groups might develop and adopt worldviews. Philosophical hermeneutics, in part, considers what people believe and why they believe it. More fully, the discipline helps us identify the things that build and guide worldviews which ultimately inform how people interpret communication and actions. Philosophical hermeneutics, then, is an incredibly important discipline which helps us to interact with those from different cultures, backgrounds, families and neighborhoods. It also helps us interact with those with whom we have disagreements and informs us as to why those disagreements exists so that we might find an opportunity to better evangelize and disciple those people the Lord is bringing to salvation. Kinda like what Paul told us he practiced in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.
Admittedly, sitting in the hall in Birmingham back in June of 2019 I distinctly remember thinking two main things when the resolution was submitted to the body for consideration. First, I wondered how many people in the room even knew what Critical Race Theory was. Although I had heard some scuttlebutt regarding a few disgruntled Baptists, I was very surprised to see a full resolution addressing CRT being reported out. Pleasantly surprised, I should add, but surprised nonetheless… still, however, a bit confused by its appearance. Second, I thought Wow! What an incredibly astute and well-written statement. It was an appropriate warning of the dangers of CRT while also identifying what CRT is and how all such analytical tools must always be subjugated to the authority of Scripture. I gladly voted for the resolution. I was proud that such a thorough, robust and academically rigorous resolution was being presented, since it is so rare for us to make that sort of an academic statement from the floor of the convention.
What followed was completely befuddling to me. Upon the presentation of a resolution whose primary purpose was to warn of the dangers of CRT and encourage the authority of scripture above all else, the interpretation offered by some was that the resolution was a statement affirming CRT. I couldn’t believe it. This reaction clearly showed that someone’s wires were crossed somewhere along the way. It also showed that a hermeneutics refresher lesson is desperately needed in the SBC and unfortunately, as is sometimes the case, those who rabble rouse through unfounded fear (I say unfounded because I still have yet to identify a single SBC seminary prof who will say that they use CRT to interpret scripture) use the bully pulpit to exert power.
The misinterpretation was so bad that John MacArthur (a non-Southern Baptist) completely botched it when he attempted to weigh in on the actions of the SBC at his Truth Matters conference in November of 2019. He startlingly, (and unbelievably inaccurately) stated, “When the Southern Baptists met in June and they passed Resolution 9 and they said Intersectionality and Critical Theory are useful tools in interpreting the Bible, that was a watershed moment for that entire movement.” I’m not going to charge the brother with deliberately lying because I suspect someone who had his ear fed him their terrible take and he ran with it without actually reading the resolution itself. But the statement was flat wrong and incredibly irresponsible.
Resolution 9 not only did NOT suggest that the SBC believes CT is useful to interpret the bible… it said the exact opposite. It said things like…
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture; and be it further
RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the gospel of Jesus Christ alone grants the power to change people and society because “he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6); and be it further…
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches and institutions repudiate the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview; and be it further…
RESOLVED, That we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture rather than the transcendent reality shared by every image bearer and divinely affirmed distinctions; and be it further
RESOLVED, That while we denounce the misuse of critical race theory and intersectionality, we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord; and be it finally…” (emphasis mine)
For those of us who had a robust academic understanding of the subject matter this statement was a clear warning about Critical Race Theory. It was academically thorough and, I believe, a sufficient statement properly restating our shared view that Scripture is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.”
But alas, my interpretation was not that of others. The brouhaha has yet to find resolution… no pun intended. Thus, my concern and offering of a better way forward.
On to the actual Concern…
The movement to rescind a resolution, any resolution, should be a concern for us all. Here are a few reasons why I am pleading for a different way forward…
First, the folks who are arguing to rescind and expunge Resolution 9 might not be aware that Robert’s Rules of order suggests it is extremely rare to consider such a thing. So much so that even a unanimous vote to rescind and expunge at a meeting is insufficient to bring it about. You have to have an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership to do so. {I would argue that} this would mean a majority of all the cooperating churches in the Southern Baptist Convention voting to affirm such an action. (IX, 35, pg 299 ln 5-14)
Along with that, even a simple motion to rescind (without expunging) is also not an easy thing to bring about. And rightfully so. The rules are set up to protect the past actions of deliberative assemblies. Without a previous ‘notice to rescind’ presented to the deliberative body at the immediate previous meeting, you still need either (1) a majority of the entire membership (again which {I’d think} would mean a majority of all cooperating churches of the SBC to vote in the affirmative) or (2) a two-thirds majority affirmative vote of the deliberative body. (IX, 35, 7, pg 295 ln 24-31).
For this reason is it very rare that motions of any sort… especially resolutions are rescinded. We should tread carefully here.
Second, according to RRNR 10th edition (I know, I’m out of date but my copy is well worn and I know where everything is in it) motions to rescind “Can be applied to anything… which has continuing force and effect…” (emphasis mine) (IX, 35, 2, pg 294 ln 24-25). So clearly, there is an allowance for the rescinding of motions. My primary argument here is that the resolutions passed by the SBC in our deliberative assembly do not have “continuing force and effect.” They have historically been non-binding resolutions which express an opinion, a statement of appreciation, or an exhortation offered from the majority of messengers in attendance at the time of the adoption, and does not bind the convention or its churches to any such current or future belief, position or action. Thus, it is a temporary, non-binding statement of the will of a particular deliberative body at one particular moment in time. Furthermore, to treat resolutions as having “continuing force and effect” conflates them with our statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000. Whose strict adoption and adherence, may I remind you, is not even a requirement of admittance to fellowship in our voluntary association of churches.
That is not to say these resolutions are non-actions. They are indeed actions which cause something. Speech Act Theory affirms these statements are real, substantive and meaningful. However, they are the actions of a particular deliberative assembly at a particular time and place. They do not “carry forward” so to speak. This is why we, as a convention, from time to time, circle back to restate or even sometimes reverse our statements through the adoption of contemporary resolutions (more on that in a bit).
Our Resolutions are temporal. They were never intended to be statements of faith or practice, nor are they binding actions. We have a confession of faith that we use to establish those things. Rather, resolutions are expressed to address contemporary issues by a contemporary body, which by nature, are limited in time and scope.
With that said, the simple response to the concerns about Resolution 9 is to offer a new resolution. This is our normal way of approaching this process. Let’s continue that practice. I fear a serious and growing misunderstanding of the nature of resolutions and the ramifications of that misunderstanding should cause us pause.
Third, and maybe most importantly, there is no precedent for the convention to rescind a previously adopted resolution of a past assembly. Those resolutions were created by a “different” deliberative body who met at a different moment in time. Although it was the same organization, it was a different gathering (which is the reason for Robert’s Rules’ stringent protection of the actions of those past deliberative bodies). To reach back to “undo” resolutions of the past is a chronological no no.
Consider the evidence. As far as I can ascertain there are still resolutions “on the books” regarding our support for slavery and abortion. We didn’t rescind those terrible statements. Rather, we passed new ones expressing our changed views on the subjects then expressed our repentance while seeking forgiveness. Again, we didn’t rescind the previous abhorrent positions. There was no need. Those previous (sinful) statements were made in the past and remained in the past. Rather, we repented, refocused our moral compass and passed new resolutions which admitted our mistakes and corrected our anthropology… to the Glory of God.
I recently asked a couple of SBC historians as to their recollection if a resolution has ever been rescinded. To their memory, one has not. But that’s not to say there wasn’t an attempt to do so.
The most recent effort was in 1989 when Robert Parker of NC moved “that the Southern Baptist Convention rescind and reject its Resolution No. 5 – On the Priesthood of the Believer adopted at its annual meeting in San Antonio, TX in June of 1988.” (found HERE. Item #35 on page 39). According to the 1989 book of reports (items #97 & #128) that motion was pronounced out of order. The author appealed the rule of the chair and ultimately the ruling of the chair was sustained by the messengers of the Convention.
There is no reason to venture out into this uncharted and arguably out-of-order territory when a new resolution will accomplish exactly what it appears proponents hope to accomplish.
Conclusion and Hope
I understand that there are those who desire a stronger statement regarding CRT. I’m honestly OK with that. If a well written and fair resolution is presented I will likely vote for it. But please, can we not wade into the disconcerting and tedious process of rescinding a previous year’s resolution? That opens up a can of worms I’m certain none of us wants to sort through. Can you imagine what a mess that would be…especially when it is unnecessary and has never been our practice?
Please, if there is concern, address it through a new resolution. I believe full attention will be given to it with ample time for consideration and discussion. Ultimately, we all are seeking a unifying statement which I believe we can reach if cool heads and reasonable dialogue wins the day.
Let me just say again, I was fine with the academic treatment presented in the original resolution. I thought it was sufficient. I am fine with the Council of Seminary Presidents recent statement. I thought it might have been needed for clarification for some people. I will be fine with a new substantive and fair resolution. Especially if it will help us move past this issue. I will NOT be fine with an attempt at rescinding Resolution 9 (or any previous resolution for that matter). It’s not what we do.
* I made a few edits to clarify my intended points you will find those few tweaks {bracketed, bolded and in italics}
