In years where there is no major issue scheduled for a vote, the report of the Resolutions Committee is one of the things most worth watching. Last year Southern Baptists passed a resolution “On Sensitivity And Unity Regarding The Confederate Battle Flag.” It was controversial, but passed with the overwhelming support of the messengers gathered in St. Louis. The 2014 convention in Baltimore included a resolution “On Transgender Identity.” While that one was not as controversial among messengers, it did receive some discussion from the floor at that year’s convention.
This year we have gotten a sneak peek at what may be coming during the Resolutions Committee’s report at 3:55pm Tuesday afternoon. Dwight McKissic has submitted a resolution “Condemning the Alt-Right & White Nationalism.” That resolution was printed in full here at SBC Voices. The committee has three options: 1) They can present the resolution as originally written, 2) They can edit the resolution and present an altered version, or 3) They can scrap it all together. If any form of the resolution is brought out of committee, messengers will then have the opportunity to suggest changes to the entire convention before the resolution itself is actually brought to a vote. If the committee chooses to scrap the resolution, it would take a 2/3 majority vote of the messengers to bring it to the floor for discussion and a vote.
It has also been announced that Malcolm Yarnell (SWBTS) and Owen Strachan (MBTS) have collaborated on a resolution affirming substitutionary atonement. Though Yarnell and Strachan have not released the text of their resolution, I expect a version of this resolution to make it to the floor for a vote. The only way this becomes controversial is if somehow the debate over limited atonement makes it into the discussion. I don’t expect that to happen considering the fact that the original resolution was written together by a Calvinist and non-Calvinist. Strachan has written about the resolution here. Yarnell has written about the resolution here.
Another potentially controversial resolution that has been submitted to the committee has been announced by Micah Fries. He has published the full text of the resolution here. The text of the resolution is almost identical to the text of the 1998 resolution On Moral Character of Public Officials. This resolution shouldn’t be controversial, but what was not controversial during the Clinton presidency may now be controversial during the Trump presidency. That of course makes the resolution all the more important.
There will certainly be other resolutions to consider that I have not listed here because I have not yet seen them announced. If you know of one, go ahead and let us know in the comments. Barrett Duke is the Chairman of this year’s Resolutions Committee. Be in prayer for him and his team as they make some important decisions that will undoubtedly affect the narrative coming out of SBC17.
If you are planning to be in Phoenix, make sure you are in the convention hall Tuesday afternoon during the Resolutions Committee report. You don’t get a vote unless you are present. If you aren’t able to make it to the convention this year, you may want to tune in to the live stream during this portion of the convention. Just be sure to account for potential time zone differences when planning your schedule.
Ruh Row!
“Another potentially controversial resolution that has been submitted to the committee has been announced by Micah Fries. He has published the full text of the resolution here. The text of the resolution is almost identical to the text of the 1998 resolution On Moral Character of Public Officials. This resolution shouldn’t be controversial, but what was not controversial during the Clinton presidency may now be controversial during the Trump presidency. That of course makes the resolution all the more important.”
I am so glad that a resolution on substitutionary atonement is going to be brought forward. This is a pivotal issue in modern theology and the SBC needs to set this one in stone.
I submitted a resolution called “On Praying for the Peace of Jerusalem” which highlights and brings to the forefront Palestinian and Arab Christians. I tried to come alongside last year’s resolution about supporting Israel in hopes that SBCers will begin to think of, and pray for, brothers and sisters in Christ who are Arab who feel marginalized and alone because they have little support within or without the Arab world.
I would love to see that happen. The one that passed last year was unfortunate. It was poorly written. I support Israel but voted against the resolution for that reason. Seeing Arab Christians recognized would be welcome.
I assumed we’d just repeal the 1998 resolution.
Some might prefer that to passing the same resolution again. Sad!
As I mentioned to Micah on Facebook, passing his resolution would be incredibly hypocritical, even if I agree with it, considering the lengths some SBC heavyweights have gone to to silence principled criticism against our President.
A better resolution would be one of repentance for valuing political power over Kingdom work. And a public censure of those who participated in such actions.
Sadly that won’t happen.
I don’t see hypocrisy in the convention as a whole speaking despite what some “heavyweights” may have done on their own. In fact, I think that makes it that much more important.
Agreed, but as I opined below….I do not think it will happen. Resolutions Committee likely won’t send it to the floor.
To me the moral character resolution is useless and redundant. We had the one in 98, and fat load of good that’s done about anything. “No, we really mean it this time.” And? So? This is someone attempting to force the hand of Trump supporters to either rejecting it on the grounds that it’s redundant or displaying their hypocrisy by endorsing it. It just smacks of politics and I fear will further divide the Convention. This will make those who voted for Trump out of a very difficult soul-seeking process and aren’t completely dismissive of morality to feel that they… Read more »
I agree. The optics on this would simply be terrible. We had very high profile SBCers actively campaigning for Trump, and by all indications the majority of SBCers actually voted for Trump. To come out now with this resolution would just make us look stupid and disingenuous. Better to not even remind people of the 98 resolution.
I edited your comment for you, Jim. Lay off the crude language.
Understood. Though where I come from it only qualifies as lack of decorum and doesn’t rise to the level of potty mouth. But I cede your point and yield back the remainder of my time.
I don’t think it’s either useless or redundant. I think it’s even more important to pass now than it was in ’98.
What a great opportunity for those who supported Trump to say, “we supported him even with these serious reservations – reservations that we still hold.”
In light of the resolution it casts any conscientious Trump voter as a hypocrite. It’s unproductive at best.
A Trump voter who said Trump is less objectionable than Hillary is not the same as a Jeffress or Falwell.
I could be wrong…it has happened a time or two before…but I am not anticipating Micah’s resolution coming to the floor as I expect the committee will rightly consider it already addressed in previous resolutions . I agreed with the former resolution and I agree with the text of Micah’s – but it appears that the contents of these resolutions only matter to some when we are directing them at Democrats (but I digress). Bringing this up again will only inflame the Trumpsters. I also feel that Dwight’s resolution may make it the floor but it will be in a… Read more »
I say such resolutions will not leave committee – or if they do they will be, with great effort, worded in a way so as not to offend Trumpsters – especially certain ones.
I am not saying I agree with this strategy with regard to these resolutions – I just think that is what the strategy will be.
It is not unusual for a resolution to be renewed from time to time.
Moral integrity is non-partisan and if we nearly unanimously passed this in 1996 and refuse now, it says something about us.
Moral integrity is non-partisan
I think this is true in theory but I’m not sure it is true in practice, as the last election has borne out. I don’t see any good result from bringing such a resolution forward. Some Trump supporters are able to reconcile moral integrity and support for Trump but the outside world is not going to be able to recognize that nuance. In my opinion Southern Baptists did not come out of the last election looking very good. This resolution would make us look even worse.
I don’t know Micah Fries personally so I have no idea what his motivation is for the resolution. If he and the supporters of the resolution have a legitimate concern for our testimony and the character of the authorities we must submit to I applaud the resolution and hope it is added next to the 1998 resolution. If the purpose of this resolution has nothing to do with the future but is actually designed to celebrate the nevertrumpers from the recent election or defend Russ Moore by making his detractors look bad I pray God will give the committee discernment… Read more »
Listen to yourselves. You are actually and literally saying that a Morals resolution cannot pass because it might offend Trump voters. A group of churches, Christians. What if Trump was for Baptist pet sins, abortion(which he is in some cases) or pro-homosexuality(oh he is). It is hard to read the reasoning behind not voting for this resolution. When this resolution was passed overwhelmingly in 1998, Clinton was in office and it was during his affairs. No one was worried about offending Clinton voters. I think we already look stupid and disingenuous. The public knows we passed the morals resolution in… Read more »
Debbie – I’m not sure anyone is saying it cannot pass (I am not saying that).
I am stating my opinion that it probably will not come to the floor for a vote…
However I could be wrong… And I actually hope I am wrong – I would be pleasantly surprised… And would certainly vote for the resolution.
I am also not saying it cannot pass. I’m saying it is a bad idea. I don’t see anything positive coming out of it. Rightly or wrongly, it will be seen as a way to embarrass Trump supporters. If it comes to the floor, who in their right mind will vote against it? So then we have an official resolution on the importance of moral integrity coming from a convention that solidly supports Donald Trump. You can bet the world will quickly jump on that perceived cognitive dissonance. 1. Internally, it wouldn’t unify us, it would only reopen wounds. Even… Read more »
About the only things at SBC annual meetings that gets secular press attention, aside from perfunctory reporting on who is elected president and a note that the denomination is declining, are resolutions that attempt to address current political matters. This one has our current president, the one that Southern Baptists overwhelmingly supported with their votes, in the bullseye. Fries would like for the few thousand of the 15 million Southern Baptists to say that “character does count in public office” but the record is that while character counts, it evidently counts less for most SBCers than political considerations. I think… Read more »
William. My personal opinion is so be it. We may well deserve the headline, but they cannot deny we stood for something we believe in. It would be a witness I think. When will we start following the scripture we say we believe 100% and stop caring about headlines?
I just don’t think resolutions are worth much, especially in this context. Looks to me like this has a pro-Moore subtext. We’re done with that. You have the photo of the former SBC president standing behind Trump next to the thrice married prosperity gospel pastor…rich. Of course, we could do the usual: pass it and forget it.
but they cannot deny we stood for something we believe in.
Are you joking? They absolutely can deny it. The fact that Trump is president is (in the minds of many in and out of the SBC) exhibit A in the charge that we don’t really stand for what we say we believe. After the thieves have ransacked your house is not the time to announce that you stand for home security.
Bill: “After the thieves have ransacked your house is not the time to announce that you stand for home security”
I think that’s precisely the time to announce it.
Only if the majority of the household is sorry the thieves have been in. In my, albeit imperfect analogy, they aren’t.
And I think that is precisely the reason it needs to be presented.