I was very glad to see the resolution on Refugee Ministry be adopted by the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Annual Meeting last week. Today is World Refugee Day and a report was just released that states that the world now has 65 million+ refugees – now more than in the time period after World War II. We are facing a global crisis of tens of millions of displaced people from war, violence, terrorism, persecution, genocide, and forced migration. The Southern Baptist Convention chose to make a strong statement calling upon SBC churches to respond to this global humanitarian crisis with love, care, gospel ministry, and aid to the most vulnerable people in the world. We did the right thing.
During a season of angry political rhetoric where many have wanted to shut the door to refugees, Southern Baptists made a gospel statement on the worth and value of all people – including refugees – and reminded the world that they are made in God’s image and that they are loved by God. We should love them as well. We should seek to minister and care for them. This resolution was strengthened by the Convention from the form put out by the resolutions committee with an amendment calling for us to welcome and adopt refugees into our homes and churches “as a means to demonstrate to the nations that our God longs for every tribe, tongue, and nation to be welcomed at His Throne.” This amendment passed unanimously from the 7000+ messengers gathered in St. Louis.
The origin of this resolution came out of the collaborative work of many Christians in South Carolina who worked to oppose a harsh anti-refugee bill put forward in the South Carolina Senate that sought to potentially hold churches and faith based organizations civilly liable for the future actions of refugees that they would sponsor if those refugees committed certain crimes. This bill was sponsored by 8 senators, 6 of whom are Southern Baptists. It could have essentially shut down refugee ministry in South Carolina, at least in its current form. After months of work, including developing the support of hundreds of pastors and multiple denominations, the anti-refugee bill was killed in the South Carolina House of Representatives. After this victory, Jason Lee, the director and World Relief-Spartanburg and I (both Southern Baptists ministers) agreed that it would be great for our Convention to make a statement saying that we SHOULD minister to refugees who are brought to the United States by our government. It was from realizing how strong the anti-refugee sentiment is among some sections of our country that we came to believe that a strong Biblical statement on ministry, care, and concern was necessary. When Southern Baptists adopted this resolution last week, it sent a loud message to our churches and to the nation that we are to minister to and love the refugees who come to America and that we should also love and minister to refugees overseas.
I am glad that we adopted this resolution and I pray that Southern Baptists will heed its call to minister to, care for, and love the refugee. In a world wracked with violence and uncertainty, now is the time for the church to respond and to hold out hope and love to those driven from their homes and fleeing for their lives. The passage of this resolution at this time is just one more reason why I am proud to be a Southern Baptist. Now, I hope that we will continue to engage the least and lost in the largest refugee crisis in world history and not miss this moment.
The full text:
RESOLUTION 12: ON REFUGEE MINISTRY
WHEREAS, The world is facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II, with over sixty million people displaced throughout the world and considered refugees; and
WHEREAS, War, violence, genocide, religious persecution, and other forms of oppression have contributed to massive people movements across the globe, as millions flee for their lives; and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have a long record of caring for and ministering to refugees throughout our history; and
WHEREAS, This history of refugee ministry includes the sponsoring of almost 15,000 refugees from 1975–1985, resulting in the starting of 281 ethnic churches and a 1985 resolution commemorating this decade of ministry; and
WHEREAS, There are expected to be 85,000 refugees coming into the United States in 2016 from four continents and the Caribbean; and
WHEREAS, Scripture calls for and expects God’s people to minister to the sojourner (Exodus 22:21–24; Exodus 23:9–12; Leviticus 19:33–34; Deuteronomy 10:17–22; Deuteronomy 24:17–22; Deuteronomy 26:5–13; Psalm 146:8–9; Matthew 25:35–40); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 14–15, 2016, encourage Southern Baptists to minister care, compassion, and the Gospel to refugees who come to the United States; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we call on the governing authorities to implement the strictest security measures possible in the refugee screening and selection process, guarding against anyone intent on doing harm; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we affirm that refugees are people loved by God, made in His image, and that Christian love should be extended to them as special objects of God’s mercy in a world that has displaced them from their homelands; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we encourage Southern Baptist churches and families to welcome and adopt refugees into their churches and homes as a means to demonstrate to the nations that our God longs for every tribe, tongue, and nation to be welcomed at His Throne (Revelation 5:9; Revelation 7:9-12; Psalm 68:5; James 1:27; Leviticus 25:35; Leviticus 19:33-34).
Thank you for your work on this resolution. I was proud to support it last week with my upraised ballot and then to report of it to my congregation last night in my report to the congregation about the annual meeting. It certainly led to some post-service conversations (along w/ the resolution regarding the Confederate flag!), but it gave me a platform to speak theologically and pastorally about these issues in a Christ-centered way. I’m not sure that I persuaded all of the members of our church of the rightness of these resolutions, but it opened the door to a sensible discussion of the issues. It also gave me a platform to encourage our church to find ways for further involvement in refugee ministry and for being agents of reconciliation with other races.
Furthermore, I was pleased to learn about the Evangelical Immigration Table in the exhibit hall this year. I signed up as a member and look forward to hearing more about refugee-ministry and advocacy. Anyone interested in learning more can visit http://www.evangelicalimmigrationtable.com
Terry
I was at the Convention and was also pleased to vote for this resolution.
The important thing about this resolution was that it affirmed the fact that all people are made in God’s image, and it encouraged Christians and churches to minister to refugees who come to this country.
As you know, I was opposed to some earlier versions of a resolution on this topic because of the uncharitable political language in those earlier drafts.
But the resolution that came before the Convention was cleaned up and focused on people – not politics.
I believe that is why the Convention adopted the resolution without any uproar. In fact, if I am not mistaken, this resolution was not adopted individually. It was combined with several other resolutions that were adopted as a package. And there was nothing negative said.
I have seen some of the secular press try to make political points about this, but for anyone who was at the Convention this year, this resolution was not about the politics of immigration and the refugee crisis. The Convention wisely and successfully avoided that.
But we made an important statement about the Lord, mankind, and our ministry.
There was nothing political about the first statement, Louis. That is just how you read it. And, the amendment passed unanimously on an individual level.
Of course your reading of Louis’ comments is also your personal interpretation right Alan? Your defensiveness (my reading of course) is discouraging in the light that Louis pretty much agreed with the resolution, voted for it, and he gave glory to the Lord. Sometimes I hope beyond hope that criticisms would (and should be) ignored as minimis if the greater good was achieved in the end. Life is way too short (in my opinion of course) to chase after windmills.
Rob
Rob, Louis says that there was uncharitable political language in the original resolution. That was not the case. I explained that to him in the other post. He refuses to accept my explanation then or now. I am not being defensive. I am simply refusing to let Louis mischaracterize my meaning, whether intentionally or my mistake. The part that he is referring to involved asking people to stop demonizing refugees, who are actually victims of violence. That was not a political statement. Louis read it that way. It was a statement meant to call for us to treat refugees as those made in God’s image. That is what I was referring to. I am not sure why Louis maintains his position, but I am happy to continue to explain mine.
Thank you Alan for your response. If I can view things through a non-partisan lens here (I have no dog in this hunt between you and Louis) any reference to “stop demonizing refugees” steps right into a current cultural apocalypse (i.e. political) regardless if that was your intent or not. Further the continual harping on all things Trump by many walks right into this cultural apocalypse. Does your input into this particular resolution have anything to do with the political reverberations currently at issue in culture? Regardless if it was your intent or not (and I will believe you when you say that it is not) good people (and I have no reason to believe that Louis could be counted among that number) could very well read a political intent to your statement there. One could very well connect the your antipathy to Trump to “stop demonizing refugees.” Empathy is important among God’s people = as we deal with those who need ministering to (such as the refugees that this resolution references) as well as one another who may see things or slightly disagree with something that we are doing or saying. It goes without saying this goes for Louis as well.
God bless brother.
Rob
Rob:
Very insightful.
Since I have had ample opportunity to dialogue with Alan, I am glad to accept his intent that there is nothing political in this on his part – and by extension, I grant the same feeling to Mr. Lee, who is the actual author of the original resolution.
But my concern is with the SBC speaking clearly.
The first time I read the original resolution, although I liked the topic and sentiment, I saw problems with it. I was concerned about the wording.
You have read it, and have noted the same concerns.
Most importantly, the Resolutions Committee read it, and also had the same concerns.
I believe the collective judgment about the perceived intent of resolutions and the potential for resolutions to be misunderstood speaks for itself.
The Resolution, without the potentially misleading and offensive parts, passed. And I am happy for that.
I appreciate your recognition of what I was driving at. And, again, it’s not so much my interpretation – as it is my concern about the interpretation of others.
I wonder if the resolution committee, in the changes were because of this:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-campaign-announces-evangelical-executive-advisory-board
I don’t know I am just wondering out loud because I am disappointed.
I believe that the changes to the Mr. Lee’s original resolution were due to concerns that the resolution could be misinterpreted. I thought that. Rob Ayers thought that. The Resolutions Committee thought that.
Alan has vouched, and I have stipulated, that the original draft of Mr. Lee’s resolution was not intended to be political. If a person says that, then I believe we should acknowledge their stated intent.
I believe that the same courtesies should be extended to the Resolutions Committee. We should not cast aspersions at the work of the committee without just cause.
The committee revised the resolution to make it better, not to make it weaker. The subject of the resolution is ministering to refugees. The committee did nothing to weaken that.
Alan, Terry, Rob, you and I have all said that we are glad for the resolution’s passage, and no one has complained about any changes.
I sure hope that complaints and unfounded charges won’t start now.
Evangelicals disagree about Trump. No surprise there. That might be a good topic for another post.
I find this resolution to be quite unhelpful, actually. It affirms that Christians should personally welcome, care, and evangelize refugees and that refugees bear God’s image. Were these points debated among evangelicals? The real debate, it seems to me, is about what policy our government should pursue in regard to refugees. On this issue the resolution is silent.
Rob: In fact you are free to read the original resolution and I think if you read it as was intended you will not find anything Louis described in his comment.
Good reply Alan and good post.
Here is the original that Alan posted :
https://sbcvoices.com/resolution-on-refugee-ministry-and-resettlement/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SbcVoices+%28SBC+Voices%29
Read the link Alan gave which is what the messengers passed and compare it to the above. I think you will see where Louis is quite mistaken in his comment.
Ms. Debbie,
I will allow you to read and interpret anything that you wish by whatever lens you use. I would expect that you would allow me the same courtesy without telling me that I need to pick up the lens you used. There is a fine line between persuasion (with allegiance to freedom and freewill) and arrogance. Oftentimes I feel you cross the line in these discussions. I will treat you like I would want to be treated. Can I count on you giving me the same benefit?
Rob
Rob: No. The author has explained and that is what we should be going by, not a lens. I hope you do not interpret scripture in the same way. And no I am not saying this resolution is scripture.
How I read Scripture Debbie is word for word bathed in prayer with the faith in the Holy Spirit guiding me. I tend to read other works looking for a common reading and seeing how the words when put together impact me. While Scripture is of no private interpretation, I am afraid resolutions are not Scripture as you said written as it were by human beings who may or may not be lead by the Spirit of God. While I have noted that the author has shared that he did not intend to “be political,” I and many others did not know this when we read the first alliteration. It struck good people such as myself and others as “being political”. It may not of struck you that way and that is fine. You may disagree with how good people could “read into” the resolution as political and that is fine too. My quibble with you is that you are not satisfied with this at all = that if everyone does not read it like you have, or believe everything the way you do, then Ichabod on them. This is not a way to make friends and influence people. It certainly is not very charitable or a loving approach in my opinion. If you need further clarification just email me so that we don’t clutter up Alan’s post.
Rob
Rob, Rob, Rob: Alan, who is the author and promoter of this resolution, has said it was not political, period. End of story. No further discussion necessary. It was not political.
Debbie, everyone is conceding the intent of the author of this resolution. Though he has not been part of the discussion, Alan has vouched for him, and that is good enough.
Since thousands of messengers at the Convention adopt these resolutions that are written in words. The messengers don’t vote on the subject of intent of someone who submits a resolution. And once adopted, the words are what matters.
So the question is not what one person’s intent might be. The question is whether the Resolutions Committee, and then the messengers, adopt. They speak only through the words that are adopted.
That’s why resolutions are often revised – to take out things that can be misinterpreted or misread.
It’s fine by me if you and Alan saw no way that the original resolution could be perceived as political. But the author’s intent is beside the point because what the Convention votes on are the words that come before them.
A great secular example is found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the “Civil War” amendments. The 14th Amendment says that a state cannot deny equal protection or due process.
The meaning of that amendment has been debated in thousands of cases.
Judge Robert Bork said that clearly the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and the states that ratified the Amendment did not intend for the Amendment to mandate that formerly enslaved Africans would have the same accommodations as white Americans. Judge Bork was being asked a question about the importance of “original intent” in judicial construction. Judge Bork was a proponent of the importance of “original intent.”
But in response to the question about whether the 14th Amendment mandates that African Americans and non-African Americans could be segregated in public schools, Judge Bork said that clearly that was not the original intent.
But then he added, “Sometimes when there is a conflict between original intent and what they wrote, you have to go with what they wrote.”
That is the point here.
The messengers are being asked to agree to a specific set of words, not the intent of one person.
That is why care needs to be given to what resolutions actually say, and not the intent of their author.
I hope that this explanation is helpful.
Man, there are more typos and mistakes in that last post than I care to admit.
Hopefully, the meaning was helpful.
After all, it’s what I intended to say that counts. Not what I actually wrote. 🙂
There are resolutions. And then there is resolution. I pray we will not make the mistake of (merely) substituting the former for the latter.
This is actually a very good discussion.
As I recall, the original resolution was submitted by a Mr. Jason Lee (at least as posted on this website). I don’t know Mr. Lee, but I had the impression that he was disappointed with some of the politicians in his State, South Carolina, and possibly others.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that Mr. Lee had no intent whatsoever to enter into any political discussions. Mr. Lee has not spoken on this blog, but Alan has said that Mr. Lee has no political intent, so I am fine to accept that.
These events illustrate the importance of a resolutions committee in SBC life.
I have been to probably 20 or so conventions. I have voted on a lot of resolutions.
I have been amazed over the years at how those outside perceive our resolutions.
The intent of the person, or of the Convention is only one component of a resolution. The other is the wording of the resolution. If the wording is not good, it can mislead those who read it. And that destroys the effect of the resolution. If we are meaning to say X, and the news coming out of the Convention says that we said XXX, then our purpose was not achieved. We would have been better off saying nothing, if what we said was so misunderstood.
The original resolution used terms like, “condemn rhetoric”, “denunciations”, “fear mongering” and such. It was pretty harsh and condemning to my ears.
The SBC needs to been seen as less bellicose, in my opinion. If all of our resolutions are condemning this guy or that guy for something, we continue to play into the hands of those who say we are a condemning and angry people.
The Resolutions Committee apparently agreed with my judgment about the original resolution and the harsh terms used.
Alan and Debbie, and perhaps others, are fine with those terms, and think that they should have been adopted.
But I have never seen written work product, including my own, that could not be made more effective by the review of other people.
That is what happened here, and I am grateful for it.
Alan,
Also, I am wondering. Were you at the Convention?
I distinctly remembering that this resolution was adopted with 2 or 3 others in one vote.
I do not think that weakens the resolution at all. My point in bringing that up, was to note how non-controversial the resolution was – and as such, was clearly a statement of everyone there. It was not a contested matter in any way.
I get the impression that you feel the need to say that this resolution was adopted individually because without that, it loses force. My believe is that it is exactly the opposite.
This resolution was amended from the floor, I recall. But when it was adopted, it was adopted with 2 or 3 others.
Go back and see if I am not correct about that.
Yes, I was there. I was there in the room when it passed. It was adopted with 5 other resolutions. The amendment to it, which strengthened it, was lifted out, spoken to, and voted on individually and passed unanimously.
Right. That’s what I thought.
With the rewording, this was not a controversial matter at all.
Thanks for confirming that.