Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
I occasionally help launch books by Christian authors. I recently signed on to promote a Christian historical fiction book, and I’m supposed to write an Amazon review about it. But I am in a dilemma. At the end of the book, one of the characters is miraculously healed from a gunshot wound and claims he heard god tell him that he [“god”] did it for the main character, who doesn’t believe in god. (Notice I’m not capitalizing “god” because I don’t believe God speaks to us audibly or in dreams.)
When I agreed to promote this book I had no idea this would be in it. Now I am feeling really conflicted. I can’t in good conscience recommend this book but I don’t want to write a negative review on Amazon. Thoughts?
(For readers who may not understand this sister’s dilemma, she is referring to the unbiblical idea of extra-biblical revelation.)
This is a great question, and it’s really awesome that you’re trying to think this through biblically.
What jumps out at me from your comment is that this is bothering your conscience to the point that: a) you’ve used the phrase, “I can’t, in good conscience…” and b) you purposefully didn’t capitalize “God”*. If you think this book is promoting a false god, it’s no wonder it’s bothering your conscience.
* The word “god,” uncapitalized, means “false god” or “idol”.
Romans 14:22b-23 says: Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
and James 4:17 says: So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
You should not sin against your conscience by reviewing and promoting this book as though there’s nothing wrong with it, and I think you would agree that option is off the table.
So what are your other options? I’m not sure exactly how this works, so I’m just throwing out a couple of ideas here:
Write an honest review praising the good parts of the book but explaining the biblical problems with the scene you mentioned, and agree to promote the book with that caveat included.
Write the aforementioned honest review but don’t promote the book at all.
Explain the problems with the scene to the author, tell her you’re willing (if you are) to do either of the above, and let her decide what she wants you to do.
Explain the problems to the author and tell her you can’t write a review or promote the book.
Personally, I think one of the first two options would make a greater impact for biblical truth on a larger number of people if you feel you can do it without sinning against your conscience. But you have to decide what’s right for your own walk with the Lord first.
I understand your concern about wanting to keep your word when you agreed to do something, but you have to keep in mind that – whether she realizes it or not – this was an unfair agreement on the author’s part. It’s like buying a car. She sold you a car giving you the impression it worked right and when you got it home you discovered it didn’t have a carburetor or whatever (I don’t know – I’m not good with car stuff). That nullifies your end of the agreement to buy the car.
Use biblical wisdom, pray about it, and don’t sin against your conscience.
I have a statue of Joseph and Mary holding baby Jesus. It’s in a corner year round in my living room. As a former Catholic, I’m questioning myself if I should even have it at all??
As with the reader above, I think the fact that you’re starting to question this is an indication that it’s bothering your conscience. I would point you to the same Scriptures and counsel you not to sin against your conscience as I counseled the reader in the question above.
Some Christians consider any material representation of Christ to be a violation of the second Commandment. Personally, I don’t believe the context or cross-references of the second Commandment support this view. I’ve explained why, here. However, this is an issue you’ll want to study for yourself and be convinced of, one way or the other, by rightly handled, in context Scripture.
But, assuming there’s no second Commandment issue for you, and you’re not worshiping, venerating, or praying to the statue, or using it as some sort of “aid” to help you worship God – all of which all Christians would agree violate the first two Commandments against idolatry – and it’s just sitting there gathering dust in the corner like an umbrella stand or a fern, this is an issue of conscience.
I would suggest praying about it and discussing it with your husband (if you’re married) and then your pastor. You may also want to prayerfully consider…
Why do I still have the statue?
How do I feel about getting rid of it, and why?
What is the proactively good, biblical reason to keep this statue? (You might want to think of it like this: Would you recommend to your best friend that she buy and display a statue like yours? Why or why not?)
If it bothers your conscience and you can’t think of any good, biblical reason to keep it, get rid of it.
And get an umbrella stand or a fern.
Is it against 1 Timothy 2 for a woman to speak, not teach, during a Sunday morning worship service? She is not speaking as to teach or preach or pastor, but simply speaking on a topic to a congregation of men and women about her experiences as the head of a pregnancy resource center on Sanctity of Life Sunday. You say that this is unbiblical?
If she’s just giving a brief, personal testimony as a small part of the worship service, and the pastor will go on to preach his full sermon later in the service, that’s probably OK. (I’ve addressed women giving personal testimonies during the worship service here, #14.)
If her “testimony” is taking the place of the sermon, yes, it’s unbiblical, but not in the way you’re thinking. Someone giving a talk on an informational topic or her personal experiences that takes the place of the sermon is not so much a 1 Timothy 2:12, “women preaching/teaching to men” issue as it is a 2 Timothy 4:1-2 “pastors, preach the Word” issue.
Personal testimonies, speeches on non-biblical topics, panel discussions, interviews, etc. (from anyone, male or female), should not take the place of the preaching of the Word in the worship gathering. Additionally, due to the ignorance of the world and the majority of professing Christians who fail to distinguish between personal testimonies, TED talks, and preaching, a woman giving a personal testimony that takes the place of the sermon appears to most people as though she is preaching the sermon. We’re to avoid even the appearance of evil, so that’s another biblical reason not to do it.
May I make a suggestion? If your church is in need of someone to teach about the wickedness of abortion, contact an abolitionist organization such as Abolitionists Rising or Free the States. Because the abolition movement is church-based, they can put you in touch with a biblically qualified, doctrinally sound man (usually a pastor or elder) to come to your church and preach on the biblical reasons we should fight for the total eradication of abortion. We need to be convicted by Scripture on this issue, not swayed by an emotional response to someone’s subjective personal experiences.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
A question on your post regarding abortion if I may. I am most definitely pro-life. You stated that every attempt should be made to save the life of the mother and child — including in cases of ectopic pregnancies. Can you direct me to articles of the professionals you mentioned who have stated publicly that ectopic pregnancies can be saved?
My first and only pregnancy was both an anembryonic pregnancy and a tubal pregnancy. I was told that I was 5 minutes until death, and that the tubal pregnancy could not be saved. I have wondered about this for many years but cannot find any information regarding a tubal pregnancy that can be saved. Thank you.
My deepest condolences for the loss of your baby. May the Lord continue to comfort you and give you peace.
I’m so sorry, but I think you may have misunderstood that part of the article. Here’s what it says:
“Abortion isnever necessary to save the mother’s life. Numerous OB/GYNs and other medical professionals have stated this publicly. In cases in which the mother’s life and/or health are at stake (including ectopic pregnancies), the biblical and medically ethical approach is to make every attempt to save both the mother and child (which can often be done through early delivery, not abortion). If the child dies during the attempt to save him and his mother, that is a grievous tragedy, but it is not an abortion. Abortion is the intentional, proactive killing of a child.”
The statement, “Numerous OB/GYNs and other medical professionals have stated this publicly,” refers to the previous sentence (“Abortion is never necessary to save the mother’s life.”) and link. In other words, these medical professionals have stated that abortion is never necessary to save the mother’s life, not that babies in ectopic pregnancies can be saved.
With ectopic pregnancies, “the biblical and medically ethical approach is to make every attempt to save both the mother and child…”. As I understand the situation, at this point in medical technology, it is not possible for a doctor, while attempting to save the mother with an ectopic pregnancy, to also save the life of the baby. However, it is my understanding that, through research, an attempt is being made to discover ways to save these precious babies, possibly through re-implantation or other means.
I think you will find the video below to be helpful as well as its companion article:
One of the things Sarah mentions in the video that I found enlightening is that ectopic pregnancies are fairly rare, and that it is rarer still for the ectopic pregnancy to be nurturing a live, normally developing embryo.
She says that in every case she has personally seen in her career, either the baby in the ectopic pregnancy has already died by the time the mother is treated, or the cells in the blastocyst are so aberrant that normal development of a living fetus would be impossible, or both.
Is there a Biblical way to approach Christian friends about the appearance of vanity when they regularly post pictures of themselves on social media?
It is so kind of you to care about your friends’ reputation in the eyes of others.
There is a biblical way to approach them. There is not a way to approach them that comes with a guarantee that they won’t get mad. Those are two different things. In fact, it is likely no matter how gently and kindly you biblically broach the subject, they will get mad. That’s just how people respond to what they perceive to be criticism these days – even professing Christians.
And (assuming that what your friends are doing actually violates Scripture and isn’t just a matter of opinion – which I have no way of knowing) that’s OK. The fact that they get mad doesn’t automatically mean you weren’t being loving or biblical. As Christian women, we’ve been taught by society and by most of the popular evangelical women celebrities that the cardinal, unforgivable sin is hurting someone’s feelings. And that is what’s not biblical. You won’t find a single passage of Scripture that says, “Confront sin … unless it would offend somebody.”
Since the appearance of vanity is a highly subjective and sensitive issue, and one most Christian women aren’t familiar with, I would suggest broaching the subject privately and gently, keeping in mind that there’s always the possibility that you may be misreading the situation:
“Suzy, you know I love you and care for you, and I love looking through the pictures you post on social media. That picture of your dog last week was really cute! I’m just wondering if there’s a reason why you’re posting so many selfies? I know you love the Lord and I wouldn’t want others who see your pictures to get the impression that you’re vain or self-centered, but rather to see the godly young woman I know and love.”
If she’s teachable and willing to discuss the issue, you might wish to work through these Scriptures with her. (For the 1 Timothy 5 passage, I highly recommend listening to the section of our A Word Fitly Spoken podcast episode, Biblical Women’s Ministry, that explains this passage.)
You might also find the podcast series Amy and I did on modesty to be informative. “Modesty” doesn’t just mean refraining from dressing in a sexually provocative way. It also means dressing and conducting yourself in a way that doesn’t make you the center of everyone else’s attention.
Would you be so kind as to help me Biblically on the single/divorced woman. I would like to know if it’s OK to make my own way in life without remarriage. I am very successful in my profession, and content in my walk with the Lord and being single. (Or direct me to one of your articles)
It’s a great question, and one I’m sure a lot of single and single again Christian women wonder about.
There are a few different possibilities of how you might have arrived at the state of being single:
Your husband initiated an unwanted divorce (abandonment)
If you’ve never married, you’re an older widow, you initiated a divorce for a biblical reason, or your husband initiated an unwanted divorce, my general counsel would be to get up every day and serve the Lord faithfully wherever He has planted you – in life, in your church, in your job, and in your relationships. God says being single can be a good thing:
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.
1 Corinthians 7:8
But never say “never”. There’s no requirement for you to pursue marriage, but don’t tell God “no” if He seems to be leading you toward marriage at some point in the future. Marriage is a good thing, too, especially if you struggle to control yourself sexually:
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband… But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
1 Corinthians 7:2,9
If you’re a younger widow, 1 Timothy 5:14 encourages you to remarry (a godly man, under godly circumstances, of course). In our culture, I think the principles behind this particular passage would also include younger divorcees who either initiated a divorce for a biblical reason or whose husbands initiated an unwanted divorce.
If you initiated a divorce for an unbiblical reason Scripture seems to indicate that you should remain unmarried:
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
If you have not repented for initiating an unbiblical divorce – whether before or after you got saved – you should definitely not remarry, and you need to repent. However, if you have repented, there is some disagreement among reputable Bible scholars as to whether this prohibition on remarriage applies to any divorce you’ve initiated for unbiblical reasons (pre- or post-salvation), or only to post-salvation divorce, since Paul is speaking to Christians in 1 Corinthians 7. If you initiated a divorce for unbiblical reasons, it is imperative that you seek godly counsel from your (doctrinally sound) pastor if you’re considering remarriage.
In fact, in any situation in which marriage or remarriage is being considered, pastoral counsel is a must. And even if you’re contemplating lifelong singlehood, I would encourage you to seek pastoral counsel as well.
Whatever your future holds, while you’re single, steward your singleness to the glory of God.
I read your articles on recommended women to follow but could not find that any of them had a devotional book. I am involved in a ministry at our church and put together goody bags for them. I’d like to give them a devotional book. Do you have any recommendations?
That’s awfully kind of you to make these women feel special and loved. Thank you for serving your church.
May I recommend instead that you give them a lovely copy of “God’s devotional” – the book of Psalms or Proverbs? Here are a few I found (I didn’t vet all of these websites, so I’m not recommending them, just suggesting a few books to consider):
Or if you’d like to go with a copy of the gospel of John, check out these designs from the Pocket Testament League. (I would strongly recommend the ESV versions.) You can even design your own cover!
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Sanctity of Life Sunday is this Sunday, January 22.
Do you know the differences between the abolition movement and the pro-life movement? It’s a good thing for all Christians to be informed about.
Watch A Storm Comes Rolling Down the Plain, then listen in to our A Word Fitly Spoken interview with Brett Baggett, one of the key figures in the documentary.
I also thought this interview with Samuel Sey, Nathaniel Jolly, and Ekkie Tepsupornchai on the Truth Be Known podcast was insightful and helpful:
For more in the Basic Training series, click here.
Sunday, January 22, is Sanctity of Life Sunday.
Originally published February 8, 2019
I rarely write on abortion. But it’s not because I don’t feel strongly about it. It’s because it seems like it should be a given. That Christians shouldn’t have to be told that we don’t support abortion any more than we have to be told to breathe or eat. When I think about writing about abortion, I think, “What could I possibly say that hasn’t already been said a million times, and by people who have more experience in this arena than I do?”.
But the more I look out over the landscape of contemporary Christianity, the more I realize we can’t take any aspect of theology for granted. Because when we take the basics for granted, they don’t get taught to the next generation and we end up assuming they know things they don’t actually know. And that’s on us – those of us who knew and didn’t properly and explicitly train those who came behind us.
So if you’re recently saved and you’ve just walked in to this brand new, unfamiliar, and counter-intuitive worldview of biblical Christianity, or if you grew up around some form of evangelicalism but nobody ever took the time to sit you down and teach you properly, let’s look at some of the basics about abortion.
🍼 Abortion is murder. When you intentionally and unjustly end an innocent human life, that is murder. Abortion takes a living human being (it’s not a chicken or a hippo or a platypus) and intentionally and unjustly causes the death (causes heart, brain, and all other organ functions to cease) of said human being. That’s not even a theological argument, that’s a medical fact.
🍼 A baby in utero is not part of the “mother’s body.” The pro-abortion side often makes comments like, “No one has the right to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body.” This argument is beneath the intelligence of most of the people who make it for a couple of reasons:
First, we tell men, women, and children what they can and can’t do with their bodies all the time. Children can’t use their bodies to drive a car or serve in the military. Men can’t use their bodies to rape. Women can’t use their bodies for prostitution. People can’t sell their kidneys for transplant. See how that works?
Second, this isn’t the twelfth, or fifteenth, or eighteenth century. Modern science has left in the dust any notion that a baby is an appendage of his mother’s body like her arm or her liver. Pre-born babies have their own unique DNA, blood type, heartbeat, organ systems, and so on. When we say a woman shouldn’t have an abortion, we aren’t telling a woman what to do with her own body … except in the sense that we are telling her she can’t use her body to murder someone else. (Which, technically, is already a law that pertains to both men and women.) A pre-born baby may be dependent on his mother for food, shelter, and care, but so is her two-year-old, and, so far, no one is using that line of reasoning to suggest it’s OK to kill a child of that age. Yet.
And, finally, if you’re a genuinely regenerated Christian who is holding on to the “my body my choice” mantra, your body, your life, and your eternity were bought and paid for by Christ. He owns you, and He has every right to tell you what to do with your body. It doesn’t matter one whit what people say you can or can’t do.
If you’re a genuinely regenerated Christian who is holding on to the “my body my choice” mantra, you were bought and paid for by Christ. He owns you and has every right to tell you what to do with your body.
🍼Abortion isnever necessary to save the mother’s life. Numerous OB/GYNs and other medical professionals have stated this publicly. In cases in which the mother’s life and/or health are at stake (including ectopic pregnancies), the biblical and medically ethical approach is to make every attempt to save both the mother and child (which can often be done through early delivery, not abortion). If the child dies during the attempt to save him and his mother, that is a grievous tragedy, but it is not an abortion. Abortion is the intentional, proactive killing of a child.
Abortion is NEVER necessary to save the mother’s life.
🍼 Medical care for miscarriage and stillbirth is not an abortion. Saying that it is is like saying that burying someone who has died is the same as murdering that person. In a miscarriage and stillbirth, the baby has already died in utero of natural or accidental causes. Abortion is proactively and intentionally killing a living pre-born baby.
Medical care for miscarriage and stillbirth is NOT an abortion.
🍼Rape and incest are horrible sins that no one should ever be subjected to, but in the tiny number of pregnancies that result from these heinous crimes, we do not execute the child for the sin of his father. The Bible is clear on that. And the practical results of obeying this biblical mandate bear out its truth. The overwhelming majority of women who get an abortion after having been raped regret it and say it caused additional trauma, while women who go through with their pregnancies after rape do not.
The overwhelming majority of women who get an abortion after having been raped regret it and say it caused additional trauma.
🍼 Because abortion ismurder, it is a sin. If you have ever performed, assisted in, encouraged, or received an abortion, you have committed the sin of murder. You are a murderer. It is good and right for you to feel guilty about that and to grieve over both the sinful person you are who has offended a holy God, and to grieve for the life of your baby. Don’t try to skip feeling your guilt and grief over this sin. It’s a vital part of the process of dealing with it biblically and in an emotionally healthy way.
🍼 If you’re counseling someone post-abortion, I know it can be painful to watch, but you must let her process through the guilt that comes with this sin. Don’t immediately skip ahead to forgiveness. She can’t get to repentance and forgiveness if she has nothing to repent of and ask forgiveness for.
🍼 Also if you’re counseling someone post-abortion, do not just give her blanket absolution. I recently heard a pastor (with the best of intentions, I’m sure) stand in the pulpit and rightly call abortion a sin, and also rightly offer women Christ’s forgiveness of that sin. But he skipped the middle part where you have to confess and repent of your sin and ask Christ for forgiveness. That’s not a step that can be skipped for abortion or any other sin.
🍼 If you repent of the sin of abortion, Christ will forgive you and make you clean. He delights to cleanse the foulest of sinners and welcome them into His Kingdom with open arms of grace and mercy. Trust Him to keep His promise to forgive you.
🍼 Christians should supportdoctrinally sound anti-abortion endeavors. Volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers, donating to anti-abortion causes and services, adopting, housing and providing for pregnant women who need assistance, supporting Christian orphanages, etc. Just be discerning and check out the theology of the organization first.
🍼Christians should not join with apostate “churches” or other religions in anti-abortion causes. The Bible is absolutely clear that we are not to partner in ministry endeavors with unbelievers, especially those who claim to be Christians or teach false doctrine. (Yes, this includes Catholics. They may be very nice people and they’ve been fighting against abortion for a long time, but Catholic doctrine as contained in church documents teaches many false and anti-biblical doctrines including anathematizing {condemning to hell} those who hold to the biblical teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Those who hold to such doctrines are not Christians despite what they may claim.) Partnering with unbelievers who claim to be Christians is an even more dangerous sin than abortion because it confuses people about what salvation is and muddies the gospel. It sends the message that you can believe things contrary to Scripture and still be saved, and that is a message that sends people to an eternity in Hell. Plus, it doesn’t make any sense to commit one sin in order to fight against another sin. That is not God’s way nor is it in keeping with His Word.
🍼For Christians, abortion should be our highest priority litmus test when it comes to deciding which candidate to vote for. If you’re willing to have children murdered so you can get more money back in your tax refund, or better highways, or more social programs, or whatever, your attitude is anti-Christ. Where would we be if Jesus had had such a selfish, self-serving worldview? Christianity says, “I’ll lay down my life for you,” not, “You lay down your life for me.”. Besides, if your candidate is so ensconced in evil that he advocates murdering children, he won’t think twice about a lesser sin like breaking the very campaign promises that caused you to vote for him in the first place.
🍼Pastors, youth pastors, and teachers in our churches need to clearly and proactively preach and teach what the Bible says about sex and abortion through the lens of the gospel. Having a largely regenerate congregation will prevent abortions primarily through girls and women getting saved, but having a gospel-saturated culture in your church will also encourage those who do sin sexually and get pregnant to reach out to a brother or sister – instead of an abortion clinic – for help.
🍼 God is the creator, sustainer, and giver of life. If He values life so much, how can we who claim to be His followers treat a human life as inconvenient, cheap, and expendable when it suits our own selfish purposes?
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. Psalm 139:13-16
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Psalm 127:3
This is the last time I’m planning to run this article, since the Convention is next week. Follow me on Twitter for any imperative updates between now and then.
This article was last updated on May 26. Updates since that day include:
March:
Two Three Good Men to Right the Ship has been updated to include information on Javier Chavez for Recording Secretary and the website for the Ascol / Baucham / Chavez slate of candidates.
Blackmailing the Bucks has been updated to include information on SEBTS’ self investigation and exoneration, the Bucks’ refutation of SEBTS’ claims, and the bigger picture hypocrisy and partiality this situation typifies in the SBC at large.
May (These items have all been added to the existing SATF section in “May.”)
Tom Ascol’s and Voddie Baucham’s responses to the SATF / GS report.
The June 1 SATF recommendations likely to be voted on in Anaheim.
The June 8 modifications of the June 1 SATF recommendations likely to be voted on in Anaheim unless they change them again.
June:
Problematic speakers at ancillary convention events
GS publicly affirms perversion.
The 2021 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention opened the eyes of a lot of Southern Baptists to the sin and corruption infecting our cooperative of churches.
The foremost question on the minds of many doctrinally sound and discerning Southern Baptist pastors and church members is whether or not the SBC is too corrupt to be saved. “Should we shake the dust off our feet and leave the SBC, or should we stay in and fight for fidelity to Scripture?”
If you and your church are choosing to stay in and fight, it is crucial that you be well-informed enough on the issues and the candidates to vote biblically when you attend the 2022 annual meeting in Anaheim. And that also means you’re going to need to know your Bible well enough to vote biblically on those issues.
Because what really hurt doctrinally sound Southern Baptists at the 2021 meeting (and previous years’ meetings) was not just those who were consciously pushing an unbiblical, liberal agenda, it was also the messengers who were ignorant of the issues and the candidates, and just voted according to whatever sounded good on the surface, or just blindly trusted whoever was on stage at the moment.
Representing your church (and millions of other Southern Baptists) as a messenger at the annual meeting is a grave responsibility and it should be treated as such. You’ve got to get informed. Your church and pastor have to get informed. The other churches in your association, and your associational leadership have to get informed.
That’s where this article comes in.
I know it’s hard to keep up with the issues when you’ve got a life you’re trying to live and responsibilities you’re trying to take care of. I want to try to make staying informed a little easier for you, your church, and your association, so please share this around.
This article (initially published in the summer of 2021 and subsequently updated) is a timeline of significant events in the SBC at the national level starting with the 2021 annual meeting and moving forward from there. I’ve tried to keep things brief, so you may need to take what you see here and do some more digging on your own if you want an in depth look at a particular issue.
I’ve also posted a few “Points of Order,” things that aren’t really a current event, but more along the lines of SBC polity or information you might need.
If you think I’ve left out something significant (I’m trying not to get bogged down in too much minutiae), please leave a comment and a link, if possible.
For a recap of the major decisions and happenings of the 2021 annual meeting, please read my article: SBC21: Aftermath, Thoughts, and Where Do We Go From Here? There are lots of informative links at the end of the article in the “Additional Resources” section.
June 2021
Point of Order: Financial Contributions
If you’re staying in the SBC, you might be concerned about your offerings being sent to the Cooperative Program to fund SBC entities which are operating unbiblically. This is a dilemma for doctrinally sound churches and individuals, because, until fairly recently, making a financial contribution to the SBC at the national level was a requirement for being “in friendly cooperation with the SBC.”
So how do we stay in the SBC to fight ungodliness by sending messengers to the annual meeting, yet maintain our financial contribution without funding ungodliness? [Now former – see “October” below] Executive Committee member Rod Martin explains:
I have been repeatedly asked how the formula works that determines how many messengers an SBC church may send to the Annual Meeting. Here’s the deal:
Under the recent constitutional amendment, every church now gets two messengers whether they give or not. Previously you had to give a minimum amount to get any messengers at all.
The previous maximum number of messengers was 10. That number is now 12.
You can get one additional messenger (up to the maximum) for every percentage point of additional giving out of undesignated receipts. That’s fair for every church: if you’re giving 5%, you get five more messengers. If you’re giving 10%, you get ten more messengers. The dollar amount doesn’t come into play.
That said, and I very much disagree with this, you can also get one additional messenger (up to the maximum) for each $6,000 in giving. That means megachurches can have 12 messengers by giving next to nothing as a percentage of their budgets. I think that was a big mistake. But the vast majority of SBC churches are small, so they greatly outnumber those churches, and also, the 12 messenger cap greatly limits the power of those giant churches on the floor.
The “giving” I just described can be through the Cooperative Program, but no longer has to be: it can be to any convention entity. So let’s say you wanted to give all of it to Lottie Moon, or give all of it through IMB but designated for certain specific missionaries: you could do that and get all ten additional messengers. There are many other possibilities as well.
I think this change to our system (which was part of GCR)was a giant mistake, as was GCR generally. However, while I know some people disagree, I don’t think it actually disadvantages smaller churches in practice, and it definitely creates a lot of flexibility for churches to give creatively while also maintaining their maximum possible messenger representation.
On June 16, the second day of the 2021 annual meeting, a messenger mentioned in a question from the floor that the “What We Believe” page of the church Ed Litton pastors (Redemption Church in Saraland, Alabama) contained a heretical view of the Trinity called partialism.
Photo courtesy of onenewsnow.com
Quietly, and almost immediately, the heretical wording was deleted from the website, as you can see in the “before and after” screenshots above.
It’s not just that the wording was heretical. Redemption Church’s statement of faith – the core of its identity as a church – was changed without a vote by the church body. Indeed, without even notifying or consulting the church body. How would that go over at your church?
To date, neither Litton nor Redemption Church has offered any official explanation regarding why a multi-SBC seminary degreed pastor would lead his church to codify a heretical statement of faith in the first place, nor how that statement of faith was able to be altered without input or permission from the church, nor why it took outside publicity to spur the change.
Unofficially, the explanation some claim Litton has given is that the original heretical wording was some sort of typographical error by the person who typed it into the website. (I want to stress that this is hearsay.)
About a week after the convention ended, starting during the week of June 20:
A side by side video surfaced of Ed Litton (Jan. 2020) and J.D. Greear (Jan. 2019) preaching the same (Greear’s) sermon on Romans 1.
The sermon was Greear’s infamous “The Bible whispers about sexual sin” sermon, so there was not only the plagiarism aspect, but, just as when Greear originally preached it, there was outrage over the bad theology contained in the sermon itself.
Greear and Litton each issued statements explaining, justifying, and excusing the plagiarism.
Litton removed 143 sermons from his church’s website and YouTube, leading most to surmise that these sermons probably also contained plagiarism, due to his explanation of his “sermon by committee” paradigm explained in his statement.
The secular news media began reporting on all of this.
Justin Peters posted a very thorough video biblically explaining and providing documentation for all of this:
Almost immediately, three more side by side sermon comparison videos of Litton and Greear surfaced showing even further plagiarism by Litton. Romans 8 sermonRomans 13 sermon* Romans 14 sermon* (The Justin Peters video above includes the Romans 1 sermon side by side video.)
*I am citing Reformation Charlotte for the purpose of these videos only. It is not a site I endorse.
Somewhat simultaneously, some of Litton’s scrubbed sermon videos begin reappearing on his church’s website and YouTube, and both he (in an interview with the Washington Times) and the leadership of his church (in a statement obtained by Baptist Press) issued statements about why the videos had been removed in the first place. The reasons given by Litton and his church leadership did not match.
For another timeline of these events with additional links, click here.
Further examples of Litton’s sermon plagiarism, some instances going back years, continue to surface.
With all the outcry against current SBC president, Ed Litton, and calls for his resignation, you might be surprised to learn that there is no mechanism in place for removing a sitting SBC president. For the office of president to be vacated, he has to resign, die, or be incapacitated.
The only official governing statement about replacing a sitting SBC president is this sentence from Article V of the SBC Constitution:
“In case of death or disability of the president, the vice presidents shall automatically succeed to the office of president in the order of their election.“
Maybe plagiarism and heresy don’t seem like that big of a deal to you. What’s going to happen when a sitting president commits adultery, steals SBC funds, comes out of the closet as a homosexual or transgender, or is discovered to be a child molester, and refuses to resign?
xxxxx
July 2021
EC SATF Named
Prior to the 2021 convention, allegations were made that the Executive Committee mishandled some charges of sexual abuse by SBC pastors / at SBC churches, which the EC vehemently denied. At the convention, a motion was made that President Ed Litton appoint a task force to investigate these allegations. That task force was named on July 9:
The purpose of the task force is to objectively examine whether the EC handled these charges of sexual abuse fairly and appropriately with regard to recommending whether or not the church should be disfellowshiped from the SBC.
You’ll notice many of the members and advisors work or volunteer in the field of victim advocacy. While it is good to have people with experience on the task force, that has to be balanced with their ability to be objective if this is to truly be an independent review.
For example, Rachael Denhollander has been a polarizing figure in victim advocacy because she has a reputation for never having met an accusation of abuse she didn’t believe, or “having an ax to grind” when it comes to allegations of abuse. If anything, she has a reputation for being biased in favor of alleged victims and unable to objectively assess when false charges have been levied.
When someone (such as some of the members of this task force) has made victim advocacy his career or life’s mission, that person is heavily invested in one side of the issue. It raises the question, “How objective can some of these task force members/advisors be?”.
I’m sorry, but there’s just no polite way to say this, and sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Ed Litton has been caught in two obvious, public lies about the plagiarism fiasco and his wife co-preaching with him.
Kathy’s Co-Preaching:
This is an issue that came up prior to the 2021 convention so it is not included in this article, but I referred to it in this pre-convention article regarding Ed Litton’s wife Kathy:
This man who wants to be at the helm of your entire denomination, violates Scripture by allowing Kathy to “co-preach” the Sunday sermon at their Southern Baptist church here, and here, and several more sermons can be found at their church’s website.
If you try to click on the links above you’ll notice two of them yield no results. That’s because once Ed Litton was publicly taken to task for allowing his wife to preach, he deleted the sermon videos, which is covering up sin, rather than biblically repenting of it.
When first questioned about allowing his wife to preach, Litton explained that this was because it was a sermon series on marriage and family and he wanted Kathy to provide her perspective. (Scripture doesn’t allow for this, but some accepted this justification.)
It has now been discovered that Litton had Kathy co-preach at least one other sermon series in 2013 which had nothing to do with marriage and family.
(If you’re unclear about why this is a violation of Scripture, please click here, here, and here to read up.)
Plagiarism (see “June” above):
In a news interview with his local CBS affiliate, Litton clearly says the allegations of plagiarism came from “unnamed sources”.
(See 2:40 for the “unnamed sources” segment.)
This is patently untrue. Many SBC pastors and others have publicly sounded the alarm about the plagiarism issue, and all the ones I’m aware of have used their real names.
SWBTS/Greenway Provide Cover for Litton’s Non-Repentance
On September 14, during SWBTS’ chapel service, seminary president Adam Greenway interviewed Ed Litton on a variety of topics, first – and most notably – the plagiarism scandal (3:50). Once again, Litton finessed instead of repenting.
You can tell where Greenway stands as he prefaces his question to Litton by disparagingly referring to the “snark” he received from “anonymous social media accounts” when he announced that Litton had been invited. (“Anonymous”? What I saw when I commented on his Twitter announcement was, I’d estimate, well over 90% non-anonymous, concerned, yet frustrated Southern Baptists wanting the plagiarism issue addressed, and for Litton to resign.)
And, of course, you’ll notice that Litton doesn’t repent over this sin, and even characterizes those who exposed his sin as meaning evil against him in the Genesis 50:20 sense. (More here.)
“In a 44-31 vote Tuesday, Oct. 5, the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee (SBC EC) opted to waive attorney-client privilege in connection with a third-party investigation of itself [see “July” above]. Ahead of the special called meeting, six committee members resigned, and Chairman Rolland Slade noted during the meeting an expectation that other resignations may soon follow with the passage of the widely-debated waiver of attorney-client privilege.” – SBC Executive Committee votes to waive attorney-client privilege in sexual abuse investigation at Conservative Baptist Network
Waiving ACP was not necessary in order for Guidepost Solutions (the firm retained by the SATF to investigate allegations of mishandling of abuse cases by the EC) or the SATF to investigate allegations of the EC’s mishandling of abuse cases. It put the SBC in jeopardy of losing its legal representation and insurance coverage, and left individual EC members vulnerable to lawsuits (thus, the aforementioned resignations). And since any compensation paid to abuse victims would have been covered by the insurance policy, it was a very foolish decision indeed.
Multiple EC Resignations
As a result of the EC voting to waive ACP, fourteen committee members resigned effective in late September and October – including President Ronnie Floyd and Rod Martin – due to personal legal vulnerability and frustration.
On October 11, Guenther, Jordan & Price, the Nashville firm which had provided legal representation for the SBC since 1966, terminated its relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention
“The Executive Committee’s board of directors, by a majority vote, has acted to prospectively and preemptively waive the Executive Committee’s attorney-client privilege without knowing the communications affected by the waiver and without knowing the effect it will have on the Executive Committee, the Convention, and those who have served as members or employees of the Executive Committee…For these reasons, we believe our commitment to a certain standard of professional conduct leaves us no choice but to advise you that we are withdrawing from our role as general counsel to the Southern Baptist Convention and the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention.“
On October 28, the EC trustees met and retained Bradley Legal to provide legal services on an interim basis. (See “February” below for more information on Bradley Legal.)
November 2021
A Discussion of the Issues
On November 19, the Conservative Baptist Network hosted a panel discussion centering on problematic issues in the SBC. Led by SBC First Vice President, Dr. Lee Brand, participants included (L-R: Randy Adams, Tom Ascol, Russell Fuller, Rod Martin, and Allen Nelson)
There was a problem with the audio the night of the recording that caused the first 10-12 minutes of the video’s volume to be extremely low. It clears up after that.
UnMerritted Praise
On November 22, James Merritt – multi-seminary degreed pastor of Cross Point church (SBC) in Duluth, Georgia, former SBC president, chair of the 2021 Resolutions Committee, former chair of the EC, former president of the SBC Pastors’ Conference, visiting professor at SEBTS, etc. – posted this tweet regarding his son Jonathan’s sermon at his (Jonathan’s) “church” the day before. Jonathan is openly homosexual, and his “church” is homosexuality affirming, egalitarian, and universalist, among other anti-biblical beliefs:
Obviously, it should go without saying (especially to someone as biblically knowledgeable as a pastor, former SBC president, and SBC seminary professor should be) that a practicing homosexual is not saved and has, therefore, rejected the gospel. How could any sermon he preached be “faithful to the gospel”?
Naturally, his appalling statement received pushback from biblically faithful Christians, and James Merritt once again showed his baser nature by lashing out at those taking him to task.
Likely facing pressure behind the scenes, James Merritt resigned his position as visiting professor at SEBTS (but not his pastorate). For this, he was practically lauded as a hero by SEBTS president Danny Akin…
Someone gave reporter Liam Adams of the Tennesseean James Merritt’s binder from his tenure as 2021 Resolutions Committee chair. The binder contained private emails between Tom Ascol and James Merritt as well as other confidential Resolutions Committee communications and information, some of which was used in an article Adams wrote.
In this video, Justin Peters examines four incidents in recent SBC history that seem to demonstrate a gradual progression toward affirming homosexuality. Two of the incidents took place at First Baptist Church Orlando, pastored by David Uth (president of the 2020 Pastors’ Conference who was roundly criticized for inviting false teachers and a female “pastor” as speakers), one incident involved James Merritt, and another involved former SBC President J.D. Greear.
Following a tweet by pastor and EC member Adam Wyatt singing the praises of new interim legal team Bradley Legal, questions began to be raised about the many ties the firm has to the homosexual and woke agendas. From sponsoring Nashville Pride to a glowing report on Bradley’s “inclusivity” from the Human Rights Campaign, Bradley is proud of its “diversity”.
On February 28, in the middle of a self-aggrandizing video noting his past and anticipated accomplishments, and breaking with decades of tradition, Ed Litton briefly announced he would not seek or accept a second term as president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Point of Order: The SBC President’s Term of Office
“The officers shall be elected annually and shall hold office until their successors are elected and qualified. The term of office for the president is limited to two (2) years, and a president shall not be eligible for re-election until as much as one (1) year has elapsed from the time a successor is named.”The Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention, Article V, Point 2
In plain English: There is an election for SBC president (and other officers) every year at the SBC annual meeting, which means we could elect a new president every single year. However, the SBC Constitution allows the president to serve two consecutive one-year terms, and, in recent history, most SBC presidents and messengers have taken the Constitution up on that offer. The last single-term president was Adrian Rogers, who (though later elected to two consecutive terms in the mid-1980’s) served from 1979 to 1980, 43 years ago.
xxxxx
March 2022
Willy Run?
March 1, one day after Ed Litton announced he would not seek re-election for a second term as SBC president (see “February” above), Willy Rice, pastor of Calvary Church in Clearwater, Florida, announced that he would be nominated for SBC president at the annual meeting in June. (See “April” below)
Calvary follows the multi-site model with three locations in Florida. They also have an “online campus” which they seem to equate with the three physical locations. Though there’s nothing wrong with a church live streaming its worship service, leading people to believe that watching a video of a worship service is equal to being a faithful member of a local church and physically gathering with that church body for worship and fellowship is an unbiblical ecclesiology. The Greek word for “church” in the New Testament is ἐκκλησία, or ekklesia. It literally means a gathering or assembly. No gathering, no church. The Bible commands and assumes that we physically gather as the church.
On March 22, it was announced that Tom Ascol – pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, and president of Founders Ministries – would be nominated for SBC president, and Voddie Baucham – author, sought after conference speaker, and currently dean of theology at African Christian University in Zambia – for president of the Pastors’ Conference. Javier Chavez (announced March 30) – pastor of Amistad Cristiana Church in Gainesville, Georgia, and president of the missions organization, Amistad Cristiana International Inc. – will be nominated for Recording Secretary. (This is a key position that must be filled with a doctrinally sound man, because the Recording Secretary is also automatically a member of the Executive Committee.)
These men have an outstanding record of fidelity to Scripture, biblical ecclesiology, Christian ethics, and sound doctrine. They have spoken unashamedly against sexual sin, false teachers, Critical Race Theory and racialism, egalitarianism, and the social justice movement. They are dedicated to the bold proclamation of the mercy and grace of God in the biblical gospel rather than the watered down gospel of seeker sensitive easy believism.
There could be no better men than these to begin the hard task of turning the SBC back to faithfully believing and obeying God’s Word. If at all possible, my Southern Baptist sisters, I urge you to talk to your pastor about representing your church as a messenger at the SBC annual meeting in Anaheim in June (along with as many other messengers as your church qualifies for) and vote for Tom, Voddie, and Javier.
You can find more information on all three candidates, the issues, and the Convention at We Have a Book.
On March 23, a third candidate for the SBC presidency was announced. Former IMB missionary, Robin Hadaway. Hadaway served for many years as a missionary in Africa and South America. Following his time on the mission field he spent twenty years at Midwestern Baptist Theological seminary as a professor of missions and in several different administrative positions. He has also served in various offices and capacities in the Southern Baptist Convention.
In late March (spilling over into April, May, and June2), a situation began to unfold in which Tom Buck (and his wife, Jennifer), pastor of First Baptist Church, Lindale, Texas, who has battled valiantly against corruption in the SBC, was maligned, lied to, and threatened with blackmail. The situation involved not insignificant figures in SBC life, including SEBTS professor Karen Swallow Prior, SEBTS President Danny Akin, former 2022 SBC presidential nominee Willy Rice, and others.
This is the same type of “dirty tricks” move from the liberal contingent of the SBC we’ve come to expect over the last few years in the weeks immediately preceding the annual meeting, as they attempt to sully the reputations of those on the biblical side of the aisle in an attempt to influence, or even derail, the SBC presidential election.
The story is both heart wrenching and enraging, and provides insight into just how evil and corrupt the SBC has become at the highest levels. The story is somewhat lengthy and involved, and the timeline intricate, but I urge you to peruse the following pertinent documentation:
On June 8, SEBTS President, Danny Akin releasedStatements from Southeastern on Matters Surrounding the Buck Essay (signed on to by the SEBTS trustees) essentially saying SEBTS had investigated itself, found no wrongdoing on the part of the seminary or any of its employees, that some “anonymous couple” had come forward claiming responsibility for leaking the rough draft, and, therefore, SEBTS would not participate in the third party investigation they had already agreed to.
In response, on June 9, in collaboration with Christian journalist, Janet Mefferd, Tom and Jennifer released a rebuttal, Clarifying Matters: A Statement from Tom and Jennifer Buck, pointing out the blatant lies and hypocrisy of the SEBTS statement.
As I write this on the morning of June 9, Tom is posting further evidence and video clips on Twitter, and many are calling for a motion from the floor requiring SEBTS to submit to a third party investigation of this matter.
This situation is no longer limited in scope to the specific details of the Bucks’ case. This is about the systemic, institutional hypocrisy, partiality, and unequal weights and measures of lauding the SATF’s third party investigation of the EC’s handling of abuse cases via (third party) Guidepost Solutions, whose report itself recommends requiring individual churches accused of mishandling cases of abuse to submit to a third party investigation. But if it’s a victim with a track record of exposing and speaking out against the SBC ruling party’s liberal agenda, the entity that mishandled that victim’s case gets to investigate and exonerate itself? Would any of the churches disfellowshipped from the SBC for botching the way they handled abuse have been afforded that luxury, or is it only the “rich man entity,” so to speak, who is shown that favoritism?
Furthermore, is saying that the investigation of a “survivor’s” claims is a waste of “God’s money” (below) the type of “trauma-informed,” “handle with kid gloves” communication demanded of churches and entities by the SATF/GS report? Isn’t that re-abusing a “survivor”? And, why is it a waste of God’s money for one SBC entity, SEBTS, to submit to a third party investigation, but it apparently was not a waste of over $4 million of God’s money (Southern Baptists’ offering money, don’t forget) for third party Guidepost Solutions to investigate another SBC entity, the Executive Committee?
The sin, favoritism, and hypocrisy is simply too much to bear any longer. Something must be done.
2I have included all information on this situation, regardless of date, in this section for convenience of reading.
April 2022
Willy Run? Apparently Not.
On April 1, potential SBC presidential nominee, Willy Rice (see “March” above) announced that it was about to be made public that a deacon in his church had committed “sexual sin” in his past – prior to his salvation – “that could also be described as abusive” but which did not involve criminal charges. The deacon was removed from his position. (I would like to point out, for clarity, that the 2021 resolution Rice quotes from near the end of the video says that anyone who has committed sexual abuse is permanently disqualified from the office of pastor. The man in question was a deacon, not a pastor.)
On April 6 – likely under pressure from “progressive” SBC leadership because he was the progressive candidate, and abuse is a major plank in the progressive platform – Rice announced he was withdrawing his name as a candidate for SBC President.
On April 7, it was announced that pastor Bart Barber would be nominated for president of the SBC. Barber was appointed by current SBC president Ed Litton (see above) as chair of the Resolutions Committee, and will serve in that capacity at the 2022 annual meeting.
Though he may not consider himself progressive, Barber is the candidate most progressives will likely end up voting for, simply because a) he has greater name recognition than Robin Hadaway, and b) they want the least conservative candidate possible to win.
You can read about Barber’s positions on various issues at Bart Barber FAQs on his church’s website. You may find the following sections to be informative:
Critical Race Theory– in which Barber says it is problematic there is no agreed upon definition of CRT, yet conducts a Twitter poll (which any marginal statistician could tell you is hardly reliable) about this undefined concept of CRT, and uses those results to conclude that CRT is “far from being an urgent issue to address in your church or in the Southern Baptist Convention.”
(Barber also served on the 2021 resolutions committee which quashed a resolution condemning CRT as incompatible with the BFM signed by 1300+ Southern Baptists. Tom Ascol, on the other hand, at that same meeting, made a motion to rescind 2019’s Resolution 9. Read more here.)
Plagiarism– in which Barber asserts that, since the authors of Scripture, young pastors, and those newly converted on the mission field may not have access to advanced theological training, the internet, commentaries, methods of attribution, etc., and, thus, may repeat things they’ve been told by others with no attribution, this excuses someone like Ed Litton – who does have all of those advantages and should know better – from plagiarism. How does Ed telling JD Greear’s personal life experiences as though they were his own fit into that paradigm? It’s not readily clear.
You can read the rest of Barber’s defense of Litton – as well as his opposition to the CBN (Conservative Baptist Network) here. Tom Ascol was, at that same time, vocally decrying Litton’s sin of plagiarism.
Though the content of his interactions with her are benign, Barber seems to have a friendly Twitter relationship with false teacher Beth Moore (here, here).
In 2020, Barber invited Dwight McKissic to be a guest on his podcast, and recorded the episode in the sanctuary of his church. McKissic is an SBC “pastor” (he is biblically disqualified) who plays the race card in nearly every conversation, is a rabid egalitarian, and defends false teachers such as Beth Moore (McKissic suggested that she should be nominated as president of the SBC a few years ago) whenever he gets a chance.
On April 15, the resolutions portal opened for submitting a resolution to the 2022 Resolutions Committee. The 2022 resolution submission window closes May 30.
Resolutions are essentially position statements messengers may have the opportunity to vote on at the Convention. (Parliamentary procedure or committee action may preclude a vote.) I would love to publish the text of, or information regarding as many resolutions as possible so messengers can take the time to read, inform themselves, and especially pray about how they should vote that they may not have once at the convention site.
If you know someone who will be submitting a resolution at the Convention and would like to have it published here, please comment below or contact me as soon as possible.
Resolutions
This is the originaltext that will be submitted to the Committee on Resolutions. Please bear in mind, the Committee on Resolutions has the authority to “reword” these resolutions in any way they choose and then present the edited version to the Convention for a vote. (This was a major issue with Resolution 9 on CRT in 2019. The Committee “reworded” the original resolution so much that the edited version ended up saying basically the opposite of the original version.) The Committee also has the authority to decline to present a resolution for a vote. When you arrive at the Convention, please carefully read the versions of the resolutions you are given before voting on them, since they may have been altered.
A resolution has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed. Resolutions are passed during the annual Convention meeting.Resources in Resolutions at SBC.net
As I mentioned above, a resolution is akin to a position statement on anything from abortion to a war in another country to National Ice Cream Day if you like. Individual Southern Baptist church members write up resolutions and submit them to the Committee on Resolutions within the allotted time frame. The Committee on Resolutions processes each resolution. Most, they will decline to present for a vote. Some, they will tweak, re-word, edit, beef up, or water down, before presenting. Some, they will present as is. Sometimes, when several similar resolutions are submitted, they will write a new resolution, combining the ideas they like from each, and present a resolution from the committee for a vote. Messengers then have the opportunity to vote in agreement or disagreement with each resolution the Committee on Resolutions presents.
Resolutions are non-binding. This means neither you nor your church nor any other Southern Baptist individual or church has to abide by any resolution. Resolutions serve mainly to make a public statement: This is what the majority of Southern Baptists believe about this issue this year.
Each year, no later than 75 days prior to the SBC Annual Meeting, the SBC president, in conference with the vice presidents, appoints a Committee on Resolutions whose task is to consider and recommend appropriate resolutions to the messengers attending the annual meeting….Only members in good standing of churches entitled to send messengers to the next annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention may submit resolutions.
For more information on how to submit a resolution to the committee click here: Submit a Resolution
xxxxx
Change of Venue
On April 28, the Executive Committee voted to move the 2023 SBC annual meeting from Charlotte, North Carolina (the site approved by messengers in 2016), to New Orleans, Louisiana. Due to increased attendance over the past few years, it was anticipated that the Charlotte venue would be too small.
SATF Cost
Also on April 28, with regard to the Sexual Abuse Task Force:
EC members were informed that since Oct. 1, a total of $1,661,530 has been paid toward Guidepost Solutions [the independent investigating agency] and $17,478 toward Task Force travel and meetings.
In September, the EC voted to allocate up to $1.6 million toward the work by Guidepost Solutions. In February, they voted to increase the funds allocated to $2 million for the investigation or the “coverage of any other direct expenses without further approval.”
“Baptist Press recently released an interview that Jonathan Howe and Brandon Porter conducted with me…on April 5. Both they and I recorded the interview. They did so indicating that they would edit out the “ums,” “uhs,” and “wells,” etc. from the transcript in order to make the article flow well without losing the contextually understood meaning of my words.
In the interview that they posted, however…my responses were largely left unedited except for the exclusion of certain things I said…There are other misquotes throughout the article…in the interest of openness and transparency, I am making available the full audio below. In it you can hear a more complete and accurate version of the how the questions were phrased as well as my exact answers.”
Tom Ascol, Bart Barber, and Robin Hadaway participated in a panel discussion on issues facing the SBC at First Baptist Church, Keller, Texas, on May 4. The discussion was moderated by Joe Wooddell and Tony Richmond—both of FBC Keller.
Denny Burk, Bart Barber and the ERLC: All Against Abolition
Please educate yourself on this issue if you’re attending the Convention in June.It is a topic likely to be included in votable items.
Just days after the leak of the draft of the SCOTUS majority opinion on the overturn of Roe, HB813, on the complete abolition of abortion in the state of Louisiana, arrived at the House of the Louisiana Legislature for a vote. And it was torpedoed, thanks in part to the ERLC.
Acting ERLC president, Brent Leatherwood (along with dozens of other heads of supposedly pro-life organizations), signed on to An Open Letter to State Lawmakers from America’s Leading Pro-Life Organizations, released May 12 – the same day the Louisiana bill came to the floor for a vote. The letter characterized women who murder their babies as “victims” – denying that they have any culpability for killing their children – and, in an ominous, strong-armed tone, staunchly opposed the bill, and any future similar abolition bills.
In short, if your church gives to the Cooperative Program (and most SBC churches do): your offerings paid for the ERLC to help kill legislation that would have outlawed abortion.
This SBC entity, which you fund with your offerings, ignored the will of the SBC messengers to whom they are answerable. You will recall that last year at the Convention, the 2021 Committee on Resolutions – of which Bart Barber was a member – refused to let an abolition resolution come to the floor for a vote. It was only after messengers demanded it be released from committee that it was brought to the floor and overwhelmingly passed. The SBC grassroots wants abortion abolished immediately.
After the killing of the Louisiana bill, Denny Burk, professor at SBTS’ Boyce College, and associate pastor at an SBC church, carpet bombed Twitter with numerous screeds against abolition (the immediate abolishing of all abortion) and in favor of pro-life incrementalism (gradually chipping away at abortion via legislative restrictions, AKA, the past 50 years of legalized abortion), publishing three blog articles in a week (here, here, and here) which misrepresented and denounced the abolitionist position (which, by the way, is growing rapidly in the SBC, due to Southern Baptists’ disillusionment with the inability of the pro-life movement to abolish abortion), and warning Southern Baptists of dire consequences should they support the abolitionist cause rather than the pro-life position.
Naturally, Southern Baptists wanted to know where the candidates for SBC president stand on the issue.
Bart Barber updated his campaign FAQ page with a number of misrepresentations of, and misinformation about the abolitionist position (which, if I’m not misunderstanding his Twitter feed, were corrected by several people before {and certainly since} he posted the misinformation on his web page), and placed himself squarely in the incrementalist pro-life camp.
Tom Ascolwants abortion abolished immediately. You can read his clear, biblical, and well-reasoned position, which addresses Burk’s points, the ERLC’s sabotage of the Louisiana bill, and the 2021 SBC abolition resolution in his excellent article Toward a Principled Pro-Life Ethic in Post-Roe America
To inform yourself on what abolition actually does and doesn’t espouse, I recommend these resources:
Please educate yourself on this issue if you’re attending the Convention in June.It is a topic which will almost certainly be included in votable items.
Guidepost Solutions, the firm hired by the SATF to investigate the EC for mishandling cases of abuse was required to submit its report to the SATF 30 days prior to the SBC annual meeting in Anaheim (June 14-15, 2022). The report was to be made public one week after receipt, along with the SATF’s recommendations on any action the SBC should take as a result of the report. This took place on Sunday, May 22.
On June 8, the SATF deleted the June 1 recommendations from their website (as you can see if you click the link above) and replaced them with Updated Task Force Challenges and Formal Recommendations intended to clarify issues of funding and polity, according to SATF member, Andrew Hebert. Read Andrew’s explanation of the changes here, or listen to a podcast discussion of the changes here. To see a side by side comparison of the June 1 and June 8 recommendations, click here.
The latest iteration of these recommendations contain the actual actionable items messengers will vote on at the Convention. Be aware that these may be modified again between now and the time you get to vote on them. Before voting, please carefully read or listen to the actual motion(s) presented at the Convention.
I strongly recommend that you make the time to read and understand both the GS report (the executive summary at the beginning, at the very least) and the SATF recommendations if you’re planning to serve as a messenger at the Convention in June, since you’ll be asked to vote on motions or resolutions related to it.
Please do not just blindly trust those on the platform to accurately represent the report, the recommendations, or anything else about the sexual abuse situation in the SBC. Do your homework.
As you read the GS report, do keep in mind that GS is not a Christian organization, therefore, they were unable to view the situation from a biblical perspective, nor were they able to propose biblical solutions to the problems they discovered. Their outlook and analysis of the abuse situation in the SBC, though professional and honest was, necessarily, worldly, and their recommendations based in worldly practicality, not Scripture. As Christians, we must take the information and recommendations GS has given us, and examine them under the microscope of Scripture. We must make decisions about what to do and how to move forward that submit to the authority of Scripture, not worldly “wisdom,” methods, and practicalities.
GS is a non-Christian firm seeking to guide Christians in handling very serious spiritual matters, and the SATF’s recommendations are based, nearly completely, on GS’s recommendations. In other words, instead of the SATF recommending that we look to, understand, and obey Scripture in addressing the sexual abuse issue, they recommend we look to a worldly (not to mention perversion-affirming – see “June”) group of fallen human beings.
Scripture is clear that this is not the way the church is to operate. Consider the applicable principles of 1 Corinthians 6:1-6:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
Bart Barber shared his thoughts in a blog article entitled Response to the Sexual Abuse Task Force Report. While compassionate, it is extremely generalized and offers no specific, concrete suggestions as to how the SBC should respond.
1I know this is May, not June, but I thought it would be more convenient to keep all of the SATF report info together in one section.
McKissic’s Motion
On May 27, “Pastor” Dwight McKissic (see “April”) announced on Twitter that he would be making the following motion at the Convention. (Remember, a motion is actionable and different from a resolution {see “April”}, which is non-binding.)
Here is the motion I will be presenting at the annual meeting in Anaheim. Please join me in requesting that @albertmohler and the trustees of @SBTS respond in a way that honors Christ and His bride. pic.twitter.com/suVElvLWUf
In a nutshell, he’s making a motion for SBTS to “study” removing the name of anyone who owned slaves from its buildings, programs, etc. The findings of the study (plus any actions taken or recommendations from SBTS) will be reported at the 2023 Convention.
June 2022
GS Stands with LGBTQ
Guidepost is committed to strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion and strives to be an organization where our team can bring their authentic selves to work.
We celebrate our collective progress toward equality for all and are proud to be an ally to our LGBTQ+ community. pic.twitter.com/i6DKiX36nm
— Guidepost Solutions (@GuidepostGlobal) June 6, 2022
While Guidepost Solutions’ position on perversion was already a matter of public record, this tweet for “Pride Month” drew the ire of many Southern Baptists. Your offering money paid for this, folks.
Every year at the Convention, there are special interest events ancillary to the actual annual meeting: a luncheon by this organization, a dinner by that group, workshops, panel discussions, seminary alumni gatherings, and so on. And every year at the Convention there’s the recurring issue of false teachers and biblically problematic speakers headlining these events.
Last year, I devoted an entire article to alerting you to these speakers. This year, there are not only fewer ancillary events, meaning fewer problematic speakers, but many of this year’s speakers are the same people I alerted you to last year. You can find all 2022 events listed here.
So, briefly, here are a few of those biblically problematic speakers of note with whom I’m familiar and/or for whom “spot check” type information was quickly and easily available:
Brent Leatherwood (see Denny Burk, Bart Barber and the ERLC: All Against Abolition in “May”)
Missie Branch (not much online info available, but she seems to frequently appear alongside those in the “progressive” camp in the SBC, here, last year, etc.)
This event is sponsored by the ERLC, whose controversial and storied history of leaning liberal on social and political issues (most recently, ironically for this event, helping to kill an abortion abolition bill – see “May”) has led many SBC churches to stop giving to the Cooperative Program and re-designate their funds so their offering money won’t be used to further ungodly social and political ideologies and agendas.
I would urge you to exercise extreme caution and discernment should you choose to attend this event or stop by their booth at the pastors’ conference. The fact that this is being sponsored and promoted by SBC Voices should be enough to give anyone familiar with them pause. Other red flags:
One of the major components of the event will be hearing victims’ stories. While we certainly want to give the benefit of the doubt that these stories will all be truthful, bear Proverbs 18:17 in mind, especially if you are easily swayed by emotion. You will only be hearing one side of the story about how these victims’ cases were handled.
“Trauma-informed / trauma-responsive” has come to be code speak for employing worldly psychological means and methods instead of looking to and obeying Scripture as our authority for addressing issues of abuse. The “trauma-informed” perspective is essentially that the Bible, pastoral and biblical counseling, and Titus 2 discipleship are inadequate and insufficient for shepherding and soul care, and these are rejected in favor of non-Christian “experts” in the field of abuse. Where does the Bible tell us to handle any spiritual issue, such as healing from abuse, by looking outside the church and the Bible to non-Christians?
You’ll be given a teal ribbon to wear around the Convention to “show your support” for abuse victims during this time of extreme contention in the SBC revolving around abuse, while others won’t be wearing one. This is, in effect, virtue signaling. The biblical word for this is “pride,” and those sponsoring this event are making provision for that sin. Consider these passages.
The breakout session will be led by Rachael Denhollander, Dave Pittman, and Todd Benkert. I’m not familiar with Dave, but Rachael has a reputation for never having heard a report of abuse she didn’t believe, and Todd was caught lying during the Tom and Jennifer Buck situation (see links in Blackmailing the Bucks under “March’) when he would have considered anyone else in Jennifer’s situation to be a “survivor”.
There may be some helpful resources presented at this breakout session, but be on your guard and be a good Berean. Keep a couple of questions at the front of your mind:
Is what I’m hearing me pointing me to God and His Word as my authority, or to fallen, sinful human beings, worldly methods, or non-Christian organizations as my authority?
Michelle Lesley 