thanks again,
mike

I was reading over news piece on the motions which were shot down for various reasons this year. One was a motion to alter the wording of the SBC stance on alcohol use, thereby making a distinction between drinking and drunkenness. The article said that Hunt declared the motion out of order on Render’s counsel that the motion would require the amendment of a standing resolution (#5 of 2006, I presume?). What process would be required in order for such an amendment to take place?

Thanks,
Mike

Are there people on the committee who you think would introduce something like this?

To answer your question, I think that the SBC is not detrimental at all to the potential growth of God’s kingdom by not partnering with Acts 29. Apparently, Danny Akin shares my position, since he has pointedly reminded the Southern Baptist Convention multiple times that SEBTS is not partnered with Acts 29 or Mark Driscoll. The Southern Baptist Convention is not capable of partnering with everyone in the world, nor is it under obligation to do so. With limited resources, we are all in the business of trying to choose wisely how to invest our time, energy, and possessions in the Great Commission. One need not attack Mark Driscoll in order to note that he simply is nowhere near the top of the list of wise investments in that regard.

I was listening to one of Driscoll’s sermons that was preached at a conference at Bethleham Baptist sometime last fall. He didn’t specifically mention the events of Scotland, but he did (as best I remember) relate a story about making some statements that he later regretted and, after taking Piper’s advice, he removed the sermon off the internet. I don’t know if he ever apologized publicly, but I don’t think that’s the point of disagreement you have with him.

Personally, I have no knowledge of that sermon, but you have claimed that he made a statement that wives are required to perform oral sex and I have no reason to believe you have misstated Driscoll’s statement. However, I did listen to his sermon series on the Song of Songs and I can tell you he never said anything remotely like that in his own church. What he did say was that anything between a husband and a wife is acceptable so long as both are comfortable and one is not forced to do something unwillingly to the other. He made this point over and over through the series, which (I believe) might alleviate your concern in this matter. It does, though, bring up another concern, which is that he finds anal sex permissible. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this point. I find it to be forbidden in the OT, as well as a cursory knowledge of design and anatomy. One of the better non-Scriptural arguments we put forth against homosexuality is rendered void if anal sex is permissible.

However, I pose the following question. Which is more detrimental to the potential growth of God’s kingdom: a man who advocates/permits anal sex, or a denomination who refuses to partner with this man (and his organization) for the sharing of resources to plant churches?

First off, allow me to make it completely plain that I NEVER entertained the idea that Kelley and the folks at NOBTS were “liberals.” To tell you the truth, at the time of those votes, it really confused me that they were opposing the sole membership recommendation. I presumed that they were concerned about some vagary of Louisiana law, which we all know was written on Mars in an obscure dialect of Sanskrit.

Now, I think that they have every reason to feel vindicated. I know I wish that I had voted differently.

I agree with Kelly above. Do you think Dr. Kelley and the others at NOBTS in any way feel vindicated by the fears the EC’s strong opinions at this year’s convention have raised? A few years ago, they were liberals b/c of their stance against sole membership. Now they seem just a little more Baptist.