[This is part one of a series of reflections from the recent Southern Baptist Convention, held in Phoenix, Arizona on June 11-14]  Through the years, we Southern Baptists have developed a bit of a reputation for being the “Battlin’ Baptists,” which was forged during the years of the Conservative Resurgence in our denomination.  During the early and middle parts of the 20^th century, the leadership within our Convention (most importantly, at our seminaries) began a dangerous drift toward theological liberalism.  It was not unusual for professors at our seminaries to not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, which inevitably led some to progress even farther down the heterodoxy path.  Thankfully, our Convention (and its entities) was recovered, in no small part thanks to our polity.  Since then early 1990s, the battles over the inerrancy of Scripture and other foundational doctrines have ceased, but some have suggested that we grew accustomed to such battles and have sought other, nonessential issues on which to skirmish.  That might have been on display regarding what would eventually be known as Resolution #10, “On the Anti-Gospel of Alt-Right White Supremacy.”

Initially, the Resolutions Committee declined to report the resolution as originally submitted due to several issues (including that it was poorly written, included inflammatory language such as “ethnic cleansing,” and that it attacked individuals rather than concepts).  What’s more, the Convention had, in each of the previous three years, passed resolutions condemning racism, bigotry, and prejudice.  Then, there is the thorny problem of how the “alt-right” is defined.  When all this is mixed together within the context of an organization that has a difficult history with issues such as slavery, racism, bigotry, and prejudice as well as our current cultural climate, the potential for a misstep is high.

And misstep we did.  When a resolution is submitted to the Committee, it no longer belongs to the submitter but rather to the Committee, which can do with it whatever it chooses.  On the extremes, the Committee could report the proposed resolution to the Convention without any amendments or it could decline to report it out at all.  In addition, the Committee could amend, tweak, or even completely rewrite the resolution before reporting it out.  That is what should have happened, but the Committee made a different decision.  I do not fault them for that, given the circumstances and the past three years, but this event should serve as a reminder to us that we all have certain blind spots.  The Committee did not foresee their declining to report this resolution out of committee as creating a firestorm among the messengers or the press.

Even though we fumbled on this matter, we did “fall on the ball.”  The Resolutions Committee decided, on its own volition, to rewrite the resolution and present it as Resolution #10 to the Convention.  I encourage you to read that resolution.  It is well-written, powerful, and Gospel-centered.  It condemns, in no uncertain terms, those who would try to dehumanize those on whom God has imprinted His image – and that includes every single human being, regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin.  There is but one race – the human race – and any effort to divide us based on pigmentation is, quite simply and quite frankly, Satanic.  As Southern Baptists, we have a stain in our past on this matter, but if we are willing to confess our sin and seek God’s forgiveness (and I believe we have, even though there are pockets of sinfulness that remain on this issue in our Convention), God “is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).  What a testimony to the Gospel of Jesus Christ!  Just something to think about…