Billy Baptist

50% of Southern Baptists want to be Presbyterians. 50% of Presbyterians want to be Anglicans. 50% of Anglicans want to be Orthodox or Roman Catholic. 50% of Roman Catholics want to be Episcopalians. 50% of Episcopalians want to be atheists.

Thinking about this tonight. Underrated state: South Carolina Underrated city: Charleston, West Virginia What are yours?

A religious person who is currently married is twice as likely to say that they are very happy compared to a non-religious person who has never walked down the aisle.

Sorry, but this deserves a response. No one offered up actual alternatives to the Law/Sanchez Amendment in the past 3 years. This is the first time you and others are admitting this is an issue AND offering solutions to fix it. I'm glad that is happening now, but let's be honest about how the past few years has gone down. I know people who thought there were better ways, but there was no move to go down any other path than the one offered, which Bart (and others) argued against. So, let's set history straight a bit. We were told that this issue of women pastors was a made up problem and thus the amendment was unnecessary, or worse, intentionally damaging). Proof of it was dismissed and maligned. We were then told that the system "works just fine" to deal with the problem (that more people were seeing as obvious and could no longer be denied outright), and told that pushing the amendment was causing problems and being unnecessarily divisive. Then, as the Amendment was last considered, Jeff Iorg offered dishonest comments from the platform and misled the messengers to make sure the Amendment would not pass. During this time, no other solutions were ever offered up, just arguments about how bad the Amendment was, worries about "what is next?" if it passes, and shots at those working to pass it, as if we were the problem. Now, the same people who maligned individuals and the attempt to fix the problem are doing it again. "We" were the problem for not accepting alternatives then (there were none), and somehow we're still the problem now. That is re-writing history. It is dishonest. There were no alternatives offered before now. Just denials of the problem. Then when those denials could no longer work, it turned to dismissal of the approach and the people who offered a proposed fix. But still no alternative solutions were offered. Not for 3 years. Moreover, the fact that the accusation of being divisive is still being thrown at those who were trying to fix the problem by those who were ACTUALLY divisive (the ones who are dividing the SBC by being at odds with the BFM2K and the will of the messengers) isn't lost on me. It is more manipulative language and an attempt to re-frame the past few years. I would have gladly welcomed alternatives as we were arguing for the Amendment. It would have been a welcome debate to agree on the problem and disagree in the solution. Instead, I personally was called names and my motives maligned for simply writing articles advancing the Amendment by the people who now agree there is a problem but at the time couldn't see what was clear to many of us. My friend Mike Law received far worse personal attacks than I. I am very amenable to suggestions to fix this problem, even now. It actually IS a problem, and I'm glad you now see that. I admit there are probably better ways to do it than the Law Amendment. I am very open to it. I argued for the Amendment because it was the only attempt to do it, and I think it would have been beneficial. If something better comes along, it will have my full support, precisely because I am all about fixing the problem, not winning a fight, and definitely not being divisive, as Bart accuses. But I struggle to believe this can be fixed by those who want to re-write history to make themselves look like they were clear-minded the whole time. Let's fix the problem, but maybe if you argued against there being a problem in the first place, you take a step back. It definitely cannot be fixed by gaslighting proponents of the Amendment as if we were the problem all along and if only we would have listened to other suggestions offered up by those downplaying the need and obstructing the passage of the amendment, then the issue would be fixed already. That is simply dishonest.

Important correction here: it is a 2/3 vote, not 50%. But it is still a one year process, as opposed to two. I think the more detailed language is something that would work for most southern baptists—including something the Law Amendment didn’t have in the way of a clarification regarding the preaching function.

Reasons why I like this approach: -only requires one vote. -language regarding function and titles -closes loop holes as we saw with Fielder -works within current framework while giving CC guidelines. A lot of positive feedback on this today.

I don't know if it's possible to make a strong claim about whether a certain location will lead to more messengers at the SBC Annual Meeting. Birmingham in 2019 had the same number of messenger as Anaheim two year later. Indianapolis had basically the same number as Dallas

Anaheim is cost-prohibitive, I get that. But the Missouri Baptists Convention has a partnership with Montana. I’ve seen that pastors in Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas are in severe need of fellowship. We should consider them, as well.

When it comes to the SBC Annual Meeting, location matters. Here are some of my thoughts and concerns.