SBCN

This proposal is wet cement and open to change on any number of fronts before June. The fact remains that even those of us who felt like the language of the Law Amendment wasn’t the right way to solve the problem, 90% of us (at least) see and agree that there *is* a problem. I’ve said so for as long as the conversation has been around. Even if the correct mechanism for language like this would be a constitutional amendment, the intent here was to address some of the gaping holes from the Law Amendment—chief among them being that it offered nothing in the way of restricting the preaching function. One would think that the best strategy toward solving the issue would be to put our heads together—those who liked the language of Law and those who didn’t—so we can address this in a way that puts it to bed, cementing our complementarian convictions in our documents and allowing us to move on. Anyone who is on board with that, let’s work together. And if my opposition to the Law Amendment means you’re unable or unwilling to make an attempt at friendly cooperation among brothers who actually want to see the same end result, that’s too bad.