A little too much coffee and Roberts' Rules.
by Jon
I think Bart’s ‘ettiquette’ suggestions are pretty good, especially:
your default vote should be a “Nay” until the resolution earns your “Aye.”
But, I’m not sure even our most Reformed have that stoicism in us.
Witness the debate on the resolution on abuse and pastoral qualificatioins, messengers were told (from the floor) that it was embarassing to debate too long before a watching world, and (from the platform) that it was better to have a strong, non-binding statement, rather than condition it to death like legislation. Local churches could always qualify it for themselves, but it would be good to have a feel-good ‘aye’ now, and your logical ‘nays’ later.
But the passage of the abortion abolition resolution on similar grounds has now caused a kerfuffle among SBC ethicists. The chairman of the ResCom is proclaiming vindication for trying to stop the messengers from making a mistake. It seems like the same could be said said of it, though: give us a stronger, clearer ‘aye’ for the watching world, because it’s non-binding. Let’s not qualify our prophetic statements to death.
If we’re going to frame Resolutions as statements about timely moral issues, I’m not sure we have it in us to risk a ‘no.’