Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Bart Barber

Why Southern Baptists Should Reject Bart Barber’s Rule Change Proposal?

Earlier this week, Bart Barber, president of the Southern Baptist Convention proposed a standing rule change for the meeting to allow for more debate. The context of this is how the liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention want more debate on the Mike Law Amendment hoping they can win on the floor. Is this a move that could backfire against the SBC platform, or should it be discarded as political posturing? The proposal is as follows:

Bart Barber is proposing that at the beginning of the meeting the Southern Baptist vote on a motion to suspend a standing rule in Robert’s Rules of Order on calling the question. Within Robert’s Rules, the question can be called at any time. The action would then cause a vote on ending the debate. Bart Barber wants to suspend this right under Roberts Rules until 2 voices for and 2 voices against have been heard. This standing rule would bind debate on all motions, amendments, and amendments to amendments.

In the past, liberals have called the question to suppress debate on Resolutions like the one that supported amnesty for illegal aliens in 2023. SBC presidential candidate, Jared Moore, says that there is no reason they won’t run the same playbook again.

Jared Moore told Evangelical Dark Web that the proposal will extend the meeting time and force awkward moments of debate where there is none. No one is going to oppose the courtesy resolution thanking Indianapolis. So Jared Moore believes that the standing rule will be suspended once it’s convenient for the SBC platform. Because Jared Moore believes that the debate will only have a quota when it’s convenient for Bart Barber and allies, Moore urges the messengers to oppose the rule change and maintain their right to call the question.

Powered by RedCircle

Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.

10 Responses

  1. Well, see here’s a problem. One minute we’re all for free speech, the notion of countering wicked speech with more speech rather than censorship, which is free debate. The next we’re against free and thorough debate.

    I’m not saying that’s how it is. I’m saying that’s what it looks like.

    If you’re going to shut down debate, then first shut down gab, revolver comment sections, etc, and shut down the debate of those who are praising adolf hitler, and other such wickedness, often in the name of Jesus, dragging His name through the mud on a daily basis.

    I can make the same arguments regarding free debate at large, as Moore is making about the SBC convention. Speaking out against all the wickedness. countering speech with more speech, takes time and effort I don’t have to spare. But I do it anyhow, as the Lord leads and requires. And it takes up a lot more than half a day of debate over a resolution. It takes every day, all day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

    Frankly, I don’t want to hear the bellyaching.

    To outsiders looking in, it makes the conservative camp look like extreme hypocrites, because it is indeed extremely hypocritical, and extremely inconsistent.

    Do you support free debate and countering free debate with more debate, or do you not?

    Make up your minds.

    What’s the difference between shutting down Gab as a matter of church discipline of individuals who facilitate all the wickedness there while also claiming Jesus’ name, and shutting down debate over a resolution?

    There is no difference.

    1. What’s worse?

      Time consuming debates in favor of female preachers, or time consuming debates in favor of Adolf Hitler and nazism?

      Both take up time, work, and resources that nobody should have to be wasting. On both, the scripture is extremely clear.

      There is no “right” for any Christian to be praising adolf hitler, any more than there is a “right” for women to speak from the pulpit.

      Our right to speak ends where Almighty God says it ends. And there is no discussion.

      Hello? Anybody home?

    2. Scripture supports free speech and free debate. That right is derived directly from scripture.

      But it also says when you abuse it you lose it. Sin has consequences. If in the course of speech, you sin, then you deserve to be told to shut up and sit down. You deserve to have your social media account, or website, shut down, as much as a delegate at the convention doesn’t deserve to waste everybody’s time by sinfully arguing against plain and clear scripture, in order to further a worldly agenda in conformance to the world.

      What’s the difference?

      If Andrew Torba, owners of Revolver, or others of the same mind, happen by here to read this page, I want them to think about it. Do those who post such sinful mess retain their right to speak? I don’t care what secular law says. I’m talking about God’s standards here. Are you going to live by them or are you not? And if you aren’t, then what in the sam hill is the whole Christian Nationalism movement truly about? Because in a truly Christian nation, such wickedness wouldn’t be tolerable. We measure right and wrong by the absolute standards of God’s word, not by the relativist standards derived from relativist determinations whether or not someone else’s relativist-determined rights are infringed upon or relativist-determined harm is done, according to secular ethics.

      Think about it.

      Just try to answer this one question. In a Christian nation, would you allow all that praise of Nazis and Adolf Hitler, the likes of which happens over at Gab on a daily basis? Yes or no?

      Anybody got an answer to that question?

  2. Just in the past few decades, denomination after denomination, has passed resolutions barring women from being pastors, barring homosexuals and transvestites.

    Is we were all for it prior?

    NO, it’s because mankind has apparently become completely illiterate, such that we have to pass resolutions reaffirming what the word of Almighty God already clearly says, which are about equivalent to “See Spot Run”

    It is ALL a waste of time. The need for such resolutions to reaffirm the obvious. The need for any debate. The need to have to respond to worldly impositions and blatant defiance and disrespect of scripture every five minutes.

    Prior statements of faith, and resolutions stating adherence to God’s word, should easily suffice, and did easily suffice for centuries.

    I watched a video about it last night, showing snippets of Rick Warren’s little rant the day Saddleback ordained three women “pastors”. About every other phrase was “I couldn’t make sense of it”. And I’m just about yelling at him through the computer monitor, “when did God become a respecter of Rick Warren, and run things by Rick Warren, to set His standards based on whether or not Rick Warren can make sense of it?!” It doesn’t have to make sense to us. Hello? God is God. If He says don’t do something, then you don’t do it. Whether or not it makes sense to you is entirely irrelevant, and of zero consequence. Almighty God has no obligation to make sense to us finite beings, who are infinitely stupid in comparison to Him.

    That sort of “reasoning”, and the implication that it’s only valid if you yourself can make sense of it, is far worse than the act of a woman walking up to the pulpit to preach to men. It’s worse. One could apply that sort of reasoning to try to justify and rationalize any and all wickedness imaginable.

    God is not a respecter of persons. He does not ask us for our opinions. He doesn’t set His standards based on whether or not it makes sense to us.

    Consider the garden. God said don’t touch the fruit of that tree. The first thing Satan said to the woman was basically “does that make sense to you?” And so she sinned because it didn’t make sense to her. Which was to believe God had deceived her, and that Satan had told her the truth.

    It’s the same today. God’s word is not lying …

  3. What’s next, I wonder. A big time-wasting debate culminating in resolutions affirming that theft is sin? Are we going to waste decades debating over whether or not it makes sense to us, and how it makes us feel?

    “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, … ”

    I’m afraid to ask what’s next …

    1. Imagine the arguments.

      “But I’m very good at stealing … ”
      “He’s a very gifted pickpocket … ”
      “She’s a skilled shoplifter …”
      “Who says I can’t steal, when I just did? … “

    2. The reason such resolutions weren’t made prior to just a few decades ago?

      Well, our forefathers just weren’t as stupid as we are …

  4. You can’t appeal to God’s standards one minute, and the world’s standards the next, whichever is convenient.

    Is it sinful to facilitate sinful speech?

    Unquestionably, yes it is.

    Whether it is debate over questions that God has already clearly answered, or women preaching and teaching men, or professing Christians facilitating the praise of adolf hitler over at Gab and Revolver.

    Yes it is sinful. It’s sinful to facilitate it. It’s sinful to listen to it. It is sinful to turn a blind eye to it. In the case of men sitting there in the pews, they are more to blame than the woman at the pulpit, because men bear the responsibility. Right, who was responsible for the sin in the garden? Adam. It’s because of his sin.

    Where does Jesus say to look first? Our own eye. Conservatives need to clean up our own house, and that should be done first.

    So when are Andrew Torba, and others of the same mind, going to be called to repentance, given their three chances as prescribed by Jesus, and if they refuse, be disfellowshiped?

    Anytime between now and the end of days?

    You talk about parallel economies. What parallel economies? I’m not about to do business with anybody flying a swastika any more than I’m about to do business with anybody flying the pride flag.

    How many parallel economies do we need, and will any of them be anything truly born again Christians can participate in? I’d like to know.

    Yep, you’d better believe it’s a sin to facilitate sinful speech …

    And you’d better believe many on the left and the right need to be disfellowshiped. It’s not just the left.

    Both sides need to enter that convention hall, fall to their knees, repent, and first and foremost resolve to honor and serve the Lord, no matter what, and to leave the worldly politics, worldly considerations, and worldly standards outside the flipping building in the trash can where they flipping belong.

  5. You talk about sinfulness of debate before a resolution.

    Good grief, boys, the question of nazism was resolved 90 flipping years ago, when they murdered the first Jew, when they stole from the first one, and threw them in a Ghetto. When they marched them naked to the mass grave, women, children, old men, and blew out their brains.

    When MEN like my Grandfather sailed across the ocean and KILLED THEM.

    That question was debated, and the debate is over. It’s been over for 90 years.

    It’s an absolute disgrace for a professing Christian to be facilitating the praise of adolf hitler, nazism, and the promotion of such wickedness.

    You expect any objective person to fliping care whether or not you’ve got to sit through a few hours of sinful debate, when you’re still sinfully facilitating the debate of some of the worst wickedness in the history of mankind, after NINETY FLIPPING YEARS?

    Nah, I have no pity. When you’ve sat through debate over a resolution so long, that the 2024 convention lasts through about the year 2100, then I’ll give a flipping hoot. Otherwise you deserve to fliping sit there and sit through it until you clean up your own house and call your own side to repentance, and disfellowship as necessary.

  6. This is the brutal truth …

    If you can’t rebuke somebody for praising adolf hitler, or for facilitating that praise, then you’re not fit to run a Christian daycare, much less a Christian nation.

    Don’t try to tell me you’re men. You’re spineless little boys.

    You’re the other side of the same coin as David French … BlEsSiNgS oF LiBeRtY

    How hard is it to say, no the praise of adolf hitler should not be allowed in a Christian Nation

    Seems easy enough to me. I just said it, no problem. It’s absolutely true. Biblically, our Creator limits the rights He has given. The right to speak does not give you license to sin through speech. No more than the right (indeeed mandate) to arm yourselves with weapons gives you license to murder.

    Sola Scriptura?

    Uh huh … I don’t want to hear it. I want to see it …

    Both flipping sides are a flipping disgrace. Both sides.

Leave a Reply