Disclaimers: to my knowledge, I have never met Voddie Baucham, heard him preach, nor read his writings. I know of his close affiliation with several ministries, the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, and some who regularly speak against social justice and Critical Race Theory. Two, in no way should anything in this review be interpreted as for or against various components of CT, CRT, Intersectionality or Critical Social Justice, except that I do not believe any of them should be totalized as a worldview. Third, page numbers cited are from a PDF proof and will not match the print version. Fourth, please read the footnotes.
Click here to read Part 1 of my review of Fault Lines.
Factual Misrepresentations
About Christians
Fault Lines has an inordinate focus toward certain American Evangelicals whom Baucham apparently believes have totalized Critical Social Justice. Among them is Atlanta pastor John Onwuchekwa (John O). Baucham quotes (with commentary) from an episode of the Pass the Mic podcast (lengthy for contrast):
[John O] said, ‘You start to read books outside of the Bible and they help you understand what’s being said in the Bible.’ So far, so good. However, anticipating the orthodox response to what he means by this, John O adds, ‘That’s sacrilegious to some folks,’ which of course is patently false. No one, outside of a few extremist cults, has ever had a problem with the idea that books outside of the Bible “help you understand the Bible.” Obviously, he is referring to something more. ‘It’s like this,’ he continues, ‘unless you had science, the Bible would not make sense.’ (emphasis in original)
That is as significant a statement as he could possibly have made. In a single sentence, John O impugned the sufficiency of Scripture, a fact that he makes clear as he explains further: ‘Archeology is a science. If we did not have archeology, much of your Bible would not make sense … The problem is when we start to talk about social sciences and history, now all of a sudden, those are out of bounds.’ And there it is! John O’s point—shared by many, if not most of the authors on [Christianity Today]’s reading list, and evinced by the list’s very existence, is that you really don’t get what the Bible is trying to say about social justice until you read social science and history.”
Baucham goes on to again conflate CT, CRT, Intersectionality and CSJ. It isn’t possible to keep them straight when reading, because the author did not keep them straight when writing. And, to be sure, nowhere in the quote is anything that resembles Intersectionality. The conflation and attempted connection is a shambles.
For contrast, here’s John O’s full quote without Baucham’s editorializing:
The things standing in the way of the unity was not an accident; it was intentional. Then you gotta go back and say, “Who built this? Who put this together?” And then you start to read history, you start to read <pause> and I’m gonna go on a soapbox here. You start to read books outside of the Bible and they help you understand what’s being said in the Bible. Right? That’s sacrilegious to some folks. But, it’s like this, unless you had science, the Bible would not make sense. Archeology is a science. If we did not have archeology, much of your Bible would not make sense. You wouldn’t be able to recapture the context in some of that stuff. So, there is something about books and disciplines outside of the Bible that help us to understand the Bible better. Now, people can argue that until they are blue in the face, but I guarantee you nobody argues that in practice. The problem is when we start to talk about social sciences and history, now all of a sudden, those are out of bounds.
This is little more than “gotcha journalism” with a NOT-WOKE byline. With Baucham’s commentary removed, what you have is a fairly standard understanding of what it means to study the Bible using other resources as aids.
Baucham then excerpts a few historic Christian confessions as if to prove by virtue of much typing that his point is well made. In reality he only proves how ineffectual his original point is. From the Belgic Confession (“Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself”) he then makes additional baseless accusations. Onwuchekwa does not consider of value and writing of men equal with the Scriptures or consider any other decree, statute, etc, as equal to the truth of God any more than Voddie considers in his reliance on multiple atheists that they are on par with God’s truth.
To verify my understanding, I DM’d John O for a comment and he responded immediately:
We use commentaries to help us understand the ancient world better to add color to our Bible interpretation. Archaeology (as a science) helps us to understand the ancient world better which helps us to understand the Bible. Horticulture helps us to know that mustard seeds are small, what a vine really looks like, etc. If we knew nothing of such sciences, some of Jesus’s sayings would go over our head. Therefore, there may be something helpful in social sciences that help us to understand certain dynamics we may miss. To import CT and CRT into this type of conversation is just silly.
He continued,
No social science replaces the gospel. Social science can, however, reveal information about human interactions, laws, mores, etc, that give insight as to how we can show the gospel is the answer to the concerns that are raised.
In a section criticizing former International Mission Board President David Platt for “eisegesis,” a “misuse” of scripture, and reading things into scripture, Baucham relies on support from a blogger who self-identifies as the “Bible Thumping Wingnut,” a pastor whose Twitter feed is replete with election conspiracies, media personalities, and crypto-currency tips—until he abandoned Twitter for Parler. Baucham also mentions off-the-record, private conversations which are unprovable and thus unhelpful.
In one mind-boggling turn, Baucham castigates an African American Southern Baptist professor using woefully out-of-context comments, then referencing cherry-picked quotes compiled by an actual Neo-Confederate. Baucham doesn’t seem to wonder whether a would-be Robert E. Lee might not have ulterior motives toward an African American professor.
Despite the author’s insistence that he is not “at war” with the Christian brothers he criticizes in the book, but that he is “at war with the ideology with which they have identified to one degree or another,” one is left to wonder why then he included them in the book at all. If someone were to ask, “By what standard?” does he judge, the answer sadly is, “a double one.” So, when Baucham claims on page 130, “[T]he CRT crowd in evangelicalism are not men who have been challenged on their interpretation of Scripture—they are proclaiming that sources outside of Scripture have brought them to a new, better, and more complete understanding of God’s truth on race” it’s impossible to conclude anything else: it’s an accusation so underdeveloped it ought to come with a juice box.
About African Americans killed by Police
Roland Fryer’s analysis and the National Academy
“The best research on the topic of fatal officer-involved shootings (FOIS),” says Baucham, “has been clear, as were the findings of Harvard economist Roland Fryer in a forthcoming study. ‘On the most extreme use of force, FOIS,’ he writes, ‘we find no racial difference in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.’” (pg 57)
It is critically important to realize the elevation of Fryer’s study on par with the “best research” on the subject comes from Baucham. That is, he’s giving his opinion; nothing more. Worth noting also is the citation says Fryer’s study is “forthcoming.” It is not forthcoming. It was forthcoming when the New York Times featured an article about it in 2016, but it was published in the Journal of Political Economy in 2018.[1] Though Fryer found no racial difference in fatal shootings, he did not examine other kinds of officer involved killings, like suffocation.
Unfortunately for Fryer and Baucham, the paper’s methodology and theoretical errors were immediately questioned.
In [Fryer’s] analysis of shootings in Houston, Texas, black and Hispanic people were no more likely (and perhaps even less likely) to be shot relative to whites.
Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black people in the United States.[2]
Colin Kaepernick and Mario Woods
In what was certainly an unexpected (to this reviewer) section of the book, Baucham believes that the seeming disinterest in White people being killed by police at near the same time as well-publicized Black killings is due to acceptance of a CSJ narrative. It’s a stretch Lowe’s chain-wide inventory of retractable tapes would be insufficient to measure.
He begins with a complaint about former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, he of the kneeling protest fame. Kaepernick is criticized by Baucham for launching his protest[3] after a knife-wielding African American man, Mario Woods, was shot dead by police. (Woods was suspected of stabbing another person when confronted.) Writes Baucham:
This incident was tragic, to be sure. However, to cite it as an example of police brutality that warrants national protest stretches credulity. Especially when that protest is characterized as a movement to raise awareness of the killing of ‘unarmed black men.’ More importantly, cries for ‘Justice for Mario Woods’ and the ensuing Kaepernick protest reveal a kind of cognitive dissonance that underlies much of the Critical Social Justice movement. (p 52)
Two observations: first, Kaepernick listed as reasons for his protest other people besides Woods, a pertinent fact in Baucham’s cited article that he chose to omit:
“Oscar Grant, Rekia Boyd, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice,” [Kaepernick] said, ticking off names of people killed by police in recent years. “Laquan McDonald, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray. The Panthers’ demands are still alive today because the police are still killing us today.”
Thus, while Woods might have been the tipping point after so many other deaths, it is not accurate to say Woods was the primary cause of the protest. No cognitive dissonance needed to see what’s going on.
Second, Baucham’s evaluation of the incident omits several relevant questions as to whether it was a good shoot: was Woods a threat to police or anyone else at the time he was shot; of the half-dozen or more officers on the scene at the time, was firing 27 shots the best course of action; what was the determination of the investigation after the fact?
Here is one video from the incident <graphic>. It is easy to see why the officers were found after review to have used unnecessary force. In addition:
“Arguably, the named officers’ conduct at the moment they used deadly force could be found in policy in light of the Department’s Use of Firearms policy that existed at the time of the incident,” the report states. “In fact, SFPD did find the officers’ conduct in policy. However, when considering the entire chain of events that led to the officers’ use of lethal force, the DPA concludes that the excessive force allegation is the result of a policy failure.” (emphasis added)
In other words, the death of Mario Woods, which formed the final impetus for Kaepernick’s protest, was found to have been problematic enough to affect a policy change in the SFPD. As of September 2020, “overall use-of-force incidents have dropped precipitously. Moreover, the SFPD has not fatally shot a civilian since March 2018.”[4] The protest that Baucham objects to still today has saved lives and made the SFPD a better-trained police force.
As an aside, as too many have done, Baucham overlooks this fact: Kaepernick’s teammate Eric Reid, himself a follower of Jesus, joined the quarterback in the first kneeling protest. Reid said it was a direct response to putting James 2:17 into practice.[5]
George Floyd and Philando Castile
Baucham takes an especially flat view concerning the deaths of George Floyd and Philando Castile. He writes concerning these cases (and several others), “[M]y goal here is not to adjudicate these cases, but merely to demonstrate the fact that the way they have been covered by the media is insufficient, slanted, and unjust in terms of the accusations they are used to levy” (pg 61). In Baucham’s telling, the coverage of these deaths over comparable white deaths reveals a narrative powered by Critical Social Justice. It couldn’t possibly be anything simpler.
Or could it?
First, a personal observation: African Americans, by and large, are far more in tune with police violence and brutality than White Americans. This likely has much to do with history. Slave patrols were not sent out after White guys. Law enforcement officials were part “convict leasing” scheme after Reconstruction failed, through which untold number of African American disappeared into mines and fields across the south working for years to “pay off” unjust fines.[6] During Jim Crow, African Americans were murdered extra-judiciously often with the overt approval if not direct participation of law enforcement.[7] The Black Panthers were formed partially as a counterweight to the abusive police department in Oakland, CA.[8] Nearly every African American man I have spoken with personally can tell stories of unnecessary, negative interactions with law enforcement, some beginning when they were children.
African Americans are in tune with police violence and a large percentage of them respond viscerally when it takes place because they know the all too real possibility of an encounter going wrong.
On the other hand, until recently few White folks paid little attention when anyone is killed by police, White or Black. That African American people care, speak up, and protest is not a mark against them.
There is another, simpler reason why the killings of George Floyd and Philando Castile got an immediate reaction and amplification while the killings of Tony Timpa (compared to Floyd) or Dylan Noble (compared to Castile). Per Baucham the sole reason is because Timpa and Noble were White: social media. George Floyd’s death was filmed for 8 minutes by a bystander who uploaded the Net where it exploded. Tony Timpa’s tragic death (he also smothered by police) was captured on an officer’s body cam and was not released to the public for three years.
Philando Castile’s death was livestreamed by his girlfriend who was in the passenger seat when he was shot four times during a traffic stop. She described the shooting, showed his bullet-riddled body and her daughter sitting in the back seat. Again, it was near-immediately available for the world to see. Noble’s death occurred in June 2016, but the police body cam footage was not released for a month. When it was released, it was covered by numerous major news outlets including Washington Post, The LA Times, the Guardian, NBC, and ABC.
Perhaps the world has become more attuned to police violence against African Americans. If so, this is a good thing. The answer is not to play the comparison game, but to call for full transparency and accountability in every officer involved shooting.
Michael Brown
Another example of how Baucham selectively uses and misinterprets information is from a Ta-Nehisi Coates piece in which Coates agrees with a Department of Justice finding that officer Darren Wilson did not act outside the law in shooting Michael Brown (pg 68). What Baucham omits is the concluding paragraph likening Wilson to a gangster for whom the law worked in favor.
One cannot feel good about living under gangsters, and that is the reality of Ferguson right now. The innocence of Darren Wilson does not change this fundamental fact. Indeed the focus on the deeds of alleged individual perpetrators, on perceived bad actors, obscures the broad systemic corruption which is really at the root. Darren Wilson is not the first gang member to be publicly accused of a crime he did not commit. But Darren Wilson was given the kind of due process that those of us who are often presumed to be gang members rarely enjoy. I do not favor lowering the standard of justice offered Officer Wilson. I favor raising the standard of justice offered to the rest of us.[9]
Far from an uncritical advancement of Baucham’s position, Coates’ full article criticizes systemic injustice in Ferguson, MO that victimized most of its citizens and preferred a “gangster” in its laws. The articles does not support Baucham’s position; it undercuts it.
The SBC and Resolution 9
Of all the mistakes of fact in Fault Lines, the attempt to tell the story of the 2019 Southern Baptist Convention and Resolution 9 also runs aground in pgs 144–154, chapter 7. (If you are not SBC, there’s a lot of inside baseball here.)
He begins the section, “First, Resolution 9 was a response to the Dallas Statement.” This is unproven at best. Resolution 9 was submitted to the Resolutions Committee by California pastor Stephen Feinstein. Resolutions are self-explanatory; that is, each of them states what they are about. Nevertheless, Baucham opines with a hint of suspicion: “Many wondered how such a resolution made its way to the Convention.” Easy: Feinstein submitted it the same way all resolutions are submitted. No mystery there; send Jessica Fletcher home. Resolutions submitted by the deadline are considered.[10] That the resolution was rewritten is also not a mystery. Resolutions are often edited, rewritten, and combined with other resolutions.
Then, “[S]everal Southern Baptist entities were awash with SJWs.” False. Such an accusation is among the things Fault Lines fails to establish; it’s a red herring. Even if it was true it would mean nothing at this moment because the Resolutions Committee, Committee on Order of Business, and the parliamentarians work together. Most of these folks aren’t affiliated with SBC entities.
Then, “Resolution 9 almost passed without any debate or discussion from the floor—but not because there was none to be had; there was.” This is either written in ignorance or is simply dishonest. I was there. There was debate. Texas pastor Tom Buck spoke against it, the committee spoke for it. Florida pastor Tom Ascol offered an amendment. He then spoke for the amendment, then the committee responded. Another person spoke against the amendment, then another person spoke for the amendment, then time for discussion expired. This was all normal pattern for debate on resolutions, as can be seen by watching videos of resolutions committee reports through the years.[11]
Everything that happened with Resolution 9 has happened to any number of resolutions in conventions that I have attended. No one is promised an opportunity to speak during debate. The dreaded “move the previous question” has left many a disappointed messenger standing at a mic.
One of the most egregious falsehoods in Fault Lines is the accusation on page 145 that the SBC president, who presides over the convention sessions, purposefully shut down the debate on Resolution 9. Exercising his fiction-writing chops, Baucham writes: “[T]he debate was muted because SBC President J.D. Greear, an outspoken proponent of all things social justice, waited until there were only a few minutes left in the session, then tried to package resolutions 9–13 to be voted on as a block!” Whether Baucham is unclear about the process or is intentionally misleading his readers on this point, he will have to address.
How it works: When discussion time is running short, the Resolutions Committed may (usually in consultation with the parliamentarians) recommend to the messengers that resolutions remaining be considered to be voted on as a bundle. That is, pass or don’t pass all of them in a single vote to save time. In 2019, as any other time bundling is proposed, the chief parliamentarian explained the details about the rules and the rights of the messengers. Including, that at the request of a single messenger, any bundled resolution can be removed from the bundle and considered alone. This process is perfectly normal; there is nothing out-of-bounds. The SBC president has nothing to do with it. Greear did not mute debate or “package” any resolutions. It is not in the president’s power to do so. Any claim to the contrary is false.
Further, to call Greear “an outspoken proponent of all things social justice” is pretty close to slander. Should one believe that Greear, who holds a biblical sexual ethic and who is the first SBC president to speak at the March for Life is an SJW? It’s a falsehood to which not only Baucham but also his publisher should repent.
Another egregious item concerns the Resolutions Committee itself, “A second, and perhaps more deceptive issue is the fact that the Committee on Resolutions had its fingerprints scrubbed from the final document. Because they gutted and rewrote Resolution 9, it still bears the name of the original author, even though it ended up being a grotesque misrepresentation of what he submitted originally.” As before, written in ignorance or simply dishonest.
The way that the resolution was handled was completely in line with procedure, not deception, and the reference to “fingerprints scrubbed” is confusion bordering on bearing false witness.
The submission portal on sbc.net states “The SBC Committee on Resolutions is vested with the authority to combine, title or retitle, and reword submitted resolutions, and to submit resolutions entirely of its own making.” Once resolutions are reported out during the annual meeting, they are proposed by that year’s Resolutions Committee for the messengers to consider. The resolution no longer bears the name of the original author because it belongs to the Committee. Nothing is “scrubbed”; the fingerprints on it belong to the Committee. If the messengers vote to pass a resolution, it then belongs to the Convention. Thus, if the SBC passes a resolution on Corn Stalk Burning and Global Warming, it’s “the SBC passed” not “a resolution from Sue Jones of Bugtussel was passed.”
The committee members’ names were published before the annual meeting (as is normal), and many of them have interacted transparently about the process. Committee member Trevin Wax published a lengthy Twitter thread after the convention. Several months later, the Committee did a Q&A with Baptist Press to address lingering concerns.
While Baucham flings accusations every which way, the author of the original resolution found the final version acceptable though not perfect, was thankful for the convention vote, and publicly questioned the motivations of those who continued railing against it.[12]
I reached out to two members of the 2019 Committee asked whether Baucham had sought their input or clarification about the process. They each said no.
Perhaps, had Baucham been more diligent in his research, he would not find himself hoisted on his own theological petard. He admonishes his readers elsewhere not to depend on a single witness, but to call two or three to establish truth. Yet, his single “witness” to the Resolution 9 section is Tom Ascol’s blog-post of June 15, 2019.
Fault Lines’ section on Resolution 9 is so fraught with mistakes if it was placed at the beginning of the book it should have come with a seismic activity warning. Being toward the back, plenty of warnings have already been registered. Readers should beware.
Defining Justice
You’d think a book filled with references to justice the author could be troubled to propose a clear definition, especially after promising twice to do so. Unlike Tolkien’s eagles, however, the definition doesn’t arrive in the nick of time, or at all.
The closest he comes is on page 232, where he writes:
I have heard a mantra lately that rings hollow in my ears: ‘There can be no reconciliation without justice.’ When I hear that, I want to scream, ‘YES! AND THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS THAT JUSTICE!’ All other justice is proximate and insufficient.
Of course, the death of Christ is where the righteousness/justice of God was revealed against sin, where mercy and truth kissed each other, where the curse of sin succumbed to the power of God. To say “all other justice is proximate and insufficient” is true on that point. No amount of feeding the hungry or giving to the poor or preaching or writing books replaces nor adds to the work of Christ.
But, nowhere does the Bible teach that temporal justice—the reflection of God’s righteousness in society—should not be sought. In fact, it teaches the opposite. When the prophet Micah urged people to do/pursue justice, he wasn’t pointing them to hundreds of years in the future when Jesus would die. In the Minor Prophets God’s people were repeatedly castigated and sometimes fell under God’s judgement for allowing injustice in their society.
Baucham’s lack of definition does not mean there are no substantive definitions of biblical justice. K.A. Ellis of Reformed Theological Seminary writes:
When we pursue justice for righteousness’s sake, we proclaim the kingdom of God on earth, his intentions for the world as he created it to be. Making wrongs right, holding the unjust accountable, seeing to it that the wronged are made whole, whether it’s through state courts or church courts or even in our personal relationships, we have many avenues to proclaim God’s kingdom as he wants it to be.
Biblical justice involves making individuals, communities, and the cosmos whole, by upholding both goodness and impartiality. It stands at the center of true religion, according to James, who says that the kind of “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).[13]
And a short version from the (&) Campaign reads:
Redemptive justice is justice which has its ends in reconciliation, peace, and flourishing for all parties.
There are Christians working from biblical models of justice every day attempting to engage injustice with the gospel of Jesus. In some instances, their efforts engage sociology and/or philosophy as these can reveal things that need to be addressed even if they are insufficient to provide biblical solutions, just as Resolution 9 concluded. Some of these can provide insights that help better present the gospel. I have yet to see an evangelical leader in the North American context who has said, implied, or even gotten close to abandoning the gospel for any totalized sociological construct. Further, it is not necessary to acknowledge Marxism in the background of Critical Theory to accept or reject any of CRT, CT, CSJ, PB&J, or “universal social justice” that doesn’t survive biblical scrutiny. Speaking out against racism, systemic injustice, sentencing inequalities, and police brutality is no more anti-gospel than picketing an abortion clinic, giving money to a pregnancy care center, or taking groceries to a food bank.
Finally, Brothers and Sisters
There is scarcely a page of Fault Lines where legitimate questions of accuracy cannot—yea, should not—be raised. Insufficient scholarship inhabits every aspect of the book. It is choir music for the already convinced. The lack of concise definitions consistently applied allows every reader to fill voids with what they think the author means, accurate or no.
I have no illusion that this review will change minds, though I hope it will serve as a resource for the curious and those still willing to examine both sides of an issue. As one Jesus-following professor wrote me, “The danger in our current climate is the spinning of narratives that are essentially unfalsifiable because objections are interpreted as confirmation.” There is a danger with any popular, beloved author to affirm what is written without sufficient critique. But, Fault Lines is not Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, or the latest Grisham yarn. More is in play than character development and plot devices. It attempts to critique and correct multiple strands of culture, academics, theology, and people in a single 200+ page book. It does not succeed.
fides quaerens intellectum
Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this consider a gift to support my writing through the Tip Jar below the footnotes. Secure transaction via Stripe.
[1]– https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328619281_An_Empirical_Analysis_of_Racial_Differences_in_Police_Use_of_Force. The same study found police are far more likely to exhibit other kinds of violence with non-Whites: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html
[2] Roland Fryer is wrong: There is racial bias in shootings by police, by Justin Feldman. Also see Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing (Knox, Lowe, Mummolo), Resolution of apparent paradoxes in the race-specific frequency of use-of-force by police (Ross, Winterhalder, McElreath), Are Police Killings of Civilians Racially Biased? (Stephanie Bohon), Group Threat and Racial Disparities in Police-Caused Killings, (Ruben A. Ortiz)
[3] See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colin-kaepernick-reveals-specific-police-shooting-led-him-kneel-n1044306
[4]– The full report can be read here. Requires navigation: https://sfdpa.nextrequest.com/requests/20-2
[5]– Eric Reid, “Why Colin Kaepernick and I Decided to Take a Knee.”
[6]– See Doug Blackmon’s Pulitzer-winning Slavery by Another Name.
[7]– See basically any book ever written on lynching.
[8]– See Survival Pending Revolution: The History of the Black Panthers, by Paul Alkebulan
[9] See The Gangsters of Ferguson.
[10]– It doesn’t die in committee, nor is the resolution is really amended by the committee. The committee can decline a properly submitted resolution. If they do, the original submitter can still appeal to the convention to instruct the committee to report it out. This is laid out in Convention Bylaw 20: “Only resolutions recommended by the Committee may be considered by the Convention, except the Convention may, by a 2/3 vote, consider any other resolution properly submitted to the Convention.” The Committee chose to report it out. All resolutions, when they are presented, belong to the committee. Then after they are voted on, if approved, they belong to the convention.
[11] -Time had expired according to the agenda that had been adopted the day before. The Committee on Order of Business had already moved to extend time twice and the messengers had voted in favor. One reason time had run out was because other resolutions, some for which debate was not anticipated, had comments and amendments made to them. Every time that happens, it eats into the allotted time. When debate for this resolution came, there was almost no time left. Still additional time was given for it. Baucham’s claim does not survive scrutiny.
[12]– See video SBC19 Resolution 9 by Stephen Feinstein and this thread from his Twitter.
[13]– Metzger is the Founder and Director of The Institute for Cultural Engagement: New Wine, New Wineskins and Professor of Christian Theology & Theology of Culture at Multnomah University and Seminary.
