I don’t know about the authors, but this promoter is in 100% agreement. Like everything we do in Convention, it doesn’t matter “where the rubber meets the road” if it’s not being owned by the churches. Good word.

NAF

Of course, whatever the document says, one can employ it in a more-Baptist or less-Baptist manner. If we should experience a vote in the affirmative in Louisville followed by a chorus of “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah” and then no mention of or consideration of it in our local churches—if we seriously think that our actions at the national convention will change things apart from any change in our local churches—then that would be about as un-Baptist of a thought as we could hold.

And I’m convinced 100% that the authors and promoters of the document will agree with me on that one.

Unless there is something I am missing, I am unaware of a *blog* critique of the GCR on this point. Again, I think this is because the document speaks for itself. Besides, the few blogs that have criticized the GCR have focused on other points, as you well know.

I am aware of private criticism about the GCR Declaration not being “Baptist” enough, but it would be inappropriate for you to “clean their plows” since I assume you weren’t privvy to their plowing.

I am speaking to more than bloggers in my series. As I am sure is the case with your blog, the VAST majority of our readers are not fellow bloggers, but rather are pastors, missionaries, students, engaged laypeople, and fellow denominational servants. The critics of which I speak are found in some of the latter categories, not the “blogger” category.

NAF