I would like to clarify a statement that I made in my post of June 12, "I Remember the Alamo." In that article I said, "I believe that it was the second major nail in the coffin (the first being the adoption of the “Peace Committee” Report in 1987) of the kind of SBC that I had known and loved."
The "it" and the "second nail" to which the article referred is the 1988 SBC resolution on the Priesthood of the Believer.
I would like to clarify what I meant by my reference to the Peace Committee report. The document itself was fairly balanced and, had its recommendations been followed, could have provided a way through the SBC controversy that would have allowed the convention to remain fairly unified. The reason that it proved to be a "nail in the coffin" of the SBC that we had known and supported is that the report was adopted, including its recommendations, and then the fundamentalist party in the convention, having seized power, proceeded to ignore those recommendations. It became very clear very quickly that nothing was going to be done about it and that nothing could be done about it.
Where is the integrity in adopting and supporting such an important report whose findings you have no intention of following?