The 2024 SBC Annual Meeting<\\/h4>\\n Even for those who are members of a Southern Baptist Church, the machinations of the Southern Baptist Convention can be a bit bewildering. At the close of the SBC Annual Meeting, it is helpful to summarize what the SBC did in Indianapolis this week. As always, there were controversies and oddities. This is the SBC, after all. Controversies included women pastors, IVF, and the Nicene Creed.<\\/p>\\n \"\" Church Pews within a Church, containing cushions, Hymn book and Bible<\\/figcaption><\\/figure>\\nIVF<\\/h4>\\n In a very controversial move, the Messengers\[1\]<\\/a> voted on a resolution opposed to the technology. First, it is helpful to understand what a SBC resolution does: nothing. It does nothing. A resolution is simply the sentiment of the Messengers on that particular day. A resolution has no power over the SBC, its agencies, or its institutions. No resolution is binding on the member churches of the SBC or their clergy. Resolutions are a giant nothing burger.<\\/p>\\n In reading press accounts, it becomes obvious that the press, even the religious press, does not understand how Baptist governance works, else they would treat it for what it is.<\\/p>\\n Now taking up the topic of IVF might have been a surprise, but how the SBC would come out on IVF should surprise no one. The SBC has long believed that life begins at conception. If correct, then IVF often destroys life through \\u201cselective reduction\\u201d\[2\]<\\/a> and freezes viable embryos for indefinite periods. Often these frozen embryos will be destroyed as well. No one should be surprised that the SBC is opposed to IVF.<\\/p>\\n What many critics miss is that the SBC is not making a religious argument here exactly. It is making a scientific argument. Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward <\\/em>argues that opposing IVF is an example of how far-right political groups oppose \\u201cevidence-based\\u201d medical therapies. She is precisely wrong. The question is, \\u201cwhen does life begin,\\u201d or \\u201cwhen does a baby become a person?\\u201d These are scientific questions.<\\/p>\\n \\u00a0<\\/p>\\n \\u00a0<\\/p>\\n \\u00a0<\\/p>\\n " Here\\u2019s what you need to know to understand that SBC resolution opposing IVF<\\/a><\\/p><\\/blockquote>\\n "

{"id":1299,"date":"2024-06-13T11:55:06","date_gmt":"2024-06-13T15:55:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/laynewallace\/?p=1299"},"modified":"2024-06-13T11:55:06","modified_gmt":"2024-06-13T15:55:06","slug":"ivf-women-pastors-nicene-creed-and-the-sbc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/laynewallace\/2024\/06\/ivf-women-pastors-nicene-creed-and-the-sbc\/","title":{"rendered":"IVF, Women Pastors, Nicene Creed, and the SBC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The 2024 SBC Annual Meeting<\/h4>\n Even for those who are members of a Southern Baptist Church, the machinations of the Southern Baptist Convention can be a bit bewildering. At the close of the SBC Annual Meeting, it is helpful to summarize what the SBC did in Indianapolis this week. As always, there were controversies and oddities. This is the SBC, after all. Controversies included women pastors, IVF, and the Nicene Creed.<\/p>\n Church Pews within a Church, containing cushions, Hymn book and Bible<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIVF<\/h4>\n In a very controversial move, the Messengers[1]<\/a> voted on a resolution opposed to the technology. First, it is helpful to understand what a SBC resolution does: nothing. It does nothing. A resolution is simply the sentiment of the Messengers on that particular day. A resolution has no power over the SBC, its agencies, or its institutions. No resolution is binding on the member churches of the SBC or their clergy. Resolutions are a giant nothing burger.<\/p>\n In reading press accounts, it becomes obvious that the press, even the religious press, does not understand how Baptist governance works, else they would treat it for what it is.<\/p>\n Now taking up the topic of IVF might have been a surprise, but how the SBC would come out on IVF should surprise no one. The SBC has long believed that life begins at conception. If correct, then IVF often destroys life through \u201cselective reduction\u201d[2]<\/a> and freezes viable embryos for indefinite periods. Often these frozen embryos will be destroyed as well. No one should be surprised that the SBC is opposed to IVF.<\/p>\n What many critics miss is that the SBC is not making a religious argument here exactly. It is making a scientific argument. Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward <\/em>argues that opposing IVF is an example of how far-right political groups oppose \u201cevidence-based\u201d medical therapies. She is precisely wrong. The question is, \u201cwhen does life begin,\u201d or \u201cwhen does a baby become a person?\u201d These are scientific questions.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n " Here\u2019s what you need to know to understand that SBC resolution opposing IVF<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n "