SBC24 Proposed Resolutions

We are live now on the Conversations That Matter podcast. I hope everyone can hear me out there in internet land. We have a good podcast for you today if you are a Southern Baptist, because we're gonna talk about the proposed resolutions that are coming before the Southern Baptist Convention this month that have been edited, I don't know to what extent, but by the Resolutions Committee for the Southern Baptist Convention.

So these are resolutions that were submitted to the Resolutions Committee, which they then edit and vet, and then they submit back to the messenger body. And resolutions are non-binding. Many people emphasize this when a resolution gets passed that they don't like, that this doesn't bind the churches, the churches are autonomous, they don't have to do anything that would signal their own agreement with these resolutions.

But they are good barometers to test where the Southern Baptist Convention is going, and that is the largest still evangelical, well, Christian actually, denomination in the United States. And so it's important to know where they're going.

And every year we have a slew of resolutions, and I've often said this, that there's at least one, at least one, sometimes more than one, usually more than one, social justice type of resolution. Generally, there's at least one focused on racial issues or disparities.

And that's been the case for at least the last decade. So I'm gonna talk about the resolutions that are being proposed. And I'll tell you what, I thought when I just briefly looked at the resolutions, that there was not a, for the first time in a while, they didn't do a racial one.

And then I realized they actually kind of did, but not the way that I was expecting them to approach it necessarily. And so we'll get to that. I haven't actually read all of them. I've read a number of them and skimmed through some of them, but we're gonna read them together.

And I'll give my thoughts. And we have some folks joining us, some Patreons, as well as some other friends, perhaps throughout the podcast, who are gonna join us and give their thoughts and their comments and questions on this, whether through the comment section, if you're on Twitter or X, I should say now, or YouTube or Facebook, you can leave a comment.

Or if you are a Patreon, like I said, you can go to patreon .com. In fact, I will put the link in the info section for those who are Patreons. If you wanna be part of the program, whether through video or audio, you can be if you follow the link that I'm about to put in the chat box here.

And that way you can be part of it and you can talk the way that I'm talking to everyone out there in internet land. So there it is. It should be live now. Just follow that link. If you're a Patreon and wanna be part of the show.

All right, with all that said,.

I need to make one more announcement before we get into the resolutions. And that is, I need to clarify something about the church search. I mentioned this on the podcast two days ago, and I did a TruthScript Tuesday podcast, but I did it in conjunction with streaming on the Normal Conversations That Matter feed, because I wanted everyone to be aware.

We have a church search tool, which means you can go to an area and use our tool and find out if there's any like-minded churches near you, which one of the big things we offer is explicitly anti-woke churches.

We're really looking for that. And I've had a number of people reach out and populate the map that we're still working on, and we'll launch it once we get enough churches to populate it. And just so you know, you can go to info, or you can email info at truthscript .com with the church name, the address, and the website, and that's all we need.

But there's been a little bit of confusion over how do I know my church, or the church that I wanna add fits in with what TruthScript is doing and their statement of faith. And so, yeah, you can go to the statement of faith, go to truthscript .com, scroll to the bottom, about us, statement of faith is right there.

It's 11 points. It's pretty simple. But I've gotten the impression that a few people have wanted to add their church, and their church really hasn't explicitly taken an anti-woke stance. Their church maybe even went woke, a little woke in 2020, or tried to be as neutral as possible.

And I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible. That's probably not a church that's a good candidate for our map. And the reason I say that is because, yes, there were churches that did compromise that later on thought, oh man, we shouldn't have compromised and they publicly repented of it.

The leadership did a 180 and said, we were wrong. Okay, that kind of church, you're a candidate. You fit in with our statement of faith and our point about social justice. But if you are a member of a church that never took a stand, still hasn't really taken much of a stand, that really tries to make sure everyone can get along there, that maybe went woke and then privately said, that was a mistake, but never publicly said it.

You don't go to a church that has the kind of courage we're looking for necessarily. That's not a slam, it's just the reality. That's what we're looking for. So if you were a church that never compromised on this stuff, you're definitely a candidate.

So I just wanted to make that a little more clear. That is what we're looking for. And you can, again, read the statement of faith and just say to yourself, does my church fit this? Maybe talk to your leadership about it.

That's probably a wise idea. Your leadership should know that they're going on a list like that. And if they say, we don't wanna be on that list, then that's a good indication that your church doesn't qualify too.

But again, this is just a tool. It's not joining a denomination. It's just a tool to help you find a good church when you're traveling or moving to an area, or in fact, when we had the Discerning Christian Church Finder app, which was a few years ago, it really actually motivated some people to move.

They found churches on it and they said, I'm gonna move because I wanna be around this church. So that is the potential for a tool like this. Okay, with that said, we will take comments and questions in the chat box or if you're a Patreon member, you can go to that link and you can be part of the show.

I'm gonna go over a few resolutions before we even get to any of that stuff though, just to get the ball rolling here. And like I said, my goal is to help Southern Baptists think through these resolutions.

So this is pretty straightforward. There's a document out there, Baptist Press published it, and I will actually put the link. So if people want to find this, I'll put it in the chat box right now. You can go find this link and follow along if you're listening on audio.

But this is the PDF draft form, IndySBC24 Proposed Resolutions. And the first one is on integrity in SBC leadership. And my goal is, as may sound like it's gonna be a longer podcast, I hope not, but maybe, is to read pretty much everything.

So you get, you know what you're getting into here. So it says, whereas integrity in leadership is consequential to the furtherance of God's mission and the health of the flock of God, whether the authority is over the family, the church, the state, or private institutions.

And whereas scripture teaches that leaders must uphold the highest standards of integrity, live above reproach, serve others, walk in a manner worthy of imitation, set an example in godly speech and doctrine, remain faithful and fear God, be trustworthy, hate a bribe, feed the sheep.

And again, I'm not reading the references, but these are all backed up by scripture. Model humility, be honest, love from a pure heart, and continually practice genuine repentance and sincere faith. And whereas scripture also reminds leaders that they must pay careful attention to themselves because they will give an account to God who will expose the deeds done in darkness and judge more strictly those who lead.

Whereas God also pronounces woes and warnings to those whose leaders, leaders who fail to uphold the highest standard of integrity, destroy and scatter the sheep, set their heart on gain, neglect the hurting, rule with harshness, lead others to stumble and demonstrate false piety.

And whereas, I know this is a long, this is how, they're all like this though, by the way. And whereas Southern Baptists have been blessed with countless leaders who have walked in integrity, up heart in individual churches, local associations, state conventions, national entities, and other ministries to cooperate for the sake of the great commission.

And whereas we celebrate the legacy of faithful leaders who bolster the faith of others, model holiness that others strive to imitate and call others to salvation in Jesus, who is able to keep us from stumbling and present us blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy.

And whereas the legacy of faithful leadership in the SBC has been tarnished by public failure of leadership that have exposed private sin, indifference to abuse, financial impropriety, sexual scandals, deceptive practices and abuse of power.

Now, therefore be it resolved. Now I'm gonna stop there for a moment. This is the format that these resolutions take in every case. They have a whereas section, which has generally scripture and also precedents built into it and just true statements about assessing reality.

Whereas this is the situation. This is what scripture calls us to. This is what we've been doing traditionally. This is the condition, these are the conditions on the ground. And then the resolved section is, this is how in reaction to that we are to live or what we are to do.

Again, non-binding, but this is a direction given to the church and to churches. So what we just read in the whereas section is that there is a problem that is being admitted here. And it's a very vague problem.

It's a problem that is in violation or many problems in violation of certain biblical principles, but there's no names specifically mentioned. There's no actual situation specifically mentioned, which is okay.

But this could have been written by someone who's on the Me Too train. This could have been written by someone who is pro CRT. This could have been written by someone who has concerns about corruption in the SBC or actually takes the opposite position on those two issues I just mentioned.

This really could have been written by anyone because there's a list of villains. There's a villains list for all these competing groups. So this is something that pretty much everyone can get behind.

So the question I have is, does this really do much? The closest I think we get to maybe showing what, like giving some definition to what they might be talking about is this last whereas, where it says the legacy of faithful leadership in the SBC has been tarnished by public failure of leadership that have exposed private sin.

So what is that private sin, right? This could be Me Too stuff. This could be Russell Moore and I don't know, what he's said in private meetings at the ERLC. I mean, it could be a number of things. We don't really know.

Indifference to abuse. Of course, this goes right along with the Me Too stuff. At least I'm not saying, I mean, obviously no one wants abuse, so it doesn't have to, but this is the language they would generally use.

Financial impropriety. This would seem to indicate those who are concerned like the McCraney case about what Nam's doing with cooperative funds, that there might be some financial impropriety there, sexual scandals, deceptive practices, abuse of power.

I mean, that's really as close as we get. So really not much to sink your teeth into there. But then we have the resolve section. And the resolve section says that the messengers of the SBC meeting, this June 11th through 12th coming up, affirm that and thank God for the righteous and godly leaders within the convention, acknowledging the faithful service of those, many in obscurity who are worthy of double honor.

And being further resolved that we call to repentance leaders who have engaged in public or private sin, abuse their power, misuse convention funds. Now we're getting a little specific here. Committed crimes, engaged in deception, cover for the sins of others, resisted God-ordained authority or violated trust.

And be it further resolved that we reject the notion that giftedness, charisma, or influence supersede character and qualification, knowing that the man looks on the outward appearance but the Lord looks on the heart.

And be it further resolved that we reaffirm our 2018 resolution on the holiness and integrity of ministry leaders, which states that leaders are to be examples by their faith in Christ and their lives of ongoing repentance of sin and should be held to high standards of doctrine, speech, and conduct.

That standard being the very character and example of Christ and be it further resolved that we urge leaders to cultivate a sincere dependence on Jesus, imitating him in servanthood, humility, and obedience, and to resist prioritizing results over character.

And be it further resolved that we implore leaders who are in disqualifying sin to examine themselves, call upon the Lord in repentance, and voluntarily remove themselves from their positions in order to pursue reconciliation, knowing that they might be permanently disqualified.

Now I wanna say two things about this, by the way. Real quick, these two last resolutions. First, prioritizing results over character. This is interesting to me because this would strike at the heart of some of the DEI stuff that's been in the Southern Baptist Convention for well over a decade now, not just on the convention level, but also down to the entities and the counting how many people of what ethnicity are on boards and making this a priority, an important thing.

The priority should be character because that's the priority scripture places on leadership. So this would strike at the heart of that, but I don't know if people are self-aware.

I don't know.

Maybe a lot of the more, the more woke you are, the more you think that that actually does reflect character. How willing you are to diversify your boards. The second one here that I just read that we implore leaders who are in disqualifying sin to examine themselves.

I think this is good.

Obviously people should recuse themselves if they don't meet these standards, but at the same time, the SBC seems to have a problem with actually firing people that don't meet these standards. They're reluctant to get rid of them.

They can meet two certain people, that's about it. And so, I would just not want this to stand in for a more biblical process of confrontation and rooting out these people. And I don't think it says that it's a stand in, but I just, knowing how Southern Baptist politics works, I think a lot of Southern Baptists would prefer that people just turn themselves in voluntarily.

And someone who's at the root corrupt isn't going to do that. Anyways, two more. It says, resolve that we entreat Southern Baptist churches to call their leaders to be above reproach, subject those in unrepentant sin to church discipline and remove those who have disqualified themselves, understanding that accountability by the church is a grace from God.

And be it finally resolved that we call on all leaders to cultivate integrity as they pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, and gentleness, fight the good fight of faith, take hold of the eternal life to which you are called and knowing that the tested genuine of your faith, more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire, may be found a result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, I would say this is a good resolution to vote for. I don't see anything jumping out that's a warning, red flag, it's just kind of, it appeals to everyone. It's really not taking, it's not gonna do much in either direction.

It's a general statement, everyone can pretty much get behind. So, on that basis, I would probably give it a C. And C for me is just kind of sailing along, keeping the status quo, not really ruffling many feathers.

I'm gonna go through another resolution. And after that, I am gonna start taking some video comments and calls. So, if you're waiting behind the scenes, just be prepared for that. I'll probably go to you first, Robert, after I go through this resolution, and then we'll go from there and take some more.

So, this one's on defending religious liberty. And I'll have a little bit more to say about this one. I don't know if I wanna read this whole thing because, well, it's two pages, about the same length as the other one, but I wanna do a service for all of you.

And I guess I'm, this is the audio book version of the resolution. So, as you're driving, if you don't have time to read them, I will read the whole thing. So, it says, whereas the Lord Christ Jesus, or Jesus Christ rather, drew a clear distinction between his church and the government of this world, and reserved the judgment between believers and unbelievers for himself alone, the apostle Paul urged Timothy to pray for religious liberty and demonstrated that religious belief is subject to personal persuasion.

And the apostle John revealed each one will be judged according to their works in Revelation 20, 12 through 13. Now, it's interesting. I'm gonna stop there. I'm gonna stop a little more on this one. The apostle Paul urged Timothy to pray for religious liberty.

Ah, I mean, to pray that we would be, live at peace and be unmolested by the king, yes. But that's not an ideological commitment to religious liberty per se. It is for specifically, so Christians can live their lives in peace.

So, this is already language that, I'm not saying it's wrong to pray for religious liberty, but depending on what you mean by that, because that's even a whole question now with what that means. But I think you can pray for that and mean the right thing by it.

But to say that that's what the apostle Paul was urging Timothy, Timothy really would not have had a concept of what religious liberty is. He was concerned with the liberty of Christians to operate and to live a life unmolested by the governing authorities, to have peace.

So, not exactly accurate language. I would say that it's a presentist fallacy perhaps because you're taking language that means something in a modern context and imposing it on an ancient context that would not have known what that meant.

And it just wasn't something that world would have been familiar with. So, anyways, I do digress. That's maybe nitpicky, but worth mentioning. Whereas Baptist in America, and by the way, I should say, I wouldn't vote against it just because of that.

But maybe that's something to be strengthened or cut from the document on the floor. Whereas Baptist in America have consistently championed constitutional protections against the establishment of state religion and for the free exercise of religion, believing the importance of religious liberty necessary made it the first freedom to be articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Now, two things to say here.

First, this is true.

Baptists have been on the forefront, I guess you could say of that, or at least concerned with that. And they've passed resolutions to that effect. If you read the Baptist Faith and Message, they have a whole section on religious liberty.

And what they mean by it though, it really is freedom of conscience if you read it. I actually had a Twitter thread. It wasn't a long thread, but it was maybe two or three tweets in a thread, I wanna say two weeks ago about this.

And I showed how, I think it was in the 1920s. I don't remember what year it was, 28 maybe. The Baptist Faith and Message first introduced this language. But if you look at contemporary resolutions around that time, the Southern Baptists, at the same exact time, they're saying, we want religious freedom.

We want really freedom of conscience, if you read it in context. They're also saying, and we think that we should have Sabbath laws. We think that the government should actually oppose breaking the Sabbath through restrictions, through penalties.

And they said it more than once. And so this would actually violate what many modern Southern Baptists think of as religious liberty. And it's important to, I think, separate those things, that traditionally, this has meant freedom to worship God according to the dictates of conscience.

That's what it's meant. It hasn't meant that there should be no established Christianity of any kind, because they clearly were for Sabbath laws. And if I had more time, it'd be interesting. Maybe someone can look it up if there was anything in SBC resolutions in the past on blasphemy and that kind of thing, because that was pretty baked into American culture, including Baptist culture.

That was just, that went without saying, of course, we should have standards when it comes to entertainment, that the Hays Code wasn't restrictive. And if the government had gotten involved because the Hays Code failed, I don't think Southern Baptists would have thought that's a bad thing.

Public pornography has always been a bad thing, right? Blasphemy has always been a bad thing. So I know at least on the Sabbath issue, they were fine with the government in that sense, it's establishing Christian standards for society while also claiming we're for religious liberty, because that meant freedom of conscience.

Whereas messengers to the meetings of the SBC from its inception in 1845 have adopted numerous resolutions advocating religious liberty and recognizing the true faith cannot be legislated, coerced or inherited, which by the way, every Christian denomination should believe.

Yeah, of course, the true faith, you can have traditions and cultural things, but the true faith only comes, faith comes by what? By hearing and hearing by the word of God, you can't have that coerced or inherited.

Whereas when adopting the Baptist faith and message, I said 28, 1925, Southern Baptists saw a need to emphasize religious liberty by adding article, this is article 18, I guess, or sorry, article, yeah, 18, on religious liberty, subsequently it was article 17 in the 1963 and 2000 editions.

All right, so I guess they got rid of one. I wish I knew which one that was, but thereby affirming the Lordship of Christ, the separation of church and state, and the free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, that the state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.

And whereas through nature and conscience, others have come to recognize that our natural rights and responsibilities derive from our creator and open truth that the founders of the American nation also explicitly recognized.

And whereas Baptists have historically affirmed that nothing in the public square is truly neutral and have promoted active and holistic participation in society, which should reflect biblical values as outlined in article 15 of the Baptist faith and message, the Christian and social order.

And whereas our Christian witnesses better preserved by the separation of church and state and scripture and history have shown the true revival comes through the spirit of God by means of fervent prayer, gospel evangelism, and biblical discipleship, now therefore be it resolved.

Now we'll stop there on the whereas. Another thing to mention that I think they get kind of wrong here. The founders were, they didn't want an established church. That's true on the national or general level.

That's not true on the state level. They were fine with having established churches because there were many established churches on the state level during the time of the adoption of the constitution.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but yes, it's our first freedom in the bill of rights, but what's the first word of the first amendment? Congress. Congress is not supposed to be establishing these things.

And this is the same Congress that during its first session elected to have a chaplain who was Christian, by the way, and has been Christian ever since of some form or variety. That, you know, I don't remember all the other things, but I put a number of them in an article I wrote for American Reformer on the Satan statue, that there were, you had the Northwest ordinance that encouraged biblical education, essentially.

You had a number of things that signaled, we actually believe in some kind of a Christian status quo, even on the general level, but they were okay with established churches on the state level. So you gotta be careful with this thing.

The founders believed, no, the founders' ideas aren't limited to the first amendment and making the first amendment some kind of a universal principle that applies to everything. It was for a specific task.

So that's important, I think, to mention. That's another inaccuracy, I would say, in this whereas section. So, you know, it's not a huge, huge thing, but yeah, I mean, they get a few things wrong there.

And then here's the resolution. So here's where the rubber meets the road. Resolve that the messengers to the SBC meeting boldly affirm that God has endowed every human with religious liberty, for God alone is the Lord of the conscience.

And so, yeah, it depends what you mean by that. Again, I think this needs to be clarified because if you mean by religious liberty that God has given every man a conscience and you cannot impose on, it's impossible really to impose on someone's conscience to make them believe something they choose not to believe.

You can't, you can try. Your heart is to indoctrinate them or to influence them. You can't, like the conscience belongs to them though, and to God. So you can expose them to whatever you want to expose them to their thoughts belong to them.

So that's what you mean, duh, right? Like, but if what you mean by that is that, and I would say also, if you mean that should be respected, okay, sure. But if what you mean by this, that there should be no Christian establishment and by that explicitly Christian laws, like blasphemy laws or Sabbath laws, or just outside the bounds because it's binding someone's conscience somehow, then unfortunately, I think that would be bad.

And that would flow into other things. Like, for example, can you limit pornography? On what basis? I mean, they already said, well, we can have a Christian worldview implemented. Christian moral principles should be established in some kind.

But how do you separate that? Christian moral principles and then Christianity, right? This is the conundrum of a resolution like this. And it doesn't do a good job clarifying it. And I think it probably just leaves the water just as money as it was before, if not making it more money.

It says, and that civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience, therefore into all things, not contrary to the revealed will of God. And it be it for the resolve that we encourage and support robust Christian engagement in the public square including individual Christians who pursue elected or appointed office in order to influence government by living out their Christian worldview while advocating Christian morals with respect for the conscience of all people.

And be it further resolve that reaffirm the 2023 resolution on Christ's sole lordship over every human conscience. And its declaration that we decry any effort which seeks to supplant the sole lordship of Christ over conscience through confusing the separate covenants and responsibilities of the church and state.

And be it for the resolve that we oppose any effort to establish a state religion of any nation including the United States of America. Again, this is muddy too. What does it mean? We would oppose an established church like the Anglican church as Americans, we traditionally have been against that on the general level but an establishment of Christianity as the default norm, no.

So what is this saying? Again, lots of questions. It raises more questions than it really answers or clarifies. We refute the idea that God has commanded any state to establish any religion or any denomination and we reject any government coercion of enforcement of religious belief including blasphemy laws, there you go.

And so what does that mean even? What kind of blasphemy laws? Are we talking about the anti-Semitic laws that Congress was just in the process of passing and many state governments already passed that basically say you cannot blaspheme this protected class of people, this protected class, this nation on the other side of the world or else you could face penalties.

This will inform our hate law process. These are blasphemy laws essentially. We already have blasphemy laws. The question is who is being blasphemed against? Are we going to honor the rights of God which I wish there was a resolution on that.

John Calvin talked about this that the rights of God ought to be honored before the rights of man. That's actually what orders the rights of man. But the concern seems to be, the emphasis is the rights of man as far as the freedom of religious liberty is concerned.

And it seems like the SBC has this idea now that you are in an autonomous bubble, you and your conscience and no one can force you to do anything religious but that's now extended to so you can blaspheme all you want, right?

You can look at pornography all you want, I suppose. I mean, I'm just extending the logic here. You know, why not have public phallic symbols and things like this that are offensive? Why not have that?

I mean, maybe the defense would be, well, that's against the Christian worldview or something. Okay, but how do you separate the Christian worldview from Christianity? I'm probably beating the dead horse but that's my issue with this.

I wouldn't vote for this resolution. Resolve that we oppose efforts to establish state religion. Let's see, we refute the idea that God has commanded any state. I already read this. Resolve that we oppose any effort to use the people and the churches of the SBC to establish Christianity as the state religion of the US and be a finally resolved that we object to any suggestion that our historic God given distinctive or religious liberty should be abandoned in favor of state mandated religion.

And the last question I would ask is who's doing this, right? This is probably a reaction against or an overreaction against what some people consider to be Christian nationalism. I don't really see people advocating though for an established state church like the Church of England or like, maybe there's someone out there but it's certainly not with someone with any influence or with the Lutheran church used to be.

So with that, I'm gonna start taking some calls and then we will get to some of these other resolutions. I'm gonna start with Robert who's been waiting patiently. Hey Robert, how are you doing?

Hello, John, I'm doing good. How are you doing?

Doing very well. Are you a Southern Baptist by chance?

I am not part of the SBC. We are Baptist Calvinistic Dispensational but we are not a part of the SBC.

Okay, so kind of MacArthur-ish.

Yes.

Sure, yeah.

MacArthur would be a good church. It's kind of like the church that I attend.

So very cool.

So what are your thoughts?

I was gonna say that, yeah, I think the second one seems to be certainly a anti-Christian nationalism resolution. It's because they have all the terms of the religious liberty and blasphemy laws being bad and et cetera.

One of the things that as you were reading it through, I thought is why would this resolution, why would the SBC be interested or involved in what other nations do? If there is religious liberty, it would seem like there shouldn't be, if another country wishes to establish a state church type of thing, why would that be a problem for the SBC?

That'd be one question I would wonder on this.

Because they're unique to the United States or I mean, they do have missionaries in other parts of the world, I guess.

Yeah.

So.

But yeah, the SBC is a, from what I've seen from the different conventions and stuff is a US-based entity. So again, if something in Hungary goes on, are they going to oppose blasphemy laws in Hungary or in Romania or someplace else?

That doesn't seem to be within the purview of the SBC.

I see what you're saying. They've had missionaries in parts of the world, whether the Muslim world or Catholic world, or maybe even certain Protestant places where there have been blasphemy laws of some kind or another and they never seem to be that concerned, at least as far as I know with that, but all of a sudden there's a reaction and they don't mention Christian nationalism in the language which I think is interesting, right?

But it does seem like a lot of the buzzwords that are used to categorize Christian nationalism like the blending of ecclesiastical and civil magistrate power and an adoption of a state church, it's in there.

So I think you might be onto something and maybe this is just a reaction to that and, or an overreaction to that and that's what they're getting at. That could be, yeah, good perceptive point. So, yeah, I don't know, did you get a chance?

That's what I got from that.

Cool, cool, yeah. I don't know if you had thoughts on some of the other resolutions. I don't know if you read them, but there's, we're getting to some good ones here.

On that first one, that first one that you read, at one point I felt like they must be talking about that it was wrong to give up the confidentiality, you know, attorney and client confidentiality in that it was people exposing sins of people.

But I'm not sure that that's what it is, but as you were reading through it, I thought that might be something going on there in that resolution. But you're right too, it's so much of it is vague that it's hard to really pin down, you know, what is being actually attacked.

One of the things that I was thinking, and I probably should have mentioned it, is that when your enemy is in power, let's say your enemy has the high ground, they control all the positions in an organization, you probably don't want to hand them a tool.

Like even if it's a tool that you can use against them, right, and maybe I should think about this more and flesh it out, I don't know, I'm still forming this idea in my head, but you probably don't want to give them the higher moral ground to weaponize something, even like this that's general, against you, because that's how that first resolution, that's how it felt to me.

Like it was just so vague and it could really be applied to anyone in the SBC, any side, but the side in power obviously is gonna be the one that wants to probably use it. So I don't know, maybe from that standpoint, it's not the wisest, but it's just vague, that's the main issue I have with it.

But yeah, that's a good point, I didn't really think of that, that waiving of attorney client privilege and the SBC executive committee and what they were accused of, and you're right, it could totally relate to that, that's very possible.

So, but hey, I appreciate the support, Robert, and thank you for weighing in and everything, God bless. All right, well