I thought it interesting that Daniel Akin’s email reflection on the Southern Baptist Convention sounded a lot like what you’ve read on certain blogs (Examples 1 and 2) – as well as this one – regarding the adoption of the Executive Committee’s statement regarding the BFM 2k and contra what you have read on others (Examples: 1,2, and 3).

From Drew Maust’s Blog (HT: Thoughts and Adventures):

Along with my fellow seminary presidents, I believe the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a solid theological confession to guide us. It is not an exhaustive statement, but it is a sufficient statement. It, along with the Abstract of Principles, will continue to give theological direction to Southeastern. This is what our convention reaffirmed on Tuesday evening. Barry McCarty, our chief parliamentarian said to me at the airport following the Convention, there was no understanding that this motion was asking our agencies to do anything different than what we had been doing. It was a reaffirmation, not a re-direction.

[Note: Please read the whole statement for needed context]

Interesting, considering this understanding carries the weight of a seminary president and the Convention parliamentarian. That quote sure seems to affirm Herschel York’s summation, offered on Ben Cole’s SBC Wrap Up post, that all the crowing about the end of doctrinal parameters narrowed only as far as what the BF&M 2k addresses directly really amounts to “a brilliant parliamentary procedure that resulted in sound and fury, signifying . . . [nothing].”