Endless Wars in the Southern Baptist Convention

Next week thousands of messengers from local churches associated with the Southern Baptist Convention will meet in Nashville, TN for our annual meeting. This is predicted to be the largest SBC meeting since the watershed moment in 1985 when the long effort to shift the SBC back to its doctrinal roots was culminated.

The Conservative Resurgence and the News

In 1985 the battle lines were clear. There were leaders within the SBC and professors at our seminaries that did not affirm the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. As with all such debates, there was a mushy middle, too, who did not have particularly strong opinions or didn’t see the issues at the heart of the debate as worth dividing over.

People reading the news would not know there was a difference between arguments from several decades ago and today, even though the distance between the sides are much closer together. Proximity doesn’t mean the issues are insignificant, but it seems that it should temper the tone of the debate if the doctrinal issues are really the issue.

I’m pretty confident that the debate is more about different visions of the nature of the SBC than any doctrinal issue.

Power vs. Cooperation

The biggest problem with the SBC is a fundamental understanding of what the SBC is. Common misunderstandings about the nature of the SBC have created a winner-takes-all perception for complete domination of the SBC power structures.

And that struggle illustrates the root of the problem.

There should be no SBC power structures (or, at least, as small a one as practical).

The SBC is a loose association of doctrinally similar baptistic churches who have agreed to cooperate to fulfill the Great Commission.

Encouraged by the shifts of the Industrial Revolution and the flattening of society due to technology, the SBC has become more centralized in its structure and apparent function over the last century. The SBC has come to look more and more like a denomination.

But the SBC is not a denomination.

What is the SBC?

In purist terms, the SBC exists for two days a year when messengers get together and talk, sing, pray, and vote (probably a bunch of eating in there, too) about how to fulfill the Great Commission.

In reality, based on the need for logistics and the pace of busy work, there has been a necessary growth of the Executive Committee, the entities of the SBC (ERLC, WMU, seminaries, IMB, NAMB, LifeWay), and their ongoing, daily role. Sometimes we (and they) forget it, but the people that fill these positions are not the authorities in the SBC.

At the heart of the SBC’s current woes is a lack of clarity regarding the organizational structure of the SBC. The confusion is somewhat understandable among outsiders who deal with denominations and have little background in the weird history of the SBC. However, similar confusion is even more problematic when it is pervasive in the pews and even fostered by leaders who ought to know better.

Diagnostic Questions

There are some pertinent diagnostic questions that I’ve found clarifying as I’ve wrestled with my own tendency to quarrel.

What does it mean when the President of the SBC (or a member of the SBC Executive Committee) disagrees with me politically?

Absolutely nothing other than that I have a personal disagreement with someone. They may be a social media influencer, but they have not spiritual or temporal authority over me. Because the SBC President has responsibility to appoint personnel to appoint members to the Committee on Committees, which has trickle-down effect on the leanings of those nominated as trustees and appointed as convention staff, the SBC President has the ability to influence the future, but the steering mechanism is slow and complex, so that personal opinions a few shades to the right or left of mine should not be a major cause for concern. (The history of the Conservative Resurgence taught us both the importance of and the limitations of the SBC President’s influence.)

What if a professor at a seminary says something foolish publicly? Why does that individual get to represent the SBC?

If an individual that works for an SBC entity says something foolish publicly, that individual represents themselves and, if speaking in the role of their office, maybe the entity they are employed by. That individual never represents “the SBC,” because the SBC is a collection of loosely affiliated churches that meets for two days each year. The messengers of the SBC elect trustees for the entities who are charged to make sure the seminaries remain true to their mission and calling.

If an individual feels embarrassed that a professor (or other spokesperson) at an SBC entity “misrepresents them,” they should remember and remind others that those individuals do not represent them. The organic linkage between entity employee and church member is long and convoluted. We shouldn’t assume or accept that it is close or direct.

Why doesn’t the SBC fire pastors that are accused of abuse or its cover up?

The simple answer is that the SBC has no ability to hire or fire any pastor. Nor should it. However, if the local congregation fails to adequately deal with a public problem like abuse, then the messengers of other local congregations have the authority and responsibility (and the right to delegate if so agreed upon) to disfellowship a local congregation that has not maintained its public, gospel witness.

To use a biblical analogy, the SBC is like the people of Israel during the time of the judges. The reality is that “everyone does what is right in his own eyes.” This is a feature and not a bug. It comes with blessings and curses. Our hope and prayer should be that the Holy Spirit moves within local congregations and individuals to draw people more in line with clear teachings of Scripture for their life and practice. If they don’t, then the other congregations of the SBC have the responsibility to call them to repentance and expel them from our midst if they refuse to comply. Setting up a credentials committee with the delegated authority to determine whether or not to seat messengers from a particular church or call for investigation into the handling of abuse is a matter of policy that does not fundamentally change our polity.

What is the real heart of the unending street brawl within the SBC?

One of the major issues in the ongoing SBC civil war is that a large portion of the most vocal folks on either side of the battle either think we actually have a king (the defacto judges of the day often see themselves as such) who should have the ability to appoint his own heirs. Among those that don’t think we currently have a king, there people who are clamoring for a king to lead us into battle.

I’m in the camp that believes that having a king will only make the unending struggles within the SBC stronger and more vicious. We should be looking for ways to decrease the significance of our central entities, not consolidate their power, real or perceived.

What is the solution?

Ha! If I had a perfect solution, I would be a much more important person than I am.

My responsibility as a messenger to the SBC from my local congregation is to represent my congregation as well as I can, to vote my conscience on matters theological or practical, and to try to persuade other to emphasize the importance of the local church over the convention entities.

In an ideal world, I would only know the names of the Executive Committee members with whom I am personally related. In a good world, my chief contact with pastors of other churches affiliated with the SBC would be in discussing methods of cooperation to fulfill the SBC. In other words, the task is to decentralize the SBC again and see the committees and entities of the SBC as a means of cooperation rather than a power lever to control.

I can’t make this happen for everyone else, but I can certainly work to change my own perception and the way I talk about the SBC in all venues.