THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE SBC

The Southern Baptist Convention recently held in San Antonio, TX had one significant motion that may affect SBC practice and policy for years to come. The motion was made by Rick Garner, messenger from Liberty Heights Baptist Church in Liberty Heights, Ohio and read “I move that this convention adopts the statement of the Executive Committee issued in February of this year, and included in the Executive ‘s report found in the 2007 Book of Reports, Page 17, which reads ‘The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.’”

For those who have not been closely following convention politics for the last couple of years, some history is needed to fully understand the significance of this motion. As I briefly recap the historical setting I understand that my personal prejudices will color my interpretation of events.  That is the price of being human.

In 1979 the conservative resurgence began in earnest. Some of the young (40’ish) conservative leaders led a movement to redirect the SBC on a more conservative path. Over a period of years a new generation of leaders took control of the convention and the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) statement of 2000 was their theological capstone.

Gradually employees of convention entities were asked to sign the BFM. A number of missionaries and seminary professors resigned rather than sign. Some felt we had adopted a creedal statement and they were opposed to any creed other than the Bible. Others had objections to some part of the statement. However the BFM has now been accepted as the “only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention.” As such most denominational employees are required to sign it as a statement of their beliefs.

Some of the SBC entities recently began requiring agreement to additional theological beliefs or practices that have not been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention. Among these are the International Mission Board (IMB), North American Mission Board (NAMB) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS).

In November of 2005 the Board of Trustees of the IMB voted that future missionaries would not be appointed if they practiced a private prayer language of if they had not been baptized by proper church authority. This set off a firestorm of protest. The board voted to ask the SBC to dismiss one of the protesting trustees and later rescinded that vote because of pressure put on the board from around the SBC.

For the past year and a half resistance to what has been called “a narrowing of the theological parameters” of the convention has been building. Last year the convention surprisingly elected someone who was not backed by the group of leaders that has for thirty years directed the convention. A group of younger leaders who are set on reform backed Frank Page and he was elected on the first ballot.

The fight is not now over theology. Conservativism won the battle with the BFM 2000. Now the battle is over whether or not the BFM is a sufficient guide for our agencies in setting polices and practices. Some of those who now hold the reigns of power at these institutions believe they have responsibility to further define who can serve Southern Baptists through these institutions. Their position is that the BFM is a “sufficient” guide but not the only guide. Most of those who backed the above motion feel that if an agency of the SBC wants to define theologically who can serve in that agency beyond the BFM they must bring the additional theological statements to the SBC for approval. Both sides feel that theirs is a correct interpretation of the motion.

I am sure that next year someone will seek to clarify the intent of the motion. The new motion will probably be to require the agencies of the SBC to restrict their theological requirements for service to the BFM unless otherwise pre-approved by the convention. It will probably require all SBC agencies to bring to the convention for approval all such statements already in use.

If I may prophesy a little more, the battle will continue at least for a while. Those who have recently controlled the direction of the convention insisted that all SBC agencies be solely owned by the convention. This helped them maintain control over the agencies. They are now arguing that the trustees independently operate the agencies (which is true). I’m sure the reformers will argue that the agencies are solely owned by the SBC (which is true) and therefore the SBC can instruct them to change their policies.

I believe the outcome will be that those who led the conservative resurgence and are now fighting to hold on to their influence are going to lose. A new group of younger leaders are getting ready to take over the reigns of leadership. They will be conservative but more inclusive. They will not insist on complete theological agreement in order to work with someone for the evangelization of the lost.

The ramifications of such a change in leadership are many and significant. It will affect our missions programs and our seminaries as well as most of our other agencies. What do you think?

Advertisement