EDITORIAL: SBC: Many changes, very little change
Posted: 6/23/06
EDITORIAL:
SBC: Many changes, very little change
The Southern Baptist Convention held its most significant meeting in years this summer. But not much has changed in the way the SBC relates to Texas Baptists.
To be sure, the 2006 annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., featured many changes:
• Political malfunction. For only the second time since fundamentalists set out to take over the convention in 1979, the presidential candidate hand-picked by the small group of political power brokers did not win. In fact, the brokers split, and both of their candidates lost. Frank Page, a South Carolina pastor backed by upset-minded youngish (“young” is a relative term in the SBC) pastors, defeated Arkansan Ronnie Floyd, endorsed by three seminary presidents, and Tennessean Jerry Sutton, an insider close to the convention’s bureaucratic elite in Nashville.
• Young bucks outflank old bulls. Those youngish pastors powered Page’s candidacy with their blogs—columns disseminated on the Internet. They trumped the SBC’s tightly regulated public relations arm, Baptist Press, which previously controlled information distributed to convention loyalists. The blogs gave them a tool to find each other, communicate their concerns and rally broad support.
![]() |
• No hiding reality. Many Southern Baptists arrived in Greensboro openly acknowledging the SBC’s malaise, if not outright crisis. The International Mission Board is polarized by trustee infighting and dissatisfaction with President Jerry Rankin. The North American Mission Board is embarrassed by former President Bob Reccord’s administrative incompetence. Many fear the actual number of ministry students trained by the seminaries is declining. Baptisms are slumping. Young, progressive pastors are disaffected. Relationships with numerous state conventions are strained. Without so-called “moderates” to battle, SBC fundamentalists seem to be turning on each other, purging semi-charismatics from the mission field, openly discussing the minority status of Calvinism, and questioning the credibility of privileged insiders who have failed to put their money where their mouths have been, as their churches give a pittance to the Cooperative Program while they call for convention loyalty.
• Men underestimate women. For years, the SBC’s fundamentalist leaders have chafed because they can’t control Woman’s Missionary Union. Since 1888, WMU has provided the backbone of the convention’s missions support, educating Baptists about missions and raising multiplied millions of dollars for the mission boards. But WMU is an auxiliary of the convention; the SBC does not choose its governing board, unlike other convention entities. And WMU has refused to play the convention’s fundamentalist-control power game. So, the SBC Executive Committee proposed a recommendation to “extend an invitation” to WMU to become an SBC agency, so the convention could elect WMU trustees—the key to gaining control. Messengers voted that down, handing the Executive Committee an unprecedented defeat.
• “Narrowing” nixed. Led by the bloggers, messengers in Greensboro heard a chorus of protest against “narrowing the parameters of cooperation” in the convention. Issues included restrictions on international missions appointment; “recycling” the same elite insiders and their families on boards, committees and high-profile assignments; and derision felt by convention-loyal Calvinists. Concern for “narrowing” escalated to the surreal realm when Joyce Rogers, widow of SBC fundamentalist firebrand Adrian Rogers, insisted her late husband would not approve the convention’s ever-narrowing trajectory.
With all these changes, you might be tempted to think things have changed in the SBC. Think again. The SBC is no more open to traditional Texas Baptists than it was in 1998, when it welcomed a schismatic state convention with open arms. For example:
• New suit, same cloth. Sure, Page upset the power-brokers’ candidates, and he seems humble and self-effacing. But he emphatically told reporters he does not intend to “undo the conservative resurgence” in the SBC. He also specifically affirmed biblical inerancy, the litmus test of the movement that gained control of the SBC in the 1980s, which came to mean far more politically than it meant theologically. He probably won’t be as autocratic as some SBC presidents and will treat people with more respect. But he’s not inclined to include folks who think the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and not the SBC, is on the right track.
• Define “broad.” The Internet bloggers and young bucks clamored for “broadening” participation in the SBC. About time. And many of them also expressed disdain for the hardball politics played by the older generation of SBC leaders. But, like Page, they strongly affirm the “conservative resurgence,” trumpet inerrancy and call for loyalty to the Cooperative Program as they define it (supporting only state conventions and the SBC, not other Baptist organizations such as the Baptist World Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and WMU). So, “broad” seems to mean young, polite inerrantists who affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message—not necessarily traditional, mainstream Baptists like most Texans.
• Once is not a trend. Page’s victory generated euphoria among bloggers and other supporters. But the SBC machine got beat once before, when Jim Henry won the presidency in 1994. Then it picked up where it left off, and nothing changed. (In fact, Henry’s nominator, Jack Graham, later won the presidency as an insider.) The old guard changed the SBC by winning every election for a decade and demanding unyielding loyalty of every appointee and nominee. The young bucks won’t pull that off if they practice what they preach about toleration. And if they hesitate or give an inch, they’ll get steamrolled.
Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe “toleration” really will become the SBC watchword. Maybe Page will appoint traditional Baptists from the BGCT and the Baptist General Association of Virginia. Maybe the young bloggers will force the old guard to include Baptists who also want to work with their state convention, the BWA and CBF. But that’s not what they’re saying. And we can only take them at their word.
Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard.


