Baptist No More

Baptist No More

An often-recurring discussion in the Southern Baptist Convention has focused on the denomination’s name. From time to time some will make a recommendation to change the name because “Southern” does not seem to fit. In truth, while most of the SBC’s 47,500 congregations are in the south, the denomination has 41 cooperating state conventions and partnerships with Baptists around the world. In thinking about the name, many SBC leaders have adopted the term, “Great Commission Baptists.” While “Great Commission Baptists” may reflect the denomination’s aspirations, it eliminates the wrong word. The problem in the SBC’s name is not the word “Southern.” It is the word “Baptist.”

Southern Baptists are often divided theologically. One can find Baptists who are Calvinists and Arminian. One can find Baptists who are Amillennial and Premillennial. One can find Baptists who are teetotalers and those who are not. Baptists have a common core of beliefs, to be sure, but there have always been disagreements on secondary issues. What has rarely been an issue in Baptist life until recently, however, is governance. Baptists are democratic to the core, believing that each member of the church should have a voice in governance. In keeping with democratic principles, the governance of the SBC was constructed so the Messengers, the representatives of local congregations, have the final authority of the direction of the Convention itself. To believe that has been a hallmark of SBC life, at least until now.

It is an odd thing to watch a body of a denomination quickly repudiate the whole denomination’s theological stance on governance. That, however, is exactly what is unfolding in Nashville, TN. The Executive Committee of the SBC (EC) has, for a second day in a row, refused to do what the messengers of the Convention voted for it to do. The Messengers meeting in this year’s Annual Convention directed the EC to have an investigation and waive-attorney client privilege. For the second day in a row, the EC has declined to follow the Messengers’ directive. Instead, they are pursuing “negotiations” with the Sexual Abuse Task Force and Guidepost Solutions, the firm hired to do the investigation.[1] Bruce Frank, Chairman of the Sexual Abuse Committee Task Force said, “I think we can stand up [and say to SBC messengers], while we didn’t get attorney-client privilege waived, you can believe this report….”[2] While Frank may be able to say with conviction the report generated without the waver of attorney-client privilege is a believable, he cannot say the EC has followed the directive of the Convention.

The problem has now moved from the trustworthiness of the EC to the power of the EC. Does the EC have the power to disregard the vote of the Convention, pursue an investigation in a different way than the messengers voted, and divine somehow the Messengers’ true intent? SBC President Ed Litton remained hopeful the EC would be convinced to follow the directives of the Messengers, but what should rattle SBC churches is that the EC somehow believes it has the right to do otherwise. The EC now believes it gets to decide whether it wants to do what the messengers have directed it to do or not.

If the EC has the power to disregard the Messengers, then the nature of the SBC has fundamentally changed. It is no longer a denomination led by the messengers, it is controlled by the EC. A denomination controlled by a small executive body who can run roughshod over the votes of the people cannot be thought of as being Baptist—at least in the way the SBC has used the term in the past. Why in the world would the EC act in this manner? This is deeply disturbing, and it looks like the EC is hiding behind legalese.

Whether EC is hiding information or not, the question is a question of power. Who has the power in the SBC? Power once resided in the people. Now, it looks like it resides in the EC. If the EC can flip the power structure, “Southern” is not the most misused word in “Southern Baptist Convention.”

[1] https://www.brnow.org/news/ec-again-extends-task-force-negotiations-regarding-investigation/

[2] Ibid