Yesterday was a very difficult day for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The Executive Committee (EC) met for one of their three yearly meetings, the first meeting since the most recent Annual Meeting of the SBC. The EC had been directed by the messengers of the SBC, the representatives of local congregations empowered to vote on their congregations’ behalf, to fund an investigation on sexual abuse and waive attorney-client privilege so investigation could gain the most information.
What should have been a quick vote to implement the decision of the Messengers of the SBC turned into a protracted and unfortunate debate. The meeting’s difficulties were started by Ronnie Floyd, CEO of the Executive Committee. Floyd stated, “As president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, I encourage the members of the SBC Executive Committee to work with the Sex Abuse Task Force and the independent review firm in every way possible, but within our fiduciary responsibilities as assigned by the messengers.”[1] Floyd believed the waiver of attorney-client privilege would open the SBC to lawsuits and should not be undertaken. Many members of the Executive Committee agreed. When the meeting finally ended, the funding for the investigation was approved, but attorney-client privilege was not waived in contradiction to the vote of the messengers of the Convention.
While this may seem like a story without real meaning to those on the outside, the problem the story illuminates is significant. The Executive Committee has now effectively told the messengers that their votes on this matter are not relevant, and the EC has the power to edit any directives it determines are not helpful for the Convention. The problem is, if the Messengers do not have the power to direct the EC, then the power has shifted from the congregation to the EC. Whether the Messengers were right or not is beside the point. In any traditional understanding of SBC life, the Convention is the servant of the churches. The Convention and its offices—including the EC—followed the directives of the Messengers. What has just happened is a sudden shift away from how the SBC has been governed.
The change, though, is not just a shift in governance, it reflects a theological change. From its inception, the SBC has taught every believer has the right and responsibility to discern the will of God for themselves. Voting democratically is the process of hearing from the gathered believers what they believe God is leading them to do. The SBC has characteristically been loath to allow small boards to direct the whole of the convention because Baptist theology believes power should reside in the churches and their messengers, not in any Convention body. Now, all of that is on the edge of being erased. If the EC can willfully ignore a directive of the Messengers, power has been taken from the messengers and given to a board of 86 people. It is, frankly, stunning.
The question, of course, is why. Why would the EC risk upending SBC policy and theology? There are some possibilities. It could be that the members of the EC are hiding embarrassing information. The last time confidential information was released about the EC, the Greear—Moore correspondence, racism, sexism, bullying of victims, and other embarrassing actions were uncovered. People with large reputations were revealed to be treating others with dishonor. Hidden in the workings of the body there was shameful behavior. So, the EC may have motivation hide.
It is also possible the members of the EC are acting out of a desire for power. The desire to gain power is a natural human instinct. Institutional boards often become centers of power because of little bits of power ceded to them over time. No one thinks the board will become a power center or even wants it to become a power center, but because of deference and time they become authoritarian in nature. The same process is often in play in local Baptist congregations when individuals and committees can control the entire congregation without regard to the will of the members.
It could also be the case that the EC is only doing what it thinks is in the best interest of the Convention. I would like to think so. The problem is, the decision to waive attorney-client privilege was not their decision to make or review. The time to make the argument about attorney-client privilege was before the messengers voted. Once the messengers voted, the role of the EC is to implement the decision not edit it. Rightly or wrongly, the messengers have spoken.
The EC has a significant problem right now. The messengers do not trust it to do an investigation. That is why the EC’s recommendation to have an investigation on sexual abuse produce a private report to them was a non-starter for the at the Annual Meeting. Appearance matters, and the EC’s actions look to be generated from a place of not taking the accusations of sexual abuse seriously and wanting to conceal any potentially embarrassing disclosures.
The EC will meet again on the issue of attorney-client privilege. It would be very good for the SBC if they would comply with the directive of the messengers. If not, a shockingly authoritarian precedent will have been set.
For more information:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/september/southern-baptist-sbc-executive-committee-investigation-priv.html
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2021/09/22/southern-baptist-convention-executive-committee-declines-waive-attorney-client-privilege-sex-abuse/5796168001/
[1] https://baptistnews.com/article/sbc-faces-a-test-of-its-governance-with-tug-of-war-over-sexual-abuse-investigation/
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In