Not good news for SBC race relations

[Tom Parker]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy when you write "Following the 1979 meeting, and during all of the years of the controversy, an increasing majority of messengers voted for the candidates nominated by the conservative resurgence." Do you have the the number and the margins for 1979 through 1990, which I believe was the last year the take over cable was opposed. I think you will find the margins greater in 80 through 84 than any of the following 6 years. I rather unthinkingly scraped my collection of SBC Annuals when we left Tampa in 1995.

And after 90 was Jim Henry actually nominated "by the conservative resurgence" in 1994. Many of the moderate folk I knew in Florida at the time bought into his broadening the tent Mantra and voted for him, otherwise I do not think he would have won. And obviously the take over group did not allow him to keep his promise.

[David Flick]

[Tom Parker]

David Flick:

The casualties of the CR continue to this very day. Maybe some day in the future I will discuss this.

I will say this, in the part of the world I live in, the DOM and others who support his goals, have made it very difficult if one has differing goals than them.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy replies "I don't think Henry had an opponent." Selective memory Sandy?
In 94 Henry ran against Rev. Fred Wolfe, pastor of Cottage Hill Baptist Church in Mobile, Ala..
Wolfe had already been named CR candidate when Henry announced that he would allow his name to be placed in contention for the SBC presidency.

And lets look at where the all conservative presidential line has led the SBC:

The Southern Baptist Convention is holding its annual meeting this week in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to the this yearly national gathering of Southern Baptists, Lifeway Research (SBC) released a report showing that baptisms declined again in 2010. This marked the eighth time in a decade that baptisms have declined with the 2010 figure being the lowest number of baptisms since the 1950s.

Lifeway Research also noted that the SBC’s total membership also dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Thom S. Rainer, president and CEO of Lifeway, issued a call for Southern Baptists to “see the urgency of the moment” and receive these numbers “with a broken spirit and a God-given determination to reach people for Christ.”

See SBC membership stats at http://uploadpic.org/v.php?img=FgDma0fCFi Thanks to Aaron Weaver

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

Sandy it was a take over in that the "CR" operatives made it abundantly clear that no one identified as a Moderate or sympathetic to The cooperative Baptist fellowship could be placed in one of those appointive positions. They in fact rejected nominees from from churches with messengers seated at the conventions w/o regard for the nominees personal theology or polity preferences simply because the church had a few members who contributed to CBF.

[Sandy]

It is the perogative of the elected president of the SBC to appoint whom he choses to the committee which selects the commitee on boards and committees. If Southern Baptists determine that a particular president isn't going to appoint "the right people," they have the perogative to elect a president who does.

"Takeover" is a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure which conservative apologist it was, but one of them documented the narrowness and exclusivity of trustee board and committee appointments in the SBC prior to 1979 but I think its Jerry Sutton. About 70 people were identified, including husbands and wives, inlaws, and even children, from about 40 churches who were perpetually on an SBC committee or board from the late 1950's up to 1979. That means people served on six, seven, eight boards and committees, some simultaneously. "Ain't nuttin' wrong wif at!" as the old saying goes, "It's better to pick your friends than to pick your nose." So there was a feeling of entitlement that this narrow core of individuals should always be at the center of SBC leadership, and should be consulted in the event of change. The fact that this narrow, exclusive, privileged little group of SBC prominents were keeping conservatives in particular out of convention leadership showed up on a few occasions at SBC meetings prior to the 1979 shindig. At one point in the mid-60's, W.A. Criswell had been elected president (Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!), and had some trouble getting past the pre-approved list of committee appointments he was handed. So when 1979 rolled around, and the messengers didn't elect the pre-selected candidate, and Adrian Rogers came back with a list of people for his committee that didn't include any of the former prominente, the word "takeover" got pulled out, dusted off and put into use. I've never understood, after having served in the vocational ministry, how a person serving as pastor of a church would have either the time or the resources to travel to meetings all over the place, and conduct denominational business all the time. But some of the pre-1979 SBC leaders were holding down a pastorate, associational and state convention committee positions or officer jobs, and serving as an SBC trustee or committee member.

Ralph Elliott's own words convicted him. His view was never widely accepted in the SBC, not then, not now. Even with moderates in control, I am surprised that he was able to remain on the faculty of a seminary for as long as he did after his views became public knowledge. I would say that he's a bit to the left of where even most moderates are.

The planning of strategy and actions taken by the conservative resurgence were most definitely of a political nature, and in many cases the tactics were controlling and heavy handed. The expectation was that they would encounter sustained resistance from an entrenched system of denominational bureaucrats bent on holding on to their jobs and their influence, and protecting their friends who had made careers out of denominational service. They did. And they planned actions to counter the resistance. But most of what those involved in what I call the "alternative Baptist press" at the time did was simply quote from writings and preaching of those they labelled as "liberals." Not all of them were "liberal" in the classic sense of the word, though there were some who definitely were. It seemed to come as a shock to most moderates that the views expressed by those who were labelled "liberal," and that they supported under the banner of Baptist autonomy, turned out not to be widely accepted by Southern Baptists. They had been preaching and publishing their stuff through the BSSB and teaching it in the seminaries for years. They couldn't grasp that the grass roots Southern Baptists weren't falling in line and feeding on their every word. Starting with Cecil Sherman, who actually denied inerrancy and accepted a much more liberal view of Biblical inspiration and interpretation, the moderate mantra through the whole controversy was "open mouth, insert foot." I often felt like prominent moderates should have been briefed before they said anything, so that their faces would not show such incredulity when they realized that what they had just pontificated wasn't widely accepted and cheered by Southern Baptists. There was one "up front" moderate spokesman who made me cringe every time I saw him on television, and who probably did more to convince Southern Baptists that the conservative resurgence was justified in its efforts, and that was Bill Sherman. Some of the best material the conservative resurgence leaders had to work with was the weekly sermon from Woodmont Baptist Church.

Moderates assured everyone that this was indeed a takeover, and that after things had run their course, eventually the pendulum would swing back and the SBC would again cruse down the path they had intended for it to go thirty two years ago. Not only has that not materialized, but the departure of moderates from the SBC did not even create a blip on the radar screen. The door has been wide open for any and all Southern Baptists who were not happy with the conservative resurgence to hop ship and go in a different direction. The different direction hasn't yet even been able to consolidate and organize into much more than a fellowship of churches that spend most of their time and resources trying to look like they are the new SBC as opposed to the old.

[Ed Pettibone]