by Sandy » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:21 pm
take·o·ver
[teyk-oh-ver]
noun
1.
the act of seizing, appropriating, or arrogating authority, control, management, etc.
2.
an acquisition or gaining control of a corporation through the purchase or exchange of stock
By definition, what happened to the SBC from 1979 through 1989 was not a takeover. One set of leadership was replaced by another over a ten year period, by clear majority votes that followed the bylaws and written governance documents of the SBC. The officers were nominated from the floor, and elected by messengers whose registration was duly confirmed and approved by the officer of the convention elected to have that responsibility. Those individuals elected nominated the respective committees under their authority and those committees, in turn, nominated individuals for the various committees and boards. The convention, by majority votes, approved their nominations. All of the nominees were members of Southern Baptist churches "in friendly cooperation" with the denomination.
There was nothing in the bylaws to prevent a group of people from putting together information and using it to encourage churches to send their full complement of messengers to the convention, nor providing financial assistance to attend, nor to bypassing some of the quirks and "traditions" that had become unofficial procedures after years of entrenched bureaucracy. The conservatives even nominated trustees and committee members for their "customary" second terms, even though they weren't constitutionally obligated to do so. All they really did was end the rotation of people from board to board, and start appointing individuals from a different segment of the convention's churches. There was no seizure or appropriation, or arrogation of authority. The committees and boards transitioned over a decade, all approved by majority votes as prescribed in the bylaws.