by Sandy » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:41 am
But, in state conventions, associations, and even in individual churches which have affirmed the direction of the SBC, it's been three decades of way more than bare majorities. Sure, the majority of SBC churches don't send messengers to the convention in any given year. If it was just a "bare majority," then it should have been relatively easy for the opposition to gather enough support to put a stop to it, especially if the resurgence really was a takeover. In a denomination organized democratically, a minority can build a coalition to win support for a while, but to sustain it over three decades, no, sorry, that just doesn't happen. And in every state convention but two, the resurgence has been affirmed and supported by more than just bare majorities. The other evidence that this was not a takeover, but simply a redirection, is in the lack of any kind of following of substance that the opposition has been able to gather since. As prone to splits as Baptists are, you would think that if the opposition was substantial and significant, and represented core values that had been usurped and "taken over" by the renegade fundies, then it would seem that there would have been more of them who would have taken a stand for their beliefs, and split away to form a new organization. There was the Alliance, and CBF, but neither of them is anywhere near large enough to qualify as major. They're tiny, ineffectual, sputtering organizations who are now simply trying to keep the budget stream from drying up. There's not been any movement to rise up and "take the SBC back." There's been a little wimpering, and that's about it.
You guys who insist on waah waah waah about a "takeover" are the ones living in la la land.