by Sandy » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:22 pm
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.