by Sandy » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:51 pm
If you will re-read my post again, Gene, you will see that I pointed out Criswell, Pressler, Patterson, and those allied with them, stepped out of bounds and used denominational political tactics to gain control of the SBC. But the way had already been paved by many of those who were already in power. There were individuals in that pre-1979 SBC leadership who had manipulated the denominational structure to their advantage. Many of them had relatives and in-laws on the boards of trustees that employed them. The committees which made appointments were narrow, the presidents appointed lists of individuals committed to appointing the same old names and faces, recycling them from board to board, committee to committee, and making sure that the trustees would support the individuals they wanted in there, kept raising the salaries and benefits, and developed a hard handed bureacracy to protect the personal kingdoms they had built. They did this all with sweet smiles and nice, genteel Southern accents toward those in the pews who thought they were funding "missions." Even though a lot of evidence had mounted, pointing to things being taught in seminaries that were contrary to what the vast majority of the people in the churches believed, and wanted taught in their name, protecting their friends and their friends' salaries was what they were doing. Along came the conservative resurgence, and their tremendous popularity, which resulted in legitimate votes that turned out the former leadership quickly and cleanly. It is unfortunate that they fell into the same nepotism and influence peddling that their predecesors had made part of being SBC leadership. The difference this time around is that the leadership more closely represents the doctrinal and theological beliefs of the people in the pews.
I think Frank Page's leadership on the executive board, and some other changes that have come about in recent years, are an indication that the SBC is moving toward pushing entrenched, entitled leaders out the door in favor of those who are more committed to missions, and less inclined to play politics. But the new leadership will reflect the conservative theology that is overwhelmingly shared by the vast majority of churches and church members in the SBC.