by Sandy » Thu Oct 09, 2014 1:46 pm
So far, I can discern that the conservatives were unethical because they organized busses to transport messengers to the convention, they bypassed traditional state Baptist convention-owned newspapers and published their own, and "distorted" the perspective of moderates when it came to their beliefs regarding the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. Well, except for Stephen's theory that the whole inerrancy thing was a cover for the John Bircher takeover of the SBC. Or something along those lines.
Though it hadn't been done on a large scale before, a campaign for SBC President, and organization of churches to send messengers, is neither unethical, nor against the rules. Moderates had plenty of ways to challenge irregularities in the registration of messengers and they never did. There's nothing unethical about an association or church recruiting other churches and their messengers and providing them with a means of inexpensive transportation to the convention. That's a moot point.
The moderates in control of the SBC had difficulty defending their position, or deflecting questions about it because they were on the record in books, commentaries, sermons and classroom lectures, and their position was established. There's nothing unethical about making a comparison, and pointing out the differences in perspectives to the churches and their members.
The moderate leadership of the SBC prior to 1979 had insulated themselves inside a denominational cocoon. They had established a structure, with a bottleneck at the appointment process, which protected its institutional leaders, particularly the Sunday School Board and the seminaries, from scrutiny or close evaluation. The trustee boards were stacked with individuals who were close friends, associates, and in some cases even relatives, of the people leading the institutions, and in fact, they were known to name individuals they wanted on their boards, and usually get what they wanted. With bylaws requiring trustee boards to speak as one voice, and bylaws in place forbidding the convention body to directly instruct a trustee board, they could pretty much do as they pleased and never be called to answer for it. And many of them acted like the agencies and institutions they led were their own personal property. That's where the "takeover" mentality came. The moderates spoke of conservatives as if they were outsiders, with no place in the SBC, and in terms of their own pedigree and prestige, even though the leaders that conservatives chose had a heritage and record of involvement in Southern Baptist life, and participated according to the bylaws. And the bottom line is that when they had a chance to compare the issues, the grass roots decided to replace the leadership and go with the conservative direction. There's nothing unethical involved.
I work in a Christian school that has a governance policy board. They put written policy in place that provides guidance for administrative leadership. I have the ability to discern how to apply the policy, but I cannot change it, violate it, or ignore it. I agreed to the doctrinal statement up front, and it is set in place by the board of elders in the church that operates the school. If that doctrinal statement changed, I would have the option of agreeing with the change, or resigning from my position, and I think, because I know the church elders, they'd let me contribute to the discussion, but not because they were obligated to do so. If I wanted to remain in my position, I would agree to the changes, or at least, agree not to teach against them. If I couldn't do that, then I would resign. The trustee boards changed to represent a more conservative perspective in the SBC than previously. I don't see that it is so far to the right that moderate leadership couldn't have agreed to it, and moved on, but they wouldn't. Fine. But when the will of the denomination was spoken through the thousands upon thousands of messengers who came to conventions over the years, they could have agreed and worked together. I don't see any significant difference between the 1963 BFM and the 2000 BFM on this particular topic. Both are clearly statements that say the Bible is inerrant and infallible. So separation was a matter of choice rather than conviction.