By Editor Bob Terry
The June 13–14 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is likely to draw considerably more participants than recent annual meetings. Part of the reason will be the location of the meeting. But the major impetus will be the political tug-of-war that has developed during the past few months.
This year’s annual meeting will be held in Greensboro, N.C. It marks the first time North Carolina has hosted the convention in 90 years. Southern Baptists last met in the Tar Heel State in 1916 when Asheville was their host. That meeting registered 2,125 messengers, or slightly more than 20 percent of recent registrations for annual conventions. Only once in the last five years has registration topped 10,000, and that was last year in Nashville. In the other years, registration ranged between 7,000 and 9,000.
North Carolina Baptists are expected to register more than 2,000 messengers by themselves for this annual meeting. Baptists of the host state have eagerly anticipated this meeting and are doing all they can to put their best foot forward as they host Southern Baptists from across the nation.
The real drawing card, however, is the emerging political tug-of-war. This convention will feature a real presidential race, something that has not happened in more than a decade. Resolutions have been submitted that challenge recent policies of International Mission Board (IMB) trustees. Public school opponents are again urging Southern Baptists to withdraw support for public education. Even the nation’s immigration policy may find its way to the convention floor.
Of the last five SBC presidents, only current president Bobby Welch faced any opposition, and that was only a token candidate. How close this year’s race will be is unknown, but there is more conversation about who will be the next SBC president than in some time.
The pastors set to be nominated for president are all somewhat of a surprise. It was widely anticipated early on that Georgia pastor Johnny Hunt would be nominated but Hunt changed his mind. Then Arkansas pastor Ronnie Floyd was announced as one being nominated. Floyd, pastor of First Baptist Church, Springdale, Ark., is a former chairman of the SBC Executive Committee.
The second name to become official was Frank Page, pastor of First Baptist Church, Taylors, S.C. Prior to his current pastorate, he served as pastor of churches in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina.
Also expected to be nominated is Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, Okla. He became prominent when the IMB voted to ask the SBC to remove him as an IMB trustee because of his public dissent from policies adopted by the trustees. Although the trustees rescinded their request for his removal, Burleson became a lightning rod for those critical of what has been called the SBC’s “narrowing circle of orthodoxy.”
At press time, there was another pastor considering being nominated. He planned to reach his decision by June 5.
But the contest is more than a race between candidates. One aspect of the race pits traditional SBC leadership against what has been called “young leaders.” That description is simplistic and not entirely accurate. No description is.
This seems to be a contest between those pleased with recent developments in the SBC and those who want a new direction. For example, the “young leaders” pointed out that 19 of Welch’s appointments to the 2006 Committee on Committees previously served or currently serve in another SBC capacity. They called it the “SBC Recycling Program.”
Another recycling effort may come with a proposed resolution calling on Southern Baptists to develop an “exit strategy from the public schools.” The resolution contends that public schools promote teachings and lifestyles not acceptable to Christians. This is the third consecutive year an anti-public school resolution has been introduced and publicized before the annual meeting.
A resolution dealing with dissent within SBC life has also been introduced. It came about because of a recent policy adopted by IMB trustees that prohibits trustees from publicly disagreeing with policies, programs or actions of the IMB or its trustees. The resolution calls silencing principled dissent a “compromise of our cherished Baptist witness” and targets SBC agencies, leaders and people in general.
A motion will also be introduced calling for appointment of an ad hoc committee to investigate “manipulation” and “coercion” by IMB trustees. The motion, which grew out of Burleson’s experience, invokes SBC Bylaw 26B. If invoking this bylaw is approved by messengers, it will require messengers to vote on the motion during the annual meeting rather than refer it to another body.
The Fellowship of Hispanic Baptist Churches meeting immediately prior to the SBC will consider a position paper asking that “forgiveness” be extended to illegal immigrants who have lived productively and peaceably in the United States.
The position articulated by the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) calls for a “guest worker” program that would allow illegal immigrants to work toward permanent residence by fulfilling a list of mandates, such as paying back taxes and learning English.
“Such a program must not involve any type of ‘amnesty’ that would just forgive the illegal entry of people. It would recognize that these people did break the law in order to come here, although most of them have been hard-working, law-abiding residents since their arrival,” ERLC President Richard Land said during a panel discussion on the immigration issue in Washington in April.
Obviously the stage is set for some interesting debate. The interest has prompted some to put old political machines back in action, while others are involved in denominational politics for the first time. No matter the outcome, the tug-of-war going on will probably result in a sizable increase in attendance.
Convention messengers voting for candidates, resolutions and motions during annual meetings may be the only outlet Southern Baptists have for taking an official action. Still it should be remembered that no matter how many messengers actually vote, they are only a small percentage of Southern Baptists.
My predecessor as editor of this publication, Hudson Baggett, was fond of asking, “Which Southern Baptist Convention?” when someone argued that the convention had voted on an issue and that settled it.
More than once, I heard Dr. Baggett explain that he got more letters from readers than from messengers from Alabama registered at the annual meeting, and that those letter writers had not voted. He would explain that as he preached across Alabama, hundreds of people talked to him about issues in Baptist life, and those people had not voted. Dr. Baggett used to urge younger editors not to be intimidated by votes at the SBC annual meeting and not to believe that just because the messengers voted on an issue, it was settled.
What was important, he always explained, was how the people in the pews of Alabama Baptist churches voted. And most of them never attended a convention.
Personally, I hope SBC leaders and messengers remember that most Baptists are more interested in preaching the gospel, doing missions, ministering to hurting people and loving and cooperating with one another than they are with accentuating differences.
The question should not be, “What do the messengers think?” but “What do Baptists in our churches think?” After all, they form the real Southern Baptist Convention.
Share with others: