Lori and I always consider it a most high honor and blessing to represent Evergreen Baptist at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is one thing to call oneself a Southern Baptist simply by affiliation. It is quite another thing to participate personally in the actual yearly decision-making process of the denomination and to be able to report back firsthand what went on at the proceedings. It is also necessary to convey a sense of where the Convention is headed overall so that the “grassroots” constituency is well-informed and prepared for the future.
In that respect, I would say, there is a growing concern that the current leadership of the Convention has amassed too much power and control within the denomination. I believe this concern has been brewing over many years, but has lately stemmed from the developments surrounding the passage of the Great Commission Resurgence Report last year which totally revamped the funding and structural dynamic of the SBC. North American frontier mission work is suffering greatly while virtually all of NAMB resources are being diverted to church planting efforts in the major US cities. This initiative is also including diminishing funding of mutual state missions in areas that have been heavily dependent upon NAMB support, all the while NAMB is asking for more missions giving. This has all taken place as a result of the push by the SBC leadership to get this GCR Report passed and implemented without any prior impact study on what its effects might be before being considered.
At this year’s meeting, there were significant parliamentary challenges to the SBC leadership as well as other remarks and recommendations from the floor, all reflecting deep-seated cares over the power and control the SBC leadership has over proceedings and decisions. Just in the last twelve months, we saw last year’s decision at the SBC annual meeting in Phoenix not to sell the new 2011 NIV translation of the Bible in Lifeway stores because of its gender-neutral status overridden by the trustees of Lifeway, a violation of the expressed desire of the membership of the SBC by virtue of the SBC Constitution. This flagrant dismissal of the will of the SBC constituency is, indeed, a troubling trend that could prove devastating to the Convention in years to come.
Overall this year’s meeting was an interesting experience. Held in New Orleans, Louisiana for the first time in many years, the meeting was an historic one with the messengers present electing by acclamation the first black president of the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. The action confirms a movement that has been at work within the SBC for some time now to make our body the most multi-cultural representation of the Church within evangelical Christianity. For this feat to also reflect the conservative wing of the faith makes the action all the more potent. It was a tremendous blessing, honor and privilege to count myself among the group who raised their ballots as a sign of agreement in electing Dr. Fred Luter, the next president of the SBC.
Other items of business as on the agenda were not so exhilarating. One issue in particular is needful to be shared so that all who read this will be apprised of what is actually going on with regards to denominational matters. First of all, much was written ahead of time as to the presentation of the recommendation by a special committee in reference to the additional name “designator”, “Great Commission Baptists” that could be used, if approved at this year’s meeting, in addition to the legal name, “Southern Baptists”. Those who serve outside the scope of the South believe that the term, “Southern” has both regional limitations and racial overtones that severely hamper the ability to minister and share the Gospel in those locations. Thus, they were asking for the Convention to consider renaming itself, especially as the denomination pursues new courses for the 21st century. However, after reviewing all of the legal ramifications, it was determined that a legal name change was a virtual impossibility, considering all of the problems and possible lawsuits that could arise if such action were taken. Therefore, it was put forth by this committee that the messengers consider adding this designator, “Great Commission Baptists” that churches as well as present SBC entities could use in their literature for promotion and evangelistic purposes.
Rightfully, it was brought up in discussion that churches now have the ability to name themselves whatever they will, using their own designations, without the expressed permission of the Convention because churches are autonomous. Also, many outside the faith have no idea what the term, “Great Commission” means since many are Biblically-illiterate. In addition, though a person may use the term, “Great Commission Baptists” or any other term in their literature, an intelligent receiver of the literature can but “Google” the term itself and find out behind the term stands “Southern Baptists” and the Southern Baptist Convention. In other words, as the saying goes from Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare, “What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. One cannot run away from the fact that the denomination will still be the Southern Baptist Convention and its members, Southern Baptists. Nonetheless, the measure to add the designator, “Great Commission Baptists”, passed.
It is hopeful that the future of the SBC will see greater unity and mutual respect, a lesser desire for power and control in the humble spirit of Jesus along with an increased emphasis on the Biblical ideal and mandate for true discipleship. As we return to the foundation of the Scriptures, sound doctrine and practices, not falling to the distractions that so easily lead away from His path, may we find His blessings upon us once again.
