SBC 2021 Annual Meeting Preview
The denomination I am a part of, the Southern Baptist Convention, meets once a year for our annual meeting. The SBC is different from other more hierarchical denominations in that our structure is not top-down but bottom-up. Each church is autonomous, and neither the state conventions nor the national convention has authority over the churches or ministers. What binds us together is our mutual and cooperative support of missions and our adherence to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
For the few of you, like me, who nerd out on the particulars of Robert’s Rules of Order, the SBC annual meeting is a fascinating experience. It is one of the largest deliberative bodies that meet in the USA. Imagine 10,000+ people who are making motions, asking questions of those reporting, and voting. All the decisions that require convention ratification happen on these two days of the annual meeting each year. To understand the SBC annual meeting, it is helpful to first understand that it is a deliberative meeting following all the rules and procedures of such meetings. Over the years, when I have had conversations with those who were frustrated or critical with the way things happen at the annual meeting, I have found that they generally did not appreciate or understand what a deliberative meeting is and how it works. I will speak to this more when I discuss the current controversies, but what often gets the headlines and even the attention of the messengers is the odd, and sometimes embarrassing motions and statements made from the floor by messengers. Even still this testifies to the remarkable event that is the annual meeting. Every messenger has an equal right to make motions and speak to motions. Sometimes these speeches are eloquent, well-reasoned, and on point, other times they are rambling, ill-conceived, and even at times out of order, but they all are part of the working and process of this type of meeting.
One caveat before I begin. I am just a simple Southern Baptist pastor who is trying to faithfully pastor my church and responsibly participate in the cooperative work of Southern Baptist. The majority of my time, energy, and attention are focused on local ministry issues. I am not a regular “platform personality” who is invited to preach at conferences. No one is ever going to suggest my name as a possible candidate for leadership in the convention. I have zero knowledge or access to the inter-workings of the “bigwigs” who lead the Southern Baptist convention or her entities. So, what follows is not inside knowledge. These are just my thoughts and perspectives from my place here in Waycross GA.
This year is a little unusual in that for the first time in 75 years the annual meeting was canceled last year due to COVID-19. As such, elections were not held and some of the issues that had been developing since the 2019 meeting have remained unaddressed. So, there is much that has been waiting to be dealt with since the summer of 2019. We will be electing new leadership, approving some ministry assignment changes, and dealing with other hot-topic issues. Going into the annual meeting, no one can know all that will happen or how things will turn out. Even in the last few days passions have been stirred over leaked letters by a former entity president. There is no doubt that as Southern Baptists gather next week in Nashville we will have much to debate, talk about, and work through. Here are five things that I think will be major issues for us to consider.
1) Presidential Election
There are currently four announced nominees for convention president:
Randy Adams, Northwest Baptist Convention Executive Director/ Treasurer
Ed Litton, pastor of Redemption Church in Saraland, AL.
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Mike Stone, Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Blackshear, GA
Adams, who intended to be nominated for president at the 2020 SBC Annual meeting will be nominated by Russell Fuller, a former professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Litton will be nominated by former SBC president and longtime friend Fred Luter.
Mohler, who intended to be nominated for president at the 2020 SBC Annual meeting, cited a desire to serve as an uniter amid turbulent times as his reason for agreeing to be nominated for president. Mohler will be nominated by H. B. Charles, who pastors Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church in Jacksonville, FL. Mohler released an open letter on June 2 outlining 10 steps he would take if elected.
Stone, who is on the steering council of the Conservative Baptist Network and who is the immediate past chairman of the SBC Executive Committee, will be nominated by Dean Haun, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Morristown, TN.
2) Critical Race Theory
Yes, you read that right. The SBC will most likely be speaking again to CRT. At the 2019 annual meeting, we passed a resolution titled “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.” Among other things, that resolution stated:
RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists will carefully analyze how the information gleaned from these tools are employed to address social dynamics;
I was in the room when the resolution was passed. My honest assessment is that when it was presented most messengers did not know what CRT was. I think it passed in large part because there was a general trust in the preparation and integrity of the Resolutions Committee. However, after messengers went home and learned more about CRT and thought more on the resolution text, I believe many regretted voting for the resolution.
I expect that a resolution will be presented this year that clarifies, updates, or in some other way readdresses the 2019 resolution on CRT. Pastor James Merritt, who is the 2021 chairman of the Resolutions Committee, published an open letter to Southern Baptists requesting prayer and that the outcome of the Committee’s work and the convention’s resolutions would “promote the unity of the spirit in the bond of love.”
3) Cooperation
In the 1980s and 90s, we fought the battle for the Bible and theological conservatism. The convention was rescued from its theological liberal drift. I am deeply thankful for that! Unfortunately, some today are still fighting the battle, and they are turning their weapons on each other.
There may be theological liberals in our ranks - but I have not met any. More often than not, an unfounded accusation is made, a reputation is tarnished, and no effort is made to see if the accusations had any merit. Not long ago, someone sent me links to a blog post that made some very troubling accusations about one of our SBC leaders. If the accusations were true, I would be very concerned and would support taking action to remove them from their position. I read the blog post that referenced specific articles that had been written and posted online. The blog post characterized these articles as articulating a non-biblical position on some very important issues. After I read the blog post, I found the referenced articles online and read them too. To my surprise, the articles were not making an anti-biblical argument, as the blog post had indicated, but just the opposite. They made a very compelling and biblically supported argument, that I could agree with, and I would hope the friend who originally sent me the link to the blog post would agree with as well. I went back to the person who originally sent me the link and asked them if they had read the articles. They had not. They passed on the accusation without any concern for its truth or accuracy.
The two things that Southern Baptists must agree on are cooperation in mission support and affirmation of the BFM 2000. Beyond these two things, we may differ greatly in style and form, but we can still have fellowship together. There are some in the SBC today who are pulling at the edges. Rather than lovingly cooperating in ministry with others who are in theological agreement but culturally or methodologically different they choose instead to elevate cultural and political differences to issues of fellowship.
I have witnessed this in two disturbing ways. The first was a conflating of secular politics with biblical fidelity. During 2016 there was much debate among Christians concerning if a Christian could politically support Donald Trump. The positions on both sides of this debate were well reasoned. Those who supported Trump saw him as a flawed man but a political ally and a much better alternative than the Democratic candidate who was openly hostile to the concerns and issues evangelicals held dear. Those who opposed Trump did so because of his arrogant sexual immorality. Many pointed out that during the presidency of Bill Clinton the SBC spoke prophetically in a 1998 resolution on moral character of public officials that was a rebuke of the President’s sexual immorality. How then, with a clear conscience, could Christians who supported the rebuke of Clinton then excuse the even more egregious behavior of then-candidate Trump?
This was not an easy thing to think through, and there was no consensus among Christians and certainly not among Southern Baptists. Some elevated this issue to an issue of fellowship and accused others who did not agree with them as being theologically liberal. I had my taste of this in 2018 when Vice President Mike Pence was invited to speak at the SBC annual meeting. Many felt it was very inappropriate to have a political speech given in that context. Those who desired the speech repelled the attempts of those who wished to withdraw the invitation. When it came time for the speech, Pence gave his standard stump speech. Now in any other context, I would have been supportive of almost everything he said, but in that context, I thought it was very out of place and inappropriate. I noted that during the speech, the room was mostly full. There were shouts of "four more years" from enthusiastic supporters. But immediately following the speech, more than half the room left before the preacher who followed began his sermon. It was bad optics at best and a shameful use of the convention's time at worst. But what worried me the most during that episode was that those who supported the Vice President giving a political speech at the SBC annual meeting saw those in opposition to it as enemies and theological liberals. I believe that anytime politics is conflated with faith, faith will be corrupted by politics. We must be followers of Christ first, and our politics must come second. The sad truth is that most of those who were being accused of being theological liberals likely were in agreement theologically and politically with their accusers. They simply disagreed with mixing the support of a political leader or party with the gospel work of the convention. If we succumb to the temptation of demanding fidelity to a political leader or party rather than to Jesus and His word the work of the convention will be irreparably harmed and our cooperative missional work will not long endure.
The second way I have seen this is by threatening to withdraw from Southern Baptist if a personally desired outcome is not achieved immediately. It seems more often that this is threatened by those who are relatively new to SBC life and not culturally identified with the historical majority of Southern Baptists (though not always). These new voices among Southern Baptists have been a blessing and brought needed perspective on issues that Southern Baptists have too long ignored. However, it seems that among some of these leaders, there is a tendency to threaten to leave the SBC if their preference or position is not adopted. I think that is shortsighted, uncooperative, and dishonest participation in the deliberative process. Southern Baptists are often slow to change - but that is inherent in our polity and governance. This slowness is not a bad thing. It allows for contemplation, consideration, and confirmation by the majority. Those who demand their way then threaten to leave if they are not accommodated are not helpful participants in Southern Baptist life.
One last thought on cooperation. There has been for a long time a “good-old-boy” system among SBC leadership. That label has a negative connotation, but I do not personally think it is on the whole bad. We tend to trust people we know. Thus, it seems reasonable that those who have the influence to elevate others to positions of leadership in the SBC tend to do so for people they know and trust. The disruption to this is that the SBC is changing demographically and culturally. Many, that are coming into Southern Baptist life, do not look like, talk like, or preach like the Southern Baptists of the 1950s. I fear these cultural differences have led to distrust and false assumptions of theological differences. Whether your pastor wears a three-piece suit or skinny jeans, the only thing that should matter is if he faithfully preaches the word of God. Whether your church meets in a traditional sanctuary or a movie theater, the only thing that should matter is if your congregation is faithful to the word of God.
I think the good-old-boy system is struggling to keep up. It is often seen as something nefarious by those on the outside of leadership. This sense of distrust is only heightened when those in the rarefied air of SBC leadership seem to act in their own interest rather than being good stewards of SBC ministry and resources. Southern Baptists do not elect Popes or Bishops who enjoy the worldly accouterments of ecclesiastical wealth. We elect servants who hold in trust the resources of the convention and who answer to their boards of trustees who in turn answer to the messengers of the convention. Even so, I believe that the majority of those within the leadership structure are endeavoring to be faithful and just. Southern Baptists are struggling to get more culturally diverse voices in the decision-making room. As we do, there will be fits and starts, missteps and mistakes, and we all will likely struggle with mistrust. In these times more than others, we need both to articulate our own fidelity to the word of God and the BFM 2000 and affirm the same in others.
4) Cultural change
It used to be that the reporting that came out of the SBC was local news and Baptist Press. During the conservative resurgence, there were many Baptist papers and periodicals but all of these mainly reached baptists and those interested in baptists. The secular press has historically misunderstood the convention, and their reporting has often been frustrating for Southern Baptists for its inaccuracy and misrepresentation, even if such was unintended. The secular press often reports on annual meeting decisions as if the SBC is a hierarchical church whose decisions have authority on every SBC congregation. Likewise, the secular press often misunderstands the purpose of convention resolutions to speak for the convention, but which do not have legislative power over individual SBC congregations. These are yearly annoyances, but much is different in the present context of social media. Today the “reporters” are not members of the press, secular or religious, but individuals, and often opinions and even misunderstandings are posted as fact, shared extensively, and believed by many.
Add this to the cultural context of the sexual revolution, great political divisions, and national secularization and there are many challenges today that SBC leaders will face that their predecessors did not. The SBC finds itself in a hostile climate that will look for anything it can use to discredit, diminish, or dishonor the people and work of the Southern Baptist Convention. The cultural challenges of our day are great and not for the faint of heart.
5) Controversies
It should not surprise you that a group, that is composed of 47,530 churches and has a membership of over 14.5 million, has disagreements and conflicts to work through. Neither should it be a shock that when over 10,000 messengers meet in a deliberative meeting that not all will be in unanimous agreement. Those unfamiliar with the way Southern Baptists work often perceive the conflicting opinions and disagreements as something unusual. As the annual meeting approaches, there will be news articles and blog posts that proclaim that this year's annual meeting is fraught with conflict and infighting. There is some truth and much sensationalism at play with these headlines. The convention will indeed hear reports on controversial issues - one of which will be Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's report on items illegally removed from the campus by Dr. Patterson. There have been some who have been at odds with Russell Moore for a while, and there is no doubt that his recent resignation is connected to this in some way. Moore recently leaked two letters that contained inflammatory accusations. There will likely be motions brought that are both in opposition and in support of Moore. And this is a presidential election year. The candidates are very different and have expressed desires to lead the convention in significantly different directions. As the messengers meet, debate, and vote on these and other issues, there may be few unanimous votes. There are likely to be passionate debates. There will be some whose arguments are accepted by the messengers and others whose arguments are rejected. But these things should not surprise you. All of this is why we meet. All of this is the point of having a deliberative meeting. We will deliberate and consider opposing motions, amendments, resolutions, and a host of other things. And we, as a deliberative body, will decide which direction we wish the convention to go. To attract attention, headlines will be written that present these things as something unique. However, it is helpful to remember that Southern Baptists have been deliberatively working through such decisions since 1845 and, if the Lord tarries, we will meet again in Anaheim CA in 2022 to do it all over again.
Several years ago a leading pastor in our convention shared some wisdom about the annual meeting that I found very helpful. That year there was a small group that was passionate about a very particular issue. During the time for new motions, a messenger who represented this group came to the microphone and brought a motion that was rather embarrassing. Later that evening, a group of Southern Baptist leaders were responding to audience questions in an auxiliary meeting. Someone in the audience referenced the embarrassing motion that had been brought earlier in the day and asked the panel what should be done about it. There was nervous laughter in the room because most in attendance knew that the motion that was being referenced was what was leading the reporting about the annual meeting and were personally embarrassed to be associated with it.
Rather than giving some strategy of how different groups in the SBC could be outmaneuvered by parliamentary procedure, one of the pastors on the stage asked a question. He asked, “do any of you have people in your churches that bring strange motions in church conferences?” The sounds of the room indicated that the majority did have such people in their churches. The pastor went on to say that if we had people in our churches that brought strange motions in church conference meetings, then it is reasonable to expect that when 10,000+ Southern Baptists gather for an annual meeting, there would likewise be messengers that would bring strange motions here as well. He went on to remind us that the messengers did not support the motion from earlier in the day. Furthermore, we should respond to messengers with which we disagree, with as much kindness, respect, and grace as we show toward those in our own churches with whom we disagree.
One addendum to this. This year is likely to be unique in attendance. In the 1980s, during the height of the conservative resurgence, messenger attendance reached a high of 45,519 (Dallas 1985). In recent years the attendance has been much lower. In election years (every other year), attendance generally is higher (just under 10,000), and in non-election years the attendance drops to around 5,000. Last year was supposed to be an election year but was canceled due to COVID-19. So, this year being an election year coupled with the location of the meeting being in the southeast (Nashville, TN), is likely to have higher attendance. Ronnie Floyd wrote in a recent article that there are already 12,542 preregistered messengers to the 2021 SBC Annual meeting. He went on to say that “this could be one of our largest gatherings since 1995 in Atlanta when we had 20,654 messengers.”
Final thought
There will likely be many other issues that come before the messengers. There may even be something that arises that no one expects. I would encourage you to guard against being stirred up by the headlines or Twitter posts and give your greatest attention and energy to praying for the gospel work of the convention. It was reported in 2020 that the SBC lost 2% of its membership and total baptisms dropped by 4%. These metrics point to a greater demographic reality that our culture and nation are increasingly turning away from the Lord. More than ever before, we must not lose heart, grow weary, or turn away from the gospel work.
