Toward an SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (II): “But, It is Broke!”

If your experience is anything at all like mine, you have heard the old adage “If if ain’t broke, don’t fix it” used in some pretty amazing justifications of the status quo over the course of your lifetime.  Sadly, whether for the sake of traditionalism or because of fear of the unknown or change, protecting ”business as usual” is much more the exception than the rule with human nature.

And, that is at least as true in most Southern Baptist churches.  Thus, it should not be a huge shock that the pressure to maintain the status quo would also be enormous in the wider workings of the Southern Baptist Convention.  That is why I am very well aware that any reform movement in the SBC is fighting a double-barreled uphill battle.  Let’s talk about that briefly.

To be brutally honest, not only will the Conservative Dominance strongly oppose anything that remotely smells like reform because the current flawed system is their means to maintain their power, even as it was to gain that power in the first place.  However, if you have been to an SBC meeting in recent years, you have probably noticed that, as the overall attendance has grown smaller, the proportion of gray heads has become notably larger.  And, sadly, it’s a simple fact that it is much harder for most older people to face the need for change–even when it is very much needed, much less get on board with the change and welcome it when it takes place.

So, does that mean that the crying need for reform in the SBC should be overlooked or forgotten, given that it is a longshot at best?  Should cynicism win out, given that the deck is pretty much stacked against reform efforts?

If you are feeling that way, I would respectfully request that you ask yourself the following questions, all of which look back at “longshot” examples in history: 1) Generally, where would you and I be spiritually if Martin Luther had not attempted reform in the Roman Catholic Church, making his decision based on the odds of success?  2) Specifically, where would Baptists be spiritually if the Anabaptists had not chosen to risk their very lives for the truth of believer’s baptism, against all odds?  3) Where would you and I be politically and spiritually if those who decided to sign the Declaration of Independence had just decided to shut up and accept the dominant status quo, instead of acting against all odds?  and 4) For those of us here in Texas, where would we be if a small group of Texian patriots had not thought it was worth it to defend the Alamo, against incredibly long odds?

The answer to all four questions is, simply, “We would not be anywhere close to the blessings we possess today.”  But, the corresponding reality is that there was much pain and many setbacks, some worse than others, in the process of all four of those major reform/change situations.  That reality must be also be soberly considered in the current situation.

But, what has brought us to the present situation?  Interestingly, from a historical standpoint, it is because the SBC was ripe for reform in the 1970s and what was undertaken proved to be but a half-measure.

What do I mean by that?  Well, the election of conservative presidents of the SBC eventually produced the total turnover of entity trustees, which resulted in conservative entity heads and, eventually, a guarded overhaul of the Baptist Faith and Message (at least, in comparison to what it is becoming more and more obvious that the Dominance leaders really want in the BFM).  To that extent, “reform” did take place in the SBC.

However, given that the SBC Constitution and Bylaws had been the means to the end of the prior liberal/moderate consensus gaining and manintaining power, should not the new conservative leadership moved quickly to make the kinds of changes that would do away with the massive loopholes that made abuse and corruption so easy to do… and keep doing?  The answer is “Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!”  But, it didn’t happen, and to that extent, the Dominance has proven to be like the Lutheran Church, changing only the most obviously heretical and corrupt aspects of Catholicism, but not touching so much else that was problematic.  Thus, even today, Lutherans remain “Catholic cousins,” much as the structure and approach to power at the top of the SBC remains extremely similar to the pre-1980 situation.  In that sense, there was very little “reform” in comparison to what really needed to be done.

Having noted these things, I think it is fair to say that no reasonable argument can be made that clings to a shallow ”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.  Even the very means through which the Resurgence gained control testified loudly to the fact that the system has been “broke” all these years, even though it is still sputtering along, having long since outlived its effectiveness.  The problem at hand is getting people to admit that requiring that change wait until the system is past saving/salvaging (i.e., beyond reform, to the point of having to almost start over from scratch) is absolutely foolhardy. 

Think about it.  When a person is nominated for high SBC office with the rallying cry “He’s one of us!,” referring to a political allegiance, instead of “He’s a godly man, who will put the glory of Christ first!”, what does that say about our system: if it’s supposed to be spiritual, it’s “broke!” 

What does it say when a group decides that they should steer clear of the Convention floor and use entity trustee action to get their way on doctrinal matters?  It screams that there are massive loopholes in a “broke” system.

What does it say when there is a vast discrepancy between the stated church membership figures in many SBC congregations (and, as a result, the overall SBC membership), yet very few have the courage to speak up for integrity?  It is another very sad piece of evidence that the system is “broke.”

What does it say when beligerent entity heads can arrogantly stonewall the Convention’s stated right to be provided certain kinds of information or can stand on the podium of the SBC meeting and thumb their noses at motions passed by the Convention?  Those are very public indicators that the system is disastrously “broke,” not to mention that some of the most powerful among us view themselves as above the law, not accountable to “follow the rules” like everyone else. 

Bottom line: The system has been very badly broken for a long time and, for the SBC to regain the credibility and integrity that honor the Lord, it must be fixed… before it gets to the point where it may not even be worth fixing.

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”