The Conservative Resurgence, Convention Bureaucracy, and the Renewal of Southern Baptist Churches
In commenting on the SBC Controversy, Timothy George once quipped that the replacement of one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy does not a reformation make. Others have echoed George's sentiment, most noticeably Nashville pastor and conservative historian Jerry Sutton. I used to as well,but lately I have wandered a bit from my earlier interpretation of the Conservative Resurgence on this particular point. It is not often that I disagree with Timothy George, and on this issue I want to affirm his general sentiment but cast the matter a bit differently. The replacement of one bureaucracy with another is exactly what the Conservative Resurgence was intended to accomplish. But it does not a reformation make. Which is one reason we find ourselves at something of a crossroads as a convention.
When we talk about the Conservative Resurgence, especially those of us who are post-Controversy conservatives, we sometimes claim that our convention agencies and board have been fixed, but our churches still need renewal. Or, to quote one megachurch pastor who spoke at Southeastern's chapel a few years back, "the battle for the inerrancy of Scripture has been won, but the battle for the sufficiency of Scripture has just begun." I think what he means is that the bureaucracy has been rescued, but the churches are still in need of reform. And I agree with him 100%. But first we need to decide just what exactly the Controversy was really all about.
First, we need to recognize that the Conservative Resurgence was never about reforming the churches of the SBC. Far from it. The Conservative Resurgence was about a small group of pastors and others who believed that their churches were already in pretty good shape. Their pulpits were occupied by inerrantists. Their congregations were evangelistic. Their cultural convictions were conservative. And these men were convinced that the vast majority of SBC churches were more like them than they were like the progressives who taught at the seminaries and served as agency heads. So they convinced other conservatives, most of whom were connected with conservative churches, to go to the SBC and vote for presidential candidates who would undermine the progressive bureaucracy that had dominated convention leadership for the better part of half a century. The Resurgence was not about reforming SBC churches, but rather was about folks from conservative churches replacing progressive convention leadership so that the churches would not need renewal at some future date. They obviously succeeded, at least in the immediate goal of changing the character of convention leadership.
Second, this means that the Conservative Resurgence was precisely about replacing one bureacracy with another. It was not about renewing churches, but making sure that theological conservatives were teaching future ministers, training future missionaries, administering Cooperative Program funds, and accurately representing the moral convictions of most Southern Baptists in the public square. The Resurgence was not revival, and it was not intended to be. The resurgence was bureaucratic restructuring.
Third, it is good that the Conservative Resurgence was not about reforming churches. You see, if the Resurgence was about church renewal, then it would have represented an abdication of historic Baptist polity. We are not a "top-down" denomination. The highest spiritual authority on earth is a local church that is self-consciously submitting itself to the lordship and leadership of Christ. For the Resurgence to change churches for good or ill would have meant taking the "Baptist" out of Southern Baptists. The Resurgence was the churches sticking it to the man.
The Conservative Resurgence was a resounding success because it effectively replaced one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy. But Dr. George is right that this leadership overhaul does not a reformation make. At very best, the Conservative Resurgence created an atmosphere where we can begin to ask some hard questions about what it is going to take to see spiritual renewal among the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Which goes a long way toward explaining why the SBC is currently embroiled in so much controversy among theological conservatives.
Notice the things that Southern Baptists are not fighting about. We are not fighting about the historicity of some biblical miracles. We are not fighting about the need for non-Christians to consciously place their faith in Christ in order to be saved. We are not fighting about the ordination of homosexuals. We are not fighting about whether or not God knows all future events. Unfortunately, progressive Baptists are not fighting about all of these issues either. But for different reasons. Which is why we needed a Conservative Resurgence.
Now think about the stuff we are fighting about. We fight about baptism. We fight about the Lord's Supper. We fight about miraculous gifts. We fight about church discpline. We fight about elders. We fight about Calvinism. We fight about worship styles. Most of those things are not issues that progressives even care about, let alone fight about. They are too busy debating whether or not they should allow unrepentant homosexuals to join their churches and whether "those who have never heard" will be saved.
So, back to the part about renewing our churches. One of the problems in the SBC is that the churches felt that it was the bureaucracy that needed renewal, not the majority of Baptist congregations. And let me say loud and clear that if the choice is between even the most problematic of conservative churches and the pre-1988 faculty of Southeastern Seminary, I'm with the First Baptist Church of Carnal every time. But it is definitely a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I would much rather their be no evils in the equation.
The first thing We need to do is admit that many of our churches are in need of renewal. Maybe even most of our churches. We have confused the gospel with responses to the gospel. We have replaced evangelism with salesmanship and gimmicks. We have cheapened worship by making it a matter of preference. We have traded a robust Baptist theology for a lowest-common-denominator commitment to inerrancy and immersion. Well, sometimes immersion. We have rejected prophets in favor of pretty-boys, we have exchanged expositors for life coaches, we have confused pastoral care with syrupy self-help. We are a mess, and I find it highly unlikely that the solution to our problems will be found in glitzy programs, catchy slogans, or even more baptisms, especially if so many of the latter continue to be preschoolers and recovering Methodists.
Ironically, many of those issues we bicker about are intended to offer the hope of renewal, whether it is practicing miraculous gifts, embracing Reformed soteriology, rediscovering our Baptist (or for some, Anabaptist) roots, or preferring a particular style of worship. And maybe some of these things can contribute to the renewing of Southern Baptist churches. You never know.
This much I do know–the SBC, by which I mean the churches of the SBC, will not experience authentic renewal until we are willing to confess that we need renewal. The first step in that process is admitting that the Conservative Resurgence is over. It was over by the mid 1990's. But the Resurgence was only the first step, the initial impetus to get Southern Baptists to the place we now find ourselves: a convention of conservative local churches wrestling with the implications of the gospel that is the central story line of our inerrant Bibles. It is my prayer that this wrestling will result in genuine spiritual renewal among the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Because the replacement of one bureaucracy with another bureaucracy does not a reformation make.
Â
I think it is interesting that there is only one account (of which I am aware) that even uses the term "reformation" in describing what has taken place in the SBC over the last 30 years. Of course, Jerry Sutton used it as part of the title of his book The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (B&H, 2000). I believe most others have stayed away from the term "reformation."
I believe staying away from the term is a good idea. A reformation tends to imply a restructuring or even dismantling in order to rebuild (specifically the structure). In the case of the Protestant Reformation, an entire new group of churches were created with their own creeeds and confessions. However, little work was done along those lines in th eSBC. Yes, the Sunday School Board (now Lifeway), the Foreign Mission Board (now IMB), the Home Mission Board (now NAMB), and the Brotherhood Commission (now part of NAMB) were restructured and/or overauled, but I believe those changes probably would have come with time anyway.
Thus, the events of the last 30 years were not an attempt at Baptist reformation more than an attempt to bring new leadership to the organization that already existed. Therefore, Timothy George is correct in a sense that replacing one bureaucracy with another does not make a reformation. However, were we looking for a "reformation" in the first place or just a change of leadership (hence the term "conservative resurgence)?
Evan
That's a great question. From what I've read and heard about the Resurgence, it seems to me that the Resurgents were interested in a change of leadership first and foremost.
However, the Resurgents' children probably desire more of a reformation.
Nathan, what's that history quote about sons of leaders/revolutionaries, or something like that? Maybe there is none and my brain is still on the beach.
Part of what I am driving at is that perhaps we expect too much of the Conservative Resurgence sometimes. I think it did accomplish what it intended, and it helped solve some very real problems. The problems we have now, at least in many cases, are totally unrelated. Hence, a new solution is needed. That's why I made the somewhat provocative statement that the Conservative Resurgence is over, defined as I did above and not as SBC conservatism in general. What we need now is renewal, which can only take place in local churches and is officially unconnected (though not necessarily totally unrelated) to what happens in the convention's agencies.
Evan, I agree 100% about the term "reformation." It was not a reformation–it was a revolt. Al Mohler has often quoted John Shelton Reed as calling it a "pitchfork rebellion" where the common man (mostly conservatives) took up arms against the gentry (mostly progressives). I think he is on to something.
Charlie, I don't know the quote you are referencing. Sorry.
I have been serving in the Northwest for about 30 years. That means two things- I am no longer a young leader!; and I was pretty naive about the conservative resurgence till 1993 when I was given the privilge of serving on the board at Southern Seminary. I served two full terms and received an education in convention history and politics.
One important lesson I learned is this: The churches desperately need renewal. They were not going to be prepared for renewal by the pastors our seminaries were training- even through the 1980's (I graduated from Golden Gate in 1987- sorely lacking in theology, philosophy and spiritual depth).
One other issue is of significant concern- still. The condition of our state conventions is appalling in most cases. Our leaders here in the NWBC have been more interested in what works, in methodology than in the message.
In the Northwest most church members relate to the state/regional convention rather than the national. Distance from annual SBC meetings makes it nigh impossible for most church folks- and most pastors- to attend the national meeting.
I am quite concerned for the condition of our state leadership- here in the NW as well as the rest of the convention. While I agree that replacing a bureaucracy does not a reformation make, if we as pastors and leaders do not make some kind of effort to hold our state leaders to a different standard we may yet lose any gains we have made.
OregonPastor, welcome to SBC Witness and well said. First, as a former student at SBTS (and many of our contributors are current students), let me say thank you for your service to the school and the convention as a trustee.
I agree 100% about the state conventions. My comments about the Conservative Resurgence were in reference to the national convention. There is still much work to be done in several state conventions, including my own North Carolina. My fellow contributors from Kentucky and Texas could say the same thing. Here's the thing–because state conventions are (rightly) autonomous from Nashville, there is a very real sense in which "what happens in Nashville stays in Nashville." That's not to say that what happens in the national convention does not affect the states (it obviously does). But the SBC influences state conventions only insofar as the state conventions allow it to do so.
What is needed is a number of smaller "conservative resurgences" in the state conventions. In some states this has already happened (like Georgia). In some cases, it even happened simultaneous with THE Conservative Resurgence in the national convention. But conservatives in individual state conventions have to be willing to uproot progressive bureaucracies and replace them with those that will be committed to evangelical, Southern Baptist theology. And of course we need to make sure that we handle things in a Christlike manner, which unfortunately has not always happened.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.Â