It’s been a year since the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee last met in-person. It was at that meeting that the Executive Committee voted to usurp the authority of the duly elected Pastors’ Conference President by giving him an ultimatum regarding the program. It was also in February 2020 that the EC took on the role of super trustees of the SBC’s ERLC by launching an investigation into the entity. Today the Executive Committee begins its February meeting. Are we in in for more February surprises from the SBC entity that many Southern Baptists believe has gone rogue?
You already know about the report from the ERLC task force. We don’t know what may come of that at this week’s meeting. I’ve used this space to call for its rejection by the full EC. That’s an exceedingly unlikely result. But what will the EC do regarding the report? Simply adopt it? Move to censure Dr. Moore? Pursue the nuclear option of removing the ERLC from the new CP budget proposal? We’ll have to wait and see.
There’s another issue that is sure to be discussed at this week’s meeting. You already know about the lawsuit Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Baylor University recently settled with the Howard E. Riley Foundation. What you may not yet know is that that Executive Committee lawyers and Officers were working behind the scenes to pressure and exert authority over the Board of Trustees at SWBTS in a way that would have benefitted Paige Patterson, Augie Boto, and the rest of the crew involved in taking over the Howard E. Riley Foundation. This really isn’t surprising. EC lawyers worked closely with Boto during his many years on the payroll at the EC, including his time as interim president. The Officers of the EC are already known for attempting to interfere in the affairs of other entities. I guess we should have all seen this coming.
Dave Miller has already written about the situation between Southwestern and the EC here at Voices. You can read more about it in the Biblical Recorder. The comments below by Southwestern President Adam Greenway highlight the problems with the Executive Committee Officer’s attempt to influence SWBTS trustee actions.
These issues are bigger than Southwestern Seminary. They go to the heart of historic Southern Baptist polity that has served us well for nearly 176 years. One of our treasured principles is the primacy and authority of the churches. Governance of Southwestern Seminary, and every other SBC entity, is a shared governance between the messengers duly elected by the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and entity trustees duly elected by those SBC messengers.
The actions of the Officers of the Executive Committee have attempted to alter our cherished polity and create a role for this group itself in this governance, infringing upon a right that is exclusively given to the Convention. This kind of usurpation of authority has been attempted at several points throughout our history and, as our forebears did, we must resist any and every move towards a centralized super board. The Southern Baptist Convention, Southwestern Seminary, and all of our entities belong to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, not a select group of elites gathered in Nashville attempting to assert authority for themselves totally incompatible with our polity.
Beyond the critical principle of Baptist polity at stake in this dispute is the underlying problem of trustees whose improper conduct has now been demonstrated in the recently announced legal settlement of the Harold E. Riley Foundation lawsuit in which the seminary’s position was entirely vindicated. The Executive Committee Officers’ request concerning the suspension of the two trustees would have permitted individuals to participate in deliberations of the board of trustees in matters in which their own conduct and breach of duty put the interests of the institution at risk. The trustees of Southwestern Seminary had both the right and the duty, which they courageously fulfilled, to protect the integrity of the board in light of the central involvement in the now resolved legal matter.
I agree with Dr. Greenway that these issues are bigger than Southwestern Seminary. The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention is out of control. The EC is not an SBC super board. Each entity has its own trustees who were elected by Southern Baptists gathered as messengers to an annual meeting of the SBC. If the trustees aren’t doing their job or they are acting inappropriately, the responsibility of correcting that problem belongs to the messengers, not the EC, and certainly not to a small group of officers of the EC.
These are the things we know will be addressed this week. Are there other surprises that await us? We’ll have to wait and see. Who knows what else may come out of this meeting of the EC. Trust in the EC is low right now for good reason.
The popcorn is ready lets do it.
I’m not sure if this is possible at SBC 21, but I bet others smarter than me about SBC polity are, but I would suggest a motion to vacate the current EC to be voted on in Nashville.
These jokers need to go. The problem children and their enablers.
Boy that would make for :
1) huge work for the nominations committee and just a couple of hours to get it done and absolutely no time for messenger vetting, should they choose to do so, of the new slate.
2) force them to put a board in place that has absolutely no idea what has been going on relating to any number of important issues that those of us who like to bloviate on social media know nothing about.
3) give every member of the current board and/or their chosen representatives the floor to speak a point of personal priviledge (like Bart Barber did to much well deserved fanfare when this happened to him and the officers of essentially the same trustee board (that od SWBTS) also enthralled in this saga) .
4) quite possibly, initiate even more chaos.
1) I suspect the EC will receive the report on the ERLC. There’s no recommendation, and nothing for them to do.
I have to confess that I still don’t understand the SWBTS and Riley Foundation mess. I did read the letters from legal counsel for the Convention and for SWBTS.
It seems to me that there is a disagreement of opinion on some issues. The SWBTS attorney said that the SWBTS Board had the right under its bylaws to “investigate” the 2 trustees. But I read the lawyers for the EC complaining that they couldn’t be “suspended”, not “investigated.”
Because I still really don’t get what all was at stake – other than money, it’s all over my head.
I will say that Guenther & Jordan have been convention counsel for a long time. They have a good reputation.
2) I would not impugn any of the lawyers here based on what’s been provided.
I don’t understand the “sole member” concept fully, but I suspect that change did give the Convention more authority corporately. How much more, I don’t know.
I also believe that in between the meetings of the Convention that the EC is a fiduciary of the Convention’s interests, and would have the authority to protect those interests.
There was a hearing in Texas overseen by the courts and authorities there. I did not follow it. My understanding is that the EC was not involved in that in any way, and let the process play out, but I understand it was settled by agreement. It seems the EC got involved when the Trustees were suspended. Whether the SWBTS can do that is probably governed by the Bylaws.
3) As I read the lawyers’ letters, their is a difference between “investigate” and “suspend”. Maybe that’s the difference. Regardless, once the courts took jurisdiction of the suit in Texas, there was nothing for the EC to do but let that play out.
I don’t have a dog in most of this. There are legal issues that are interesting, but otherwise, I don’t get the big deal.
The direction of the Convention is in play. From what I can tell, it’s the opposite of the CR. The folks upset with direction control the “air war.” For reasons that I can’t figure, the folks expressing concern about CRT and NAMB church plants have done a better job on the internet of raising concerns than the establishment folks have done at putting out the fires. To me, this is surprising because of all the
4) platforms the establishment has. But the establishment, it seems to me, has a better ground game. They have more people wanting to go to the Convention to beat back the Barbarians. This is the opposite of the CR. Back then, the Moderates owned all of the State papers and the Convention apparatus, and they could kill it in the air wars. But the Conservatives were good a meeting in small groups, and developing the ground game.
The difference here that I can’t tell is whether it makes any difference. In the CR, it was clear to me that the Moderates were a small but influential group. Once the lost, the development of the CBF confirmed this. Very few churches left etc.
I have a hard time getting a measure of what is likely to happen here. There may be a large split, but
5) it will take years IMO. How much will split is unknown. I suspect that we are seeing a development of 2 camps, not just in the SBC, but across the evangelical world. I suspect over time these 2 camps will build their own institutions and platforms simply based on affinity. Not based on some huge demonstration of apostasy or reactionary behavior. But just based on emphasis and approach. It will be interesting to watch. I would say sad, but not all separations are sad. It the current trajectory holds, over time, the groups will just focus on their interests, and it may happen naturally. Who gets the SBC assets may really be immaterial. But then again, everyone may stay together. Time will tell.