Several years ago, I laid out seven considerations for Southern Baptists in the days ahead – thoughts about who we are, where we’ve been, and what we are becoming as a Convention of churches. Many of those considerations are still relevant for our current discussions, especially the relationship between partnering churches and adherence to The Baptist Faith and Message.
Two competing impulses
As I see it, under the surface of today’s headline-grabbing debates and proposals are two competing impulses about what it means to be Southern Baptist. The first impulse is driven by a structure that is decidedly Conventional, not traditionally denominational. We are bottom-up (autonomous churches, local associations, state conventions, a national convention), and cooperation is the result of a magnetic pull toward the center of missionary partnership. We are not structured in a hierarchical way, as most denominations are.
The second impulse is driven by a statement of faith that is decidedly conservative and complementarian. The 2000 revision of The Baptist Faith and Message ruled out open theism, made clear a biblical view of marriage and sexuality and reflected the consensus of Southern Baptists on complementarianism in church leadership. Baptists have long appealed to the importance of confessions of faith, and in recent decades, Southern Baptists have trended toward a more confessional identity, first seeing our statement of faith as binding on our entities, and now (increasingly) binding on cooperating churches.
These two impulses sometimes come into conflict regarding the wisest course of action as Southern Baptists.
The novelty of removing churches
In the past decade, there have been debates over what it means to be a church “in friendly cooperation,” and what “dealbreakers” would sever that relationship. These discussions have been confusing at times and the processes contested in part because we are in uncharted territory; the debate itself reflects a development in Southern Baptist self-understanding.
It may surprise some to discover that the Convention navigated through more than a decade of the Conservative Resurgence without removing a single church. Although the mechanism for unseating messengers was available to the Convention (and sometimes attempted or threatened), it wasn’t something that Southern Baptists sought to do. Out of a sense of fairness, Conservative Resurgence leaders were reluctant to move the goalposts for friendly cooperation in a way that would suddenly exclude churches that had invested in Convention causes for decades, even when they believed those churches to be in serious error. The preferable solution to problematic churches was not to remove them from fellowship, but to reclaim them – to win them back.
Likewise, at the time the BF&M 2000 was adopted, there were a few hundred churches in the SBC with women serving as senior pastors. These churches were not removed (in part, because adherence to the BF&M was not yet seen as necessary for cooperation, as I will show below), but over time, most of them have since self-selected out of the SBC. Many joined the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. But others were dually aligned for a time, and some have been slowly reclaimed by the SBC alone.
It wasn’t until 19921 that the Convention first used the “nuclear option” of removing a church, and the Convention didn’t do so again until 2009, grounding the latter decision in a Constitutional requirement added in 1994, not The Baptist Faith and Message. This is why I say it is a novelty in Southern Baptist life for churches to be regularly recommended for removal, which is one reason why there are so many debates over when to do so, the best way to go about it, and over what issue.
Serving as part of the Cooperation Group a couple years ago gave me the opportunity to do some digging into the history of how our Convention has defined its standards for cooperation. This history provides context for current debates, and helps explain why Southern Baptists who may agree on a particular principle or theological doctrine still disagree as to the best way forward.
The evolution of national SBC cooperation standards
1845: Give money, get a vote.
When the SBC began, the Convention included all the autonomous Baptist churches that agreed to contribute funds for missionaries. Messengers could be seated from any contributing body—a church, association, state convention, or even as individuals! Basically, if you gave money, you got a vote. Doctrinal alignment was assumed. Why else would someone be interested in funding the mission?
1858: Our seminary needs doctrinal guardrails.
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted the Abstract of Principles as a confessional statement for its faculty. This had no bearing on the SBC overall, but it gave shape to the core commitment of our first seminary – that all professors will teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, this statement.
1925: The Convention agrees on a general consensus statement.
Under the leadership of E.Y. Mullins, the Convention adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as “a consensus of opinion… for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others.” The preamble stressed the point that the statement was not complete, final, or infallible, and was open to revision in the future, and that “it is only a guide in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.” Affirmation of the BF&M was not required to be a cooperating church.
1931: Messengers must be sent by the churches.
This was the year the Convention clarified that only cooperating Baptist churches can send messengers. It was no longer enough to be a representative merely from a contributing mission agency or association or to be an individual donor. The messenger had to be sent by a church.
1948: A cooperating church must sympathize with the Convention’s aims.
The Convention added to the Constitution the statement: “For each regular Baptist church, which is in friendly cooperation with this Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work…” In other words, collegiality mattered for cooperation, not just giving money.
1963: The BF&M provides guidelines for our agencies and information for our churches.
Under the leadership of Herschel Hobbs, the Convention updated the BF&M, which intended to “serve as information to the churches” and “may serve as guidelines to the various agencies” of the SBC. The preamble claimed the BF&M is a “statement of faith” not an “official creed carrying mandatory authority.” The preamble nodded to the “the soul’s competency before God” but said this belief “should not be interpreted to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.” (This is the first appearance of ‘closely identified’ language. More on that soon…) In 1969 in New Orleans and then again in 1970 in Denver, the Convention rejected motions to make adherence to the Baptist Faith and Message a requirement for Southern Baptist entities. Even as late as 1997, Herschel Hobbs could write: “The Convention refused to make acceptance of this statement mandatory upon its institutions and agencies or upon those who work for and/or with them.”
1992-93: An LGBT-affirming church cannot cooperate with us.
Due to concern about some churches moving in the direction of affirming homosexual practice, the Executive Committee recommended an amendment to the Constitution that said, “Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention, are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse, homosexual behavior.” Messengers affirmed this amendment2, adding for the first time language that specifies what would not be considered a cooperating church. At this point, the idea was: you’ve got to be in the ballpark in faith and practice if you want to cooperate with us, and affirming homosexual practice is a clear way of saying you’re out of bounds.
1998: The consensus reflects a complementarian view of the family.
In a time of widespread concern over family values, the Convention approved an amendment adding an article on The Family to the BFM 1963. The new article articulated a complementarian view of the family and ruled out same-sex marriage.
2000: The consensus reflects a complementarian view for church leadership. The Convention now expects our entities to abide by this.
The Convention approved a revision of the BF&M, which affirmed complementarian conviction regarding church leadership: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men, as qualified by Scripture.” At the time, the Committee made clear that full adherence to this statement of faith was not seen as a requirement for individual churches in cooperation with the Convention. (Adrian Rogers said, “It is not a creed, it is a statement of what most of us believe.”) But the statement did become binding on national entities, with missionaries and professors required to sign it or register their agreement.
2009: The first time this century a church is declared to not be in friendly cooperation.
This was the first time since 1992 that a church was declared to not be in friendly cooperation with the Convention for a matter pertaining to faith and practice. The case involved Broadway Baptist in Fort Worth, because of its affirming stance on homosexuality, and this decision was based on the Constitutional requirement added in the mid-1990’s, not the Baptist Faith and Message.
2014-15: A church must “closely identify” with the BF&M 2000.
In revising Article III standards on cooperation, the Executive Committee considered making it possible to remove a church that has “intentionally operated in any manner demonstrating opposition” to the BF&M. This language, when floated as a proposal, led to an uproar, as it tightened cooperation standards and parameters well beyond anything the Convention had ever considered. Under the leadership of Executive Committee chairman, Ernest Easley, the language for cooperation was altered to “has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.” Easley said the revision of the earlier language was necessary because “it was never our intent to impose a doctrinal confession of faith upon a church.”
2018: A church is removed for racism.
Appealing to the BF&M’s stance on racism, a church in Georgia was declared to no longer be in friendly cooperation for not having a faith and practice that closely identifies with Convention’s statement of faith.
2019: Standing credentials committee established.
A standing credentials committee was established, tasked with making recommendations to the Executive Committee between annual meetings regarding whether certain churches should be considered in “friendly cooperation.”
2021: More examples of straying too far: racism and sexual abuse.
The Constitution was amended so that in addition to “homosexuality” being one example of straying too far from the Convention’s faith and practice, racism and sex abuse were also listed: “does not act to affirm, approve, or endorse discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity” and “does not act in a manner inconsistent with the Convention’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse.” The SBC had spoken to sexual abuse specifically in resolutions, not precisely through the BF&M, which means this decision seemed to imply that resolutions may be considered in some way as binding on the churches—another first.
2023: Churches with women serving as senior pastor or lead co-pastor / teaching pastor are removed.
In removing Fern Creek Baptist Church and Saddleback Church, the Convention for the first time applied the BF&M 2000 article on church leadership as a standard of cooperation. The same year, the first part of a process to amend the Constitution was approved that would have added another example of not being in friendly cooperation with the Convention: “only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” (The amendment would fail to ratify in 2024, and an attempt to renew it failed in 2025, but in both years, churches with women serving as senior pastors or teaching pastors were removed by the messengers, as well as a church arguing for this practice, thus providing the credentials committee with precedent for how to treat similar churches, in between Convention meetings.)
The current state of the SBC
I hope this history illuminates the path to our current proposals and discussions. Underneath the renewed debate over an amendment about female pastors, the two competing impulses continue to show up. We are Conventional and we are complementarian, and pastors often feel the tug of different prudential concerns (reticence to make sweeping institutional changes and eagerness to reaffirm our complementarian convictions), leading to good conversation about how best to proceed.
Those who support the newest effort to resolve the question of women pastors (Dr. Mohler’s “Truth and Unity Amendment”) believe the Constitutional addition will bring to a close this debate, by giving the credentials committee clarity on how to handle any church—present or future—that is outside the bounds of our statement of faith on this issue.
Those who have reservations about this newest effort believe the credentials committee should treat previous messenger decisions as precedent for handling these and similar situations, and fear the new amendment will invite more reporting of churches (requiring more investigations) due to the introduction of new terms and concepts on which Southern Baptist churches show a spectrum of practice (“function,” “endorse,” “gathered assembly,” etc.).
The questions facing the Convention today are not merely about theology and doctrine. They are about the Convention’s self-understanding. What kind of Convention do we want to be part of? Where do we want our focus to be? What boundaries of faith and practice are non-negotiable, and where will we put up with some of the messiness of mission and ministry? What kind of culture do we want to cultivate in Convention life?
I’m reminded of economist Thomas Sowell’s axiom: There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. All of these questions go well beyond our current controversies. They are questions that get to the heart of who we have been and who we want to be. I pray Southern Baptists of goodwill can deliberate together and learn to live with whatever tradeoffs we make in the days ahead.
1 http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7461,10-Jun-1992.pdf (page 4)
2 http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7585,17-Jun-1993.pdf (page 11)
For more information on SBC history and developments, I recommend these co-authored articles from members of the Cooperation Group:
- Southern Baptist Churches, Confessional Statements, and Cooperation (lead author: Nathan Finn)
- What does it mean to be the Southern Baptist ‘Convention’ rather than a Southern Baptist ‘Denomination’? (lead author: Andrew Walker)
- What does it mean to be a corresponding church in the Southern Baptist Convention (versus a ‘Member’ of the Convention)? (lead author: Bart Barber)
Also of interest is a new book edited by David Dockery, published by B&H Academic: Complementarianism: A Continuum of Perspectives on Men and Women in the Church.
Related posts:
YEAR IN REVIEW: Top 12 most-read stories in 2024 
Midwestern Seminary hosts For the Church Micro-Conference at SBC23 
SBC DIGEST: Litton to address UM graduation; Ohio Baptists to sell Seneca Lake facility 
‘I have everything,’ God says to pastor 
SBC seminaries report to messengers 
Saddleback appeal on behalf of like-minded Southern Baptists, Warren says 
Saddleback Church deemed ‘not in friendly cooperation’ with SBC 
Southern Baptists and the Millennium
