Southern Baptist Convention 2021 Meeting

[KMK]

That churches may apply to one another for aid and counsel is a far cry from forming formal associations; in fact, the LBCF comes out against the formation of denominations.

For what it is worth, Dr. Renihan argues that the phrase "hold communion together" was a technical phrase for 'formal' associations. You can read about it in this Founders Ministries article by Tom Hicks: https://founders.org/2021/04/29/associations-among-baptist-churches/

 

[Ben Zartman]

For what it is worth, Dr. Renihan argues that the phrase "hold communion together" was a technical phrase for 'formal' associations. You can read about it in this Founders Ministries article by Tom Hicks: https://founders.org/2021/04/29/associations-among-baptist-churches/

Thanks for posting that. While I disagree wholeheartedly with both Hicks' and Renihan's conclusions regarding the intent of the LBCF here, I can see where they're coming from.

 

[Pilgrim]

It will probably just split. That will be that.

That won't happen unless maybe conservatives totally lose control of the seminaries even moreso than happened with neo-orthodoxy in the 60s. There is little reason to leave formally for those who have been more or less content until recently. What will happen is a reduction and redirection of giving away from more controversial agencies like NAMB and the ERLC. Ironically, it is the "progressives" (not a totally accurate term) who pushed for changes several years ago to make that kind of designated giving possible and still be deemed in friendly cooperation with the convention.

A good many Calvinistic churches are only in it for the seminary discount and maybe also the IMB. There aren't a whole lot of other choices for Baptist (or even baptistic) seminaries. They may leave if enough people demand that they do so, however. Denominational loyalty isn't what it was when the Conservative Resurgence got under way over 40 years ago.

It is more likely that some of the more "woke" elements would leave. An unknown number would have if Stone would have won. Some of the members of many of those churches don't even know that they are SBC to begin with. So the leadership doesn't have to fight against a strong denominational identity the way others would.

Something else that should be noted is what happened with Dr. Mohler. Him losing and especially not even getting into the runoff is a remarkable repudiation. A few years ago, he may well have won by acclimation. Evidently, those with strong feelings on the controversial issues did not think he was the man of the hour. He may have lost control of things to some extent, depending on how conspiratorial one is with regard to some of the more radical things coming out of SBTS and one's ideas about what he really believes. This is driven by the fact that most of the "woke" and SJW crowd have been closely associated with him at one point or another. Founders and others lay considerable blame at his feet.

 

[Broadus]

That won't happen unless maybe conservatives totally lose control of the seminaries even moreso than happened with neo-orthodoxy in the 60s. There is little reason to leave formally for those who have been more or less content until recently. What will happen is a reduction and redirection of giving away from more controversial agencies like NAMB and the ERLC. Ironically, it is the "progressives" (not a totally accurate term) who pushed for changes several years ago to make that kind of designated giving possible and still be deemed in friendly cooperation with the convention.

A good many Calvinistic churches are only in it for the seminary discount and maybe also the IMB. There aren't a whole lot of other choices for Baptist (or even baptistic) seminaries. They may leave if enough people demand that they do so, however. Denominational loyalty isn't what it was when the Conservative Resurgence got under way over 40 years ago.

It is more likely that some of the more "woke" elements would leave. An unknown number would have if Stone would have won. Some of the members of many of those churches don't even know that they are SBC to begin with. So the leadership doesn't have to fight against a strong denominational identity the way others would.

Something else that should be noted is what happened with Dr. Mohler. Him losing and especially not even getting into the runoff is a remarkable repudiation. A few years ago, he may well have won by acclimation. Evidently, those with strong feelings on the controversial issues did not think he was the man of the hour. He may have lost control of things to some extent, depending on how conspiratorial one is with regard to some of the more radical things coming out of SBTS and one's ideas about what he really believes. This is driven by the fact that most of the "woke" and SJW crowd have been closely associated with him at one point or another. Founders and others lay considerable blame at his feet.

Well put. I substantially agree with your perspective.

One of the increasingly pervasive changes in SBC churches is an emotion-focused, “stage-centric” worship experience (or performance), which was on full display at the annual SBC. The song leader and “worship team,” from what l learned, were from Greear’s church. Pragmatic pastors and other church leaders in attendance take what they see as successful and try to make that happen at home.

However poorly replicated back home, compared with the “pros” they saw performing at this convention or that conference, such services do attract emotionally-driven persons. It also seems to drive others seeking God-centered corporate worship elsewhere, though they are much fewer in number.

Another curious trend, it seems to me, is preaching that follows an expository, passage-by-passage type of preaching with “me-centric,” felt-needs application. Again, as far as attendance goes, it can be quite successful, as the churches of both the present and most recent SBC presidents reveal. Because it’s verse by verse preaching, it is lauded as biblical. The hermeneutics and application, however, leave a lot to be desired.