To reverse the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), I believe the platform (the leaders of the SBC) needs to rediscover the goodness of congregational piety.
Of Messengers and Leaders
To date, many of the SBC’s leaders seem to be distrustful and dismissive of the messengers who elected them or perhaps more accurately stated they distrust the messengers who elected the committee members who elected them.
The President of the SBC’s Executive Committee which runs the convention when it’s not in session, Jeff Iorg, recently blamed the decline in Cooperative Program giving and the “reshuffling of sectarian loyalties in the SBC” on the messengers. He laments that the messengers have been taken captive by the “fracturing influence of expressive individualism.” Or as Iorg notes elsewhere, they have fallen prey to “Our cultural proclivity for tribalism and sectarianism rooted in the sins of selfishness and self-promotion.” He then calls the messengers to return to their Baptist roots and embrace his vision for “messy cooperation.” He writes, “Part of doing this successfully is tolerating considerable diversity in our movement – doctrinal, methodological, strategic, and practical.”
And while readers might assume that Iorg thinks messiness would be confined within the doctrinal boundaries of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Iorg’s actions indicate the opposite. Over the last few years, he (as well as other SBC leaders such as Kevin Ezell, the President of the North American Mission Board – NAMB) worked to defeat the Law Amendment which sought to strengthen the long-held Baptist belief that the office of pastor was reserved for qualified men. Iorg writes, “Let’s keep debating the issue of gender leadership roles in churches with the goal of persuading churches to change their position or practices rather than removing them from the SBC.” In other words, he invites churches to openly debate elements of the SBC’s doctrinal statement. Despite his embrace of doctrinal confusion, Iorg still blames the messengers for the state of the SBC. He calls them to embrace his undefined vision of messy cooperation or else be guilty of the sin of expressive individualism.
Similarly, a letter written in the defense the Ethics and Liberty Commission (ERLC) by ten former SBC presidents calls on the messengers to abide by the will of the platform and not to divisively vote for the disbandment of the ERLC. The presidents admit that the ERLC (the political wing of the SBC) lacks a clear mission. Still, the letter goes on to proclaim that the undefine mission of the ERLC is still “an important mission and should be kept in place.” The presidents then ask the messengers to trust that the ERLC’s trustees and its president will get this undefined mission right. Recall this is the same organization that has worked with George Soros funded foundations, opposed the abolition of abortion, and whose executive board recently fired its president only to then reinstate said president and force its chairman of the board to resign. Nonetheless, the presidents ask messengers to trust them, embrace the ERLC, and avoid the sin of being divisive.
The Nature of Trust
While the leaders of the SBC should invite the messengers to trust them, the basis of that trust comes not from the possession of that office but from the faithful stewardship of that office in accordance with Scripture. As Jonathan Leeman notes, “our submission is never finally owed to other people. It’s exclusively and uniquely owed to God.” To quote the apostle Paul, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Cor 11:1).” In other words, the messengers should trust the leaders of the SBC entities in much the same way they trust their pastors and elders.
Trust & the Congregation
When Christians join a local congregation, they should anticipate that their elder board (or in some cases their deacon board) will hold itself to the teaching of Scripture, correcting one another’s sins and asking the congregation to only vote on wise motions and nominations. As Paul tells Titus, “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach (Ti. 1:7).” If church members disagree with their elders over matters lacking biblical warrant, the members should usually submit to their elders, understanding that the “bar should be pretty high before disobeying an elder.”
Still, the elders of that church should recognize that the congregation’s trust is not ultimately given but won through preaching truth, calling for wise votes that align with Scripture or its principles, and through abandoning error and those programs that would harm the church. In other words, elders should invite the congregation to vet their nominations of church officers as well as their other motions to ensure that the elders’ vision for the church wisely aligns with the Scriptures. To quote Baptist Father J.L. Dagg, “The only rule which they [the pastors] have a right to apply is that of God’s word; and the only obedience which they have a right to exact, is voluntary.”
When elders violate the Scriptures or enact unwise policies that harm the church and the bar for disobedience is reached, the church’s members should speak up. Leeman writes, “Good loyalty says, “I’m committed to you and your successes as a leader and that means I cannot follow you into folly or unrighteousness.” This speaking up is not a defect of congregationalism but its glory. As Dagg notes the best way to prevent a church from falling into error is to have congregations “well instructed in the truth.” Since even the best elders and elder boards can err, the congregation must be prepared to stand for truth and wisdom even if their elders do not.
To quote Leeman again, “the final judicial court of appeal is the whole congregation.” And when the whole congregation speaks on behalf of the Lord and rejects the elders’ poor leadership, the elders should listen, repent, and correct their course. Like King David who at the behest of his troops refrained from battling Absalom, elders should heed the biblical wisdom of their congregation (2 Sam 18:2-4), recognizing that the Holy Spirit resides in the pew just as assuredly as he resides in the elder board.
Congregationalism in Action
Caleb Morell’s book A Light on the Hill helpfully demonstrates the preservative power of congregationalism in the face of erring leadership. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Agnes Shankle, a long time Sunday school teacher a Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC), raised concerns about her church’s pulpit committee’s recommendation to install a moderate as the church’s next pastor. After she spoke, others joined her opposition. United in their defense of the truth, the congregation of CHBC defeated their leaders’ recommendation and thereby saved their church from theological ruin. CHBC continues “as a Bible-believing, Gospel-preaching church” in-part because a faithful member challenged her leaders’ unbiblical and unwise recommendation.
Trust and the SBC
Similarly, the willingness of the messengers to challenge the unbiblical and unwise actions of their leaders is neither a defect nor a rejection of Baptist polity but one of its truest expressions. The SBC entity heads should listen to their boards as pastors listen to their fellow elders or deacons. Moreover, there is a good deal to be said for bringing about reform through the SBC trustee process (the process by which messengers elect the SBC President who nominates other men and women who upon their election by the messengers to the nominating committee nominate other men and women who upon their election to the various SBC boards then elect SBC entity presidents). But that level of accountability does not absolve the leaders of the SBC from being accountable to the messengers. The biblical concerns of the messengers should be heard and not dismissed as (to quote Vance Pittman, the President of the Send Network), “100% BS.” Moreover, no number of Baptist Press editorials in support of the platform will convince messengers to trust those leaders who have led the executive committee into financial ruin, who have muddled the witness of the SBC to the broader culture, and who have undermined the theological integrity of the SBC.
The Path Forward
If the trajectory of the convention remains unchanged, I suspect there will be more division…more need for groups like The Baptist Review, The Center for Baptist Leadership, and The Association of Churches for Missions and Evangelism (ACME) to form and more churches withdrawing from the convention. To quote Leeman, “If one belongs to a church where he cannot trust the elders to make biblical decisions, he should find another church.”
And in such cases, the fault will lie not with the messengers nor with expressive individualism but with the SBC’s leadership…with the platform. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones aptly says of the Reformation, the cause of the church’s division at that time (and I would argue that of the SBC today) was not the reformers like Luther but the “state of the Roman Church that was the tragedy.” Speaking of voluntary Baptist associations, Baptist father Edward T. Hoscox concurs. He writes that the only option left for those who disagree with the trajectory of their association is to “refuse to affiliate, and withdraw.” In other words, messengers who do not trust the platform should not and will not forever remain with the platform.
If the SBC is to reverse its decline, its leaders must win the trust of the messengers and once again embrace congregationalism. They must hear the concerns of the Agnes Shankle’s in their midst and allow the wisdom of the Scriptures to triumph.
At the 2025 Annual Meeting, I encourage the stage to abandon its criticism of the messengers and to welcome their biblical corrections. I encourage the stage to join with the messengers and to help us pass the Law Amendment, the motions for increased transparency, and any other reform that will better align the SBC with the Scriptures. In short, I encourage the platform to renew its commitment to congregationalism.
Witkowski Blog 