Editorial

It’s the closest thing to a constitutional crisis Southern Baptists have faced in many years.

Two Southern Baptist Convention entities, the Executive Committee and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary – both made up of Bible-believing members and executives who are fully committed to the SBC, including its recent theological reformation under the “Conservative Resurgence” – have come to starkly different conclusions on the matter of whether “sole membership” is the best legal option to protect Southern Baptists’ interests in one of its entities. The result is a stalemate with both entities’ boards voting in recent months to take completely contradictory positions with the prospect of a messy floor debate in Indianapolis during the annual meeting of the SBC.

Related Coverage

What's the Debate About?

Point: 'The worries expressed by NOBTS leadership are unfounded and unhelpful'

Counterpoint: Ties binding NOBTS to SBC should 'reflect historic Baptist polity and the realities of Louisiana law'

Editorial: The sole membership dispute: A way out for all Southern Baptists

There must be a way out of this stalemate. I believe there is an alternative that is not currently an option on the table – but should be.

A constitutional crisis in our government results from two, equal branches of the government coming to an irreconcilable difference on a matter of public policy. Neither branch will back-down from its position, resulting in a crisis of “who’s in charge” in the end.

In the case of the SBC, it may appear we are on track for such a crisis. In our polity (the way we work), in the end, Southern Baptists acting in their annual meeting always have the last say in matters of the way our Convention functions. This will be the case in the present dispute over sole membership.

Nevertheless, the questions that those of us who are not parties in the dispute must ask ourselves are these: Do we know enough about the legal nuances and polity intricacies of this debate to be able to make an informed decision if a recommendation from the Executive Committee is put to us in Indianapolis? Further, will Southern Baptists have a greater opportunity for understanding this matter if the SBC follows the recommended course of NOBTS and waits until 2005 when the seminary intends to offer the SBC two options: sole membership and a yet unwritten alternative to sole membership?

As one who has read a great deal of the materials on this matter from both sides in the debate, my answer to both questions is: No. There must be a better way.

With the recent history of formerly Baptist-controlled entities still fresh on our minds, and the present troubles of multiple entities in Missouri and one in Georgia as vivid illustrations of the danger, the concerns raised by Executive Committee leaders is no abstract, theoretical matter. The Baptist landscape is littered with the corpses of promises of trustee boards who told us to simply trust them, that they would do the right thing, only to have that trust broken and the entities removed from ownership of the Baptists whose love, sweat and dollars fueled their rise to free-standing, prominent institutions – and ones no longer accountable to those who built them. The prospect of a future rogue board voting to become self-perpetuating, thus removing New Orleans Seminary from the SBC, should be foreclosed with every available legal option.

Still, it’s not insignificant to me that men such as Chuck Kelley and the Southern Baptist leaders who hold the NOBTS in trust have consistently come to a different conclusion about the best means of insuring Southern Baptists’ interests at the seminary. Like Morris Chapman and the exemplary leaders of the Executive Committee, these folks are unflinchingly committed to the SBC.

The executives of both entities have outlined their respective positions in a Florida Baptist Witness exclusive point-counterpoint in this edition. And yet, even with these clear, cogent statements and all the other information currently available, I’m not completely comfortable that I know enough to make an informed decision on this matter.

Here’s my suggestion for an alternative resolution to the dispute:

1. The SBC Executive Committee should resist the option now open to it and decline to bring a recommendation to the SBC annual meeting in Indianapolis this year directing the NOBTS board to adopt sole membership.

2. On the other hand, Southern Baptists should not be vulnerable to the pleasure of the NOBTS board and made to wait on its promised sole membership alternative to be considered at the SBC annual meeting next year.

3. Instead, a motion should be made in Indianapolis directing the SBC president to appoint a “Blue Ribbon” committee of Southern Baptist statesmen for the purpose of studying the sole membership matter for New Orleans Seminary and to bring a recommendation to the SBC annual meeting in Nashville next year. This committee should be large enough to be representative of Southern Baptist life, while small enough to operate efficiently and effectively; I think nine members would be appropriate. The members should be – as much as a reasonably possible in Southern Baptist life where connections and loyalties are complex and deep – unaligned with respect to the matter of sole membership and New Orleans Seminary. The expenses of this committee’s work should be borne equally by the Executive Committee and New Orleans Seminary. Finally, the motion should also direct New Orleans Seminary’s board in the interim not to take any action affecting its relationship to the Southern Baptist Convention.

I believe this way out is preferable for two reasons:

1. There is no immediate danger that the NOBTS board will act upon the perceived advantage it holds in its current legal documents allowing it to remove itself from SBC control. The motion I’m suggesting, however, will fully remove that extraordinarily remote option in any case. Since there is no imminent threat, we can afford to wait one year while the matter is carefully examined.

2. The result of a year-long study by unaligned Southern Baptist leaders will give greater confidence in the final result and should answer any concern from the New Orleans contingent that the decision-making process was an implicit or explicit break from Baptist polity, as has been argued repeatedly.

Both parties in this dispute should see this alternative as an equitable means of making their cases and finally resolving this matter. There’s no doubt that closure is long overdue. Allowing an unaligned committee of Southern Baptist leaders to study the matter is the best means available to bring closure, while respecting the work both entities’ boards have put into this critical matter.

Executive Committee and New Orleans Seminary leaders should agree to take this way out so that Southern Baptists may move on to more critical matters of glorifying God and extending the Kingdom through our Convention.