Autonomy of the SBC Entities
/
Baptist theology values the autonomy of the local church. To say it another way, the local church governs herself. There isn't a top-down structure over Baptist churches like the Roman Catholic Church. There isn't even a Presbytery over Baptist churches—a body or court of Elders from the churches in a specific area with granted authority over the churches within that particular area. So, imagine the challenges when a group of locally autonomous churches decided to work together to pool resources to send missionaries and start seminaries. Then, add 178 years.
Today, churches in the Southern Baptist Convention tout the local autonomy of the church. We wave the flag of autonomy as our way of saying the SBC has no authority over the local church, and instead, the church can voluntarily associate with the SBC or not. Additionally, local churches can send messengers to an annual SBC business meeting to make motions and vote on the business matters of the SBC, but not the entities.
Here's the rub. Most of the function of the SBC cooperative ministry happens through the SBC entities, which are just as autonomous as the churches.
Basically, an SBC entity is a separate organization with trustees and governing structure that gets money from the local churches, gives a brief report, and takes one or two questions from the messengers annually. The messengers have no authority over the entities, which becomes evident every time a messenger makes a business motion instructing or prohibiting something directed at an entity. The parliamentarian deems a motion of this kind out of order and again reminds us that the entities are autonomous. Messengers can't direct the actions of the SBC entities. The entities include the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, the 6 SBC seminaries, LifeWay, Guidestone, and the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. Any part of the Southern Baptist Convention instituted to help the local church in her mission work is an autonomous entity beyond the direction or control of the local church, messengers, or executive committee of the SBC.
Okay, that's not entirely true. The President of the SBC appoints two people from every state convention (some state conventions are two states combined) to the Committee on Committees. It's their job to select two different people from within their state conventions to sit on the Nominating Committee the following year. Then the Nominating Committee selects the trustees for the various entities when vacancies arise. But it's worth noting that except for the SBC Executive Committee and the International Mission Board, most trustee seats are allocated to the largest state conventions, excluding the smaller, missional areas of the country and the churches in those areas.
Furthermore, entities that only allow trustees from state conventions with larger Baptists populations encourage churches to pad their membership report numbers on the ACP. The appointment of a trustee is how churches can influence entities. The only other way churches may influence the entities is to give huge sums of money to the entity or withhold giving from the entity.
This dilemma brings us back to the point: SBC churches are autonomous, and so are SBC entities.
Tremendous marketing efforts go into fundraising through the Cooperative Program, the Annie Armstrong Offering, and the Lottie Moon Offering. The entities need the money that's in the churches. And in theory, churches need the help offered by the entities. Therefore, the question in tension is, who serves whom? Do the autonomous entities serve the churches, or do the churches serve the entities? The answer was much easier in 1845. It's a mystery today.
What happens when the ERLC behaves in a disagreeable way to many churches? What about when LifeWay sells products the SBC messengers don't want LifeWay to sell? What if an entity isn't transparent with finances or covers up and scrubs social media about using trainers and leaders that fall outside the SBC's beliefs? What if a seminary might have covered up an abuse issue? What actions can the messengers take? What options are available to the SBC churches? None. They have no authority over the autonomous SBC entities. Sure, they can email the entity with questions. They can try to get to a microphone at the annual meeting to ask a question if time allows. But with most entities today, that receives 3 minutes of spin and nothing more because it doesn't matter. Messengers can't direct entities, and neither can SBC churches.
While SBC churches enjoy local autonomy, we must acknowledge that we instituted entities independent of our control. That isn't a problem if the entities do what we like, but when they don't, our only recourse is to pray and stop feeding the beast.