The Dismantling of the Southern Baptist Convention: Part 1

As an old cartoon hero once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” To me, it has become obvious that there is a concerted effort among SBC leaders to dismantle the SBC as we know it and reshape it in their own image. From time to time, I will bring to your attention articles which demonstrate this strategy of dismantling the SBC.

The first article you should be aware of is entitled “Heroes & Villains In The SBC,” by Pastor Howell Scott. More to come.

This entry was posted in SBC. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Dismantling of the Southern Baptist Convention: Part 1

  1. I firmly believe it is the local church’s responsibility to carry out the Great Commission. The makes the State Convention relevant only where helping the local church do just that, is the State Convention’s main task. So … to speak of how much of the money they receive ought to be sent off to somebody else is purely ludicrous, and speaks of a sort of “federalism”. To me, that thinking has no place in SBC matters.

    I told our Alabama State DOM that, when NAMB cuts back on the partnership money, just cut back on the percentage that goes to Nashville, and keep on doing what NAMB had formerly helped us to do. I know some of the guys doing that in Alabama, and it’s precisely the sort of thing that should be going on. NAMB funding or not.

    Your post title is spot on. Well, except maybe it’s really step 2 or 3. But it’s a biggie.

  2. lesliepuryear says:


    You wrote, “I told our Alabama State DOM that, when NAMB cuts back on the partnership money, just cut back on the percentage that goes to Nashville, and keep on doing what NAMB had formerly helped us to do.”

    That is exactly what Kansas-Nebraska is doing now.


  3. Frank Gantz says:

    If by dismantling, you mean that more than half of our church’s CP funds make it out of state, then I (and I think most) are in favor of that.

  4. joe white says:

    I am pleased that Tennessee is going in the opposite direction and answering the call to penetrate the lostness of our world. See link…

  5. Howell Scott says:


    Thanks for linking my article here at SBC Majority Initiative. Your title hit the bullseye! I can’t speak in an official capacity for the Baptist Convention of New Mexico, but I think that there are pastors (myself included) in the state who are asking how we can do exactly the kind of thing Bob said was happening in Alabama.

    We have heard much of this so-called “50-50” historic ideal whereby State Conventions were supposed to send 50% of CP money to the SBC. What proponents of that will not tell you is that the 50-50 split was to be AFTER the State Conventions kept the funds that they need to do ministry within the state. Kind of puts a different spin on this argument. Words and rhetoric have meaning. You just have to know what people are really saying when they speak. Thanks for allowing me to enter this extremely important discussion about the future of the SBC. God bless,


  6. Ron in Ok says:

    Figuring the split AFTER you keep what you want then telling everyone you’re splitting 50/50 is, for lack of a better word, dishonest.

    Seriously people, why is anyone surprised? We’ve been electing leaders for the past 25 years who have given only token verbal support to the CP. We’re still doing it.

    Maybe it’s time to require everyone elected or appointed come from a church that DOES support the CP. And by support I mean at least 10% off the TOP of every undesignated dollar. I suspect this might cause a shift towards more of our majority churches having a say in the SBC for a change.

    In the interest of disclosure, our church is slightly larger than the majority size and we give 13% off the top.

    • Howell Scott says:


      I may not have been as clear as I could have been on the “50-50 split.” I think State Conventions need to say what overall percentage of CP money is being sent to the national SBC. What certain establishment leaders keep saying is that State Conventions were historically supposed to give 50% to the SBC and only keep 50%. Most State Conventions do not do this, instead keeping about 70% and forwarding 30%. Byrant Wright, the new SBC President, would have State Conventions keep 30% and forward 70%, which would in effect destroy the State Conventions.

      The 50-50 split was never supposed to be a true division. Historical records, which I have been researched by key leaders in my State Convention, show clearly that the State Conventions were to budget (keep) what they need for ministry and missions in the State and then split the remaining 50-50. In effect, this would work out to about what the State Conventions are doing now. But, if most State Conventions went to a true 50-50 split, that too would decimate most State Conventions. I believe the dishonesty is in not revealing what the historic 50-50 split was really all about. Hope that clears it up. Thanks and God bless,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s