SBC politics are very interesting and sometimes quite
disheartening to me. I wonder who the
boys in the smoke-filled-room (cigars are coming back into vogue you know) are
going to put up for president post-Luter.
Does this sound premature? Cynical?
It isn’t intended to be – just observant. In case you didn’t know it, there really is
the equivalent of the smoke-filled-room in the SBC. I don’t know if Joel Gregory’s description of
early 90’s power brokers meeting in a hotel room to agree on the next pick for
President still applies literally or not (it may). Regardless, the equivalent of the smoke-filled-room
happens today virtually if not physically.
There is little doubt that SBC insiders compare notes before the
annual meeting. There is little doubt that a
consensus pick for President is arrived at.
There is little doubt that directional agreements about the Convention are
made beforehand. The part that is most unclear is who gets included in the discussion.
Last year, the consensus pick was announced well ahead of time in order
to head off any competition. When, before
the 2011 annual meeting was even vacated, Danny Akin tweeted his expectation of
voting for Fred Luter at next week’s 2012 annual meeting, it was clear that the
smoke-filled-room had already been in session.
I do not ever remember hearing a succeeding candidate announced
before
the term of the current year even started.
Why did this happen? I know that
a group of SBC leadership believes the SBC to be still tainted with past racism. Changing our image is behind the SBC name
change, and it also explains the timing of the announcement of Fred Luter’s
candidacy last year. Luter’s candidacy appeared
to be arranged in such a way as to preclude any other name. No viable Southern Baptist is going to run or
nominate anyone else to run for fear of appearing racist. The name change timing seems to be for
similar reasons and handled in a similar way.
This year, 2012, is the year that the SBC power brokers determined to be
the year we are going to shed our racist past in an overt and grand way.
It was interesting to watch what happened politically when
Richard Land made his unfortunate (and wrong-headed) remarks. Every SBC insider spewed their coffee through
their noses when they heard what Land said.
Talk about a way to derail the year the SBC ends its racism! Land got pressure from every quarter until he
had sufficiently repented. I have no
doubt that Land’s ERLC job was hanging in the balance (not just his radio show)
as the plan from the smoke-filled-room was at risk of coming apart. In fact, I expect to hear any day of Land’s
retirement and replacement with another “insider”. Never mind the fact that Land was an insider himself
up until his ill-conceived comments. I
bet he will have plenty of space at his lunch table in New Orleans next week.
Why am I talking about all this? Do I want the SBC to hang on to its racist
past? Am I a closet racist? Absolutely not! There’s no denying that the genesis of the
SBC could have been under better circumstances.
I want the SBC to do whatever is necessary to demonstrate Christ’s love
to the world regardless of race – just as Christ does. Does changing our name help that? I don’t know.
I never heard people associate “racist” with the SBC until the SBC
started talking about it. If it does
help, then I’m all for a name change, but I remain unconvinced.
So if I don’t necessarily have any real issue with the
actions themselves, what is my issue? My
issue is with the way these things are done; the smoke-filled-room itself whether virtual or real in space. I do not like it. I do not like a self-selected group of people
assuming they know what is best and working behind the scenes to orchestrate an
outcome. I do not like power-brokering,
good-ole-boy networks and having an “inside crowd”.
If you’ve got an agenda, say so, and then let the Convention decide what
to do with it. Let opposition speak. Manipulation is not leadership. I want to see our Convention trust the body
of Christ to do the right thing – to trust
that God will speak through it. I want
to see our leaders step forward and make their case to persuade. Then I want them to step back and listen to
the response. I want them to accept what the messengers decide. I don’t like
stealth agendas.
Does this quiet cartel of power exist anywhere except my
mind? I am convinced it does exist, and not just in my
imagination, but I suspect it could be about to fracture. The new wild-card is going to be what happens
between the “Traditionalists” and the Calvinists. I know
there won’t be a new pick for the 2013 President announced next week since it
will be assumed that Luter serves his maximum two years – that’s normal. It’s the year after that I want to
watch. Who will the candidate be? In the smoke-filled-room, names put forth by
either side may now be contentious. The
problem as I see it is that any serious candidate will come from one of the
warring tribes, and the other tribe may not be easy to persuade.
Regardless of the factions, I want to see agendas come out
into the open. Light truly is the best
disinfectant. If you can’t be up-front
about what you are doing, there may be something wrong with your plan. If your positions can’t stand the scrutiny of
the whole group, then you may want to reconsider them. Maybe we need to get back to something like
2006 when for the only time since the conservative resurgence, the messengers
rejected the insider, spanked the power-brokers, and chose Frank Page. I think that worked out just fine, as well as
sending a clear message to the occupants of the smoke-filled-room: “Open the windows and let the smoke clear!”
Will a candidate from the smoke-filled-room for 2014
President be announced at next year’s convention? I don’t think so, but time will tell.
