SBC’s Commitments Are Worthless If They Can’t Be Public Sphere

One hundred years ago this month, the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial took place. That same year, Southern Baptists gathered for their annual convention facing problems from within and without. Some seminary professors had departed from core Baptist beliefs — such as scriptural inerrancy — and more broadly Baptists and other Protestant denominations were being pushed to kowtow to an increasingly secularized society and new scientific theories.

The arrest that led to the Scopes Trial had occurred shortly before the convention, and the case purported to pit God against science. This public pushback to core Christian beliefs forced convention attendees to think through their own theology and to decide how to respond.

In doing so, 1925 convention attendees made two critical choices: They first clarified and codified their core, nonnegotiable theological confessional commitments by promulgating the Baptist Faith and Message and then agreed to cooperate (the SBC is composed of fully independent church congregations who only agree to cooperate for certain shared objectives like educating ministers and funding missions) more fully to spread their beliefs around the country and across the globe.

As Southern Baptists gathered in Dallas, Texas, in June for their 2025 annual meeting, they faced many of the same challenges their forbearers faced a century ago. Southern Baptists at this year’s convention seemed united (in theory) about their core theological commitments, passing strong resolutions affirming “God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family” and opposing abortion, as well as addressing the modern-day scourges of pornography and sports betting while also reaffirming a commitment to international religious liberty. But they seemed less than united on how to engage the rest of the world related to these commitments.

Take for instance the fact that more than 42 percent of messengers (convention delegates) voted to abolish the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — the convention’s public policy arm. Few Southern Baptists likely believe that the country’s largest Protestant denomination — and the primary one that maintains a modicum of theological conservatism — shouldn’t weigh in on important public policy issues like the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and God’s good design of two separate sexes.

And yet, almost one-half of convention delegates appear to have deep misgivings about the way in which the ERLC has gone about its job. There’s a sense that this entity is, at best, ineffective and takes credit for cultural and court victories in which it played little to no role, and, at worst, actively subverts SBC positions by importing secular values into the SBC — having reportedly taken money from George Soros-backed groups (though the ERLC denies this) — rather than exporting SBC values to the world.

Then there’s the issue of the best way to enforce the SBC’s theological mandates when constituent congregations disagree or adhere to different practices. The SBC, as a voluntary membership organization, cannot impose practices and beliefs on member congregations but can find them not to be “in friendly cooperation” with the convention and disfellowship them (kick them out) if their practices diverge from the Baptist Faith and Message.

The flashpoint in recent years has been over women serving in pastoral roles. Some high-profile pastors and churches, such as Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, have been disfellowshipped because of this, while other churches seem to have gotten a pass for the same conduct. That’s why convention delegates overwhelmingly voted to clarify the SBC’s bylaws over who can — and cannot — serve in pastoral roles. While such a motion received almost 80 percent support two years ago, and around 60 percent support both last year and this year, the proposed clarification failed because it did not receive the required two-thirds supermajority approval at two consecutive conventions.

Part of the problem might be seemingly bad information given to messengers at the convention. For instance, the SBC Executive Committee president worried that clarifying these core commitments in the SBC’s bylaws could expose the convention to legal liability — a head-scratching position that left even a non-hardline lawyer crying foul.

More broadly, the SBC has also faced questions about its organizational structure and the financial transparency of some of its entities. It’s no secret that some have struggled financially in the wake of a botched response to sexual abuse allegations within the SBC, and it’s hard to fathom good reasons why SBC entities should not adhere to the same financial transparency standards that secular nonprofits adhere to. And yet, convention delegates, at the behest of those very SBC entities being subjected to scrutiny, rejected such calls.

Like their forebearers a century ago, Southern Baptists remain united on their most important theological commitments — especially when it comes to sharing the Gospel’s good news. But things get tricky — and less unified — when the rubber starts to meet the road on other policy issues.

Those eager to see those tensions resolved — as most Southern Baptists are — will have to wait until next year’s convention, when thousands of messengers will once again gather in Orlando, Florida, to wrestle with those and other important issues.

One hundred years ago, Southern Baptists had to confront and decide how to respond to the challenges of their day. The Scopes Trial prompted many important conversations, just as today’s challenges have done.

Zack Smith serves as a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and is a member of Hillcrest Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Both affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.