If you're someone who would like to keep the SBC conservative, you and I are on the same page.
By "conservative," I mean THEOLOGICALLY conservative—biblical inerrancy, Baptist distinctives, etc. I'm not interested in getting the secular political tail to wag the theological dog.
But if you're talking about anchoring the SBC to those theological moorings, I'm all-in.
And yet, consider with me for a moment some other motivations that we ought to beware.
And yet, consider with me for a moment some other motivations that we ought to beware.
There have been moments in my past when my motivation was to prove to everyone else how conservative I myself am. This is different from wanting to keep the SBC conservative.
Even if the SBC is perfectly conservative, if I want to prove to everyone else how conservative I myself am, then I have to find some way to "make my bones." If the only means of achieving esteem is to have "blood on your shirt," then you must constantly manufacture war.
I'm not interested in that, and I no longer feel the need to demonstrate my conservatism to anyone. I'm a biblical inerrantist, a biblical complementarian, and a Baptist. Anyone unconvinced about these things by now is beyond convincing.
Second, sometimes in the past I've been tempted toward denominational partisanship, not trying to keep us conservative or to prevent any sort of theological drift, but simply to advance the people I wanted to advance.
At this point, if I had non-theological reasons to want a change in leadership, I'd prefer to be honest about that rather than to allege liberalism where there is no liberalism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
