Changes

For most of the 20th century, the factions that became known as "conservatives" and "moderates"<ref>These are the terms preferred by the conservative wing, which ultimately gained control of the convention and refers to their regaining control as the "Conservative Resurgence"; the "moderates" -- who were really theological and social gospel liberals -- preferred to be called "conservatives" while labeling their opponents as "fundamentalists" (notwithstanding that true fundamentalists -- who had formed other denominations or were in the [[Independent Baptist]] camp a half-century or more before -- thought that the conservatives were, and still believe they are, misguided at best and apostate at worst) and the conservatives' actions as the "Fundamentalist Takeover".</ref> were at the fringe of the SBC. That changed when the Civil Rights issue and opposition to [[Jim Crow]] (racial segregation) energized the moderate in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1970s the conservatives had coalesced. Conservatives believe that moderates were right to support desegregation but that they went too far by accepting changes in changing national social norms, especially regarding abortion, homosexuality and women's roles in society and the ministry.<ref>See Hankins (2002).</ref>  

For most of the 20th century, the factions that became known as "conservatives" and "moderates"<ref>These are the terms preferred by the conservative wing, which ultimately gained control of the convention and refers to their regaining control as the "Conservative Resurgence"; the "moderates" -- who were really theological and social gospel liberals -- preferred to be called "conservatives" while labeling their opponents as "fundamentalists" (notwithstanding that true fundamentalists -- who had formed other denominations or were in the [[Independent Baptist]] camp a half-century or more before -- thought that the conservatives were, and still believe they are, misguided at best and apostate at worst) and the conservatives' actions as the "Fundamentalist Takeover".</ref> were at the fringe of the SBC. That changed when the Civil Rights issue and opposition to [[Jim Crow]] (racial segregation) energized the moderate in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1970s the conservatives had coalesced. Conservatives believe that moderates were right to support desegregation but that they went too far by accepting changes in changing national social norms, especially regarding abortion, homosexuality and women's roles in society and the ministry.<ref>See Hankins (2002).</ref>  

Beginning in the late 1960s, conservatives under the leadership of layman Paul Pressler and minister Paige Patterson claimed that the denomination's institutions had come under the influence of liberalism and that a redirection was necessary.  At one point the liberalism was so rampant, the SBC actually passed a resolution in 1971 -- nearly two years before the infamous Roe v. Wade decision -- supporting abortion in such cases as "clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother"<ref>See [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/13/resolution-on-abortion SBC Resolution on Abortion, 1971 Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri.]</ref>, and three years later in Dallas (the year after Roe v. Wade) reaffirmed the resolution, saying that it "dealt responsibly from a Christian perspective with complexities of abortion problems in contemporary society" while also in the same resolution saying that the SBC "historically held a high view of the sanctity of human life".<ref>See [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/14/resolution-on-abortion-and-sanctity-of-human-life SBC Resolution on Abortion and Sanctity of Human Life, 1974 Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas.]</ref>

Beginning in the late 1960s, conservatives under the leadership of layman Paul Pressler and minister Paige Patterson claimed that the denomination's institutions had come under the influence of liberalism and that a redirection was necessary.  At one point the liberalism was so rampant, the SBC actually passed a resolution in 1971 -- nearly two years before the infamous ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' decision -- supporting abortion in such cases as "clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother"<ref>See [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/13/resolution-on-abortion SBC Resolution on Abortion, 1971 Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri.]</ref>, and three years later in Dallas (the year after Roe v. Wade) reaffirmed the resolution, saying that it "dealt responsibly from a Christian perspective with complexities of abortion problems in contemporary society" while also in the same resolution claiming that the SBC "historically held a high view of the sanctity of human life".<ref>See [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/14/resolution-on-abortion-and-sanctity-of-human-life SBC Resolution on Abortion and Sanctity of Human Life, 1974 Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas.]</ref>

Patterson and Pressler noted the structure of the SBC Presidency could be used to gain this redirection: the SBC President solely nominates the Committee on Committees, which in turn nominates the Committee on Nominations (previously known as the Committee on Boards), which in turn nominates the Executive Committee, heads of all SBC organizations, and other positions.  A conservative-minded President would fill vacancies on the Committee on Committees with similarly conservative-minded persons, and when that faction had control it would, in turn, fill nominees for the Committee on Nominations (again with similarly conservative-minded persons), and thereafter fill all other positions similarly.

Patterson and Pressler noted the structure of the SBC presidency could be used to gain this redirection: the SBC president solely nominates the Committee on Committees, which in turn nominates the Committee on Nominations (previously known as the Committee on Boards), which in turn nominates the Executive Committee, heads of all SBC organizations, and other positions.  A conservative-minded President would fill vacancies on the Committee on Committees with similarly conservative-minded persons, and when that faction had control it would, in turn, fill nominees for the Committee on Nominations (again with similarly conservative-minded persons), and thereafter fill all other positions similarly.

Starting in 1979 they mobilized delegates to attend the annual convention and to elect strong conservative candidates. Usually winning by ratios of about 55%-45% they elected a series of strong conservative presidents. In turn the presidents appointed strong conservative committees and trustees, and systematically transformed the mindset of the SBC's six seminaries, its publishing house, its mission boards, and its numerous agencies to a conservative view. Theologically the issue has focused on the inerrancy of Scripture.  In 1980 the SBC had completely reversed itself on abortion, passing a much stronger resolution condemning the practice (ironically, meeting again in St. Louis, the site of the 1971 convention where they initially supported the practice).<ref>See [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/19/resolution-on-abortion SBC Resolution on Abortion, 1980 Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri.]</ref>

Starting in 1979 they mobilized delegates to attend the annual convention and to elect strong conservative candidates. Usually winning by ratios of about 55%-45% they elected a series of strong conservative presidents. In turn the presidents appointed strong conservative committees and trustees, and systematically transformed the mindset of the SBC's six seminaries, its publishing house, its mission boards, and its numerous agencies to a conservative view. Theologically the issue has focused on the inerrancy of Scripture.  In 1980 the SBC had completely reversed itself on abortion, passing a much stronger resolution condemning the practice (ironically, meeting again in St. Louis, the site of the 1971 convention where they initially supported the practice).<ref>See [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/19/resolution-on-abortion SBC Resolution on Abortion, 1980 Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri.]</ref>

Some Baptist colleges and universities not officially owned by the SBC but historically tied to it resisted the trend and broke their ties with the SBC ([[Baylor University]] being one example). The moderates protested that the fundamentalists had downplayed the historic emphasis on evangelism to impose a particular reading of Scripture, thereby breaking with the denomination's historic unwillingness to impose creeds.  The more openly-liberal churches broke away in 1987 to form the [[Alliance of Baptists]], while the moderates in 1991 the moderates formed a splinter group (the [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]], or CBF), convincing two state associations (the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Baptist General Association of Virginia) to dually align with it and the SBC (this, in turn, resulted in two new conservative-minded state associations, solely aligned with the SBC, to form: the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia).

Some Baptist colleges and universities not officially owned by the SBC but historically tied to it resisted the trend and broke their ties with the SBC ([[Baylor University]] being one example). The moderates protested that the fundamentalists had downplayed the historic emphasis on evangelism to impose a particular reading of Scripture, thereby breaking with the denomination's historic unwillingness to impose creeds.  The more openly-liberal churches broke away in 1987 to form the [[Alliance of Baptists]], while the moderates in 1991 established a splinter group (the [[Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]], or CBF), convincing two state associations (the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Baptist General Association of Virginia) to dually align with it and the SBC (this, in turn, resulted in two new conservative-minded state associations, solely aligned with the SBC, to form: the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia).

The success of the conservatives led to two major changes to the [[Baptist Faith and Message]] (the SBC's official "statement of faith"): a 1998 amendment adding a section on The Family and a 2000 revision which repudiated homosexuality and stood for the sanctity of life.

The success of the conservatives led to two major changes to the [[Baptist Faith and Message]] (the SBC's official "statement of faith"): a 1998 amendment adding a section on The Family and a 2000 revision which repudiated homosexuality and stood for the sanctity of life.