Landon Coleman is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church. Immanuel affiliates with the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Immanuel also works closely with the Baptist General Convention of Texas through the work of BSM at UTPB, and Immanuel is part of the Pillar Network.

At the outset of this post, let me make a confession that for some will taint the rest of the post – I did not attend the Annual Convention of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis. My church (Immanuel) had VBS that week, and I stayed home to help with everything that’s involved with VBS at our church. Despite the fact that I spent the week tucked away in west Texas leading a “Jungle Journey” and getting slimed because the girls won the missions offering, I was able to watch most of the Annual Convention via livestream – a technology for which I am thankful.

With that disclaimer up front, here’s my diagnosis of the SBC in 2024.

• Southern Baptists are Evangelistic … The work of the IMB in sending missionaries and the work of NAMB in planting churches are really quite remarkable when placed in the broader landscape of conservative evangelicalism in 21st century. I am not an IMB or a NAMB apologist, and I wouldn’t try to defend everything about either organization. However, both are out front helping Southern Baptists focus on evangelism, missions, and church planting. Whatever else you might say about the SBC, we have been concerned about the Great Commission from our founding, and cooperating to take the gospel to the ends of the earth remains at the center of our convention of churches. Southern Baptists care about missions.
• Southern Baptists are Cantankerous … After the convention kicked off, it didn’t take long for a palpable rage to build about a race car with NAMB branding. There were all sorts of questions and accusations about the money spent on such a display, but my understanding is that the car was a faux-rental that likely cost less than other less flashy displays. Another example of our cantankerous nature is the (ridiculous) process of passing resolutions. Personally, I think this is an old relic of SBC life that should pass from the scene. Nevertheless, it’s part of the annual convention, and it reveals our eagerness to quibble over minutia and non-binding words. Last, if you still don’t think we’re cantankerous, get on Twitter during the 2025 convention and search #SBC.
• Southern Baptists are Courageous … Speaking of resolutions, in Indianapolis the SBC issued a resolution (a non-binding statement of belief) regarding the use of IVF as a reproductive technology. You can find the resolution online here, and you can see how the media reported on this resolution with a simple Google search. My point isn’t to argue for or against the resolution, only to point out that the SBC was willing to make a statement about something controversial – even among people who attend Southern Baptist churches. In making this statement, the SBC spoke on an issue that has drawn both enemy and friendly fire. Rather than simply speaking for Southern Baptists, the convention was willing to also speak to Southern Baptists on a controversial issue. That takes courage.
• Southern Baptists are Divided … Some amount of division is inevitable (and maybe even healthy, if expressed rightly) in a big tent convention like the SBC. Several examples could be noted, but perhaps the most obvious example is the presidential race in Indianapolis. More than I remember in previous years, it was a crowded field of candidates, each speaking for a unique constituency within the SBC. The parliamentary process for the presidential election even resulted in a situation where a large number of “reformed” leaning Southern Baptists were supporting a candidate who has coauthored a book opposing reformed soteriology. Denominational politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.
• Southern Baptists are Complementarian … At the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention in Anaheim, the messengers overwhelmingly voted to uphold the removal of Saddleback Church and Fern Creek Baptist Church for issues relating to the question of complementarianism and egalitarianism as it relates to the pastoral office. This year, 92% of messengers voted to remove FBC Alexandria – a church with significant history and significant resources. These “removals” are in essence votes to declare that a particular church is not in “friendly cooperation” with the Southern Baptist Convention. And all of these votes centered on questions of whether or not the New Testament allows women to hold the office of “pastor / elder / overseer.” These votes clearly indicate that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are complementarian in their ecclesiology.
• Southern Baptists are Educated … At each annual meeting of the SBC, a presentation is given to update the messengers on the health and the work of our six Southern Baptist seminaries – Southern, Midwestern, Southwestern, Southeastern, New Orleans, and Gateway. These six institutions exist to educate men and women who are preparing for vocational ministry both in the United States and on the mission field. It is inevitable that the health of any one of these schools may suffer at any given point in time. However, when you compare the health of these six schools to the broader landscape of theological education in the United States, all six are doing remarkable work. In particular, the stories of Southern Seminary (the largest and the flagship seminary) and Midwestern (the fastest growing seminary in the country) continue to impress.
• Southern Baptists are Confused … The glaring example of confusion within the SBC relates to ecclesiology – how should a church be structured and rightly put into order, who can rightly bear the title “pastor / elder / overseer,” and who can rightly function as a “pastor / elder / overseer.” As stated above, the votes to remove Saddleback, Fern Creek, and FBC Alexandria reveal a broad consensus on a complementarian position. However, the failure of the Law Amendment to garner 66% of the needed vote for ratification seems to suggest a different story. How a messenger could vote for removing the previously listed churches while also voting against the Law Amendment is baffling, to me. To be fair, the Law Amendment only fell 4% short of the needed vote, which means 61% of the messengers – not an insignificant majority – were in favor of affirming the Law Amendment. Nevertheless, for various reasons, confusion regarding ecclesiology remains an issue in our convention.
• Southern Baptists are Searching … In particular, Southern Baptists appear to be searching for an identity – that one thing that will unite us as a cooperating convention of churches. Some appeal to history and insist that the identity of the SBC must be built on cooperation, missions, and partnership in the Great Commission. This is a noble view, but it has one flaw in the present cultural context. The aim of missions is the planting of churches, and if Southern Baptists can’t agree on basic ecclesiology, our continued partnership will be on thin ice. Others appeal to one of our Baptists distinctives as a common source of identity – the autonomy of the local church. After all, the SBC is a “convention” of churches, not a top-down denomination. These voices are hesitant to make clear statements about our doctrinal convictions (hence, the failure of the Law Amendment) because they feel like it is not the place of the SBC to “tell” churches how to operate. To be fair to this view, they are right. It is not the SBC’s job to tell churches what to do. I fully embrace the autonomy of the local church. However, it is well within the prerogative of messengers to define the parameters of “friendly cooperation.” We already do this with a host of issues (ie, credo-baptism). The SBC cannot mandate that churches embrace a consistently complementarian ecclesiology, but they certainly can draw a binding boundary for establishing cooperation. This is no violation to local church autonomy. Churches who disagree with the agreed upon boundary are free to unaffiliate with the SBC (although it seems most prefer to force the SBC’s hand by making the messengers vote on the matter, thus giving the church an odd kind of “martyr” status). Still others are appealing to a confessional identity as the unifying force within the SBC. This is the view I hold, and I think it is entirely compatible with the previous to positions. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) doesn’t say everything a statement of faith might say, but it does say a good bit about the faith and practice of Southern Baptist churches. This confessional agreement was the motivation behind the Law Amendment – a simple desire for doctrinal unity among Southern Baptist Churches. If the SBC could agree on confessionalism as a unifying factor in our convention, this unity would only serve to uphold the importance and the urgency of missions, and this unity would be no threat to the principle of local church autonomy.