SBC Orlando Isn’t Dallas. It’s Nashville 2.0
The Reformers are on the cusp of victory in the SBC. We just need the Absentees to show up and the Normies to join us.
This analysis is free, but with Premium Membership you get MORE. Join today.
by Michael Clary
May 24, 2026
Last year, I wrote a recap of the SBC’s 2025 Annual Meeting in Dallas, arguing that it was largely a “status quo” Convention.
Despite spirited debates on the Law Amendment and women pastors (and a third vote on a constitutional amendment), calls for increased financial transparency from SBC entities, and a major vote on the future of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), when we left Dallas, it looked like not much had changed. Hence, I settled on the description “status quo.”
In retrospect, I would now say that the multi-year, coordinated efforts to force change at the ERLC, one of the most liberal entities in the SBC, over the last decade turned out to be a big win for the Reformers. Just six weeks after a 43 percent vote in Dallas in favor of abolishing the entity outright, Brent Leatherwood resigned as President of the ERLC, marking the end of the Russell Moore-Brent Leatherwood era of escalating accommodation to liberal (and frankly unbiblical) political priorities being championed at the SBC’s policy outfit.
In that piece — which, based on the feedback I received, seemed to strike a chord with many in the SBC — I cataloged what I believe are the four main groups in the SBC and their respective interests: The Platform, the Loyalists, the Normies, and the Reformers.
At the end of the day, however, we’re all Southern Baptists, and we share core doctrinal commitments and ministry priorities. For this reason, these groups are dynamic. Moving from one group to another isn’t as dramatic as switching political parties. It can be as simple as being exposed to new information, seeing things a little differently, and acting accordingly.
The Four Groups of the SBC: A Refresher
So, who are these four constituencies, and how might things have changed in the last year?
The first group is the Platform. These are the guys on the stage who set the agenda and run the SBC’s bureaucracy. They are the most static of the four constituencies, because they hold official positions in the apparatus. And since there’s a limited number of these positions, they wield enormous influence.
The second group is the Loyalists. They support the platform from their entity-sponsored blogs and messengers from the floor. They are the “platform in waiting” — company men who hope to receive committee appointments or jobs in the bureaucracy. They are (largely) driven less by principle and more by the allure of institutional power. So they make strategic calculations to ingratiate themselves with those higher up the ladder.
For example, they will not support necessary reforms, such as the Law Amendment or financial transparency, if it would cost them career advancement opportunities. If you speak with them privately, they’ll say things like, “Brother, I’m totally with you 100 percent on this issue. But you must understand, I cannot go on record with this right now because Dr. So-and-so opposes it, and I need to stay on his good side. Trust me, once I’m chair of “fill-in-the-blank” committee, we can make some real progress on it.”
But once the platform signals it’s time to address the issue, they’ll suddenly voice their support. In other words, their courage is opportunistic. You can’t count on them to hold the line when the chips are down.
There’s a bit of a stolen valor dynamic at work here. For example, Mike Law took all the arrows fighting an uphill battle for the Law amendment a few years ago. He received little institutional support or vocal endorsement from high-profile leaders.
And yet, the issue is too urgent, too clearly biblical, and the opposition’s arguments too clearly compromised for the issue to go away. Everyone knows we have to settle the matter, one way or another. So now we’re seeing more chatter from the institutional leadership class about taking action.
Don’t get me wrong, I welcome this, and I’m glad to see it.
I’m simply pointing out a political dynamic that needs to be noticed: Grassroots reform efforts cannot be given credit for their victories, lest they become an even more powerful nuisance to the institutional class in the future. That’s how the apparatus works.
The third group is the Normies. “Normie” isn’t intended to be a negative term. It simply refers to ordinary pastors and church people who don’t closely follow SBC politics. As I wrote a year ago, “In an ideal world, the SBC is run so well that all of us are ‘Normies.’ The Normies don’t follow SBC politics or issues closely (and in many ways, who can blame them), so they attend the Convention and vote based on their perception of the room at any given moment. I suspect most of them are laymen and women in their churches who love the Lord and expect to discover whatever they need to know while at the Convention.”
The fourth and final group is the Reformers. I put myself in this group. They are concerned about the direction of the SBC and are trying to bring about needed change. In recent years, the primary issues animating the reformers are the need for clarity about women pastors, the need for greater financial transparency, and corruption in the ERLC.
There’s a fifth constituency we could add, the absentees. I didn’t include them last year because they weren’t there. They are the sleeping giant within the SBC that, if awakened, could help accomplish all the Reformers’ goals very quickly. But for whatever reason, they are the ones who don’t show up at the Convention, and their absence leaves the door open for the highly motivated and mobilized progressive minority in the Convention to have their way. The Platform’s coalition is relatively small but highly motivated and reliably present. Many of them get paid to be there.
Two Further Observations About the Four Groups
There are two further observations that can be made about these constituencies.
First, the lines of demarcation are more about posture than doctrine. In the old days of American evangelicalism, the dividing lines were clear and specific — Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and so on all knew who we were and why we weren’t in one of the other groups. In the SBC, there were clear doctrinal dividing lines, such as between inerrantists and non-inerrantists in the Conservative Resurgence, or between Arminians and Calvinists.
These days, however, the old dividing lines have been blurring within and even across denominations. Some of this is driven by the ascendency of non-denominational churches, which downplay doctrinal distinctives to attract larger audiences.
I’ll save that analysis for another day, except to make this one observation: the single biggest dividing line in evangelicalism today is the courage to fight for our convictions.
Two Southern Baptist churches a mile apart may both eagerly subscribe to the Baptist Faith & Message, including a stated complementarian position on women pastors. So on the surface, they appear nearly identical. But there is actually a massive difference between them: One church will appease and accommodate feminism and similar DEI initiatives in order to appear winsome to the world and avoid conflict. The other church will boldly oppose such things, even risking a negative reputation in town for doing so.
Both churches hold the exact same doctrinal commitments, but only one will fight for them. This willingness to fight for their historic convictions is driving the “big sort” of evangelicalism, where pugilistic Presbyterians find themselves joining Baptist churches not because they’ve changed their views on baptism but because they’re looking for a church with a spine.
The churches that are unwilling to fight for the convictions they claim to hold often make pious excuses for doing so, such as a concern for mission (“the world is watching!”), or a concern about litigation (as Jeff Iorg warned last year, if the Law amendment passed), or a concern to protect the identity of missionaries serving in hostile countries if form 990-level financial transparency measures were adopted.
Second, constituencies can shift. Since the lines of SBC demarcation are not primarily soteriological as in the old days, people can shift constituencies without changing their doctrinal commitments. In other words, concerns about encroaching feminism and wokeness can lead people to beat their theological swords into denominational plowshares, working together for reform.
These changes can be observed in real time. For example, Willy Rice, who is not a “Five Point Calvinist,” has emerged as the champion for the Reformers, yet some of his most passionate and vocal supporters are Calvinists. Why is this? Because soteriology is no longer the Convention’s most pressing concern.
In my view, soteriological debates are peace-time luxuries when the Convention is otherwise healthy and solidly conservative. But those debates must take a backseat when existential problems are plaguing our Convention, threatening to pull the levers of bureaucracy to steer the largest Protestant denomination in the world towards liberalism, even though the majority of the Convention would oppose it if they saw what was happening.
Willy Rice is also interesting because he wasn’t always in the Reformers camp. I’d still consider Rice more of a normie: he’s a faithful pastor who loves Jesus, the word of God, and the church. All the books he’s published throughout his career are the sorts of things Normie pastors care about: walking faithfully with God, church leadership, and parenting. He’s not been an activist by any stretch. And yet, Rice has courageously voiced his growing concerns about the direction of the SBC, and, in so doing, has found himself a leader among the Reformers. Both Traditionalists and Calvinists in the SBC who see the need for reform look to Rice and think, “He’s our guy.”
Not because he represents everyone’s soteriological position, but because he’s got a spine. He’s a leader who isn’t afraid to fight for the soul of the SBC.
In this way, Rice represents what I hope to become a larger trend. As Normies learn about the games being played behind the scenes in the SBC, the more they realize they can no longer blindly trust the platform. They get “radicalized,” as the kids say, and they move from being a normie to being a reformer.
I previously mentioned the “absentees,” who are the SBC’s sleeping giant. Most of them are probably normies who are focused on their local ministries. Good for them. May the Lord prosper their faithful work. Most likely, many of them aren’t paying attention to the political drama of the SBC, and that’s why they don’t show up to the annual meeting. They’ve got sermons to write, Bible studies to lead, lost people to evangelize, weddings to perform, and pastoral counseling needs.
However, I know firsthand that there are other absentees who aren’t there for a different reason. Frankly, they do follow the political drama, and they’re both disgusted and discouraged. They’re disgusted by the compromise and corruption they’ve seen in the SBC, and it makes them angry. But they feel like there’s nothing they can do about it, since it costs a lot of time and money to attend the annual meeting, and they don’t have the power to make a dent at an annual meeting with over 10,000 messengers in attendance.
If this is you — if you’re discouraged and feel powerless to make a change — you are not powerless. You’re just not in the room. People who stay home don’t get a vote. It’s as simple as that.
Four Ways You Can Fight for Reform
So, to accomplish the needed reforms in the SBC, what can you do? I suggest the following four action steps.
First, mobilize the absentees. Every empty seat in Orlando is a vote for the status quo. Their absence always benefits the platform. The SBC was originally set up to reward the effort it takes to show up. Orlando is a home-field advantage for the reformers. It’s a drivable distance for a significant portion of the SBC, and June is a reasonable time to travel. It’s a lower barrier to entry than even Nashville or Dallas. Every cooperating church receives two messengers. Send them. Only a fraction of the SBC’s potential messengers actually show up. If they were sufficiently informed and showed up, reform efforts could make real progress. Showing up is the #1 way to make a difference.
Second, retain the Reformers. Reform efforts are hard and take time. William Wilberforce worked for reform for 46 years, suffering years of legislative defeats over a twenty-year period before achieving his first victory. The SBC’s work has an eternal impact, and it is worthy of similar dedication and resolve. Further, reformers know too much to go back to business as usual. When they get tired or discouraged, they check out and disengage. Some become absentees and stop showing up. Some leave the Convention altogether.
Third, inform the Normies. The normies are the largest group in the SBC and thus form the single biggest power block. In many ways, they represent what we all want to be: churchmen who’d rather focus on the work of the ministry, not SBC politics. And in my opinion, most normies are pre-reformers who will join the fight once they see enough evidence of corruption.
When this happens, one of two outcomes is most likely. They will either (1) join the reformers and fight for change, or (2) they disengage and depart the Convention. I’ve seen this firsthand. People come to the Convention, witness the problems directly, and end up deciding the fight isn’t worth it. Churches that leave the Convention aren’t doing so because we’re too conservative. They’re leaving because they perceive us as becoming too liberal. Or, at least, they perceive we are unwilling to defend our conservative convictions.
The refusal to fight for our convictions is functional liberalism. This is different from the theological liberalism of the early twentieth century, which denied the virgin birth and the resurrection, but it has the same effect. Functional liberalism maintains orthodox confessions on paper while refusing to defend them in practice. The functional liberal believes the right things but won’t fight for them. Refusal to fight for our convictions is functionally the same as surrendering them. And the next generation inherits an SBC that says one thing and does another.
If you or your organization are facing a sex abuse or sexual harassment claim, or if you are yourself the victim, my friends at Chalmers Adams can help. Click here.
Theological liberalism kills churches slowly through bad doctrine. Functional liberalism kills them just as surely through failed courage.
Convictionally conservative Baptists want to be in the SBC because we want to cooperate for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission. But if they perceive that our Convention doesn’t have the guts to stand by our convictions, they see little reason to stay in.
Fourth, get ready to do business. There are many motions and resolutions at the annual meeting, but only a handful have real consequences. Resolutions, for example, have no binding authority. They merely express the will of the Convention on a particular matter.
This year, three issues stand out that have real teeth: (1) clarity on women pastors, (2) financial transparency, and (3) the election of a new president. In my view, the Center for Baptist Leadership has its finger on the pulse of reform efforts in the SBC, and one can get up to speed by following their essays and podcasts. Regarding the election of a new president, this is the single most important vote we take as a Convention. This year, Willy Rice is the man who has the courage, clarity, and conviction to lead the SBC to a more hopeful and fruitful future.
Conclusion: All It Takes to Win Is to Show Up
Orlando is not Dallas. Dallas was a referendum on whether reform was possible. And look at the ERLC — it is.
Orlando is a referendum on whether Reformers will show up and Normies will be persuaded that it is time for a leader who is willing to admit we have some problems and then do what it takes to solve them.
In fact, I think our meeting in Orlando is shaping up to be very similar to the Nashville Convention in 2021. According to Baptist Press, Nashville’s “2021 SBC Annual Meeting was the largest since 1995.” Baptist Press suggests that “much of that had to do with the location and the involvement of first-time messengers to the convention.” While that’s undoubtedly true (I guess location does matter), we all know that the larger turnout was also issue-driven.
Nashville was the first SBC annual meeting since the disastrous and infamous “Resolution 9” that hoodwinked Baptists into affirming godless Critical Race Theory as a helpful “analytical tool.” It was also the first Convention post-COVID. Other massive political issues were roiling the SBC, driven by the narrative of an “abuse crisis” and Russell Moore’s underhanded political dealings.
Even more, there was an outspoken Reformer running for SBC president that year: Mike Stone.
The Platform pulled out all the stops to stop Stone from winning. Sadly, they prevailed, and Ed Litton defeated Stone by a total of 6,834 votes (52.04 percent) to Stone’s 6,278 (47.81 percent), a difference of just 556 votes. Flip just 300 votes and Stone would have won. The SBC would be radically different today.
We don’t have to lose this time. Now, the Reformers know to expect the dirty tricks. Now, more Normies are aware that everything the Reformers have been warning about for five-plus years has proven true. The Reformers aren’t cranks; they’re prophets.
Whether it was Stone vs. Litton, or the recent votes on ratifying the Law Amendment, the difference is razor-thin. The direction of the SBC is being decided by a few hundred votes each year.
This means that the single most important thing you can do before June 9-10 is to plan to send messengers. Not because one messenger changes everything, but because ten thousand reasons to stay home have kept the sleeping giant asleep long enough. Your church has at least two slots. Fill them.
And this means that the single most important vote you will cast in Orlando is for our next SBC president. We are not electing a doctrinal statement — we already have the Baptist Faith & Message for that. We are electing a man with a spine. Willy Rice is that man.
He wasn’t always a Reformer. That’s precisely why he’s the man we need. He doesn’t have a reputation of a man who moves from one battle to the next because he’s addicted to fighting. No, he’s a churchman who understands the times and paid a price for changing his mind in public.
That credibility is worth more than a lifetime of safe positions.
Opponents of the Reformers (the Platform and the Loyalists) often trot out tired old lines, such as, “This is a distraction! Let’s move on from the conflicts and get back to soul winning!” My response is that our cooperation will be less effective at soul-winning if we lack clarity about who we are, how we are led, and how our money is spent. The real crisis in the SBC is the growing number of people who no longer feel confident that the SBC represents their convictions, and giving more money could actually be funding our own demise.
There’s one thing I’m absolutely convinced of: The most powerful and evangelistically effective version of the SBC is one that rediscovers its fighting spirit for the glory of God.
We don’t need to adjust our doctrines — the BF&M is an excellent summary of our shared convictions. We just need to be willing to fight for them, even if it means enduring temporary losses and the departures of those unwilling to do so. God is honored by courage and clarity. These are the very traits we see in the book of Acts, and this is how the SBC can get back on track.
See you in Orlando.
— Michael Clary is the Lead Pastor of Christ the King Church in Cincinnati. This essay originally appeared at the Center for Baptist Leadership.
See Also:
Recent Articles:
 | A guest post by
|
Fantastic piece, Rod. It’s one thing to hold the BF&M theoretically. It’s quite another to firmly and actively hold it as a point of bold contention. No more saber rattling; it’s time to parry and riposte in bold defense of the practical applications of the Gospel.
Excellent, well-documented article. I agree. However, cost remains a huge factor for small church pastors and bivocational church planters like me. Some inevitably try to shame us by saying we need to prioritize, take personal vacations and personally pay for it if our small churches cannot. Such out-of-touch arrogance and lack of economic reality for how many of us barely get by is what pushes more and more out of our beloved SBC. Until we can have regional meetings, the masses of Absentees will be unable to buy votes for influence.