Fifteen Factors That Have Changed the SBC Since 1979, Part 3

This is the third article in a four-part series on fifteen factors that have changed the SBC since 1979. As I noted in my previous article, this list is not exhaustive, overlap exists between some factors, and I list them in no particular order of importance. You can read the previous articles in this series here and here.

10. The Americanization of the South

OK, I admit that this one began long before 1979, though it reached its culmination in the last generation. The South is a funny place. It also remains the heart of Southern Baptist life, as any demographic map will attest. The South has often had a tenuous relationship with the rest of America, especially when it has been assumed (as has often happened) that New England is the heart of America. There were many reasons for this, including those cultural (slavery in the South), religious (the legacy of strong state religion in the North), and economic (the North was wealthier). At times in American history the South has distanced herself from the rest of the country (again, especially New England) because of either perceived wrongs at the hands of others or the perceived superiority of the Southern way of life.

Examples abound. There was the Nullification Crisis of 1833, when South Carolina claimed that protective tariffs approved by Congress could be nullified (declared “null and void”) by states. There was of course the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, when the South argued it was literally not part of America. Reconstruction followed until the late 1870s, exacerbating sectional tensions and cementing sectional identities. Some areas in the South refused to celebrate Independence Day for decades. The racial tensions in the South continued for a century after the Civil War, further putting distance between the South and other parts of America.

But numerous sociologists and historians note that over the course of the 20th century, the South slowly became part of America again. The two world wars began this process as Americans from every region (and ethnicity!) served alongside each other in defense of our nation. But it took the Civil Rights era of to complete the process. White southerners either voluntarily changed their mind about race relations, were shamed into changing their mind, or at least begrudgingly submitted to the new status quo (it depended upon the person). The South became the Sunbelt and southerners became Americans-in many cases the most patriotic of Americans. A southerner-and a Southern Baptist-was even elected President of the United States in 1976, symbolizing quite nicely the Americanization of the South.

This mattered for Southern Baptists because we were perhaps the most sectional of all mainline denominations in America. Baptists in the South were always closely connected with the culture of the South, sometimes as influencers and sometimes as the influenced. With a few notable exceptions, Southern Baptists have defended every Southern status quo for the entire history of the region. All that to say, while the South in general has become more American, so the Southern Baptist Convention has become more of a national denomination. It began with initial expansion during the first half of the 20th century and by 1972-the same time the South became the Sunbelt-Southern Baptists had churches in all fifty states and had passed the Methodists as the largest Protestant denomination in America.

11. The Urbanization of the South

Closely tied to the above is the urbanization of the South. Until the mid-20th century the South remained mostly rural, mostly agrarian, and substantially less educated than the rest of America. But that began to rapidly change after World War II. (To be fair, “New South” prophets, including Southern Baptist statesmen like I. T. Tichenor and John Broadus, had been trying to nudge the South into greater urbanization and industrialization since Reconstruction.) Atlanta and Houston in particular became megacities much like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Other regionally influential urban centers included Nashville, Memphis, Little Rock, Birmingham, New Orleans, Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Greenville-Spartanburg, Northern Virginia and about half of Florida (though Northern Virginia and much of Florida were “Southern” more in geography than identity). As these urban centers blossomed into centers for finance, technology, and higher education, two generations left the farms and moved to the cities. By the 1970s a majority of southerners lived in cities and medium-sized towns rather than farms and rural hamlets.

This trend also affected Southern Baptists. Our denomination became less rural in its “ambience,” though a majority of Southern Baptists remained members of small churches in non-urban areas. Several Southern Baptist and state convention parachurch ministries are located in the great urban centers and grew accordingly. Baptist Student Unions became the largest campus ministry in America as growing numbers of SBC young people attended state colleges and universities, even in regions beyond the South and Southwest. Perhaps most important, the leading churches in the denomination are no longer “county seat” First Baptist churches but urban and suburban megachurches that grew as their cities grew. Smaller rural churches remain mostly static in their baptism and membership statistics, in part because their communities remain mostly static in population.

12. A Renewed Emphasis on North American Church Planting

Southern Baptists have always cared about domestic church planting. Some of our earliest work was among Native Americans and African Americans, in part because these were the two significant ethnic minorities in the South and Southwest. Because of territorial agreements with our Northern brethren, we did not pursue much church planting outside the South until the mid-20th century. And even then much of it was not church planting so much as it was “South planting”-Southerners were relocating to the North and West for economic reasons and started churches that were decidedly Southern because they didn’t care for non-Southern culture or Northern (now American) Baptist’s progressive tendencies. These churches were “Dixie Outposts,” though some of them gradually became large and influential Southern Baptist churches in their respective regions.

Several new church planting trends have emerged over the past couple of generations. First, because of a growing recognition that parts of the South remain substantially unevangelized, there has been renewed emphasis on planting new congregations in traditional Southern Baptist territory. Second, because many of these unevangelized regions are located in urban centers, there has been greater emphasis on urban church planting in the South. Third, because the Americanization and urbanization of the South has led to growing numbers of foreign immigrants (and collegians) in the South, great emphasis has been given to planting non-white churches among ethnic minorities. Fourth, because the SBC has become a national denomination, attention has been given to areas outside the South, particularly New England, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest. Finally, because the great urban centers of the North are substantially unchurched, our North American Mission Board, seminaries, and key local churches have focused church planting efforts on non-Southern “megacities” that in so many ways lie at the center of American culture. Should the Lord tarry, I predict that in the coming years some of our fastest growing churches will be outside the South, less Caucasian, and even non-English-speaking.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Bennett   •  

    This series is very interesting to me. I’ve studied SBC history, but this really helps me think more about how we got to where we are. Where I serve I see the effects of these SBC-change factors very clearly. I’m in a “frontier” state convention. I’m in a population area that has only become mid-sized in the last 15 years or so. This area went about 40 years(i’m guessing) without a successful SBC church plant. The churches started before the year 2000 are all basically Southern-style churches even though we are only 100 miles from Canada.

    After 2000 two different state conventions (that’s a whole other story) wanted to have a new church plant here. And so I see the renewed emphasis on NA church planting.

    Anyway, thanks for putting this together.

  2. Lee Wilson   •  

    Dr. Finn,

    I must say that I have really enjoyed this series of posts.

    I am looking forward to the final post and I hope that, one of these days, this material could find its way into a very timely book.

    I really think that a project such as that could be of great benefit to bridging some of the divides that exist withing the SBC … helping Southern Baptists understand other Southern Baptists and providing, I would hope, clarity in moving forward into a GCR Convention.

    Thanks again,


  3. ben   •  


    How about betweenthetimes starting a “Baptist Convention of America” name change movement?

  4. Nathan Finn   •     Author


    As with any group blog, I am not at all sure that the contributors to BtT are unified in an opinion about a denominational name change. I know that Dr. Akin raised the question in his “Axioms” sermon, though I believe he came short of advocating a name change. For my part, I remain of mixed opinion on the matter. There are so many legal, financial, and structural issues involved in a name change. Plus, you lose a certain amount of “brand recognition” which has to be re-earned.

    But if I were to suggest a name, it would be similar to yours, but with a variation. I would propose “Baptist Convention of North America” and shoot for the involvement of conservative Baptists in Canada and possibly Mexico as well.


  5. ben   •  

    I don’t know much about the legal hurdles, but I’ve thought about the branding thing too. I’m just not convinced there are that many people today who have a high priority of identifying the “SBC” churches when they move to a new neighborhood. My guess is their priorities have more to do with one or more of: worship style, size, preaching style, programs and [I might hope] theological bent.

    On the other hand, there’s obviously a huge weight of negative branding for an SBC church plant in a non-Southern/rural context. I’m sure you’ve heard how churches in those areas, even many established churches, downplay or even hide their SBC affiliation. My guess is that lack of cohesiveness diminishes the emphasis on the fundamental purposes of SBC cooperation and ultimately hurts the CP.

    In other words, I think there are real costs to a switch, but the benefits of changing outweigh those costs substantially over the long run.

    In any case, I’d love to see you all do some writing on the concept to get people thinking about it.

  6. kamatu   •  

    Dr. Finn,

    4th part?

    Thanks and God bless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *