There are growing rumblings from within — yes, within — the purified fortress of Southern Baptist Convention leadership. The primary charge is that some SBC leaders are more interested in control than cooperation around missions.

Why does this sound so familiar? It seems to ring a bell for those of us who were once happily inside the Southern Baptist family but kept getting pushed away because we would not use political code words to describe biblical authority, or shout a hearty “Amen” each time some new nonsensical SBC proclamation came along about the inequality for women, or passively witness the massive assault on historic Baptist principles.

Pastor Wade Burleson wrote a weblog in December titled “Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperative Conservatives: The War for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention.” He chided some SBC leaders “who loved the battles of decades past” for falling victim to a “crusading mentality of bloodthirst.”

Burleson, a trustee of the SBC International Mission Board (IMB) and a two-term president of the fundamentalist-controlled Oklahoma Baptist Convention, is a strong SBC insider. He rejoices in the so-called “conservative resurgence” that divided the SBC and narrowed the theological and political parameters over the last quarter century.

His concern is that “since all the liberals are gone, conservative crusaders are now killing fellow conservatives.” The issue that got in Burleson’s crawl was the IMB trustees voting to tighten baptism requirements for Southern Baptist missionaries and to forbid them from practicing “private prayer languages.”

To make a long story short, he and some other trustees see the policy changes as a slap at IMB President Jerry Rankin by those loyal to SBC kingpin Paige Patterson who has been perceived as gunning for Rankin for several years.

But that aside, the most intriguing part of Burleson’s statement is the way he characterizes those he claims could bring ruin to the SBC.

First, he states that some SBC leaders just can’t stop fighting. “Crusaders,” he says, “have an agenda and if anyone steps in their way they become vicious.”

Check any technical definition of fundamentalism and there should be no surprise here. It is by nature a narrowing process built on suspicion and an unbending certainty that one is right.

Second, Burleson fears younger Southern Baptists could become “disillusioned “ with the denomination due to “the continuing narrowing of the parameters of fellowship within our convention.”

The whole issue of younger SBC leadership has been a subject of conversation among Southern Baptists over the last year or so. Hard-line veterans of the fundamentalist takeover seem fearful of younger Southern Baptists who are theologically conservative, but more conciliatory in personality and willing to relate respectfully to other Christians with varying opinions.

That’s not the way the SBC guards do things.

Burleson is also concerned about imposed uniformity of belief. He writes: “Sadly, the [SBC] is now moving toward a time when everyone must look the same, talk the same, act the same, believe the same on the non-essentials of the faith, or else you will be removed as ‘not one of us.’”

Ding! Ding! Is the memory bell going off again?

The sticky part is always who defines the “essentials.” In the 1980s fundamentalists cast the SBC battle as a struggle between those who believed the Bible and those who did not.

To “believe” the Bible, however, meant that one had to use the ever-redefined term “inerrancy” and affirm specific interpretations that limited women’s roles in church and family and other social issues.

For Burleson, the non-essentials being made into essentials now are the fore-mentioned views on baptism and speaking in tongues — with the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate on the horizon.

It is hard not to shake one’s head when considering how the current SBC has willingly embraced the strong resurgence of Calvinism within Southern Baptist institutional life. One of the great mysteries is how SBC leaders give no room for diverse interpretations of the Bible concerning women in ministry, but give a pass to those who do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of all persons, but a select few.

Essentials of faith are obviously in the eyes of the beholder. Then, of course, as Burleson is discovering, it is not about theology or cooperation or anything else but control.

Soon he might discover also that what he describes as “a new war” among Southern Baptist conservatives “who have forgotten how to put their swords in their respective sheaths” is not new at all. Burleson laments the thought of engaging in battle with his fellow SBC insiders, but is willing to do so for the sake of the denomination.

Well, have at it, brother. However, many of us who experienced the heat of the last battle will be watching from the cheap seats well outside the gate.

We’ve been there; done that. This is no “new war” at all. It’s the same song, second verse.