OK, there are several things which really have to be cleared up regarding the SBC. As a life-long Southern Baptist and the daughter of a state convention employee until retirement, I probably know a little more than the average lay person in the local Baptist church about the relationship between the SBC and the local church.
Firstly, unlike any other denomination, the SBC does not have authority over the local church. In fact, a Southern Baptist church can be just that and NOT participate in the SBC — not give money, not send stats about their membership, etc... This is because the local church is autonomous. That’s why it’s so laughable when political pundits go to this “SBC leader” or that one and try to get some type of official statement on where the churches stand. There is no such thing. The SBC can make all the resolutions it wants to on the direction it thinks churches should go. Doesn’t mean anything because authority rests with the local body - the local church. In like fashion, the SBC does not, of itself “baptize” anyone - so the wording on that is laughable. Baptisms occur in the local church.
If you read the article closely it admits that more churches have decided of late to join the SBC, and also admits that state conventions have not always asked these questions in a way which would allow comparisons to be made. In my city there are ample Southern Baptist churches and they are not hurting for “membership” - though I would hope that the emphasis for them all would be where it matters: membership in the body of Christ.
As for Rick Warren, he can call himself a prune pie for all it matters, and yes, his church can “officially” join the SBC. Means nothing in relationship to the other churches and does not reflect in any way on their conservative nature - or lack of it. There is no “one voice” of the SBC except on what Southern Baptists traditionally believe. The SBC has no power to enforce anything upon the local bodies.
Thank you for that explanation