Q&A on the #ABSC

It's been a busy week with the ABSC, so I didn't get my book review written, with apologies to President Bush, his memoir will have to wait a couple of weeks. I also did not get this week's "Does it matter?" written, so I can't post it either. I thought that, for the sake of the curious, I'd give you some background on the meeting I spent the first half of my week in so you'd know a little more about it:

1. What is the ABSC?

The ABSC is the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.

2. What are you, a politician? That's no answer: what is the Arkansas Baptist State Convention?

The Arkansas Baptist State Convention (ABSC) is really two things. The first is this: a 2 day meeting, with a 1 day pastor's conference, that happens nearly every fall. It is made up of messengers that are sent by various churches that participate voluntary in the ABSC. This participation is based on a level of assumed like-mindedness in belief and goal. The ABSC is the meeting that makes adjustments to plans, goals, and when necessary, stated beliefs.

The other usage of ABSC is the collection of churches that could participate in the meeting if they wanted to, throughout the 365 days of the year. So, the ABSC is the voluntary associations of churches within the state of Arkansas that share plans, goals, and beliefs based on the Constitution and By-laws of the ABSC.

So, the ABSC is both a meeting (convention) and a year-round partnership.

3. When you say "assumed like-mindedness in belief and goal" what do you mean?

The Constitution and By-laws of the ABSC gives as the purpose of the group this: to assist the churches…in fulfilling their mission, and to encourage cooperative support of and involvement in our worldwide mission enterprise. Further, the ABSC officially uses the 1963 edition of the Baptist Faith & Message as a doctrinal guideline for the activities of the ABSC.

What the ABSC does not do is investigate every last detail of every church that wants to participate. The ABSC declares those two aspects and that regular Baptist churches in sympathy with those items are permitted to send messengers to the Annual Meeting (part 1 of the above definition). It is typically assumed that a church that is willing to contribute financially and participate in activities is of like-mindedness. However, there is a procedure for investigating if a church does not belong among the ABSC and ending their participation.

Churches are not required to copy and paste the identical purposes or beliefs of the ABSC, but generally are expected to agree with the spirit of those beliefs. After all, why else do you want to be a part?

4. Isn't there a 2000 Baptist Faith & Message? Why don't you use that?

Yes there is. However, the ABSC has not adopted that statement. There are differences in the two, but the major doctrinal expressions remain the same. Having been in Georgia in the time the BFM2K (shorthand for the new BF&M) was adopted, I do not know what happened regarding changing to the 2000 from the 1963. However, Baptist life is marked by independence, so nothing requires the ABSC to use the same faith statement as the SBC.

5. Why are people at the ABSC called messengers?

The terminology reflects an important concept: the people that attended the meeting were messengers from the churches. In this, they were selected by the church however the church chose to select them. The ABSC does not vet individual messengers: a committee at the meeting assists with making sure each person presenting themselves as a messenger is approved by their church, but the ABSC does not get involved with the process.

Also, the messengers are empowered by their churches to vote per the messenger's conscience. They are not expected to call home for instructions, but instead to act as they believe God is guiding them through the Bible and their own understanding. There is a general pre-published agenda for the meeting, but additional business can come up---and must be addressed when it does. Since most of our churches operate under a congregational principle, you can't get a spur-of-the-moment church decision, so the church sends trustworthy messengers whose judgment should be trustworthy.

6. Was there any major controversy at the ABSC?

Not really.

7. Who can present business at these meetings?

Any credentialed messenger. Including my 8-year-old daughter if she had registered this year, which she didn't because I forgot to give her the messenger card with her name on it.

That includes nominating officers like President of the ABSC and being nominated to those positions. Any one that is a member of a participating church is eligible to serve on a committee or as an officer.

8. What changes as a result of the ABSC?

Various things: some folks go home encouraged and help their church move forward in obedience to Jesus Christ. Some folks go back and increase their financial support, enabling missionaries to do more ministry work. Some go and plan trips to help the Children's Homes or BCMs.

We also register opinions on issues, in things called resolutions. Nothing changes by way of resolution, but it does express an opinion if anyone wants to know what Arkansas Baptists think. Finally, we approve the budget for the whole ABSC and the trustees that will guide agencies and institutions for the year. If we elect good people to those jobs, then places like Ouachita Baptist University have further opportunities to thrive.

9. What did you do the whole time?

Mainly, I spent time helping a committee or listening to the good preaching that's interspersed between business sections. I also spent time getting ideas from other ministers and trying to pass along some encouragement to hard-working folks that needed it.

Severability

This is going to sound a bit like a rant and may really need to be edited, but you're going to get the full-force of what I have to say. Even if that includes a few errors in spelling and grammar.

The big word you see as the post title is a term from contract law. It also appears in general legislation. From a legal perspective, as far as I understand (though you might check with Howell Scott) what this word means is this: some agreements and laws are setup that if part A is deemed bad, part B still applies.

An example would be when Congress passes a Frankenstein law, one that has merged unrelated issues, they add a "severability" clause. That way, just because the extra paycheck for Congress gets ruled unconstitutional, the extra taxes can still stay. Or a contract will have a clause that is deemed illegal, but the rest of the contract stays in force. You could make the future interest payments on a mortgage illegal, but the severability means you still owe the principal.

I think it's time we draw the principle of severability into American Christian life. (Note: there is a decent gap between pure Biblical Christianity and Christianity as expressed in American culture. We'll deal with that another day.) It's time for us to assert the need (and the right) to sever certain things in theology.

For example:

One of the big debates in Baptist life right now is connected to the theology of salvation. The issue is over how much of a free-will mankind has in their salvation and how much is God's sovereign election. The catch-phrases are "Calvinism" and "Arminianism."

Calvinism strongly stresses God's sovereign election while not denying man's responsibility to respond. Arminianism strongly stresses man's freedom to respond while acknowledging God's omnipotence (All-powerfulness). The terms come from two theologians from about 5 centuries ago, Calvin and Arminius.

When this argument comes up, usually someone that is strongly against Calvinism will jump from the issue to the parts of Calvin's theology that are no good. (Like burning heretics, merging church and state, for Baptists, infant Baptism.) Calvinists will highlight the tendency in Arminius to ignore eternal security and leanings toward legalism. (Or antinomianism, depending…)

There are more modern examples: there have been good advocates of homeschooling, discipleship, and church renewal. Some of them have then said other really dumb things: there's one who wrote a book showing support for slavery in the American South, several who are way too far in the "fathers are the heads of households" direction (guess what? I'm ok with my wife being responsible for some stuff all on her own. I think it's Biblical as well.)

Then there are those who have evolved their beliefs over time. At one point, a professor at New Orleans Seminary was a staunch proponent of Biblical Inerrancy (the belief that the Bible contains no errors). Now, he leans towards open theism (the belief that sometimes God doesn't know stuff). You've got some of the various doofuses (doofi? is that the proper plural for doofus?) with TV shows and TV networks. They have moments they are right. Then they have extended epochs of dumb.

It's time to acknowledge that there's some severability here:

Time to separate that just because someone's been right once doesn't guarantee they're right now.

Time to separate that just because one idea was good does not mean the next one is.

Time to separate that just because an individual has a TV show he's not a true spokesperson.

However, we can't expect those who attack Christianity to allow this if we don't do it. If we Christians continue to be circle-the-wagons fanboys for our celebrities, we will always be subject to these problems.

We have to be more discerning. We have to continue to re-evaluate and return to Scripture for our answers. We cannot keep giving a free pass to the people we like and hope that they always get it right.

We also need to be willing to give credit where it's due: the idea may be good even if the source is bad. Grab and use the good. Hold on to the good, discard the bad.

And when you're evaluating people: don't assume one blog post makes them an expert. Or that liking one blog post or reading one book is a lifetime endorsement. I like Tolkien's writings: that doesn't make me a Catholic. I like JC Ryle. I'm not Anglican. There's some Presbyterians I like, but I pastor a congregational church and don't intend to change it.

In all, weigh it, consider it---but be willing to sever the bad and discard it.

SBC Look-back Part 3

You might be getting bored with this look at the Southern Baptist Convention. I can’t say as I’d blame you for that. I’m hoping this will be the wrap-up.

Before I hit the last two resolutions I want to comment on, here’s the info on officer elections. These officers have no “power” or “authority” but they do have a level of influence.

The SBC Constitution and By-Laws allow for the President of the SBC to be re-elected once, and it’s traditional that if he wants that re-election, he gets it. That’s dependent on not doing something colossally stupid, of course, but Bryant Wright of course has done nothing of the sort. So, it was expected that he would be re-elected. One individual felt that we needed a different president and chose to nominate himself. Generally, that goes badly, even if you would have been a good nominee if someone else said it. He lost.

Fred Luter, a pastor in New Orleans was elected First Vice President and Eric Thomas of Virginia was elected Second Vice President. Luter’s election is noteworthy because he is the first African-American in one of these three representative roles.

Now, the last two resolutions that I want to comment on.

The first is on religious liberty. There is a move toward laws that aim to restrict speech from criticizing religious belief. These are often framed as “anti-blasphemy” laws and claim to be about keeping people from speaking meanly or hatefully against other religions, but the ultimate effect is a chilling of freedom. Freedom of speech is crucial to freedom of thought and freedom of will: if you can’t speak freely, how will others be free to choose? How can you be free if you can’t speak freely?

We do need to be careful, though, that we are willing to allow the same freedoms we demand. We want to be free to speak our minds about other religious views and philosophies and so must allow those freedoms to others. Not doing so is both hypocritical and counter-productive. God and truth need advocates and proclaimers, defenders and teachers, but not violent men or repressors.

The second resolution was a bit of a surprise. The Resolutions Committee takes submissions and usually quietly puts to sleep most of those submissions. They may repeat what we said last year, be too convoluted, or have some other reason to be declined. Certainly we don’t shy away from controversy, do we?

Well, a resolution had been submitted criticizing the update to the NIV translation of the Bible. You may not know this, but the NIV was recently updated. Much of it is the same, but the changes stirred a little trouble as they approached a “gender-neutral” viewpoint. That’s a long discussion to have another day. Parts of that approach are acceptable: when Paul writes to the “brethren” and a translator renders that as “fellow believers,” I think that’s accurate. However, God chose to reveal Himself as Father so there are places where gender-specific terms are necessary to be faithful to the text.

The committee, however, felt that it wasn’t necessary to vote on this resolution or discuss it. I don’t know what their reasoning was, but the messenger who had submitted it didn’t want to let it go. So, he moved that the SBC overrule the committee and vote on the resolution anyway. Motions like that, like motions to amend committee decisions, often go nowhere. That was not the case this time. The motion to reconsider received more than the two-thirds it needed, and so the SBC considered and then passed the resolution.

So it’s mainly noteworthy for how it passed. The content was not very different from a resolution a few years ago when the TNIV was being marketed so it’s not too far beyond our normal viewpoints.

In all, the unusual thing from resolutions this year was the attempt to amend the immigration resolution and pulling this one from the “not forwarded” list.

That’s about the whole of it from this year. We’ll see in the next year whether or not the Executive Committee’s recommendations about seeking racial and ethnic diversity on SBC Boards and in employment in administration/management roles. I hope we do a better job with that, but we’ll see. I’m just cynical enough to think those recommendations need a wait-and-see.

Southern Baptist Convention Lookback Part 2

One of the annual aspects of the Southern Baptist Convention is the report of the Resolutions Committee. This report is presented to express the opinion of the Convention on various issues. Important to remember, though, is that resolutions of the SBC have no real power. They are statements of current opinion.

Typically, there are some no-brainer resolutions. One of these is always a resolution expressing appreciation to the host city and the volunteers that made the convention meeting happen. Unless a city rioted and tried to use the National Guard to keep us out, we’d express appreciation in a resolution. Unfortunately, too many convention attendees think that resolution covers the 15% that the waitress should have gotten. That’s, however, another story.

Then there are resolutions on religious issues. This year there were a couple of those. One of them related to the recent book by Rob Bell entitled Love Wins. This book, along with a few other writings and preachers, casts doubt toward the traditional teaching on hell as eternal torment. Southern Baptists are committed to a fairly literal understanding of Scripture, such that if the Bible says there’s a hell, we’re certain this is true. The SBC passed a resolution affirming that belief and encouraging Baptists to not purchase or endorse materials, including  Love Wins.

Another resolution that dealt in the religious issues area was one calling for “civic public discourse.” This one is in response to two things: the nut that burned a Koran and the Westboro Baptist Church. The behaviors of these groups are beyond disgusting, and it’s a good thing for the SBC to take a stand against them.

My one fuss is a combined complaint about these two resolutions. I don’t disagree with either of them, but I would have liked to see us call out Westboro by name. We were willing to call out Rob Bell by name, but weren’t willing to take the hit and call Westboro what they are: unChristian, unBiblical, and just plain wrong. We stated that people that engage in those behaviors are wrong, but we should have named them. Especially since they have “Baptist” in the name and people tend to confuse that church with the SBC. It might have been newsworthy.

The next mega-issue with a resolution came with a resolution on immigration. This resolution was crafted by the committee and was not submitted---typically the committee’s report comes from resolutions written by individuals and sent in. This one was written by the committee. It went into several statements about aspects of governmental policy on immigration. There were several people who were concerned by the statements relating to providing a “path to legal status” for immigrants in this country illegally. Some were concerned this would be viewed as encouraging illegal immigration by setting up an amnesty program. Others felt that changing this resolution (or dropping it) would show that we were uncompassionate or disinterested in the welfare of immigrants.

The difficulty with this one is two-fold for me. First of all, the purpose of the Southern Baptist Convention is to coordinate the efforts of like-minded churches to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Second, Congress doesn’t really listen to us anyway.

So why did we risk alienating both immigrants and people that are concerned about illegal immigration all at once? I understand the need to express that we’re concerned about taking the Gospel beyond good ole’ boys in the South. We need to be more concerned with spreading the Gospel than we are with green cards. In fact, unless you work for Immigration or are the hiring manager of a company, it really shouldn’t cross your mind.

The only concern you should have for the ethnic background or country of origin of someone in the sphere of ministry and witness you have is if there are cultural communications barriers. If someone comes to your church and doesn’t speak English your only concern should be finding a translator to share that you love them and that Jesus loves them too.

The other concern I have is this: there are people that we as Southern Baptists could reach, and should reach, that have strong opinions about immigration. Especially negative opinions. Here’s the deal: that guy who sounds (and might be) xenophobic and anti-immigrant? He needs Jesus too. We’re leaving some of these people behind, and one of the big problems with that is that these are our family members.

This is what happens when we go past declaring the Gospel and delve into politics. It may be perfectly legitimate to call your Congressman and ask for a border fence or for amnesty for illegal immigrants. It is fine to express your political opinion, and it’s a good thing to do.

But as a collection of churches our statements should be focused on spreading the Gospel and encouraging people to live as disciples of Christ. There is nothing Gospel-oriented about a secure border or an amnesty (or a “not amnesty”) program. There is about loving all people regardless of origin or ethnicity. That should be our focus.

Ok, this has gotten long enough. Next post will talk about the resolution on the NIV2010 and on Religious Liberty.

Doug

SBC Look-back part 1

I didn't actually attend the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention this year, as it was in Phoenix, Arizona, and I just didn't have the time, money, or inclination to make the trip. I did watch most of the sessions via the webcast. Here’s a few observations:

1. This was the first year with no night sessions. This sounded like a good idea, but it does conflict with the logic behind moving the meeting all over the US. The moving meetings are designed to make it possible for more people to be involved from time to time. By not having anything at night, even local folks could not participate if they couldn’t get time off of work. So, there was a motion asking that future conventions restore at least one evening session.

2. This ties into something from this year that was good: every year, several times a year, both the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board hold appointment services for new missionaries serving with them. This year, both IMB and NAMB held services at the Annual Meeting. The suggestion was that the night session be restored and include at least one of the appointment services. Without getting into the ideas about merging the boards, I think we would be well served to have a joint appointment service as part of one night session that is generally a missions-celebration type meeting.

3. One part of how the SBC operates is a two-day business meeting. There are times to introduce motions that are open to any credentialed messenger. That means that, as long as your church has approved you to be there and the church is a cooperating SBC church (which is a very broad statement), anyone can propose anything. Anything. There weren’t all the crazy motions that I’ve seen the past two years, but there were a few odd ones. It is very rare that any motion actually gets voted on, though. Every motion is automatically given to the “Committee on Order of Business” to determine if it will be voted on. Most are referred to an existing board or committee: for example, if you make a motion about something Lifeway should do, it will be referred to their board. A few are out of order because they are more like “Resolutions.” We’ll talk about those later this week. Some are out of order because the rules prohibit them. For example, you can’t vote to establish a committee to do something already being done by a committee. Bureaucracy, after all, does not always need redundancy.

That was the fate of a couple of motions, but most just referred on off to committee. There always seem to be a few that are ruled out because they would usurp the authority of a board. The SBC entities, like Lifeway, the IMB, NAMB, or Guidestone Financial Resources have a Board of Trustees that are in charge of their operations. The SBC messengers can vote to sack a board member (or the whole board) or can ask the board to consider something, but you can’t tell them what to do.

Later this week we’ll take a look at the resolutions and officer elections. That’s where the real zaniness went on this year.

Doug

A positive happening in Baptist life...

A little over a year ago, a high school football team had traveled from one part of Arkansas to another for an away game. Like many other medium-sized town in Arkansas, Monticello had hotel rooms to stay in, but there wasn't meeting space large enough for 50 or more high school kids and their associated adult chaperones and coaches. Add in that football is a big deal, and there's not going to be much help forthcoming for a visiting team.

Well, one of the adults with this team was also the “unofficial” chaplain of the team. He sent out a message on Twitter that he was looking for a space to meet. That tweet was picked up by one of his friends, who happened to pass the info on to me. At the time, I was pastor of a church in Monticello. In fact, it was the church within rock-throwing distance of the hotel the team was staying at for the game. I made contact back with the team, and offered the use of the youth room in our church for their team to meet in, watch film, and do whatever they needed. Because it was a Thursday night and Ann was out with some friends, it took a little extra looping to get the keys to the church in the hands of the team.

Actually, it didn't take much looping. The football team was having dinner at the pizza restaurant that shared a parking lot with the restaurant Ann and another pastor's wife had gone to for dessert night. So, it was a quick walk across the parking lot and the problem was solved.

So, that night, the team used Calvary Baptist Church in Monticello, Arkansas. This was the first time nearly half the football team had ever been in a church. That's right. Ever been in a church. That night, and the next day, they got to look around and think it was a cool building and a cool room. They had the opportunity to hear their coach's testimony of his Christian faith. They had the opportunity to see nearly the closest thing small-town Arkansas has to “love your enemies” when their opposing team's supporters provided them meeting space.

How did it all come together? Like I said, a tweet went out from one person, and it bounced off of another. Well, here's a few other details: Doug, the team chaplain, sent a tweet. Mark, a mutual friend, saw it and forwarded it to me. I bounced it to Ann, who, knowing Mark and the first Doug helped with the project. How did we know each other? A little place called Ouachita Baptist University. Mark and I lived in the same dorm. Doug was there, and so was Ann. We majored in different things, but remembered each other, and had grown with a love for serving the Lord Jesus Christ together in our time there.

One other detail....Mark was in Singapore. Or China, or someplace in East Asia, because that's where he lives these days. So, one Doug helped another Doug in Southeast Arkansas, by way of East Asia, all because of a group of relationships that began with Ouachita Baptist University.

Why tell this story now? I was reminded of it when I ran into the other Doug this week at the Arkansas Baptist State Convention. I haven't seen him since school. I still haven't seen Mark. We were there, together, celebrating the work that Arkansas Baptists have been involved with together, and I remembered this story. I should have shared it then, but better late than never.

Doug

On the road again

Tonight, I'm sitting in a hotel room in Jonesboro, Arkansas.  Not because Jonesboro is just the garden spot of Arkansas, nor just so that I can have cable TV to watch Iron Chef America tonight, but I'm here for the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.  The past two years I've been at each level of Southern Baptist organization: the local association, the state convention, and the national convention.  The streak will probably end next year in Phoenix, because I just don't see making a 2 day drive to get to a 2 day meeting to drive 2 days back.  While there are some benefits to going, such as some good preaching and the chance to reconnect with the occasional friend, that's just a bit too much.

So, what will we do, and why are we in Jonesboro for it?  Well, I'm not sure how many total messengers we'll have.  Last year in Benton I believe we had 777 messengers, which is down from being above 1000 back in the 1990s.  However, the messengers that register will hear some good preaching, hear the reports of what the Arkansas Baptist agencies, boards, and entities have been up to for the last year.  We'll hear the plans for the next year, and we'll vote on approving some of those plans and the budgets for them.

We'll also elect officers, trustees of agencies and boards, and approve (or deny) resolutions.  It's basically an opportunity for all of the Baptist churches in Arkansas that support the work of the state convention to hold accountable the people that spend the money we send them.  Not only will they make speeches and present reports, but many of these agencies will have people standing at booths in an exhibit hall who will attempt to answer whatever questions don't get asked in the session.

There will be plenty of informal meeting and encouragement happening on the side, a few good meals, and plenty of coffee consumed.  It's the way we've done business for many years as Baptists.  It works, even if it's not perfect. 

Perhaps I'll blog more as we go through the next few days.  Perhaps not, because I've still got to do Hebrew homework and do a few other things.  We'll see you in a day or two if not…

 

Doug

Lifeway hits a mark

Last year, in June, I criticized the Southern Baptist Convention's Lifeway Christian Resources over their advertising of a few products.  You can read it all here.  However, in the interest of fairness, I thought I should share a good thing I saw from them this past week.

Last week I went to M-Fuge, part of the student summer activities Lifeway puts together.  It was a well-run camp/mission activity that we'll talk about later.  One of the activities was an adult Bible study while the youth had their own Bible studies, and as we were getting ready for this Bible study time, there was always a short video profiling some aspect of Lifeway's student ministries system.  (Ok, it was a commercial.)

One of these was for the curriculum directly related to young women.  It was a video showing some of the various temptations and issues girls face, and and expressing some of those emotions.  It also shared the viewpoint, repeatedly, of "you can't protect me," addressed to both parents and youth leaders.

And when you reach the end of the video, the statement was essentially that you can't protect, but you can prepare, encourage, guide spiritually.  And then Lifeway expressed that they can help adults know how to handle being there for teenagers.

This is good.  Very good.

Why?  A few reasons:

1.  Lifeway isn't claiming they can solve all of a student's problems with a book or a class. 

2.  I took the primary audience for this advertisement as parents, with church ministries as a secondary target.  Which is good: parents, especially Christian parents, are responsible for helping their children grow in Christ.  The church should help, but one of the dangers we've fallen into is farming out our kids, even to churches.  How do we expect church to be more effective than the home?  If the home is filled with Believers, then church is a supplement, not the whole meal.  Kids whose parents aren't in church is a whole different story.  Still, and this is a whole long thought, the ministry to youth and children is a ministry of the church not a small or solo volunteer or a hired gun.  Any ministry that separates the church into isolated groups is not building the body of Christ.

3.  The point was, to me, clear: no one program is the solution.  Individual relationships are the the key.  This is a good point for all involved in discipling (which should be all Christians).  Relationships are the center: relationship with Christ, with fellow believers, and with those who need to come to Christ.

Anyway, I just wanted to post that bit of positive. Something I've seen in my personality is a tendency to see problems and express that I've seen problems but not to express positives. It's not that the problems aren't there or aren't serious, because they are.  We have a lot of issues that we've borrowed into the church that we don't need.  Yet I want to do a little better about highlighting the positive.

So, just as I pointed out a missed point, here's a hit mark: literature doesn't solve your problems, but it can help you be able to know how to work through your relationships to build disciples.  And that's a good thing.

 

Doug

Promises that shouldn't have been made

The following is a basic synopsis of a paper I wrote for a Spiritual Formation class I took through Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  I was, for a time, a student in their Semlink program, which I highly recommend for anyone pursuing graduate theological education.  Even if you intend to residence and graduate elsewhere, take 20-30 hours from GCTS.  Make sure most of it will transfer, but the added viewpoint will be of great value.  Especially for us Baptists---get a little bit from outside. 

Anyway, the paper had to do with a case study book we were using for the course.  The book featured various cases of situations that ministers were facing, whether personal or professional.  Many of them dealt with the crisis that happens when those two collide.  I selected a case study dealing with a minister that had gone through a divorce, and had been vaguely promised re-instatement of his ministry credentials after a certain time.

The minister, and the study called him "Pete," had stepped away from ministry after his divorce, and had been given certain steps he had to follow to be reinstated.  These were prescribed by his denominational supervisors.  (See why Baptists need to look outside a bit?  Most Baptist preachers will have nightmares about their Associational Missionary being able to suspend their ordination!)  At the end of the steps, done throughout 3 years, Pete was supposed to be eligible to receive his ordination back and be allowed to seek a place of ministry within the same group of churches.  The case study ended with Pete sitting outside the closed door meeting that was deciding if he should receive his credentials back and be allowed to return to ministry.

I had to answer whether Pete should be reinstated.  Why I felt that way.  What went wrong with the situation, how to handle it now, and how to prevent it.  This was, naturally, a challenge to deep South Southern Baptist.  Why?

We, typically, don't hold with divorced and remarried men in the pastorate.  Especially when the divorce happened while they were pastoring.  We're so certain of this that our seminaries are very hesitant to admit divorced students, and the one I intend just won't.  Not will maybe sometimes, will not.  At all.  And I agree with this viewpoint.  I think that the simple, plain reading of 1 Timothy and Titus give support to the viewpoint, and that the Lord Jesus Christ also had strong words prohibiting divorce.  I think that in modern American culture, with our convenient marriages and more convenient divorces, we should, as Christian ministers, marry in obedience to the Word and stay married in obedience to that Word, while behaving in marriage according to the Word.

So, naturally, my first thought is that Pete shouldn't be reinstated.  Pete's not qualified for the ministry.  He's not disqualified from the Kingdom, just from the pulpit.

Yet this was about more than Pete.  This was about a council of ministers and their word.  They told Pete he could preach again, even with the divorce.  They gave their word.  They shouldn't have done so.  The pulpit, the preaching of the Word, is not man's to give or take.  It is God's to give, and God's to take.  Man may be used by God to hold the people in the pulpit accountable, but the authority comes from the Word, not from anyone's preferences.  A minister that violates God's Word should be held accountable by God's people and removed.  A minister that isn't as exciting as you'd like or doesn't tickle your ears isn't yours to remove.  It's a line, not so fine of one as some would make it.

But they gave their word.  It doesn't matter if they actually "promised" or "vowed."  We're not supposed to be promising people, rather we are to be people of the promise, and people whose yes means yes and no means no.

The people of Israel, in Joshua 9, did the same thing.  They promised peace to the Gibeonites, though God had told them not to make peace with the people of the land.  Yet their promise was binding.  It was binding before God and man, whether it should have been made or not.

Likewise, I felt the district council had to reinstate Pete.  They had given their word.  Now, I think Pete should have disqualified himself from preaching roles, though probably not support roles, but that wasn't the point.  Though the promise shouldn't have been made, it should be kept.

Why bring this up?  Last week at the SBC, we had a discussion about promises that were made by a committee of the convention.  They promised to keep secrets related to their work.  As a result, they made some suggestions regarding changes in the SBC, and I believe more changes will come from this opening round.  Yet this group will not share any of the information that went into their processes, based on the promises they made.  An effort was made to compel the information, which I felt was ill-guided.  True, the promises should never have been made.  We're a convention of independent churches, and to ask pastors their opinions of denominational structure should have been risk-free, as no one in the structure can do anything to retaliate.  All of the agency heads that were affected by the change had already announced their intended departure. 

However, a promise was made to certain people.  It therefore became necessary to be a promise kept.  However, in an attempt to bridge the gap, I made an effort to moderate both positions, suggesting that the information be reviewed by 2 members of the committee and outside legal counsel (because attorneys can generally keep secrets, what with the threat of disbarment and all), and what was not promised as privileged be released.  This attempt failed.  The attempt to compel all the information failed as well.

The problem comes in that, when promises are made, there are sometimes tough decisions about keeping those promises.  Whether they should have been made or not, as God's people we've got to honor our word.  However, we must learn that, in the process, it may cost us and others dearly.  In Pete's case, I think the cost is the credibility of the pastorate and the denomination.  In Joshua's case, the Israelites had to fight a war to defend the Gibeonites, then some of Saul's offspring died because of Saul's attempt to break the promise.  In the case of the SBC, it will depend greatly on how those who made promises act in coming days.  If it is obvious they are not hiding an agenda or anything else, then all will be well.  They are only being people of their word. 

What promises do you make?  How often do you give your word?  Have you thought through the long-term impact of your word?  Anyone willing to share a time that keeping your word caused unintended consequences?

 

Doug

Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF---Addendum

A couple of quick notes on the blog series last  week:

1.  I think it would not hurt one bit for state conventions to consider some of the same suggestions.  The best way, in my opinion, to restore funding is to restore confidence.  This will require a renewal of accountability.
2.  Just as several people have pointed, most notably Ben Stroup at Church Giving Matters, churches are no longer the only avenue that Christians give money through.  There are other groups and organizations that the people in the pews are considering.  Many of these are good causes.  Some of them are even Kingdom-building causes.  Just as we have long struggled in the SBC (at least every church I've ever been in, from baby on up) to remind people that special offerings, whether building funds, Lottie Moon, or Gideons, are above your tithe, so we have people choosing to move their tithe outside of the church.
This is the same thing the SBC is facing: competition for those dollars.  It really will require finding ways to have more pie, not just reslicing the current one differently.  This will take an increase in understanding of relevance and importance in local churches.  The SBC will need to become evidently more accountable and more relevant to individual churches.
3.  To answer a criticism some have: no, I did not attend any of the "listening sessions" with the GCRTF.  They held one in the opposite corner of Arkansas.  It was on a Wednesday, as I recall.  It would have been physically impossible for me to attend it and fulfill my responsibility to teach that portion of the flock of Christ that I'm responsible to teach that night.  Could I have found a substitute?  Certainly, had I received any information about the meeting more than 2 days in advance.
4.  There would be immense value in Southern Baptists around the nation realizing that we're all dwelling on an under-churched mission field, and quit wasting time and money on some of our disagreements.  Many of our churches are where they are financially and spiritually because they've fought over paint colors and music styles.  If we would be willing to gather for more than an hour and realize that the building is not the most important thing, we could actually look at more unity, and fewer identical congregations.
Church planting and new churches are great when they are done to reach people that the current church will not effectively reach.  Starting a new church is a waste if it's a carbon copy of a church within a 2-mile radius, which many of ours are, especially in the South.  Churches choosing to merge would reduce overhead, allow for more ministers to be focused on making disciples and less on maintaining facilities or programs.
Yes, I foresee, along with notables like Thom Rainer and Ed Stetzer, a time when there are fewer SBC churches in America.  I also don't see it as a bad thing, because I think we have many places where we have too many.  If the graph were to dip, hit a low-point and then turn back up, that could indicate a good thing: carbon copies merging into sustainable sized churches, which then plant other churches across the world.
5.  Someday, we should change the name.  To what, I don't know.  However, while I'm a fan of "Galactic Baptist Alliance," that doesn't seem to have much attraction to others.  Hey, the Kingdom of God is more than just Earth, right?

Doug

Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF Part 5

While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 5 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document. Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug
10.  Re-establish mandates for each entity that cannot be exceeded without approval of the SBC at Annual Meeting. Fund these entities with these percentages of National CP receipts:

1. 
   Executive Committee: to promote cooperation between SBC Churches, entities, and states. 2% of CP, maximum.
   
2. 
   Seminaries/Education: Provide effective education with a primary emphasis on preparing for service within SBC Missions or Churches. Maintain historical records of the SBC. 10% of CP, maximum.
   
3. 
   North American Mission Board: Promote cooperative missions inside the US/Canadian Borders among English-language populations with less than 20% believers. This includes special populations, such as military/correctional facility/emergency/hospital chaplains as well as ethnic groups. Coordinate Disaster Relief within US/Canadian Borders when it exceeds state capacities. 30% of CP funds
   
4. 
   International Mission Board: Promote cooperative missions outside of US/Canadian Borders or in unserved non-English speaking populations within those borders if no other SBC group is working in that population. 58% of CP funds.
   
5. 
   Collectively, NAMB and IMB should coordinate with the seminaries to establish a fully-expense paid internship/education system that covers the cost of education while providing access to supervised practical ministry for students. Financial provision to be handled in exchange for a committed term of service in underserved areas. If the government has figured out how to do this to get teachers and doctors places, we can find a way to do this to get preachers and missionaries places.
   

1. 
   None of this addresses the spiritual dynamics discussed in the mainstream GCRTF Report. Why not? I don't find many points of disagreement, but I do find it to be a point of redundancy. If we are Bible-centered, Lordship of Christ honoring people, then we will strive to light the world with the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't know if we need the term “penetrating lostness” or not, since, like “missional,” we'll end up spending a lot of time trying to figure out what it means. If we will preach the Bible in our churches, if we pastors will call our people to obedience, then these issues will take care of themselves without new terms. I'm very hesitant that we not decide in Orlando what each autonomous local church should adopt as a mission statement or a values statement. If we hold to autonomy, we hold to it. If the SBC Annual Meeting cannot second-guess church personnel decisions, it cannot dictate mission statements or values to churches.
   Ultimately, this comes back to the question of obeying Christ. The list of suggestions at the end of the GCRTF Report is interesting to me, as I see statements borrowed from resolutions that took several years to pass or were never brought out of committee, now shown as “good ideas” for the SBC. All of them come back to points about church membership, stewardship, parenting, education, and church behavior that reflect whether or not Christ is Lord in all things or if people get to pick and choose their obedience. If we will surrender and obey, if we will repent and return, we will see the glory of God revealed in what He does within us and through us. Otherwise, we'll sit on the sidelines and see what He does without us and about us.
   

For your consideration,
Doug Hibbard

Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF Part 4

While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 5 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document. Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug

1. 
   Peg the compensation of all executives for any entity receiving CP funds to the pay scale of IMB/NAMB missionaries. Vice-Presidents would be pegged to 1.5x the salary and Presidents 2.5x the salary of IMB/NAMB Missionaries. Use a publicized average salary level to derive this number. This would also apply to administrative/executive positions at seminaries receiving CP funds. Benefits and cost of living/locality pay should match what missionaries receive. (As a side note: I think the salary information would be pertinent to each church as they determine compensation for ministry staff.) This will require action by all Boards.
   
2. 
   Require, as part of their annual reporting, accounting of administrative expenses from entities, including satellite management locations that exist for administration. For example, as NAMB or IMB operate regional management offices (which IMB does, I'm not sure about NAMB), how much is spent on staff in those offices? Are these individuals counted in missionary count totals? Are they actually doing missionary work as their primary role or are they primarily administration, with the hope that they do some evangelism on the side? What costs are incurred for travel and provision when these people travel to ministry locations? This will require action by all Boards.
   
3. 
   Return to encouraging furloughing/stateside assignment missionaries to speak individually at small churches, rather than pushing the giant conferences in large locations. Reconnect the missionary force with the churches that support them. Yes, the IMB/NAMB appoint those sent by their churches, but they are also sent on behalf of all of us. Meet the church members where they are: their home churches, with attendances under 100, so that we see missionaries. This will require action by the IMB/NAMB.
   
4. 
   Mandate public disclosure of compensation agreements with all CP executives: how much time is to be spent speaking at conferences or traveling; compensation for book-writing; time spent doing things that are not what their job should entail. (For example, no criticism should go the IMB President for being at every missionary appointment service, speaking at seminaries to recruit, etc, although one could criticize if the IMB President spoke on several “Bible Study Cruises.”) Mandate a balance between conference and mega-church visits and seeking ordinary churches to speak to, including avoiding duplication of church visits in a given time span (for example, why should any one church be visited by the Presidents of every CP agency inside of 2 years, when there are other churches that have never seen anyone paid by the national portion of the CP?) Reduce compensation from CP agencies in accordance with outside income: furloughing missionaries receive no compensation if they receive outside income while stateside. This will require action by all Boards.
   
5. 
   Address concerns about dominance of national annual meeting and the resulting board/committee nominations by adjusting the messenger system. Here are some thoughts (not all are good or workable):
   
   1. 
      Establish satellite voting locations. If major corporations can hold shareholder votes via the internet, why can the SBC not? My experience at the annual meeting was that over half of the reports brought were made of pre-fabricated video anyway. Stream it, publicize intended motions and move on. As it stands, all business is pre-cleared by the Committee on Order of Business, and anything brought up at the open microphones is either referred or ruled out of order. You can refer it from a distance, and you can rule it out of order from a distance.
      
   2. 
      Require that no less than one-half of the Boards and Agencies Nominees come from churches that are in majority of size of SBC churches.
      
   3. 
      Alternately, as each board is typically allocated to receive a certain number of nominees from specific states, allow the state meeting to elect the state's representatives to those boards. The Annual Meeting of the SBC could then elect any “at-large” roles, with the Nominating Committee paying an extra dose of attention to those churches not involved in a state convention.
      
   4. 
      While this would be a major change, establish a two-level system of involvement in the SBC: Partner Churches and Participating Churches.
      
      1. 
         Partner churches would:
         
         1. 
            Be in agreement with the Current BF&M, whichever one that is (currently 2000, but how long do you give it?)
            
         2. 
            Financial support of a minimum of either a designated percentage or a designated amount, such as either 5% of budget or $100,000. (Or more, or less)
            
         3. 
            Commitment that SBC missions are the primary missions outlet for the church in funding and participation.
            
      2. 
         Participating Churches would:
         
         1. 
            Be in agreement with any edition of the BF&M.
            
         2. 
            Provide any amount of financial support to the causes of the SBC.
            
         3. 
            Hold SBC mission work at any level of priority in the church, from first place to an afterthought.
            
      3. 
         Both types of churches would be allowed the appropriate number of messengers at the Annual Meeting based on the By-laws.
         
      4. 
         However, only members of Partner Churches would be eligible for service on Boards and Agencies.
         
      5. 
         Missionaries could be appointed from either type of church.
         
      6. 
         If done in conjunction with the recommendation to split state/national funding, no church would be able to claim a status based on supporting a state convention.
         

Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF Part 3

While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 5 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document.  Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug
V.  Is there anything that can be recommended? Are there other possibilities? While I am not a mega-church pastor, seminary president, or other great and note-worthy individual, here are some things that I would suggest. I'd be interested to hear anyone else's critiques or additions:

1. 
   Allow each church to set the amount given to their state convention and to the national level. This eliminates the debate over state percentage division with the national entities. If local churches are the focus point of our obedience and our plan, put this decision directly in their hands. If states see they are receiving more than they need, they can look towards forwarding the excesses to specific entities at the national level as guided by their own processes. This will require agreement by both the SBC Executive Committee and each separate state.
   
2. 
   Set a 7-to-10 year plan that for every funded NAMB missionary in an “old-line” ministry area, there are 2 serving in pioneer or ethnic ministry areas that are unserved. This would not apply to those who serve, such as Mission Service Corps volunteers, that are officially missionaries with NAMB but are not full-time funded. A similar equity would be recommended in those areas; however, I would not suggest that NAMB reject volunteers who only want (and qualify to receive) endorsement but are unable to relocate. This will require the action of the NAMB. As the Cooperative Agreements begin to be impacted by this, it may require involvement of affected states.
   
3. 
   Decrease funding for the ERLC and place it under the authority of NAMB as a missions point. ERLC political lobbying functions are duplicated by a variety of Christian organizations and serve more as a distraction from the task. Also, one could wonder if our maintaining a “membership” number that is 10 million more than our attendance reflects building a political platform. This will require an action of the SBC to merge the entities.
   
4. 
   Require all hiring for executive positions from Vice-President up in SBC Boards and agencies to be ratified by a vote of the entire SBC at the annual meeting. Boards could place an individual in the role as an “interim” but the body of messengers would have to confirm the decision. This will require action by all Boards.
   
5. 
   Peg the compensation of all executives for any entity receiving CP funds to the pay scale of IMB/NAMB missionaries. Vice-Presidents would be pegged to 1.5x the salary and Presidents 2.5x the salary of IMB/NAMB Missionaries. Use a publicized average salary level to derive this number. This would also apply to administrative/executive positions at seminaries receiving CP funds. Benefits and cost of living/locality pay should match what missionaries receive. (As a side note: I think the salary information would be pertinent to each church as they determine compensation for ministry staff.) This will require action by all Boards.
   

Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF Part 2

While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 4 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document. Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug
IV.  Some questions that I'm wondering at this point:

1. 
   Are the GCRTF recommendations to change NAMB/State agreements and to celebrate “Great Commission Giving” going to recover the funding that churches now send to non-SBC missions work? Or has that funding left because churches feel that other organizations are better stewards of missions dollars?
   
2. 
   Are these recommendations intended to deflect the criticism that is often brought against churches, and their leaders, that have grown large enough that they consider themselves “too big” to give on the same percentage basis they did when they were smaller? Is this a case of soothing the mega-churches of the SBC, and will it cause the foundational smaller churches to look elsewhere?
   
3. 
   Have we spent this money and this effort simply to grind an ax with the Executive Committee and the percentage counters? The end result of structural changes seems to be just that. The only entities expected to decrease their spending, as the recommendations go, are states and the EC. There is no suggestion that seminaries, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, or any other CP recipient see a budget squeeze.
   

Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF Part 1

While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 4 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document. Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug

The hinge point of the GCR seems to be about structural change and the control of funding. Specifically, we seem to be having an extremely large stir about “Great Commission Giving” and the dissolving of “Cooperative Agreements” between state conventions and the North American Mission Board. The stirring point for the whole action seems to have come from our inability to fund the IMB Missionaries we've wanted.
1. 
   The first observation I'd like to make: SBC churches have always been allowed to designate every dime they give to the work of the Convention. The Cooperative Program exists to allow churches to contribute to all agencies and operations, and to fund those items which need budgets both too large (IMB) for single church support or too small (like the Historical Commission) to expect much in the way of designation.
   
   1. 
      Even if a church didn't know how to designate the giving, if it wanted the IMB to get everything, it could have given it all through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Likewise NAMB and the Annie Armstrong Offering, and I would be stunned to find a seminary that would turn down a gift.
      
   2. 
      As evidenced by the SBC system for preregistering messengers, all of those designated gifts count towards the $250 to be allowed a messenger. For example, the system accounts our church as having contributed the total of our Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon Christmas Offering (LMCO), Annie Armstrong Easter Offering (AAEO), and a direct designation we've been making to an IMB Missionary on the field. So, no church should be being denied either the opportunity to send messengers or serve on Boards/Committees due to designated giving. I'd venture, though I lack evidence, that far more small churches are denied involvement because of travel expenses to Convention meeting locations.
      
2. 
   Since the SBC allows churches to directly designate gifts, including designating to bypass state convention choices, then concerns about state allocations or bureaucracy should be evidenced by seeing designated giving around the general Cooperative Program (CP). This is evidenced by the much-discussed decrease in general CP giving among churches overall. However, if the churches that find problems with either states or specific CP agencies have designated their giving, it should be reflected in a corresponding increase in designated giving to the appropriate agencies. For example, if the prevailing concern is that the International Mission Board (IMB) does not receive enough of the shared pie, the SBC should be seeing more churches give directly to the IMB and bypassing all other activities. The IMB should, therefore, be on the positive receiving end.
   
   1. 
      Instead, what has happened is that many churches have, apparently, moved to also supporting other missions groups or directly supporting their own missionaries.
      
   2. 
      Screaming to make the point: THIS IS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE AUTONOMY AND AUTHORITY OF A LOCAL CHURCH TO DO AS THEY FEEL GOD AS DIRECTED WITH THE FINANCES HE HAS GIVEN THEM!
      
3. 
   How a church spends 100% of the funding God gives them reflects their Great Commission passion. Every last penny we spend should be about spreading the Gospel, making disciples , and obeying the commands of Scripture. One of our issues is that we have spent untold resources on things that, in all honesty, don't match those expectations. This problem is not specific to one type of church or another, but a problem I believe all churches and organizations face at various times.
   
   1. 
      It is neither fair nor appropriate to judge a church's commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ based on their giving to the Southern Baptist Convention. In no way, shape, form, or fashion, neither by percentage or volume, can we say that a church that greatly supports the SBC greatly supports Christ nor the inverse.
      
   2. 
      However, the amount given to SBC causes is an adequate measure of a church's commitment to the Southern Baptist Convention. As such, it is a valid question for those who would claim the leadership of the SBC to reveal their commitment to the SBC. This is not about Christian commitment or leadership, but specifically about leadership and commitment within our own context as Southern Baptists.
      

Some Extended Thoughts on SBC Life

In 1925, a loose organization of churches came together to find a way to establish stable support for their collective efforts. What was born from the experience is now called the Cooperative Program. It's grown to be the funding basis for over $300 million in annual support for mission work, higher education, political activism, and coordination.

The difficulty has become this: where money goes, power and controversy follow. The truth seems to be that there is rarely enough money to go around. I remember the first year the IMB went over a $200 million budget, and it was wonderful! Then, it became not much, and has since become far too low. Same thing with the budgets of seminaries and the North American Mission Board.

As such, we've had our share of fighting and disputing over the years about how to prioritize and spend the money. We've had plenty of moments where we've not been pleased with how the decisions were being made. It has extended, at times, to disputes with the people involved. Sometimes this has been because the people have been the wrong people in the wrong place, but sometimes it's just been that we have not been willing to allow people to hold different priorities or different ideas.

This has not been good for us as Southern Baptists. I think we have, over the last 50 years especially, but probably longer, probably all the way back to the turn of the 20^th Century and the battles with Landmarkism and Norrisism, become a fighting people. Not just a people that fights for things, but just people that fight. It's one thing to fight for something. We should fight for the truth of God's Word. We should fight for providing care for widows, orphans, and the weak. We should fight against evil things and evil people. We have struggled to do these things.

Yet we have also sometimes behaved like an army without an enemy. We've institutionalized our willingness to fight so much that, even if we don't have a valid reason to fight, we need to do it. We won the “Battle for the Bible” but then we had to pick a fight over specific interpretations of the Bible. An example would be our absolute insistence that women not teach men to the point that we, as Southern Baptists, have fired women from teaching Biblical languages in seminary. Which is odd, since the Scriptures don't speak to seminary qualifications. We've added to the idea that deacons not be given to much wine, but subtracted from being the husband of one wife.

Love puts us down where we belong

With apologies to Joe Cocker, Jennifer Warnes, and Will Jennings, I've decided to take their chart-topping hit from An Officer and a Gentleman and find fault with it.  Of course, if Louis Gossett Jr. shows up and kicks me like he did Richard Gere in that film, I might take it back.

This was brought to mind with a letter I received yesterday.  It was from the Recording Secretary of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Now, for those of you vaguely unfamiliar with SBC politics, this part will be confusing, but every year there are certain committees that are formed/appointed to help manage the process and decisions of the SBC as we meet for our annual meeting.  It's necessary to do this because an annual SBC meeting is anywhere from 7,000 to 12,000 (or more, there's been 20,000) messengers coming to vote on SBC business.  There's processes for verifying that votes are only allowed to people with a legitimate right to vote (you have to be approved by an SBC church), processes for nominating the board members of various agencies, processes for determining resolutions to pass on to the body, and processes for determining what business actually gets to the floor.  There's even a committee that meets to determine who sits on the committee that makes nominations. 

Now, about 3 weeks ago, I got an email informing me I had been recommended to participate in one of these committees.  It would have required me to recommend people into positions of influence within the SBC, sort of a gatekeeper to who gets influence.  To say the least, I was slightly (read:quite a bit) excited at the opportunity.  I'm not exactly the SBC insider I once wanted to be, but it felt good to be moving towards fame and glory within my denomination (yes, it's a denomination and a convention.  Stop that.)  I agreed over the phone to serve with this committee, and was told to expect a phone call or a letter in the next week or so.

Meanwhile, it's been a few weeks.  No call, no letter, until yesterday, when I received a letter thanking me for agreeing to serve on a different committee.  In truth, it's a slightly less significant role in the internal machinations of the SBC.  I was, personally, unsure of how to respond.  I didn't know if I had offended someone or done something wrong to be "demoted."

Then I remembered something.  I had been pondering who I knew that I could recommend to anything in the SBC.  I had come up with 2 non-preachers and about half-a-dozen preachers I knew well enough that I would recommend.  That's not enough.  By far, it's too few non-preachers, because the SBC was never intended to be managed by professional clergy.  We'd be Credo-baptistic Presbyterians.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's not us.  I had been praying that God would guide me on who to nominate and how to handle the situation.

This is an answer to prayer for me.  God, in His love, put me down where I belong.  My responsibilities will be much more fact based and much less relational based.  I will be doing something I'm much more suited for instead of something I wouldn't have been good at doing.

In all, love has put me down where I belong.  It's been good on the ego, because my hats fit better again, and it will be good for those I'm working with, because I'll be doing something I should be.

In what ways have you ever been "put down" only to realize you needed it?

 

Doug

Being Contrary

It's not just a hobby, it's a way of life.  At least for some of us.  It doesn't matter whether we have better ideas or not, we know bad ideas when we see them.  Or we can punch holes in mediocre ideas, whether there's merit to those ideas or not.

And it's probably time to work on breaking the habit.  While giving something a rigorous examination and citing problems with any given plan, idea, or system is appropriate, there's no reason to do it just for fun.

It's a danger that I'm struggling with. Why?  Well, let's see…

In politics, it seems that there have been, for the last several years, many ideas worth simply skewering and going on.  It hasn't gotten any better lately.  You've got health-care reform, CPISA, baby sling warnings, financial stupidity, and corruption.  What's not to be contrary with?

In Baptist life, there's plenty to pick on.  There's the debate over the GCRTF report (or the lack of debate), the apparent coming elderly boxing match between Morris Chapman and Jerry Rankin (or not), our slow drift towards hierarchal elites running what's supposed to be a priesthood of all believers doctrine-holding group, and the ever-present Calvinism arguments.

What's the common thread?  One that I'm seeing, and trying to corral in my own behavior, is to sit back, poke a hole or two in someone else's argument, and then move on like I've accomplished something.  I wrote a blog post a few days ago about bad data and bad conclusions.  I used a Baptist life example for it.  I stand by it, because I think I was right, but it took several rewrites to tone it down where it is.  What I was after was to raise a question without attacking the people involved.

Down in, that's part of where we need to get to.  There needs to be the recognition that even our worst of opponents can bring forward good ideas.  Whether it's Speaker Pelosi actually backing good legislation or someone in the SBC with a good idea, even though I might not like him or her personally, we need to be willing to let those good ideas come forward.

When the bad ideas come out, we need to evaluate them and stop them based on the merits or lack thereof.  It shouldn't be something that we enjoy doing.  It's the necessity of evaluating ideas and keeping the good and tossing the bad, but to just tear down others should not be a source of pleasure.

And, for crying out loud, people, if something has to be done and you don't like the idea presented, FIND ANOTHER IDEA TO PRESENT!!!  This is why I'm frustrated with the Republican Party of which I've stopped being a registered member.  This is a constant frustration to me as a church leader in Baptist life.  We have too many people ready to say why one idea won't work but who will not offer one that they think will.  While being the party out of power in politics entitles a certain amount of negativity, in churches we don't have time for this.  In politics, really, we don't have time for this either.

Be contrary as much as you like, but remember two things:

1.  When it's your idea, you're fair game too.

2.  If you knock down this one, help find a replacement.

 

Doug

SBC Controversy of the Month-July

The Southern Baptist Convention's Controversy of the Month for July is brought to you by:


So, what is our Controversy of the Month?

It's the sudden resignation of Clark Logan, Vice President of Administration and Finance for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. So, why is that a big deal?

First, background: The Executive Committee is funded by Cooperative Program gifts, and has, as I understand it, these responsibilities: study things related to the whole SBC, divide up the Cooperative Program checks that come in, make the Annual Meeting happen, and promote the Cooperative Program. The Executive Committee employs people to accomplish these tasks. These folks are full-time employees of the SBC, and should be understood to be there to serve the churches that make up the SBC. The Executive Committee are actually elected representatives. They meet occasionally to make sure the staff are doing what they ought to do. It's fundamentally the same as a Board of Trustees with a University.

Morris Chapman is the President of the Exec. Committee (from here out, EC). Clark Logan was a Vice President of the EC, and was actually the man who did most of the organization of the annual meeting. There are additional vice presidents and staff, plus administrative staff at the EC offices in Nashville. In theory, all of these people are hired by the actual EC. In practice, they're hired by their direct report. So, Clark Logan would have been hired by Morris Chapman. Also, in theory, apart from a demonstrated moral failing, the EC is who has the power to fire. In practice, though, things get mushy.

This is where we get to the Controversy of the Month. Morris Chapman asked Clark Logan to resign. Right now, there's some fussiness over Chapman not being up front about that when he was first asked about it, but this is the SBC. We were the home religious group of the President of the United States who wanted to argue what the meaning of 'is' is. He didn't learn that just in school. We've been exemplifying hedging and politicking in our churches for a long time. Chapman was answering a question, but the news sources don't give the question. Note to news media: if you want to give us the quoted answer, give us the quoted question. His answer was "It is not the practice of the Executive Committee to respond to rumors." Now, if the question was a very direct "Did you ask Clark Logan to resign?" then implying it was a rumor and refusing to answer was inappropriate. But, if the question was "What do you say to the rumors Clark Logan was fired?" then the answer is acceptable. And even when dealing with religious news media, you have to be careful volunteering information. So, it's actually important, as whether Chapman was being deceptive or not is relevant to his credibility.

Now, what made this big enough to be Controversy of the Month? These things:

1. Suddenness. Logan had just managed the annual meeting. And done well. Why is he quitting now?

2. Chapman's opposition to the Great Commission Resurgence movement in the SBC. While we don't have a public statement from Logan on the GCR, it's possible they were at odds over it. Logan would have needed to not publicly bicker with his boss over this issue. So, soon we may know. We do have public statements from Drs. Mohler and Moore at SBTS expressing support and kinship with Logan. As these two men remain leaders in the GCR movement, there's a strong likelihood Logan and Chapman differed here. The controversy side is that 95% of messengers at the annual meeting supported the GCR-related motion. The EC staff works for us, and, at this point, Morris Chapman needs to be for the GCR, because his bosses, the people of the SBC, have said we're doing it. To fire a subordinate for agreeing, privately, with the directions of the SBC is not good leadership.

3. Logan's involvement with Moore and Mohler, alongside his graduating from and working for Southern Seminary gives a decent hint he leans towards the Calvinist side of Southern Baptist life. He might not, but as Bob the Tomato said once, it's highly probable. Chapman doesn't understand how a Calvinist leaning fits with the missions and evangelism drive in Scripture and Baptist life. He showed this in his speech at the annual meeting that was interpreted as a rant against Calvinism. He actually didn't describe any Calvinists I know, but rather attacked the caricature of Calvinism that's easy to dislike. If he thinks that's what Southern Baptist Calvinists actually believe, he's wrong. See my thoughts here. If Logan and Chapman were at odds over theology, then that could be a problem with their working relationship. However, Chapman should have said so.

4. A lack of information. This thing brewed up over 4th of July weekend, with no information. There were tweets back and forth, but they lacked substance or links to substance. Simply statements of "I stand with Clark Logan." Logan was trying to respect the organization and get out of the limelight. Chapman was trying to protect the organization and his leadership and say nothing. So, you had people getting all riled up with no information. That may have worked 30 years ago. Even 20 years ago. You can't do that these days. If you start the tempest, you need to provide information to substantiate it, and soon. Otherwise, hold on to striking that match. By Saturday, there were people twittering that Morris Chapman needed to go as President of the EC. Maybe he does. But you couldn't be making that call Saturday. For all the information that was publicly available, Logan had quit because he wanted to. We copied our pattern of whispering from churches into this. It's bad in church too, but we do it. All we had was "Mohler said there's more to this" and "Moore says there's more to this" being retweeted. Well, I find no reason to distrust Mohler and Moore, but I still see no reason to distrust Chapman, either. I actually get more suspicious when someone says "you should be angry about this, but I won't tell you why." I don't respond as a pastor to the "I can't tell you who, but there are people upset about _____" comments.

5. A lack of understanding of the Trustee/Board system for our denominational life. The EC meets occasionally, though they also confer via phone, email, and other means between meetings. But they cannot take any action without being in an official meeting, even if they have to call one to make it so. Then, since it's a personnel issue, they would have to confer with legal counsel and personnel involved before they could publicize much of their actions. In other words, there are people who can, should, and will deal with whether this was done right. But it takes time. I think some of the twitterers were hoping to see Friday bring an announcement that Morris Chapman had resigned and Clark Logan was taking his place. It won't happen for a while, if at all. Logan will not starve, I assure you. If he gets through this month without being employed at either SBTS or SEBTS, the next month will find him with a church staff or pastorate role. Contact your state's representative on the EC, and ask them to investigate and act appropriately. Ask them to get the permissions necessary to publicize the decisions and process.

On that note: spend the 2 quarters to buy a stamp and mail them a letter. Really. Don't mass email the EC. None of them are full-time EC staff. They have jobs and lives, and many are church pastors. How many mass emails do you read? Wait until you have enough real information to write a letter and then mail it. Also, do your own research. I don't know if Internet Explorer has it, but I know Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 both have this nifty box in the upper right corner for easy searching! Type "SBC Executive Committee" in the box. You'll find their website, and then click on the "Officers and Members" section. You can find the names yourself! And there's enough info there to find out how to contact them. Don't expect somebody to post a listing of all of their emails. You don't broadcast yours that much, do you? Just how much spam do you want to serve them? This isn't like searching old books for stuff. If you can tweet, blog, Facebook, then you should know how to search the internet! It's likely that some of the 'old guard' probably already knew who to contact and how to contact them by keeping such things written down.

My take on this:

1. The "young" leaders movement just burnt a lot of its credibility with me. You can't throw a fit without information. It smells fishy, but we didn't know. And yet we started screaming for someone's job and head without knowing. Oddly enough, some of these same folks were agitated 2 weeks ago at the SBC Annual Meeting over the Driscoll motions, and wanted people to trust the trustee processes to deal with those problems. Ok, shoe's on the other foot now. You wanted people to trust the trustee process to deal with their disagreements. Is that how you handled this? Not until I saw a retweet of Ronnie Floyd's statement to contact the EC yourself did I see people in the net sphere going that direction. We can't have it both ways. Also, on our credibility: I watched parts of the movie Crimson Tide on TV this weekend. I think Bravo channel was running it every 3 hours or something. Anyway, plot of the movie: Gene Hackman is Captain of a nuclear missile sub, Denzel Washington is his second in command, or XO. They receive a message to launch the sub's missiles at a group of rebels that have taken over an old Russian nuclear launching area, because the rebels are threatening to launch their captured missiles at the US. To launch, the Captain and XO must agree that the order is valid. In the movie, receiving the order is interrupted, and the two disagree. The whole movie is their battle for control of the sub. Eventually, Denzel is proven right to not launch, but the whole thing is a mess. He could have been proven wrong. The issue is that while the ends were right, the means were wrong.

We run the same risk. If we jump automatically to people's defense, to the point of attacking someone else, we run the risk of being proven wrong. We won't what-if Clark Logan's reputation to death, but there have been pastors and denominational leaders before that were quietly asked to resign to save their own embarrassment. Do we want to stake our reputation the next time Morris Chapman asks someone to resign? What happens when that guy was living in sin or derelict in his duty? It's fine to 'Stand with Clark Logan' but you don't have to automatically stand against Morris Chapman to do so.

2. I'm not Ed Stetzer, so I don't have the research handy, but I think it's safe to say that every month, if not every week, a pastor loses his livelihood in the SBC through no fault of his own, but because sometimes people with power in church can be petty, bitter, and do foolish things to others. Do we throw a fit for all of them? No. Many of them wake up on Monday or Thursday not knowing what they'll do for insurance, housing, meals, or work. They even lose their church family. And it happens to the whole family of a fired pastor. Some states, Arkansas is one of them, recognize this problem and do what they can to help. But to some, the funds held onto by states to do this fall under the "bloated bureaucracy" in the SBC they want to get rid of, and that Morris Chapman wants to keep. My point is not the Clark Logan deserved being asked to resign, my point is that week-in, week-out, faithful pastors get treated that way and worse by churches in the SBC, and very few people "stand with" them. I have no doubt that Logan will land on his feet from this, but what happens to many of those pastors? They end up selling insurance or taking whatever job they can find, because we won't help them. It's aggravating that we'll get this upset over a denominational employee but won't over a normal pastor.

3. If we're headed down this path because of the GCR movement, then count me out. First of all, just because someone opposed the document or the motion doesn't make them against the Great Commission. This is bad logic, but statements to that effect have been made, and they qualify as dumb. To look at people who spend their lives trying to spread the Gospel and say they're against the Great Commission because they didn't want an extra committee? On the other side, if Morris Chapman asked Clark Logan to resign because Logan was for the committee, that's wrong too. At this point, the SBC bus is forming a committee to discover why we're inefficient with the Great Commission.

4. At this point in SBC life, we need to have an openness policy with anyone that's a "Vice-president" or equivalent, like "Special super-consultant" or above, that personnel decisions regarding them will be openly discussed. And that people in those roles may not be asked to resign, fired, nor resign on their own without written documentation processed by the Annual Meeting elected board. In other words, Morris Chapman can ask Clark Logan to resign, but he's got to document why to the EC, and it will be published.

Yes, I know we like the idea of allowing superiors to hire/fire at will, but then we light the world on fire when they do it. So, we need that check. At some point, we've got to stop acting like we have so much to hide.

All told, we have now taken a positive momentum for the SBC and run it into the ground. And by next year's meeting in Orlando, we'll have a whole controversy to deal with, won't we?

Let's pray for wisdom for our denominational employees, for Logan as he seeks employment, and for Chapman as he is one of the day-to-day faces of the SBC. And pray for your church to become the force of the Great Commission.

Doug

(just for clarification, Despair, Inc. does not sponsor Southern Baptist Controversies. They do, however, provide excellent products related to them.)

Southern Baptist Convention Part 3

We're moving through the business side of the Southern Baptist Convention. At the SBC, we have a time for motions from the floor, which any messenger may give. These motions are automatically referred to the "Committee on Order of Business," but we'll deal with them separately from committee reports.

Motions can be made, as I said, by anyone elected as a messenger by their church and registered with the Credentials Committee. So, you can imagine, it can lead to a wide array of motions.

First motion to discuss: There's been much about the Great Commission and whether or not we're really doing it as Southern Baptists. There was a motion to appoint a "task force" (read: committee) to examine how Southern Baptist churches interrelate bring recommendations next year. This motion was not unexpected. It was approved by roughly 95% of those voting. This was a show of hands vote, and wasn't counted but estimated. Still, I'd guess it about there.

There were 2 people who spoke against this motion. One had a point. One had an axe to grind. The one with a point raised the question why we need an additional committee, given that we have Mission Boards directed to lead in presenting the Gospel to the unchurched around the world. His point was a good one, but I think he was up against too much momentum. The idea behind this committee is too study and recommend structural changes, including recommendations regarding associations, states, and the relationships of all agencies. NAMB and IMB are funded through the current system, the idea was to create something that could examine the whole thing.

The other speaker feels that Calvinists are the problem, and if we get rid of them, we'll be fine. My first reaction to him is found in its own blog post, here. Calvinists are not really the problem. If Calvinists believed the caricature of Calvinism that is often presented, we would be the problem. Does it matter whether you share the Gospel in hopes God uses you to draw someone to Himself or whether you share the Gospel in hopes you will persuade them to follow Jesus? Quick hint: Calvinists do it for the first reason. Does some of this bleed into methodology? Yes, but it's not an anti-evangelistic methodology. That's bad stuff that even Calvinists don't like. And, yes, Calvinism is the main label, though "Doctrines of Grace" is also legitimate. And Calvinists don't worship Calvin, anymore than Baptists worship John the Baptist. I think this speaker actually pushed a few more people to the "for" side of this motion.

All in all, this motion seemed as more of a litmus test about whether we were willing as Southern Baptists to put aside bickering over Calvinism/Arminianism and other things and focus on the task. Funny, many pastors have been preaching that for years. I think it's a reason for the decline in SBC annual meeting attendance. Maybe we'll see some pick up.

Several other motions addressed a pastor named Mark Driscoll, who is not a Southern Baptist. Driscoll pastors Mars Hill Church in Seattle, which is loosely affiliated with some groups that some Southern Baptists are loosely affiliated with. In family terms, think of that person who you've been told is a cousin, but nobody's exactly sure how. If you are Southern Baptist, Mark Driscoll is a friend of organizations that cousin stands for. He has been a speaker at Southeastern Baptist Seminary, and is good friends with Ed Stetzer at Lifeway. Well, Driscoll has some beliefs about alcohol that aren't in line with traditional Baptist understanding. He also tends to preach very directly on issues such as sex and marriage, in a manner that many find controversial. Some go so far as to say he preaches and jokes in manners inappropriate to a preacher of the Gospel. (I have never heard him personally. Press me to take a stand, based on sources I read, and he goes too far.) So, there were some motions trying to force a distance between Southern Baptist life and Mark Driscoll. These motions, however, were generally out of order. First of all, he has no relationship with the SBC. He has spoken at one seminary, so a question about that should be addressed first with that seminary. He has written many books, and Lifeway carries those books, that question needs to go to Lifeway.

The whole Mark Driscoll issue reflects a growing tension in SBC life. The question becomes "Just how different from us can you be and we still work togeher?" Some Baptists are definitely certain Driscoll is too different. Some are certain he's fine. This issue was not resolved, although some aspects were referred out to appropriate entities to consider and report. Expect more on this over the next year.

It supports my belief that one of our problems in SBC life is that we are overly personality driven. There was a definite uncomfortableness from the platform with the Driscoll criticism, and I think it came from a fear that too many young SB leaders will leave the convention if we attack Driscoll. My question is, why do we need him? We have the Bible, and generally feel that no one person carries the importance of Paul anymore. If Southern Baptists and Mark Driscoll decide they don't want to talk anymore, will that stop our fulfilling the Great Commission? If it does, we've got serious issues. He's a man, and has some insight to offer. He also has some shortcomings as a pastor. Fortunately, he won't use his blog to detail my shortcomings, so I won't hit his. There are other blogs that do a good job explaining his and others that defend him. I won't be inviting him to preach here, but he wouldn't come if I did, so why does it matter? The people I'm trying to teach here are more influenced by some other preachers that I think have deeper flaws in their theology than Driscoll, so I'll worry about them. Same thing with other personalities.

So, we had, I think, 8 motions related to Mark Driscoll. They dovetailed with a motion to have Lifeway pull books the messenger deemed heretical, including The Shack. Now, I've read enough to know that if you read The Shack for theology, you'll be in trouble. Get your theology from the Bible. However, it's a relevant book for how people are considering Christianity these days. While we need to exercise appropriate discretion, complete book bans are rarely the answer. Now, if Lifeway was selling Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I'd be exceedingly concerned that we were blending too much culture in. Motion was out of order. You want Lifeway to stop selling something, you have to take that to Lifeway's board. If they won't do it, you move to replace the board. Then, you nominate people to the board that will remove it. It's harder to do all that, but there's a reason for it.

Another motion called for the SBC to only use in materials and to only allow used by speakers at the annual meeting a Bible translation that does not question the validity of Bible passages. To those of you who just said "what?" certain Bible translations are made after using a scholarly discipline called textual criticism to determine what the best original language text is. While we hold to a completely accurate original text, there is about a 5% divergence in extant (known available original language) texts. They differ on things like the height of Goliath: 6 cubits and a span or 4 cubits and span; where does Mark end, how do you spell Zechariah, stuff like that. It's a normal practice, and generally accepted. The only generally available Bible translation that doesn't do that is....the King James Version. So, essentially the motion was to require all materials of the SBC and all preachers at the Convention to only use the KJV. It was ruled out of order, based on the idea that a motion cannot require a committee or entity (Lifeway) to do something. As with the Driscoll motion, take it to the appropriate board, get their action, then, if you don't like it, move to change the board. Plus it's silly, at least to me, and quite a few others. The KJV is not the only Bible translation worth reading, neither is it specifically inspired or protected by God. (For KJV advocates, do you prefer the original 1611 or the more common 1769 update that most people with KJV's have?)

There was a motion about the end of the world. We decided we were for it. Just kidding. The motion was to form a committee to examine some of the teachings going about that the world will end sometime in the next few years. It was determined that this was a theological issue best addressed by individual churches, rather than the SBC. However, you could appreciate the man's concern that people would be swept up in end-times hysteria as they have before for false alarms.

There was a motion that we tell President Obama what we think about him. It was determined that the motion was worded like a resolution, and so was too late, as resolutions were due two weeks ago.

The same fate befell a motion to express support for those struggling for freedom in Iran. Unfortunately, the crisis in Iran cropped up after the 15 day deadline for resolutions, so no resolution was submitted. The motion was ruled out of order, but the convention paused and prayed for freedom in Iran, both earthly and spiritual. I think we need to consider allowing a loophole in the 15-day window, but this was handled as best we could within our bylaws. Proud of the guy that brought it up. Convincing staunch conservatives to give a few moments to people who, even if they succeed in their protesting, will remain extremely committed Muslims was a tall order. Good job.

Motion was made that we adopt a specific type of Christian flag as an official banner. It was referred out. I don't think we need an official banner.

Motion was made that we not use secular music in presentations at the SBC. This, I think, was last minute prompted by a messenger hearing The Who's "Baba O'reilly" as backing music on one of the presentation videos. Don't know that one? It's the theme from CSI:NY. The motion was made by a younger messenger, causing me to wonder if any of the thoroughly gray heads realized it was secular music. Motion was ruled out of order, as it was directing entities again. I sympathized with the motion. Do we lack for creative talent in the SBC? Can we not use either new music written by our people or Christ-centered music? Although, better yet, we could forgo videos except in case of definite need, like the videos featuring military chaplains on the field or honoring Pastor Fred Winters, who was killed while preaching this spring.

A motion was made to make sure the seminary funds allocation counts distance learning students. I'm all for this one. A portion of our CP funds are given to the six Southern Baptist seminaries to use for ministerial education. How it is divided is partially dependent on school size. As someone who hopes to soon be a distance student at one of those seminaries, I agree that all students need to count, not just those who are able to relocate to a campus. Referred to the Executive Committee that makes those recommendations, report next year.

Motion was made to join AFA's boycott of Pepsi. It was referred to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. (Which, to me, is further evidence of the redundancy of the ERLC. Another Christian culture influencing group has a recommendation, so we send it to our culture influencing group to consider. Both groups are conservative, evangelical Christian groups. AFA draws more than just Southern Baptists, but many Southern Baptists listen to AFA suggestions. Why do we need both?)

Motion made to adjust trustee boards from allowing 2 3-year terms to allowing only 1 6-year term. I don't get the need. In the mobile society we live in, with boards trying to maintain representation from all states we have Southern Baptists in, a 6 year term system, I think, would be clumsy. Referred to by-laws group.

Motions to research cost-effective Christian school methods and to use American-made products for VBS both referred to Lifeway, as well as the suggestion to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the King James translation. It's not the only translation, but its impact is definite, and we'll probably do something there.

Motion was remade to have the pictures of people nominated for officer positions shown on the screen. That's still being studied. Translation: we don't want to be in a position where somebody doesn't get the projection guys a picture, and so we're all screwed up in our order of business, but we understand you want to know who the people are you're voting for.

Those are the highlights of motions. The key to it all? Most motions are referred out to committees to consider. If your motion is more about opinion, it's really a resolution, and should be submitted that way. If your motion is just nuts, well, it'll show.

We'll do resolutions in another post.