An Intentional Plan for Shared Leadership in the BGCT

From the June 26 edition of A Rancher’s Rumblings, by Texas Baptists Committed director David Currie:

Last year, TBC decided to not endorse candidates for BGCT office, because some people had expressed a perception that we were “controlling” the process. Although we at TBC never intended to exercise any control over the process, I understood this perception, and I agreed with the decision to not endorse any candidates.

But now I have a huge concern about this decision. Without TBC’s leadership, will the BGCT continue to share, or will we get into combative elections between churches that support SBC ministries vs. persons who support CBF ministries vs. persons who are mostly just Texas-focused? And will there still be a place of leadership for women, as well as people from minority ethnic groups?

Friends, the key to our unity in the future is SHARED leadership. Will this happen without TBC leading the way through endorsements? I hope so, but it scares me that we could easily get divided after coming so far as a state convention. We could wind up right back where we started, with all of our leaders coming from one group, and with minorities and women being left out. Shared leadership doesn’t just happen – it has to be intentional. That’s where TBC’s leadership has made a difference in recent years – by providing an intentional plan to share leadership.

I can’t say that I see anything which would ring alarm bells and signal that the BGCT is in some kind of danger of a fundamentalist takeover.  Maybe David Currie’s information regarding the committee appointments of the current BGCT officers includes some individuals he considers “red flags” with regard to who might wind up on the boards or committees.  Considering the way committee appointments are made, and the fact that the other two officers have input, I don’t see that anything of that sort could happen.  David Lowrie did promise, prior to both times he ran for BGCT President, that he would open the committee appointments and bring in as many new faces as he could.  I would guess that he has probably had some limited success in accomplishing that. 

The idea that only TBC is qualified or capable of coming up with an “intentional” plan to share BGCT leadership just doesn’t hold water, unless your idea of “intentional” is to make sure that the same people get appointed to committees and boards over and over, that your former endorsed officers (and TBC board members) are rewarded with executive leadership positions in the Baptist Building, and that your supporters can serve on more than one committee at a time.  It is also hard for me to understand that concept of shared leadership when over 700 churches are automatically excluded because they are dually affiliated with another in-state Baptist body, and others which have remained loyal in their support of the SBC are under-represented, compared to those who come from CBF-friendly churches.  Shared, apparently, doesn’t mean equally shared. 

There comes a time, in the life of most political organizations, when they either accomplish their goals, or the issues have moved beyond where their vision is focused.  Beyond a certain point, they begin to look more like a clique with the power to grant favors to friends and supporters than a champion of Baptist diversity, autonomy and historical principles.  Texas Baptists do not need to be told how to share their leadership and they especially do not need to be shown the door if they happen not to share the view of the prevailing power clique.  The intentional efforts that now need to be made involve finding a way to engage younger church leaders in the convention and most of them are not going to wait around for someone’s best school buddy, or some prominent preacher’s son, to get tired of having their name in the paper and their rear end in a committee or board seat. 

Genuinely shared leadership would occur if every vacant committee and board seat were filled with someone who has never been involved in convention leadership.  They’ll have plenty of time to learn the ropes in the eight or twelve years they would serve, and then they could step away and share the leadership with someone else who hasn’t  yet had the opportunity to contribute.  If the focus is on the mission and vision of the convention, instead of making sure that the hand-picked, approved individuals are in the right places, all the worries of conflict, politics, exclusion and “fundamentalist takeovers” will dissipate.

Moving Forward: An Update on BGCT Constitutional Amendment Proposals

It has taken a while to sort through the email responses, suggestions and comments that were made when I originally wrote an article proposing constitutional amendments to be presented at the BGCT annual meeting in Houston this fall.  There are several issues which have come to the forefront, related to my intention to make these proposals, to which I have given much consideration.  The advice, in most cases, was good, the suggestions as to how to make sure the proposals are not derailed by referral or some other parliamentary maneuver, excellent, the offers of assistance genuine and, I can assure you, your active involvement is desired. 

The two main concerns that have been raised at this point have to do with the trustee boards at the educational institutions and the inclusion of spouses in the term limits.  Though this is still a work in progress, the proposals will take into consideration the fact that the educational institutions rely heavily on their trustees for recruitment of students and fundraising, and that limiting their terms might hurt this effort.  We will work on the wording of this particular proposal to avoid having that occur.  Several of the schools have the ability to name either some or most of their trustees, and those individuals would not be affected by this proposal.  For the others, we are working on a way of wording the proposal so that it would not have a negative effect on them.  That’s why the proposals were announced in advance, and why advice was considered so valuable.

It has also been pointed out that the proposal to limit the number of BGCT related appointments to one member of a particular church at a time would, in most cases, keep spouses from serving at the same time, and that this would spread the leadership out over a broad enough segment of churches that the few spouses who might be selected by a team of elected officers would not make much of a difference.  That will also be taken into consideration.

One thing is clear.  There are many people, including many church leaders, who have expressed a favorable opinion about this kind of arrangement to broaden the leadership base of the convention, and push those who are responsible for committee and trustee board selection to dig deep and find those people who are generally passed over because they don’t have some kind of denominational-political pedigree or because they are not related to or connected by their school relationships to those who have the influence to put their name in the hat.  Somewhere in the neighborhood of three quarters of a million people sit in our church pews, participate in our Bible study classes and are involved in the life of their BGCT affiliated church, and that is more than enough for a rich deposit of experience, enthusiasm and ability to provide the BGCT with all the leadership it could ever need without ever repeating a single name on a single board or committee. 

It has also been pointed out that this will be an impossible task without some kind of organization.  So be it.  But it will be an organization that exists for the purpose of bringing these proposals to the BGCT, and doing what it can to get them passed, and after that, it will dissolve.  I have no interest in promoting denominational politics.  This will not be a liberal, moderate, conservative or fundamentalist organizational effort.  It will be an effort which has the future of the BGCT in mind, a desire to see more people involved in leadeship and the benefits of the new ideas and fresh spiritual perspective that they can bring.  It is not about control, it is about making the BGCT something which does not have to be controlled by an agenda, or by the current system of fiefs and favors which has, by all evidence available, been counterproductive to the Baptist goal of advancing the gospel of Jesus. 

The bottom line is that your interest, and your favorable opinion of these proposals, whatever final form they may take, will not matter much unless you come to Houston and participate in the convention.  If you are interested in doing that, then put the BGCT dates, November 16-17 and be here.  If you would like to participate in the planning, and help promote these proposals, please email me at deepintheheart2009@gmail.com.  For those of you who live close enough to come to a meeting, one is being planned for late August here in Houston.  When those plans are finalized, I’ll post an announcement.

SBC Messengers Support Executive Board Recommendation to Dismiss Ft. Worth’s Broadway Baptist Church

After several discussions, an exchange of letters, and a lot of media coverage, a motion referred to the executive board of the Southern Baptist Convention from the 2008 meeting in Indianapolis was presented in the form of a recommendation to declare that Broadway Baptist Church of Ft. Worth, Texas was no longer in”friendly cooperation” with the convention.  Specifically, the church has not been able to convince the executive board that they have taken enough steps to demonstrate that they do not approve of homosexual lifestyles. 

Not being a member of Broadway, and therefore not acquainted with the makeup of its church membership, I can only draw conclusions based on media reports.  The church went through a highly publicized conflict in 2007 over whether or not to include photos of gay and lesbian church members as couples in a proposed church directory.  The church voted not to include family photos in the directory at all, but the publicity generated by the conflict obviously prompted the motion at the 2008 SBC.  The SBC bylaws define cooperation, and contain a statement that churches which endorse or approve of homosexual lifestyles are not “in friendly cooperation” with the denomination. 

In a Baptist church, “regeneration” is generally considered to be the qualification for church membership.  What that means is that a church member must have made a profession of faith in Jesus as their savior, a process that involves coming under the conviction of the Holy Spirit regarding your sinful condition, repenting of that sin, and receiving the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as a substitute atonement for your sin.  The Holy Spirit, who brought about the conviction, also brings sanctification, the cleansing of your soul from sin, and justification, or being made right with God himself, as the result of this process.  Though there is acknowledgement that this experience does not mean that a person no longer sins, and that continued confession and repentance will result from the continued presence of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life, the implication is that the person who has had this experience does desire to live life under the Spirit’s conviction and in a manner that is pleasing to God.  Thus, in theory anyway, all members of a Baptist church have had this experience. 

Part of the acknowledgement of the fact that even though this experience has occurred, individuals are still influenced by the flesh and thus, are still prone to sin, is the presence of scripture passages in the Bible which give instruction regarding disciplines of the faith that are to be exercised by the body of Christ, the church, mainly to assist its members in their spiritual growth and formation, and to teach them how to live a life pleasing to God and to avoid habitual and repetetive sin. 

“Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.”  Galatians 6:1, NIV

One of the functions of the church body is discipleship, and part of that function is to educate its membership in the principles taught by Jesus and the apostles in scripture.  Church discipline of members who are, as this verse says, “caught” in a sin is part of this responsibility.  The outcome of discipline, and of discipleship in general, is the restoration of the sinner to the fellowship of the church body.  It can therefore be concluded that a church which discovers some of its members living in a lifestyle that is considered evidence of unrepentant, or undisciplined sin, and its subsequent lack of applying church discipline as a means of correction and restoration would indicate that it was condoning, or approving of the sin, or that it did not follow the Biblical teaching that defines sin.  In the case of homosexuality, that is grounds for dismissal from the Southern Baptist Convention. 

But in this case, the issue is somewhat more complicated.  There have been some voices among those who have been urging the executive board to make a motion to disfellowship the church who have insisted that it is not just the fact that Broadway has members who are gay or lesbian that is the issue, but that some of its gay members are serving in leadership positions in the church.  The church has not asked these individuals to step down even after their sexual orientation became known to the congregation and that is the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss the church.  There are others who have said that the way the church handled the directory issue, accomodating the gay members by simply not putting in any family pictures at all, is an indication that the church does not meet the criterion of “friendly cooperation” on this particular issue.

For a while, there were some encouraging signs that the SBC and Broadway Baptist Church, a congregation from the moderate wing of Baptist life, might reach some kind of agreement.  The motion made in 2008 was referred to the executive committee, not unlike many of the dozens of motions on various other issues presented to the SBC by messengers each year, somewhat routinely but the committee met with officials from the church, listened to their statements, heard their expressions of desire to reach a resolution and remain in the convention, and to the reasoning behind their actions.  Unfortunately, even though it appears that “gentle restoration” was certainly under consideration, the church, at some point, decided not to follow through on what the executive committee had asked of them. 

The SBC has the right to determine the makeup of its membership, and the convention body decided, back in the 90’s to add this particular provision to the bylaws.  There is really no explanation for why the SBC chose to single this particular sin out in this way, though I suspect that the militant, “in your face” manner in which gay activists react to their perceived enemies may have something to do with it, and the fact that it has become a secular political issue may be another.  It does leave the convention open to the criticism of being inconsistent, of weighing one sin against another, and even of being hypocritical by using this issue to single out churches that it considers to be theologically liberal while doing nothing to churches which do not discipline their members for other sins such as gluttony or gossip.  None of that changes the fact that the SBC executive committee was acting within its rights.  It does appear, in this particular case, that the executive committee did as much as it could do in attempting to bring about a resolution that would have allowed Broadway Baptist to remain within the SBC without compromising this particular principle, and that the church was not willing to do what the committee asked of them to maintain the relationship. 

Churches need to exercise the discipline that the Bible allows them to exercise, and in fact, requires them to exercise in order to help their members grow spiritually, and experience the abundant life that God wants us to have as we go through this life, prior to receiving the gift of eternity that comes from knowing Jesus.  It may well be that the SBC needs to re-examine the manner in which this particular issue is handled.  Sin causes separation from God, regardless of what category it falls in and churches need to love and care for their members enough to speak the truth when they are captured by it.

Christian Conversion and Denominational Evangelistic Emphases

For a little over two years now, I’ve been teaching a Bible study class of senior adults, people who are 75+, on Sunday mornings.  Basically, these are people who could teach themselves, and that’s about what it amounts to, but we have been covering some interesting ground lately, related to evangelism, and the practical applications of sharing your faith with someone who is past 70.  Those discussions, and Ken Coffee’s challenge to blog about evangelism, have led to this post.

There are several places in the scripture where conversion is described.  Peter’s two messages in Acts 2 and 4 are both great models of evangelistic messages in which the process of Christian conversion is explained.  The preaching brought about the work of conviction, which was not done by the preacher himself, but by the presence of the Holy Spirit.  In each case, not everyone who was there came under that conviction or responded to it, but many did.  The response to conviction, as it is described in the scripture, is repentance.  The response to repentance is grace, through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, through which the Holy Spirit works to bring about sanctification, or cleansing from sin, and justification, or being made spiritually perfect in God’s sight. 

Paul describes the work of the Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 2:

“But, as it is written,  ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him–’

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit.  For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.  For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person which is in him?

…And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdon but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.  I Corinthians 2:9-11, 13  ESV

The whole book of I John gives a list of assurances to believers regarding the conversion that they have experienced.  “This is how you know,” are the words that John uses frequently to encourage his readers.  The very essence of conversion, and of faith, is found in I John 4:1-3, which distinguishes between true Christian faith, and the spirit of antichrist. 

“By this you know the Spirit of God:  Every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.  This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”  I John 4:2-3, ESV

So, in a nutshell, Christian conversion is the experience of spiritual transformation that takes place when an individual comes under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, is led to repentance from sin, and receives God’s grace through the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross.  The transformation is one of both forgiveness and spiritual empowerment brought about by the Spirit’s work.  The immediate result is a changed life, which is lived to please God as the individual is discipled through relationships with other believers, the end result is eternity in the presence of God. 

It is so much a thing of God, that it sometimes seems that programs, emphases, and other human inventions designed to get people to make a decision that can be recorded on paper, and counted in statistics to measure the effectiveness of the program makes it look more like the end result of a commercial marketing campaign than something that is initiated and empowered by God from beginning to end.  That’s not to say that followers of Christ are not to be involved in the process, we certainly are.  We are used by God as the deliverers of the message, and our presence and “preaching,” or “witnessing,” is the means God uses to bring about the conviction in the lives of others, though it is not the persuasion of our words that causes it.  

We need to be careful that our efforts are not perceived by those who are the object of them as if they are some kind of a “target” or objective.  This is a very intimate, and personal decision, not to be considered lightly.  And sometimes, in our haste to get a result, we try to become the Spirit and do what we think needs to be done to elicit some kind of response.  We aren’t doing this to create some kind of legitimacy for the existence of our denominational organization, we are doing it because we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and have been given God’s deep love for his creation.  As a result, we want to see others experience the same joy of salvation that we have known.  The denominational emphasis is there to get us thinking about what we should be doing, and to spur us to action.

 

 

 

 

The 2009 Southern Baptist Convention

For the first time in two years, I will miss the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, due to some other schedule conflicts.  I think this year’s convention will make for some interesting observation, if nothing else. 

I would guess that Johnny Hunt will be nominated and re-elected as president, without much in the way of opposition, if there is any.  The brief controversy over the accreditation status of the school from which he received his doctorate was a flash in the pan. 

Perhaps the biggest item of business will be the appointment of a “Great Commission Resurgence” task force to make recommendations regarding the implementation of the GCR.  I would guess that most messengers who attend the SBC these days are aware enough of the issues involved to see the need for doing this, and that a task force will be appointed.  It might get sticky after that, but there appears to be enough support for it now, looking at declining CP revenues and investment income, to at least take a look and see what needs to be done.  I’ve heard things discussed such as the merger of NAMB and the IMB, and a look at the executive board’s growing budget expenditures, and I think those things are worth some consideration. 

I hope the SBC considers the proposed resolution that reflects the points of the Pinckney-Shortt resolution offered in 2004, regarding public school education.  If it passes, there are some structures in place, such as the Southern Baptist Association of Christian Schools, and several home school associations, which could form a task force to make further recommendations.  One of the best things Southern Baptists have going for them today is a system of higher education, with colleges and universities supported by state conventions.  Pulling resources together to make Christian education happen on the elementary, junior high and high school level, and helping those churches which are already involved in this ministry to expand and involve a much wider constituency, would be a good thing. 

Dwight McKissic’s resolution regarding racial reconciliation is excellent.  It is interesting that, though only a small portion of it involves a reference to President Obama, that’s where most reports on it have focused.  It’s a good resolution, and it is the sort of thing that is quite appropriate for the Southern Baptist Convention to be doing.  We have Biblical instructions related to the way we are to approach the civil government.  In America, we also have the privilege of dissent and disagreement, but even though we may disagree with the approach taken by whatever administration has been elected, we are still obligated to support them with both our prayers and our obedience.  It’s part of our testimony.

I can remember, in the past, living in various places where a Southern Baptist Convention meeting wouldn’t make the local news unless it was being held in that particular city, having to wait a day or two, or perhaps even a week, for the state Baptist paper to come out and discover what the SBC had done.  Now, you can log on and watch the sessions on the internet.  Maybe, just maybe, we are not too far from the day when messengers can log on to their computer, enter a credential security code, and participate and vote from their computer keyboard.

Pinckney-Shortt Revisited at 2009 SBC Meeting

http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_2009-06-02-throwing-in-the-towel.htm

Dr. Bruce Shortt, whose name was included in a 2004 resolution presented at the 2004 Southern Baptist Convention calling for Southern Baptists to remove their children from the public education system, and E. Roy Moore of The Exodus Mandate will propose another similar resolution at the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Louisville.  The link above is a report on the proposed resolution and its rationale. 

Recently, Dr. Morris Chapman, the SBC’s executive director, issued a challenge to Southern Baptists to pool their resources and expand their involvement in Christian day school education.  Chapman suggested that churches in associations could band together and support schools, particularly in inner city areas where low income families do not have access to private Christian schools because of the tuition and fees required to attend. 

I fully and completely support the 2009 resolution, as well as the call to Southern Baptists to find ways to work together in establishing and supporting Christian schools. 

From an educational standpoint, just about any measurement system you can find, from college entrance exams to standardized test scores, shows students in both private Christian schools and those who are educated at home, exceed those in the public school system, in most cases by significant margins.  That’s far from being the only, or the most important, reason for an exodus. 

Having spent almost two decades as a Christian school instructor and administrator, I have found that most of the criticism about students being “sheltered from the real world,” or insulated from hard reality, to generally come from those who don’t really know what they are talking about.  The public school system is as much an insulation from the real world as you can find, with its mandated political correctness, its attempts to level the playing field, shelter students from failure, and the role of nanny and parent with regard to social issues it much teach thrust upon it because parents have abrogated their responsibilities.  The basic difference in a Christian school philosophy of education is that the school believes that God is the creator of the universe, and is therefore the source of all knowledge.  Education is the process of discovering what has been revealed.  Students are not sheltered from the world, but they are taught how to see it from the perspective that God is the source of all truth.  And they are not sheltered from failure, but are taught how to use it as a motivating factor for self-improvement.  The biggest difference is the fact that the school recognizes the Biblical truth that parents are responsible for the education and training of their children, and that the school is a tool at their disposal to use in carrying out that responsibility.   Christian schools focus on teaching students the academic basics and supports the parent’s views of Biblical truth, leaving the social issues and parenting to the parents.

Public education views parent involvement as a limiting factor, perferring to set it’s own agenda and then must try to convince parents to buy into it.  The school sees itself as an agent of social change, which is why its curriculum must be expanded beyond the basics, and why it often finds itself at odds with parents, lacks their involvement and cooperation, and as a result, fails to provide a quality education to its students. 

Personally, I think that church operated Christian schools may be an evangelistic opportunity.  As our culture has changed, many of the ways which churches once built relationships to lay the ground work for sharing the gospel have changed as well.  Providing an education to students may be a way to build some of those kinds of relationships once again. 

There are two priorities that Southern Baptists must consider if they are to build and operate Christian schools.  One is that schools, particularly those in the inner cities, cannot be tuition driven.  As it stands right now, only a small percentage of Christian families can afford to exercise their educational choice in selecting a private, Christian school for their children.  So churches, or groups of churches, which want to establish schools, will have to find ways to fund them besides charging tuition and fees exclusively to the parents.  Churches must consider sharing facilities with the schools as well as sharing the maintenance and utility expenses.  Churches must set up Christian education budgets aimed at providing materials and instruction for students to defray costs. 

The second priority is that alternative methods of education must also be considered.  University model schools, combining time spent at home with parents as well as instructional time in the classroom seems to be working very well and these kinds of schools are popping up all over.  Home school cooperatives, with expanded classes in higher level subject areas, and enrichment courses, are also worthy of consideration.   The “classical” model of instruction has also proven to be effective in both teaching the academic basics and encouraging students in the practice of their Christian faith. 

I hope Southern Baptists are listening.

Nothing Better to Do?

It’s difficult to take seriously the claim that moderate Baptists are more than just “not the SBC” when editorials like this show up in their prominent publications.

http://www.baptists4ethics.com/news.php?viewStory=14350

We are in a recession, so perhaps what appears to be a recent rash of editorials from several moderate Baptist writers critical of the SBC related to the recent news about the “Great Commission Resurgence” is related to attempts to stir up the contributors and generate some additional revenue.  John Pierce’s critique of the GCR in the most recent edition of Baptists Today shared the page with a multi-colored fund raising appeal.  Ethics Daily featured their critique in a display with a picture of the Titanic that flashed in a box at the top of their home page. 

It’s no secret that the SBC is experiencing declines in statistical categories where it once showed small increases.  Natually, some of its leaders are concerned, particularly about the drop off in baptisms, which does measure the evangelistic effectiveness of the denomination as a whole.  It is not surprising that some of those leaders are reflecting in hindsight that the turmoil resulting from the conservative resurgence may be at least partly to blame for at least some of the decline.  Johnny Hunt and Danny Akin have been brutally honest in calling for necessary change which they believe will help reverse the decline. 

So I have to wonder why moderate Baptist writers who have been lamenting the judgmental attitude of SBC leadership have suddenly decided to assume a similar attitude toward the SBC. 

Perhaps they’ve discovered that moving on to more positive topics and away from criticizing the SBC in order to develop an identity that went beyond being merely “the anti-SBC” did not generate the readership or financial contributions that they needed to operate their various entities or publications.  Perhaps they can’t resist the bait to fire off a stinging retort to a particularly critical jab made by a prominent SBC leader.  Or perhaps their own lack of evangelistic zeal, and the fact that baptism, attendance and membership figures for most of the moderate Baptist organizations birthed out of the SBC during the conservative resurgence might show them to be in an even steeper decline in this regard is the reason for their criticism.  Misery loves company.

I suspect that both Pierce and Parham would protest vehemently if SBC Life, or some other SBC related publication chastized CBF for a decline in baptisms, or made note of the fact that in recent years, its churches have struggled to meet a downsized budget.  They have protested many of the criticisms that have come their way from some of the leadership of the SBC, particularly those associated with the conservative resurgence, while at the same time they have championed the cause of Baptist unity in diversity.  Turning back, at this point, and resorting to the same kind of journalism they once protested undermines the image of “free and faithful” Baptists they’ve tried to convey. 

It does not appear, at least from the pens of Parham and Pierce, that moderate Baptists have developed an identity apart from “we’re not the SBC.”

Does One Baptist Speak For Another?

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9627&Itemid=9

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9644&Itemid=53

I’ve posted links here to a couple of pieces in the most recent edition of the Baptist Standard that I think can be used to illustrate the principle that one Baptist does not speak for any other Baptist.  However, there are times when I think that the “other” Baptists need to step up and make sure that those who are listening get that message, and when sitting silently without comment can be interpreted, or mis-interpreted as the case may be, as complicit agreement.

The first link references an editorial on what seems to be becoming known as the “Great Lottie Moon Offering Non Scandal of 2009.”  A blogger who pastors a church related to what the Standard calls the “competing” convention in Texas reported that the BGCT was not passing along money from its churches designated for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering.  The money was, in fact, being sent, but the accompanying paperwork which would have allowed for the reporting of its receipt by the executive committee of the SBC was delayed by a software glitch, a fact which the blogger could have discovered with a simple phone call.  Rather, he risked his credibility by reporting without checking the facts. 

The editorial in the Standard, and keep in mind, it is an opinion piece, leans heavily on the fact that the blogger is a pastor who led his church into the “competing convention” in Texas, and uses the opportunity to remind his readers that this particular competing convention has a history of similar reporting regarding the BGCT, even though the blogger was writing on his own and not as a representative of the “competing convention.”  It’s a very subtle but clear connection between the two, especially since the blogger is a recognized leader in the “competing convention.” 

Though the competing convention (let’s be more direct and call them the SBTC)  clearly did not make the accusation or prompt the story, the Standard editorial insinuates otherwise.  Though it might seem a bit hypocritical to take a blogger to task for not checking his facts by trying to get readers to draw a conclusion that is also not supported by facts, this is one of those places where the SBTC leadership probably needs to speak up and say directly that they are not responsible for what happened.  Though the blogger was not speaking for them, they’ve been involved by the very shrewd use of guilt by association.  Disassociation, then, would be the simplest solution. 

Likewise, Wiley Drake’s widely publicized, controversial statements regarding the subjects of his “imprecatory prayers” are being associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  No mention is made of his remarks without the note that he served a term as SBC Second Vice President.  Most people do not understand the idea that no one Baptist speaks for any other Baptist, nor do they understand that a former SVP of the SBC is not an official Southern Baptist spokesperson. 

There are probably some individual Southern Baptists who agree with Drake, though I doubt there are very many who would publicly say so.  But on the whole, his views are at odds with the SBC’s Baptist Faith and Message 2000 with regard to its statement on the authority of the scripture, and the sanctity of human life.  A statement from an SBC officer or executive would probably suffice to correct the misimpressions that have been created, though personally I think the convention body itself needs to vote to remove his messenger credentials.  Anything less than that will be interpreted as silent complicity.   SBC leaders are on the record in condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller, as strongly as they are on the record against abortion, but I think they need to directly address Drake’s remarks because they have been made in the context of his former position as SBC second VP. 

If this all seems somewhat familiar, especially in the Baptist world, keep in mind that Roger Moran once used this very same tactic, guilt by association, to cast some Baptist leaders in an unfavorable light to prevent their being elected to convention leadership.  It can work both ways, and that is something that everyone who writes and has an audience, whether a blogger or a Baptist newspaper editor, should keep in mind.

Two Steps Backward for Baptists Today

http://www.baptiststoday.org/

In an editorial which ends with a criticism of Southern Baptists evangelistic efforts being stalled largely by their “condemning and rejecting everyone who does not think just like them,” Baptists Today executive editor John Pierce spends several paragraphs ridiculing, condemning and rejecting the “Great Commission Resurgence.”  In an issue where the New Baptist Covenant is lauded for attempting to unite Baptists and “meet the world’s needs” and where a full page is devoted to reporting James Dunn’s receiving the Judson-Rice Award, Pierce’s editorial, strategically placed above a third of a page ad pleading for financial support, takes a very disunifying swipe at the SBC. 

Clearly, when Pierce talks about Baptist “unity” and “inclusiveness,” he doesn’t intend to include the SBC.  Aside from all the glory, laud and honor his publication lays at the feet of certain Baptists with whom he happens to agree philosophically and theologically, this editorial is yet another egregious example of the fact that moderate Baptists seem incapable of developing an identity other than “we’re not the SBC,” and must continue to resort to criticism of the SBC in order to drum up support and rally the troops.  So much for the talk a while back about “moving on” to more positive, productive “dialogue.”  Dialogue seems to be the forte of moderate Baptists; action is apparently quite a different matter.

Pierce’s critique of the Great Commission Resurgence includes a swipe at the concern some Southern Baptist leaders have regarding the decline in the number of Baptisms.  Suggesting that previous higher numbers came about as a result of “re-baptizing deacons, Sunday school teachers and choir members along with near-infants,” Pierce laughs at the notion that Southern Baptists might “eventually find enough common biblical and theological ground that we could focus on the Great Commission.”  Perhaps, considering the way some Southern Baptists have behaved in the past three decades, a chuckle is warranted, but at least Southern Baptists seem to be giving some concern to a specific issue, a biblical mandate that is a lot more specific than “dialoguing” over some vague form of Baptist “unity” to accomplish some vague, undefined, utopian statement like “meeting the world’s needs.”  The world needs the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the best way Baptists can meet that need is through the Great Commission.

The stories and coverage of Baptists Today generally focuses on the progressive, forward thinking actions and events of Baptists of the same stripe as the executive editor, designed to create the impression that those featured within its pages represent the true spirit of Baptist history and heritage.  With this editorial, the publication takes two steps backward, resorting to its old tactic of trying to boost the image of its own kind of Baptists by lambasting the Southern Baptist Convention. 

It could well be true that Southern Baptists have hindered their own evangelistic efforts by appearing to “condemn and reject everyone who does not think just like them.”  But I have to think that the moderate Baptists’ lofty goals of “dialogue to achieve unity and diversity to meet the needs of the world” suffer just as much from their repeated criticism of their own Baptist brethren, which is just as caustic, and just as “fundamentalist” in its approach as that of which they are most critical.

What is sauce for the goose….well, you know.

The Great Commission Resurgence

http://www.greatcommissionresurgence.com/

Although I am not really big on the idea of denominational initiatives to promote programs that are designed to help churches with outreach and evangelism if they will simply sign on and follow the instructions, I like the idea behind the “Great Commission Resurgence” being promoted in the Southern Baptist Convention, primarily by current president Johnny Hunt and Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  You can click on the link above and read each of the points, along with an explanation of their rationale.  There is a place for readers to click and become a signatory on the document. 

Unlike many denominational initiatives that are promoted and pushed as “programs,” this is simply a call to an emphasis in the churches, rather than a plan of specific action.  It’s sort of like a sermon that is being passed around, well thought out and aimed at correcting perceived deficiencies that the convention’s churches have been experiencing in the past couple of decades.  Perhaps SBC leaders have finally come to the realization that the denomination is its churches, rather than its institutional leadership or the annual meeting, and that unless large numbers of churches are inspired to buy into a denominational initiative, for whatever reason, such approaches will have very minimal effect. 

The Great Commission Resurgence is not without its detractors, nor has it escaped criticism from some denominational leaders.  Dr. Morris Chapman, current executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention, objects to the vague and relatively undefined nature of Article 9, relating to the efficient operation of the convention in order to increase wise stewardship of convention resources, namely the Cooperative Program gifts that come from the churches.  His objections came as a result of statements from the first draft which asserted “… our denominational structures have become bloated and bureaucratic at every level, from local associations to state conventions to the SBC itself. We believe our ministry effectiveness is being strangled by overlap and duplication, poor stewardship, and a disproportionate amount of Cooperative Program dollars being kept by the state conventions.”

Dr. Chapman seems to object to any hint that indicates a “restructuring” is needed in the SBC’s broader organization, including state conventions and related institutions and agencies.  He points out that there has been a “slippage” in the amount of money forwarded to the Cooperative Program from the local churches, in spite of the fact that the reorganization which took place as a result of a 1997 study has been implemented and he believes the convention is operating as efficiently as possible. 

The Great Commission Resurgence is predominantly an emphasis to encourage evangelistic efforts among the churches as a result of declining baptism numbers in the convention.  If declining Cooperative Program revenues are also a concern, and Dr. Chapman’s noting that giving from the churches has declined would be an indication that they are, then perhaps there should be a few articles related to addressing issues that have caused the churches to reduce their giving.  From one who has served in several local churches since the “conservative resurgence” first began in 1979, I can share a few of the concerns that I have heard in different churches in different locations.

1.  It has not escaped the notice of people in church leadership positions, especially those who are attentive to the Baptist news media, that few of the resurgence leaders who served as SBC president came from churches who did much more than tip the Cooperative Program.  The arguments that megachurches were somehow exempt from having to commit as high a percentage of their income to the CP, or the retort that “we give dollars, not percentages” fell on deaf ears for the most part.  It was noted in response that even the dollar amounts did not match those given by medium sized churches that were a fraction of the size of some of the bigger ones.  I served in one church where, during Charles Stanley’s tenure as president, the finance team chair led the church to match the percentage given by FBC Atlanta, which amounted to less than 2% of the undesignated receipts, and in that particular church, less than $10,000 in CP gifts. 

2.  Many church leaders are aware of what denominational executives, on both the state and national convention level, earn in salaries that come from CP contributions.  They are also aware of what the executives in various entities and institutions earn.  In a denomination where two-thirds of the churches have fewer than 150 people in worship on any given Sunday, this does not go over well.  Most churches would prefer to give their own pastor and staff larger salaries, and cut the CP giving to do it, rather than support some denominational executive with a six figure salary and “generous” benefits.  Golden parachutes, which were also highly publicized, were part of the problem as well.

3.  The conservative resurgence came on the scene with a promise to end the nepotism and the entrenched bureaucracy that existed in the SBC prior to 1979.  And yet, to many people in many churches, it seems that the old guard was simply replaced by a new one that does the same thing.  There are lines of family members, from brothers-in-law who have occupied three seminary presidencies, to sons or sons-in-law who serve on boards, or have received professorships or high paying executive jobs in SBC agencies while their relatives either served on a board or committee, or held another executive position somewhere else.  I’ve also heard the criticism that relatives, family members and friends of executives have a pipeline into getting their writing published.  On the one hand, it is good to have people who take ownership of Baptist conventions, agencies and institutions, and work hard for them, while on the other, it seems Baptists are particularly susceptible to the virus of nepotism and influence peddling.   This translates into churches justifying their Cooperative Program cutbacks. 

These may be hard problems to fix with a simple declaration of emphasis on the Great Commission.  From where I sit, in a local church, convincing people that either the state convention or the SBC is a cause worthy of more than 10% of the church budget, especially when there is a highly publicized problem or incident, is becoming increasingly difficult.  Resolve some of those issues, and I think you will see churches willing to give a little bit more to cooperative missions ministry.