Are you mad about the gay marriage decisions?

Most Americans could see this coming and the Supreme Court decisions announced yesterday are not unexpected.

Mad about it?

At whom are you mad?

Mad at the five SCOTUS justices who swung the vote? They were appointed and approved by our elected officials, most of whom we preferred. Do you wish to change the system?
 
Mad at the citizenry of the country who generally approve of gay marriage (although I acknowledge that when balloted, as in the California Proposition 8 ban of gay marriage, voters support traditional marriage)? You don't get to tell other people what to think, feel, and decide in this country.

Mad at your neighbors and relatives for voting for Obama? The elections weren't even close.

Mad at weak, ineffectual preaching? Please. We've worn out the Bible passages on homosexuality, the family, marriage both in and out of the pulpit.

Mad because traditional values have been undermined? Please. Is your pastor divorced? Do you have church members or leaders who have multiple divorces? Do you look around your church and see any other traditional values that are not held in high regard?

Mad at gay people? It's tough to be mad at someone and be an effective witness at the same time. Take a moment and ask why you are not as mad at some of the other widespread sins found in our culture.

Mad because you look around and don't see the cultural hegemony that white, conservative folks thought they were accustomed to seeing and having in America?

Just mad in general?

Get over it. There's nothing you can do about it, except perhaps help one person to find Christ and have his or her heart changed, which might solve some of the problems you are mad about.

Hmmm, not a bad idea.

Every pastor should have a woodpile

This is the 2013 version of my personal woodpile, sans the wood. It was full last September, now almost empty.

I highly recommend that my pastor and other church staff colleagues find a way to get their very own woodpile as a therapeutic and economically helpful ministry component.

A woodpile without wood is a decidedly forlorn spot and begs to be made complete.

I have only about two wheelbarrow loads of wood left from the last burning season which began sometime in October of 2012 and ended one cool day this past April.

My woodpile will hold about three cords of wood and I will have it filled up by sometime this fall mostly with dead white and red oak trees from my five acre lot. I have two large trees already on the ground and one standing.

My faithful Stihl and I drop and cut up every tree (the biggest I have dropped is this one) and every stick that is put in my wood pile gets there because I personally bust it up with a 12 pound maul and sometimes wedges. I have yet to find any part of a tree that I cannot break up into pieces small enough for my wood heater, an older model with a pretty large box. I like to mix some green and some dry wood because it burns much longer.

I have, alas, been unable to get my wonderful wife to chop any wood even though I have a pink maul, there seeming to be some immutable law pertaining to division of labor in my household. I check the mail for an award from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood but have yet to find one.

Filling up the old woodpile takes energy and effort, sweat but no swearing. It is highly therapeutic, and was especially so back when I actively pastored a church.

See that big stick of wood two feet in diameter. Watch the pastor, alone, with mightly blows break it up into smaller pieces to be consumed by fire. Notice that he is a formidable man, not to be trifled with, at least when he is by himself at the woodpile.

Watch heavy stress, prickly church problems, and grave concerns flee after a woodpile session.

One of the things about pastoring a church is that you can work hard all day, all week, all year and then look back and find very little in the way of visible results. Did I really accomplish anything? What do I have to show for my work besides a paycheck and occasional compliment?

Finish the woodpile and gaze upon a few months completed work. That has value, brethren. You know that you did it, every part of it and you can feel good about it.

Look for another pic of the old woodpile later this year.

What can be done and what cannot be done on the Calvinist/Traditionalist issue

Most Southern Baptists are pleased with the outbreak of harmony, unity, and comity between convention Calvinists and Traditionalists. Only those brethren who in a screwball sort of way, think that a lack of conflict somehow signals a lack of denominational health are displeased with the Calvinist/Traditionalist convention actions and post-convention results.

I'm pleased.  I like peace and harmony.

I'm optimistic. I like for the brethren and sistren to get along and join together in pooling our considerable resources in the important tasks of reaching North America and the word for Christ.

But I'm also realistic. There are those among us who make up both tails of the SBC C/T Bell Curve. These would be the militant Calvinists who believe that anything less than the fully formed five points is not just wrong but heretical and who seek to correct such heresy in churches or anywhere else it is found. These would also be the hard-nosed and hard headed Traditionalists who think that we are in a death struggle against Calvinists in our churches and entities and that Traditionalists need to fight and win every battle. 

What can be done:

1. SBC entity leaders like Frank Page, Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Paige Patterson et al as well as leaders who are not SBC employees like Tom Ascol and Eric Hankins need to maintain a cooperative, irenic posture toward each other and also to be conscious of the reality that Southern Baptists will be watching very closely both their words and actions. After all, we are on the same side.

2.  Calvinistic entity heads should watch their employment structure. It is not helpful to give the perception that we are dividing up the seminaries into those that are Calvinistic and those that are Traditionalistic. I offer Danny Akin's recent words that Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary will be a Calvinist seminary "over [his] dead body" and his invitation for any who think it is to come to the campus, at SEBTS' expense, and see for themselves.

3. Those who have influence, especially among the Calvinists at the seminaries, should publicly and frequently be heard counseling the young Calvinistic theologs to be open and transparent in their conversations with churches where they are potential staff candidates.

What cannot be done:

1. The extremists will not be silenced, especially on the blogs, but they can be isolated and ignored.

2. Some churches have, and will likely continue, to negatively designate their Cooperative Program giving in order to defund some entities, namely Southern and Southeaster seminaries. While there is nothing new about designating giving and while it is a legitimate option for any local church, sensible voices can respond that this is neither helpful nor necessary.

3. We will not be able to prevent future candidates for SBC offices and entity CEO positions from being seen, and judged by some, as Calvinist or Traditionalist.

I still like some things about Calvinists and think that in various ways they are helpful in the SBC and I am still wary about some things concerning Calvinists, but I am more optimistic about the future than I have been.

No problems with a quorum at this SBC meeting

While the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention had its lowest registration when meeting in a southern city since the youngest Baby Boomer was a toddler, and while some lower level SBC business was conducted with far less than a 25% quorum, there was one SBC event that had no problem with a quorum but had a decidedly gaudy attendance in comparison.

That would be the North American Mission Board's Send North America luncheon held during the SBC Pastor's Conference (BP photo above).

The attendance was an estimated 3,500.

Hmmm, we scratch and scrape to find a few hundred for some business sessions of the SBC's annual meeting but are bulging for a special interest luncheon where the focus is planting churches in North America.

There may be something of a lesson here.

SNA is the only big new thing in the SBC's playbook. It is a year old and although the metrics thus far are only things like attendance at conferences, numbers of churches involved, and church planters who have signed on, there is reason to be optimistic. The enthusiasm factor is evidence of that.

Quorum schmorum. 

It is good to see something that generates some positive numbers in the SBC.

In the future let's have a quorum present for SBC action

I did not attend the SBC meeting in Houston and can only draw concludions from what others observed and from voting totals, but it seems clear that when the election of SBC 2nd Vice President was held at 8:25 am on Wednesday morning there was not a quorum present of 25% of the registered messengers.

The numbers voting seem to indicate this. There were 674 ballots cast. While no registration total was reported on Wednesday morning it would have been 5,103 or close to that number making the number of votes 13.2% of registration. Another six hundred non-voting messengers would have had to have been in the hall for there to be a quorum.

I have received private communications from folks who were present at the time that there is no way another 600 people were present and not voting. The vote total seems to indicate that. I've never known a case where only half of the messenger present chose to ballot a matter.

This is no big deal but it could be a big deal if we continue to have very low attendance at future annual meetings and attempt to elect officers or transact business in sessions where only a fraction of the registered messengers are present.

I merely suggest that in the future the moderator, parliamentarian pay closer attention to the matter of a quorum being present. We have adopted by-laws. Let's follow them or repeal or amend them. I would also suggest that some messenger, if business is about to be transacted without a quorum being present, challenge the matter from the floor and call for a determination of a quorum.

Sometimes strange things happen when most messengers are in the exhibit hall or coffee shop.

Humble advice from the hinterlands.

Question: Are quorums considered at the annual meeting?

The SBC Constitution and Bylaws (here):

BYLAWS

In order to carry out the provisions of the Constitution, the following Bylaws are adopted for the government of the Convention:

35. Quorum: The quorum for conducting business during the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention shall be a minimum of 25 percent of those duly registered and seated messengers.

Earlier this week, the SBC in session took action (the election of a 2nd Vice President) and only 13% of registered messengers balloted, about half of what is needed for a quorum.

It makes no difference now but I am curious if the moderator or Chief Parliamentarian considered the matter of a quorum not being present. Unless another 600 or so people were present at the time ballots were cast but who did not vote, then the action was contrary to our bylaws.

Several explanations present themselves:

1. The moderator and parliamentarians ignored the possibility of the lack of a quorum. This is understandable from the moderator but not from the   Chief Parliamentarian who knows better and should be more aware of such matters. 

2. Those present and on the platform were aware but chose to simply ignore the matter and press on with the convention schedule. Perhaps there are precedents for this.

3. Those present were aware of the quorum issue, surveyed the crowd and made a determination that, in fact, a quorum was present. The matter was not challenged from the floor and the election proceeded.

I was not present and perhaps it was a reasonable determination that 1,275 were in the hall but if only 674 voted, although I would suspect that there clearly was not a quorum present. Baptists like to vote if nothing else and half of a crowd sitting on their ballots doesn't sound reasonable. If such was the case, there was clearly a lack of a quorum, then to delay the action and call for messengers to come to the hall would seem to have been appropriate.

I merely raise the issue out of curiosity and do so from a considerable distance. 

In light of the fact that convention attendance is very low these days compared to historical levels, would it not be prudent in the future to assure a proper quorum was present before any business is transacted or election held? 

Something to think about. 

SBC annual meeting attendance, elections, and resolutions

I am a statistics junkie, an interest that goes back to my baseball days and batting averages, slugging percentages, etc. So SBC stats are interesting to me, if not to many others.

Registration was 5,013, the lowest number for an annual meeting held in one of the Bible Belt southern states since World War II. The attendance was lower in 2011 but the meeting was in Phoenix.

One has to conclude that these meetings just aren't what they used to be and, absent a raging controversy that is a lot hotter than the Calvinist/Traditionalist one, we will likely not see numbers above ten thousand again.

Many have proposed alternatives such as regional meetings in addition to the main convention location. While this is doable, I'm not optimistic that there is any will to change. If SBC pastors and others do not see a lot of value in attending the annual meeting when it is in a location proximate to where the greatest concentration of SBC churches are located, I doubt they will see much value in several such locations.

One result of lower registration is seen in election results. For two consecutive years the office of 2nd Vice President was won (a) by a reasonably well known blogger, (b) by a Calvinist blogger, and (c)  at a time when most messengers were not present and voting.

Here are the figures:

2012 SBC Annual Meeting, New Orleans   

      Total registration, 7,484
           
      First  ballot for 2VP:
                  Dave Miller,    673
                  Eric Hankins, 572
                  Brad Akins,    370

      Second ballot:
                  Dave Miller,    1,202
                  Eric Hankins,    798

Miller was elected at a time when about 27% of messengers were present and voting.

2013 SBC Annual Meeting, Houston   
      
       Total registration, 5,103

       2VP ballot:
              Jared Moore, 451
              Don Cass,       223

Moore was elected at a time when about 13% of messengers were present and voting.

I doubt that there has been a convention officer elected with fewer votes in a century. Some enterprising researcher can look that up.

One might conclude that bloggers are now in a position to pull a significant number of votes, especially at times when most messengers are drinking coffee and browsing the bookstore and exhibit hall.

With so few in attendance, and with the resolutions being presented on Wednesday when many messengers have already left, there is the potential for some mischief in resolutions. Issues of national interest like the Boy Scout controversy and clergy sexual abuse usually generate some mainstream media interest. A goofball amendment supported by just a few hundred of the millions of Southern Baptists could embarrass us. Thankfully, no such goofball was foisted on the convention this year.

On resolutions, we might consider taking the course of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship which does not do resolutions, but this would deprive many SBCers of a fun time where they get to have their moment of fame at a mic. I hardly think the SBC would be harmed by eschewing resolutions and our Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission can speak for us and should on important matters. I don't see any change in the resolution process, however.

Next year the convention is in Baltimore, a non-traditional location though still south of the Mason-Dixon Line. There will be a contested presidential election (Eric Hankins? Ronnie Floyd? J. D. Greear, David Platt or of one of the other young turks? Blogger?) which should ensure attendance greater than this year.

I'm saving my pennies and planning to make the trek.

A resolution that has value: ON SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

My friend and fellow Georgian, Peter Lumpkins, submitted this resolution and I confess that my prediction was that it would fail to be reported out of the Resolutions Committee and any attempt to bring it to the floor would likewise fail. Peter would then go home and drown his disappointment, rather expensively, in Starbucks coffee which he never seems to be without (ABP photo).

I was wrong and the SBC did pass an amended resolution but one that Peter favored.

The original resolution had this paragraph:

RESOLVED that we strongly urge denominational servants, entity leaders and our trustee boards to sever all ties, whether official or unofficial, with any evangelical organization, fellowship of ministers, and/or celebrity leader who, presently or in the past, is facing criminal and/or civil litigation for neglecting moral or legal obligations to protect the little children whom Jesus said suffer to follow Him, ties including but not limited to speaking engagements at conferences, entities, and/or agencies supported, whether full or in part, by Cooperative Program monies; and 

The target for this paragraph was C. J. Mahaney who has been loudly praised and touted by some of our SBC leaders, not the least of which is Albert Mohler.

The case of Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries, and sexual abuse of children is long and somewhat complicated. There are horrible allegations of abuse, some while Mahaney was pastor and in his church, though he is not accused of any such behavior. A high profile civil suit has been filed against a number of SGM leaders. The lawsuit alleges that when abuse was reported to the church, church leaders did an in-house investigation and tried to handle it privately.

Background can be found in numerous articles by Bob Allen of Associated Baptist Press (you will not find much from Baptist Press which avoids such unpleasant subjects). The article here is from this week. Also, two blog queens (their own self-description) and their blog The Wartburg Watch 2013 are tireless victim advocates and keenly focused on the SGM scandal. Their research is stellar.

The Resolution Committee quickly deep-sixed that paragraph before they reported the resolution to the floor. An amendment was added from the floor that said:

RESOLVED: that we encourage all denominational leaders and employees of the Southern Baptist Convention to utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and/or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse; 

You can still read "C. J. Mahaney" between the lines of the above paragraph.

Here's the deal: Even though Southern Baptists have said a lot about clergy sex abuse and have numerous programs to educate churches and pastors of the issue and how to handle such things at the local church level, we have not been very effective in handling cases that touch on our churches or our leaders.

This resolution helps somewhat, but let's be candid here, no one who should have been paying attention to this matter, Executive Committee, Resolutions Committee, high profile leaders like Mohler, thought it important to address it with a resolution at the annual meeting. The matter was left for a small church pastor and blogger. I give Mohler et al credit for realizing that they needed to get on board here.

One of my boasts is that I have never spend a dime on Starbucks coffee. It is one of my life principles not to pay $5 or so for a cup of drugged and flavored water.

But the next time I meet Peter at the Starbucks halfway between us, I'll buy. Good work.
______________________________________

If you are a pastor or church staff and haven't given this a lot of thought, I recommend your state convention who most certainly has a staff member with responsibility for child safety. But start with a couple of my articles:
Pick up the phone, call the cops.

They did not call the cops...and have been arrested.

Also, get Christa Brown's book (available on her website) and read what she has to say. It is ugly but may save your ministry down the road. She started talking about sexual abuse in the SBC before anyone else.

Did you notice the Calvinist team's only pragmatic recommendation?

Frank Page did a good job with his Calvinist team. He initiated the process, picked the people, and marshaled the group to a positive conclusion. I give him credit and appreciate his leadership.

At the SBC meeting this week it has been love and kisses all around among the Calvinists, non-Calvinists, and fence sitters. Al Mohler and Eric Hankins, the former is the SBC's leading Calvinist warrior and the latter has acquired by default the lead position for Traditionalists, are now BFFs.

Mohler will quickly show us if he is serious about moderating his words if not his Calvinistic views. Check his widely read blog for backsliding in coming months and more importantly, watch his hiring decisions.

One wonders if the CEO of our flagship seminary will even deign to acknowledge that some churches are designating around Southern Seminary and some Associational Missionaries and other Southern Baptists recommend not hiring SBTS graduates because of the perception of aggressive Calvinistic views?

Albert, this would be a good time for a chapel message that takes Danny Akins' statement, "Southeastern Seminary will be a Calvinist seminary over my dead body," or similar. And you might take time to bear down on your neophyte theologian students about being too cocksure and militant about Johannes Calvinus to the exclusion of Jesus Christ. That will preach well and also be received well around the SBC.

But, brethren, did you notice the repetition of the single specific and directed, pragmatic recommendation of the Calvinist study team? Here it is:

In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations.

Translation: Calvinist candidates should start being open and transparent. There is no rash of stealth Traditionalists sneaking into churches and tearing them up.

Paige Patterson, yesterday on the panel:

"Just be honest. Be forthright, up front [about beliefs on Calvinism]," Patterson said, speaking to those who submit resumes for church positions. "

If I stop hearing stories about stealth Calvinists, confused or uninformed church search committees, and resultant problems of Calvinistic pastors implementing their vision and theology in churches who did not see it coming, then I can say progress is being made.

To balance the above, I will acknowledge that Frank Page stated that he sees "a level of 'anti-Calvinism' in the convention 'that frightens me.'" Likely, he means the calls for quotas and the reality of churches now designating their giving around the two perceived Calvinistic seminaries, SBTS and SEBTS.

But, let's give our Chief Encouraging Officer credit here. Frank Page showed good instincts, solid leadership, and an impressive amount of persuasive power.

Good work, Frank.

Aside from the oppressive Houston humility, er humidity, the SBC should be a good one

While I doubt anyone would confuse the humidity at an SBC meeting in Houston with humility, the former obvious from one's first morning breath, the latter always in short supply amongst our struttin', backslappin', gregarious brethren, I am optimistic that the annual meeting will be good.

Here are a few things I read in the tea leaves from afar, no benefactor having offered to pay my expenses to attend the meeting (second consecutive year this has happened).

Elections

• Fred Luter will be reelected as president and will deliver a stem-winding, corn-shucking, rip-roaring sermon.
• Bart Barber will be elected 1st VP. He is a sensible, reasonable, quality pastor.
• Jared Moore, whom I know from SBC Voices, will not be elected 2nd VP but will continue to grow in knowledge and grace as he ages and works toward an advanced degree. He is a serious minded young man. Try again.

 The Calvinist Report

• It will pass easily but there is really nothing controversial in it and it requires no action.
• Various SBC luminaries will offer comments filled with sweetness and light.
• An outlier messenger or two may get to a mic and ask a dumb question, but that's the SBC.

 Peter Lumpkins' resolution on Sex Abuse (look for my article later today on the subject)

• Will be buried in the resolution committee and not reported out to the floor with the reason offered that the SBC has addressed the issue in previous resolutions.
• An attempt to put it on the floor for a vote will fail.
• The SBC will have missed a good opportunity to get ahead of a scandal that will embarrass some of our prominent leaders.

 The statistical report

• There will be hand-wringing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth over the sharply lower baptism total for 2012. 
• God will be blamed for this in that He hasn't sent revival.
• Pastors will be blamed for this for not witnessing.
• Jerry Drace, president of the SBC Evangelists group, will blame pastors for not using vocational evangelists.
• No one but Kevin Ezell will be able to say they are doing something that might change the downward trend.

 Boy Scouts

• Boy Scouts will be beaten up.
• The near defunct and moribund SBC Boy Scout alternative, Royal Ambassadors, will be touted. 

People-watching

• Look for the mega pastors and mega wannabees to be wearing suits or at least dress shirts with cufflinks. See how they strut (you could strut like that with some practice, get a full length mirror).
• Observe carefully how many of the Reverends are embarrassingly rotund. Follow one to lunch and find out why.
• Be sure and not miss the miscellaneous business sessions because that is where you will be entertained by a few oddball messengers offering oddball motions. Hey, it's their right.
• Lament the lack of tonsorial enhancement, toupees. Thirty years ago there were no shaved heads and hundreds of toupees. Now, scarcely a toupee to be spotted and shiny pates everywhere. 

I regret not being able to attend but, Lord willing, I will make Baltimore next year.

Have fun, after all, you are on an expense account.

Baptism miasma? Here's a possibility for a cure

The preconvention reporting of SBC statistics usually triggers a spate of old fashioned Baptist hand-wringing.  This year's total baptism figure puts it on steroids.

Baptist Press reports that baptisms for 2012 were at their lowest level since 1948 when the earliest Baby Boomers were toddlers. Total baptisms, 314,956 for 2012, are down over 18k from the previous year. The 5.5% drop is the largest percentage decline in quite some time.

"Woe is us" sayeth any and all SBC leaders and others:

"heartbreaking"  Thom Ranier, head of LifeWay

 "God forgive us and God help us." Frank Page, Executive Committee CEO

While the figure for 2012 is a continuation of the well-established, long term trend of declining baptism, this has been evident for decades, no one wants to say that it is business as usual and to be expected, even though it is.

The SBC is a declining denomination and has been for five years or so. We reluctantly join the other mainline denominations in a slow statistical slog southward. In spite of assurances otherwise, The Conservative Resurgence didn't stave off a decline but merely conserved the status quo a little longer.

Baptists may not be good at baptizing folks these days we we are still pretty good at finger pointing and there is no end to morbid self-introspection about declining baptisms: we're not reaching youth like we used to, we're not evangelistic, pastors are not aggressive enough, were not praying enough, we're not going door-to-door with big, thick, heavy King James Bibles like we used to, we are too culturally irrelevant, we are too culturally relevant, we sing to many hymns, we sing too many peppy contemporary dittys, we don't use vocational evangelists any longer, God just needs to send revival etc. etc., ad nauseum.

Overwhelmed and drowned out, pardon the pun, by the sagging baptism figure was the fact that the SBC showed an increase in the total number of churches. It was slight, 270 or a 0.6% increase from the previous year, but slightly up is better than markedly down.

That's good.


I offer the possibility that Southern Baptists are already doing something that has the potential to improve our baptism statistics. 

To not an inordinate bit of complaining, our North American Mission Board has redirected a considerable part of their budget and retooled much of their emphasis towards the planting of churches. Their flagship church planting initiative is Send North America. My association near Atlanta is part of this and there are already new churches being funded and planned through SNA.

Is it not settled that new churches grow faster than mature churches and that new churches baptize more with fewer members than legacy churches?

Yep.

And while various state conventions have church revitalization programs that are aimed at reinvigorating the thousands of sepulchral congregations around the SBC, most of us would predict failure in that lugubrious task, chiefly because churches are happy where they are and simply do not wish to be revitalized.
        
So, is it reasonable to think that a goal of increasing baptisms will more likely be reached through new congregations than by trying to persuade, cajole, or badger existing churches to make changes?

Yep.

After we're done with our annual pre-convention hand wringing session over declining baptisms and church membership, perhaps we could put some energy into doing the things that might help reverse this trend.

It is too early to measure the success of NAMB's work but it is about the only thing we are doing right now that holds out the possibility for a positive increase.

Doleful talk and tired, boilerplate warnings about the future may make us feel good but will not put more people in the baptistery.

Send North America probably will. Any church, any pastor will find a place to contribute through this, so take a day or two to be disconsolate about the latest baptism statistics and then start doing something positive about it. 

While the Cooperative Program languishes, Lottie Moon flourishes

Various Southern Baptist Convention entities make announcements and reports just prior to the annual meeting and it was good to hear our International Mission Board announce that the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions totaled almost $150,000,000 for 2012.

The final total, $149,276,303, was the third highest ever received and was the second consecutive year the offering showed an increase. The 1.7% increase over 2011 might not seem impressive but the additional $2.45 million will pay a lot of mission personnel costs. Dollars still pay the bills, not percentages.

Contrast the increase for international missions with Cooperative Program's continued languishing. CP receipts are accurately reported by the Executive Committee who have generally found it positive to state CP giving as keeping up with budgeted goals. The CP was down about 4% compared to the same period for last year but slightly above budget. I have no problem with positive spin, which is what that is.

In my state, Georgia, there is a marked contrast between what is happening with the Cooperative Program and with the two major mission offerings, Lottie Moon and the North American Mission Board's Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions.

The CP was up in Georgia for 2012 by 1.67%, very good news here in light of the fact that it has dropped by millions over the past few years. However, offerings to NAMB were up 6.88% and offerings to the IMB were up a lusty 9.22% over the previous year.

Plodder's conclusions, a statement of the painfully obvious: Southern Baptists have far more enthusiasm for North American and International missions than they do for the catch-all Cooperative Program.

While each has great value among us, when pastors and churches look at where they wish to spend their mission dollars they are eschewing some CP giving in favor of direct giving to the two mission boards.

The math likely reveals why: a dollar to the CP yields one dime to NAMB and about two dimes to IMB. A dollar to Lottie or Annie yields a dollar to that mission cause without dilution.

I do not think this trend is unhealthy. Quite the opposite. Neither do I think that there is anything much Frank Page or any other SBC or state convention executive can do to make the CP more appealing to the churches.

Good work Southern Baptists. Lottie would be pleased.

Where Frank Page's Calvinist Team Missed the Mark

While I do not disagree with the report of the Calvinist Study Team and while there are things in it that are helpful, after reading and reflecting on it I feel like I've eaten a mayonnaise and lettuce sandwich - it did not taste bad and it was a meal but it just didn't satisfy my appetite. Having some bacon and tomato would have made it much more substantial.

I commend Frank Page, our Executive Committee CEO, for the effort but here are some ways that I think the team missed the mark.

There is no strategy.

My goal is to develop a strategy whereby people of various theological persuasions can purposely work together in missions and evangelism... most likely there will be the crafting of a statement regarding the strategy on how we can work together."            -  Frank Page

The Calvinist group's statement has no strategy. It does state areas of agreement, cooperation, common goals, as well as call on SBC individuals and entities to affirm and respect each other but there is no strategy. The group does not ask SBC seminary trustees, for example, to formally affirm that their institution does not and will not discriminate in hiring of faculty on the basis of Calvinism or non-Calvinism.

The group has a consensus statement, not insignificant but not a strategy.

The group failed to show that honest conversation among us can be helpful and beneficial.

We affirm the responsibility of all Southern Baptists to guard our conversation so that we do not speak untruthfully, irresponsibly, harshly, or unkindly to or about any other Southern Baptist. This negativity is especially prevalent in the use of social media, and we encourage the exercise of much greater care in that context.

We deny that our cooperation can be long sustained if our conversation becomes untruthful, uncharitable, or irresponsible.

While the group took time to assail the untoward conversations "especially prevalent" in social media,  a shot at SBC bloggers who have been discussing the problems with Calvinists and Calvinism in the SBC for years, they were not willing to have their discussion in public where they could demonstrate how SBCers should have these conversations.

Ordinary SBCers regularly receive from their leaders magisterial pronouncements about how prominent SBCers need privacy in order to have honest discussions about matters that cause tension among us.

Hogwash.

The private meetings of leaders who are unwilling to discuss things where others can witness and hear their conversations about common problems is self-serving, unhelpful, and destructive. And to assail those who are willing to publicly discuss these matters, even if the discussion is sometimes negative, while having their conversations kept secret, is hypocrisy.

I am not unaware of the dynamics here. I suspect that there are people on this Calvinism group who have ambitions for SBC offices and leadership positions and they would rather not have their words on record where such might harm their career path. I do not assign this to any specific individual but only the naive among us would deny that this is one motive for private meetings.

Brethren, if you think it important to call out bloggers and twitterers for untruthful, uncharitable, and irresponsible conversations then act like Christian men and have your conversations where the rest of us can learn from your example.

Let's be honest here. The only arena where one can find routine conversations on Calvinism and Traditionalism in the SBC is among the blogs. Those may be imperfect but there are preferable to a group that meet and discusses in secret and then grandly pronounces how the rest of us should act and what we should do.

The instructions to ministry candidates and search committees was weak and ignored the obvious.

In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations.

Many SBC churches have had difficulty when staff candidates have not been forthcoming about their theological convictions and any call for openness and transparency is a good move.

The problem is that the reason for this paragraph being included is not that there have been vast numbers of SBC ministry candidates who were not candid and forthcoming about their Traditionalist beliefs. The problem is that there have been numbers of Calvinist ministry candidates who deliberately and deceitfully conceal their Calvinistic beliefs and goals in order to be more appealing to a church search committee.

Tom Ascol, Al Mohler, and other Calvinistic members of the group know this. Frank Page knows this. Ordinary SBCers like myself know this. Why not be plain and straightforward and say what needs to be said here?

The report makes no mention whatsoever of some of the most significant realities about the Calvinist/Traditionalist conflict.

These are, (1) Some churches are now negatively designating their Cooperative Program giving so as not to have any of their money going to Southern and Southeastern seminaries because they are considered to be too Calvinistic, (2) Graduates of these same two seminaries are being blackballed in some quarters because of the perception of excessive institutional Calvinism, (3) Many in the SBC are calling for some quota on the proportions of Calvinistic and Traditionalistic SBC leaders.

Did you guys even talk about these?

The report makes no mention of two looming problems caused by Calvinists in churches: Elder rule and destructive church discipline.

Perhaps it was felt that the group should avoid unpleasant thoughts and discussions but some SBC congregations have been ripped apart by Calvinists who implemented a polity whereby the church was owned and ruled by a small cabal of elders. Is such consistent with or contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message? Did you guys even talk about this?

Calvinistic leaders Al Mohler and Tom Ascol have been vocal in calling for the reintroduction of church discipline in SBC churches. Unfortunately, not a few churches who have heeded their call have created a nightmarish system by which a church is controlled by a coterie of paid
staff and cronies to the harm of the congregation and individual members. Did you guys have a conversation on this?  Did any names come up as examples of how church discipline can go terribly awry?

Were I to be present in Houston, I would vote in favor the group's report, but they could have done better.

What Frank Page's Calvinist Team Got Right

Frank Page, our Executive Committee’s “Chief Encouraging Officer” as he likes to describe himself, did well in an honest attempt to stave off further harm to our cooperative work by establishing an informal team to develop  "a strategy whereby people of various theological persuasions can purposely work together in missions and evangelism."

He recognized that Calvinism is a problem in the SBC that will harm us if matters continue as they have for the past decade or so, one of the reasons I both like and respect him.

The 19 member team has issued a report which can be found in this Baptist Press article.

 The team got most things right, including:

1. The Baptist Faith and Message is fine as is and needs no changes.

2. We agree with each other on the doctrines that are most critical.

3. We disagree on some things, none of which are deal breakers.

4. We should disagree agreeably and avoid unhealthy acrimony and disputing.

5. No  SBC entity should promote Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other.

6. All SBC entities should be welcoming and affirming to both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

7. Candidates for church positions should be candid about their beliefs, as should the church searching for a minister.

8. Hyper-Calvinism should be rejected.

Not that it’s worth much, but I predicted almost all of these a couple of weeks ago.

The critical conclusions are 1, 6, & 7:

The BFM is our common denominator. Don't mess with it.

As a denomination, we should not employ individuals nor fund institutions that are partisan in this theological respect.

We should not tolerate agencies and institutions that fail to welcome and affirm both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

I liked Page’s leadership on this and appreciate the effort. There is nothing about the report that troubles me and I commend it all. Perhaps it will help things.

After ruminating on it I am left thinking that we Southern Baptists are predictable to a fault: A problem is recognized. A blue ribbon group is formed. They meet behind closed doors and discuss it. A report is issued complete with alliteration. Prominent individuals offer high praise for the effort and for the folks involved. We slap backs, congratulate each other on how wonderful we are and then go home and forget about it all. I hope this is not the case.

Next: What the team got wrong.