SBC preview and predictions

Next week. Baltimore. There will be strutting. There will be stuffing. There will be puffing. There will be frivolity. There will be hand-wringing. There will be resume passing. There will be business, elections, motions, promotions and emotions.

It's the annual mobocracy called the SBC Annual Meeting. Here's my preview.

Elections

We've got a duke's mixture of candidates. One megachurch pastor. One microchurch pastor. One large church, ethnic pastor.

The first is Ronnie Floyd who lost to Frank Page back in 2006, primarily because his megachurch Cooperative Program giving was a micropercentage, 0.29. Since then, his church is giving a large amount and decent percentage, less than the average but good enough for my threshold.

The microchurch pastor is Jared Moore, PhD student, current first vice president. He is an outstanding pastor but is uninformed on many aspects of SBC work, a judgment I make from exchanges with him over the years on blogs. Needs experience, age, and smoothness. The SBC president can't do a lot to help but can easily do a little that will hurt. There is an affinity in the SBC for small church pastors but not nearly enough for a majority...and unlike last years VP election, there will be a quorum this year when the vote is held.

The ethnic pastor is Korean Dennis Kim. His large church is a mission machine. He is below the radar in the SBC, though not because of any deficiency in accomplishment.

Moore has no chance and Floyd is clearly the favorite but I would vote for Dennis Kim. I like the idea of moving away from megachurches and the oligarchy of megachurch pastors and their members that dominate important positions, trusteeships, and committees.

I'd predict a Kim victory but conventions are lightly attended these years and the middle-aged greybeards like to attend and I'd guess there are enough to elect Floyd. There's really not much the SBC president can do, or has done, or will do.

Reports

NAMB assembled a group of pastors to "assess and respond to stark patterns of decline in Southern Baptists' evangelism and baptisms." They met. Ed Stetzer threw a bunch of statistics at them. The have a report and some recommentdations.

Pastor's Task Force on SBC Evangelistic Impact and Declining Baptisms 

These are good people and this was a serious effort but the conclusion was to round up the usual suspects. Let's pray more, witness more, make disciples, try and "leverage" the next generation to do better than we have.

I expect most SBC leaders to do some handwringing over the report, same as in previous years. I don't have a solution to this but, my how we do like to lament the lack of baptisms.

Paige Patterson will be asked about his Muslim student at Southwestern Seminary. He will unless he stacks the mics with friendlies who prevent the question. He has responded with a statement already. Trustees either have the guts to address the matter or not. I cannot see much happening from the convention floor.

Russell Moore may be asked about his hires at the ERLC. The Gospel Coalition seems to have moved to the ERLC under Moore. He should be asked in particular about his new spokesperson who has acquired a reputation for brusque twitter exchanges. This isn't helpful. Richard Land, before he resigned, was perceived as just another ascerbic Republican talk show host. Moore better pay attention here.

Motions

The Executive Committee has a monumental change proposed for the SBC Constitution. They propose tweaking the messenger allocation formula. That looks fine to me. They also propose linking the SBC Constitution in regard to what constitutes "in friendly cooperation" to the Baptist Faith and Message. This part of their motion should be tabled or removed.

Motions from the floor always provide some unexpected entertainment. One never knows what an SBC messenger will come up with.

Miscellany and questions

I wonder if Frank Page will make note of the fact that the Executive Committee received more designated funds than Cooperative Program funds in the last fiscal year? We are mostly a societal giving convention at the SBC level.

Just how much did Golden Gate seminary receive for their prime acerage in Mill Valley? Should be the largest SBC real estate transaction ever. LifeWay had far more acreage at Glorieta but sold it for a buck.

Last year we had the Calvinist committee making their report. That is long forgotten and we are probably worse off in this regard than one year ago. Will someone make a splash about the Calvinists? God only knows but I'd guess that someone will.

What blogger will be elected as a VP this year?

I'd be there for the duration, brethren, but will watch from afar. Have fun.

While we were distracted: Secret Calvinism meeting

This past Monday and Tuesday, while America was distracted by the presidential election, there was another secret Calvinism meeting held in Nashville.

Well, no, it wasn't actually secret and I confess to shameless provocation in my title. So sue me.

Baptist Press reported on it:

Calvinism team meets for second time

This was a second meeting of Frank Page's informal Calvinist advisory group. The BP article by "staff" implied that some BP person sat in on the meeting.

The meeting was conducted on background rules involving no quoted statements by or attribution of comments to advisory team members. By consensus, the advisory team agreed that Page would issue a statement after the meeting.

Frank Page has pretty good instincts but I will say again that I think he is making a mistake to have this group meet a bunch of times away from public view and then at the end issue some grand statement. Southern Baptists who are interested in the Calvinist issue and internecine squabbles act like adults for the most part. This philosophy that SBCers cannot tackle a serious matter publicly is wrongheaded and undermines the entire credibility and ultimate effectiveness of this effort.

But this is Frank Page's personal committee and he may certainly do what he wishes with it. Were I closer to Nashville, I would probably ask if I could sit in on the next meeting, even if I had to agree to keep silent about it.

As for the meeting this week, Page issued a boilerplate statement that said not much of anything but did reiterate that he did not intend to recommend any change to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement.

I am not sure what can come out of these private discussions among SBC luminaries that will be helpful to the SBC at large but I am sure that whatever does bubble up out of them will be less helpful that they would be if the meetings were open and public.

Southern Baptists and backroom, private meetings. A marriage made somewhere but not in heaven.

Vast numbers of Georgia pastors sign 'Traditionalist' statment!

SBC Today reported, breathlessly, that the state of Georgia  has more pastors who signed the "Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” than any other state.

Wow.

So...how many?

Thirty-two.

Thirty-two? 

Yep.

Out of how many SBC pastors in Georgia?

Oh, five thousand or so, give or take a retired or semi-retired pastor.

Hmmm, that would be 0.64 percent, about one out of every 150.

Impressive, in a manner of blogspeak, I suppose.

What gives the statement heft is this (quote from Baptists Today):

The signers include four members of the committee who penned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (plus the President who appointed them to do so). The list includes six former SBC Presidents and seven state Baptist convention executives.

No need to look for your humble hacker and plodder blogger's name on the list. I'm not much of a signer, although I share some of the concerns about aggressive Calvinism and have not a few articles on the same.


I just don't know where this is going or what exactly the traditionalists have in mind. I'm down for the Baptist Faith and Message. That should be sufficient.


Count me as one who is not ready for another Conservative Resurgence type of crusade with candidates for office, trustee appointments based on party, etc.


Let's see what Frank Page has in mind next week.

  

NAMB trustees adopt church planting network guidelines

Our North American Mission Board has endured considerable criticism for supporting church plants that also have a relationship with some church planting network. We are regularly treated to considerable, breathless, blogging acrimony alleging all manner of things about NAMB and other church planting networks.

No matter that there have been few concrete examples offered of such things. But then facts usually don't slow down bloggers from displaying a good dose of denominational indignation. NAMB has consistently stated that they only plant churches that conform to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. No one I know has pointed to a single church that does not so conform.

Understanding the scrutiny of such things, NAMB trustees adopted some guidelines for their church plants and other networks.

NAMB's document is below:

                                       NAMB / Network Guidelines

The North American Mission Board encourages church plants to partner with their association, state convention, NAMB and the IMB. NAMB also affirms that some churches engage with other networks for mission and evangelism purposes in accordance with article 14 “Cooperation” of the Baptist Faith and Message.

NAMB does not affirm or partner with individual networks, but partners with Baptist Faith and Message affirming churches and planters.

In order to be good stewards of Southern Baptist resources and remain focused on our mission, the following guidelines must be upheld in order for a church plant to receive benefits from the Send North America church planting strategy. Church planting is a family activity, and we want to partner with those whose plans and commitments include
a commitment to the SBC family.

As such, we require that churches we support:

1. AFFIRM their doctrine, polity and practices are compatible with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
 
2. PARTICIPATE as an SBC church, and have their denominational commitment reflected in their documents, web page, and shared with the congregation.
 
3. COMPLETE and remain faithful to all the Send North America strategy requirements and policies.
 
4. GIVE faithfully the agreed percentage through the Cooperative Program.
 
5. COMMIT to serve as a faithful SBC partner beyond receiving support in order to partner with the future strategy of Send North America in planting additional churches.

Everyone happy now?

Association yields doctrinal autonomy to the SBC?

The Surry (NC) Baptist Association made news last year as a result of their action to summarily and quickly expel a member church because the church had called a female pastor.

The association, presumably tidying up things after that mess is in the process of revising their associational by-laws. Sounds like a good idea.

Here is the proposed revision as concerns the association's doctrinal statement:

Bylaw I. DOCTRINAL POSITION. The Association affirms the Baptist Faith and Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention.

Perhaps the Association desires to have it in writing that the senior pastor of a church can only be a male and that is what the SBC's doctrinal statement, Baptist Faith and Message, says. Perhaps they want to say that without explicitly stating it, which they have done by merely linking their doctrinal stance to the SBC's.

But should an association, an autonomous, cherished, Baptist entity, one that precedes the establishment of the national Southern Baptist Convention, completely yield autonomy on doctrinal matters to the SBC?

I'm thinking no.

But that's what is being done, intentionally or unintentionally, when the association's by-laws reads as it does above. The practical effect of this is that whatever the BFM says counts for the Surry Association. This may be fine for 2012 but the wording is such that whatever changes the SBC makes automatically applies to the association.

Suppose in 2022 the SBC votes to allow female pastors, unlikely, but let's get wild with the possibilities here. That change automatically applies to Surry Association. Letters of apology to follow then, perhaps.

This is all inside baseball and is arcane stuff, but associations should maintain their own doctrinal statement, even if it only "affirms the BFM adopted by the SBC in the year 2000." That wording limits the matter to that document alone and doesn't automically commit the association to any future changes.

Every association I've ever been a part of has some brethren that I would call parliamentary and ecclesialogical geeks who pay attention to this stuff. Surely Surry Association has at least one of these folks who see this yielding of associational autonomy.

I'd hate for my association to adopt by-laws that simly ratify and automatically incorporate whatever the SBC does. The idea that a few thousand folks in Phoenix, or New Orleans could vote and change my association's doctrine doesn't suit me at all.

But...like I said, this is really arcane stuff.

And, yeah, I know that this is none of my business...but what would blogging be without meddlesome bloggers?

Expelling churches with women pastors: Unstated reasons

I grant that the Surry Baptist Association expelled their member church because they believe that having a woman as pastor is biblically prohibited and harmful to their wonderful unity.

No one else will say it but there are other reasons why we expel churches with women pastors. I often write humor pieces. This isn't one.

1. A church that has called a female pastor is an easy target.

As was said elsewhere, "What do you need to know besides the gender?" Right-O. I take it that the brothers in Surry Association knew enough, once the gender was known, not to believe that much else was necessary.

We Southern Baptist pastors like easy targets and simple decisions. No fuss, no muss, no bother. And it doesn't get any easier and simpler than this.

2. We savor the ability to be selective in our discipline.

And there is no safer selective decision than this one. After all, we're men, right? No one can do this to us because we have gender immunity.

I humbly acknowledge the basis for such decisions, our Baptist Faith and Message Statement, which says,

While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

Not much wiggle room there. Commenters have put it succinctly that those who believe in women pastors and those who don't cannot both be right. I can't argue with that.

Perhaps we could check the sentence that precedes the one quoted above:

[The church's] scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.

Many SBC churches now have the office of Elder. This is a direct violation of the BFM. That manner of church organization is defined as unbiblical.

What shall we do with those? Expel them? Alas, Plodder isn't hearing the clamor for the same from where he sits and types. Perhaps elsewhere in the SBC hinterlands such sins are rooted out and churches dispatched for such things.

Surry Association waited less than a week to initiate discipline against Flat Rock Baptist Church. Where are those with a burning, unquenchable zeal for purity who will lead the associations in excising the sinful, unbiblical practice of Elder rule?

Lest we forget, both the BFM and Surry Association point to 1 Timothy 3 in regard to scriptural qualifications. That passage says in part that an overseer must be:

the husband of one wife...sensible...respectable...not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy...one who manages his own household competently...a good reputation among outsiders...

"Not a bully"? I know quite a few pastors who are bullies. Where is the zeal against those? I know pastors who are quarrelsome, who are greedy, who are appallingly poor managers of their households, and some who have disastrously poor reputations in the community. Where is the zeal against those?

To understand Surry Association's action you need only know one thing: They know how to spot a woman in a pulpit. The scripture about what overseers "must" be is, manifestly, just words on a page fit to be ignored.

3. Pastors know how to manage a career in this business.

I know a few pastors. I've got friends who are pastors. I hear a lot about pastors and it is the rare pastor who is not looking ahead to (a) a larger church, (b) an appointment to some committee or board, and/or (c) a future paycheck from some denominational entity. In fact, an ambitious pastor can make his bones in situations like this one. Conversely, if a pastor is on the 'wrong' side of a question like this, it can follow him forever. There is (Gasp!) ambition among us pastors. And pastors know what greases the skids for their future. They also know how to avoid the potholes.

No, I certainly do not know the state-of-mind of the brethren in Surry Association, but no pastor can say with a straight face that motives are pure for all who are involved in this.

I still would not vote to expel a church from my association if they called a female pastor. We all make our decisions. Mine is not particularly courageous, as some have labeled it. I merely see it as both reasonable and Christian.

I just wish that if we are as Southern Baptists going to follow this pattern in our associations, state conventions, and SBC, we would be honest about it.