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.

Scintillating predictions for 2014

 2014

What will Southern Baptists do in 2014...besides serve the Lord, share the Gospel, minister in Jesus' name and perhaps fuss and fight a bit? Here are a few predictions:

1. SBC Presidential Election; When the SBC meets in annual session in Baltimore June 10 & 11, your humble hacker and plodder blogger plans to attend. I have no idea who will run for president but allow me to make the safe prediction that there will be a megachurch pastor, perhaps an ethnic candidate, and maybe someone involved in the Calvinist/Traditionalist business. If I am able to vote, I will not vote for any candidate whose church does not give a minimum percentage to the Cooperative Program. That threshold percentage will be the subject of a later blog article. To be candid, I'm a bit tired of the megachurch superstar candidates (though I admit I happily voted for Bryant Wright a few years ago).

2. Calvinist/Traditionalist Stuff; Frank Page's informal, ad hoc Calvinist study group is history, pretty much forgotten history at this point. Peering down the months of 2014, I see a renewal of conflict on the macro level and continuing church acrimony on the micro level in regard to Calvinist doctrine and Calvinistic pastors. The best we can hope for is for the year to be quiet in this regard. If there are any major SBC entities who change leadership this year, expect for them to receive keen scrutiny on their Calvinism as well as their connections to Southern Seminary and Al Mohler. Sorry, it's just where we are.

3. Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings; The Lottie Moon offering goal is the same $175 million that we have had since 2009. We haven't been close to reaching the goal but will do better this year than last and will end up above $150 million. Kevin Ezell and the North American Mission Board have actually presented a vision that has registered with Southern Baptists and the Annie Armstrong offering is increasing. I predict another increase for 2014.

4. State conventions; No level of SBC life has suffered as much as state conventions. I predict continued financial shortfalls. One might take the macro view that state conventions have been caught in a major technology and attitude shift that leaves them having to do the very hard work of convincing churches of the value of their mission and vision.

5. Cooperative Program; The CP showed yet another decline last year and that after the tiniest of increases the previous year. I see no shift in long term trends and predict another small CP decline. It is becoming increasingly apparrent that SBC pastors and churches are placing more emphasis and energy in specific, dedicated spending than in our grand market basket cooperative pool. I remind my astute readers that at the SBC level we are now mostly a societal giving denomination with more revenues going directly to SBC entities than to the Cooperative Program.

6. Housing Allowance; Rank speculation here, but I predict that the federal court decision that struck down the laws allowing cash housing allowances to ministers will be appealed and there will be no further decision this year.

7. Plagiarism; My sense is that plagiarism - bold, shameless stealing of other pastor's entire sermons and illustrations and preaching them as if they are one's own - is rampant among pastors. People widely known among Southern Baptists will be confronted with their sins in this regard.

8. Personal predictions; Plodder will once again replenish his pathetic looking wood pile. Although I was rather lazy about it in 2013, I jumped all over it yesterday. I will preach more in 2014 than I did in 2013 and will preach exactly zero sermons with silly alliterative outlines. With no effort at all from me, my total of grandchildren will increase by 50%.

I admit to a paucity of predictions for this year. Sorry.

Jason K. Allen eliminates Calvinists from the SBC

It's so simple. Just refuse to allow the use of the term "Calvinist." Presto! No more Calvinists.

Jason K. Allen is the SBC's youngest seminary president, having been put into the driver's seat of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, our most problem-plagued seminary, less than one year ago. He is doubtless an outstanding individual and has my prayers for success in his task at MBTS.

He has wrote a piece this past Tuesday, "Are you a Calvinist? Rethinking theological labels."

The article is a thoughtful and reflective treatment of the use of theological labels http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default and specifically of that single most important theological matter in our beloved SBC these days - Calvinism. .

Allen was preaching at a church recently and described a question he was asked:

I have one question for you. Are you a Calvinist?” 

That question is not an uncommon one, but it’s a question that might be more difficult to answer than first thought. To this gentleman, I reflexively replied, “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” He smiled and responded, “I have no have idea what I meant by the question either.”

The story illustrates my experience with not a few Calvinists and I suspect it illustrates the experience of many, many a pastor search committee's conversation with a prospective pastor who is Calvinistic. 

The Calvinistic candidate will rather have a shard of glass stuck in his eye than to let the sentence "Yes, I am a Calvinist" pass from his ministerial lips.

Allen suggests three "principles for doctrinal discourse," What is most biblical; what is most forthright, and what is most wise." In discussing the three points he asserts this,

 If someone else has hijacked the term or loaded it with freight you never intended, to embrace it might not only be unwise, but downright foolish. Instead be forthrightly biblical and not foolishly sign on to a label that was divorced from its true meaning long ago.

This is a conclusion almost universally shared by SBC Calvinists. The thinking goes like this: "Calvinism is a snarl word, a term loaded with bad images and experiences in the minds of some laypeople. It is not helpful to me as a pastoral candidate; therefore, I will never, ever allow it to be applied to me and I will talk doctrinal circles around any committee who presses me on it."

I hear Calvinists often say of the label, "I don't use it because it is not particularly helpful," or "I never accept that because it is so broadly used," or similar.

I acknowledge that Allen and my Calvinistic SBC friends do have a problem here. There is some negative cachet to this term that best describes their theological stance. (My graybeard SBC colleagues will recall that SBC moderates tried to eliminate the term "moderates" as applied to them back during the heated days of the Conservative Resurgence. They even had Baptist Press invent some new terms to their liking. It didn't work.) I'm thinking that "Calvinism" is too ingrained to be eliminated now.

Allen concludes with this:

Theological conversation is most always good, but it can be improved when it takes place on higher ground. To conceal one’s theological convictions is at once disingenuous and cowardly, and no self-respecting minister should be either. Rather, let’s be Bereans, studying the Scriptures and articulating our convictions in ways that are most biblical, most forthright, and most wise.

 I don't know a Calvinist who thinks he is disingenuous and cowardly and I appreciate Allen, Tom Ascol and others, including the Calvinist Advisory Committee whose report said,

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. 

While I don't disagree with Allen on this, I wonder what is the best course for conversations between search committees and prospective ministers if "Calvinism" is off limits?

One solution, a few years old now, was what came to be called a Calvinist smoke out guide.

One might look askance at the title for this but it's tough to argue that a church committee doesn't need some guide for assessing the theological stance of interviewees. Since we have eliminated all Calvinists from the SBC, perhaps LifeWay could publish one. It looks as if there is a market. ;)

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.

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.

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.

  

What's Frank Page's Calvinist Team to say?

Frank Page's Calvinist advisory team, a group of mostly SBC luminaries, leaders, and heavyweights will issue a report during the convention next month. Forgive my pessimism, but the prospects for much impact have diminished greatly since he announced the informal group last June in New Orleans.

They have met. They have discussed, in the lamentably traditional Southern Baptist method of being behind closed doors and without ordinary Southern Baptists being able to listen, and have issued bland statements.

So, what is to come out of this?

Nothing to do with the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, unless it is to restate that the BFM allows for both Calvinist and Traditionalist beliefs.
Page said as much earlier:

I have no interest in changing The Baptist Faith and Message. It has been wisely crafted by previous generations of thoughtful, thinking Baptists to allow for a breadth of interpretations about God's purpose of grace. It was written so that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can join hands and hearts for the common cause of world evangelization.

Current SBC president Fred Luter gave an indication of the outcome in March when he said,

"There's going to be a proclamation given out that hopefully will satisfy everybody," Luter said. "We've got to look at this thing as spiritual warfare. ... It's an issue that has to be dealt with, and unless we deal with it in a Christian-like manner, I really believe the enemy can come and divide us."

I love an optimist and someone who has hopes that "everybody" in the SBC will be satisfied. Such a person is either an incorrigible optimist or has just arrived from Mars. Luter is not from Mars.

Here is my rank conjecture as to what the team's report will say:

1. Both traditions are welcome in the SBC and have been historically present.
2. SBC entity leaders and trustees should be careful not to discriminate on the basis of either Calvinism or Traditionalism in their hiring.
3. SBC seminaries are encouraged to be welcoming and affirming to students from both groups.
4. The BFM is sufficient as it stands and needs no clarification or revision.
5. Southern Baptists of both traditions agree on the primary doctrines and this should be a source of rejoicing.
6. Healthy, civil, congenial, and respectful debate on secondary doctrinal matters is to be expected and even encouraged.

I'm predicting a report that will be encouraging though banal. The silence of this group for the last few months is an indication that nothing surprising is to be expected.

Here are some things that should be said but will not:

1. Any quota system that seeks to apportion seminaries, SBC officers, SBC entity CEOs is harmful and destructive and should be avoided. Trustees should be encouraged to seek the best leaders and administrators and the best and most qualified faculty that are available without regard to how Calvinistic or Traditionalist the candidates are.

2. Trustees of state convention and SBC entities which sponsor websites whose purpose is to promote one camp or the other should reevaluate their priorities and promote Christ instead.

3. Bloggers are to be commended for providing the only arena where the issue of Calvinism and Traditionalism can be discussed openly and civilly by pastors and laypeople in the SBC.

4. Some bloggers who write and comment in a harsh, judgmental, and destructive manner on these issues should just shut up.

5. Any entity that seeks to purge its faculty, administration, or trustee board from either Calvinists or Traditionalists should feel the weight of disapproval from Southern Baptists of both camps and should be marginalized and condemned.

6. Prospective Calvinist pastors should avoid blowing up churches in order to correct what they see as heresy and should fully disclose their intents prior to accepting a pastorate.

7. Any new SBC war along the lines of the Conservative Resurgence of a generation ago will be very costly to our already beleaguered Cooperative Program and to the cause of Southern Baptist missions in our country and around the world should be avoided at all costs.

Some have already drawn the battle lines and are determined to fight. I hope that they are few and that we can find a way to shuffle these bellicose Baptists off to the side while the vast bulk of us do the work of Christ.

Predictions for 2013

I would have made these earlier but wanted to wait and be sure the world wasn't going to end in December. Guess we are OK until Jesus comes.

1. Fred Luter will be reelected. Nothing big to happen here.

2. There will be contested SBC vice president elections. Some of the Traditionalists are upset that mild Calvinist blogger Dave Miller, a fair and reasonable man, was elected VP over their Traditionalist standard bearer, Eric Hankins, and may nominate someone for this or the other VP slot. We usually get some additional nominations for these anyway.

3. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission will get a new leader. Whomever he is will have some work to do to restore credibility. 

4. Frank Page's Calvinist Advisory Team will issue a report early this year. I was optimistic about Page's effort here last year but lost a good bit of that after the group's meetings were held off the record. What we needed was some open discussion. What we got was luminaries unwilling to have honest, open discussion. Whatever they end up with will probably be quickly forgotten. Too bad.

5. I predict that Calvinism in the SBC will look back on 2012 as their high water mark and that SBC Calvinist news for 2013 will be mostly unhelpful to their movement. I have always thought that Calvinism has an inherent ceiling in Southern Baptist life and think we may have reached it.

6. Some SBC agencies will hire senior level staff who are African American. The SBC has a soft underbelly (about which more later) in race relations but agencies and institutions will make good faith efforts to be less white at senior levels.

7. In contrast to the above, the only high profile females in SBC life will be wives of prominent pastors. There will be no hiring of female senior level administrative staff unless it is to ghettoized positions oriented towards women.

8. The Cooperative Program will continue to be flat, which is a welcome improvement.

9. State conventions will continue to feel the most pressure financially and more churches will use various methods to fund NAMB and the IMB directly without diluting their giving to these through the Cooperative Program.

10. What is euphemistically termed "complementarianism" will have a bad year, mainly due to a few high profile Calvinist churches.

11. GuideStone will finally accede to political realities and get around to addressing the reality of Obamacare as it relates to their comprehensive health insurance for ministers. The outcome will not be good.

12. Southern Baptists my age will continue to lament the absence of Adrian Rogers or anyone of his stature.



 

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.

The Gospel Project...assessed

A few weeks  ago Trevin Wax, Managing Editor of TGP, noticed a comment of mine that I had not had an opportunity to read any of TGP materials and offered to send me the next quarter's materials to read.

I appreciated the offer and have had them for some time now. If it was noticed that I posted no blogs at all last week the reason was that I took the week to plow through all the adult, student, and children's Gospel Project literature.

Not really...but I do recall last Wednesday giving it a fleeting thought while catching some really nice saltwater trout at an undisclosed location on the Atlantic coast.

I scanned TGP materials a couple of weeks ago and here are my thoughts on them:

What I read looked fine. I found nothing untoward or inappropriate. I uncovered no rabid calvinists lurking between the pages. There was nothing that I would have objected to were I still a pastor and some Sunday School classes in my church were using the curriculum.

One might consider that TGP is the most scrutinized product LifeWay has ever produced with the possible exception of the controversial Genesis commentary decades ago. Thus far, all of the dedicated scrutinizers have pointed to the writers of the literature and not the writing itself.


I thought Eric Hankins' critical evaluation of the overall approach to the curriculum made some good points but no one has pointed to any 'aha' 
lessons.

LifeWay says TGP subscriptions far exceeded their estimates. They should send some of the anti-calvinist bloggers Outback gift cards for widely publicizing the literature and generating a lot of free marketing and street buzz. Priceless.

Every decade or two, seems to me, we get a new iteration of the latest, greatest, red hot new Sunday School curriculum. TGP fits the pattern. I see it as not being any more Biblical than the others that LifeWay publishes. It may fit better for some churches and pastors and some may look and say, 'No thanks.' Not that any denominational folks need a reminder, but churches and SBCers get to choose where they spend their literature dollars. Let each make their choice.

This semi-retired pastor recognizes that the most salient item about any dated literature are the writers. I predict that TGP, like the other dated curricula, will have some that are very good and some that miss the mark.

LifeWay sells stuff. They had better come up with new products and improved output or SBC churches will find what they like elsewhere.

LifeWay should ask David Hankins or another notably non-Calvinist to write a quarter's worth and see how that is received...but what do I know about selling literature to churches? 

I hope The Gospel Project has success.

Death by a thousand cuts

The grand old ship SBC, if not doing just fine, is in no danger of sinking. Pronouncements of our being a dying denomination are more melodrama than truth.

And, as serious as the Calvinist/Traditionalist discussions may be, I don't see catastrophic failure in our future as a result. There is nothing plaguing us that is as serious as the Moderate/Conservative conflict of the 1980s and 1990s.

If we are to die, my conjecture would be that we will die the death of a thousand cuts - innumerable, endless pinpricks, slices, and cuts all over the body SBC until we are bled dry of common goals and cooperation for the things that we are here for - starting churches, seeing folks saved, and doing the work of Christ here and around the world.

I hope the day never comes.

Consider the example of the North American Mission Board, just one of the areas of criticism and conflict in the SBC.

NAMB knows spectacular meltdowns, having had a couple in the last decade. Now, they are stable, have solid leadership, and in my view is moving in the right direction. They are now in the process of launching a major church planting initiative.

We're the largest non-Catholic religious group in the United States, right?

You bet.

We have almost 16 million adherents, over 45 thousand churches, a powerhouse for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, right? Right on the first two, but hold on a sec on the third.


I have noted before that our grand denomination added less than a single new church, net, on average per state convention in 2011. Pathetic. 

So, NAMB aims to change this by planting thousands and thousands of new congregations in places where there is a dearth of SBC churches now. Some may say that we are beyond the day when we can have success in top-down, grand denominational plans and programs.

Perhaps, but would we feel better if NAMB was doing nothing, just rocking along spreading our $115 million or so around in legacy jobs and pet projects?

Not me.

A man from Mars would review NAMB's recent history and say, "I bet Southern Baptists are pleased about how things are going."

Instead, NAMB is pricked and nicked on all sides for this or that minor issue. Would that more SBCers were from Mars.

While spectacular meltdowns are more riveting, death by a thousand cuts is death nonetheless.

Drowned in a flood of Calvinism and Traditionalism in New Orleans...

...was the Cooperative Program, the long, steady, depressing decline of which is the SBC's real elephant in the room (a grossly overused phrase which is from henceforth banned from SBC Plodder).

Sure, the Cooperative Program was incessantly mentioned by various speakers. Testimonies were offered. Videos were shown. Nifty displays were set up in the exhibit hall. But, from this distance one surmises that there was little interest in anything other than the election of Fred Luter (good) or the Calvinist/Traditionalist buzz in the convention all (not good but could have been much worse).

The Cooperative Program needs something that will stanch the slow bleeding that has seen the average percentage of church offering plate dollars given to the CP decline from around 11 percent to under six percent in the last three decades.

Frank Page is doing what Chief Encouraging Officers of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention can do - challenging, encouraging SBC churches to raise their CP giving by a percentage point. Such efforts (a) always have some success, but (b) have never been successful enough to stem the decline.

Fred Luter offers an inspiring example of CP giving but it was not the primary factor in his election.

When pastors and churches look closely at the Cooperative Program, they are not dissuaded from dropping their church's giving level.

Why?

That would be a good question for LifeWay Research to examine. Their last effort, completed in 2008, revealed that 87% of pastors were generally satisfied with the CP leaving one to wonder why they continue to cut what they are happy with.

Now would be a good time to try and do better.

Have SBCers lost the will to fight?

Fight each other, that is.

Maybe.

I hope so.

It would be a good thing.

I have no stomach for another Conservative Resurgence-style of SBC conflict where partisan candidates aim to move the convention away from some demonized SBC subgroup, not that I impute that to any of the candidates for office this year, but the jizz I was getting was that there were rumblings of such things.

No thanks.

If the convention by their actions this week said the same thing we are all better off.

We have a black president, a moving story, and one that might move the convention away from the rumblings of controversy. I'm all for it.

That there are always some Southern Baptists who aren't happy unless they are in conflict with some segment of their Christian brethren is still a reality among us but I hope not to the degree that it dominates the Southern Baptist landscape.

We increased the number of SBC churches by a total of 37 last year, a pathetic average of less than one per state convention. NAMB is launching the Send North America initiative which has a chance of doing better if we care enough to get behind it.

The International Mission Board still has a daunting task made much more delicate as a result of the realities of world events and attitudes. They could use all of our help.

The best thing coming out of New Orleans besides I-10 might be an enhanced sense of optimism about things SBC.

2012 Annual Meeting Moments

Best moment: Duh. Election of Fred Luter.

Best line: Bryant Wright. "To our Calvinist friends: A bit of humility would be most welcome."  Few people have the ability to say something gravely critical, say it kindly, and have folks walk away reflecting on it rather than reacting to it.

Biggest surprise: The decisive election of Dave Miller as 2nd VP. Unthinkable just a week or so ago. Ditch the lime green suit, bro.

Biggest teaser: Frank Page, having stated that he would announce an "initiative" on the Calvinist/Traditionalist controversy, leaving the matter dangling: Page confirmed again that he plans to assemble a group of advisers to help chart a way through the division surrounding Calvinism.
Whom? What? When? How? We will have to wait.

Silliest moment: Don't know. Wasn't there. Didn't stay glued to the live feed all day. Nominations will be accepted from the hoi polloi in attendance.

Best resolution: Yawn. Doesn't matter but generally does keep people from browsing the exhibit hall for the umpteenth time.

Best hair: Tie between Peter Lumpkins and Eric Hankins.

Smoothest moment: Pick from any number during the sessions when  Bryant Wright was presiding.

Best reporting: SBC Voices did a good job with the twitter feeds.



Houston next year? Don't we ever tire of punishing ourselves by meeting in the heat of June in virtually uninhabitable places.

Congratulations to Dave Miller

I have a line below that says that it would be shocking news if Dave Miller were elected 2nd VP.

He was. I'm shocked...but not displeased.

Dave is not a flame thrower or a bomb lobber. He will not embarrass us. He will work in whatever modest fashion 2nd VPs can work towards convention unity and Cooperative Program support.  

I am not in convention hallways to hear thge buzz but my conjecture is that,

1. Calvinists who were present have some concerns about Eric Hankins, particularly over the preamble and introduction to the Statement.
2. One not-so-hot characteristic of bloggers is that they can be painfully introspective and talk about blogging a lot. This year will mark the date that somewhat of a divide was crossed in which blogging can pull and drive considerable votes. SBCVoices is a widely read site. There is critical mass now.

Hankins should be on any C/T panel.

Congratulations to Dave Miller.

The SBC: Always the best show in town

I don't think our grand denominationcould stand something like the SBC annual meeting more than a couple of days each year.

A few observations:


Election of Fred Luter was an authentic, unadulterated, genuine moment. We SBCers deserve one of those occasionally.

The name change debate was a curiosity (I watched it live, in my basement of course). The SBC has always been a convention full of  parliamentarians. Barry McCarty is worth the big bucks we pay him.

Face time is always important to some obscure SBCers but we are all equal at the annual meeting and if you can grab a mic you have as much right to display your nonsense as anyone else.

The name non-change vote will be forthcoming but I suppose it will have passed comfortably but not overwhelmingly. Then 90% of us can forget about that and those who have been all exercised about it can find something else to get apoplectic about.

Bryant Wright has always seemed to hit the proper notes. He is easily the best presiding officer since Adrian Rogers.

We will see what Frank Page has in mind on a Calvinist/Traditionalist "panel." There are some traditionalists who are rather militant. I'm not sure where this is going.

While we are at it, I like Wright's gentle admonition of the Calvinists: To our Calvinist friends: A bit of humility would be most welcome. Wonder where he got the idea that such was lacking?

To be fair, Wright's admonition of Traditionalists: It is time to show some respect for those of differing views when it comes to election and when it comes to salvation." 

It will be interesting to see how many votes blogger Dave Miller can pull this morning. He is well known among the blogging tribe and not known as a heavily partisan figure, nor a bomb thrower or troublemaker. If I were present he would have my vote. I like him. He has a sense of humor and he needs encouraging after his beloved Yankees got beaten by the Atlanta Braves last night.

Required reading for the Calvinist and Traditionalist tribes

This is courtesy of Bryant Wright. This is from the Baptist Press convention blog:

"My concern is that we can have Christ-centered, Bible believing Christians so engaged in trying to correct one another's view when it comes to election, that the next thing you know the devil is standing over to the side, because we have taken our focus off of what Christ tells us our clear mission is, and that is the Great Commission. And [the devil] is going to be laughing and he is going to be mocking and he is going to be rejoicing that we're no longer interested in rescuing the captives that God calls us to rescue with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

"Let us understand that these two views on election and salvation can co-exist as long as we stay Christ-centered and biblically based in our theology."

Wright delivered "a word" to each group.

"To our Calvinist friends: A bit of humility would be most welcome. Any time there is pride, whether it is spiritual pride or intellectual pride or theological pride, it is always a sin. And we need to recognize that an attitude of superiority with those who may disagree over the finer aspects of theological belief is never going to build up the church of Jesus Christ."

After several centuries of debate, the issue is not going to be resolved in the first few years of the 21st century, Wright said.

"To those who call themselves traditional Southern Baptists: The time for judgmentalism is over, because judgmentalism quickly moves into slander. And to lump all those who have a strong, solid, biblically based theology that is a more Calvinist theology" with hyper-Calvinists "is not only misguided but it winds up causing you to break the Ninth Commandment on false witness.

"It is time to show some respect for those of differing views when it comes to election and when it comes to salvation."

Wright referenced the 2006 dialogue between R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Paige Patterson on the subject of Calvinism.

"That is the spirit that we need today."

"If we pride ourselves more on being a traditional Southern Baptist or more on being a Calvinist or a Reformed theologian, more than we are thankful that we are Christ-centered and biblically based ... then it is time to repent of theological idolatry. Our calling is to be centered on Christ and grounded in the Word while agreeing to disagree on the finer points of theological issues, may we all agree that Christ ... has given us a very clear message and mission for the church."

Wright has for years had radio spots in the Atlanta area where he offers brief, concise, pithy messages aimed at secular topics from a spiritual perspective.

This excerpt from his convention address looks like one of these spots aimed at his fellow Southern Baptists. I like it.

2012 SBC Annual Meeting Predictions

My predictions...from a distance of 527.85 miles:

Election of SBC President

Stop the world:  Fred Luter is not elected.

Shocking: Fred Luter has an unannounced opponent.

Surprising: Fred Luter receives a lackluster nomination.

Ho Hum: Fred Luter is elected as is right, good, positive, and expected.

I regret that  this will not be the biggest story. It should be. It deserves to be.

Election of SBC 1st Vice President

Doesn't matter.

Election of SBC 2nd Vice President

Stop the world:  In a show of statesmanship, unity, and concern for our convention avoiding a destructive return to partisan elections each of the three candidates withdraw and an unknown, fully neutral, replacement candidate is agreed upon.

Shocking:  Dave Miller is elected.

Surprising:  Eric Hankins doesn't win handily.


Ho Hum:  Eric Hankins wins without a runoff.

This election makes me sad because it is being perceived, perhaps not by the candidates but others, as a competition over Traditionalists/Calvinists. This should give an idea of how many votes a high-profile SBC blogger can pull.

Frank Page's Traditionalist/Calvinist 'initiative'

Stop the world: SBC Calvinists and Traditionalists have a confab at Cafe du Monde that ends in a hugfest and everyone agrees to love one another and not seek the preeminence in the SBC. 


Shocking:  Eric Hankins and Dave Miller agree to withdraw from their candidacy for 2nd VP and are put on Page's blue ribbon committee to examine the Calvinist/Traditionalist controversy.


Surprising:  Frank Page recommends to the convention a high-profile study committee which is not heavily weighted with megachurch people. 


Ho Hum: Frank Page, in an honest and sincere effort to avoid another internecine, bloody, and protracted semi-theological denominational conflict appoints a study committee composed of the usual two-thirds megachurch people.

I would love to be shocked on this with either or both of the two middle predictions. We have to come to some agreeable accord on this or it will be ugly.

Attendance

Stop the world: Attendance is down from last year.


Shocking:  Attendance is above 15,000

Surprising:  Attendees eat in moderation and tip appropriately.


Ho Hum: Attendance around 12,500

One should never underestimate the desire of some Southern Baptists to watch train wrecks. Two locomotives are barreling down the tracks toward each other. Let's see if someone can put on the brakes.


Wish I could be there.