It's time for a modest generational change in the SBC

J. D. Greear is 44. Steve Gaines is 58. David Crosby is (I think) 63. Ronnie Floyd is 60.

I like the idea of a modest generational change in the SBC President and think that J. D. Greear would offer much more than either the traditional megachurch pastor Steve Gaines or the traditional large church pastor, David Crosby. All are good men who have accomplished much.

If past history has shown us anything in the vision and thrust of the person occupying the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention it is that they do not have broad impact on the behavior of other pastors and churches. If we were in a mode where there was some overwhelming issue that needed to be addressed in our entities, the SBC president could tailor his committee appointments to try, over time, to make changes.

As it is, we are a declining denomination. The decline in Baptisms is a grave matter. I know of no better, no more enthusiastic leader than Bobby Welch who attempted single-handedly to inspire pastors to win people to Jesus and baptize them. There was no lasting success from that effort that I can see, statistically.

All the candidates favor spiritual renewal. I see no difference there. I also fail to see any connection between the visionary SBC president having much influence in calling the SBC to repentance and renewal, as if the SBC were a local church.

We have seen a staggering decline in our missionary numbers. The traditional missions support methodologies have failed to yield sufficient funds to keep people on the field; hence, the voluntary retirements and resignations of about 1,000 missions personnel.

No one. No one, expects the Cooperative Program to sail upward sufficient to supply an additional $50 million or so annually in IMB funding. For that to happen CP gifts from the churches would have to increase about $150 million annually and the record is that gifts are slightly declining.

The CP is doing well and there is rejoicing in Nashville when CP revenues received there are flat and not declining. If they tick up a little bit, it's hallelujah time. No SBC executive expects a dramatic shift in CP trends. There is not one of our entities - not the six seminaries, not NAMB, not IMB - who is planning for the future and expecting to have considerably greater sums of CP money to spend. They are looking elsewhere. I see none of the three candidates leading the SBC back to double-digit CP percentages.

Both Gaines and Greear's churches give considerably below the SBC CP average, but give large sums and very large sums to SBC causes. Crosby's gives more than the average to the CP. The future in SBC international missions support will probably incorporate some hybrid arrangement that engages churches and IMB directly. Greear's church is one of a few who do this with great success and who do it through IMB not some other mission sending outfit.

The current trend of state conventions slightly reducing their percentage take of the CP dollar is incremental and not likely to have any substantial impact on international missions. Moving from about 61.25%, the current take of state conventions, to 55% would have yielded approximately another $17 million for IMB this past fiscal year. While that is real money, it is only about a 6% increase in their budget. Factor into this the reality that states are moving slowly downward in their percentages and may not reach 55% for a number of years. State conventions do a lot of good work but it isn't hard to see the pressures they face to maintain their own ministries and staffing.

If the goal is to reach the nations, to labor among unreached people groups, to engage unengaged people groups, clearly the old mission support mechanisms are doing well but not well enough to stave off substantial reductions in IMB personnel. New, hybrid, mechanisms clearly have had some success.

We ought to be open to God using something beyond what we have done in the past.

This election doesn't need to be about Calvinism...and I hope it isn't.

All the candidates were asked about Calvinism by B21. Here is what they said. Crosby gave a short answer so his is complete below. Gaines and Greear gave longer answers, so I have excerpted theirs. Click to see the whole interview.

J. D. Greear: I am pretty confident that if you asked the average person at the Summit whether we were “Calvinist” or “non-Calvinist,” they wouldn’t know what to tell you. I prefer the balance of the BFM 2000 here. We are committed to preaching the Bible, doing the work of evangelism, and giving God all the credit.

David Crosby: No one in the SBC is about to reveal a theological fix to this centuries-old theological conundrum. Anyone who thinks they have tied up all the loose ends is either self-deluded or a heretic. Therefore our solution must be found in the common ground we share in Christ and the work we do together, as it has always been. I don’t want to throw out anyone on either side of this theological discussion. We must focus on Christ and the gospel. We must fight the “party spirit” that always seeks to divide and weaken our work. We can do this work together. If we do it together, we will get more done for our Savior. He prayed that we would be one. Let’s cooperate with the Spirit in the unity he is bringing to the bride of Christ.

Steve Gaines: The SBC has always had Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I’m fine with that, as long as one side does not seek to dominate the other. Calvinism does not need to be taught as the exclusive, optimal theological viewpoint in our seminaries. Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism. None of our seminaries should have a faculty of professors who are exclusively Calvinistic. Non-Calvinistic professors should be an integral part of each one of our seminary faculties because most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, and they are the ones that fund our seminaries and pay the salaries of our professors.

While all of them call for working together and unity, only Steve Gaines goes to the specifics of "optimal theolog[y]" in the seminaries, students being subjected to proselytizing profs, and the warning against exclusively Calvinistic faculties.

Huh? Why go after the Calvinists and include all the detail warnings about seminaries and their faculty and practices?

Well, whatever it is, he repeats the same things in an interview with The Baptist Message:

Gaines said the Baptist Faith and Message is broad enough for both groups, but because the majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, Calvinism should not be taught as the principal theological position of any SBC entity.

“I do believe that our students need to know about Calvinism. I don’t mind our seminaries teaching about Calvinism, but it should not be the exclusive theological position taught in any of our schools,” he said.

We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention. No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.

I haven't heard a candidate for major office, or prominent SBC leader bring the matter up since the report was presented three years ago until Steve Gaines, twice now, tossed out the comments about SBC seminaries, faculties. 

Salient question not asked of Steve Gaines: Do you think that there is a problem in any of our seminaries or entities in regard to Calvinism? 

 

Does the SBC President make much of a difference?

I'd say, "no," that the SBC president doesn't really make much of a difference in the SBC.

Unless we return to some type of decades-long battle between various factions within the convention where several years worth if replacement trustee appointments are envisioned as putting one faction in control of the seminaries and mission boards, the person who is president doesn't make much difference. Any of the three candidates this year would do well. Each would probably bring something helpful to certain segments of the convention.

J. D. Greear would represent a generational and methodological change. If the energy in our convention is moving away from traditional megachurches and their leaders, and I think it may be, and towards a younger set of leaders who aren't tied to continuing things as they are and have been, Greear would be the top example of such.

As pastor of a church who has more people serving with our International Mission Board than any other single church in the convention (perhaps in history), what he and that church are doing ought to be examined and replicated. Greear sagely notes what ought to be obvious to every Southern Baptist, that "the Convention is a temporary tool that god uses to accomplish the Great Commission. It doesn't exist for itself."

Clearly, Greear's church is non-traditional in regard to missions support. Most of their mission giving is not through the Cooperative Program where most of the dollars would stay in North Carolina. The result of their autonomous decision to put funds where they will make the maximum impact on lostness around the globe is that about one in twenty-five of our IMB personnel is a Summit member. If the goal is reaching lost people, exposing unreached people groups to the Gospel, then Summit is doing something worthy of praise and of emulation.

Steve Gaines would represent something similar to Ronnie Floyd in that his church's has recently decided that the Cooperative Program is worthy of greater support. While Bellevue gives far below the average church CP percentage, they have increased it considerably the last few years. If megachurches and celebrity megapastors (and that makes up almost all of our SBC presidents for the past several decades) have some influence on the thousands of average churches and their pastors then I suspect that Gaines' church move to give greater support for the CP will have a marginally positive impact. But since most churches already give a greater percentage to the CP than Bellevue, I can't see much difference.

Gaines has laid out all the non-Calvinist markers and the usual Traditionalist sites and state Baptist news editors will be sure to make these known.

David Crosby, seems to me, would be a good choice. He isn't a megachurch pastor and it would be refreshing in a way to see such a pastor elected over the usual offering of more highly visible pastors of megachurches. Perhaps he would depart from the usual oligarchy in making key appointments.

Were I to be in sweltering St. Louis, I'd vote for Greear and strike a blow for the next generation, for the intensified focus on taking the Gospel to lost people worldwide rather than perpetuating our own, often sclerotic SBC institutions and programs. But, I don't see the SBC president as having much influence over the general direction of the Convention nor over the decisions and trajectory of our 50,000 or so individual churches.

Of the three candidates, I'd view Greear as having the most potential to exert influence. Let's be candid, the problem going forward isn't about convincing younger pastors to lead their churches to give an additional percentage point to the Cooperative Program, it's about convincing these people that our convention structure and entities still have relevance in the 21st Century.

J. D. Greear has stated that "I believe we are at a generational moment in the SBC, and if I can help lead a new generation to embrace the mission and vision of the SBC, and stand hand in hand with, and on the shoulders of, our faithful brothers and sisters who have gone before us, I want to do that."  I think that's where we are and what we need.

Steve Gaines is 59. I can't find David Crosby's age but he looks somewhere in that neighborhood. Ronnie Floyd is 60. J. D. Greear is 43. Al Mohler is 56, Danny Akin is 59, Paige Patterson is 74, Frank Page is 63. I'm feeling a bit old myself.

Consider that Adrian Rogers was 47 when he was first elected as SBC president. Time to pass the torch again. 

Greear, Summit Church and the alternative approach to missions funding and support

The choices for SBC president next month include:

• One old-school mega-pastor (Steve Gaines) whose church gives considerably below the SBC average percentage to the Cooperative Program but which gives considerable sums directly to both NAMB and IMB.
• One new-school megapastor (J. D. Greear) who pastors another church that gives considerably below the average church's Cooperative Program percentage but which will this year be one of the top CP churches in North Carolina in dollars given and which church also gives large sums directly to the two mission boards and in partnership with them. 
• One large church pastor (David Crosby) whose church gives above the SBC average percentage to the CP. It was not reported what sums the church gave directly to NAMB and IMB through the mission offerings.

Any of these would be a good choice and the three churches of these men each represents a different method of mission support. There is nothing wrong with any of the methodologies and our denominational entities, from state conventions and their related organizations, to the six SBC seminaries, NAMB, and IMB must and have accommodated themselves to the reality that churches of all sizes, but especially megachurches, have increased their direct giving either at a rate greater than the CP or at the expense of the CP. 

Churches make opportunity cost decisions about their limited pool of missions money and the traditional choice was to give a healthy percentage to the CP (over 10% per church when I was in seminary around 1980) and participate in the entire panoply of state and national (but not associational) ministries and entities. This is, roughly, the practice of David Crosby's church. Traditional, heavy on CP, light on direct giving (except for a percentage point given to NABTS). The winners in this method are state conventions, who have always kept most of the CP revenues.

The old school megachurch pattern represented by Gaines and Bellevue Baptist Church is long established. His predecessor, Adrian Rogers, practiced the low CP/high direct giving pattern. It is the rare megachurch that gives above the average SBC percentage of about 5.4%. The winners in this pattern are NAMB and IMB, since they get considerably greater sums directly from the church. That dollar sent directly to IMB may be contrasted to the thirty or so cents IMB receives out of a CP dollar. The loser in this pattern are the state conventions which gets nothing when a church makes direct gifts rather than their average cut of CP revenues, about 61%. If all megachurches conspired to shift their giving from designated to the average CP percentage, then both NAMB and IMB would lose millions of dollars. State conventions would gain these millions.

Greear's church is the new-school megachurch - satellites, warehouse locations not purpose built sanctuaries, very heavy on church planting and international missions, light on participation in traditional state and associational missions. As a supporter of international missions, neither of the other two churches compare with Summit's, whose support is in direct partnership with IMB and where more current international missionaries are Summit members than any other SBC church.

In the current atmosphere where state conventions, particularly the large, legacy deep south state conventions, are moving to reduce their CP share, any church that looks in their state and sees expensive centralized headquarters buildings and staff, legacy institutions, and little church growth and evangelistic results, may well choose to put their mission dollars directly in those entities that have vision and show results, primarily NAMB and IMB. 

My view is that the state conventions should manage with 40% or so of a CP dollar, should put a sunset on CP support of institutions that have had (some of them scores of years) adequate time to build a support base, and should find a vision that engages churches in their states. Such is sadly lacking in most states.

Churches as large as Greear's with a strong vision of reaching the nations have direct channels to IMB, formal partnership channels. They will continue to use these and have great results. Churches that do not have those kind of resources can adjust their CP and mission offering giving so that the bottom line support of NAMB and IMB reflects what the church desires. Churches that believe the current CP allocation best expresses their vision can continue to divide theiir mission dollar: 62 cents in my state, 19 cents to IMB, 9 cents to NAMB, 8 cents to the seminaries, a penny to the Executive Committee, and a fraction of a penny to the Historical Commission.

Any church with giving like these three is fully cooperative. No church has to apologize because they cooperate in ways supplemental to the Cooperative Program even if those supplemental methods receive greater allocations of the church's budget. The goal is reaching the lost, not propping up legacy entities and programs. 

The SBC has almost always chosen the megapastor with a low CP percentage. I suspect that such will be the case next month. One thing seems certain, the giving patterns of the old-school megachurch and the new-school megachurch will continue to grow while the traditional CP above all approach will decline.