Blogging to middle school level readers

Please, no gnashing of teeth over this, but most SBC bloggers write at a level suitable for middle school kids.

There are numerous sites for analyzing writing and one that I have checked reveals that most of the popular SBC bloggers generally offer a level of writing on the level of seventh to ninth graders.

Here's a sampling:

SBC Voices: Since they have a number of contributors, the level varies but generally 7th-8th grade with an occasional dip to as low as fifth grade and one contributor that hits high school level.

SBC Today: Egad, ranges from as low as third grade level to an occasional foray into the college grad school level.

Popular individual SBC bloggers: Oh, generally seventh and eighth grade levels, even ex-lawyers.

SBC entity heads: Ranges from 11th grade down to eighth. Seminary presidents generally write at a higher level for which, since we pour a lot of dollars into the schools, I am grateful.

Moderates: Uh oh, the low is around 8th grade and most are 10th and 11th, a bit higher than we conservatives. I'm looking for an elitism and condescension scale to apply to moderates but haven't found one and just have to go with general perceptions. To be fair, I am also in a search for a strutting scale to apply to prominent SBCers and haven't found one of those either.

SBC Plodder: Your humble hacker and plodder generally hits eighth grade through college. If I worked at it I could probably write at a very high level with an elevated obsfucation index which might be a good plan because people would be generally impressed without knowing why. I think I will try an article this week with every obscure polysyllabic word I can think of.

Calvinists: As one might expect, preschool level...just kidding. The more prominent Calvinists are about the same as normal people.

Strident anti-Calvinists: Normal to low.

William Faulkner: Just about off the scale, near incomprehensible, which is why all students cheat and lie about reading his stuff. I find no budding Faulkners among SBC bloggers although I do find a few who write incomprehensibly.

Herman Melville, Moby Dick: Seventh grade...and if it were not a couple of thousand pages long, I would have read the lengthy tome in the seventh grade.

This blog article: About sixth grade but, remember, I have to think about my dear readers and be considerate of them.

Have a good week.

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.

Will state conventions be helped by undermining the Cooperative Program?

The Consolation Baptist Association here in Georgia has passed a resolution suggesting that churches cut their Cooperative Program giving by 25-35 percent and designate this to "state missions" or, as explained to me, to their state convention.


I learned of the resolution from a comment left on SBC Voices, asked for and received a copy of it, and have had a couple of cordial conversations with Joe McGee, Associational Missionary for the association. A previous blog on the matter may be found here.


I judge this to be a well-intentioned effort by some very dedicated Christian colleagues to help the Georgia Baptist Convention in a time of great budgetary stress; however, any move to do so by encouraging churches to make steep cuts to their Cooperative Program giving is harmful to both the state convention and SBC entities. 

The idea that state conventions should be helped by encouraging churches to decrease their giving to the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, the six SBC seminaries, and other SBC entities is far off the mark.


Joe told me that I really needed to read an explanatory article, linked here, that explained the resolution. I read it and found it to be a mixture of misapplied data and opinion. Couple of points...

The title: "THE GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION AND THE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM: GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION" implies that the GBC is suffering because of negative opinions of churches to SBC entities and actions beyond our state. 


I don't think this is the case. A number of state conventions have actually moved to increase the percentage of CP receipts that they send to SBC agencies and institutions, hardly an action they would take if they perceive that their constituent churches disapprove. 

Great Commission Giving: Data is cited that say "cooperative program giving was down by 5.86 percent" while contributions to "Southern Baptists institutions" were "up to [sic] 5-6% over last year's contributions during the same span." 

This is both inaccurate and a mixed up use of data. The source cited for the statement above compared GBC contributions for an entire year (2011) and an Executive Committee report for four months (Oct 2011-Jan 2012), manifestly not the "same span." Monthly receipts by the SBC Executive Committee are variable. You cannot draw a valid conclusion from the comparison used.

But, flawed data aside, might not Great Commission Giving be the culprit behind state convention budgetary woes? 


No. The data do not show this.


The Executive Committee reports direct gifts from churches that bypass their state convention. These gifts are actually down this year from the same period last year. They also report that designated gifts to the mission boards are down from last year. I don't know about direct gifts to the seminaries. If churches are diverting funds from state conventions at a substantially higher rate such doesn't show up in the data reported.

Direct giving by churches to SBC entities is a very small fraction of CP giving. The numbers aren't sufficient to blame state convention woes on churches pouring funds straight into IMB, NAMB, or the seminaries.


The case made for encouraging churches to substantially cut their CP giving in order to help state conventions not only uses flawed data but is  unreasonable. Do the people in the churches of this association really believe that cutting funds to our overseas missionaries so that we can have more state convention employees here in heavily churches Georgia is right and proper? Surely not.

Another issue raised in the article is Calvinism. There are already churches in the GBC that have defunded Southern and Southeastern seminaries over the issue. Fair enough. Let individual churches that their CP giving and defund from it whatever they feel is necessary for their collective conscience. If a church concludes that Southern and Southeastern cannot in good conscience be supported then let them cut 3.5% of their CP giving and apply it elsewhere. That is the approximate amount that the two schools receive of a CP dollar. 


Joe McGee conveys a frustration and dissatisfaction that I hear often on the blogs - the SBC is a megachurch run, top-down organization that ignores the vast majority of churches and pastors. He is concerned that Al Mohler and Danny Akin call the shots in the SBC on major issues. There is some truth in both of these though not to the extent that I would take the action he is taking.

But here my old-school idea for helping our state convention: Ask churches to increase CP giving. The GBC already keeps about 60% of every CP dollar. They will be blessed and appreciative. Suggesting churches defund all of our SBC work to help the GBC is an unwise, unproductive, and uncooperative approach.

So far as I am aware, this resolution is the first by any association or state convention that encourages churches to cut Cooperative Program giving. It is unfortunate but I give allowance for good intentions.

Brethren, let's rethink this thing. Thanks.
_______________

Addendum: Joe McGee has sent me a brief email stating that although we disagree on some thing, he thought my treatment to be fair. He does add that the resolution is partly aimed at a method by which churches who are already cutting CP giving may be kept partly in the SBC giving fold. I don't find that to be a compelling reason for the actions suggested but, again, I give credit for good intentions.

Some Not-Too-Shabby Baptist Blogs and Bloggers

As a group, bloggers certainly score high on the scale of self-importance. I suppose it probably is so internalized that no blogger ever asks him/herself, “Why wouldn’t the whole galaxy want to know what I think about stuff, seeing that I am such a witty, insightful, and provocative guy?” Bloggers instead presume that the world awaits their next display of brilliance.

Indeed.

Plodder admits to a degree of that, the self-importance part, not the witty, brilliant, insightful part. OK, I own up to the provocative part.

Here are a few blogs that I enjoy reading and have found to be more than the usual tepid blogfare, annotated of course with my witty, brilliant, and provocative thoughts:

FBCJax Watchdog Tom Rich’s story about FBCJax, his banishment, lawsuit, and settlement was a prime example of how a church member, when denied any effective voice through proper church channels, can easily go public. Tom’s case just happened to be one of the more exaggerated examples of church conflict and a pastor and church’s inept response to it. Since then, Rich blogs about his version of abusive, manipulative, and misbehaving men-of-the-cloth. Sure, some may think it is just a pastor-hate site, but I encourage my colleagues to read it. They might learn something. I don’t buy all of his stuff but I read it all.

Spiritual Samurai David Montoya is the little Latino pit bull whose persistent small voice exposed one of the SBC’s largest scandals. Give a little guy with a high level of indignation a big bullhorn and see what might happen. There could be nothing better for the SBC at every level than an understanding that, ‘No, you’re not going to get away with untoward behavior and decisions, even if all the people who “count” busy back slapping, glad handing, and looking the other way.’ I don't get the samurai stuff.

SBC Voices is a group thing (six guys without a life, perhaps? Don’t they know that six is a bad number?) where a bunch of people contribute, including moi, occasionally. The blogs they feature have introduced me to a few interesting subjects and writers. The pieces written for SBCV are a mixed offering. As in the OT, I wave on a few, burn a few, and consume a few, and scratch my head over a few. I am told this is a Calvinist site but am awaiting divine judgment about that. Until then, I don't hold it against them. One of the calvinists there even has a sense of humor. Quite rare.

The Big Daddy Weave/ comes from Aaron Weaver who is a few light years to my left and a few decades below me in age. He writes well, is quite informed on church/state stuff, and hasn’t learned to trash mouth everyone who disagrees with him. He is a Georgia Bulldawg, which always helps. I don't get the Big Daddy stuff.

SBC Tomorrow. I like Peter Lumpkins. He has the finest hair in the SBC for one thing; however, he seems to generate some ire amongst the brethren. I confess to not quite understanding why. He is zeroed in on Calvinism and such things as ACTS29, et al. He writes well and thinks deeply about SBC stuff. I appreciate his stuff.

From Law to Grace is Howell Scott's blog, former lawyer, something he reminds us of about once a day, so I try and toss in a few ex post factos, certioraris, and a posterioris for him. Howell is far from being a posterior and writes widely on interesting things and I like his stuff.

I'd list other blogs I read but someone might get the idea that I don't have a life.

Why I'm a bit wary of Calvinists

I'm a hacker and a plodder and am no different than the other fifty thousand or so SBC pastors but I do have a thirty year history with Calvinism and Calvinists and, unsurprisingly, have an opinion about it and them. To be candid, while I’m mostly ambivalent about Calvinism, I'm decidedly wary of Calvinists. Here’s why:

1. Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant. No, they don’t have a monopoly on such but my observation is that they have acquired more of it than one would expect from their numbers. And since they have it, they are happy to share it with the rest of us - the unwashed, sub-calvinist masses.

I sometimes read calvinists on the blogs and get a nostalgic reminder of seminary hallway arguments, inevitable classroom debates, eager young theologs brimming with certainty, and adorable young calvinist polemicists waging scorched earth doctrinal campaigns. No thanks.

I’m all for defending a doctrinal position but perhaps there are Calvinists who will admit that there are other followers of Christ who are scholarly, biblical, and non-calvinist. Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?

Maybe all of those kind of Calvinists just stay off of the blogs and discussion forums.

2. I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists.

No, Calvinists don't have a lock on wrecking churches and I certainly know many more non-calvinist pastors who have wrecked churches. The latter just don't hurl themselves headlong into the task out of their doctrinal positions.

What is one to say when a Calvinist gains a pulpit and immediately declares that there is heresy in the church that must be rooted out, the heresy being that the church is not sufficiently Calvinist?

What is one to say when sermons begin with “God doesn’t love everyone” or “God may choose this child for heaven and this child is not chosen and is bound for hell”? I recognize that these statements can be nuanced, and we all like to be provocative at times, but is it surprising that a Calvinist pastor can be said to divide the church over such teaching?

What is one to say when the Calvinist pastor aggressively tries to implement an elder system of church governance, and it appears to be less about biblical church polity than about the pastor installing his allies in positions of power and authority to the exclusion of all others?

3. Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees.

Tom Ascol, an erudite and reasonable man, blogged last year about some documents that were being distributed in Tennessee among SBC churches. Their thrust was described as ‘how to smoke out a Calvinistic pastor in your church.’

I can see where this stuff comes from.

My evidence is anecdotal and limited but in my experience Calvinist pastors have minimized their Calvinist beliefs with search committees in order to gain a pulpit. I hate to say it but this is precisely the technique some liberal pastors have employed with church committees - obfuscate, finesse, dart and weave.

No, I'm not saying what most calvinists say to a committee, but this is what some committee members have relayed to me.

I would absolutely advise any church to be thorough enough in their search process to determine a prospective pastor’s beliefs on Calvinism. I know that Calvinists generally eschew the term ‘calvinist’ in favor of other labels and descriptors. Laypeople must be savvy enough to understand the vocabulary.

If my experience with Calvinists did not include their negative impact on churches I would label this article, “Why I am annoyed with Calvinists” rather than “Why I am wary of Calvinists.” It is this last point that moves the conversation from annoying to wariness. I can do annoying pretty good myself.

If calvinism is appealing to young SBCers, a fact I do not dispute, it is repulsive in many expressions to not a small number of SBCers. Why is it that some circulate 'calvinist smoke-out guides' or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions? Are those who so act evil, misguided, or alarmist? Perhaps there is something concrete and important behind these acts.

Perhaps my experience is atypical and an aberration. I'd be pleased to know that is the case. If not, I'll look askance at Calvinists but still rejoice when Christ is preached and Christ is preached by every Calvinist I know.

Richard Land dreams an immigration dream

Baptist Press:Land: ERLC supports 'clean' DREAM Act

The Southern Baptist Convention's public policy entity supports -- with conditions -- legislation that would give the children of illegal immigrants the opportunity to gain legal status.

In a June 27 letter, Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), informed two U.S. senators the organization would back a "clean" bill on the issue. Land told Sens. Charles Schumer, D.-N.Y., and John Cornyn, R.-Texas, that the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act must meet certain requirements to receive the ERLC's backing.

I suppose that Richard Land and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission thought that following the SBC's mixed-up resolution would be a good time to outline a sensible Christian approach to a prickly and complicated problem. Good the him and them.

With some SBCers clamoring for mass deportation we stand to look silly, not the first time, and uncaring, not what we want, all in the name of law enforcement, not the most salient biblical principle to follow in this case.

If the enforcement scenario of some is followed, illegal children of illegals would be deported, even though they know no life save here, speak no language than English, etc.

Dave Miller (here) and Howell Scott here have sensible articles on the matter. If you have hours to kill, scan through some of the 355, count 'em, comments on Dave's piece.

Resolutions have too much potential to make the entire SBC look bad, silly, or unchristian. Even if the Resolutions Committee maintains tight floor control over the resolutions, one or two goofball messengers can get to a mic and mess the whole thing up for all of us.

I like Land and the ERLC on this and I like Land speaking up on Ayn Rand earlier.

One way NAMB gets it

A gazillion Southern Baptists with not much else to do are regular bloggers. SBC Voices boasts 500+ blogs in their listing and, as it is sometimes put, I are one of them.

I didn’t do much blog reading until about five years ago when I was intrigued by Wade Burleson's blogging about International Mission Board trustee meetings and matters. Starting with him, IMO, it seemed that blogging in the SBC was not an insignificant means of communication about convention stuff.

One of the things that was painfully evident five years ago was that the IMB and especially the IMB trustee leadership was completely inept at responding to bloggers. To many of the trustees blogging seemed to be considered an annoyance, something to be ignored or, if a blogger was heard enough to cause waves in the SBC constituency, a sin.

It's looking like some of our entities are much more sophisticated these days. Southeastern Seminary has a popular blog. I occasionally see a prof respond to something said on some of the blogs.

I get the feeling that some staff of North American Mission Board actively pays attention to what is said on the blogs. At the moment no other SBC entity is under such scrutiny and for the past five years or so no other SBC entity, except perhaps the IMB for a stretch, has come under such criticism. I have a good many articles that feature my rather close, and sometimes dysfunctional neighbor, NAMB. Their new leader, Kevin Ezell, was an easy target, nothing personal mind you, because of his non-support of NAMB prior to being elected head of the outfit.

So, is NAMB trying to manage the information coming out on the blog, or at least respond to it?

Looks like it.

Last week I wrote a piece that was tweeted with a link by someone at NAMB. I check the count on my blog occasionally and it was up one day. Turns out such was because of the attention from the tweet. Fine by me. Puts my vast readership into double figures.

I am aware of one other blogger who has been called by NAMB staff after a critical blog article. Guess I am not critical enough of them to get a low tech, personal response like a phone call, not that I'm looking for it. They could take me out to lunch, though.

Maybe Ezell learned after his intemperate criticism of bloggers a few months ago. Maybe he just has someone who knows the blogging landscape better. Whatever the reason, good for NAMB for paying attention to one slice of their constituency.

It cannot hurt them.