The Executive Committee's New and Improved SBC Constitution

When Baptist Press reported last Wednesday about our Executive Committee's meeting and a part of that which was covered under the rubric of "Updated qualifications weighed for messengers" I was curious. I'm a bit of a numbers junkie and stuff about the dollars per messenger or percent per messenger and how that might be received interests me.

Outstanding Texas pastor, and current SBC First Vice President Bart Barber soon informed me and others through his comments under my blog article at SBC Voices and then later in his own article there, that the Committee's proposal included far more than just inflationary adjustments to the dollar amount. The proposal includes a linking of the Baptist Faith and Message to the definition of being "in friendly cooperation" with the Convention. Barber wrote:

It defines friendly cooperation with the convention to exclude from friendly cooperation those churches who deliberately and publicly demonstrate their opposition to the convention's statement of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message

Barber, who was in XComm meetings on the subject, is going from memory, since the proposed change hasn't been published.

The way this has unfolded reminds me of the old joke about the man whose wife sent him to Walmart for a loaf of bread. He came back with a new lawn tractor, flat screen TV, rod and reel, and a new vacuum cleaner...and the loaf of bread. When asked by his wife, he could only answer sheepishly, "Well, I was in the neighborhood and these looked like some things we could use."

The Executive Committee delivered the loaf of bread, and a proposal for the most significant change in our constitution that I can recall. Our SBC Constitution doesn't mention a statement of faith or link it to membership and award of messenger credentials.

Being a hacker and plodder in the SBC hinterlands, I ask my more erudite colleagues if this is deliberate and why so? I am the least networked person in the SBC, defiantly so. Surely there is a prof, SBC junkie, or insider who can rehearse the history on this with explanations of the causes and potential dangers if this is changed.

So far, only the estimable Dr. Barber has attempted explanations and expansions. I appreciate his effort. His writing and comments indicate that including the BFM in the definition of "friendy cooperation" would:

1. Solve the problem of fence sitting Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches who have relationships with both the SBC and the CBF. Presumably, these churches have not adopted the BFM, not unlike the vast majority of SBC churches.

2. Put a majority of SBC churches' SBC membership in jeopardy as a result of their practice of "open communion." LifeWay Research found that a majority of SBC churches practice this, in violation of the BFM.

3. Fix the problem of continually adding specifics to the membership article, as we did to have grounds to exclude churches that "act to affirm approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." No need to add a proviso to spell out a laundry list of churches that whose actions are so offensive as to deserve exclusion. The constitution will be brief and tidy.

4. Simplify the problem of non-SBC churches who want to give a few dollars to get cheaper seminary tuition.

5. Name the Cooperative Program in the Constitution (though gifts through it are still not required, I think).

6. Make a provision for membership by both updated dollars and percentages (the loaf of bread).

The only other reaction from SBC officials were rather desultory, decidedly non-positive, remarks in the BP article. One was from Frank Page ("...if the perception is that this would hurt small churches, this is DOA") and the XComm chairman Ernest Easley ( the proposed change "is not a hill on which to die"). Neither mentioned the BFM.

It's time for some questions:

1. Do we really think it necessary in 2014 to inform thousands of SBC churches that their communion practices are liable to cause them to be dismissed from the SBC? It is not allowed to say, "Nah, we will never wield this sword. It's just nice to have."

2. Is the CBF still such a problem that we think it necessary to find a clean, neat way to get rid of them altogether?

3. Do we want to invite scrutiny on this basis of all SBC churches that are happily supporting our work, missionaries, and entities which churches may not be adhering to the BFM in all of its entirety and subject to the varying interpretations of this SBC sub-group or another? While the BFM is a good guide for our employees, entities, and personnel, would it be better used as a club against churches that might tweak this or that part of it.

4. Aren't we happy to have considerable numbers of dually affiliated African-American churches who might differ in some small degrees from the BFM?

5. Will we have a call to further tighten the BFM or distill it for the essence of what being in friendly cooperation really is.

6. Do we want yet another Cooperative Program reduction plan and isn't Frank Page hopeful, finally, for a slight "uptick" in it?

Of several quirks about we Southern Baptists, one is that we all have two eyes, a nose, innumerable opinions, and pockets full of agendas. Whose agenda is best served by these changes?

Maybe we should take the lawn tractor, TV, rod and reel, and vacuum cleaner back and keep the loaf of bread. Best I can see the new system for dollars and percentages looks OK.

New SBC messenger allocation formula: Second look

BP had the brief mention in their summary of the recent SBC Executive Committee meeting:

Updated qualifications weighed for messengers.

For the past 136 years messengers have been allocated as follows: 

• One per cooperating church.

• One additional per $250 "paid to the work of the Convention" or per 250 members.

• Maximum of 10. 

Give $2,250 to the work of the Convention? You get the maximum number.

The proposal under consideration would change this to the following:

• Two per cooperating church.

• One additional per $6,000 given through the Cooperative Program or designated SBC causes or to SBC entities, or, per 250 members.

• One additional for each full percent of a church's undesignated receipts through any combination of Cooperative Program, designated SBC causes, or to any SBC entity. 

• Maximum of 12.

It was unclear from the information given if the first two were "free" and the next ten cost you $6k each but I'll assume that for $60,000 to the work of the Convention a church may max their messengers, or, get the max if you can come up to 10% of undesignated receipts by adding Cooperative Program giving, designated SBC causes, and gifts to any SBC entity. Or, come up with a way to claim 2,500 members. 

When Prof. John Mark Yeats made the motion last June to reevaluate our constitution to update the messenger allocation formula, the only hint of rationale given"that the base gift of $250 required to send each additional messenger to the SBC has not changed since 1888, 'a sacrificial amount then, but a token amount today.'" Motions are made, generally ruled out of order or referred to an appropriate SBC entity and not discussed when made. No doubt the Executive Committee held a discussion and we will hear more later but there's no law against some hacker and plodder blogger firing away with the information as presented. 

It somewhat surprises me that in 2014, when most SBC leaders are aware that there are considerable numbers of SBC folks who will start talking about a BP press release or some bit of news is made known before the electrons are settled down, that news of this sort is tossed out absent any attempt to frame the conversation in a positive manner. Once the blogging horses, or donkeys in some cases, are out of the barn in a discussion it might be harder to corral them back up. That's what we have here.

Here's a second and updated look at the messenger allocation formula changes:

A church in friendly cooperation gets two automatic messengers without any significant dollars or percentage calculations.

Small churches fear not! Thou gettest messenger credentials for your pastor and his wife, the most likely folks to have an interest in attending an annual meeting. The tiniest SBC church with the most meager dollar support of convention causes has their messenger number doubled. This provision alone makes this a small church friendly proposal, unless we get to another raging conflict where small churches feel the need to scrounge up and qualify the maximum number of messengers.

Updating the dollar amount for additional messengers, from $250 to $6,000 is effectively cancelled out by the two 'free' messengers allowed.  

The reason offered for reevaluation of the formula was that the $250 was a sacrificial amount in 1888 but a pittance today. True enough. But if an extremely tiny fraction of SBC churches has any desire to send more than the standard one or two, the rationale for indexing the dollar amount is effectively negated. It costs virtually nothing for any church to send all the messengers they will likely ever desire to send.

Those who want to fill up the church van with the 12 messengers have several options.

If a big budget church they can give a small percentage and get the extra ten messengers for just $60,000. If a small budget church they can get to 10 percent of undesignated church receipts with a small dollar amount. Or they can give a little and get additional messengers for carrying 2500 members on their rolls. Attendance will not be checked in this case. Phantom members, dead members, inactive members all count.

Perhaps one can see why there were no positive expressions coming out about this after the Executive Committee voted to put the proposal before the convention. Two people were quoted about it: Frank Page declared that the thing was DOA if it is perceived to harm small churches. The Executive Committee chairman said he would die on that hill, hardly a ringing endorsement. At the moment the motion is seething with ambivalence.

I still cannot see anything particularly positive about this but it doesn't look like it will change any behavior or outcomes. Someone make a case. Perhaps I am not seeing something.

I'm getting that old SBC name change feeling, you know, the one that we hashed, rehashed, passed, and promptly forgot. Hit 'em and forget 'em. 

Proposed SBC messenger formula: Not very small church friendly?

The SBC Executive Committee is considering a proposal to change the messenger allocation formula for the annual meeting. Baptist Press reports on the proposal. 

Updated qualifications weighed for messengers.

This subject erupts regularly at our annual meetings. BP says that motions concerning the messenger allocation formula have been made no less than 16 times in the past 35 years. 

For the past 136 years messengers have been allocated as follows: 

• One per cooperating church.

• One additional per $250 "paid to the work of the Convention" or per 250 members.

• Maximum of 10. 

Give $2,250 to the work of the Convention? You get the maximum number.

The proposal under consideration would change this to the following:

• One per cooperating church.

• One additional per $6,000 given through the Cooperative Program or designated SBC causes or to SBC entities, or, per 250 members.

• One additional for each full percent of a church's undesignated receipts through any combination of Cooperative Program, designated SBC causes, or to any SBC entity. 

• Maximum of 10.

Give $54,000 to the work of the Convention and max those messengers, or, get the max if you can come up to 9% of undesignated receipts by adding Cooperative Program giving, designated SBC causes, and gifts to any SBC entity. Or, come up with a way to claim 2,250 members. 

There are several ways to look at this:

Large and megachurches need give only a pittance percentage to get their max. What's $54,000 if you have a million dollar budget? It is the SBC average for Cooperative Program giving, 5.4%. 

Small churches have a harder time getting to the maximum, needing to give 9% to SBC causes, far above the SBC Cooperative Program average and somewhat above the average for giving to all SBC causes.. Let's see. A megachurch can give in those low single digit percentages and get the maximum but a small church has to work much harder to do so. This may be right and proper, large,, heavy giving churches should have more say-so. That is a statement that few of us is willing to express, however.

Who cares? Attendance is way, way down for these meetings and it is unlikely that any fiddling with the formula will make any difference unless we have another knock down, drag out fight along the lines of the Conservative Resurgence. Even then, I cannot see much impact of the change.

Do we really need a messenger reduction plan? Unless scads of really small churches want to start sending more qualified messengers to the annual meeting, which they could do by claiming additional slots for their percentages, it's tough to see this as providing anything other than that which reduces the numbers of messengers.  

What's the problem? Is the problem low percentage giving? Does anyone think that requiring more of churches to qualify additional messengers will provide any motivation to increase that? I hardly think so. Is the problem low dollar giving? Will raising the dollars-per-messenger figure cause churches to consider and increase giving. I cannot see that. Does the Executive Committee think that there is some compelling reason to make a change other than that the dollar figure hasn't been changed since 1888. If so, what is that reason?

The proposal sets no realistic threshold of SBC commitment to qualify for a messenger. Since every cooperating church gets one messenger, a church giving pocket change to SBC causes gets a messenger. Jerry Falwell became a Southern Baptist by giving a few hundred dollars out of his mammoth independent Baptist enterprise. This may be what we intend, that any church can be in friendly cooperation by giving very little. Have we reached a point where we should tighten what is necessary for "friendly cooperation" beyond saying that a homosexual-friendly church is not in friendly cooperation?   

As I read the tea leaves around the convention, the complaint of many is that small churches are under-appreciated for their above average Cooperative Program percentage giving while megachurches are rewarded for their below average Cooperative Program giving. I'm not moved by that argument but that's the complaint I have heard for years.

Frank Page is quoted as saying that "if the perception is that it will hurt small churches, this is DOA." While I don't think this will hurt small churches the optics here look bad for the Executive Committee in regard to small churches. Clearly, the new proposal impacts small budget churches more than big budget churches.

Someone will have to convince me that this isn't a solution in search of a problem. The Executive Committee chairman even said that this proposal "is not a hill on which to die."  If the Executive Committee chairman is that ambivalent about it then why are they doing this? I allow for the fact that perhaps a case was made for changes but not reported in the Baptist Press article. 

One point made was that the Cooperative Program will be mentioned by name if the change is adopted into our constitution. There was no Cooperative Program in 1888. That's good, though not particularly significant, especially since no church is required to give to the Cooperative Program to qualify messengers.

It is extremely difficult to thread this needle. I don't detect any agenda on the part of the Executive Committee but I'm guessing that there is less profit and more cost in making this proposal.  

What would be significant is if the Executive Committee would pass a resolution that encouraged a minimum Cooperative Program percentage for officers, trustees, and employees. This would be non-binding, simply a statement of the feeling of that group at that time, but it would send the right signal. I don't see much of a positive signal in this proposal to change the messenger allocation formula.

What would really be significant is if the Executive Committee would begin to explore the possibilities of messengers for the annual meeting who are not physically present at the assembly hall. Some form of remote participation and voting may be an idea whose time has come. It is certainly technologically possible. If the idea is to increase messenger participation this is one guaranteed way to do that.   

I'm wide open for someone making a case for changing this. So far, it's been tossed out with yawns and caveats.