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? 

 

Questions for NAMB, IMB, and seminary leaders

One feature of the annual meeting of our beloved Southern Baptist Convention is a time for reports from entity heads. These leaders usually leave a short time for questions from the floor. While I'm not planning to be in muggy St. Louis next month, if I were and could stake out one of the floor mics here's a question or two that I'd like to ask:

For David Platt, International Mission Board leader:

The locations of our overseas personnel has shifted over the past years to a greater proportion being in World A locations. I presume that these are more difficult and stressful places and would like to know some things about attrition rates:

1. What is the attrition rate for our career personnel after 5 years, 10 years?
2. Is there a difference in rates in World A countries and other locations?
3. What is the IMB doing to reduce these rates?
4. Has the IMB found that certain measures or methods of support from the home churches of personnel have reduced attrition rates.

What is the average cost of a career missions couple (single) from initial contact with IMB through appointment and the end of the first full term?

For Kevin Ezell, North American Mission Board leader:

NAMB uses "Strategic Cooperative Agreements" and "Strategic Cooperative Budgets" with state conventions to spell out joint work and funding for such work. Given that all of NAMB's funding comes from the churches and individuals, what is the reasoning behind the policy that these agreements not public information to Southern Baptists?

NAMB has been criticized for being heavy-handed in it's relationship with some of the non-southern states where NAMB provides much or most funding for many personnel. Why would it not be preferable to distribute funds to these state conventions as grants not tied to specific positions or goals and let local staff utilize them as they think best?

For Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

SBC presidential candidate Steve Gaines is quoted as saying, "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."

Although Gaines did not name SBTS and SEBTS, others have made accusations about your two seminaries doing that to which Gaines objects. Are non-Calvinist students subjected to proactive conversion efforts by professors in your seminaries and does your faculty include non-Calvinistic professors?

___________________________

On the questions for Platt, I don't know the answers and don't know that I've ever seen material published by IMB or by missiologists in our seminaries who have been given IMB data on which they have done research. This is perhaps the most critical personnel issue for IMB and I'd like to see these rates.

On the questions for Ezell, he has an article that generally explains the agreements and the reason they are not public. While I have an idea about the second question, being the troublemaker that I am, I'd just like to see how much explanation he would give.

On the questions for Al Mohler and Danny Akin, Gaines has laid down a marker by raising the questions and making specific demands. I don't disagree with him at all. He didn't name names but others have and have named SBTS and SEBTS. I'd like to seen Mohler and Akin have a chance to respond. Akin has responded specifically to such things in the past.

Of course, no one will ask these questions and there's not enough time to fully treat the subjects anyway. But, when Southern Baptists have questions, it's always good for our leaders to give answers. If this convention is like any of the couple of dozen I've attended, a lot of floor time will be expended on subjects much more trivial than these.

I trust that my SBC convention-going colleagues will have a grand time in St. Louis.

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.

Criticize your pastor? You might be lost.

This according to Thom Ranier in a Baptist Press article,
FIRST-PERSON: When people criticize church leadership ...

In it he decries the "level and frequency" of criticism of pastors, something that he says "has increased significantly in the past several years." Maybe the level and intensity of criticism of pastors is up but no data is given.

Perhaps he has in mind some cases of calvinist pastors who have endured severe criticism after making changes consistent with their calvinistic views. Perhaps he has in mind the several cases of prominent SBC megachurch pastors who have to deal with anti-pastor blogs and websites. Steve Gaines at Bellevue, Mac Brunson at FBCJax, and Jerry Sutton formerly of Two Rivers all had or have members who operate or did operate such forums for criticism.

Or perhaps he has anecdotal evidence that the ordinary single staff pastor has a harder time with harsher critics these days.

It seems to me that the main difference with critics today, whether or not they are more frequent and harsh, is that they do have the option of a broader, more convenient, and more effective arena for criticism - blogs and websites and the like. A pastor in 2011 might wake up to a blog, even an anonymous blog that takes him to task. Welcome to the 21st century, pastor.

Ranier has some conclusions about the critics:

First, the standards of church membership have been low in many churches for many years. As a consequence our churches have more and more unregenerate members. Frankly, I would be not be surprised if some of the most vitriolic criticisms come from those who are not Christians.

First? I admit that it appeals to pastors if it is suggested that their critics may be pagans. But, is it proper to begin an address of criticism of pastors by raising the possibility that some critics are unbelievers? Sure, they may be, but it is a judgment that no pastor has the capability of making. It seems too self-serving to this pastor to "first" consider that some of my critics may just be lost. I don't think unregenerate members are the source of most criticism of pastors.

Second, church members have been unwilling to take a stand when they see and hear unwarranted criticism toward the pastor and other leaders.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are times when the pastor should be insulated, protected, defended, and bolstered by church members against critics. But, ah, the word “unwarranted” makes all the difference here. All of the cases mentioned above and, in cases I am familiar with, there is some degree of validity in criticism of the pastor. There are certainly some cases where such is unwarranted, as well.

Ranier continues by concluding,

It is truly a sin to remain silent when it is our God-given responsibility to confront those who ultimately would hinder the spread of the Gospel with the poison of their words.

Rather than classify criticism as “poison” and a "hindrance to the spread of the Gospel," what would be helpful would be an article on how a pastor and church should handle legitimate criticism. I would reluctantly admit that most of the criticism I have received over the decades has some degree of justification. I have benefited from some, have been hurt by some, and have found some worthy of being ingored. So, how should my church and I best handle critics?

A healthy church, a healthy pastor, and a pastor and church who have a healthy relationship will be one where criticism can be offered and handled properly by the both of them. A healthy church has channels for criticism. When members who criticize their pastor are treated dismissively, when they are called names, when the pastor flogs them from the pulpit rather than listen to them, when they (and sometimes their families) are crushed by heavyhanded tactics of the pastor or church leadership, something is wrong that our denominational leadership needs to recognize. Some pastors and churches need help in this area.

From where I stand and from what I see and read, it is completely understandable that critics, aware that they will never receive a hearing from their leadership, will sometimes take their criticism to alternative channels like blogs and discussion boards. They do this not because they are unregenerate, vicious, or cheapshot critics, but because they have been taught that they will not get a hearing from their pastor or church and that they will be treated badly if they do speak up.

I’m all for respecting one’s pastor. He should be given the benefit of the doubt in questionable decisions and actions. He should be allowed to exercise his leadership and gifts. And I recognize that there are church members with such a level of dissatisfaction that they will be much happier in another church and should be encouraged to pursue that course. But a pastor and church leadership have a responsibility to their membership to provide channels for critics, to listen, to respond properly.

It is as easy to beat up on the critics as it is for critics to beat up on the pastor. Let’s acknowledge that and provide helpful advice to both.