I have seen several comments by bloggers on this site and others advocating off-site, electronic voting for the SBC. Travel to the SBC cost me a lot of money (well, my expense account) and the time off can be a hardship. Of course, that results in fewer churches sending messengers and taking part.
Here’s one vote against electronic voting in the SBC. It may happen, but for the time, I am going to speak against it and vote against it if given the chance. Here are the reasons why I do not think it is a good idea.
1) The Ideal, Theoretical Reason: Most churches have rules against proxy or absentee balloting. This roots in a long-standing belief that God speaks when the Body of Christ comes together. (Please, I’m not arguing that the SBC Annual Meeting is a church – but it is a gathering of God’s people to do God’s work). We expect that as we deliberate together, as we talk and pray and seek God together, he guides us.
I know, I know. The SBC is controlled from the top-down and we are all mind-numbed robots whom Ronnie Floyd and Johnny Hunt manipulate at their whims. But honestly, the GCR debate was not that way. Yes, there was a parliamentary faux-pas (worst I’ve seen), but the spirited debate was reasoned and temperate, even if it was passionate. We worked through this thing together.
I know that this argument comes from an ideal that may not be met. But I just don’t think that internet voting offers that same sense of the Body of Christ coming together that we get when we are there together.
2) The Practical Reason: Yes, I know people can watch streaming video of the convention. And they could click a mouse to cast a vote, which could be counted almost immediately. But the perspective they get there is simply not the same as you got in the convention center. One blogger argued that the vote on the GCR was about 52-48, from his computer observations. I sat in a section full of anti-GCR partisans and not a one of them argued that the final vote was anything less than overwhelming.
It seems to me that the internet observers did not get the full flavor of the discussion that came from live attendance. They got what seemed to me to be a somewhat skewed and unrealistic view of things.
You also open the convention up to manipulation by those who control the cameras. You aren’t seeing things with your own eyes, but with the eyes of another person.
3) The Integrity Problem: To vote at the SBC, you have to have credentials. You have to have ballots. If I held up 10 sets of ballots, everyone around me would see it. I’d like to believe that Baptists are above electoral skullduggery, but let’s admit the truth. There are always people who would cheat.
If electronic balloting is allowed, my church could sign up 10 messengers, then I could sit in my office and vote all 10 votes the way I want. Are there people out there who would do this? Of course there are! Wish it were not so, but it is.
How do you police the electronic balloting to make sure there is no proxy voting or absentee balloting? Seems impossible to me.
4) The Fellowship Reason: I do not go every year to the convention. In fact, I’ve only been going every 4 or 5 years. But it is a great time of fellowship. I got to see old friends and got to know a lot of the guys I’ve crossed swords with here on blogs.
The fellowship was wonderful. The time was encouraging.
Some of those who advocated internet balloting also have an anti-SBC (or SBC leadership) mindset. I would guess that for some of them, the fellowship is not a huge issue, since they find SBC folks so distasteful. That is certainly not true of everyone who advocates internet balloting, but it may explain some of it.
But I like the fellowship. I like sitting in a room of 10,000 people and hammering out the future of the SBC. I like standing in the hallway talking things over with Tim Guthrie and Dwight McKissic. I heard some good sermons that inspired me. I was 1500 miles from home, so I didn’t have to run to the office or take a phone call or visit the hospital.
I’m a little bitter I didn’t win any of the free iPads offered in the exhibit room, but it was fun to sign up!
I know there are probably some good arguments on the other side, and my thoughts off the top of my head will probably not devastate anyone who supports e-balloting. But those are my reasons I’d like to stay with our current system.
What say you?
Dave Miller (97)
Debbie Kaufman (54)
Rick Patrick (49)
dr. james willingham (32)
Christiane (31)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
Bob Hadley (30)
Chris Roberts (30)
Frank (30)
David,
You are, of course, right.
David R. Brumbelow
That goes without saying, doesn’t it?
Dave,
it would be interesting to hear if any other national conventions (not necessarily church ones) use any kind of Online voting system. I live technology, but if the atmosphere in the sbc blogosphere is any indication, There could be some real ugly aspects to online voting.
good point.
Its interesting, some of the best fellowship I had at the convention was with people I’ve had sharp conflict with on the internet. It seems that the internet allows us to hide behind anonymity and not always behave our best.
I think we behave better together in public than we might behind the secrecy of our homes and church offices.
I agree that the ability to be present and vote in person is preferred. However, I find it unreasonable to exclude those who cannot attend, when we possess the technology to securely involve them. I acknowledge that there is potential for “skullduggery” (great word), but there is realistic potential to actually hear the voice of the denomination more clearly. Is there no value in hearing the voices of our SBC brethren who do not have the means to attend the annual meeting. I feel it ought to concern us that 10,000 people are making decisions for 16 million. But then again, perhaps this is our fifth reason for not allowing internet voting: The alienation of the power brokers when the whole convention speaks for herself.
1. You have churches with satellite locations which video stream in the sermon and/or other portions of any given worship service. They seem to be okay with their church doing this, so we ought to be able to do our convention, which is not a church as is so often pointed out, in the same fashion.
2. You have churches, companies, and government agencies using video streaming and conferencing while being in all corners of the country and/or world. There are companies which hold votes on various projects/decisions online since most of their decision makers are all over the world. The thing to remember is this: You get what you pay for.
3. Integrity? Really? We’re Southern Baptists, we don’t need no stinking integrity. Just make sure to push through the paperwork for a dozen church plants and then you can vote a 120 times!
Actually, you can reserve blocks of IP addresses which come active only when a person sign in online and one vote is attached to one IP address. This becomes even more secure by using satellite convention locations or combining the IP address with some security questions provided by the messenger signing up.
4. Satellite locations provide just as much fellowship as one large convention. You get as much out of fellowship as you put into fellowship. I’m in favor of smaller, satellite convention sights rather than one large convention. It provides more opportunity for those, like myself, to attend since a site could be an hour drive away rather than a 19 hour drive away. In fact, I would argue that it would increase fellowship, because I’d be able to see many more of my friends than if I just watched online like I did this year.
I tried to answer point for point.
Cheers!
1) I’m no big fan of satellite church either. Its not a question of whether this is possible – it is possible. The question is whether it is advisable.
2) I’m really not sure of your point in #2. “You get what you pay for”? If you will illuminate your point, I would be glad to interact with it.
3) If you can figure out a system for security, someone else will figure out how to beat it. I guess, being from the older fogey generation, I just don’t trust computers as much as the young whippersnapper generation.
4) How do I have fellowship with others while I’m sitting in my office voting?
Sorry, I’ll elaborate on my points. Apologies.
1. If it works for our churches, then it may work for our convention of churches. I’m a fan of the idea for satellite conventions rather than a large convention. I’m sure that there are people opposed to my stance. That’s okay. I think it’s worth discussing since we’re discussing trying to reach more people.
2. “You get what you pay for” means that how much you invest in security and quality of the internet/video/audio set up is what you’re going to get out it. I come from a church media background and I see churches all the time skimp on A/V equipment in a building project only to have to come back a year or two later and spend even more to update/upgrade. If you invest in the equipment and manpower, you’ll get good quality/security. In a nutshell, if you do it right the first time, you don’t have to try to fix it the second time.
3. Yeah, you’re right. Then again, we file our taxes online and there are far more people interested in hacking your tax filings than the goings on of a convention. I also doubt that Wade Burleson or Peter Lumpkins’ hacking skills are up to speed, but I could be surprised. However, higher end security needs higher end hackers to breach and I doubt they’d be affordable except by our high end pastors. I kid, but I think I make my point.
4. My premise is based more around satellite conventions than just voting at home. However, with that being said, we could organize SBC “House Parties” and stream the convention on a projector while snacking around. So, you could be fellowshipping with some organization and creative thinking. However, your premise is voting from your office which does offer little fellowshipping except with online voice chatting.
I hope this helps…
Cheers!
“You get what you pay for” – we definitely agree there.
Here’s a question ( you sound like a technology guy).
Wouldn’t a secure, nationwide, effective satellite (or even just private internet) system be VERY expensive. I don’t know what the Orlando Convention Center cost, but if you have to secure 15 regional sites, that would be pretty expensive, too, wouldn’t it?
I don’t know the ins and outs of this kind of thing, but it sounds expensive to me.
Especially if you are still going to have a main site.
What if you used 15 regional churches with auditoriums that seat 2000 or so?
Oh, Brilliant!
Most churches that size also have a pretty decent network in place and all that would be required is software and maybe some server upgrades at some churches. There’s also rooms and facilities in place and homegrown talent could provide downtime entertainment (local choirs, bands, etc.).
Would Casting Crowns go on tour and visit each of the sites?
I wonder if back in the old days they held the SBC at large churches? Schools?
I wish CB Scott were online. I think he attended the 1913 SBC.
Off the cuff, I’d think probably hiring out a company that handles this sort of thing is doable.
I’m thinking eight to ten locations would be ideal.
I would estimate the overall costs at around $400-600K to do and do right. However, I’m from Louisiana and setting something like this is way above my paygrade so my pricing could be horribly off. Now this is just hiring a company to do this, not actually buying the equipment and doing it ourselves, which I am certain would ramp up the cost significantly.
I also think that the sheer amount of logistics, just from a technological standpoint, let alone any other facet, is going to stymie any real discussion to satellite locations. But hey, just because I support one stance doesn’t mean I’m going to denigrate the other stance. It just means that I’m going to have to find ways to get to the conventions or just watch online like I’ve done the past two years. It’s all good.
I hadn’t put much though into it because I don’t think it has a legitimate chance of happening anytime soon… but I think the reasons you gave here are spot on and I would oppose a move to internet voting.
I don’t think it has a chance anytime soon.
I’ve also put some thought into the security of the voting.
You put each online voting onto local networks set apart from the internet. The software tallies the vote tied to the messenger’s number. Once all the voting is complete, the file is transmitted to a either a flash drive or a computer connected to the internet which transmits the votes in a bundled package which is disseminated by a program at the central computer and the votes are tallied. Therefore, the attack has to either take place on the central computer, the short amount of time that the internet is used for file transmission, or a person can attack a local network, at most affecting either a single site or a single computer. If you have one or two technicians worth their salt at each location, than the chances of an attack are severely lessened. Especially if the vote transmission is using a server completely unrelated to the server broadcast the streaming video.
I’m Baptist. I do not speak in tongues.
You’ve obviously put some thought into this, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
I’m guessing that satellite location voting is doable – I still like the idea of a central location, but the satellite idea has some advantages or at least ameliorations.
I am most opposed to the idea of people watching the convention by streaming video then voting online. I think there is too much opportunity for abuse in this one.
If, Scott, you are looking at regional sites (the churches mentioned above, or whatever), I am less opposed to the idea.
However, that solves fewer of the problems. You still have to travel, get a hotel, take time off work, etc.
I believe that most of those who are advocating online voting are advocating the ability to watch the convention at your computer and then vote in the privacy of your home or office, or Starbucks.
I am most strongly opposed to that idea.
It would require some software development because I don’t know of any software like that out there right now. That, of course, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
I am certain that satellite location voting is doable, could be very accurate, and secure. However, I do not think that widespread voting from all over the place could be secure or accurate, just doable. There are trade-offs.
You also run into the problem of this: every vote becomes a ballot vote which is unwieldy and time consuming.
Unless…
Promethian makes a device called an Active Board and with it comes handheld devices which a student can cast votes of up to four different options and it’s counted in realtime and the devices are very easy to read and use. However, this introduces even more issues…
I have headaches now….
Oh the problems to solve…
David,
Making the Great Commission Resurgence a reality in the SBC will require thinking outside the box, and reengaging those who comprise the Southern Baptist Convention at every level; National Entities, State Conventions, Local Associations, and Local Churches.
To me this discussion is not about control of the convention… but about seeking greater cooperation and participation in the convention at every level. One way to do this is to get the State and Local associations involved in the proceeding of the National Convention. All of the concerns you mentioned above could be solved by having all remove voting conducted at the local association office. Each Local Association could make this a special event with the proceedings on the big screen and discussions and fellowship among the local pastors who were not able to attend the national convention.
This might or might not work… I don’t know. But I do know that we need to reach out to each and every one of our cooperation churches and let them know that their voice matters.
Grace Always,
Maybe more realistically we could even have a site within each state convention… This would cut down costs and get more people involved… But I still think I am against it, as of now. I will stand against it until someone can how me a pretty full proof plan. When that happens I will be very open to looking into it.
But, who gets to make motions? Only those at the “real convention?” It seems odd to me to have people voting who arent partaking in the discussion. Of course they can hear it, but they arent really involved in a meaningful sense. “Just voting” isn’t enough for me- they should be “in the discussion.”
I guess I am just with Dave on this one- HIGHLY skeptical until a real plan is put forward. When i see that plan, if it is good, I will be for it.
If you have these sites, you would potentially have tens or even hundreds of thousands of people involved.
Can you imagine trying to allow them to make motions, offer amendments, join in discussion. Wow, you thought the GCR debate was a mess.
lol… Thats my point exactly. We would be having a “real convention” in which people could make motions and a bunch of “fake conventions” in which people could only vote.
There is no way they would ever let the “other sites” make motions- the convention would last forever and be a mess… This is probably the main reason, along with all the potential abuses, that I oppose these “satellite sites.”
The technology that now exists would operate in a long distance environment just like the discussion happened at Orlando. People at the satellite locations would queue up just as they would at a central location. The moderator has a HUD that shows which site queued in which order and who wishes to speak for or against any particular motion. The technology would also cut to the person speaking so each satellite sight will have both audio and video of any person speaking at any given time. The time for making motions wouldn’t be hardly affected at all, except you wouldn’t be able to “stare down” a person as they spoke.
The last line is just a bit of humor.
One more thought.
I think everyone of us wants to believe that the SBC really agrees with us and that if everyone were represented our view would win the day.
So, if my side loses at the SBC, it must be because the “grassroots” are not represented.
But in national political elections, they poll about 1000 people nationwide and extrapolate the election within a few percentage points.
Wouldn’t it be likely that if ten times or 20 times the people who voted last week voted, the results would be just about the same?
Amen! That is exactly what would happen.
I don’t think so. You over simplify polling. It requires a “random” sample to be legitimate. I think the convention is a “stacked” sample. Too many denominational employees and more than average number from mega-churches.
So, I think your comparison is invalid as also your prognostication.
The idea of the random sample is well-made. If the recent study is correct, that 70% of SBs attend larger churches, then megachurches would not be overrepresented, would they?
I’m not arguing that the SBC is a scientific sampling, just that elections might not be substantially changed if we went to e-voting and 150,000 people voted. The smaller group would be substantially representative of the larger group.
Dave your persistent passion to make the mega-church “typical” of Southern Baptist (70% individual attendance, if it is true), belies the fact that the SBC National Convention is made up of “churches,” not individuals to prevent the very thing that you seem to support — a take-over of the mega churces.
This is why statisticians do not just use mean rating, but also consider the mode as well. Using the mode would demonstrate overwhelmingly (and we like that term, “overwhelmingly”) that we are a convention of churches under 200 in attendance.
I would also argue that a careful analysis would show that 10, 200 member churches, are more effective in block by block mission efforts than a 2000 member church. That’s why the baptism ratio’s are nearly the same in every SBC church, but the dollars to baptism will be significantly less.
This is a “personal opinion” based upon my gut feelings. I did not do a random sampling. Though highly unlikely (:) ) I could be wrong.
Matt is absolutely right, you have to be certain about your sampling rate. If you poll 1000 people and 800 are, say, democratic, then you’re going to have a democratic leaning result.
However, if sampling is done correctly, you can extrapolate a larger possible outcome more accurately. It’s a matter of keeping it accurate and being mindful of your data points.
I agree with the idea that those who currently attend the conventions are not statisticaly representative of Southern Baptists. Way too many who attend on expense accts and way too few who have to take vact days to attend.
Having online voting would take power from the few and give it to the many in the SBC. I dont think that will prove to be a popular idea among those who currently have the power.
Lynn Gray
Not a chance. Only one side really got to make speeches before the votes. If you went back and analyzed the amount of time spent at both the Pastor’s Conference and the convention promoting each side of the GCR issue, you would find a vast discrepancy, maybe 10 to 1. Masses present at a meeting can be swayed. People at home in front of their computers…not so much.
“It’s not the one who votes that counts, it’s the one who counts the votes!” Or, in this case, doesn’t.
The following observation is meant (mostly) as humor.
SBC political blogging is quite similar to listening to the motions made by the messengers at the floor microphones during the miscellaneous business sessions. All of us, at times, appear to be one of the odd aunts and uncles of the convention. Though the odd aunts and uncles are a whole lot more polite. And none of them can be anonymous.
The convention did seem to show that we who blog may not be as representative of the SBC as a whole as we would like to think. The majority of bloggers I read endorsed Jimmy Jackson, and he didn’t even make the runoff. I didn’t see a single blogger endorse Bryant Wright. I would guess that the GCR would not have fared as well as it fared if bloggers alone were voting on it.
In order to avoid another well deserved spanking by the blog author, I’m not going to say that the reason I would oppose it, if I were a member of an SBC church, is because Don Quixote supports it. See, I didn’t say that. I showed admirable retraint.
Congratuations.To.Me.
Dave,
The Blog world, more often than not, is “The Voice of Opposition” in the SBC. I suspect that those who are happy with the direction the SBC is now headed are not doing a lot of blogging at this time.
Therefore I am not surprised that Jimmy Jackson did not win.
Ok, let me take another swing at this “curve ball…”
The issues in this debate (for me anyway) is “Engaging the Local Church” and “Expanding Opportunities for Greater Cooperation in the SBC”.
It is my firm conviction that if we are to truly realize a “Great Commission Resurgence” in the SBC then it will come within the context of purposefully seeking greater cooperation from the “Grassroots of the SBC” – (The small, and often under-represented, churches of the SBC.)
If we do not get serious about “Engaging the Local Church”; giving each church a true “Measure of Ownership” in the SBC… then a “Great Commission Resurgence” may take place, but it will take place in spite of, and by and large outside of, the SBC.
When I call for allowing each local church to have its voice (vote) heard in the SBC, I am not referring to trying to remotely participate in the motions and the proceeding that are happening on the Convention floor. What I am referring to is strictly the election of our SBC officers. There is absolutely no reason why nominations cannot be made for each officer well in advance of each Convention (perhaps sending a nomination form along with the ACP would accomplish this?). And there is absolutely no reason why ballots cannot be sent to each and every cooperating church in the SBC, and these ballots then filled out by the church, signed, sealed, and returned to be counted at the Convention.
Keep all the other business (motions etc.) strictly at the convention… However the election of “our leadership” should involve providing an equal opportunity for each or our “Cooperating Churches” to have their voice heard and their vote counted.
Can anyone give me a good reason why this should not be done?
Grace Always,
There are a lot of problems with internet voting and participation in the convention. That is true. I dont know how you would ever make that work…although the regional meetings in larger churches might work.
But, the fellowship would be missed in internet voting. And, that is very important in my humble opinion. It’s needed to keep us feeling that we’re together and know each other.
Secondly, the witness the convention is to the city where we’re meeting is a huge thing. Over 1,500 people made prof. of faith during Crossover, and I’d bet that it was nearly 2,000 people made prof. of faith by the time the convention was over. Also, all the Gospel presentations and tracts handed out…it’s a huge witness to a city. Also, a waitress that I handed a tract to told me that she had enjoyed the SBC being in town so much, because everyone was so much nicer than what she’s used to seeing. Sooooooooo….the witness that we are to a city is worth the money and time to go… to me.
David
Well, expand that out to fifteen cities at one time. Possible exponential growth in outreach and ministry to cities rather than just a city.
Satellite locations would still provide ample, if not more, opportunity for fellowship as well as increased opportunity for involvement for more mid to smaller sized churches.
Also, just think, we had over 11,000 messengers attend. That’s a huge number of messengers. That’s quite a representation. I cant think of too many other conventions that would have such a turnout; can yall?
David
I am just a regular “laymen” but I work for a large company and honestly I can’t believe the SBC still sees it useful to waste so much money on a major convention like they do. Not just the cost of the facilities but the costs churches pay to send people so far away.
In the business world right now there is a MAJOR focus on cost cutting and quite honestly it saddens me that I don’t see that same focus in the local church or convention. We have invested in tele-conferencing technology and use it ALL THE TIME. Other things, like National Sales Meetings have just been cut completely.
I think a good middle ground is regional conventions: The SBC could easily set up regional conventions at large churches and it would actually ENHANCE “fellowship” as church leaders would get to spend more time with other leaders facing the same issues as they are. A pastor in Idaho has a lot more in common with a pastor in Montana than he does a pastor in Florida. There are more than enough large churches to host the events. And you can have live voting with ballots and everything. This seems to me like a middle ground that cuts costs, preserves or even enhances fellowship, increases participation, and just makes sense.
One other technology question- not to hijack the thread: is there a podcast of the pastor’s conference? I want to listen to Chandler’s sermon.
As for the voting: if you have regional conventions you can still do it
I think satellite conventions are much more preferable to internet voting. I think most of the issues David raised could be addressed with simulcast satellite conventions.
For one, it would be cheaper in travel. Two, it would provide the valuable fellowship. Three, it get more people involved.
I willing to “think” about it.
would there be something lost in only having people in Montana hanging out with people from Idaho and NOT with people from say Kentucky or Florida? I love technology, but Christians need face-to-face as well.
The problem though is that the people from Montana are staying at home when the convention is in Orlando and that the people in Florida are staying home when the convention is in Colorado. The face to face is being lost right now as it is in many, not all, cases.
so… Kansas City every year. Central location. great barbecue.
(lol)
Sorry on the podcasts, I think you have to buy the CDs or DVDs.
My concern with the regional idea is that it doesn’t save that much money. If you still have to go somewhere and get a hotel, the costs are there. Travel might be marginally reduced. But honestly, there’s not going to be a regional site close enough to Sioux City that I can commute, right?
I also think you lose that fellowship, and the sense of being part of something bigger.
If the ONLY purpose of the SBC is to transact business, then lets vote in the privacy of our homes and offices. (Still not sure about that, but I will concede the point for now).
But I think there is SO MUCH more than just voting on business and I think that a single convention site is still a good way to do that.
Why not have a national convention site where pastors and SBC staff can fellowship and allow those of us not on expense accts to vote online or at least to vote via mail on the leaders and major questions like the GCR?
Lynn Gray
Look at Louis’ comment at the bottom of the page. He makes a good point.
Yeah, there were 10,000 at this convention: when there was a MAJOR issue at hand AND it was in the south east. I bet there will be closer to 6,000 or even less in Phoenix next year. Nothing to fight about errrr….DEBATE and it isn’t in the South East. If the SBC is going to be anything other than a regional convention it has to find a way to connect to pastors and churches that are in the north east and west- the most lost areas of our country- most of whom pastor small churches with tight budgets.
We say we believe in “Cooperating”… that together we can do so much more than we ever can apart. And that is why each year we beat the drum loudly for all Southern Baptist Churches and those who aspire to leadership in the Convention to support the “Cooperative” Program… some even going so far as to suggest that each church should give no less than 10% to the “Cooperative” Program.
However, when it comes to the election of our officers in the SBC we absolutely deny that we value the core principle of cooperation — “the right of each individual to participate equally”.
I bet if the “Cooperative Program” Check were written on the back of the voting ballot things would change real fast.
Grace Always,
Greg, one subtle issue that must be kept in play — in my opinion — is that the SBC Convention is made up of churches, not “individuals.”
Any new voting plan should keep this in mind. The only ecclessiastical “control” (loaded word) in our SBC life is at the church level. Individuals voting at the National Level seems to create a “different” kind of organization at the national level.
I’ve given the theoretical set up for a ten to twelve site satellite convention with internet voting and the use of possible things from handheld devices to banks of computers to log in and vote to a friend of mine who does software engineering for a living.
Initially, though he’s going to chew on this for a few weeks (what he asked for) and discuss it with his coworkers to see of something could be done (again, in theory).
He said that if the locations had existing computer networks with very good Audio/Visual setup in their facilities, then the SBC could save itself a ton of money by shifting to this format with a very secure voting mechanism in place. He liked my initial idea of the site compiling the voting data and then transmitting it as a whole to a central location. He agreed that this would limit the amount of chaos that a person with intent to disrupt could actually do to the business of the SBC.
We’re going to have to revisit this in a few months, but I think that a 2012 or 2013 convention with satellite locations is very doable. I’m thinking 2013 since I wouldn’t want to run satellite locations for the first time on the same year we have elections if I’m not mistaken.
The next step after solving technology issues would be finding ten to fifteen churches willing to disrupt their “lives” for about two weeks.
The Southern Baptist Convention claims to be the voice of 16 million (yeah, right) Southern Baptists. And yes, technically, legally, those 6 or 8 or 10 or even 44,000 messegers are, but in “real time” when a group is as polarized as is the SBC, the inability to personally participate by so many members and churches adds to the feeling of fragmentation. And people do not act on reality; they act on their perception of reality, which oftentimes means feelings. If a way could be found to give an opportunity for more people to participate, it has the potential to reduce this feeling of fragmentation, and IMHO, regional satellite sites could well be that opportunity. As “not_a_pastor” said in #42, it has the potential to save money–which all of us are having to do in the present economy” and which could then be channelled to ministry or even missions (and who would oppose that?). Like him & Scott, I am fairly certain the technology exists, and the number of people traveling to the SBC from its most distant locations now is small anyway (I suspect). As the pastor of a smaller to medium membership church, I cannot justify spending $1000 or even $500 in church funds to go to Orlando this year, or to Phoenix next year, and I cannot personally afford it. And to add to anon in #47, it is even possible that it could affect our dysfunctional pattern of only participating when there was controversy, when there is a fight, or blood in the water. Mark me down as in favor of satellite sites. And who knows what the future might hold? At first they might function in tandum with a live site, but after a few years, we would probably decide EITHER they were not workable and at least we gave them a fair try (which would quiet the cry for electronic sites), OR that we wanted to do the whole convention that way!
John
As we explore the idea of using technology to “expand the camp,” keep in mind that “technology went out the window this year just as the vote was being taken.”
I’m for the idea, but we all know the “Devil is in the details.”
I also “sting” a little from your wise admonishment that crowds are draw by controversy more than cooperation. I think we can change that somewhat, but it seems to be human nature, so I don’t think we ever overcome it completely. As Rick Warren has pointed out: “the mere idea of voting guarantees division.”
Perhaps, we a little (lot of) humility and better way of expressing our corporate identity, we can change from “guaranteeing division,” to “granting honest debate.” It would be nice to be able to leave a convention (or satellite) arm in arm instead of “tooth and claw.” It can be done.
Matt,
I agree with what you have said here…
One of the best ways to promote unity instead of division in the SBC is to celebrate the uniquely Southern Baptist concept of Local Church Autonomy and Diversity within the Convention. Whenever the cry for “conformity” is sounded in the Southern Baptist Convention, division is sure to follow.
Grace Always,
Sorry, Greg, I cannot accept your agreeing with me. I have a reputation to think of
David Miller:
I agree with your judgment about internet attendance and voting at the convention.
Any deliberative body worth its salt would have a meeting that people would attend to make decisions. You have outlined several issues or problems, and I agree with each one.
I find that these are the same people, generally, who want to start having national political election voting on the TV or telephone.
The founding fathers of this nation and our convention knew that actually attending a meeting was a minimal and necessary requirement for conducting deliberative business. If that was true in 1776 or 1845, when it was tougher for people to leave the farm to attend, it is true today.
The seriousness and security of the convention should not be put in jeopardy to satisfy those calling for an unnecessary change.
Good word, Louis. If you were at the convention, I am sorry I didn’t get the chance to meet you.
Louis,
Did you attend the convention via your own money? (no expense acct and have to use your own vact time away from you job to attend)
Lynn
Should we start having national elections at a far away city and only allow Americans to vote if they had the funds to travel to the city? Alongside that we would give all top level Federal employees expense accts to travel to the voting site and allow them to count the trip as “time worked”.
These Fed employees would make up most of the voters in this new system and would of course only elect their own and represent their own positions and not those of the mass of taxpayers.
I feel the same way about the current convention. I can either give to my church or attend the convention – I cant do both. Since I cant attend the conventions far away from me then those who are paid to do so decide what to do with the funds that folks like me give. Most of us would not accept this in a political world and we should not have to do so in our church life either.
Lynn
Lynn,
Very good comments!
Lynn, keep in mind that your political illustration must take into consideration that “no discussion is allowed during the voting process.” I’m not sure that’s an apples to apples comparison.
I think there could be some “compromise” means to accomplish the same thing. I think the satellite idea has some merit.
Also, Morris Chapman had a great idea that can be put into place for next year without any changes: every church send one messenger who have not sent any. That person could communicate by cell phone with anyone back home if they were unsure of a vote.
I think the money spent to send at least one messenger to strengthen and keep healthy our mission endeavor, would be money well spent and blessed by God.
Most churches probably have one person in the church willing to donate the money above and beyond regular tithes and offerings. So, I think we can get started in Phoenix without any major changes (which will not come any time soon).
Let’s do what we can until we can do what we must.
Matt,
Just a prediction, but I would be willing to bet that (in spite of Dr. Chapman’s plea) attendance next year in Phoenix will be less than 6,000.
I don’t know about that number, but it will certainly be way down from this year. Way down.
Greg, I have a sneaking suspicion that you might be right. Are you giving this simply as a prediction, or would that give you some kind of odd pleasure.
Remember, one common theme through the blogosphere is a wish that the SBC would die, so a certain group could say, “I told you so.”
I don’t get from your posts that you are a really enthusiastic supporter of the SBC. Am I wrong?
Right now,
I have plans to go with my wife and children. Obviously, this is still subject to change.
I’m thinking 6-7.5K attendees is probably a good, safe number if we all were betting men (and women). However, I don’t think it’s an indicating of the Southern Baptist Convention dying.
Of course, what would a dying SBC look like?
So, since the numbers will be down, lets start a stealth bloggers movement to flood the convention and elect one of us as 1st VP. CB Scott? Rick Patrick?
Matt,
Yes, for all its faults, I am, unashamedly, an enthusiastic support of the SBC.
The endurance of the SBC for over 150 years, through many a dark and stormy night, is a legacy to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who envisioned, not a new denomination but a great “Missions Organization” funded by, and providing missions opportunities for, Self-Governing Baptist Churches throughout this land who would see the value of cooperating together for missions work and freely choose to support this effort.
This is why I am excited about the “Great Commission Resurgence” – Because I see a glimpse of this same spirit in the GCR movement calling us to once again return to: (1) Missions, (2) Church Planting, and (3) Theological Education.
For as long as we remember who we are, and what our purpose is, the SBC will not die… But woe to the Generation that forgets.
Grace Always,
Good word, Greg.
You now have Fortune 500 companies and government agencies making critical decisions over secure networks since their operations literally span the globe. The argument of a “deliberative body worth their salt” has gone out the window with technology now creating a small world. We could literally even pipe in our missionaries to actively participate in the convention without them having to leave their mission fields.
I’m not interested in National elections being handled by my TV or telephone. Why? Because we have hundreds of thousands of satellite voting locations which allow me to walk down my street and cast my vote and participate in an election without having to travel hundreds of miles.
The seriousness and security of the convention is no less compromised by creating satellite locations or multiple smaller conventions all happening at the same time. In fact, with the technology that’s coming into place, the software that could allow voting to be done at home is rapidly improving because companies and governments are demanding safety and security because even they all recognize that it’s becoming impossible to get all the necessary people in one location at the same time.
The founding fathers also knew that in order to get things done, they all had to be there because there was no technology in place to allow for any other options to be available. The technology is there and it’s a viable reality for conduct convention business across the internet and other means that would allow many more churches in our convention to be more active and willing participants.
I personally believe that having multiple satellite locations would present many benefits to the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m not interested in power struggles or power shifts, I’m interested in using the tools and technology at our disposal to include as many of our churches, pastors, laity, and missionaries as possible so that we can be as well informed and as well motivated as a whole so that we can put forth the best possible effort in reaching the lost both here and abroad.
The more I read about what companies can and are doing in order to further improve communications, improve productivity, save money, and conduct business, the more I think that this could be adapted and used by the Southern Baptist Convention.
I honestly think this could be a good thing.
Great comments Scott!
“We could literally even pipe in our missionaries to actively participate in the convention without them having to leave their mission fields.”
That would be awesome!
“I’m not interested in power struggles or power shifts, I’m interested in using the tools and technology at our disposal to include as many of our churches, pastors, laity, and missionaries as possible so that we can be as well informed and as well motivated as a whole so that we can put forth the best possible effort in reaching the lost both here and abroad.”
I don’t think it can be said any better than this!
Greg
About 80 missionaries spoke from their heart in the small book in circa 2002 Stand With Christ. I wonder how many on this board that feel called to speak about all things Baptist read that book.
I would love to hear a representative group of children of missionaries of that era speak without fear of reprimand from Ronnie Floyd and Al Mohler, no retraction of their retirement benefits of their folks,about what they, the children, thought of that time in Baptist on Mission life.
Lynn:
I am a layman and don’t have an expense account, and I took vacation time.
Lynn, did you attend the convention via your own money?
Dave Miller, I am sorry, too. I plan to be in Phoenix next year, so we will have to plan to meet.
Louis,
I am a layman as well and did not attend the convention. If I did it would have been on my own dime.
Given the fact that you used your own money and time to attend gives your argument about keeping the convention “as is” more weight. I still disagree with it but find new respect for your view.
Lynn
Lynn Gray brings up a “VERY IMPORTANT” issue in this debate…
Just how many of those attending the Conventions are employed by the SBC at some level (SBC Entities, Seminaries & Collages, State Conventions, and Local Associations)?
What percentage of messengers to the Convention on any given year does this group comprise?
I suspect this groups attendance at each year’s Convention is quite substantial. And I suspect further yet that their impact and influence on the preceding is quite significant. I’m not saying that employees of the Convention should not be allowed to vote at the Convention… I am however saying that if a large block of those voting at the Convention each year are actually Convention employees, then the Convention might not be so much a reflection of the will of the Local Churches as a reflection of the will of the Employees of the Convention?
Regardless… I’d sure like to know the numbers.
Grace Always,
To put it in soccer terminology this effort by Johnny Pierce deserves a lot of touches:
http://www.johndpierce.com/2010/06/baptist-bureaucracies-in-bulls-eye.html
Denominational workers are people, too
Lynn, thanks for the compliment. Even though we may disagree on this issue, you are a respectful person.
I would really enjoy seeing more people like you at the convention.
I believe that churches should see convention attendance as an important matter and if their members cannot afford to go, I would recommend that churches budget some money for it, if at all possible.
This year, my flight was $130 or so. The hotel was $140 per night, split 4 ways. The food can be done cheaply, if there is advance planning (But do not eat an the convention center, unless you want an $8 hot dog). I ate out twice at the typical fern bar type establishments where even the expensive stuff was less than $20.
Each church can basically send 10 messengers ($250 contributed for each messenger). $1,500 splt 10 ways is $150 each. That doesn’t cover it, but it would go a long way toward helping people get there.
The vacation issue cannot be solved. Even if there were internet voting, that would not solve the vacation issue. People would still have to leave work and go to a church to sit in front of the screen to attend and they would have to miss work to do that.
But the money thing for some can be defrayed by the church, at least partially.
Most of our church folks are not at all interested in denominational politics. We don’t talk about it at all. But we do make a point of saying that our church has a voting franchise. If we don’t exercise our franchise, we will lose it.
A suggestion to some folks would be to have the church pick up the plane fair or the hotel for those going. Cram as many as possible into a room.
If a church sent 5 men and 5 women this year, it could have had 2 rooms at the hotel where I stayed) for about $140 per night. Split that 5 ways and it’s just over $50 each. The air fare will vary depending on the location.
If church budgeted, say, $1,500 total for the convention, that could go a long way in getting more people there.
I don’t think the church should make it a junket each year. But I do believe that a church that has members interested in attending the convention who cannot pay their own way could make some provision for that.
Of course, I have to say that for most people the convention would be very boring. If you think about it, we do the following:
1. Pass a budget for CP money and other gifts. It’s hard to fine tune a budget at a mass meeting. It has passed without alteration every year to my knowledge.
2. Hear reports from agency heads. There is a question time for them, but no policy is made there.
3. Elect a President, which now involves selecting from 2 or more conservative candidates. But we only do this every 2 years. A second one year term is historically complimentary (except when moderates were trying to stop the CR, but that is now a tradition again).
4. Approve the trustee selections from the Committee on Nominations. There are challenges from the floor from time to time, but they never work.
5. Pass resolutions that nearly everyone agrees with.
I attended several conventions during the CR years, including the 45,000 member meeting in Dallas in 1985 – the largest deliberative meeting of Christians in world history.
It seemed during those years, I knew lots of folks who slept in cars, stayed with friends or in churches etc. It was a sacrifice to go, but it was important. Everyone did what they had to do to be there.
Now that the issues are not that great, attendance has just fallen off, which is not unusual. How many people attend local church business meetings?
I would not criticize a church for not sending a messenger to the convention. But I do believe that the reason we have smaller conventions nowadays is that there are no huge pressing issues, like the conservative resurgence, so churches and members use their time and money in other ways that they deem more important.
“Of course, what would a dying SBC look like?”
Please read this post with the understanding that I care about the SBC and want it to be healthy- I am not in the camp of those who seem to want it to die- although I recognized the Kingdom of God is much bigger than the SBC and if the SBC did die the Kingdom would continue.
But- I think a dying SBC looks like this:
- Baptizing fewer people year after year. Fewer in 2008 than in 1950
-Baptizing fewer of our CHILDREN than in 1950.
- Inability to show consistent effectiveness in urban areas WHILE the global population shifts to urban areas unlike ever before.
-Inability to show consistent effectiveness outside of a base population (i.e. South East) as the US population shifts West.
- Declining numbers in almost every key indicator: conversions, people in the seats, money in the bank.
I think any objective person- whether you agree with GCR or no- can see that the SBC is dying. I know that is a harsh word but it is hard to see it any other way. Now, it is not on life support or even in the hospital yet- but there are gray hairs, maybe a receding hairline, the ‘ol arms and legs can’t do what they once could. Without some major changes the next 20 years of the SBC could be a long, slow decline.
I understand that there are definite problems with the logistics and integrity, and that there is a wonderful aspect of fellowship to be found in attending a meeting. But, since so many of the churches in the convention are small, and do not have the budgets to send messengers across the country, it would be helpful to at least have a mail-order ballot. I am a bi-vocational pastor of a church, and have been there for 6 years. I have never been to a SBC meeting, and I hardly know of any comparable church pastors in my area who have attended as well. No one for at ten or fifteen years before me has attended as a messenger as well. If the SBC wants to hear from the small churches at all, it would be helpful to expand involvement opportunities…
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }