My church had a big anniversary celebration this past Sunday. In what was likely the SBC culinary outrage of the year, there was not a single piece of fried chicken available but there was plenty of bbq.
Here’s a smorgasbord of SBC items of interest:
Southern Baptist Disaster Relief is going full bore in response to the two big hurricanes that have hit the US. This is one of the best things we do cooperatively. While we do not minister in this way for the public credit that follows, it would be beneficial if we had a better publicity system. There is an SBCDR Facebook page. NAMB has a page. Many of the state conventions have DR pages. The bright yellow DR logo is identifiable to Southern Baptists but, I’d guess, not to others. When the SBC DR logo is in a list showing relief agencies the scale of the graphics makes it virtually unreadable. Would rebranding, redesigning, better coordination help visibility? Regardless, I commend the thousands of Southern Baptists who are working even now to help those in need.
You bet…we’re involved in some significant lawsuits. The LDS-owned Deseret News has an excellent article, “Serving God by Suing Others: Inside the Conservative Christian Legal Movement”. While not about Southern Baptists, it is an excellent survey of the various organizations that are involved in legal advocacy on religious issues. Our ERLC often joins in some of these efforts. What is very close to the heart of Southern Baptist ministers is the suit by FFRF against our beloved minister’s housing allowance. I look for a decision by the federal district court any day now. Closer to home, NAMB is being sued for a figure reported to be in the millions by a disgruntled former state executive. Arguments have been filed by both sides. NAMB is defending the SBC in the sense that we have the right to make internal church decisions. Such is the state of Christianity in the 21st century.
Yes, that was Kevin Ezell in the Oval Office. The NAMB leader was with President and Mrs. Trump along with the leaders of the Red Cross and Salvation Army. Why these three? Better question: why NAMB with the other two mammoth relief agencies? Because NAMB leads SBC disaster relief efforts which serves most of the meals that the other two report, or thus I have heard leaders so state. At least our guy wasn’t standing next to a prosperity false-gospel preacher in the Oval Office. We’ve done that before but not Ezell or Frank Page.
One prominent Southern Baptist is proposing an SBC reduction program. This will “incentivize SBC loyalty” it is said. Part of the plan is to require a “five-year probationary period during which we can evaluate whether or not the prospective Southern Baptist Church is serious about this relationship and ready to put their money where their mouth is”. A humble prediction: no association, state convention, or the national SBC will seriously consider this. Neither will the author ever make a formal proposal in his association, state convention, or the SBC. But it’s great blogging blather.
Don’t forget…we have a blue-ribbon Personal Soul-Winning Evangelism Task Force that is at work. This was done in June by the assembled SBC at the request of our president. The group of 19 includes seminary presidents and professors, mega-church and near mega-church ministers, and a state convention executive. There is one African-American on the task force. There is not a single female on the panel. Wonder why? Men can design evangelism programs, plans, and tools to reach non-males but how serious an effort could this be if it’s an all-male group? Is there some compelling headship, complementarian, patriarchical matter in play here? I think rather it is a case that SBC men talk only to other men and SBC mega-men talk only to God (my apologies to the Cabots, Lodges, and God). NAMB doesn’t have a seat either. Well, so long as the group doesn’t come out with a report that beats up on small church pastors for not doing anything…
The Cooperative Program will almost certainly show a tiny increase this year. This would be at the SBC level, not the CP in its entirety. With only one month left in the Executive Committee’s fiscal year, the EC reports CP giving as being up about $1.4 million over the same period last year. That’s less than one percent (.077%) but an increase is an increase. Because designated giving is substantially less than last year it is almost certain that total (CP plus designated) revenues will be down for the fiscal year. The decrease is due to last year’s inflated Lottie Moon offering.
SBC quote of the month:
“No person should be required to use their gifts and calling in a way that violates their fundamental beliefs, and the Supreme Court’s responsibility is to protect Americans from governments and agencies that demand this.”
Freedom of conscience “matters to every American, regardless of belief,” he said in written comments. “A state that can force some individuals to violate their personal convictions is a state that will eventually force others to as well.”
This is from Russell Moore, commenting on the cake baker case before the US Supreme Court.
“Closer to home, NAMB is being sued for a figure reported to be in the millions by a disgruntled former state executive. Arguments have been filed by both sides. NAMB is defending the SBC in the sense that we have the right to make internal church decisions.”
As Adrian Rogers said, “It’s a pretty thin pancake that doesn’t have two sides.”
Rick, readers can go to your site for the plaintiff’s exhaustive explanations of the lawsuit. It is inappropriate to rehash it here. I made reference to the existence of the suit as one among others affecting the SBC.
For what it is worth, Frank Page made an appearance at the Oval Office as well. This was around the same time. Page is about 3 minutes in. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-as-trump-calls-on-a-bunch-of-religious-leaders-to-thank-him-for-his-harvey-efforts/amp/
As SBC Executive Committee head, Frank Page has been invited to the Oval Office a number of times. He has said that when a bunch of religious leaders crowds in the office, it is amusing to watch them try to get as close to the prez as possible. “Like a bunch of middle schoolers” I heard him say.
A comment was made on an additional item not in my list and there could be many others. While I appreciate the comment, I think it profitable to stick with these few for now.
Before this site is used to link any online petition, better get the editor’s approval. There are always axes to grind.
“NAMB leads SBC disaster relief efforts which serves most of the meals that the other two report.”
More specifically, according to this FEMA video—not an SBC video, a FEMA video, SBC disaster relief supplies 90% of the hot meals the Red Cross and Salvation Army distribute.
Remarkable.
Yep. That’s more accurate.
Basically the way it works is the Red Cross Gets food to disaster locations … The Southern Baptists cook that food in their mobile cooking units… And then the Salvation Army picks up and distributes that food to the masses.
A commenter earlier raised the question of David Platt taking a staff job at a DC area church. Although I was aware of the situation, I declined to accept that comment because some assertions were unverified to my knowledge.
Now, SBC This Week has a piece about it, linked below. People ask questions. The questions should be answered. Looks like that is being appropriately handled.
http://www.sbcthisweek.com/imb-president-david-platt-accepts-teaching-pastor-role-at-mclean-bible-church/
I like the way they’re handling it.
I’m praying for his success. I think there’s potential pitfalls – but it’s not a given that the pitfalls will happen.
I like the accountability the board is demonstrating.
Further, on a positive note – I think it’s a good thing to see denominational leaders exercising spiritual gifts in the context of a local church.
I appreciate you responding to this. I knew that there were ongoing discussions about the situation but I hadn’t heard if any decisions had been made.
I am curious about what it means to be a cooperating church. Is that the same as being an SBC church? Also, does cooperating mean MBC actively gives to the CP and Lottie Moon? I live in the DC area and from everything that I have heard, MBC is not an SBC church and is not actively pursuing full affiliation with the SBC or their local SBC association. If that is the case, then it seems odd that an SBC entity head would serve at this church when a member of this church couldn’t serve with the IMB because they require active membership in an SBC church. I recognize that there could be stuff going on behind the scenes and so I am wondering if anyone could shed some light on this.
It is clear that Platt has a gift for preaching/teaching and I can understand his desire to exercise that gift. I just have several concerns about this. First, the church is over a 100 miles from Richmond. I assume that Platt lives in Richmond since that is where the IMB is headquartered. Would any pastor think it is wise to serve in a church that is that far away from where he lives? Second, I can imagine that there are a number of churches in and around Richmond (including many small and rural ones) who could benefit from his gifted teaching/leadership. I just wonder why he felt led to serve at a mega church so far away when there were probably a number of churches in and around Richmond where he could serve. A third concern is that these seem like two full time jobs (especially pastoring a church, even if you are just one of several teaching pastors) is it reasonable to expect that he will be able to devote the proper amount of attention to both jobs? Finally, I am concerned that the trustees have had to spend any time dealing with this. They should be laser focused on the IMB-post VRI rather than being concerned if the president should be able to pastor a church that is loosely aligned with the SBC.
I get that there are a lot of Godly and wise people that were involved in this decision, but I wonder how IMB trustees, MBC leaders and Platt himself see this as the most effective arrangement for all involved.
Thanks again for addressing this.
MBC is a cooperating church. It doesn’t much to gain that status. Your other questions are for the most part answered in the press release. Trustees are ( and have been for a while) on top of the matter.
The SBC XComm CEO is interim pastor of a church 300 miles or so from his workplace. It’s not uncommon.
I don’t think the release does address my questions. What does it mean to be a cooperating church? Is that the same as saying it is an SBC church? Does MBC cooperate with one of the state Baptist conventions in Virginia (BGCVA or SBCV)? Do they participate in the CP and Lottie Moon? My wife and I served with the IMB and we had to verify that we attended an SBC church during the application process. Since that is the case, it would make sense that those in leadership would have to be active members in an SBC church. If being a cooperating church is the same as being an SBC church then that would be good to know. I am hoping that someone can give some clarity to this.
Even if it is a SBC church, it is concerning that no one sees an issue with Platt serving at a church 100 miles away from where he lives (I assume he lives in Richmond where the IMB is headquartered). How can he truly get involved in the lives of people that he is ministering to when he lives that far away? I just can’t imagine any pastor advising someone to attend a church that is that far away.
You mention a former SBC exec who traveled 300 miles to serve as an interim. Even though I think that is silly too, this is not the same thing. Platt has been serving in an interim position at MBC but this announcement is that he will be on permanent staff at the church. Would any church member be suspicious if a newly hired pastor said that he was going to live 100 miles from the church?
Something that was missing in the announcement was any mention of how this was going to benefit the IMB. It mentioned how Platt had a desire to do both but there was no talk about how this better positions the IMB to take the Gospel to the nations. My guess is that is has the potential to do more harm to the IMB’s efforts than help.
I was at a conference this last weekend with IMB personnel and they talked about all of the challenges at the IMB post-VRI. There are lots of changes taking place and lots of holes that are needing to be filled. They weren’t complaining or speaking negatively about the IMB or its leadership they were just talking about the realities of losing close to 1000 personnel. It just seems like a time when we need a President that is fully focused on leading the IMB through these challenging times.
The reason I am concerned about this is that I think it is another instance of our convention being driven by church celebrity culture. Platt is an SBC celebrity. Oftentimes it is hard to tell celebrities no. When Platt came to the trustees to ask about this, it seems like it would have been better for them to tell David that we all have to make choices. If he wants to pastor this church then great, go do that and vice-versa. Is it possible that the trustees may have been afraid of losing their “celebrity” president and so they gave him what he wanted even though it may not be the best situation for all involved. They were on top of it in the sense that they knew about it and were meeting about it but from this outsider’s perspective, it seems like it was not the best decision.
I think that David and the trustees need to explain why this is good for the IMB, the SBC and for the members of MBC for him to serve in two full-time positions, in two towns separated by over 100 miles.
I am 100% in agreement with Mark on this issue. Thus, Mark, it seems to me, is a very smart man who thinks clearly and expresses himself very well. 🙂
Assuming doctrinal agreement, small contribution of $$ is all that is needed to be a cooperating church. While many of us would like a church that does LM, AA, state convention, association, etc, those aren’t required. A church in friendly cooperation with the SBC is both an SBC church and a cooperating church. Doesn’t take much.
A member of MBC who wanted imb appointment would be thoroughly vetted, as you probably know. A cooperating church isn’t a simple ticket punch to get appointed.
I take your points about some of this. Here is the statement from trustees:
“Our president, Dr. David Platt, has expressed a deep sense of calling to serve as teaching pastor of McLean Bible Church while also continuing to lead the International Mission Board,” Dilbeck said. “We respect Dr. Platt and his sense of the Lord’s leading; and we recognize our responsibility to hold him accountable for his work leading the International Mission Board. Over the coming months, while Dr. Platt serves as teaching pastor for McLean Bible Church, the trustees of the International Mission Board will evaluate Dr. Platt’s fulfillment of his responsibilities as IMB president. Trustees also will evaluate McLean’s level of partnership with the Southern Baptist Convention. We plan to revisit this matter in our February trustee meeting.”
And: “At the beginning of 2017, as soon as Dr. Platt was asked to serve as Interim Teaching Pastor at MBC, he contacted trustee officers to discuss this possibility. During their February 2017 meeting, trustees expressed support for Dr. Platt serving in this role. Dr. Platt asked trustee leaders to provide continual evaluation of his participation in this role, and he provided an update to all trustees in June 2017. During their August 2017 meeting, the Executive Committee of the IMB Trustees agreed to evaluate Dr. Platt’s involvement as Teaching Pastor at MBC during a provisional period over the coming months.”
Don’t want to assume a lot here but there are plenty of platt critics around. So others who may not read the link will know, here are a few facts:
1. Trustees are on top of this.
2. There will be a subsequent evaluation in February. Note the “provisional.”
3. His involvement doesn’t include any day-to-day responsibilities.
4. It is an unpaid position.
5. Platt and Trustees agreed when he came to imb on his family and church involvement.
6. Platt is “completely” committed to leading imb.
7. He travels about 1/3 of sundays and his with his family in church for about 2/3 and travels during the week. Nothing would change with this.
If that doesn’t satisfy you, then so be it. Platt has always had critics. I understand that some who voluntarily took the retirement incentives might be unhappy with him.
I’d like for you or anyone to show me where any SBC entity or institution has been as open and transparent about a situation like this in the past. It is unprecedented best I can see.
Trustees can handle this.
I don’t feel inclined to start an entire topic on this.
My concerns here have nothing to do with me being a Platt critic. I am actually not one. I wholeheartedly agreed with the VRI and the move to get the IMB’s finances in order. My wife and I came off the field over a decade ago–obviously the VRI didn’t affect us at all. I also agreed with the move to remove the age restriction on children of appointed missionaries. Now candidates with children over 13 are considered on a case-by-case basis rather than being denied outright. I recognize that some good things have happened under Platt’s leadership so my concerns do not come from any anti-Platt sentiment.
You are right, being a member of an SBC church does not mean automatic appointment. But it is also the case that not being a member of an SBC automatically means that you cannot serve with the IMB. From the IMB website:
Q: Are there certain qualifications for joining a team or going on a trip?
A: Yes, there are. But the number and type of qualification depends on the team role. Of course, they all have baseline standards, such as being a Christian, and active member of a Southern Baptist church, and being able to clearly articulate the gospel. Some have educational or professional requirements. Others, however, do not. You can learn more about those requirements by checking out the team roles here and their qualifications here.
I am familiar with MBC, they may be cooperating but it is very under the radar. No promotion of the CP or Lottie Moon. They have a link to DTS but no SBC seminaries on their website. I imagine that if you asked a random sample of people at MBC, most would not say that they are a SBC church. Why, as an entity head, would you choose to serve at a church with such a loose affiliation with our convention? I think it sends the wrong message.
I am also concerned that our IMB president has chosen serve at this church, 100 miles away from where he lives rather than serving an SBC church in his own community. I am sure that there are a number of faithful SBC churches who have supported the IMB and CP faithfully for years who could have been blessed by his leadership. I just wonder if the size and prominence of the church has anything to do with it.
What does it mean to say that he won’t be involved in the day-to-day responsibilities of the church? How can he help pastor a church that he is not involved in? I am not sure what your background is (I am assuming that you are/were a pastor) but I just find it hard to believe that you or any of the trustees wouldn’t normally have an issue with this kind of arrangement. Can you imagine our seminaries teaching young pastors that they don’t need to be involved in the day-to-day responsibilities of a church in order to pastor effectively?
It is easy to say that you are “completely” committed to the IMB. How can he be completely committed both to the IMB and to MBC? I don’t think it is possible.
Again, this is not about me being a Platt critic. I wasn’t affected by the VRI. I am Platt’s age and so it is not that I have any allegiance to an “old guard.” I am fully committed to the IMB and I want it to succeed in reaching the nations. It is because of this that I really question the wisdom of this agreement. I hope that during this provisional time that everyone involved will really consider just exactly why they think this is a good idea.
On another note, you have asked me to trust the trustees. I get that and I want to. I would note that in your initial post, you questioned our SBC president and his appointments to the evangelism task force. I take that to mean that you believe that our IMB trustees are being led by God while our president is not. Trusting leadership cuts both ways. I actually agree with you that the task force would benefit from more diversity but labeling someone a “name the person or organization” critic or telling them to simply trust leaders is an easy way to ignore, what could be legitimate concerns.
Teaching Pastor = Preaching a Sermon.
In this case, teaching pastor = pastor who lives 100 miles south of the church he serves at and parachutes in several weekends a month to preach a sermon to people that he is unable to really connect with or invest in.
We are told to trust the trustees but I think that they (or those who are defending them) need to explain to those who support the CP and the IMB why they believe that this is a Biblical and effective model for the pastorate.
I said that I take some of your points. Generally, I’m satisfied that the trustees will handle this.
Gaines’ action on the blue ribbon group isn’t comparable to trustees responsible for an entity.
There is a broader question about bringing established churches into the SBC fold, how to do so, what is prudent, etc.
Some of your comments make me think that you need to reread the link I provided.
You can have the last word.
Ed Stetzer’s take on the Platt announcement:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2017/september/david-platt-imb-mclean-bible.html
Point #1: Both Gaines and the IMB trustees are all servants that God has entrusted with leadership positions but that does not make them infallible. Trusting one leader or group of leaders (IMB trustees) because you agree with them and not another (Gaines) because you disagree with him seems somewhat contradictory. Personally, I question both. You said the situations were completely different but failed to explain why we should accept the leadership decisions of one and not the other.
Point #2: Would the IMB look past the “active SBC church member” requirement if a missionary candidate were a member of a non-SBC church yet trying to bring them “into the fold?”
Point #3: I have read the post you linked several times and I don’t see where all of my concerns are addressed (i.e. the distance between the church and where he lives, MBC’s loose affiliation with the SBC, how this helps the IMB). Without giving any context to your assertion that I need to reread it, your comment seems like a backhanded way of saying that I am either speaking in ignorance or refusing to see what is obvious. It is a way of responding to concerns with out actually addressing them. If you are going to make that comment, I would hope that you would be able to point out what I am failing to see.
Again, given the concerns I mentioned, I can’t imagine how any pastor or seminary professor would advise a seminary student to pursue this kind of situation.
I appreciate your interaction with this and giving some clarity as to what it means to being a cooperating SBC church. Blessings.
There’s nothing backhanded… I thought you failed to understand some of the points made in the PR.
Not much else to say on this. I’m unapologetically in favor of allowing some leeway and relying on the trustees to handle it. I’m sure they are aware of critics.
As an aside, I can think of many entity heads who moonlight for significant pay without, seemingly, compromising their role as entity leader. Platt is doing this *as a volunteer, unpaid* by the church. If we wish to scrutinize divided loyalties, I would nominate several before DP.
I appreciate the link to Stetzer’s relevant opinion on this and similar situations.
I would prefer that the president of the IMB be at a church with a CP giving that is better than average and gives to other SBC causes through the other offerings that we promote in our churches, associations, and state conventions. I would also prefer that his church not go around CP with designated offerings to just certain SBC entities.
Is too much to ask for SBC leaders to be examples of SBC loyalty?
Amen.
I would like to add my AMEN to Rick’s! Also, Mark is right on target with his comments of 9/14.
Concerning William Thornton’s call to trust the trustees. This is all we heard before the conservative resurgence and we decided it simply was not working.
Someone would have to have their head in the sand to not recognize that history is repeating itself, only this time the conservatives are at the helm.
I have not been a Platt critic, but I don’t like the distinction it makes between pastoring and preaching. We would tell any first year seminary student that their preaching is made better than their pastoring, but this makes light of that distinction. Platt is a very gifted preacher, but this just fuels the celebrity problems in evangelicalism, by making it okay for him to preach but never interact with people.
I’m afraid the celebrity culture is way out of the bag and doesn’t seem to be dying down anytime soon.
It’s all over the SBC.
If you only preach, you’re not a pastor, you’re a preacher.
I actually care very little about this, but with Trads baying for his blood, this isn’t a smart move by Platt.
I don’t know how far down this road is worthwhile. The titles used by churches have been screwball for some time. “Teaching pastor” is a perfectly acceptable phrase. I understand that it doesn’t suit some critics because of their belief that “pastor” should only be the title of someone who pastors in a broader sense. We are long past church staff titles having real value and consistent meaning.
On the distance to the old church house each Sunday, the head SBC guy, Frank Page, travels several times what Platt does and Platt does it for free. This is no big deal and is very common.
Trustees will revisit the thing in February.
We need some new content here…this is past any sensible shelf life.
You keep saying that you don’t think it’s a big deal. But others seem to think it is. I think Platt is setting a precedent that is not helpful. I don’t like Page doing it either. They represent the SBC, and it makes it seem that the SBC seems to think that this personality driven preaching model is advantageous, effective, and a good idea. This has large implications for the SBC at large, and is worthy of discussion on an SBC blog.
For the record, I was very glad when Platt took over the IMB. I think he is extremely gifted, loves God and the nations dearly, and has done a good job leading the IMB. I just don’t think the message that this sends is a good one.
I agree completely with Luke on this. It is a big deal and worthy of discussion because of what it communicates about the pastorate. It diminishes the responsibility and role of a pastor, regardless of whether or not his title is teaching pastor, lead pastor, etc. I have a hard time understanding how any pastor can defend this type of arrangement.
The other big issue is MBC’s very loose affiliation with the SBC. I live in the DC area and have a number of friends who attend MBC and none of them would identify their church as Southern Baptist. I didn’t ask but I would imagine that none of them (unless they were a part of an SBC church previously) would know what Lottie Moon or the CP was. I am just confused as to why Platt and the IMB trustees don’t have any issue with him being on staff at a church that is so loosely affiliated with the IMB and the CP.
I understand not wanting to draw out the debate on this issue when it is the trustees who are dealing with it but how else can everyday SBC’ers be able to voice their concerns? Are there ways to get contact info for the trustees so that concerns can be voiced directly to them?
You’re a half century late on complaining about the devaluing of the term “pastor.” The list of modifiers for “pastors” is endless.
And the reason this is he with DP and MBC is available for discussion here is because he and trustees put it out publicly.
It is understood that baptists have opinions on everything, sometime several on the same subject.
So the term “Pastor” is subject to deconstructionism? My, nothing is really standing on solid rock these days – even the terms for use in the Church. Perhaps instead of accepting the devaluing of “Pastor” someone would stand up and tell our celebrity leadership enough is enough.
Rob
Seems as though there was applause for the FL Baptists when they no longer allowed convention workers to take interims. Should this not apply to full-time entity heads as well? In Platt’s case, his interim has become an actual position that while limited implies a long-term committment.
[Florida Baptist Convention] staff persons will no longer serve as interim pastors,
So declared Thomas Green, new CEO of the Florida Baptist Convention. He added the obvious reason for the change in policy, because serving a single church for an extended period of time prevents them from visiting churches every week.
Let’s see. A state’s churches pay a good salary to a state worker. He does his work during the week but on the Lord’s Day is in the one church that pays him a salary, and thus for six months or a year of Sundays. Get your workaday, average SBC pastor talking and this will be a sore spot. It makes sense to put state workers in as many churches as possible, not have them fill an endless series of paid positions with a few churches.
Thomas Green made a wise decision here. At least all of the legacy state conventions should do the same.
I said it was a great move when tommy green announced the policy. I think a discussion of these things not tied to DP would be good.
I cannot imagine the Trustees even considering this type of arrangement for the President of the IMB.
The comment by Mark Albro was insightful beyond measure. He really hit the nail on the head.
One would certainly think that heading a quarter of a BILLION dollar agency would require one’s full attention….along with having a wife and family. If he feels called to the pastorate, then by all means go that way, but step away from the one to assume the other. I am sure that it is not an insignificant amount that David Platt is paid to head the IMB. There is no way he does justice to the responsibility of either job by doing both simultaneously. Having served on a trustee board at one of our seminaries, I think it is very rare, almost unicorn sighting status, that a board will oppose a president on anything of significance. Trustee oversight in this situation is laughable if it were not so serious.
Your comment makes me think you need to reread the link way above.
Yes, Mr Thornton…I have read the link. These are my thought regarding the situation. My opinion is that Trustee “oversight” in this situation will find everything to be A-OK once February 2018 rolls around.
Is it possible that they *may* find it so because it is in fact working out OK?
Or do you assume something else? Your quotation marks seem to indicate that you do.
I have no idea how the board might deal with this – and unless you possess prophecy gifting I don’t think you do either.
I suggest we wait and see…nothing nefarious or underhanded has taken place and it seems the board is on top of this and is being very transparent about it…can’t we just assume the best about the godly men and women we’ve elected to oversee such matters?
I would contend that there are many SBC churches where lots of the members know nothing of the special offerings or even that they are SBC as their name does not contain it and it is never mentioned…
Interesting that no one complained about the plethora of entity heads and seminary admins doing similar thing as DP over the decades….(and I intentionally say no one because I have NEVER hear of it being a problem before.)
Like William says – this is nothing all that out of the ordinary and those finding issues today are many years too late…as I said earlier the cat is already out of the bag – and celebrity stuff ain’t gong back in anytime soon, if ever.
All the crowing about “its not (sufficiently) SBC church and their model of polity is unlikable” stuff is also interesting given our dogmatic adherence for our sacrosanct church autonomy – there is nothing in our confession or convention bylaws that dictate the definition and job description of a pastor, much less the proximity of his living quarters to the church. MBC meets the standard to be identified as an SBC church. Period. Unless we are going to change our longstanding requirements and get really specific about these matters – then we just might need to pick another bone.
Shoot – there is not even full agreement among the article writers and commenters on this forum regarding the BFM2000 statement that all pastors in our churches be of the masculine gender. So if we are going to allow female pastors (of any definition) without questioning SBC bonafides of that church – then how dare we question MBC as they set their own standards for what in practice amounts to a glorified interim pastor that they are calling “teaching pastor”.
It seems like the main defense for this arrangement is “what about…”–what about Page or Stetzer, etc.? It’s exactly how my kids respond when one of them gets caught doing something wrong–they point to a sibling’s bad behavior as a way to justify their own bad behavior. It’s a technique that is used by those who cannot defend their position. Whether or not it has been done before is irrelevant. What matters is if it’s Biblical and, for us Southern Baptists, whether or not it furthers the mission of the IMB.
Where in Luke’s description of the early church in Acts 2 do you get any sense that church leaders do not need to be fully engaged in the lives of those they lead. What about 1 Timothy 3? How can a pastor show hospitality or be a model of gentleness and self-control when his interactions with his congregation are limited to a couple of Sundays a month? I think that, as an entity head, Platt and the trustees (and those defending this arrangement) need to give a clear, Biblical response as to why they think that this is an acceptable arrangement.
One other thing, Platt leads missionaries who have been called to leave everything behind so that they can live amongst those to whom God has called them to. For many, it would be easier to live in a larger town rather than some of the difficult places that they find themselves (or better yet in the states) and just parachute in from time to time into the towns and villages of those they are trying to reach. Thankfully the IMB recognizes that the best way to reach people is to be fully engaged with them by living among them and learning their language and customs. To me it is ironic that the IMB’s efforts are built around this conviction yet it appears that the President of the IMB doesn’t feel like the same applies when it comes to ministry in the States.
I think your conclusion is ridiculous, fails to engage the substance of the matter, and completely misses what SBCers should be concerned about in all this.
While I have some reservations about some aspects of this would critics kindly answer just two questions about the matter:
1. Has DP accepted a paid church staff position on top of his main job as IMB CEO?
2. Does the arrangement with the church materially alter the agreement that
IMB trustees agreed to with regard to DP’s employment prior to his accepting the job?
Thanks.
“What matters is if it’s Biblical and, for us Southern Baptists, whether or not it furthers the mission of the IMB.”
Sure. Agreed.
Frankly, You have not demonstrated where in scripture denominational leaders are precluded from volunteering their time to teach and preach.
Nor have you demonstrated how this will harm the mission of the international mission board… You have cast lots of speculation as to how you think it might… as well as cast aspersions among those who are tasked with oversight in this regard…
The board is being very transparent about this… As he is Dr. Platt… And they seem to be on top of it… I have made the point that we ought trust those we have entrusted as “trustees” – and at the very least give them an opportunity to do the work before casting aspersions upon them and Dr. Platt.
Also past practice is very relevant… To contend that it’s not is to single out Dr. Platt and this church for treatment that we clearly have not willing to address heretofore.
If you were to argue that the head of no SBC entity should ever serve as any form of pastor in a local church then Your argument might seem more based on principle rather than agenda.
That is my argument. That’s what I’ve been saying. I’m a Platt fan, but I don’t think this is a good idea, in principle. I don’t recall other trustees of entities having a press release about it. That’s why this has gotten more publicity and reaction.
If the trustees had not done a information release they’d have been criticized for “not being transparent”. – they do a release and are completely above board with it – even outlining the accountability that has already taken place and that will be taking place over the next few months- and they’re attacked for that.
It seems to me that our IMB “trustees” are taking our trust seriously.
My concern is not about denominational leaders being able to serve in a church. The problem is calling someone a pastor when he is not fully involved in the life and ministry of the church that he serves in. I think that Acts 2 gives us a picture of a group of believers (including leaders) that are fully engaged in one another’s lives. They prayed together, had fellowship together and ate together. They were fully engaged in each other’s lives. In Acts 14:23 we are told that Paul appointed elders in every church. Why was it not sufficient for Paul to lead these churches from afar? It appears that Paul understood and was modeling the importance of having leaders that are fully engaged in the lives of those they lead. Paul tells Timothy that overseers should be sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, etc. How can a pastor/elder/overseer model those qualities when he is rarely around the people he leads? It seems that the tenor of Scripture points to a pastor/leader/overseer being fully engaged in the people that God has called him to.
The fact that we are debating this on a blog and that trustees are having to deal with it is an example of how this is harming the IMB because it is forcing them to take their focus off of taking the Gospel to the nations. They could be using all of their time thinking about what’s next for the IMB post-VRI but they have instead have had to shift some of their focus towards helping Platt fulfill his desire to preach.
Like Luke, this is not about Platt. I would have an issue with anyone wanting to serve as a pastor when they could not be fully involved with the life and ministry of the church that called them. When I was a pastor, I would never have hired a student pastor, music pastor, etc. that wanted to live 100 miles from our church. It is not about Platt. It is about SBC leaders making light of what it means to be a pastor.
I am not trying to cast aspersions on anyone. I don’t doubt anyone’s motivations. I think that they all have good intentions but I also think that this is a mistake.
“The problem is calling someone a pastor when he is not fully involved in the life and ministry of the church that he serves in. ”
I certainly don’t disagree with you – but as Southern Baptist we have this thing called church autonomy… And we typically do not involve ourselves with the way local churches conduct polity.
Like I said there a commenters and authors on this very forum who disagree as to whether females can be “pastors” despite a clear writing of prohibition in our Baptist Faith and message 2000 – so I’m not sure what footing one might stand on to criticize calling and essential Interim pastor/regular teaching preacher a “teaching pastor”.
Like I’ve often said we better just love our church autonomy… Until we don’t like something another church does….
*Like I’ve often said we Southern Baptists love our church autonomy… that is Until we don’t like something another church does….
1. No, David will be taking no pay for his position at MBC. I am not concerned about whether or not he is being paid. I am concerned about how this affects the IMB and the statement it makes about the pastorate.
2. No, the agreement with the IMB hasn’t changed. Having said that, I don’t imagine that this is what the trustees where thinking when it was laid out. From the IMB’s website, “As Teaching Pastor at MBC, Dr. Platt would continue the pattern of being with his family in this local church approximately 65% of his weekends.” Just doing the math, it appears that he will be at MBC just 34 days a year. The rest of the time he will be in Richmond a 100 miles away or traveling nationally or internationally. Under normal circumstances, I think that most church members would have a problem if their pastor was around only 34 days a year.
My conclusion in my former post was (I will quote it) “I think that, as an entity head, Platt and the trustees (and those defending this arrangement) need to give a clear, Biblical response as to why they think that this is an acceptable arrangement.” What is ridiculous about that?
I answered your questions directly, I would ask that you do the same:
1. Is it reasonable and Biblical to expect that a pastor be engaged in the life and ministry of the church that he has been called to lead beyond just showing up to preach?
2. Is it reasonable to expect that leaders in our denomination would serve in such a way that they elevate the role of pastor rather than diminish it to a single task?
3. Since the IMB relies on Lottie Moon and the CP, is it reasonable to expect that the President of the IMB would attend and serve in a church that proudly and publicly supports Lottie Moon and the CP?
4. It is reasonable to think that in leading one massive ministry and serving as a pastor in another massive ministry that something will have to give?
I appreciate the conversation. I don’t think that your position is ridiculous but I do think that it demands a more robust defense than just pointing to all of the times something like this has happened in the past.
Quick question, what do you think of the Apsotles delegating “pastoral responsibilities” to the deacons so that they can teach. They seemed to be ok with a separation of “duties” based on wiring and giftedness…
In Acts the “proposal pleased the whole group” and seven men were elected so the apostles could do their main task. They were not taking on another responsibility. The president of the IMB has a great responsibility to the IMB and the SBC and some of us think that is enough. There are not enough weekends for him to preach in our churches as the president of our IMB to share with us the work of the missionaries we support through CP and LMCO. It does not seem right that he can then be on staff at a church instead.
Good question. It makes perfect sense to divide up responsibilities according to giftedness. In Acts 6, the dividing up of responsibilities enabled the apostles to do more of what they were gifted at. It wasn’t done so that they could disengage with the church to chase other things.
1. You’ve smuggled an assumption about the meaning of “pAstor.” Fine but it prevents my giving a yes or no answer here.
2. Same problem.
3. Good question. Qualified “yes.”
4. Depends.
The MC Q&A add some perspective if not additional info on this. I’m witholding any further comment. Trustees are attuned to this.
Okay, how about whoever Paul is talking about in 1 Timothy 3:1-1-7? Can you answer those first two questions now?
MBC is having a Town Hall Meeting this Thursday (September 21) to vote on whether or not to call David Platt as their next Pastor-Teacher.
https://www.mcleanbible.org/events/town-hall-meeting-0
This page links to a vision statement from David Platt as well as some FAQs.
That sounds a little different than what was originally proposed. My bet is that he is going to go to this church full-time. Has this been discussed between the two parties.