Dear SBC President Dr. Steve Gaines,
We want to begin by saying thank you. We had a great convention in Phoenix, and we believe that is due in part to your leadership. You set the tone for the convention with your emphasis on prayer. You also exhibited wise pastoral leadership from the podium. We realize that the resolution condemning alt-right white supremacy would not have happened without your support. So thank you.
We are also excited about the emphasis of this next year on evangelism. We share your concerns regarding our declining baptism numbers. Southern Baptists are a people who love God. It’s time we demonstrate that through prayer and evangelism. As you have said, “If you love someone, you talk to them and you talk about them.”
In light of this need to focus on evangelism, we are hopeful that the evangelism taskforce you appointed at the convention will bring forward helpful ideas about how we can more effectively reach our nation and our neighbors with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that you have chosen an excellent group of men who will serve our convention well this next year as you brainstorm together about evangelism. Each person on the taskforce brings to it a wealth of knowledge and experience.
We did, however, notice that only two of the people chosen to serve on this taskforce are non-Anglo. This is at a time when approximately 20% of SBC churches are majority non-Anglo and 50% of NAMB church plants are ethnic minorities. The 2015 Executive Committee report on the SBC’s progress on racial reconciliation noted the great strides that have been made, but it also called on our leaders to make an even more concerted effort to include more minorities on future convention boards and committees. This kind of broad representation is especially needed with regard to evangelism. As the complexion of America continues to darken, we must increase our effectiveness at reaching people who look different than we do.
There are other voices we feel were left out as well. The announced taskforce does not include any women. It also does not include any smaller church pastors or laypeople who are not denominational employees. We believe that Southern Baptists are at our best when we hear from a diversity of people who represent the diversity of the SBC.
With this in mind, we ask that you would broaden representation on the newly created taskforce by adding members from these other viewpoints. We commit ourselves to pray for you in this endeavor and for the work of the taskforce as it moves forward. Again, we are thankful for your leadership and trust that God will guide you in this matter.
Respectfully,
Voices for a New Baptist Future
Totally agree…and totally expect no action to be taken even though you asked very nicely.
When the fiasco over the anti “alt-right” resolution spilled over into the secular media, I anticipated that we were only seeing the beginning of the assault on the SBC. Clearly I was correct.
If you think the Gospel is only effective when the person sharing the Gospel with you also looks like you, you don’t understand the Gospel and you deny it’s power. We ought to be a lot more concerned with the Gospel getting to those in need rather than counting noses or holding up a skin pigment chart next to potential missionaries to see if they “look like the Kingdom” enough.
If the SBC follows the lead of other denominations in becoming obsessed with racial and gender quotas to appease the world, it will end up just as dead as they are. That would be a shame but the Kingdom will go on.
“If you think the Gospel is only effective when the person sharing the Gospel with you also looks like you, you don’t understand the Gospel and you deny it’s power.”
Who said that? What are you talking about? Basically nothing that you said in your comment is true or accurate or describes the intentions of anyone here.
“Holding up a skin pigment chart” next to missionaries?
This is sad.
That’s not the point… As a cross-cultural missionary, I am absolutely FLOORED at the lack of understanding that while the gospel message is the same, it is heard differently and presented in different ways for each people group, addressing the heart issues in their culture. Where are the Asians? Where are the Muslim-background-believers? Only two non-anglo men? And what about addressing needs that women have in sharing with women? I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a group of men will have the understanding to determine how women can better reach out in personal witnessing to their friends and families… In fact, I can’t possibly see that they consider women an important factor when it comes to evangelism, or they would have included some women on this task force. I’m embarrassed… Someone please help me understand how this happened when we are supposed to be trying to be more inclusive and more global in SBC life…
I am really struggling to know how God wants us to think of race when it comes to making appointments, nominations, presence… with the SBC leadership. Is it something we make more of than God does?
Does God in His elective power do so with concern to the ethnic makeup of His most favorite creation? I don’t think so. If He did then North America would only see 7.6% of those elect.
I pray we can come to the point where we don’t see color of skin. May it begin in my generation.
Jon, many of us have considered (and even believed at an earlier time) that the ideal is to be “colorblind” like you’ve described here. But after considering that idea, we’ve rejected it as a well-meaning but misguided approach to racial reconciliation. As Derwin Grey said in the 2016 pastors’ conference: we shouldn’t strive to be color blind but color blessed.
More here from Todd Benkert, from 2012:
https://sbcvoices.com/a-color-blind-denomination/
In short, “colorblindness” leads us to things like this task force, where most the participants are white, most of us never think another thing about it, and our minority brothers and sisters are often left on the sidelines feeling excluded but hesitant to speak up because they’ll get responses like we’ve already seen in this comment thread – and worse.
We’re going to say it and keep saying it. Our Hispanic, Black, Asian, and other ethnicities need to be seen as equal partners in the SBC.
“Jon, many of us have considered (and even believed at an earlier time) that the ideal is to be “colorblind” like you’ve described here. But after considering that idea, we’ve rejected it as a well-meaning but misguided approach to racial reconciliation.”
Brent, you do realize my friend that you and your group “considering and rejecting” something is not necessarily the be all and end all?
I truly am not being a jerk here – but your post comes across as having thought yourself and your cohorts to have arrived at the full stature of the measure of Christ and hoping that others will one day attain your enlightenment.
I understand passion and I understand we all think we are right on what we think are the problems and by extension, right on the process for remedy…that just makes sense…
But, like I have said before – we have to be careful that we do not alienate those who agree with us in principle regarding these issues by intimating that they are just not at our level of understanding.
“We’re going to say it and keep saying it. Our Hispanic, Black, Asian, and other ethnicities need to be seen as equal partners in the SBC.”
OK. Great. Hallelujah. Pass the collection plate! No one I know disagrees with you. I unequivocally and with certainty know I do not disagree.
Now, lets talk about HOW that is achieved realizing that we have same goal – but may have different, and just as important and valid, ways of getting there.
This is a complex issue – and is not binary. The impression is often conveyed from your group that either everyone agree with you on every single step of the pathway to what we all seek – or you must, even unwittingly, oppose the principle. I find this approach very unhelpful.
Dave, I had no part in the OP but think a little pressure on leaders is healthy. I see no need for a calculator every time a BR committee is formed and maybe Gaines’ idea of a gathering of the best mega guys and seminary experts is the best route on this. The VFNBF sees a lack of divert. I see the same top-down stuff we’ve always had.
If we want to generate some new thinking from the grassroots on the SBC’s future maybe we ought to put Dave Miller in charge. I’d bet I could write the evang TF report today and get 80% of it right.
William,
I agree with and have no issue with the open letter.
I’m addressing specific comments made above about another peice of the puzzle so to speak that was brought into the discussion.
“I’d bet I could write the evang TF report today and get 80% of it right.”
Probably could…lol!
“think a little pressure on leaders is healthy. ”
Me too. I think Gaines put together a task force of friends and colleagues and needed to be nudged a little to think outside his box.
Honestly, pastors and spiritual leaders need healthy and constructive nudging from time to time – whether we’re Prez of the SBC or pastor of FBC middle of nowhereville. It’s a good thing.
Brent,
I see the idea of being colored blessed… not bad but not best.
I would think that most, if not all people of color would desire to have and hope to have a place in the SBC leadership because of what they offer, not because of their color. Scripture clearly speaks of man’s giftedness (from God of course) and we are to use our giftedness to further His kingdom. Never, as far as I can discover has God put a man in a position of leadership because of his color. Some might want to make the case of God always choosing from among the Israelite’s but I see it differently. I see it as choosing from among His people.
Now the problem is in the SBC because we do see color and too many allow that to trump the giftedness and thus we are blinded to what could be the best. We are also a “who you know” convention or “in the right place at the right time” scenario. As I was when I served on the Committee of Committees under Dr. Patterson. If I would have been in a state that wasn’t a pioneer mission state, I would have never been asked.
I stand by my position… When color is not seen, racism will end. Until then I would hate to have anyone serve in a position because of their color. Imagine if this person was asked how did he come about being selected… The answer… Because I am a man of color doesn’t sound holy.
From the BP story on it, cursory examination: 9 seminary people, 1 state convention exec, 7 megachurch, 1 near megachurch. No females.
Everyone is for prayer and evangelism, Gaines’ emphases. I’m sure the 18 members will talk to some women, minorities, and some of the 45k non-mega pastors and craft a very nice top-down evangelism plan for us all…complete with statistics, charts, findings, values, and action plans.
The Proportional Composition of a Representative Ten Person Southern Baptist Convention Leadership Group:
1. GENDER
Five Men
Five Women
2. ETHNICITY
Two Ethnic Minorities
Eight Caucasians
3. CHURCH SIZE
Four Megachurch Members (1000+)
Two Larger Size Church Members (500-1000)
Two Average Size Church Members (300-500)
Two Smaller Size Church Members (0-300)
4. THEOLOGICAL WING
Two Calvinists or Amyraldists
Eight Traditionalists or Arminians
5. CLERGY-LAITY STATUS
Six Ministers
Four Laypersons
6. AGE
Two 30-40
Two 40-50
Two 50-60
Two 60-70
Two 70+
Many people say this cannot be done. I believe it can. If we are going to seek balance on our leadership teams, it makes sense to me that we do so in an intentional manner by addressing all relevant factors in SBC life. (Obviously, eye color, weight and favorite sports team are not factors worthy of consideration.)
You trivialize the matter. Why not provide a defense of the composition?
He has allowed the calvinism issue to define what being a Southern Baptist is and is not
C’mon, Rick.
Please, just once, deal with the issue, instead of trying to troll it toward your anti-Calvinist crusade. You really need to get over your obsession.
Please?
I agree
Why only four laypersons, Rick?
William,
How am I trivializing anything? I am not being facetious here. If you are reading my remarks as satire or sarcasm, they are not. You ask, “Why not defend the composition of the committee?” But why is that my responsibility? I may have nothing but the deepest respect for Dr. Gaines, who nominated this committee, and for Dr. Patterson, who will chair the committee, but I nevertheless have the personal conviction that our leadership groups in SBC life should look like our convention, and this one does not. That is why I shared my ideal composition, *even though* no committee in SBC life that I know anything about is remotely close to this ideal. I am joining the original post in arguing *against* the current composition of the committee. Please don’t ask me to defend something that I cannot and do not defend.
Glenn and Dave,
Once again Dave asks me to get over my obsession. But *Theological Wing* is only one factor out of six that I have listed—roughly 17% of my proportional representation model. If this is my obsession, I am only 17% obsessed. The convention is taking the views, loyalty, and money of Traditionalists completely for granted. I am trying to address some concerns. The SBC is divided in many ways, but the primary issue of our time is the New Calvinist Takeover. Frankly, this factor deserves to be one of the six issues considered, in the same way that inerrancy deserved to be an issue in the eighties and nineties.
Lynn,
You raise a very intelligent point. This factor is admittedly different from the others. I am certainly willing to modify my proposal. Here’s the problem. If we truly *proportionalized* for the clergy – laity factor, representing ministers on our committees only to the extent that they are proportionally present among Southern Baptists as a whole, then we *might* have *one* clergyman for every *nineteen* laypersons. No denomination really functions like that. Even 50-50 is hard to accomplish. I suppose I could be talked into reversing the proposal, and aiming for 6 laypersons for every 4 ministers. We could even go so far as 7 and 3. Because we are a denomination, it just seems like we are going to want a large number of clergymen serving on leadership groups, in spite of the fact that their technical proportion in our churches is actually quite a bit lower. In the Evangelism Task Force mentioned in the OP, we *may* be 100% ordained clergy. If not, we’re pretty close. Four out of ten beats zero out of ten. Baby steps.
Rick,
Out of curiosity where do you get your 80/20 split (or as I have seen you indicate at other times 85/15)? Is this a survey of pastors or laypeople?
Also, for someone who has a great deal of people on their site railing against Calvinists because they believe they deny the Priesthood of Believers, you sure do advocate a lot for a clergy based committee system. Further, why not have other factors like Dispensational vs. Premill vs. Amill; Comp vs. Egal; etc?
I get that you feel that Traditionalists are presently underrepresented in leadership positions, but isn’t that just a temporary sample? As time changes, so does representation. Would you say that representation has been historically skewed? Would you say that the current heads are unqualified and thus need to be deposed? Advocate for godly men to lead, but you tend to create a false test to determine whether they are qualified to do so and that qualification is “agree with me.”
People call it an Anti-Calvinist Crusade because everything tends to head toward opposition to Calvinism, how Calvinists are performing some hostile takeover, etc. Further, when you propose a “solution” to representation it does put the burden on you to defend your proposal, wouldn’t you say? Try and see it from those who read what you type and want to understand.
Grace and peace,
Chad Dougless
Doug,
To satisfy your curiosity…
1. The 80/20 split over race is from the statistic cited in the original post. I believe NAMB is the source. The 80/20 split over Extensivism – Calvinism in the SBC (Extensivism is Ronnie Rogers’ term for *all* positions other than Calvinism—Arminianism, Traditionalism, etc.) is from two separate LifeWay polls—one about five years ago and one about ten years ago. Perhaps it is time to do another. The Pastor part of the poll was clearly more Calvinistic, especially younger Pastors. The laity of our convention are not nearly as Calvinistic. Some put the figure at 10%. By going with 20% I feel like I am being pretty generous. I am open to the idea that one out of five Southern Baptists *may* be a Calvinist. Does anyone really think two out of five would be more accurate? The 85/15 split simply did not work for my hypothetical committee of ten. (Unlike Calvin, I don’t believe in cutting people in half just because they disagree with me about God.)
2. See my comments to Lynn regarding the Clergy based leadership emphasis. The Task Force may have ZERO laypersons. It is *hard* to get laypeople on many of our SBC Committees. If we followed the *true* proportion, there would be *one* ordained person, if that, on a committee of ten. Again, I don’t know of a denomination that functions like that. This particular category is just always going to be disproportional, I think. (But we can do better.)
3. Regarding theology, some matters are simply not a big deal. How many angels fit on the head of a pin? Five? Ten? Forty thousand? No one knows. No one cares. It is not splitting the SBC in two. Eschatology is not creating tension. The roles of men and women are not creating tension. Even cessationism and continuationism is not really driving a wedge in the SBC right now. The same thing simply cannot be said about Calvinism in the SBC.
4. Yes, the “temporary sample” to which you refer has only been happening for the past, say, fifteen years or so. Historically, the minority Calvinist view has *not* dictated the vision and direction of the convention, at least not during the past 100 years. So, yes, the problem of disproprortional representation is a relatively new one.
5. The Presidents are neither *unqualified* nor in need of *deposing.* Rather, they are, when taken as a whole, in need of greater balance going forward. For example, if the next seven entity Presidents chosen were Traditionalists or Arminians with ties to other seminaries and leadership trees, this would not be a bad thing at all. It would restore soteriological balance and bring back the disenfranchised Traditionalists. They would once again feel at home in the SBC.
6. It’s easy for you to say that you would not care if none of the leaders agree with you when you have Mohler, Akin, Platt, Moore, Allen and Ezell in charge, not to mention Rainer. Hey, they don’t *all* have to “agree with me” as you say, but it would really help if at least *some* did. You know, what’s wrong with shared leadership? A few Traditionalist books published? Why did we have to go to Wipf and Stock to get “Anyone Can Be Saved” published? Are our authors not good enough for our own denominational publishing house? Listen, we are being marginalized. No, we don’t want to push you out, but we don’t want to be pushed out ourselves. And this has been happening. I simply want it to stop.
7. I did not say it was a “hostile” takeover. I said it was a takeover. It was not hostile. It’s called “A Quiet Revolution” and Ernest Reisinger wrote about it years ago. We have former Calvinists on our side now who were in the room when all of this started. Their testimony is that, yes, Calvinists have been trying to Calvinize the SBC from the very beginning. Consider the recent book that was mailed to all Pastors in the Georgia Baptist Convention. This has been happening for years. We need to address it and find ways to share our resources and our leadership through an approach that no longer marginalizes one side and favors another.
How would you address the situation of the book mailing?
In one sense Dwight McKissick and Rick are doing the same thing, advocating for parity in SBC jobs and appointments, out of differing motives and histories of course. Maybe both have some indirect impact on trustees who hire leaders and elected and individuals and committees who nominate trustees and other positions.
One thing is dead certain, there will be no motion passed for parity, perhaps a resolution. When the next entity CEO slot comes open trustee boards, mostly traditionalists, will make these decisions. How has it happened that mostly Trad trustees have picked Cal CEOs. Maybe they thought they were the best candidates.
The Trad advocacy crowd is doing the best they can, making noise. Maybe it helps. Maybe it hurts.
I’d be glad to give Traditionalists a proportional representation on all boards, agencies and task forces. There are 15 or 16 million SBs, right?
Around a thousand have signed your document.
I think you should have full proportional representation.
Dave
Good point:
“I think you should have full proportional representation.”
1000/15000000 =1/15000
Which is 1 committee or board member for every 15000 board and committee positions.
Yeah for equal proportionalism!
Rick –
So you want equal representation of some, not all and you get to define who fits the some. It seems that lay persons are either not allowed… not qualified… to great a number which in turn means more Trads get pushed out of the “Rick Equation”. Interesting.
Your colors are showing.
Yep.
The “trad” statement signatory list is an objective standard by which to assign proportional representation….so let’s use it.
Ricks 80/20 is simply his subjective conjecture — so it’s out.
Let us once and for all put this issue to bed and accept Ricks quota demand!
1 “trad” committee/board member per 15,000 SBC committee/board positions!
— Although, in” fairness” (Rick calls that you know) since there are some of the 1100 or so signatories of the Trad statement are not Southern Baptists so I’m assuming they would be discounted from the total number before assigning representation. So it representation might need to be amended.
It also might be fair to consider that the majority of the signatories or from a handful of churches and localities… Therefore, again for fairness, We want to make sure that certain churches and certain regions don’t gain over representation in positions within the convention.
😉
Maybe this “trad” quota thing ain’t so bad after all.
Of course since Gaines is President – that fulfills the 1/15,000 quota… So all other traditionalist who are serving on committees/boards should resign in a show of good faith… As we embrace this new quota.
Or in lieu of that Dr. Gaines could resign – and one of the other traditionalist who is currently serving someplace can remain and all of the others would need to resign.
Of course I am playing around… But hopefully this humorous use of absurdity will continue to demonstrate the unworkable absurdity of Rick’s “proportional representation quota”.
Rick,
I assume the comment directed to Doug is in fact directed to me. Very common to transpose my last name for my first for some reason. It may happen to you as well since your last name can also be a first name.
In reference to 1, I was referring to your Calvinist – Extensivist stat. Honestly, if it is the poll I found based on your information I am not sure that there is much clarity to be had with it. 30% said their church was Reformed or Calvinist (Strongly and somewhat agree), 30% said their church was Wesleyan or Arminian (Strongly and somewhat agree), which leaves 40% that agree with neither. My concern with varying degrees of agreement is that it is tough to ascertain exactly what constitutes somewhat agreement or somewhat disagreement. (Also, did Calvin actually cut people in half?)
In reference to 2, just because something is hard does not indicate that we should not pursue it. My point is that if you are going to argue for statistical representation then you should do so consistently and not just when it suits your purposes. I would also say a more thorough statistical examination of the SBC bears a great deal of merit. Often times it appears people are arguing for things based on anecdotes and near information rather than any actual survey data. I see no reason why the SBC could not accomplish this in a more thorough going fashion.
In reference to 3, I do believe that differing views on those specific theological points will result in different outlooks on different issues. That is primarily the main point with Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist perspectives. The perception that arises about the different views of salvation can/will color the discussion in regards to certain topics. Right now Calvinism is an issue and the poll you referenced does certainly indicate it to be so, and one that needs to be discussed profitably. I think it would of some value for the SBC to be able to tap a few people to write up a brief, irenic treatment of the varying positions in the debate to make available to congregants. Brief and irenic would be the strong words here. Do you think that is reasonable and helpful to the discussion at hand? I believe you can determine some specific places where those different points of “open hand” theologies can determine quite different trajectories on various ideas and that the impact could be greatly significant to the mission of the SBC.
In reference to 4, my point is that is if it temporary and the appointments have been done in line with the established procedures, then continue to push through those same procedures for redress. Things tend to swing toward the equilibrium position over time.
In reference to 5, is the problem the trees necessarily? My general issue with most appointments (trustees, committee members, etc.) is that for the most part it is going to be a political ballgame. Who has the capital to do what they want to do and who does not. The appointees were surely qualified to do the job as you say and are not in need of being removed. If they are doing something that is harmful to the mission of the SBC, that is what needs to be addressed. They are there to represent the SBC and not specifically their own agendas and/or theological bents. More should be said here, but I don’t have space or time at the present.
In regards to 6, I think you are assuming a greater deal of agreement between me and the people you mentioned than exists. Or that I even know a great deal about each of the various entity heads mentioned here to even know where I agree and disagree with each of them. I also don’t know anything about the publishing practices of Lifeway and why the book you referenced was not able to be published through them, but Dr. Allen’s (probably not the same Allen you referenced above) book was published by B&H (which a lot are published through), while Platt (I don’t know if he has a doctorate) and Dr. Mohler have books published through Multnomah. Why were all of those not published through Lifeway? I have no idea, inquire to Lifeway about their publishing practices and guidelines. Is there actual evidence that only one side is having books published?
In reference to 7, I want to say this carefully. You may not use the words hostile takeover, but that does not mean that you do not convey that mentality in relation to a lot of your posts. I know you want to be referenced accurately and carefully, but you need to understand the perception that you give with the majority of your posts and some of the discussions that go on at your site (which you are not typing, but do allow to happen). These overall paint a picture of a certain attitude, and no matter how many people state that this is the perception of the events that transpire you say no. If a large number of people are trying to tell you that the perception they get is a certain way, it may be best to see what it is that makes them think so and not just deny that the perception is accurate. Finally, as has been stated elsewhere, the book was sent by people outside the SBC.
I appreciate your desire to passionately and enthusiastically champion your sotierological views and I would not deny that you should do so. Just be cautious where it seems like the views that get espoused head more into the realm of “I’m right” and the rest of y’all are heretics (read some of the comments on your site and you will see this go there). If you would like to dialogue more about this, or discuss how to further implore better statistical understandings within the SBC we can do so. You have my email address from your site.
Grace and peace,
Chad Dougless
I believe more females and more non Anglos being appointed/elected would be healthy for Southern Baptists. It would show that we are in touch with reality. We have plenty of gifted and equipped ladies and minorities in the body of Christ. This kind of change will be good and show discerning sensitivities to those who feel uncared for. To God be the glory.
Agree man
Including minorities and laypeople and small church pastors is NOT some kind of PC thing. It is a recognition that the megachurch culture is not going to appeal to everyone, nor is that the solution for everyone.
We respect the megas and appreciate them, but the solution to our problems is NOT to all become clones of Johnny Hunt, Ronnie Floyd, et al. God has gifted them in ways he hasn’t gifted us.
If we want to solve the SBC’s problems then it might help to hear from some people who are in the churches that represent over 95% of churches (400 or less on Sunday AM) and find some that are working the fields and finding a harvest.
It is a problem in the SBC that we think that the only people with something to offer are megas and professors.
//It is a problem in the SBC that we think that the only people with something to offer are megas and professors.//
Dave Miller, that would make a great quote to get some feedback on. But I will leave that to others…
The very fact that we did not think about deliberately creating a more inclusive task force is a recognition of the nearsightedness of the SBC that is not serving us well. Every person appointed is a great person with much to offer. But there are others less known and more diverse in age, church size and ethnicity equally qualified…but because they are not known to the movers and shakers they are overlooked. The SBC movers and shakers need to lead the way in appreciating diverse views from diverse individuals. Resolutions are meaningless if we continue to think the same way and do the same thing.
I’m having trouble knowing what to make of you, Mr. Calkins!
Who is “Voices for a New Baptist Future”?
As I recall, the committee does not include any Vocational Evangelists.
An Evangelist would also be a good inclusion to this Evangelism Taskforce.
But, every committee does not have to be perfectly diverse.
David R. Brumbelow
You can see the original list here: https://sbcvoices.com/voices-for-a-new-baptist-future-a-group-proposal/
David, you’re right that every committee doesn’t have to be perfectly diverse. Two caveats: (1) the more prominent the committee, the more important it is that diversity be considered and (2) the fact that committees are consistently under-diverse and rarely (never?) over-diverse illustrates that we aren’t a in place where we can ignore this and act like “well, some will be more than others and it will all even out in the end…”
David, no one here (except for Rick in his obsessive anti-Calvinism) is arguing for any kind of quota or obsessive balance.
But when the SBC forms a task force and there is not a single pastor from a church of less than 2000, when those churches make up 99% of our convention, when we almost completely ignore minorities, it shows the same kind of insensitivity to key issues that got us into trouble with the McKissic resolution.
Either we intend to include minorities or we don’t.
David B,
“But, every committee does not have to be perfectly diverse.”
Why not? It’s that kind of thinking that leaves many in our convention marginalized.
Dwight,
I think it is unrealistic to expect every committee to be perfectly diverse because it trivializes the reasons for the committee to exist. You make the qualifying factor to serve on a committee race rather than relevant experience. I believe we need to have more diversity to more accurately represent views held within the SBC, but it will never truly be perfect. For instance, we would probably need to have most committees be 50-60% women and that may not be feasible due to relevant experience requirements. Race is not the only factor necessary to have diversity.
Grace and peace,
Chad Dougless
Where does the diversity end?
With equal representation by race? By church size? By gender? By CP giving?
The variables are so great and though not always in the discussion when leadership roles are selected and filled, small church pastors are not among the list when looking at the percentage makeup within the convention.
We do seem to have many who move from one trustee board to another when their time is up for one. This, IMPO, needs to end immediately. I know some pastors who seem to pastor so they can keep doing the trustee thing. It is as if, being on the trustee cycle is a higher importance than shepherding the flock they serve. This is my observation and I reserve the right to be wrong.
This is going to sound like I am trolling and I certainly take the Gospel more seriously than to troll about it but where are all of these evangelists and soul winners everyone keeps talking about?
They never approach me.
I can definitely recall one in the mid 80s who was from North Carolina. There may have been others but they are as scarce as hens teeth.
There are those who feel marginalized and aren’t,
And those who feel marginalized and are.
But since we are family we are to care for not only how each other feels but also how each other are being treated.
Therefore if we go beyond relieving and including those we have been excluding we would serve both of the above groups. And since we are family, when we serve family we serve ourselves.
Now my white brothers, my fair skinned brothers, my Caucasian brothers, if you are color blind, and I believe you are, then you don’t care what color the skin pigment is of those who serve on our committees and boards. What you desire is God loving, SBC promoting competent men and women to faithfully serve our needs as a convention.
And you also care that the world sees the Gospel truth. Oh yes, I know you care deeply about that. And what the world, especially the USA needs right now, is to see that in the Gospel, which is Jesus the Lord of all, there is love that overcomes worldly barriers like skin color, gender bias, power adoration, and the like. And when the world sees that we are His disciples because of our love for one another, do you know what else they see? They see that He IS. And that He that IS is more powerful than our human petty differences. Thus we glorify the Lord and magnify Him when we ACT counter cultural in love.
So this is a Gospel issue.
We need a mixed task force to find and recognize non-male-white people who are both competent to serve on boards and committees and then to implement appointing these brothers and sisters, even if it means asking current faithful members to step down and make way. In being deliberate like this we send a message that the Gospel is not about separation between different groups or types of groups BUT about inclusion of every person who bows the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ.
And the lost people in the world, who are looking to be a part of something bigger than they are, will be drawn to the Church and to our Lord. So is the power of Love.
Your reasoning is very lovingly accurate Brother
I guess that if you could include someone because of skin color you might have to exclude someone because of theirs.
Rick may have meant his statistical analysis as a joke, but seeing those numbers was helpful to me.
I appreciate the idea behind this, but I don’t really follow this stuff.
Evangelicalism is entrepreneurial.
If one is not on a task force or Committee, create one.
I remember Wiley Drake talking to Adrian Rogers about this. Wiley felt like he wasn’t included in anything. Adrian told him that the convention was his, too, and he should act like it.
I know that won’t solve or address all of the issues here, but it does seem to me to be part of the problem.
The SBC is not a top down thing. It’s bottom up.
If I felt left out, the first thing I would do would be to grab some friends and host my own auxiliary luncheon or meeting. I wouldn’t be waiting around for an invitation.
Let me add, however, that notwithstanding my thoughts about the SBC generally, I am in full favor of inclusion, and efforts to be inclusive.
“The SBC is not a top down thing. It’s bottom up.”
That is the goal, but I’m not sure, Louis, that it is a reality.
Dave,
We agree on this point. Universe, you win!
….and I think what you think is right.
Louis,
Although some people took it that way, I did not mean my statistical analysis as a joke. It is astonishingly accurate, except for the Clergy-Laity Factor pointed out by Lynn. I confess that I don’t quite know how to handle that specific factor, for if we came close to the true proportional reality, we would have *mostly* laypersons on all our leadership boards, and very, very few clergymen. Again, I don’t know of a single denomination that operates like that. Perhaps the Clergy-Laity mix could simply represent the balance of SBC Annual Meeting Messengers. Thank you for taking the time to interact with my ideas, and to do so without disparaging me.
Oh, we know you are not joking about your lust for an SBC civil war….most of us wish you were though.
The fact that you compared (after having made it clear you were not joking) the validity of the “war” you and your anti cal team are waging against brothers and sisters who hold to a completely orthodox theology – one that is well is in line with the current confessional statement as well as the confessional history of Southern Baptists – with the inerrancy battles is both sickening and sad….I mean really.
Those who rejected inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture rejected a fundamental doctrine and beliefs of Southern Baptists….the notion that you would compare “new Calvinists” (still not seen a decent and factual definition of that pejorative from your side) to that group of persons is quite telling. For all of your constant pontifications that you are not seeking to bring about an exit of Calvinists from the convention…comments like you just made defy your denials and show your true colors….what happened to the ones who were on the losing side of “inerrancy” battle….
That’s right, the left the SBC – essentially they were forced out….so for you to compare Cals to those liberals in an effort to justify your war obsession….like I said – shows your true colors.
Honestly, since you view cals in the same light as liberals who deny scripture – why the world would you even want 2 of them on any committee at all??? If I viewed “trads” as you view cals (as false prophets/teachers/heretics) – I’d want you gone….
I mean based on what y’all believe and say about cals ….I do not blame you for wanting them out of the convention….but you should just be honest about it….stop playing both sides…You want a Cal-Less convention (or at least Cal-Less leadership)… admit it.
Hello Tarheel,
1. I do not want a civil war. I want to negotiate a fair and balanced civil peace.
2. The comparison between the Inerrancy Debate and the Soteriology Debate, for me, ends at the place where we say that both of them “were divisive issues in the SBC over which people disagreed and deserved careful consideration to resolve the conflict.”
3. I do *not* believe that the Soteriology Conflict needs to end in a denominational split, like the Inerrancy Conflict did. They are decidedly different kinds of issues. However, this does not mean that we have no concerns to sort out and work through, by means of a Southern Baptist Peace Committee of some sort that will actually “iron out the nuts and bolts of our cooperation strategy” rather than just tell everyone, “Shut up and be nice,” which was essentially the result of Frank Page’s Task Force.
4. The term “New Calvinist” is credited to Collin Hansen. It was not a term coined from “our side” as you put it.
5. Let me reiterate: “I do *not* seek the removal of all Calvinists from Southern Baptist life. I *do* seek an answer to the Calvinist Takeover from the people of the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe that answer should be, “Feel free to teach and preach your Calvinism in your church all you want, but as far as trying to Calvinize the institutions, church plants, missionaries and literature of the endeavors we are working on together, we respectfully say, “No thank you. We do not wish to be Calvinized. That is not at all the same *end game* as we saw with the Liberals in the Inerrancy Conflict.
6. “Why would you want 2 Cals at all? If I viewed Cals the way you do….” I want them precisely because I do not view Cals like you say I view them. One can openly embrace the existence of Calvinists in the SBC without wanting them to “run the whole show” with ideas and strategies that I believe are not improving the SBC at all. Think of it like Democrats. I want them in the United States. I just don’t want their political philosophy to guide our nation.
7. You are actually getting very close at the end. No, I do not want a Cal-Less Convention. And no, I do not want a Cal-Less Leadership. I want a 20% Calvinist Leadership. Calvinists can lead, but they should not dominate. The minority should not dictate to the majority. It’s not congregational polity. It’s not democracy. It’s not fair. And it’s not right.
ok Rick. .
Tarheel
Maybe war is planned if things don’t go their way. As long as the Convention cedes to their requests, there is no need for war.
And to be fair, requests that they believe are reasonable and proper as well as fair
I still quite understand the negotiation aspect of this. Who is going to negotiate? Who gets to represent each side? Does C316 purport to represent all non-Calvinist SBCers? Who elected them?
I also don’t quite get how the present leadership makeup came about in an anti-congregational and anti-democratic manner. Did they force their way into their positions? Did they mis-represent themselves in some way? It seems to me that everyone who is an entity head got there through the normal and approved processes. Did I miss something?
Of course!
I appreciate your contributions to the discussions.
Exactly bill…there has been no takeover….there has been no improper action by trustee boards or by those individuals they’ve elevated to leadership positions. It’s all happened, to the extent it has (and I’m not buying that it has), according to the rules.
It’s fallacious to assume that all non cals are “traditionalists” (as defined by Patrick and Hankins) but that’s exactly what they do.
It’s certainly fallacious to assume that all non cals desire the same quota based exclusion of Cals from the convention as they do.
Rick,
If Calvinists were in only 2 % of the SBC leadership, would you be championing for their representation to increase to your 20% number? Would you join their call for equal representation or would you simply say… “Shut up and be nice”?
I think I know.
Jon,
I would *favor* 20% Cal leadership in the SBC if they only had 2%. That’s exactly what I wrote and exactly what I believe. SBC leadership should *look like* the SBC. That’s the principle behind all of this.
Now, would I go to the effort to “champion” such a cause, as you have said? Probably not. I don’t see a lot of Feminists “championing” Second Amendment rights. I don’t see a lot of racial minorities “championing” reverse discrimination. See what I mean? I think the Calvinists, if they were under-represented in that way, would themselves push for more representation.
But I would not stand in the way of that. I would favor that. I would vote for that. That is *exactly* what I proposed by means of my ideal proportional representation model.
So I am on record. You don’t have to *wonder* how I would feel about that. Because I have already told you in the plainest language of which I am capable.
Yeah right.
Rick…
Your answer is what I expected. Basically, the fight only has a value to you when you see yourself on the outside. It’s not really about fighting for fairness in the SBC.
Thanks for the clarity.
A task-force is named to study and make recommendations to help Southern Baptist reach the lost and before the task-force has its first meeting the makeup of the task-force is dissected, reported on, and criticized.
This gives me a check in my spirit.
The OP was respectful and made quite reasonable points. In the past presidents have appointed these blue ribbon task forces, listened to feedback, and added people but I don’t know if this is possible on this one.
The SBC is long past the time when leaders could whistle past evaluation and criticism. The messengers voted to allow Gaines to appoint the group but didn’t know the makeup until he announced.
The best course would be to add people and explain why the mega/seminary dominated composition.
William, I agree the OP is respectful and reasonable. I would expect nothing less from VFNSBF.
I’m struggling with the idea that increasing baptisms alone should not be the goal when naming this task-force but certain optics have to be considered.
Here’s the thing, Dean.
The goal of this, as I understand it, is not just to “up the numbers” but to figure out what is wrong with the SBC, why Baptisms are sagging and dragging, and fix it.
Right?
If you are going to figure that out then it is wise to have a representative sampling of TYPES of churches, because fixing statistical problems at a mega and at my church in Iowa are likely two different animals. And reaching minorities may necessitate a different approach.
If we have a monolithic task force, our fear is that there will not be adequate understanding or even (from what this task force appointment process might indicate) and EFFORT to understand the unique problems faced in different demographics.
So, diversity is not some PC thing here. I think if the task force is designed to fix the SBC, a representative Task Force, not a megachurch-laden one, has a better chance of doing that.
On the other hand (and this may shock you) I have been wrong before. Bryant Wright was one of my favorite SBC presidents and I voted for someone else in both the original election and the runoff. I was pulling hard for JD last year, but as was said in this piece (not written by me, but one we all affirmed) Steve Gaines did a good job throughout the convention. We have no ax to grind with him. So, maybe this task force will knock us off our socks.
But I think choosing a nearly all-white, largely all-mega (as far as pastors go) is not a good strategy.
One more thing – as the resolutions fiasco taught us this year, optics cannot be ignored.
Dave, I’m not surprised you have been wrong. One of my life’s greatest joys is pointing out when you are wrong. ?
To me, the letter seems to focus on diversity for the optics more than increasing baptisms. (That is the check on my spirit.)
Would adding one more minority, one woman, and two bivocational pastors produce different recommendations? I’m not convinced but I embrace minorities, I have been bivo, and my wife and mother are/were women so I offer no resistance to the notion.
By the way, most seminarians I know attend smaller churches so there could be small church representation.
Dean, thanks for the feedback. This isn’t about diversity just for the sake of diversity but diversity for the sake of having other voices at the table who bring varying perspectives that will only benefit the final report. I am hopeful that we’ll get good recommendations either way, but I do think the report can only be helped by additional perspectives.
Bottom line…our leaders forgot…to forget the marginalized further marginalizes them…and may actually reflect some passive racism in our SBC leadership.
“May actually reflect some passive racism…”
This statement right there is a majority of the problem in making inroads for this issue. And what exactly is “passive racism” anyway?
I suspect that the real issue for marginalized groups is the fact that leadership knows of no one from those groups. For the Mega-Church Pastor who rose to the top, he has left the small church crowd far behind. In fact he may believe (as Andy Stanley has suggested in comments that he has walked back after getting criticism) that the small church is ill equipped to met the needs of children and youth today, and thus may be inconsequential to the needs of evangelism.
Dave Miller, do you remember the open letter I penned on IMPACT to Johnny Hunt concerning the GCR Committee? I don’t know if I told you, but I got a letter in return. He had to scold me for writing out a letter in a public forum first of all. And then he told me that him and his colleagues had all been a part of the small church at one time in their life, and as such they would represent the needs of the small church.
I don’t suspect a passive racism, or a latent racism. What I suspect is more of “we have always done it this way and it works best for us.” The quickest way to end a conversation and have the barriers turn from hedge rows to concrete bunkers is to accuse people of racism these days. Is there not a better way?
Rob
By passive racism I mean not thinking about how some action or inaction on our part might actually marginalize someone who does not deserve to be marginalized UNTIL it is brought to our attention. But then it is really too late to ‘do the right thing’. All you can do is damage control. It is kind of like making a decision that affects your wife as much as it does you (like buying a new car or what cruise to sign up for) without asking for her input. There is no way to ‘make it right’. But you can at least not make it worse by admitting your mistake and then taking whatever corrective action you can. Sadly, our leaders have not even admitted a mistake has been made at this point. That is not helpful at all!
Dean,
It seems you are thinking of direct results of board and committees decisions.
But what if it is the perception of the lost that we as a people are not hindered by the earthly strife that is involved in race and gender and power/money and are on us there love of Christ that overcomes human obstacles that stagnant must of our American culture?
Of course that is an indirect benefit that could bring us more baptisms and never could be directly proven.
But then your goal is not really dependent on what we do. It is dependent on what God does and for some also dependent on what unsaved people do.
A better more realistic goal would be to seek to be obedient to the Lord in all we do and leave the results up to Him.
Anyone know ifBellevue actually built their prayer chapel? I know he was all over that when he went there
Was just curious
Thanks