I usually stay out of denominational functions that are not IMB-centric. Blame isolation, not apathy; with 8,900 miles between my home church and my actual home, involvement opportunities in SBC life rarely float by. However, the SBC election has piqued* my interest simply because I’ve seen what a strong leader can accomplish in the SBC. Whether you’re a Plattite or not, the IMB’s president has taken some amazing steps that I never believed possible.
*Dear Internet users: this is the proper spelling. Take note.
I realize Kevin Ezell and Thom Rainer deserve heavy mitting for their respective roles in leading SBC entities, but I never knew NAMB and Lifeway before their tenure and as such cannot use them to inspire myself into having an opinion. I’ve known the IMB, though; Captain Radical has sparked some thinking and as usual, dear readers, you’ll need to tolerate the resulting diatribe.
We need a future-thinking visionary.
The CP’s best days remain firmly in the rearview mirror, and a new SBC president must look to newer forms of support. Monolithic theological positions belong to yesteryear as well; insisting that the SBC has always been Calvinist or Arminian wastes time. Joining anything (church, club, association), as a cultural concept, has less meaning than ever, and we need someone to help guide us into a new understanding of church membership.
The SBC president’s office lacks the control bestowed on an entity head; therefore, vetting our candidates based on who can enforce change is doomed as a method of nomination. However, a visionary leader focused on how the SBC should look someday best suits the needs we have. Let us not elect a president whose expertise lies in knowledge of the past nor management of the present.
We need someone invested in change.
Abandon hope all ye who enter here: change exists. In the United States, change happens faster with each subsequent generation. I would venture to suggest that changes come along in the US faster than anywhere else in the world. With more (legal) immigrants bringing newer ideas, more intermarriage resulting in cultural blending, more technology, more innovation…all of this results in change.
We need an SBC leader who understands this and embraces it as a part of life in the SBC. Instead of asking, “What will we have to change?” the next SBC president needs to say, “How can we embrace change? How do we harness change to spread the Gospel among the nations?”
We need someone with political will.
Someone said, “Change is ultimately a political process.” If facts and spreadsheets sufficed, churches and organizations would smoothly shift and remold themselves based on objective conclusions; we know that is not the case. As the SBC enters increasingly uncertain terrain and faces inevitable change, our new president will need to evaluate matters and pursue what is necessary to keep the SBC strong. He’ll need networks to support him as he works through the issues. Most of all, he will need to respond to critics who oppose change for emotional reasons, but without straying from the proper path.
We need a questioner.
I love asking questions. I inadvertently put people under a microscope as I look for new questions with cool answers. Understanding how things work and why they work or fail drives me. As I’ve observed Team Platt re-create and craft the organization, I’m struck by the fact that they are only people I know who ask more questions than I.
An SBC president needs to ask, ask, and ask again. Regardless of background, no candidate for the top spot knows enough about the SBC, America’s cultural shift, state conventions, and the various entities to know where we need to go in 2017 and beyond. The uncomfortable questions (“Why you and not him?”) and the unpleasant queries (“Who messed this up?”) are as important as asking about success stories and new ideas.
We need someone for two years.
(Note: I’m enough of an idiot that I somehow overlooked the fact that the SBC president already serves two years. Many thanks to Bart Barber for graciously pointing out my mistake. I’ll leave this here, though, so you can bask in my ignorance.)
I know this is not how it is done, but I can’t help it. Willfully shifting leaders annually makes us weaker at times. We lack the continuity necessary to guide the SBC onto new tracks within our culture. Let’s elect someone who stands a chance of serving consecutive terms in order to lead us better through some of the uncertainty.
A common thread weaves through my thoughts: change. Change does not mean anything is broken or ungodly. Change simply says “Growth. New. Different.” I’m not calling for change in the SBC because we have deviated from the Bible. I’m simply pointing out that change is, and we need an SBC president who leverages change and its attendant circumstances for the glory of God.
We already have our presidents for two years. So that actually IS (and has been for twice the length of your lifetime or more) “how it is done.” Your opinion of how we conduct our presidential elections might change if you were better acquainted with it.
I can’t help but think similarly of your dismissal of the Cooperative Program.
It is two years? Good grief, how did I over look that? Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
And if I communicated that I have a negative opinion of the elections process, please understand that was not my point. I am quite aware of the limitations of my knowledge, even more so now that you’ve pointed out the two-year term. I would not knock a process without knowing more. I was only focused on what sort of president we might dream of; or rather, that I might dream of.
I don’t mean to dismiss the CP. I believe strongly in it, but I don’t think we can return to its better days. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.
Technically it’s a year term for up to two terms. But it’s rare they don’t serve both terms.
Still, I’m an idiot for not thinking it through.
The visionary stuff is all well and good. No problem with that. But the president’s role is limited in that kind of leadership. The most important way to affect long term change is to improve the committee and trustee appointments (and even the process at some points). Not at all glamorous but really important for the long term health of our entities.
“Joining anything (church, club, association), as a cultural concept, has less meaning than ever, and we need someone to help guide us into a new understanding of church membership.”
I happen to experience this on a regular basis and I would add to this, “Joining anything, (committee, action group, denomination), as a spiritual concept, has less meaning than ever, and we need lots of someones who know how to abide the fluctuating understanding of denominational membership and organization.”
How might we maintain SBC biblical distinctiveness without making such beauty the object of ultimate attention? The best of our biblical calling teaches us how and our new leaders must be able to weather the variance.
We have fewer and fewer children who are less and less interested in maintaining mom and dads old homestead we have known and cherished. It seems that many within and without our extended family want a new style dwelling or none at all. Hence the Nones?
Those within our next generation, so interested, want to redefine “convention” and “spirituality”, and it appears that they may well do so, in spite of our best efforts at sustaining our rendition. If nothing else, by their vote of absence.
CP ‘in the rear view mirror?’ I sincerely pray NOT. While it it true that some people have decided to and are ‘designating’ their gifts, CP remains the best & strongest financial vehicle to touch the most people in the most places. (By the way, I have known people to designate their tithe, Hmmm)
As far as the leaders, change, political will, and questioner goes, I have watched this convention for many, many years and the leaders that I have both seen and known have always fit this criteria.
Your article, while maybe helping us to keep our eyes on the future, calls us to change. I offer a counter opinion for you; go back to 1978 in our history and walk forward. The changes brought about by visionary leaders have been many and often. Did they get every decision correct? Probably not, but they were also very good men who had a deep love for our Lord and His word. They also made the best decisions that could be made with the information at hand & circumstances they face.
For me it says something that these men served with integrity, distinction, and sought the anointing of the Holy Spirit to serve Him – – – and you don’t know their name. It says that they were not interested in making a name for themselves, but a name for HIM.
Thanks for your thought-provoking article.
The Cooperative Program is not in the rearview mirror, but its best days are. I wish that were not so, but honesty requires us to admit it.
I’d also say that as someone for whom David Platt was not my preferred choice, I’ve tried not to fall into the trap of automatically disliking everything that he has done. He deserves a chance to lead the IMB and some patience from observers as we wait to see how things unfold. I’d be hard-pressed to identify anything from the past eighteen months that make me go, “Man! Things are really going GREAT at the IMB these days!”
But eighteen months is not long enough to know. Wise people will reserve judgment until enough time has passed to see some results clearly attributable to Platt’s administrative decisions.
Might I cautiously suggest that just as it is too early to declare Platt’s administration a failure, it is also too early to hold up his style as the pattern upon which all of the future must be based? Automatically disliking everything that he does is bad; automatically liking everything that he does is probably no better. Worship, not hero worship, will show us the way.
Hear, hear. I agree heartily with your thoughts.
I am enjoying his approach to things. There seems to be a plan for increased accountability, streamlined processes (oh, please!), and more aggressive pursuit of partnerships/placement. Creativity is being encouraged and an atmosphere of innovative learning is a goal.
Even so, I know he’s got his detractors. Even as I feel as though there are some great lessons, I’m in a nervous spot. My future with the IMB is not secure at this point, and I don’t really think I’d be all that employable in the US. Even so, I think we’re on the right track.
I’m not sure what Platt’s “style” is but it clearly includes tackling issues that previous administrations let slide. That much is manifestly true.
I can see where one can call Moore’s attitude towards the CP “dismissive” but his description (‘best days are in the rear view mirror’) is accurate by any measure. I don’t know any SBCer who thinks we will return to the days of 10% average giving.
The CP contributes about 30% of IMB revenues. I know of no SBC leader, Platt or any other, who thinks there is much of a possibility of this figure significantly increasing.
…but I think Ethan overestimates the importance of the SBC president.
It’s wishful thinking, I admit.
William,
I agree that Platt is tackling the tough issues which is necessary, and I further agree that Ethan may be overstating the role of the SBC President. The President certainly is one of the main faces of the SBC to the world, and he can cast vision for the SBC. However, only being in the position for two years, it is hard to bring about much change in that length of time. I may be wrong, but I believe the most influential people in the SBC are the seminary presidents. They are the ones who are in charge of training the next generation of pastors, leaders, and missionaries. They are also in their position for years which allows them the opportunity to bring about change. And so in my opinion those are the appointments we must get right.
“…but I think Ethan overestimates the importance of the SBC president.”
Leadership inspires, and the right SBC president can inspire a lot.
Ok, give an example from the last 20 years.
William, do you think that if we have not had a great leader in “the last 20 years” that would invalidate the possibility? Strange logic.
I was hoping that you might have at least one such example to validate your statement.
Our system is such that great, visionary leaders as SBC prez do not inspire much of anything and haven’t since the end of the CR.
But you could persuade me out of this with some evidence.
William, I do not have the time to find the #’s but you are #’s guy so maybe you have them readily available. If my memory is not failing me, in 2004 and 2005 Bobby Welch spent a great deal of time discussing, preaching and promoting the importance of baptism. He spoke and wrote how its meaning had been lost and watered down. Baptism, baptism, baptism is what I remember Dr. Welch being passionate about. I believe we had a significant improvement in baptism #’s while Dr. Welch was president. I know you will feel very comfortable correcting me if my memory has failed me. If my memory is correct then I am certain Dr. Welch was given credit for being the impetus behind the baptism #’s increasing.
Welch started his baptism bus tour in 2004. Baptisms declined each year thereafter until bumping up a little in 2009.
I thought he did a good job and liked the emphasis on baptisms and the bus tour.
http://www.sbclife.net/mobile/SearchWrapper?ref=http://www.sbclife.net/articles/2014/09/sla3.asp
Thanks William. i knew you had the info.
William,
These are two different ideas:
• “The best days of the CP are behind it.”
• “The CP isn’t very popular right now.”
You’ve offered evidence of the latter statement as though it were evidence for the former. When I differ with the gloomy forecasts about the CP, I’m really not trying to quibble over how things will be 15 minutes from now. Rather (too much time studying history will do this to you), I’m interested in how things will be 15 decades from now, if Jesus further delays His coming.
I take the fact that many people today see no future for the CP as no more dispositive than the fact that forty years ago everyone was confident about the rosy future of the Cooperative Program. Attitudes change.
In rebutting those who declare the CP’s certain demise and in articulating a positive vision for the CP, I am both trying to predict the future and trying to shape the future. There is no inexorable force that requires the death of the CP. There is no good reason for its decline. The CP will be what we make of it. The responsibility for what the CP becomes will fall upon us.
I am confident that this fad of go-it-alone-ism will pass. Indeed, I think it is passing already. If there is any truth to that, the rumors of the CP’s death will turn out to be greatly exaggerated.
No one here predicts the CP’s demise. In 15 decades maybe we will be back to 10+% giving. Maybe someone will engineer a massive shift in attitudes. There is no evidence of this.
I’d be pleased to see you or anyone else articulate a positive vision for the CP that includes a plan beyond denominational folks just asking for more money.
What would count as “evidence” for the state of the CP in 150 years?
It’s an important question, because to assert that the best days of the CP are behind us is to assert that one knows all of the future of the CP.
Also, I don’t mind when missionaries ask to share the gospel more, seminaries ask to educate more ministry students at lower costs and with less debt to them, children’s homes ask to care for more neglected and abused children, etc. Something about those situations just doesn’t make me turn my nose up and construe them as “denominational folks just asking for more money.”
Excellent point, Bart.
Sorry, but if churches have cut their CP giving by over half and denominational folks merely ask for more on the same basis, I don’t see that as articulating much of anything that has a chance of success.
The CP is a good plan. We will have it for the foreseeable future (150 years is not foreseeable, but you picked that number). If we are to see an increase, the past 35 year history is an indicator that present configurations are not selling well. I’m wide open for you or anyone else to re-articulate a positive future for the CP.
If it is true that 70% of our SBC churches are either plateaued or in decline, would not this be the more accurate determining factor of CP viability?
Ethan, thanks for this post….thought provoking.
When the CP was organized in 1919, it simply coalesced around the idea of recognizing the mission of state conventions and mission work within a single non-competitive budget cycle. The common goal of sharing the gospel is still the focus of the SBC, and in 2016 the relevance of the CP has not lost its reason, yet it has lost its voice.
The next President of the SBC will have little influence in restoring the same voice (clearly seen by the recent activity at IHOP, where most SBCers didn’t notice, and didn’t care). A new President though, must restore the reason by forming a concise and agile voice. The budget for the work of the SBC existed before 1919, yet it was the “operational change” that effected the “voice” of that budget being heard. So it is,100 years later, that it takes a different operational method. The next President must lead around the tenants of a new “operational method” that is commiserate with the exchange of money in the 21st century.
I contend the president of the SBC holds far and away the most important position in the SBC for promoting change. He names a committee on committee who names a nominating committee that appoints our trustees. No one president can change the direction of the SBC but his appointments to boards are eligible for 2 – 5-year terms. A succession of a few presidents appointing in one direction will result in 15 years of board appointments. I have served on the president’s committee on committee once and the nominating committee twice. My experience is presidents give criteria they want followed in making appointments. Once in the room in Nashville, the two nominating committee members from each state convention can appoint someone the opposite of the president’s criteria but if other members of the nominating committee are aware of this they remind the committee of the president’s desires. I witnessed the nominating committee ask members of the nominating committee from a certain state to replace a name they brought for appointment, which they did.
The presidential election and nominating process works well. Our convention polity is designed in such a way that change has to be gradual. I feel this is a good thing. If one desires rapid change in the direction of our convention there is a real chance they will be frustrated.
Dean..spot on my friend! The Presidency of the SBC can be an astounding marker for change, or a continual drag propelling a failing system. It does take a 15-30 year window for those foundational changes to emerge. Could be quicker now, with more opportunities for communication and agility.
I wonder if you might tell us – who were the presidents who gave these “Orders”, Dean?
Dean, friend – perhaps my use of the word orders is too strong a word, certainly my placing it quotes was as you used the phrase “according to desires…” and not orders – Sorry about that…
Tarheel, I was honored to serve on the 1998 committee on nominations while Dr. Paige Patterson was still the president. Though the battle was won we still were concerned about moderates regaining ground. We were asked to be careful that everyone we nominated held to inerrancy of Scripture.
I had the double honor of serving on the 2005 nominating committee when Bobby Welch was president. He sent a letter asking that all nominees be leaders in their area in baptisms and that their church give a healthy percentage to the CP.
Nothing unseemly about a president elected from the floor of the convention asking his committee on committee members to make sure the nominating committee follows his lead on particular matters.
I certainly think a President suggesting to committees to keep in mind that they are putting forward nominees who hold views consistent with the inerrancy of scripture/BFM2000 is certainly within bounds.
I am just glad you were not saying that past Presidents were pressuring committees and insisting, bullying or what have ya… on personal friends or stacking the deck in such a way so as to appoint their own trustees…as has been contended as a potential concern in these threads relating to entity heads being president of the convention. That of course would be a would be a problem. I am glad it has not happened in the past – I have no reason the believe that it would (or even could happen now either.)
The reason I am not convinced that this could happen without it being obvious and well known because a President (who may be an entity head) Appointing a committee who then appoints a seperate committee (made up of state convention reps) to offer recommendations for trustee appointment to the messengers during open meeting at convention is not the same as appointing your own trustees.
Each layer must be approved by messengers before trustees are seated.
Like I said though, I do wish we would stop what has come more into view lately – that being last minute trustee/committee nominations being hoisted upon messengers the day of the session they are expected to vote (no matter the reason) – IMO its better for the spot to remain vacant for a year than to surprise people.
Tarheel, once the committee on committee names a nominating committee, my experience is the president’s roll in naming committee members is over. I would not be surprised if he called a member of the committee on committees or nominating committee and recommended someone for a position. However, any SB can do this. I assume this is why the members of these committees are advertised.
I am not convinced our presidents sharing a direction or burden he has necessarily has to be spelled out in the BF&M. For example, a president could give a request the committee on committees appoint more laymen, which has happened, or he could request the committee make every attempt to appoint more minorities. I have not been on the committee on committees in over a decade so I have no idea if this conversation has happen. I would be shocked if it hasn’t.
I never grow tired of watching Duke lose.
Dean,
“I never grow tired of watching Duke lose.”
Me either!!!!
Dean – we also agree on the role of SBC presidential influence / To be clear – I did not mean to imply that Prez influence should be limited to the Baptist Faith and message 2000 (Or in this case – inerrancy in the lead up to it) – I was simply affirming what you posted in your earlier post – that Paige Patterson was doing so – especially during that time – this was certainly within the lines.
PP did good work in that regard. The SBC owes him a debt of gratitude for his consistent work on that issue.
“insisting that the SBC has always been Calvinist or Arminian wastes time”
Just curious but who has insisted that the SBC has always (or ever?) been Arminian? By the way, good job on using the correct word – piqued – in your introduction!
Historically one could correctly argue there was (and is) strong Calvinistic heritage within the SBC – but certainly it’s much harder to argue the same relating to Arminianism.
Unless we are talking about Methodists and Presbyterians, let us dispense with the terms Arminian and Calvinist. In Baptist life, we have a better and more accurate term that avoids the problems associated with Arminian.
The Calvinist stream runs from the Particular Baptists in England to the Charleston Tradition in America and to the YRR Movement more recently.
The Traditionalist stream runs from the General Baptists in England to the Sandy Creek Tradition in America and to the Hobbs-Rogers Tradition more recently.
Tarheel, I’m with you on the notion that classic Arminianism is not part of our SBC heritage, but Arminianism is simply not the appropriate Baptist counterpart to Calvinism. The doctrines affirmed by Traditionalists today have always been among the two major streams in Southern Baptist life.
Right Rick. Calvinists and non Calvinists streams have always been strongly flowing in the SBC and I suspect they always will. Where Arminianism has been if anything a slight trickle.
That said….
I still don’t like your newly usurped term of traditionalism as that term seems an effort to subjugate and/or devalue the Calvinist stream. Suggesting that Calvinism it’s not sufficiently hististorically part of who baptists have been, and have believed. That somehow baptist theological tradition and history is held and carried along by those who hold to your soteriological positions alone.
Besides a “baptist traditionalist” was already well established in baptist life when you and others decided to use it to argue against the well established Calvinist stream – you know baptist traditionalists were/are people who like hymns only, the KJV, the Lifeway quarterlies, and favor always wearing suits to church – stuff like that.
Tarheel,
Please do not take this as a “siding with Rick” on my part, but this is just a little over the top on your part:
“– you know baptist traditionalists were/are people who like hymns only, the KJV, the Lifeway quarterlies, and favor always wearing suits to church – stuff like that.”
You are right. Calvinism has always been present in the SBC before and after its “birthing as a recognizable cooperative body of Baptist churches.”
It is also true that some Calvinists (Identified as radical Calvinists by “traditional” Calvinists) have been overly aggressive in pushing their theological predisposition upon the SBC. It is just as true that many Non-Calvinists have pushed back with an equal lack of desire for unity in the body.
These two overzealous groups have done harm to the whole of the SBC. I, for one, pray such foolishness would end.
But, hey, such a divisiveness has given a bunch of folks their 15 minutes of fame on both sides of this issue, so its demise is probably not in the near future.
“It is also true that some Calvinists (Identified as radical Calvinists by “traditional” Calvinists) have been overly aggressive in pushing their theological predisposition upon the SBC. It is just as true that many Non-Calvinists have pushed back with an equal lack of desire for unity in the body.
These two overzealous groups have done harm to the whole of the SBC. I, for one, pray such foolishness would end.”
CB,
I really love your input. That was well said.
I think you can trace Calvinist, Arminian, and everything in between in Baptist history.
cb,..sounds like you are not trying to “pique” a fight!
Chris Johnson,
As Ole Charlie used to say; “Ain’t no money in it.” 😉
Chris Johnson,
Seriously, the “Calvinism wars” have been a great source of division among us. I wish it would end. However, I fear it may not due to the fact that some on both sides have capitalized from its existence.
The fight has given them opportunity to gain attention and some degree of celebrity that otherwise they would never attain. Some have made money from it. Others have gained positions from it. Some have created organized structures to promote their side of the fray and still others have profited from speaking at the events held by one side or the other.
It is my personal opinion that the mandate to fulfill the Great Commission has been relegated to the back of the bus by some.
Yes, my friend, this little fracas has been used to “feather their nests” by some. But, of course, some used the CR for the same purpose. Maybe we will all grow up one day. . . . hopefully.
cb…well put! there are much more important matters that counting “points” of disagreement. 🙂
CB,
No offense taken, sir. I really could not agree with this statement of yours more…
“These two overzealous groups have done harm to the whole of the SBC. I, for one, pray such foolishness would end.”
I only meant to convey in my comment above that the usurping of the word “traditionalist” by non and anti Calvinists (there is a difference there I recognize that) was at best an unfortunate choice and at worse an intentional jab. I do believe it sends a message; “we have the tradition on our side, and the Calvinists are the trouble makers who are trying to ruin the tradition of the SBC.”
I truly think a better moniker could have been chosen.
I am convinced as I said earlier that there are large and rich streams of both Calvinist and non Calvinist soteriology in baptist history and in current SBC life.
Tarheel,
You are right. Our heritage was enriched from both “streams” and richer still when we lived together with the same focus; the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
I hope for a better future.
Right on CB!
FYI, in the future you can just stop after typing….
“Tarheel, You are right.”
I kid, I kid.
Seriously, I strongly agree with you. The richness of history and the blessedness of current unity around the proclamation of the gospel are beautiful realities.
May we all strive for that beauty!
Tyler,
Thank you for your kind words. And you are right, I think. Many metals were poured into the mold from which was cast the people known Southern Baptists.
I kinda don’t understand why the term “Arminianism” gets a bad wrap. Everyone should go read Roger Olsons book on Arminianism. Though I disagree with him, I really appreciated the way he made it clear how his view was distinguished from a, say, Pelagian view. He made clear the distinction because he believes in Prevenient Grace (I’m not sure how guys who don’t hold to Prevenient Grace avoid Pelagianism, but that’s just me). Though I don’t think there is evidence for Prevenient Grace, I’m glad that attempted to argue for something contra Pelagian, which Arminianism is not. So frankly, I appreciate guys who say “I am Arminian” without blushing. It’s completely orthodox and has rich tradition.
Yeah, my only point is that Baptists historically believed in eternal security – and one cannot believe in that and be accurately called an Arminian.
Surely though – many of the other tenants of Arminianism are held and argued by the “traditionalist” group – but you’re right they blush and deny it that is mentioned.
Tarheel,
Traditional Southern Baptist would have much disagreement with both Remonstrants and Dortian Calvinists. Our Anabaptist kin were not invited to that particular debate.
Actually, it seems you can be an arminian and believe in eternal security. Historically most have not, but Arminius and the remonstrants did not stake out a position on this issue.
Historically, some baptist have called themselves calvinists based on this one issue alone, though of course now most 1-pointers would not refer to themselves that way.
Andy, I do always love this conversation….although a little off topic here. But, some folks are reluctant to understand the full capture by Christ, and do belly ache a bit as the Spirit convinces them that it is not so bad. Paul put it this way as he was teaching the church how to love each other…..
“But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.”
It is always hard to understand the force of being Christ’s slave, as we kick around at the edges of our ability to grasp hold of the Savior’s hand from the clutches of the one in whom we landed at birth. As I get older, it seems that my efforts tend to look weaker and weaker with respect to my ability to know God first. But as the old hymn resonates… I was lost, by now I’m found, I was blind, but now I see…. love that old tune!
Ethan,
Peaked is the proper spelling
peaked (pi?kt)
adj
having a peak; pointed
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
Was Ethan’s interest brought to a point or adjetated? Dave is a word smith. Maybe he will give the answer.
Wrong. “Piqued” is usually paired with “interest” or more commonly “curiosity.”
Ethan has it right and should be commended for expanding the board vocabulary.
“Well I never ‘piqued’ cotton,
but my mother did,
and my brother did,
and my sister did,
and my daddy died young,
workin’ in a coal mine.”
I think they pique cotton down in Louisiana.
And take the cotton down the bayou in their pireaux.
David R. Brumbelow
Oh, i wasn’t saying Ethan was wrong.
I was just helping him spell a similar sounding word.
Peaked is spelled just like that: peaked.
(-:
Ethan obviously stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
I believe that the greatest lever for needed change for the IMB is adjusting the process for selecting the trustees.
Having the trustees appointed by a committee, which is appointed by another committee, which is appointed by the SBC president may or may not be the best method of choosing the trustees. I don’t know.
But one thing is clear. The trustees are basically “poured out of the same mold”. They really don’t seem to have much value-added in terms of influencing the shape of the organization that they are entrusted with providing guidance over. I’m not saying they are “rubber stamps”. The problem is that they only know that one type of stamp exists so that is the only one they pick up.
Taking the IMB as a example. How could a truly independent trustee board fall asleep at the switch and allow the organization to run an unbalanced budget over about a decade to the tune of $120 million? How could they think that this would be sustainable given the overall trends in the US economy and the trends with CP giving and what is happening to in the SBC? Also, don’t they pay any attention to the disparity of wealth distribution in the USA — more and more dollars in the hands of fewer and fewer people?
You can only sell off the assets once to make up for successive operating deficits year after year. The IMB deserves better oversight.
The job of the President of the IMB and the administration: Setup an organization to penetrate “lostness” in every corner of the world and every people group. My grade for the president and the last several presidents — A.
The job of the trustees: Monitor business plans to make sure the President’s implementation of the IBM goals is actually sustainable and is fiscally sound. My grade for the trustees over the last ten years: C-.
There should be checks and balances such that both the President and the Trustees are weighing in. I believe some of the initiatives taken by the IMB should originate with the trustees. The trustees should never be in a position where their only input is either agreeing or disagreeing with management. That is tantamount to abdication.
I believe that we will not have optimal results at the IMB until the distribution of governance between the trustees and management is closer to 50 – 50. I think it is clear that an 20 – 80 split is not hacking it.
The trustees can and should assert themselves. The current situation is a long ways away from the case where the board is ‘micro-managing’ every step the administration takes.
Here is my guess as to why the current situation persists. Currently, a major criterion for a trustee is that he has to be from a church that supports the CP with a high percentage of giving. What about adding a criterion that says that the person has to bring something to the table in terms of being a CFO, CEO, VP of Operations etc. for a real world business with “profit / loss” responsibility. We need guys/gals that actually run organizations and keep them on track.
The appointment of trustees should not ONLY be coincident with “rewarding” someone for supporting the platform of some luminary in the SBC. Another aspect should someone who has demonstrated competence in running an enterprise. We need more MBAs and less MDivs / DMins.
We need guys who have grown business from nothing into multimillion dollar operations.
Do I have to name names? I can think of several people in various lines of businesses that would fit the bill. Some of them are easily identified because their names are on buildings at our Baptist colleges, our Baptist seminaries, and our Baptist campgrounds. Why is it that when pastors make up 1% or less of all SBC members that so many of the trustees are pastors?
There are quite a few Southern Baptists who show up in section B or C of the Wall St. Journal over the course of a year. But you have to be looking for them. They are running successful businesses — business that the guys in the pews go to all the time.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
FYI from someone who is with the IMB, your comments lack an insider understanding of all the different facets you’ve raised about the Board. It’s amazing how many people like you give their opinion without actually what in the world is going on.
If we were in the business of conserving capital and assets then your complaint would make sense. If our mission is to urgently take the gospel to the world then preserving capital and assets makes no sense at all. Would you have had the IMB take missionionaries off the field while they had assets that they could sell to keep them there? What rainy day were they to hoard the assets for if not now? The Board has throughout its history done the same thing during times of need.
Roger addresses a legitimate issue. What does IMB have to show for disposing of those valuable but unneeded assets? Was there optimism that CP and LM revenues would surge by $35-50 million annually? Was the downsizing merely delayed and, while several years rolled by, actually exacerbated by failure to address matters in 2012 or so? That’s past.
The involvement of trustees in broad policy and direction is also a salient issue. The sizable trustee board has folks from every state because the system is designed to gather wide representation and support. Has this served us well? Are nominations rewards? Would another approach have served us better?
I have known several trustees and they are of the highest caliber. Overall, though, there’s enough recent history to be concerned.
IMB continues to have my support.
IMB has my support too…
May I just offer a words of caution? Before we are too hard on the trustess lets imagine a scenario that just might be a bit familiar….imagine with me….
Your church has the yearly finance team meeting and there are good well meaning and godly people in the room. Men and women who love the Lord and his Church. Upon examination of the finances you all notice that undesignated offerings are falling short of the budget projection for the second or third year in a row. The treasurer makes a recommendation that next years budget projection should be within striking distance the “trend” of the last few years. This would mean substantive reductions in discretionary line items.
Much discussion ensues. Each ministry department and member of the team argues strongly that their line item should not be cut, each has a compelling case….but most of them are cut because we want to protect the the largest discretionary line item…._____________ – who wants to reduce that? Everyone loves _____________. Anyone suggesting cutting it risks being labeled “anti _____________”
“It’s why we exist” people say.
“We have got to have faith that God will send us the money.”
“We are in an economic downturn, people will give more when the economy improves”
“when we start this exciting new stewardship initiative things will improve”
“God wants us to do this – He will provide!”
“_____________________” is so important, its essential (i am sure you can fill in the blank)
So the _______________ budget is not cut…not “political” consensus can be forged….so the total budget projection….again….is more than the income. Next year … same boat….
Can anyone else not see how this might have happened? Really? Our missionary force size is a bragging point for all Southern Baptists. We love it. We crow about it.
I mean the board cannot be absolved of responsibility for this, sure. Because they exchanged reality for hope and the hopes were never realized – the pain is greater and deeper and more impairing – but come on fellow pastors – surely we can all see how this may have went down.
There is likely an element of truth to the “asleep at the wheel” arguments….I will not deny that! But there is likely a larger part of the issue could fall under the above “imaginary” situation….
Platt and company and the current trustees are working to fix issues that (at least Platt and his team) inherited. Let’s pray for them. Let’s hold them accountable. This MUST be fixed.
But also – lets show them some grace.
Tim B:
You ask an excellent question. I would have instituted a hiring freeze for the entire IMB and also cut down on staff in Richmond. Both of these alternatives are better than selling off assets to cover ongoing deficits.
Cutting back on field personnel, as you say, should be the last ditch response.
Please note, the current action being taken results in cutting back both field staff and well as staff in Richmond HQ. Failure to take responsible action during the last decade resulted in cutting back field personnel during 2015.
A case can be made to sell off selected assets during a temporary downturn. But with the IMB, the deficit spending has been going on for years. The action taken by the current administration to cut back is long overdue.
The problem the SBC has is that (a) CP dollars in constant inflation adjusted terms, and (b) Lottie Moon dollars in constant inflation adjusted terms, [as well as baptisms] — peaked years ago. Until or unless this changes the IMB has no alternative but to change the slope of their spending year to year. Otherwise they will go broke.
Spending like there is no tomorrow is neither prudent or sustainable. You should not do things that mortgage the future of the IMB. You can’t run an organization over time if you are spending more than you make.
We can’t run our own households by burning through assets. If we do we will end up broke. The same logic applies to any organization.
Do you want the IMB to have a future? If so, then I recommend a prudent course that balances spending with income.
Take a look at the ratio of the market value of all IMB assets at end of each year over the last decade compared to the annual IMB payroll by year over the last decade. I believe this study will illuminate the situation.
Roger
Roger…this is your money statement right here:
“Do you want the IMB to have a future? If so, then I recommend a prudent course that balances spending with income. ”
(Pun intended….LOL)
This statement is true with any organization or church and is true for our governments as well – except they get to print more when they need it.
Let’s look at the IMB issue from the other side of the coin. What would the outcry have been if it became public knowledge that IMB leadership and trustees cut our mission force by 500 – 1000 because CP and LMCO had declined while at the same time the IMB had property assets and cash reserves totaling 500 – 700 million?
What would the response be to that scenario?
That conversation might have been even hotter.
Possibly. Or, the downsizing could have been managed such that the shock of eliminating 600-800 personnel would have been avoided.
But there’s a limit to playing out scenarios that might have been utilized. We’ve probably reached that limit.
Dean, looks as if we are on the same wavelength…we were typing similar thoughts at the same time!
I’m a little skeered…..
😉
18 months into Platt’s tenure, and yes, it’s too early to say whether the changes are positive or not. But for those of us who serve with the IMB and who are personally having to go through this retirement/resignation debacle, his changes are demoralizing, demotivating, and impersonal. He has no idea what’s like to be a long-term missionary. We hope the changes are for the better. But in the meantime, wow, it’s hard
Everything about the SBC screams waste. Why does every little association have to have a building with all the corresponding expenses? Why does every little association have a DOM? The expense of just insuring all the buildings owned by SBC entities would be astounding.
And then when cuts are made, they don’t cut support staff, or administrative positions, no, they cut veteran missionaries.
John, with respect, I think you are somewhat mistaken in your polity.
Local Baptist associations are autonomous networks of local (in our case Southern Baptist) churches. Each association in conference decides if it has a building or a DOM. A local Baptist association is not an entity of the SBC even though Southern Baptist associations are affiliated with the SBC. Local Baptist associations receive no direct funding from the CP, and most DOMs try their best to promote CP and the two missions offerings.
The way a local association spends its money on ministry is a local decision. It may be true that some local Baptist associations may need to merge with others in the same way that some local churches may need to merge. Maybe some associations don’t need or want a DOM (two associations in my state have made that decision) but those are local decisions that are to be made by local leadership.
Please feel free to express your opinions in you own local association. Associations need the input from the members and leaders of their member churches. Please don’t generalize because every association, like every church, is unique and one size does not fit all.
Associations are the easiest to scrutinize and, if needed, make changes. They don’t get CP revenues and every crossroads pastor has a voice in their management. Around here times are very tough for associations which are cutting staff, going part time with staff, etc.
Thanks for your reply, William. I understand that local associations CP funds, except for the small ones who receive some NAMB funds. But all that money spent on insuring and maintaining expensive buildings for every little association, is money that a church could potentially give to the NAMB or IMB.
I guess I have too much independent Baptist still in my. It is not uncommon at all for one of their churches to give 25 -40% to missions. And with them every dime goes to an actual mission, not to the janitor at the Baptist building.
Forgive the typo….I.understand that local associations “do not” receive CP funds.
Associations I’ve been a part of spent most of their budget on staff, not fixed assets. Buildings were usually modest.
Uh…state conventions may be a better target on buildings, but then the old model of achieving stature by the size of your building is one that churches have followed for a long time.
“Uh…state conventions may be a better target on buildings,. . .”
Yep.
“but then the old model of achieving stature by the size of your building is one that churches have followed for a long time.”
Yep again.
Ego in Baptist life is a hard cat to clean after. . . . especially at the state convention level.
Years ago a leader of the SBC (maybe James Sullivan) said changing the SBC is like turning a battleship. It can turn, but not quickly. A president of the SBC normally serves for two years. That is not much time in which to turn the SBC. However, during the Conservative Resurgence we saw a series of presidents elected who shared a common goal–returning the SBC institutions to biblical fidelity. Perhaps that is what we need now–a series of presidents who share a common conviction about reforming the SBC. What would that conviction be? How would the supporters of such reform organize to assure that “reformist” presidents would be elected over a period of 10-12 years? Clearly, the SBC is declining now. Can we identify a candidate for president of the SBC who has a vision for renewal?
Wise words Mark Terry!
Mark:
You asked the $64,000 question. Setting aside IMB governance for a minute; What is a clear course that dumb guys in the pew –like me — can understand that will create [using your terms] “a vision for renewal”?
I believe you were the first one to identify a perils of the “amateur-ization” of our mission force. Like you, I don’t like this one bit. But if we have fewer guys in the pews giving less and less to the CP and Lottie then I guess we have no choice but to look at other paradigms for funding missionaries — such as (a) students on short term assignments with their local church footing the bill, and (b) “tentmakers” with business, engineering, software engineering, or medical skills paying their own way.
I need help here but I guess it is a tradeoff between no missionaries in a given spot vs. amateur missionaries in that spot. I really don’t know how to frame this problem — let alone how to assess the tradeoffs.
In any case, we wouldn’t have to have a debate about good/bad governance in the IMB if me and +/- 6,000,000 of my closest friends, who attend [not just on the roll of] 45,000 churches, were stepping up to the plate.
Roger
I have to ask the question, “How productive were the missionaries who were called home.” I have no problem with cutting waste and spending.
If a pastor isn’t productive I think he should go, especially if he isn’t spiritual.
I believe the Bible teaches very clearly that missions should start at home. America needs Jesus.
Actually, no missionaries were “called home.” The veteran missionaries, those who were over 50 years of age and had at least 5 years of service, were given the option of early retirement. I know from personal communication that many of them accepted the retirement package, believing that doing so would save the IMB from financial ruin. These veteran missionaries have language fluency, cultural knowledge, and relationship networks that will be hard, if not impossible, to replace. I have not spoken with David Platt about his plans for the future; however, it seems that he believes our traditional way of funding missionaries is no longer viable. That is, the SBC as it is now cannot support enough full-time salaried missionaries to evangelize the world. So, in order to increase the number of missionaries he plans to have fully salaried, partially salaried, and non-salaried missionaries in the future. The problem with using non-salaried (tent maker) missionaries is their training. I’ve asked IMB leaders about this. They are aware of the problem, and they are developing training programs to address the problem. Another issue that I’ve raised with IMB leaders is the supervision and coordination of the tent maker missionaries. I stated long-term missionaries with language and cultural knowledge are necessary for the supervision of these tent makers. The IMB leaders agreed and said that was the plan. I confess that I have misgivings about Platt’s plan, but I surely want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope and pray that we’ll look back at this paradigm change 10 years from now and conclude that it was a good and needed change.
Mark:
As one little guy in the pew back here in flyover country I appreciate what you are doing to assist the IMB to address the problems that are happening due to real-world financial constraints. Your work may not be on the “front page” of the Baptist Messenger next week. But it is one of the most important issues facing the Southern Baptist convention.
Because:
(a) For many of us the #1 reason that the Southern Baptist convention even exists is to send missionaries — to every people group around the world — to proclaim the saving Gospel of Jesus
(b) Therefore, we need to realistically address the “chasm” that exists because we in the SBC are no longer stepping up to the plate to support AND TRAIN our missionaries with “fully funded” models.
I don’t like this whole idea of the “amateurization” of our missionaries any more than you do. But your willingness to face reality as it is, and step in advocate for all of us with senior IMB leadership, is commendable. Guys like me can probably get a job in some 3rd world country doing something. We can be engineers, doctors, teachers, etc. Just because we are breathing, we can get a visa, and because we are energized to assist in proclaiming the Gospel does not equate to the condition that we have any “real world” idea of how to help.
We don’t even know the language.
Hopefully “tentmakers” will be a net benefit to the effort. I don’t know how to assess this quantitatively but I guess at least in the short to medium term veteran missionaries on the field are going to be making an “investment” into the lives of the “tentmakers” so that these “tentmakers” will be a valued member of the team over time.
I guess this is no different that running a microcode development shop. I brought in top EE / Comp Sci grads from good schools. At least we shared a common language. It took me many months before I actually saw “real work” coming from them. After several years, they knew enough that they could autonomously do stuff on their own to solve new problems that no one — me included — ever realized would be facing us.
We in the SBC won’t foot the bill to do this work using traditional methods. So the challenge is to see if we can at least asymptotically approach “good training” even though we are using raw recruits.
Roger OKC
Dr. Terry,
You have raised an important question when you have asked whether a sufficient number of salaried missionaries will be in place to supervise these tentmaker missionaries. But there is another question hidden within that question: Will tentmaker missionaries consent to be supervised by IMB missionaries? If the IMB is not funding their work, why would these tentmakers abide by any supervisory directives from the IMB?
Dr. Barber,
That is a fair question. However, I know, as do you, that many tentmakers have gone to the mission fields, some for short times and some for extended times, and for the most part, did their best to work under the direction of the salaried, full-time missionaries.
I would therefore hope that the tentmakers of the future would be cut of a similar “tarp” as were those of the past and be of a willing spirit to submit to the leadership of those who have surrendered their lives to reaching people of nations other than their own with the gospel and have knowledge and experience in doing so.
Of course, as we both know, there have been rebels who refused the leadership of our salaried, full-time missionaries, and in all probability, there always shall be. Our prayer is that they would be in the great minority.
— Just my thoughts on your question. I trust you and your family are in well health and prospering in our Lord Jesus this grand night?
CB, I was thinking the same thing.
What do we do when a Sunday school teacher or ministry head goes rebel? Stop having volunteers serve in our churches – or do we deal with that rebel (in any number of ways – hopefully guiding them to return to the fold)?
All is well, here, CB.
Now, CB, you know my now that I generally don’t submit to being called “Dr. Barber” around here, and certainly not from people whose hands I’ve shaken in friendship more than once. We’re far past the point where you should just be calling me “Bart.”
Yes. Yes. I “Doctored” Dr. Terry, but that’s because he and I don’t know each other really well and because he chairs the missions department at MABTS and I figure it’s appropriate to do so in this context.
😉 I know that of you, Bart. Nor do I use Dr. Scott here and for the same reasons. I was just being snarky. So forgive me of my moment of snarkiness, Dr. Barber.
Seriously, Bart, I would hope that as we go into this new venture in our efforts to reach other people groups that we would at least vet the tentmakers well enough that rebel hearts would not cause problems in the norm and would be the exceptions.
Sadly, we have had such exceptions not only among tentmakers of the past, but also among salaried personnel from time to time. Yet, such occurrences have been rare.
I hope that such rarity would continue to be the case.
Your point about salaried missionaries is well taken (and supports my concern, I think). TP Crawford’s financial independence facilitated his intransigence, for example.
I don’t think the Sunday School teacher is an analogous situation. The Sunday School teacher comes into a building owned by the church and teaches people gathered by the church. The church can take away the room and might possibly take away the class.
A better analogy would be if I claimed that my Ph.D. in Church History made me the best trained and educated pastor in Farmersville, and therefore I began to try through our Ministerial Alliance to supervise the work of the other pastors in town.
I’ve asked that question and no one knows the answer. I’m open to the new arrangement but will be watching to see how it unfolds. There are a lot of things beyond the personnel reductions and restoration to financial viability of IMB that look pretty prickly.
Indeed.
I do hope that part of our plan to reach the world include not only the training of non-salaried Western missionaries but also a priority for assisting and training non-Western missionary partners and indigenous workers.
In my opinion, not only do we need to rethink how we send Western missionaries, but also what the role of Western missionaries should be in disciple-making ministries to the remainder of the unreached and unengaged world.
Bart, no need to use my title. When I was a pastor, I told my members to call me Brother Mark. The IMB leaders will urge the tent makers to attend the IMB training program at the International Learning Center near Richmond. They realize, though, that some companies may not agree to give their employees 8 weeks off for training. The plan is to provide those with some training overseas. The IMB hopes that all the tentmakers will join IMB teams. The weakness in this tent maker strategy is that it will be hard for tentmakers to learn language and culture. For sure, there are places where one can work in English; however there are many more places where language proficiency is esstential. It takes years of study and immersion in the culture to learn Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic, for example. Of course, there are senior leaders at the IMB who know this, and I’m interested to see how they solve the problem.