How do you change the SBC? It is no canoe that shifts course easily with every stroke of the oar. It is a giant aircraft carrier and changing its course is not easy.
- Recent history has shown that the appointment of blue ribbon groups such as the Great Commission Task Force and such end up as little more than blips on the radar. Name Change. Blip. Calvinism. Blip.
- If I didn’t believe that blogging and other social media had an impact, I wouldn’t continue to engage this way. Our impact is often as negative as it is positive, but we have an impact on public opinion. We shine a light where the powerful folks would often like to keep things dark.
- Denominational initiatives, slogans and programs, and strategic changes – they can all serve a purpose, but the USS SBC does not change course easily. These things can have impact, but they are not as effective as their advocates would often like to think.
There is one way to change the course of the SBC. It is hard. It takes time, commitment, and perseverance. Our SBC president is at the helm and he has initiated some of the most significant changes we have seen in our convention since 1979. While we are talking about entity openings, which matter, and store closings, which are also important, he is doing something that could steer us in a new direction for decades to come.
And I say “Amen!”
The Conservative Resurgence began in Cafe Du Monde with two men poring over the bylaws of the SBC and figuring out how to change things. Frustrated with the leftward drift they saw in the seminaries, they devised a plan to change things. As a CR foot soldier, who show up at as many conventions as I could between 1979 (my first) and 1990 (the ultimate CR showdown), I look back on the conduct of the war with some regret, but gratitude for the plan, which was flawless and simple.
Elect a president who appoints a Committee on Committees which nominates a Nominating Committee which nominates trustees to the convention. When enough trustees are elected to the boards of the entities of the SBC, real change can be enacted. And that is what we did. Imperfectly, yes. But we elected presidents who supported the cause and elected trustees who did the same and things changed.
Please, let us not relitigate the CR today – we have done that enough. My point here is strategy. It took a decade to accomplish the goal, but it was accomplished. Presidents were elected. Committees on Committees were appointed who nominated Nomcoms who nominated trustees who became majorities on boards.
Observations
1. For most of a decade, many of us have been calling and working for greater inclusion of minorities in leadership positions in the SBC. We’ve seen some progress. Fred Luter was elected president of the SBC. Percentages of ethnic minorities in trustee positions and administrative roles at our entities, which while still low, has risen.
2. The progress has been slow and frustrating, to the point that some minorities are wondering if the SBC will ever see real change or will remain a denomination run by white men.
3. There have been some explosive moments where actual racism reared its head in the SBC in recent years, but the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not blatant racists anymore.
4. The movement to be more inclusive has met resistance. Some view inclusion of non-whites with suspicion, as if it must mean a lowering of doctrinal standards. Some of the more radical elements of the 1689 movement oppose any social progress as anti-gospel or cultural Marxism.
All of this is to say that after a decade of calling for Southern Baptists to be more like the congregation of Heaven and less like the all-white conclaves of the past, many have found the progress frustratingly slow.
But, whether we’ve noticed it or not, J.D. Greear is not just talking about racial reconciliation and inclusion, he is doing something about it. He is doing something that can deliver real change. It will not happen overnight but if this initiative continues, if we elect like-minded presidents in the years to come and they stay the course, this path will produce real and significant change.
He is using the power of appointments to effect real change in the SBC.
Tellers Committee
This week, J.D. Greear named the Tellers Committee. Stephanie Orr of Chipley, Florida is chair and Ray Carr, of Clayton, NC, is vice chair. The committee is split equally between men and women and almost equally between white and other ethnic groups. Every committee J.D. Greear has appointed has been similar in that it has been genuinely diverse.
Now, before the criticism starts, this does not mean he as lowered the standards (it is offensive that I must even clarify this, but I must, based on past discussions). These are qualified Baptists – just as qualified as the white males who have served before. We need not to lower the bar to broaden our fellowship.
Of course, the key appointment, which he has already made, was the Committee on Committees, which was the most diverse we have ever seen. It is that committee that will bring a Nominating Committee to the convention that will nominate trustees. We hope they are as intentional as he has been.
Greear is doing great work with the Sexual Abuse workgroup and we pray that he makes progress there and is not hindered by those forces that resist that important work. He is promoting evangelism and doing other great things as president of the SBC. But the appointments a president makes are his most lasting legacy. With those appointments he can continue to affect the convention for nearly a decade after his term of office is over, as the trustees his appointments set in motion continue to serve.
I am thankful that J.D. Greear is appointing diverse Baptists to serve. May this continue long enough to genuinely change the direction of our denomination.
I join Dave’s remarks on this.
Norm Miller:
I applaud your stated ways to bring about change in the SBC and indicating that that method was used by leaders of the CR (like Adrian Rogers and a couple SBC presidents who followed him). Those actions resulted in restoring the SBC to an organization that supported Biblical truth and accuracy in all facets of the convention. I have been preaching that approach for many years, but, unfortunately, I don’t have a platform from which to push such matters as you do.
But, it isn’t enough to establish the CR methods unless the appointees resulting from it result in similar restorations. Just having new people isn’t the answer; the new people must be persons who are committed to the will and desires of the vast majority of SBs. A continuation of the “go along to get along” policies of the past several administrations will never result in restoring the SBC to its past glories.
Only time will tell if that happens for if it doesn’t the terrible reductions in statistics which have occurred over the past decade will continue unabated. A prominent pastor told me about a year ago that with the current soteriological divisions in the SBC he thinks the SBC will be a thing of the past by the end of the next decade, simply because those differences will have resulted in so many members switching their offerings away from the CP, thus rendering it impotent.
I hope he is wrong, but it is difficult to refute his logic based on what has occurred over the past decade.
It would be difficult to overlook the glaring error in your pastor friend’s opinion. The only data I’ve seen shows Cal and Non-Cal pastors baptizing at the same rate and SBC metrics have been declining for quite some time.
I grant that some of those strongly identifying as Trads spend a lot of energy on pessimism but the SBC had a long, unbroken stream of Trad SBC presidents.
William Thornton:
You wrote, “It would be difficult to overlook the glaring error in your pastor friend’s opinion. The only data I’ve seen shows Cal and Non-Cal pastors baptizing at the same rate and SBC metrics have been declining for quite some time.
I grant that some of those strongly identifying as Trads spend a lot of energy on pessimism but the SBC had a long, unbroken stream of Trad SBC presidents.”
As to your first point, I have not seen the baptism rates you quote, but, are you saying that Cal pastors/churches, who/which I have been led to believe represent a small minority of SBC pastors/churches/members, are baptizing as many persons as Non-Cal pastors/churches? If so, I would seriously question that possibility.
I recognize you used the term “rate” so does that mean that you have statistics to show the number of Cal pastors/churches/members vs. the number of Non-Cal pastors/churches/members and the number of baptisms produced by both groups of pastors/churches? If so, I would appreciate receiving those from you – not to dispute you but, just for my personal information. I have been trying to get those numbers for a long time, without success.
I do disagree with your second point, that Trads spend a lot of time on pessimism. I would refer to it as concern and realism(based on the last decade or so of regression). Take me, for instance, after almost 70 years as a SB I am deeply concerned about the future life and viability of the SBC. My observation has been that the slope became much more slippery starting with President # 59 and has been sliding more rapidly since then. While some presidents during that time and some slightly preceding that time may have considered themselves Trads or Conservatives(as opposed to Cals), their actions, especially in their appointments to governing boards and staff, for instance, wandered far, far from people identifying themselves as aligned with Trad theology.
And, lest you wonder, I’m not saying that there is not room for Cals, I’m just reiterating my previous position that the Cal/Non-Cal doctrinal division is a source of contention and part of the problem of falling member participation in the SBC. I realize that Dave said, and you agreed with him, that that issue was just a blip on the radar screen; I see it as much more significant than a blip. even capable of inflicting mortal wounds.
I’m sure we can agree that serious prayers are in order for God to intervene, heal our wounds, and chart a course forward which is in line with historical norms for the old SBC, all the while producing works for God’s glory.
“Calvinistic churches, though they baptize fewer persons each year, have a “baptism rate” virtually identical to that of non-Calvinistic churches. Baptism rate is the number of annual baptisms relative to total membership, a statistic used to measure evangelistic vitality.”
http://www.bpnews.net/26914/study-recent-grads-3-times-more-likely-to-be-calvinists
This is 12 years old but I don’t know of any data that’s more current. If you do, please inform me.
The recent decline of the Trads was due to overestimating their own numbers and thinking they were in the majority when they are actually a small minority. What led to this overestimate was the blind spot they share with standard Calvinists. Both tend to overlook both the presence and the vast numbers in the middle, who embrace both unconditional election and the free will of men to choose whether to believe (for an example, see J.D. Greear). The Trads mistakenly included these in their number and then were surprised when they did not vote with them. So let’s not continue the error of viewing the SBC in terms of Cal & Non-Cal.
Norm?
Dave Miller
Sorry, Dave! Please forgive me. My 87 year old mind doesn’t always function on full throttle.
The problems that the SBC is experiencing as a denomination with declining attendance, membership, baptisms and giving isn’t related to who is in charge of the executive committee, agency boards and convention committees at the denominational level. The SBC experienced its greatest membership growth decades before the conservative resurgence came to power. The membership and attendance increases after 1979 followed a pattern that started in the early 1970’s, each succeeding year’s increase was smaller than the previous year until it began to decline. Since the decline started, each succeeding year’s membership loss, with a rare exception here and there, is larger than the previous year’s. It has nothing to do with the theological perspective of the group that is running the denomination. It does mirror a pattern that is taking place across most of the Evangelical branch of the church in this country.
Mr. Miller
It seems that the thing that excites most people about change is that it’s different. It is my fear that Americans are so addicted to the drug of change that spontaneous revolution is possible at any moment for significant and insignificant alike. We champion the heroes who promise the change we desire and we seem to be losing our ability to act with discretion in our excuberance. We name buildings and schools after living Men and women with incomplete legacies. We unwittingly become surrogates for a cause rather than a person. There’s a great deal of danger in placing too much confidence in men who excell at using the mechanisms of the machine to achieve Spiritual results; Paige Patterson and Paul Presser were such men.
I think your last post about the local church was headed in the right direction. I grew up in a small Baptist church with at least one openly racist deacon. When I held a reception in my hometown to introduce my beautiful black wife to a predominantly white group, that deacon’s son was in attendance. His great-grandson also married a girl of color. The warm welcome we received from the SBC crowd that night was heartwarming. An onlooker might have sensed an exception when one older lady said something to the effect that my wife might be a little darker than us, but she sure was a sweet girl. I gave her a warm hug because I knew that was her awkward and articulate way of expressing the growth that was taking place in her heart I knew that she was overcoming the influence of where she was from. The son of that racist deacon and that sweet lady weren’t changed by our churches loose association with the SBC, they were changed by God at work in their hearts in that church. I think it would be consistent with your last post to say that the real revolution. happens in relationship at the level of the local church.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong or that JD isn’t properly motivated; I may just be commenting from a different and complimentary perspective.
Apples and oranges. Fixing the racial inequities of our system is something that has to be done systemically.
Why?
The inequities in the national SBC need to be dealt with nationally. I am not sure how to expand on that or why it should be necessary.
Systemic problems often linger after the attitudes and heart conditions that created those problems have faded. The CR required systemic and structural change, not just change in the pews. It was the structures themselves that were the problem.
Mr. Miller
I initially typed “why?” and thought I had edited that question to be more specific, but thank you for responding anyway. If you are saying that there’s a history of systematic injustice based on perceptions of race, ethnicity, culture, etc. within the national entities of the SBC, I agree that those issues should be addressed immediately. That kind of thinking has the possibility to flow down to the vast majority of churches and individuals who’s hearts are being changed and that kind of behavior is poor image bearing and bad business. However, I do believe that we should use discretion regarding the public nature and political positioning of such changes. Neither covering what has been exposed nor exposing what has been covered clearly and accurately communicate the image of God.
My primary concern is these matters is that the newly repentant national SBC will view their systematic as the model. If systems had the power to make us more like God, the law would have been sufficient.
“just as qualified as the white males who have served before.”
Based on the performances of some of our institutions, I would hope that the current nominees are BETTER qualified than the white males who have served on committees before.
Good point JND.
AMEN!
It looks like this SBC President is genuinely attempting to reverse something in the SBC that the conservative resurgence leadership did not do, and that is to reach out and select individuals to serve on committees and boards who haven’t been asked to serve before. Prior to the 1979 convention where Adrian Rogers was elected, a very small group of insiders and prominent pastors made careers out of moving from one board to another, serving the maximum amount of time and moving on to another board when eligible, in the meantime serving on a committee. Many of these people were also involved in boards and committees in their state convention. In some cases, you could find multiple members of the same church serving on several boards and committees at the same time and there always seemed to be a nice cluster of prominent pastor’s wives also in strategic places. After 1979, the old guard was gradually replaced by individuals nominated by CR presidents, but that group never really got very large or diverse either, once conservatives had control. The number of individuals who have served on multiple boards is about the same, many SBC board and committee members are on state convention boards and committees at the same time, and there are several churches with multiple members on the boards and committees.
It does appear this particular SBC president is setting out to change that.
Most organizations believe that experience on boards to be a good thing. I suspect it is a good thing for the SBC as well. If our boards become filled with folks who do not understand how our convention works or the culture of its churches then we can expect a further mistrust of our entities rather than confidence. We can expect more rookie mistakes like naming churches as targets of investigations. Unlike most folks on this board, I don’t believe that our entities have been mismanaged under the conservative leadership from 1990 to 2018.
Tim B: Naming churches was not a rookie mistake. That is a spin. It is a lie. JD knew what he was doing and I am glad as a Southern Baptist that he did it, I voted for him as messenger and he did what I expected him to do. Because of it, a pedophile was fired from the church he was serving as a music director in. It was not a rookie mistake and it angers me every time you comment on this.
And I know you don’t believe that entities have mismanaged under the conservative leadership 1990-2018, it shows in every comment you make. It also shows that it was mismanaged because I wouldn’t want them to any longer have the same ideology as you. Thankfully that is coming to an end.
Tim, calling that a rookie mistake speaks volumes about you.
Yes it does. I suspect I know more about what went on there then you know.
Tim B: The word “know” is used differently in SB life. Is it know for a fact? Heard from someone? Received a email from those opposed to JB, heard in a backroom setting? Think you know of some conspiracy theory?
That’s usually how the provincial, backward way the SBC operates is defended. Experience on boards is a good thing. That means everyone has to trust the inner circle of elite and prominent people because they are the only ones who really know how the denomination works and the only ones who really have the kind of loyalty to the organization that it takes to make sure it remains what it is. So out of 45,000 churches and 5 million active members there are only about 200 people and 150 churches capable of producing the kind of denominational loyalty and pedigree necessary to serve on a board or committee.
That will effectively keep new ideas and different ways of thinking out. And it will help churches and individuals find other places to give their mission money.
THE KEY to racial equity in SBC leadership is racial inclusiveness in our individual lives. Amazing and well qualified to serve ethnic pastors and lay leaders are not known to us because they are not a part of our circle of friends. It is far easier to get behind the nomination of somebody we know than somebody we do not know regardless of their accomplishments, character or abilities. COmmittee members nominate who they know. WE ALL need to make the effort to personally befriend more ethnics. That is the longer-term more permanent solution to our racial inequities.
So some obvious questions. J.D. Greear is eligible for a second term as President. That’s probably likely if he decides to run. After him, who carries this torch?
I’m guessing it will be a similar Gaines/Greear situation (older/younger generation). I’d bet it will be some prominent younger SBC guy like Jimmy Scroggins or Vance Pittman. Pure speculation though!