I will likely not attend the SBC Annual meeting this year, since, strangely, no one gives retired pastors a convention allowance. I’ve been to St. Louis a few times already. It was hot. For one SBC meeting there I stayed at the Mormon hotel next to the Cardinals’ baseball field. The room had a Book of Mormon next to the Gideon’s Bible. Hotel staff said I could take it, so I did. I got to see some of the Cardinal’s game for free, ‘some’ meaning the center fielder and right fielder only, the rest of the field being blocked by the stadium. It was boring.
If I were present in St. Louis this year I’d skip the baseball and cast my presidential vote for J. D. Greear. I think he would be a great president. I believe he would represent the SBC well. The other two announced nominees would be fine but I’d go with Greear.
No SBC church has more members currently serving with our International Mission Board than Summit, Greear’s church. The 149 who are Summit members constitute about 4% of the total now serving with IMB. That is beyond impressive, it’s astonishing. Many (most?) of those are serving in difficult places.
It’s my observation that most any church can generate impressive numbers of short term overseas mission volunteers. Nothing wrong with that. But if the core of our overseas strategy is built around full-time, career personnel who plant themselves in the culture, learn the language, and serve for years, then someone ought to say that Summit Church is doing something on a scale that SBC churches have never done before and that this is a good thing.
Baptist Press reported Summit’s most recent annual baptism number, 928. That’s outstanding but not a compelling motivator. Gaines and Crosby do well. God bless them all in their efforts and success in reaching and baptizing people for the Lord.
Let’s be straightforward about the giving patterns for Summit, Bellevue (Gaines’ church) and the churches of the long string of SBC presidents who were megachurch pastors. Almost all (perhaps a single, maybe two exceptions) such previous presidents were considerably below the SBC average Cooperative Program percentage. We have been in a decades long recalibration of SBC giving patterns where, as thousands of local churches made autonomous spending decisions, the Cooperative Program has consistently declined in importance to individual churches and designated giving has steadily risen. A megachurch pastor who is solidly Southern Baptist and whose church does what Summit’s does relative to church planting and overseas missions, and those through our SBC mission boards, is a great choice for SBC president.
Before one criticizes Summit for their 1% or so CP giving, or for past methods of giving where money was sent directly to the Executive Committee rather than through their state convention (both Summit and Bellevue did this, as did Ronnie Floyd’s church in earlier years), consider that these churches made conscious decisions to put money directly into theological training and the two mission boards rather than dilute their mission giving by letting 60+ percent be kept by their legacy southern state conventions.
Summit gives double digit percentages in Great Commission Giving. GCG is, may I gently remind my fellow SBCers, money given to Southern Baptist causes, offerings, entities, and organizations. If we think it would be a positive development to restore the 1,000 or so overseas IMB personnel positions that were recently lost, GCG is the manner in which this will be done. There is absolutely no chance that Cooperative Program revenues will suddenly double and the 20% or so of that which goes to IMB will provide the additional funding for missionary positions.
If the question becomes, “But, Plodder, what if every church gave high GCG percentages and low CP percentages?” I suppose one would have to answer truthfully and admit that our overseas mission force would double, triple or more and the seminaries could offer totally free tuition. Based on the past record of CP spending, if CP revenues were to double, state conventions would suck up most of the revenue and use it to hire new staff and start new programs.
In a day when SBC churches spend a lot of time and money on parachurch ministries (Awana et al), independent mission organizations (Christmas Child, etc.), independent seminaries (Liberty et al), and a broad panoply of non-SBC missions sending organizations it is not insignificant that Summit chooses to work through our own seminaries and our own mission boards. Thank God for that.
Like I said, I doubt I’ll be there to vote. But, if J. D. is elected, I’ll make a deal with him: He sends me some of his hair jell and I send him some of my razors. Might work well for both of us.
[Need I say that this is my opinion only, not that of anyone else here or of SBCV?]
For the record, I’ve offered each of the contributors here at Voices the right to a post endorsing a candidate.
I may do one as soon as I decide. There are three candidates so far. I’m pretty much choosing between two of them, but I’m not sure I won’t come down to the moment I have to hang my chad at the convention before I decide.
Yeah…it’s tricky.
Is that song stuck in anyone else’s head?
David Crosby is the quintessential Baptist preacher-pastor. Select, at random, any one of his sermons at FBCNO’s website and you will hear a man on fire for Jesus, for the Lord’s church, and for sinners in need of bread and the Bread of Life. His messages are filled with the Spirit and demonstrate intellectual rigour, biblical conviction, clarity, and compassionate concern for all people. As a pastor, he leads and cares for the church the hard way…as a shepherd and a servant. Kudos must be given to the members of FBCNO. As a congregational church, they have voted year-after-year to… Read more »
Just came across this article about David on the Baylor Alumni Association website: Getting to Know David Crosby…’75, PhD ’89
https://btl.bayloralumniassociation.com/04/20/2016/getting-to-know-david-crosby-75-phd-89/
Ha! Hair jell. Yeah we can tell you don’t use any of that!
But more seriously, I really appreciate this post. I’m planning to support J.D. Greear as well. If I write a post endorsing, it was going to come from a different angle, but I think the reasons you list are completely valid and I hope many people will consider them as they decide who to support.
The number of IMB missionaries is very impressive, and I am certainly thankful for each one’s commitment no matter who the home church is. I was wondering though….given the Summit church’s proximity to SEBTS in Wake Forest, could it be that many of the students that attend said seminary could be attracted to the Summit, and that the number of missionaries is more reflective of the popularity of his church AND its proximity to SEBTS? Not that it matters greatly…. The ACTS 29 affiliation of the Summit church, even going back to when Mark Driscoll was president, would be troubling… Read more »
I agree with Kevin. Also, Acts 29 is very strong on Elder RULED churches, and not Congregational. Is the Summit Church Elder Ruled? Or, is it truly Congregational?
David
David – a church can be ELDER led or ELDER RULED (Your words) and still be congregational. Just a point of clarification. By the way – my church is not served by “Elders” except that we view pastoral staff in that light although we are not referred or titled as such. We have a pretty traditional Southern Baptist structure. I personally do not believe in a third office of Elder – but it does not negate a church being congregational.
Do a lot of people view elders as a “third office”?
That’s a serious question. Most that I’ve read and experienced have viewed it as pastor/elder/shepherd and deacons. I haven’t really heard of it as a third office.
I believe Presbyterians class elders as distinct from pastors. They can be the same people, but they are not necessarily.
That’s also a big question in the movement toward having “lay elders.” What is the relationship between these guys and the vocational (paid) pastors? Are they on equal footing? etc.
I believe Mike that by default if the Elder is not a “Pastor” then yes, we have created a third office
Would that third office be that of pastor or elder?
Elder, if the elder is not a pastor and also apt to teach. If he is then we are simply debating semantics
Gotcha. I haven’t really heard of a ton of ruling elders in Baptist churches…but I’m pretty ignorant on what other churches do. I know my experience has been two offices pastor/elder/shepehrd and then deacon.
Mine as well Mike
Mike, in the PCA, my denomination, here is how we view officers in the church: “The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people.… Read more »
Jack, I’m not talking about Elder LED. Elder is just another term for a Pastor, anyway. But, Elder RULED is not Congregational. Acts 29 promotes Elder RULED Churches. Thus, my concern and question. If I understood the situation correctly concerning Darrin Patrick and the Journey Church in St. Louis, the Elders fired him, and then they told the Church about it. That’s Elder RULED. Elders, Pastors, and Bishops are just three names describing the same office. A Pastor is an Elder, and he is a Bishop. Baptist’s believe in Congregationally Ruled Churches. An Elder RULED Church near me fired the… Read more »
David – I understand the concept of Elder being another descriptive term for Pastor – if you re-read my response to you I believe you will see not only do I understand that but I agree with it! Having said that, The abuse that you cite has also been played out in hundreds of baptist churches that are “DEACON RULED” Bad polity is bad polity no matter the label or system. Bottom line – if the CONGREGATION has voted to have an ELDER system and is involved to whatever capacity THEY have approved – then it is congregational. Baptist have… Read more »
Jack, I don’t believe anyone has a problem saying that an Elder(Pastor) LED Church is congregational, as long as the congregation truly votes on their Elders, and the budget, and such. An Elder RULED Church, where the Elders make the decisions of the Church, is not congregational, nor is it Baptist. And yes, a Deacon RULED Church is not good. And, in too many Churches, they were almost Deacon ruled. Although, in every so called Deacon Ruled Church, the Deacons still had to bring issues before the congregation; to be voted on. They didn’t hire and fire, and set the… Read more »
David, really I do not think you and I disagree on this. We are talking about semantics. We both affirm that the President of the SBC needs to be someone that affirms and practices congregationalism . I am not sure about Acts 29 for I am not nor would be a part of their network. However, unless you can show where Greers church is NOT congregational in their polity then it is a moot point.
David, just nit pick a little for clarity.
“the Elders fired him, and then they told the Church about it. That’s Elder RULED.”
Not necessarily. I am an elder in an elder ruled type church government. A pastor cannot be fired by the elders in our elder ruled churches. Maybe in the Baptist Journey they can. But that example alone does not mean that elder ruled means elders can fire the pastor.
God bless.
This might be helpful – from TSC by laws on church governance : The Congregation is responsible for carrying out the mission of The Summit Church. They are also responsible for ensuring The Summit Church remains faithful to its mission as given by Jesus Christ and to its doctrines as laid out in Holy Scripture. This church accepts as its Articles of Faith, The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000ed. A congregational vote will be required for any of the following decisions: (1) selling or buying real estate; (2) borrowing money; (3) approving the call of a new Senior Pastor; (4)… Read more »
Jack,
That truly answers my question about the Summit Church. They do appear to be congregational. It was just with his strong ties to Acts 29, it made me wonder. Thanks for the info.
David
Here you go:
Here at The Summit Church, we are “Jesus ruled, elder led
and congregationally accountable.”
http://www.summitrdu.com/about/leadership/directional-elders/
The lack of beards among that elder team is kind of concerning, though.
They are Elder Led. Elder Led and Calvinism are both completely consistent with the BFM. Greear would make a fine President as a consistent Southern Baptist.
Likewise, I don’t want to turn this in to a alcohol debate, but if they feel that they have the liberty to drink alcohol, then that is a matter of conscious. In no way should it be a basis for voting for someone or not voting for someone.
However, the lack of beards as pointed out above is concerning. That is something to take into consideration.
The alcohol issue is certainly concerning to me.
David
Me as well…and the lack of beards. Seriously, the alcohol issue for one in leadership is telling – is his personal position that it is not a sin to drink but for wisdoms sake and witness he does not? I guess I could be ok with that but if he drinks on occasion I would question that from a leadership issue. Not looking to debate the alcohol issue but that would probably move me to vote for David
Worth a read
http://www.jdgreear.com/my_weblog/2014/08/three-ways-we-make-it-difficult-for-people-turning-to-god.html
Tyler – in all due respect – it very well CAN be an issue for people to vote for someone or not. You saying it is not does not make it so. If it is not an issue for you then so be it my brother and God speed, However, to state that it SHOULD NOT BE an issue for me, well my friend simply begs the question. Please see my above comments about alcohol use and my personal position.
That’s fair, but I think Paul can really help us here.
Louis posted a good article I think that is worth reading by Greear.
http://www.jdgreear.com/my_weblog/2014/08/three-ways-we-make-it-difficult-for-people-turning-to-god.html
That’s the last I’ll comment about alcohol here.
Louis – I assume you are referring to the alcohol issue? Although I understand J.D.’s point and I would never tell anyone it is a sin to ‘drink’ neither would I ever say it is wise to do so in today’s alcohol-soaked culture. Having said that, my concern would be the leadership issue as it pertains to this scenario. At this time I am voting for J.D. but I will have to consider this in my own heart and soul.
I was.
It is not a sin.
I am a current teetotaler but was not in the past. I am not planning to change.
I agree it is not wise to drink but if it is not a sin how can it disqualify someone? Is that not erecting extra-biblical laws?
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.
Take care.
I did not say it would ‘disqualify’ him from serving. I do not believe it would be wise or good for our convention to have someone who is a social drinker (JD is not from what I gather) or would approve of leadership being social drinkers. That is my OPINION – I am not implying it should be yours.
I did not say that you did but some feel that way.
I would not and do not advise social drinking but I do not think it is a disqualifying issue. I say that but have to admit if I saw a candidate for any SBC office enjoying a Margarita, it would make me question my vote. That is more from my Baptist upbringing than anything else. Now if he was doing Jager shots then my mind would be easily made up to vote no.
I think the alcohol issue would be concerning to many as it does show a position that is certainly divergent. from the resolutions that have been offered over many years/decades by the SBC. I understand that he personally does not imbibe of the fermented brew, but to take a position that it is allowable for the Church Leadership is contrary to the position of many SBC churches.