Last week Baptist Press reported that “Amid continuing discussion of churches’ escrowing or withholding Cooperative Program funds, the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee launched two efforts to study the issue at its Feb. 20-21 meeting in Nashville.”
Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX recently announced that they would be escrowing $1 million dollars while they evaluate future support of Southern Baptist Convention causes. The announced concerns were related to “various significant positions taken by the leadership of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.” We’ve discussed this quite a bit here at SBC Voices over the last couple weeks. You can find some of these articles here, here, here, and here.
Certainly the situation at Prestonwood is by far the most significant known occurrence of a church escrowing Cooperative Program funds. But apparently there are other churches who have contacted the Executive Committee to let them know that they have done or are considering doing something similar. So the Executive Committee is responding by launching a couple study committees.
I judge this to be an appropriate response. I agree with Executive Committee chairman Stephen Rummage who said, “The issues behind [churches’] escrowing funds have risen to a level of prominence that justifies us taking a special look.” Sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the problem won’t solve anything.
One of the charges often lobbed against our entities is that they do no listen to the churches. Well, the Executive Committee is listening. They want to understand why churches have made the decisions that they have made, and they want to see if there is a way that reconciliation can occur.
I’ve talked about the Executive Committee’s actions some with a friend since the news broke. He argues that the Executive Committee is rewarding bad behavior. He feels that Jack Graham and Prestonwood are making a power play with their money and that the Executive Committee is falling in line by launching this study committee.
I understand his concern. We do not want to send a message that the way to get your way in the Southern Baptist Convention is to withhold funds. Using your money to get what you want should never be the way God’s people do business.
But what happens if the Executive Committee ignores Prestonwood and the other churches that are planning to do the same thing? They will feel like they have not been heard. They will feel like no one cares about their churches and their contributions. There will be no reconciliation, and these churches will take their missions dollars elsewhere.
That’s the conundrum. The Southern Baptist Convention is a cooperative effort. It requires cooperation. And when there are issues, cooperation means that we are willing to listen. That doesn’t mean that we have to agree with all of the concerns that others may raise. It doesn’t even mean that we submit to whatever it is that they want. But it does mean that we are at least willing to listen with the hope that there can be reconciliation.
So I for one am glad that the Executive Committee will be looking into this. I hope they can develop an understanding of what is going on and come up with a way forward that is satisfactory to all involved. So let’s applaud their efforts, and pray they are successful.
In case you feel we haven’t covered this controversy enough, here’s another article about it.
If the Executive Committee members speak to one another in a ‘study group’ about this issue they are not going to come up with any truly helpful answers (ref: Great Commission name change fiasco). Maybe Frank Page should pick up the phone and call Prestonwood’s pastor. That might actually begin a helpful dialogue. This is not a hard problem to solve.
Allen, why would you assume that this study committee wouldn’t involve talking to Jack Graham. I’m sure that will be near the top of the to-do list.
Also, your comment here shows the absurdity of the “elites” accusation you keep throwing around. If there are any elites, Jack Graham is one of them. Yet he’s not included in your pejorative use of the term because he agrees with you.
I am glad you are covering this. The blog is called “SBC Voices.” This is happening in the SBC and it’s news. So you are doing the right thing to report on it.
In SBC life, the EC has 2 choices when it comes to the behavior – try to do something to respond to it, or ignore it.
There is not a third option, such as punish the church or run it down.
I believe that Frank Page is an excellent, fair, and proactive leader. He chose to address it.
I believe that is the right course.
The genesis of the controversy is not important from an organizational standpoint.
You have an agency that led as aggressive an agenda against a political candidate as I have seen. The agenda included attacking the candidate’s supporters.
When you then consider that an estimated 80% of the SBC then turned around and voted for the pariah candidate, you have an issue that really can’t be ignored.
I think it is a mistake to try and draw battle lines here and continue battle. To continue to try and promote that Dr. Moore was right in what he did and said, or to argue that this discussion is really just a hidden debate over Calvinism only leads to continued war.
I also believe that we have a Trustee system, and that is how we pick and choose agency leaders. Not by noise making and bullying.
This goes beyond last year’s election. It also involves ERLC initiatives on things such as immigration and race. Sometimes, as on immigration, there are real differences of opinion. The ERLC has gone on record as having a very convictional view of the immigration issue. I suspect that position and the policy prescription advocated by the ERLC is very different than most common folks in the SBC. On that issue, and others, I suspect the ERLC is going to have to pull back.
On issues like race, there is not really a substantive disagreement, but a question of tone and cobelligerance. Most in the SBC are very comfortable with our good brothers like Fred Luter and Dwight McKissack, but they are not comfortable with groups like Black Lives Matter. I believe the ERLC is more comfortable with affiliating with some groups that the SBC base.
These are only examples.
I suspect that to extend an olive branch, recognizing that the ERLC is funded by all of the SBC churches, not just those of a certain political bent, the ERLC is going to have to reemphasize the agenda that the vast majority of SBC churches agree with.
I also believe that the churches that are currently angry about the ERLC will have to accept a slightly redirected emphasis from the ERLC, and let go of any designs to run Russell Moore off and to try and fill his position with a mega church type person who is more to their liking.
This is all easily achievable in my view. No one will be perfectly happy with it, but it is a path to peace.
“Most in the SBC are very comfortable with our good brothers like Fred Luter and Dwight McKissack, but they are not comfortable with groups like Black Lives Matter. I believe the ERLC is more comfortable with affiliating with some groups that the SBC base.”
I’m glad that “most” Southern Baptists are comfortable with Luter and McKissic. Good grief, the fact that you typed that and didn’t realize how it read is a shame. When has the ERLC come into line or supported BLM?
And, on Immigration, how is the ERLC at a different place than the majority of Southern Baptists? I represent the ERLC’s position on this issue and speak on it all over the South in the most rural and traditional areas. I’ve never gotten pushback after presenting the perspective. I am promoting the exact same view that Richard Land developed and the ERLC hasn’t changed and there is great agreement among Southern Baptists on the overall view that is based on SBC Resolutions from 2006, 2011, and 2016. What are you basing your assumptions on?
Alan:
First, If you are able, I would appreciate your refraining from trying to put me down morally.
You may be illustrating the observation made recently by one pundit regarding “racism.” That is, that “racism” charges and discussions about racism are generally discussions among white people in which one white person tries to “one up” another white person by calling or implying that a person is “racist”.
If we could avoid that kind of game, I believe we can dialogue.
Now, to the substance of what you have said.
It’s just my perception on the race question, but I have heard some concerns on that issue with regard to the ERLC and have tried to understand it. To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense inasmuch as the SBC had enthusiastically elected Dr. Luter. I have not said that the ERLC is a Black Lives Matter supporter. My sentence had a typo in it, but what I was saying, and I believe, is that Dr. Moore and the ERLC may be handle racial issues differently from some Southern Baptist churches. I believe that is a matter of strategy and emphasis. I do not believe that all SBC churches might agree on the strategy. And that would include things such as which groups to meet with, what policy prescriptions to support, how to balance concerns about race with law enforcement concerns etc.
On immigration, you seem to believe that because of the passage of resolutions that the SBC is united on that question. I have some observations about that proposition.
First, in addition to having no force, resolutions are often imperfect methods for expressing denominational thinking. Those who propose and draft them certainly try to use them in that regard, but there is often less enthusiasm for some parts of a resolution than one might like to think.
Take, for example, the resolution that passed last time we met in Phoenix. I believe there was a resolution that requested LifeWay stop using the NIV version, or something to that effect. That resolution passed because of those who were in the hall at the time. I doubt whether that resolution has the strong support of a majority of people in the SBC.
Also, resolutions often say some things on which we all might agree, but they might say other things for which there is less support. For example, a resolution might say that all refugees and immigrants are created in God’s image, and that the church should seek to minister to those in our midst. People would agree with that. But if the resolution implied certainly policy solutions to those problems, the support may be much softer. Still, that resolution might pass.
Given that it is very hard to amend resolutions from the floor in detail (it does happen, but it’s no fun, and only so much of it can occur), people will often vote for resolutions and agree with everything in them with equal enthusiasm.
President Trump’s campaign centerpiece was his position on immigration. There is no denying that. The President received significant support for evangelical Christians and people in the SBC.
So, I am trying to put all of these pieces to the puzzle together. It seems to me that the majority of folks in the SBC want a different approach on immigration. They love refugees and immigrants, but they question the official policy prescriptions on those issues.
I attended an ERLC event one time (3 or so years ago) where a questioner asked Dr. Moore about the chances of passing so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” (a/k/a “amnesty”). The questioner seemed confident that everyone in the room agreed with his desire to see the then-pending bill pass. And Dr. Moore took the question as if he thought is should pass. I looked around the room and was distinctly aware that many folks in that room probably did not agree (like myself) but were not taking the opportunity to try and argue the point.
I would be seriously interested to hear your theories on why a people (people in SBC churches) whom you may believe are so enthusiastic for certain policies related to refugees and immigration would turn around and vote for a candidate who wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico.
Did the SBC people really not vote for President Trump?
Did the SBC people vote for President Trump, but they reject President Trump’s refugee and immigration policy? (This is a stretch inasmuch as there were about 100 Republican candidates, and President Trump beat them all in the primary with the strongest immigration position).
Are the people in the SBC just voting and they really don’t understand what they are doing?
Those are my thoughts.
I would be interested in hearing yours.
Provided you can play nice.
Louis, I can play nice. I’m responding to your words. I didn’t put your down morally. I responded to your statement that most Southern Baptists are fine with Luter and McKissic. Really? Most? Because they are black? What other reason are you giving? And, most, not all? However you meant it, that sounded terrible. Me saying that is not putting you down morally. It is addressing the way you phrased your thoughts on the matter. I have no idea of the thoughts of your heart or your morality. I can only respond to your words.
As for Resolutions not being binding and not capturing the will of the SBC, I understand your point. But, they are stronger than gut feelings, looking around the room, and statements of “some pastors are saying.” So, the resolutions work in that regard. As for them not being amended, I’ve amended resolutions from the floor. It was not difficult. I tend to think that if there is no opposition and the resolution passed overwhelmingly as the refugee one did last year (the amendment to strengthen it passed 7000+ to zero), then that is a pretty good sign of the will of the convention gathered. We have no other mechanism.
I can show you multiple polls that show that 75-85% of Southerners and of Evangelicals want to see legal status offered to classes of undocumented immigrants. There were exit polls saying the same things. These polls go back for over a year from multiple organizations. I’m inclined to think they Southern Baptists and Evangelicals voted for Trump because he was a lesser evil than Hillary, because of abortion and religious liberty issues involving gay rights, and because of the Courts – all the reasons they they said they voted for him. Immigration and refugees rarely comes up. You seem to be reading into things.
Calling immigration reform = amnesty is absolutely wrong. Amnesty has never been on the table. That was Ted Cruz making stuff up and Trump going along with it. There was never a call for people to go free and clear. There was the offer of a pathway and fines, back taxes, and a 10-13 year process that they would have to go through IF they qualified in the first place. That is not what Amnesty means.
Louis, there are many opinions on these issues. I agree. You have your own strong view and you think that many agree with you. That is fine. Truth is not based on poll numbers, so I’m not too concerned about who agrees or who doesn’t. As for resolutions not dictating policy, I largely agree with that. There are many policy approaches that can be taken. I’m for a lot of them if they are based in Biblical truth. But, I think you go to far to say that Southern Baptists voted for Trump because they agreed with him on immigration. There is little actual evidence to support that claim. Our interests were much broader, and I would say the reasons that we voted for him align perfectly with the work the ERLC does and continues to promote.
We are about to learn a lot about the future of the SBC. If the EC study group decides to appease the fit throwing of Prestonwood and these other churches that are using money to try to influence the convention then the SBC is on its way to an end.
Despite all the volume from Dr. Moore’s detractors, the future of the SBC is very much represented by men like him and David Platt. People who are more concerned with Kingdom than political power. If the EC decides to reward the fit throwing, it will prove to many young and middle aged pastors and church members that they don’t have a place in the SBC and they will leave.
I would not blame them in the least.
Yep. If they “appease the fit throwing of Prestonwood” more churches will do so whenever they disagree with someone.
That’s why this will be done quietly, along the lines of what I have suggested above.
Yes, I agree. It seems that theology and great commission tasks may not be enough to unite.
I wish that Dr. Graham and others would just come out and say what they are concerned about… The smoke and mirrors about the ERLC, IMB, Trump, and soteriology is unnecessary.
I will continue to say this is about power and control until proven otherwise. There is a certain group that believes they were the heirs to the CR and something went wrong on the way to their coronation. These pesky guys and gals showed up who were not willing to “wait their turn” or cede to the good old boy network. Now in order to reclaim what they think is rightfully theirs, this group has no choice but to demonize and seek to discredit the leadership that is in place. And to do it by any means necessary.
I have been saying it for 5 years or more. This is what all the hoopla is about. I’m personally shocked that now it’s coming down to withholding money to get what I want. That’s the lowest form of manipulation. But when you are defeated at every other turn, I guess that’s all you have left.
Alan:
Thanks.
If that sentence is your only concern, I said “most” because I am uncomfortable saying “all” because I don’t know all. They beat that out of you in law school – “all” “every” “always” because all it takes is 1 exception, and then you are wrong. I did not mean 50% plus 1.
I trust that helps.
Thanks for acknowledging the issue about resolutions. You clearly get my point.
Amending resolutions is hard because of time. Just ask those who wanted to amend the flag resolution when debate was cut off last year. I was glad debate was cut off, and I favored the resolution strongly. But I note there was a lot that others wanted to say.
My subjective impressions are just that and I agree they don’t have much force.
I do recall Dr. Moore’s response to a question asked about immigration by John Killian, I believe in Houston. That may have been a low point for me in terms of an agency response to question posed by a messenger.
I don’t know what polls you are referring to. The only objective poll we have is the election. And do recall that the President was doing really well with southern evangelicals in the primaries – even before it was a choice between the now elected President and Clinton.
I guess we will see if Southern Baptists rise up to oppose the President on his refugee and immigration decisions. So far, I have not seen much opposition from Southern Baptists.
So I take it from your response, that when it comes to the issues with the ERLC and Dr. Moore, you are of the belief that the ERLC positions on immigration and refugees are wildly popular with the people in the pews in the SBC.
I don’t quite share Adam’s optimism and enthusiasm on this. I read that the EC’s meetings are open but people cant be quoted. It would be nice to have reported what other complaints were discussed at the meeting other than the ERLC.
If the process and results of this are public, that is, people speak on the record, deliberations are public and reported, and data gathered is made public then perhaps this will be beneficial. If we have secret meetings, minutes locked up for decades, and are presented with fait accomplis then probably not beneficial.
I agree with Louis on Frank Page. He has my confidence.
Optimism? Okay.
But enthusiasm? Nah.
I prefer benefit of the doubt.
Abson:
You could be correct. On the part of some, this may be a method of getting the ERLC post.
I have watched battles such as this for over 30 years in Baptist life.
The Trustee system works slowly, and agency heads are in a strong position, unless the problem is money or women.
The way to be back a challenge that has improper motives at its base, is to respond to legitimate concerns. I believe if the ERLC responds to the criticisms that have been lodged publicly and in a gracious manner (which o have no doubt Dr. Moore will do), it takes the club right out of the hands of someone whose motive is other than what they have stated. I am very optimistic about this getting worked out, but it will take a lot of hard work.
If it’s just ERLC I share your optimism. Moore has already responded reasonably and graciously. Seems the EC has a broader agenda, unstated other than as “anything” that negatively impacts CP giving. We will see (I hope).
William,
”
If the process and results of this are public, that is, people speak on the record, deliberations are public and reported, and data gathered is made public then perhaps this will be beneficial. If we have secret meetings, minutes locked up for decades, and are presented with fait accomplis then probably not beneficial.
I agree with Louis on Frank Page. He has my confidence.”
I agree with you 100%!
I believe the study committee that the exec committee is establishing is a proper response to the problem. Of course setting up a study group does not preclude interested parties on both sides of the “escrowing funds issue” from having one-on-one discussions to try to flatten things out.
I believe that any study committee that the EC sets up would be even more useful if it took a look at the need for the continued existence of the ERLC. I just don’t see a way forward for the ERLC right now given the hornets nest that they stirred up. They are just pouring salt in the words in an already badly divided SBC.
Let me stipulate that the ELRC was totally correct by calling attention to the glaring flaws of both candidates. The problem is that a sizeable portion of the people sitting in our pews each week are so desperate for change that they only looked at the election in a transactional way — devoid of any spiritual dimension. To be more blunt their vote says “the ends justify the means”. They close their eyes to any type of spiritual discernment.
I’m guilty as charged because I voted for Clinton.
Others also need to do some self assessment because they actually voted for Trump.
I don’t know about how accurate the polls are that claim “80% of evangelicals voted for Trump”. I don’t know if “evangelicals”, as defined in the polls, consist of people in the SBC or not. I don’t know how the polls would have been different if only ‘people who attend SBC churches regularly’ were in the polls — rather than just the generic term “evangelicals”.
But I have anecdotal evidence that a lot of people in SBC churches voted for Trump. That’s because I have talked to a sampling of people in my church here in OKC and they said they voted for Trump. I admit that my sample is very small. But just take a look at who won the election across all 77 counties here in Oklahoma — which supposedly is the buckle of the Bible Belt.
Obviously people in the SBC have a lot more on their mind than listening to the ERLC. Most of them don’t even know what or who the ERLC is. I say this is good since the purpose of the ERLC is to represent the SBC in the public square — not to try to compete with whatever teaching is happing in the pulpits of our churches.
To a large extent ERLC is totally disconnected from people’s awareness. Eliminating the ERLC is not going to solve our problems. But at the margin at least it would be a step in the right direction. Because then at least there wouldn’t be a pretext for disaffected churches for making ominous moves which could threaten the long term viability of the “rope of sand” which hold this whole thing together.
Finally, let me state that keeping or eliminating the ERLC is not a hill to die on. If I’m the only guy calling for the elimination of the ERLC and everyone else says “keep it” then I’ll just fade into the woodwork.
Here is what I think we need:
(a) Make the main thing the main thing,
(b) Make the main thing the main thing.
(c) Make the main thing the main thing.
(d) Turn down the heat.
(e) Have a calm discussion regarding how we can patch things up
(f) Look at whatever role the ERLC should have going forward.
I have formally asked someone in leadership of the EC to look at item (f). I put my request in writing.
Roger OKC
I would be interested in knowing the level of CP giving of the Young Reformed Pastors’ churches. It seems to me Dr. Platt’s church gave nothing to CP. I may be wrong; I just have an inquiring mind. Thanks for any information you can share.
Jesse, throwing out a ridiculous and untrue charge is not justified by following it with “I may be wrong; I just have an inquiring mind.”
My brother, cool your jets… I wasn’t making any charge. My main question was about the level of CP giving by the Young Reformed Pastors’ churches. Can you handle that question?
“My main question was about the level of CP giving by the Young Reformed Pastors’ churches. Can you handle that question?”
What does this question have to do with the blog post at hand?
Jesse:
I don’t know if they break down CP giving in this way.
I don’t think there is any question but that the younger more Reformed churches have a wider pattern of giving, other things in addition to the CP. They are clearly ERLC supporters.
But it is interesting to note the silence of younger agency heads in all of this. We have heard about the influence of Dr. Mohler and the placement of his friends and supporters at many agencies, these agency heads, and Dr. Mohler, are silent. I am not finding fault there. I believe it is indicative of how significant and sensitive this matter is.
The blogpost talks some about “giving and escrowing of CP gifts.” I just have an honest question about the level of giving by the Young Reformed Pastors’ churches. Brother, I am not looking for an argument, nor am I looking to attack anyone. I am just wondering if anyone knows. That is all…
I think the biggest issue is that it’s impossible to answer your question. The ACP doesn’t ask about soteriology. I can only speak for myself. My soteriology is Reformed. Both churches I have pastored gave/give 10% to the CP.
Adam,
Thank you for your response.
I think we can divide the stuff that is potentially contentious with the ERLC into three main buckets. The awareness level of each of these tiers is one or two orders of magnitude greater than the next lower level.
LEVEL ONE — Biggest issue — Trump vs Hilary — If you are still breathing and have a pulse you know about this issue
LEVEL TWO — Secondary issue — Situation with immigration, DACA, the wall etc. Many people in the SBC are weighing in on this. Also, some think the SBC should speak up and/or do more on this.
LEVEL THREE — Lowest issues — Some nuanced argument about amicus briefs before the courts on stuff such as the mosque building permit in NJ. Probably less than 1% of the people in the SBC even know there is discussion about this. You would have to be a nerd — like most are the frequent this blog — to even know about all of this stuff.
I don’t know exactly what the issue is fueling the protest by some churches leading them to [at least temporarily] hold back CP giving.
However, Dr. Moore’s apology evidently did NOT lower the heat since — last time I checked — the dissenting churches are still staging their protest using embargoed CP giving as part of their protest statement.
Roger OKC
Roger:
That’s not a bad rough division, though I think that Alan would disagree that there is any disagreement about immigration. From what I can tell, he thinks Southern Baptists are altogether on this issue.
I do not agree, and agree with you. But to work on a problem, it usually has to be defined first.
“…the ERLC is going to have to reemphasize the agenda that the vast majority of SBC churches agree with.”
Perhaps SBC churches would be better served if the ERLC were simply allowed to reemphasized the agenda of the Book.
I wonder if Jack Graham asked his church if they wanted one million dollars of their offerings escrowed. Is that the way it works in mega churches where elite pastors handle the offerings as if they have total control of how they are spent? I don’t believe my pastor could make that decision unilaterally and I don’t think the church would go along if he requested it.
That’s a really good question. I suspect the cherished baptist tradition of congregational polity is more of a theory than a reality is most mega-churches. Our church would never allow our leadership to make that decision without a congregational vote.