One feature of the annual meeting of our beloved Southern Baptist Convention is a time for reports from entity heads. These leaders usually leave a short time for questions from the floor. While I’m not planning to be in muggy St. Louis next month, if I were and could stake out one of the floor mics here’s a question or two that I’d like to ask:
For David Platt, International Mission Board leader:
The locations of our overseas personnel has shifted over the past years to a greater proportion being in World A locations. I presume that these are more difficult and stressful places and would like to know some things about attrition rates:
- What is the attrition rate for our career personnel after 5 years, 10 years?
- Is there a difference in rates in World A countries and other locations?
- What is the IMB doing to reduce these rates?
- Has the IMB found that certain measures or methods of support from the home churches of personnel have reduced attrition rates.
What is the average cost of a career missions couple (single) from initial contact with IMB through appointment and the end of the first full term?
For Kevin Ezell, North American Mission Board leader:
NAMB uses “Strategic Cooperative Agreements” and “Strategic Cooperative Budgets” with state conventions to spell out joint work and funding for such work. Given that all of NAMB’s funding comes from the churches and individuals, what is the reasoning behind the policy that these agreements not public information to Southern Baptists?
NAMB has been criticized for being heavy-handed in it’s relationship with some of the non-southern states where NAMB provides much or most funding for many personnel. Why would it not be preferable to distribute funds to these state conventions as grants not tied to specific positions or goals and let local staff utilize them as they think best?
For Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:
SBC presidential candidate Steve Gaines is quoted as saying, “Calvinism does not need to be taught as the exclusive, optimal theological viewpoint in our seminaries. Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism. None of our seminaries should have a faculty of professors who are exclusively Calvinistic. Non-Calvinistic professors should be an integral part of each one of our seminary faculties because most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, and they are the ones that fund our seminaries and pay the salaries of our professors.”
Although Gaines did not name SBTS and SEBTS, others have made accusations about your two seminaries doing that to which Gaines objects. Are non-Calvinist students subjected to proactive conversion efforts by professors in your seminaries and does your faculty include non-Calvinistic professors?
___________________________
On the questions for Platt, I don’t know the answers and don’t know that I’ve ever seen material published by IMB or by missiologists in our seminaries who have been given IMB data on which they have done research. This is perhaps the most critical personnel issue for IMB and I’d like to see these rates.
On the questions for Ezell, he has an article that generally explains the agreements and the reason they are not public. While I have an idea about the second question, being the troublemaker that I am, I’d just like to see how much explanation he would give.
On the questions for Al Mohler and Danny Akin, Gaines has laid down a marker by raising the questions and making specific demands. I don’t disagree with him at all. He didn’t name names but others have and have named SBTS and SEBTS. I’d like to seen Mohler and Akin have a chance to respond. Akin has responded specifically to such things in the past.
Of course, no one will ask these questions and there’s not enough time to fully treat the subjects anyway. But, when Southern Baptists have questions, it’s always good for our leaders to give answers. If this convention is like any of the couple of dozen I’ve attended, a lot of floor time will be expended on subjects much more trivial than these.
I trust that my SBC convention-going colleagues will have a grand time in St. Louis.
Not sure about Southeastern, but the founding Abstract of Principles at Southern seems to require a Calvinistic faculty. As to conversion pressure at Southern, I have not witnessed such in the first 39 hours of my Advanced MDiv.
I’ve had friends go to Southern. They felt the pressure to convert, or else be looked down upon as sub-Christians, who are not intellectual or spiritual enough to actually accept Calvinism. I’ve had friends tell me that some of the Profs they had came down pretty hard on it, while others influenced the class just by being the dominant theology of the school. You know, they’re the Profs. They must be right…especially if ALL the Profs are Calvinists.
David
As a graduate of SBTS, the only classes I heard much talk of Calvinism were the 1 of 3 systematic theologies that covered the topic, and church/Baptist history.
And with the, most of my theology profs were 4-pointers, tops, not usually down with limited atonement.
As a student, I felt zero pressure from any faculty member to be a Calvinist. There were students who were Calvinist-or-bust, and who couldn’t believe that an Arminian like Russ Moore was allowed to teach there (and that’s not a joke, I knew some guys who said that since Moore rejects limited).
But I never saw it made a big deal by the profs.
I’ve not witnessed anything even approaching what you are reporting, David. After a full year at SBTS, I would be quite surprised if such is actually happening.
David – would you be willing to contact your friends and have them comment on their experience here at voices?
I think that this is an excellent article that demonstrates the right approach when offering questions. I have watched the life stream of questions of past conventions, and most of the time the questions seem more like an interrogation. Further, I think the way you articulated your last question was very even handed and helpful.
Good questions here.
I will say this about the seminaries… I went to Boyce College/Southern and had never even heard of calvinism. I did not have one professor in my time there ever push calvinism, at all.
It is the students who do the pushing. My professors always presented multiple view points very fairly and explained where they stood. Genuinely, no professor was ever heavy handed or even tried to be very persuasive. They did their jobs very professionally and fairly.
Seminary presidents can’t control the students who get overly excited about the wrong things (of which I once was). The factulty at Southern did an amazing job giving me a deep, thorough understanding of a wide range of viewpoints all throughout Systematic Theology.
And I think I am good evidence of that. I went in knowing little to zero theology (the SBC church I got saved in was not healthy and not doctrinal at all- thankfully God is still gracious :). Why I think I am a good example of that is there are a lot of issues where I ended up agreeing and disagreeing with my professors on issues- especially issues that I had no idea what the view points were going in.
To illustrate:
Where I disagreed with my professors after they explained several view points: spiritual gifts (I’m more charismatic than my profs), eschatology (I’m amillennial), Limited Atonement (I’m a 4 pointer), Age of the earth (I am not a young earth creationist), ecclesiology (I believe in a plurality of elders), and on and on I could go.
All in all, thought my profs at SBTS were incredibly fair and no student I knew felt put in a weird place by the professors. Again, it is some of the rabid students that can be an issue. 🙂
That’s very interesting. One of my closest friends went to SBTS for his MDiv and then SWBTS for his ThM. He said that he heard more about Calvinism at SWBTS than he did at SBTS.
Kenneth Keathley, a Systematic Prof at SEBTS, is a Molinist. SEBTS does not have exclusively Calvinists.
Likewise, it works both ways. We should not have exclusivly Non-Calvinist profs at our seminaries. I would love to know the ratio of Non Calvinist profs to Calvinist Profs in SBTS and compare that to the ratio of Non Calvinist Profs to Calvinist Profs in NOBTS or SWBTS. ,
William, I have no issue with your questions – they are pretty good.
Tyler that is exactly what I was thinking as I read this post and the comments. I, too think we should ask Chuck Kelly and Piage Patterson the same questions.
Gaines has done exactly what I hoped would not be done. That is to unnecessary throw down red meat and the gauntlet making this a Cal vs. non cal. election. There is no good end to that.
If the “non cal win” with Gaines they will read too much into it and take it too far.
If the “cals win” with I presume Greear – the rabid cals will read into it and will take it too far.
I had said previously that all three men were qualified and either would make do us as Southern baptists proud. I said I’d be happy with any of them. I said this knowing that I have personally heard, at conferences, Gaines make strawman, provocative and insulting slaps at Calvinist thought and theology. I sought to look past that – that seems to have been a mistake.
IMO, with this trash throwing – It seems I should recant part of that now – Gaines seems to demonstrate here that has got an agenda and it does not seem to be one that is unifying. I am not opposed to agendas – but I am opposed to ones that only serve to needlessly divide and cause conflict.
Meant to say the *rabid anti cals will read into it and take it too far.
Shouldn’t the other side of the equation be asked? Do non-Calvinist professors at all of our SBC seminaries present both sides dispassionately and fairly? Or do they build the straw man about Calvinism and then slay it? Money from Calvinistic churches goes to the other seminaries as well. My experience has been a passionate attack to slay a view of Calvinism that is not held by most Calvinists.
When you consider the debates the United Methodists had at their recent General Conference, it’s kind of refreshing to ask about mission strategies, budget priorities, and about how Calvinistic we are going to be!
Steve,
Amen and amen and amen. I was at the SBC’s in Dallas in 1985, and in Atlanta in 1986. I saw and heard, firsthand, how bad things were getting. We had Profs calling God, “Our Mother.” We had Profs saying that it was crass to believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus. We had Profs teaching that the JEDP theory was probably true, and some taught it as fact. We had Profs that believed in Darwinian Evolution. We had leaders, who thought that abortions were okay.
You’re exactly right. At least, we’re discussing and debating the issues we are, today, in the SBC. We could’ve been like the Methodists, and be arguing over whether we should ordain homosexuals, or not. And, we could be having big discussions over universalism and other errors and heresies.
We, Christians, are gonna need to learn how to get along with each other, better. We’re gonna need each other; the way things are going in our world.
David
Can a Cal teach theology that is not consistent with Calvinism? Can a non-Cal teach theology that is not consistent with his theology? If one can’t he should be terminated immediately from any theology department at an SBC school. Ratios are probably not necessary but competent teaching of theology that covers all orthodox positions is.
Agreed, Dean. Absolutely.
It might also be interesting to send these questions by a first-class letter and report the responses back here.
David R. Brumbelow
I’m less interested in the Cal stuff than the other questions. I appreciate the first hand responses from SEBTS and SBTS students and former students. Let’s be fair to Steve Gaines, he was asked about the C/T conflict in the convention and gave an answer. I was surprised that his answer focused on seminaries. If not for that I would have no basis to raise it with AM and DA out.
He sure seemed like he was waiting on that question and the way he answered it was pretty accusatory and certainly one sided. How about the Cal students who are “subjected” to anti cal professors and seminary presidents? He expressed no concern about that. If he had spoken more of balance and more along the lines of Dean’s point it might have been different. He could have answered it with more compassion and less accusation.
He seems he is looking for a fight. To me he made it clear that he is the candidate of the Connect316 crowd.
Tarheel,
I think most Traditionalists (though not all) will probably vote for Steve Gaines, just as I think most Calvinists (though not all) will probably vote for JD Greear. I cannot imagine that this will come as much of a surprise to anyone who keeps up with the SBC.
But Steve Gaines is not looking for a fight. Yes, he is one of the signers of the Traditional Statement of 2012, so theologically, he identifies with the 1,046 people who have signed the most attested Southern Baptist confessional statement in history with the exception of the Baptist Faith and Message—which is to say that more people have signed the Traditional Statement than have signed the Abstract of Principles.
But just because he is with us theologically does not mean he is THE “Connect 316” candidate. He has not been a speaker at any of the Connect 316 banquets and he has not attended any of the Connect 316 banquets. He is not among the 214 people who have registered for the Connect 316 Banquet in St. Louis—although of course we would love for him to join us.
Many of us like Steve Gaines. There is a lot to like—experience, wisdom, proven record, evangelistic passion and missions involvement. He is a great man of God. But he really does not possess any explicit ties to Connect 316 as either a speaker or a participant. Some on this blog site would practically disqualify Steve on that basis if he were, and I don’t think that’s really fair to Steve.
Wait, we can sign the Abstract of Principles? Where do I go to sign it? I also know a lot of people who would sign it. Rick, could you provide a link?
Rick, being proud of the Traditional Statement being “most attested Southern Baptist confessional statement in history with the exception of the Baptist Faith and Message”, is kind of like being proud to finish 2nd in a two man race. Since the “Traditional Statement” is the only one of its kind in the modern Internet Age, being proud that 1046 Southern Baptists signed it, when (conservatively) there are MILLIONS of Southern Baptists, is well…anti-climatic. Especially when you consider that some large churches with Membership Covenants have had more people sign those, than your “little” statement.
Rick – I know this idea is completely foreign to you – but For most Calvinists (except the rabid ones) and most Non Calvinist (except the rabid ones) no one cares about the Degree of Calvinism held by the candidates for Prez of the convention.
If I were able to come to the convention this year I would vote for Crosby.
“he identifies with the 1,046 people who have signed the most attested Southern Baptist confessional statement in history with the exception of the Baptist Faith and Message—which is to say that more people have signed the Traditional Statement than have signed the Abstract of Principles.”
This is KILLING me. Lol. I can’t stop chuckling. It’s not like getting 2nd in a two man race it is like winning a race that no one else is running! Lol.
Guys, I just went outside and WON THE NASHVILLE SPRINT-A-THON!!! I finished the SPRINT-A-THON faster than EVERYONE ELSE!!! SO CRAZY!!!
Thanks for the laugh, Rick.
Yeah Matt – Rick gives more spin than than a busy laundromat on Saturday.
Rick – I think there are many politicians who would pay you big money to be thier PR person – your ability to spin is amazing. Sad, but amazing.
“…214 people who have registered for the Connect 316 Banquet in St. Louis”
yeah, I’ve seen your advertisements…those logo;s and phrases look familiar….hmmmm….where have I seen those before….just can’t put my finger on it.
Tar heel, 214 registered. I’m one of them. Now as a Calvinist I have not signed the statement, but I look forward to meeting my brothers (yes we differ on some things but they’re brothers) at the dinner. When ever will I have another opportunity to meet Rick and many others with whom I’ve had some disagreement but love them nonetheless? I’m really looking forward to it. Besides, Rick pastors in the great state of sweet home Alabama, my homeland.
I think they keep it somewhere in Louisville, Kentucky. But you’re right, everyone cannot sign it…only the chosen ones. 🙂
A candidate who signed a statement calculated to bring division within the Convention hardly seems a rational choice for president of the Convention…unless, of course, one desires division within the Convention.
Amen Randall! Amen,
And Rick, that was a good pun (credit given when due!), but are saying that I am unable to sign the statement? Or is it a closed statement?
To my knowledge, no church, association, state convention, SC entity, SBC entity has adopted the TS. It cannot be legitimately used as a measure or standard for any Trustee, staff, appointment, or personnel decision. It would be scandalous if such were to happen.
We digress here but I am perfectly open to discussing whether or not it should be formally adopted…in a separate topic of course.
Rick, I’ve looked in to it and cannot find anywhere where one can still sign the Abstract of Principles. So you compared your document, a document in the 21st century where anyone can just open their phone and laptop and click a button to sign a statement that only has already been around for a couple years and has slightly over 1000 signatures in a convention comprised of millions of people, to a document that originated decades before the internet or viable communication. That begs the question, how many signatures would the Abstract of Principles have if it, like your document, was in the 21st century where millions of people could have access to it? Considering our biggest seminary abides to the Abstracts, I would image quite a few.
For a test of comparison between the strength/approval rating of the AOP and TS, someone with tech skills might create a web site, provide a link to the Abstract of Principles, and ask people to “sign” their agreement with it.
For what purpose? Has it really come to that? honestly….I don’t think Calvinsts feel the need to do so.
Heck, if the intention to post something like that was just fro the sake of comparison, I as a Calvinist would refuse to sign out of how petty and silly all this has become.
Agreed Tyler – it’s also significant to point out that multiple persons from a group of churches make up quite a few of those “over 1000 signers”. So the numbers Rick gives might be inflated – not to mention how statistically insignificant the number of signers are in total anyway.
Tyler, I don’t think it is important. But you were the one who kept suggesting the comparison between the two, not me (and Rick did first, of course). I am merely pointing out that it can be done.
Robert, I didn’t suggest a comparison. I just wanted to point out the false comparison made by Rick.
I think I will vote for David Crosby. Voting third party this year? Like his smaller to medium size church
I think Rick, seeing the world as revolving around Calvinism and anti-Calvinism, sees this election in binary terms. Gaines for the non-Cal and Greear for the Cals.
I doubt 10 people will go to St. Louis to vote for JD because of his soteriology. I’m guessing Rick’s group will use anti-Calvinism as a criterion, which is their right.
But there is a 3rd candidate and David Crosby is not to be discounted. Casting this as Greear vs Gaines is disrespectfull to a guy who I think has a lot of support.
Crosby is more than an afterthought.
I’ve not decided who I am voting for, but David Crosby is a non-Calvinist, non-megachurch pastor who is a strong possibility for me.
This is not a 2 man race.
If we are going to actually ask questions, how about some for the other entities baed on things I’ve read and heard from pastors?
1 – Ask Dr. Page or Dr. Mohler why we continue to prop up an uncredited “Seminary Extension” (seminaryextension.org) program when all of our seminaries offer either extension campuses, online courses, or modular programs.
2 – Ask Dr. Patterson about the steep decline at SWBTS over the past decade of his tenure. While the total headcount enrollment does trend toward the positive, the SWBTS SBC equivalency formula number is spiraling and the MDiv student count is a distant fourth in the SBC. (check your 2016 book of reports for the specific numbers)
3 – Ask Dr. Kelley what the deferred maintenance at the NOBTS campus is and what his plans are to address the fact that there are more students in their extension programs than on the main campus. Simply put, the main campus of NOBTS is regarded by many in the area as lifeless and not conducive to student life.
4 – And someone please ask Dr. Platt if the trustees made him aware of the financial issues facing the IMB before he took the job and what their explanation was for allowing this to continue for so long. The trustees failed us tremendously on this one. Their continued negligence contributed more to bringing home 1,000 missions personnel than anything Dr. Platt has enacted.
5 – Finally, someone ask Wanda Lee something. Anything. If not, she’s going to sit up there for an hour for no reason at all and then ride off into retirement. Ask her what the next director will do about the $1M revenue shortfall they took this past year on their $8M budget. Let her have one last crack at it.
Tyler, I was responding to your: “That begs the question, how many signatures would the Abstract of Principles have if it, like your document, was in the 21st century where millions of people could have access to it?”
Since you’re indicating you were only imagining the comparison and not suggesting it, I’ll leave it at that.
Robert, that’s more of a rhetorical question for Rick. I don’t have as much stock in this debate than he does. But he made a pretty lousy comparison and I wanted to point it at that.
I’ll leave it at that.
AMEN!!!
https://youtu.be/D4ksJCEXeQU
Vol, I appreciated that video, too. Especially how he highlighted that most of the American great awakenings were led by Calvinists. 😉
Amen. That should show some people something about Steve Gaines.
I want a spiritual awakening, too. And, I don’t care if God starts it with Max Lucado, RC Sproul, David Platt, Steve Gaines, or thru a bunch of high school students. I just want God to do something great in our Churches, and in our nation.
I pray that real revival starts, right here, in Greenfield, TN….with me. And then, see it spread to other Churches….and then, lead to another Great Awakening. We need it, very bad; so bad.
David
It might have said something positive – if he had not shot a cannonball across the bow with his Anti Calvinist rhetoric and one sided accusatory smear.
I’ve not seen an attrition report in a couple of years, but I know pre-VRI and pre-HRO the average length of service for IMB personnel was about 8-9 years. Those numbers are likely greatly skewed downward as a result of losing experienced workers, so I’m not sure the organization can answer the questions about attrition rates for 5+ and 10+ years of service.
After 5 years X% are no longer with IMB. After 10 years…etc.
If IMB doesn’t track these numbers they are incompetent. They know these things internally although the measure may be after one term, two terms etc. I cannot see why such should not be public. It’s our $250 million every year. If, for example, 1/4 of newly appointed mssys serve only one term then resign, why? What do these have in common? What do they lack that those who stay have?
If there are complications to my exact requests, I’d like to know what they are.
I imagine we track those numbers just fine, Mr. Thornton, but I don’t really know how to go about getting them.
Exec. VP Sebastian Traeger pointed out an issue our organization has never faced: today’s generation does not plan to remain in the same job for decades. Employees are more mobile than any workforce the US has ever had in terms of voluntarily moving on to the next job. While Traeger said it in the context of a discussion of retirement benefits, it plays into your question. What is the cost of placing someone in an international location and what sort of return do SBC members get on their investment?
Would you stop with the “Mr. thornton” stuff…I’m about to feel my age.
Exactly.I heard Keith parks talk about boomers being non-career mssys. You gotta know that the IMB brain trust tracks this stuff. I don’t know why it would be proprietary info or for internal use only. We pay the bills.
Sorry about the age thing. I just don’t know you well enough to use your first name.
He’s old enough for you to call him Mr. Thornton. He just doesn’t want you to remind him of that…
I can personally attest to there being non-Calvinist professors at SBTS. I’ve had 3 to date who do not align within the full spectrum of Reformed theology. Dr. Plummer, Dr. Bougher, and Dr. Crider, and I know that there are others. The professors do not push it at all. I’ve heard stories though of friends who went to NOBTS & SWBTS where the leaders and professors at Southern were regularly talked down about and nearly slandered for their Reformed beliefs. They’ve had more anti-Calvinism pushed on them from these schools by professors than Calvinism pushed on me by students by a long shot.
Jim, and it seems to me that different SB seminaries will have different % of Cals and nin Cals. I personally don’t think anyone can effectively make a case that the BF&M is clearly one or the other, so one would expect there to differences among the seminaries. SBTS would be the exception I suppose since profs have to agree with the Abstract. The point is, unlike my denomination the PCA where there is a clear Reformed confession required to be subscribed to by all ministers and therefore profs and thus where there would be no deviation from Reformed theology, the SBC has a wide range of theological views allowed since their is no requirement for adherence to either a Cal or non Cal theology.