Happens every spring: someone has a eureka moment and asks, “Why can’t the SBC Annual Meeting be held in both a central location and numerous satellite locations?” The arguments are always the same. Some tout benefits seen as inherently positive and some arguments express a dissatisfaction with current decisions of the SBC that would be solved by greatly broadened participation. Here’s a sampling of comments..
There is no way my church can afford to send messengers all over the country, but we could get to a central location in our state.
It would be awesome to be able to go to an Association meeting point and be able to vote, etc.
It’s a great idea. It decentralizes control of the SBC and brings it back to the local church level.
I can vote for the POTUS close to my home, why can’t I vote for POTSBC?
Local associations could be certified to register and tally votes.
There is no reason not to move into the 21st century.
It would be easy to facilitate remote locations for churches to participate in the business of the convention.
It would mean the SBC would have a much higher level of grass-roots involvement.
If our convention leadership wanted to involve the churches they could make it happen.
It will never happen. The megapastors want to maintain control.
Many more church would participate and that’s always good.
This comes up every year and we have the same discussions. Here are a few observations gleaned from a few decades of pondering the idea of expanding the annual meeting to multiple sites.
- The Executive Committee has examined the concept. Can satellite enthusiasts at least drop the slander that there is a cabal of SBC leaders who are stifling the idea? The EC has had experts look at this.
- The SBC Annual Meeting is not just a big confab where folks can vote but is an important corporate meeting where legal decisions are made. If these decisions are not made in accord with law, lawsuits could be filed to overturn decisions. Decentralizing the corporate meetings would multiply the susceptiblity for this.
- We don’t allow proxy voting. You gotta be in the hall voting your own, lonesome vote along with all the other thousands of “owners” of the SBC. A corporation’s ownership is by shareholders of record as of a certain date who may give their vote to others to vote at the centralized meeting.
- SBC voting is unpredictable. Candidates aren’t always known in advance. The issues that even require a ballot are not known in advance. There would be no way to have any vote without a ballot, since the chair would not be able to determine if a voice or standing vote was positive or negative on any issue.
- Security is an issue. As it is, messengers are registered either online or in person by verifying a few things. With remote locations this would be possible but not under strict control. Voting presently is discrete, concrete, and easily and quickly verified – paper ballots in buckets received from folks in a single room. Ensuring the same in a thousand locations, or a few dozen remote locations, would probably be impossible. No corporation does this, for good reasons.
- Decentralization would necessarily have two classes of SBC messengers. Those at the main central location would be able to make motions, offer amendments, propose resolutions and discuss these while the back-of-the-bus satellite attendees would not. Even proponents acknowledge that remote participation, making motions, offering amendments, getting the floor to speak to issues, would be impossible.
- Counting votes would be more difficult, perhaps impossible to fit in our time allotment. My state has electronic voting yet some voting districts still take hours, sometimes overnight, to report a vote total. As it is we use optical scanning (I think) and votes are tallied within minutes. Do we think that every association or other remote location will be as quick or have no issues. If Podunk, Iowa has a problem we all have to wait until they straighten their mess out?
- Confusion is common at our one meeting now. It would only be multiplied with many locations.
- Any decentralization would likely lead to more, not less politicization.
- Change would be harder the more locations and participation there is. The idea that if we got the grassroots involved things would be different seems intuitive. In fact, it would probably be harder. A few thousand votes can make decisions now. It would take multiples of that with remote locations voting.
- Anyone who wishes can participate now. The meetings are live streamed and anyone can follow the flow of things and stay informed.
- The same reasoning ought to apply to state conventions. Do any of them offer remote participation? None that I know of although it would be far easier for them than the SBC. Why don’t they?
- Unintended consequences. Folks have been ruminating about this for a long time but some consequences have likely not been discovered.
Amazing…the SBC somehow managed the Conservative Resurgence using the system we have, and still have.
I suppose (and this falls into the category of rank conjecture) that it would be possible for the SBC to have a proxy system whereby presidential candidates could be remotely balloted. This would require registration of messengers by a certain date, a set slate of candidates by a certain pre-convention date, and paper or electronic votes by a deadline prior to the convention where officers would vote the proxies. I can’t imagine why any SBC populists would think this a better system.
It’s a bad idea. The benefits of decentralization are grossly overstated and the drawbacks are always ignored or understated. But, I am open to being convinced that some change can be managed.
Critics should show up, make motions, and win votes.
____________________
There are more reasons than I’ve given here, perhaps some better than mine. Many of the questions are legal questions and while Baptist pastors traditionally claim expertise in all areas, I acknowledge my lay legal views likely miss many of the issues. Not to be unsaid: the major benefit of remote locations would be a host of incredibly bored people who think, “Why am I sitting here all day?”
I used to think it was a great idea, but then after attending a few SBC Annual Meetings realized it’s pretty unworkable.
I think there should be some format which allows for a major vote, like a BF&M revision, to be taken across the SBC. Perhaps with a 1-church, 1-vote type of numbered ballot.
But, taking just last year as an example, there’s no way we could have handled the “alt-right” thing with distance voting.
I want to see better participation, and I know that it’s too expensive to make the travel. Especially for bi-vo/small church folks who can’t get help with the costs from their church and may have to use up vacation time from their employer to go. But I think a real conversation about locations (Anaheim, CA?, seriously?, or Phoenix, even) and accessibility needs to be had. We’re not pulling 40K in attendance anymore, we need to rethink the size of convention center we’re in.
For that matter, we’ve got MegaChurches that could physically host the convention these days.
Good points. New locations are Nashville and Birmingham.
Very true.
I think I’d like to see us go ahead and go to every other year for the convention, and doing what I know some states do: set a central zone and be there consistently. For example, set St. Louis/Memphis/Kansas City as the central point, and then alternate West/East Coast around it. I know it would be something like 10 years before the schedule could be different, so these years are bad:
2020: St. Louis/Memphis/KC
2022: East Coast somewhere
2024: St. Louis/Memphis/KC
2026: West Coast/western US somewhere
2028: St. Louis/Memphis/KC
you get the idea.
We elect presidents for 2 years anyway, and have a 2-deep bench if the President needs to step aside. It would take some shifts in Trustee setups, but that’s not impossible.
I believe the corporate structure requires an annual meeting.
The Alabama Baptist Convention State Board of Missions says it has 3,200 congregations. California has just 900 less at a total of 2,300 SBC congregations … All I’m saying is that it’s nice that it’ll be in Anaheim for us Californians!
I like the idea of it being in Anaheim too!
If you talk to the people who actually have to come up with the space, they’ll tell you pretty quickly that there’s no megachurch who could physically host the convention, the trade show, the side meetings, etc. In fact, most municipalities cannot do so. The number of square feet that we actually use in each annual meeting is staggering.
Hey I got it! Maybe we can host a Southern Baptist convention at one of the mega’s that boasts multiple satellite churches?
This way we can hold their convention at a church… And satisfy the desires of those who want satellite voting…
😉
William,
I could not possibly agree more with with what you have written here.
To me you absolutely nailed it… And this is the money quote:
“It’s a bad idea. The benefits of decentralization are grossly overstated and the drawbacks are always ignored or understated.”
I do not think this is a great idea.
Those who advocate it wax eloquent about its benefits, but I think William has well documented the troubles attached to the idea.
Can you imagine if Dave Miller was in charge of the vote tally in Podunk, Iowa? Recipe for disaster.
Things I support would WIN.
I know that travel and hotels make it expensive and more difficult for small church and bivocational pastors, and some may say I’m not being sensitive to those concerns…
BUT…people go to what they think is important. If it was of vital importance for 20,000-30,000 churches to send someone, whether pastor or other representative, almost any church could do it. I currently attend a church with a sole bi-voc. pastor, and he goes to at least a 2-3 day pastors conference every year. He plans for it ahead of time, makes it a priority, etc…if the church thought it was a priority to send someone to a meeting several states away, they would make it work, either foe the pastor, or for someone else, likely without too much difficulty.
People aren’t motivated to attend the meeting, so they don’t. In a related way, the last two posts about the IMB reveal that the interest in giving to and fighting for our missionary force has waned.
I don’t claim to know all the reasons why, but it is a decline in interest and engagement that keeps the annual meeting small…not an inability to travel. Our history bears this out.
It’s the “Steeple” analogy: If any of our churches lost our steeple in a storm tonight, there would be discussion tomorrow at church, and the steeple would get fixed, somehow, by somebody. Either the church checkbook, or some church member, would step up and make it happen…probably pretty quick…cuz everyone would be in agreement that it just needed to be done.
Well said and spot on.
I would like to know the percentage of CP dollars that come from churches that have sent at least one messenger to the convention in the last 5 years. My guess is that the percentage would be quite high.
Adam,
My church gives 10% to CP.
As far as I know, we sent a messenger or messengers to only one convention in the last 8 years: the one in Columbus {since that is where we are located].
What I really mean is that I would like to know if the overwhelming majority of CP dollars come from churches that have sent at least one messenger in the last 5 years. I have a suspicion that it does. Sounds like your church would meet my criteria.
Adam, not sure what value you give to that stat unless you think that many CP dollars means better interest in the annual meeting? However, I think it would simply prove that the larger churches can simply afford to send more people…which is why the issue of more voting sites has come up yet again.
I read today that 7,000 churches give 80 percent of Cooperative Program receipts. The church I pastor is not a large one. We have about 100 in worship on Sunday morning. I would be surprised to discover that we are not among the 7,000. My point is that the churches most invested in the convention financially are the ones most motivated to send a messenger. I’m not talking about megas. I’m talking about average SBC churches.
Nothing is unworkable until we prove it can’t work. Remote participation is far from unworkable. It’s just hard. And there isn’t sufficient will to do the work or see things change. We send spacecraft to Mars. We could do this if we wanted to.
I’m open to being persuaded that the difficulties can be overcome but the more I learn the harder it looks.
With all the concerns you have laid out acknowledged as legitimate, the overarching point still remains…..
—we live in the 21st century, and there is simply no legitimate reason why those challenges can’t be overcome. I realize that entities more than 150 years old change slowly, but perhaps if the various committees had actually worked the barriers they cite rather than merely citing barriers, we might already be there.
Make it air tight. Make it almost annoyingly “secure” to ensure the integrity of the process. But the POTUS election is a great example. We can do this too.
This former DOM recommends every Association as a polling place: closed circuit participation and tightly controlled, standardized protocols in every location. It would engender greater cooperation at all levels of SBC life.
And the biggest reason is actually pretty simple: there is no way we can say with integrity that “the majority of Southern Baptists believe…..” when less than 5% of our churches and less than .1% of our members are represented at meetings. If we are truly a congregational and deliberative body, we can figure out a way–again in the 21st century with all the technology and cyber-security available to us–to get this done.
Perhaps within the next 10 years, we can use resources that in the last 10 have been used to host confabs dealing with name changes, “Calvinism study committees,” etc. and leverage those resources for this important work.
Just my two cents.
What would be the purpose then of having an actual convention in an actual place we invite people to actually come and partake in the process if they can just sit in their office and do it or mosey on over to the associational office?
Also what about the multitude of areas who have weak almost nonexistent associations – or the churches who have decided not to be a part of a local association?
In Every place I’ve ever served there have been seven Baptist Church is who are not members of the local association.
Also who is going to purchase the equipment necessary for the association polling places (Its been mentioned making it “annoyingly secure” – that would certainly require equipment) Will that come from cooperative program funds from the national office or state offices or will that be the responsibility of the association and churches to fund?
I agree with what was said earlier …. If it is a priority every church could send someone… I know of numerous pastors who have conference allowances sufficient to attend every year and they choose to buy books or software or attend other conferences instead… and some don’t even use it at all.
They make choices.
We have quarterly business meetings at our church they are well announced and opportunity is given for participation… But I have church members who live within shouting distance of the church that will not darken the door for business meetings… It’s their choice. I don’t feel any great compulsion to allow proxy voting or cell phone text votes from thier living room, etc.
Likewise, I do not see the need decentralize the annual meeting.
Now, on the other hand I do support potentially facilitating the conventions *present* and registered messengers a way to vote electronically rather than by paper ballot.
But that’s another discussion.
*In every place I’ve ever served there has been several Baptist Churches who are not members of the local association.
I appreciate that you gave this some thought but “closed circuit…air tight…annoyingly secure” are just words hanging in the air. We elect POTUS in a manner that is far from air tight and annoyingly secure and candidates are known far in advance.
It is my observation that people who don’t want changes are those who attend the annual meeting and those who want change are those who don’t, for whatever reason. There may be good reasons not to change, but in my opinion “the difficulty” isn’t one if them.
I have served in the pioneer mission areas in the US and know Pastors who wanted to attend but the church did not fund it and they could not afford it, personally. I have no idea how many men are out there in such a situation but I know quite a few from a few years back.
It is easy to speak against such when being able to attend is not a difficulty. Having the want and desire to go is not enough to get many there.
Technologically – this can be done. I am seeing lots of techno things happening here in Dubai that are not happening in USA (or at least we are unaware of such). My resident ID card is tied to everything… Yes, everything. My auto does not go anywhere without someone knowing where it is.
The setup costs may be huge. CP dollars need not be used for such. They are needed for secret political websites, not the voice of those who pay the bills.
Anyone who wants to watch the SBC can watch the SBC. It streams.
The only question is whether someone who is not present at the site should be able to vote.
My fear is that off-site voting will lead to massive fraud. Would it be great if we believed that Baptists would NEVER do such a thing? Yes. But you’d like to believe that Christians would never engage in some of the things we see Christians engage in every day.
The “end justifies the means” ethic abounds. I can imagine some pastor who believes that his cause is noble. He gets the “permission” of his members and registers and votes 12 of them, alone in his office. Never happen? I hope not, but some of the stories I’ve heard and some of the things I’ve witnessed, I think a lot of guys would justify voting all 12 of their messengers even if they were the only one logged in.
Plus, there is the noble end of this – the idea that the gathered body is led of God.
I’m sorry, I understand the inequity of it all. But I just don’t see how it’s gonna work.
When we were in high school, we had no idea that we would be able to carry a computer around in our pocket and be able to call anywhere in the world from that smart phone.
Also… there is a difference in watching something on a screen and being there. I wish all churches could afford to send at least one person.
I am saying such off site voting can happen thchnologically, with success in no cheating… or minimal —- there may be a few folks out there who would live to cheat such.
What gets left out of the discussion, or bypassed… since I mentioned it… are those who want to come but due to funds and jobs can’t.
Too bad I guess… but keep sending your dollars, though we could care less if you ever have a voice.
Yeah, yeah… we say we “care”. Just not enough to find ways to get people there.
We knew how to get bus loads of people to Dallas when we “cared” about a vote.
How would we know if there are 12 people in my office, or if I am voting 12 times?
You make the point of one way that will not work… but… do you really think that is the only way to make such happen?
Still silent on those who want to be involved but can’t.
For the masses who can afford the time and trip – who have arrived at the place where attending is not setting them or the church back if they do attend- it is sad to think those who wish to be there but can’t are not even considered — thought about — in how to give them a voice.
Jon, your last sentence from your 11:09 comment contradicts your whole point. If people felt it important enough to be at the convention, they would be there. That’s not intended as a criticism against those who don’t attend or those who truly can’t attend.
It’s simply not true that a church of 50 can’t come up with $500 to send a retired church member to the convention.
Adam,
Have you ever sat and talked with someone who wanted to be a part of the convention meeting but couldn’t? I’m not sure where the 500.00 figure you give comes from. Even on my trips where I am as frugal as possible, that figure would not work, unless the meeting was in my city.
Have you ever met those men who a church encouraged to go, knowing such expense of church funds was not wise at the time? I have been that man. I have made a choice to not go to be fiscally responsible for my church.
Maybe such things are foreign to the masses.
Do you know who footed the bill on many of those busses? Do you know how many of those who rode the bus didn’t stay and spend more money but got their bus ride back home after the President vote?
They didn’t want to come to the convention, for the sake of the convention, but were darn sure to make sure an inerrantist get to be President. Even at that convention in Dallas, I had friends who were not there because they or their church could not afford it. I was there because I lived there.
No contridiction.
“Have you ever sat and talked with someone who wanted to be a part of the convention meeting but couldn’t?”
My argument is not that any person who wants to attend the convention can go. There will always be circumstances that keep individuals from being able to attend the meeting. But yes, I do believe that the convention can be attended by one person from almost every church in the convention if the church makes it a priority. Obviously you cannot attend the convention on $500 if a plane ticket is necessary, but I have attended similar meetings for around that much where lengthy travel by car was necessary. But raise the number to $1,000. I maintain that if it is a priority to the church, almost every church in the convention could send one person even if it cost that much. Of course it has to be a priority. $1,000 is not $10. Churches and individuals will have to make decisions. But choosing that other things are more important does not mean that attending the convention is impossible.
Jon Estes,
Perhaps Adam’s estimate of 500 was a little low for an away conference – but maybe not depending on the city of the convention and the home of the messenger. I do wonder though about your comment that it would be $500 if the convention was in your own city… No transportation cost no hotel cost and $500… Wow! You’re seriously high matainence dude! ( 😉 for the record, that’s a playful jab)
Seriously,
When the convention is within driving distance and you go with a friend or a group of friends… I could definitely see gettin’ er dunn for $500 for gas, hotel, and meals.
I do know I’m going to Dallas by airline from NC and it’ll cost about $800 with flight, hotel and meals.
That’s not cheap – but it’s doable if it is a priority. If it’s a priority for the church and messenger great….if not that’s OK too.
I do support the idea of scholarship assistance from state conventions and associations who desire to do so to help out smaller churches/planters, etc….
I not only have spoken with people who wanted to go but couldn’t/was not prioritized in thier church or personal budget… I was one of them for many years… But to be honest it wasn’t ever really that I *couldn’t* it was just that other financial or ministerial priorities took precedence.
For example, a couple of years ago I was just starting at a new place of ministry around the time of the convention… I chose not to go that year because the bigger priority was getting started in my new church… I remember telling the friend that I usually go with that I would love to go, but I can’t… That was a choice.
I’ll also add truthfully that my support for the CP, my life nor the ministry of my church was negatively hindered because I didn’t go.
Like flowers in the spring, this subject will be perennial and critics will always abound. Here are a few more thoughts:
1. A deliberative meeting, even one as large as our where debate is necessarily controlled, is better than a sprawling, non-meeting where folks cannot deliberate but still hold votes.
2. The reasons advanced for having remote locations are not compelling. People can get to the annual meeting if desired. Most SBCers will be within a day’s drive at least once every few years or more often.
3. It’s probably a legal, corporate issue but I’d guess that proxy voting for president of the SBC might be possible but the idea that both candidates and messengers must be locked into place months before the meeting isn’t all that attractive.
4. The best idea might be for bi-vo and really small church pastors (<50 or so) to lobby their associations and state conventions for scholarship money like the PC allotted last year.
5. I'm not persuaded that low attendance annual meetings are a problem anyway. Most of the money is spent in 17 state conventions and I don't hear anyone complaining about not being able to get to their state convention.
...but it's always fun to discuss.
The fundamental idea is that a convention of 5000 will vote differently than a convention of 50,000. That is something we can never really know.
But when they do presidential polls, they poll 2000 people about how 20 million will vote, and the differences are within a few percentage points. It may be more of a comforting mythology that “if we could just get the rank and file here, our side would win.”
Dave, fair point, but I would think that the additional 45,000 at the annual meeting would make a big difference, especially for President this year. I presume that Greear (as a mega-pastor) would get more support from the larger churches who are more likely to send more messengers.
It could be rolled out in a phased approach. Mandate certain criteria for participation, and add associations as they meet it. This is not as hard as people are making it out to be. I’ll say it again, it won’t happen because people don’t want it to happen, not because it’s too hard. It’s not too hard. “We’ve never done it that way before” is more than just a tired cliche in SBC churches.
That’s not what this is, Bill.
It’s not an argument of we’ve never done it that way before… We’re making arguments that it’s not necessary and we don’t want to change the convention… It say we don’t want to it’s not a we can’t or are afraid to change.
To be honest I’m not too hip on the idea of using cooperative program funds and manpower (missions money) on such a likely expensive, time consuming and complicated endeavor.
Just because I happen to agree that it’s probably *possible*… That doesn’t mean it will be cheap, not overly laborious or uncomplicated…
I simply don’t think it’s worth the time, effort and money.
Small church SBC pastor here. Simple truth is there are other things that are more important to us than the annual convention. Is it important? Yes. I stream it every year. Is it important enough to defer funds and time to attend? Nope—at least not right now (And nothing I see on the stream every year has yet to change my mind). Would I go to my local association to vote remotely? Probably, the investment is much smaller. At the end of the day, most pastors I know simply think other things are more pressing and important than the annual meeting. For reference the group of pastors I have in mind pastor small to medium sized churches and are under 40.
Jonathan.
I’m 28, an associate pastor of a church of 200, and care deeply about the annual meeting. I told my current church that before they hired me they had to re-engage with the SBC locally, at the state level, and at the national level. I make it a priority to attend the annual meeting every year because if my voice is not registered in the form of a vote, a motion, or speaking for or against a resolution then I really have no say in what happens and have no right to complain when need be. I want to be a part of guiding the SBC into the future and to do that I need to be available and invested. That’s my two-cents on the subject. I’ve been to every meeting since Baltimore and have been able to serve as a Tellar twice, spoke on a CBMW breakfast panel, and made a motion last year that’s now been adopted by the Executive Committee.
I hear ya James. Couple of things for me though. 1) I’m not worried about having the right to complain. I tend to complain wether I have the right to or not and, either way, it effects little change. 2) Since resolutions are non binding, I find them to be of little use and think I can effect change on a smaller level. That is so say, I don’t think it’s worth the money and time to vote on non binding statements. And it seems the SBC is intentionally designed to be a grass roots movement anyhow—not being top down and all. 3) Voting for president is important, and I’d love to be able to do that remotely. The only thing I could see pulling me to a meeting would be a vote between presidents who disagreed on central theological issues. I know some see this year as such, but I’m not with them. On the soteroligal division I align with one candidate more than the other, but I’m perfectly fine with either man being president.
As Doug mentioned, part of the problem is the SBC choosing sites that are way outside the core footprint of the majority of churches and members. Thus every effort should be made to keep the annual meeting within the Bible Belt. Otherwise, we’re suggesting that easier access for people to attend is not as important.
I believe expanding voting opportunity should be considered (again). The “can’t happen”, “won’t happen” pessimism is an obstacle to finding an appropriate and needed solution. What I’m hearing is that a de facto poll tax in the SBC is justifiable. That shouldn’t be acceptable in a convention with ever-declining membership and disengagement. The SBC can and should do better.
The question which has to be asked is why is there a concern about increasing attendance at the Annual Meeting? Is it because there is an underlying belief that if more churches had Messengers in attendance the byproduct would be greater engagement with the agencies of the SBC and perhaps increased support for Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong and other initiatives?
At the core, the basic question is what is the purpose of the Annual Meeting which would motivate churches and their pastors to travel and spend a good portion of a week in attendance. From what I can surmise there are several purposes and agendas and since around 4,000 to 5,000 Messengers have been present at some recent Meetings, these agendas weren’t enough of a motivation for 40,000 churches who weren’t in attendance.
The agendas which I can see are:
1. The obvious legal requirement that the SBC as a legal corporation has to annual elect officers of the corporation. Since the days of the CR, this has not been as heated an issue and thus has not brought in the numbers which were seen in the early 1980’s when there were over 45,000 voting.
2. Reports of the different agencies of the SBC – from the IMB to the Presidents of the Seminaries – This information can easily be presented online.
3. The Pastors Conference. Obviously for some, this provides inspiration and motivation and for them, they will make the effort to travel to be in attendance for it. Others may choose to see preaching on YouTube and save the plane fare.
4. The resolutions which are presented on and voted whether it be about the Alt-Right or as in the 1990’s about visiting Disney theme parks, as someone said earlier, they are non-binding, so an individual church is not legally bound to change what they are doing because of it.
5. The personal networking opportunity for pastors to see other pastors – particularly friends from seminary. The Annual Meeting does have a unique monopoly on providing the opportunity for this to occur which is not available on such a scale any other time of the year.
I almost see the opposite from what the discussion has been in that I think pastors of the smaller churches have greater motivation to attend, if for the fellowship and encouragement and specifically for the Pastors Conference much more so than having the right to vote on officers and resolutions. On the other hand, do you think that Ed Young, Jr. of Fellowship Church or Steven Furdick of Elevation Church will be there? I could throw in Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, too. The megachurches have less of a Baptist identity, whereas the First Baptist Churches of Maryville, TN or Booneville, MS do, and they wouldn’t think of having Sunday School lessons which weren’t from Lifeway and thus, because of a strong SBC identity are more likely to be in attendance.
In summary, the greater SBC identity, the greater likelihood that an individual church will send Messengers.
I don’t like the implied accusation that people who say they would like to attend the annual meeting but either can’t afford the time or money to do so are not being truthful or are simply not committed enough.
I wouldn’t make the jump to questioning those who say they can’t make it because of the expense and time necessary to attend but would point out that these objections are at least partially answered by observing that for most SBs the site will be relatively close some years and time and money commitments are not significant.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. As I’ve said, there will always be reasons individuals cannot attend. Money, time, health, etc. I do however believe that churches can normally send at least one messenger if it is a priority for them.
Adam, I know you are not accusing anyone; not the point of my question.
Your stance is a little callous in that it assumes an ability that many churches cannot meet. At what budget percentage it is unfeasible or unwise to send someone to the Annual Meeting? $1000 can be a lot for churches with 75 or less attenders and a small budget. How far is the drive before a retiree is unable to make it easily? None of the next 3 meetings and only 2 of the next 7 are easily accessible to my community in less than a days drive.
Most smaller churches are maxed out on their budge with staff, building, and trying to do anything resembling ministry; prioritize all they want, an extra grand or so is a quite a bit to ask of them.
I pastor a small church (100+). The church I pastored before my current church was even smaller (75). It was not in the budget for me to attend my first convention. The church collected enough money to send me because several people wanted me to be able to go. I’m not saying it’s easy. I agree that churches have to determine their priorities. I commend the church that gives an extra $1,000 to CP instead of sending someone to the convention. I am fully aware of the challenges small churches face.
I’m going to give a little pushback here, too, Adam…
The church I pastor runs 70-80 typically, like your old one. Out of 30 churches in our association, we’re in the top 1/3 in size. 18 of our churches average 40 or less on a typical Sunday.
Last year a friend at one wanted to go to the convention but missed our scholarship deadline. Church sending him wasn’t an option, since they had to cut his salary 4 years in a row.
And I’ve been there, too, having pastored a church that averaged 15 and one that averaged 20. I’ve even had the experience of a treasurer pulling out her own wallet at the end of Sunday to make sure I got paid b/c there wasn’t enough in the offering plate to cover my salary for the week and with 15 people you pretty much live week to week with offerings.
$1000 extra to muster isn’t always doable, even if the church wants to.
Of course there are situations where sending someone to the convention is more difficult, perhaps even impossible. I like the idea someone had about associations and state conventions providing scholarships. But let’s remember the context of this discussion. I maintain that the primary reason we have 5,000 messengers and not 40,000 is lack of priority not inability to go. That’s my only point.
Just a little further push, a church of 100+ is not small. Not even a little bit. I venture to say a church with 75 regular attenders is not “small” either; hence my qualifier of 75 or less. We use odd metrics in the SBC to determine large and small.
To your point, part of that lack of priority is a lack of possibility. Many pastors would love to go, but don’t make it a priority b/c the feasibility of going is not worth the benefit of attendance. I think you have oversimplified the problem. I’m contending the priority stems from the ability and vice versa. Same reason why the pastor of a church of 15 is less concerned with the local association (on average) than the pastor of a church of 150. And conversely a pastor of a church of 700 is less concerned than the pastor of 150. The small church guy has no means and ability b/c he’s busy trying to keep his church discipled and functioning and the 700 guy has less need for the association b/c he probably has a bigger budget.
When in doubt eliminate the problem. If there is a way to extend participation while lowering the burden of: time, finance, and distance. It should not be dismissed b/c it is difficult or might be abused, or belittled b/c we deem others to not care.
I ask again.
Why have an on-site convention at all? If decentralization is the answer to all that ails us… Then let’s just dispense with the on site convention and just do everything online…
While we’re at it – there lots of people who cannot make it to our local church business meetings because of their work schedules and lack of priority… So let’s just allow people to vote through their cell phones in our local business meetings…
Also, There are many people who do not like crowds or have to work on Sunday’s and Don’t want to rush to come to church on Wednesday night… so let’s just have a video a link of the pastor preaching and teaching in his office (or from his home recliner) so that everyone can sit at home in their recliner‘s and watch the sermon… at their convience…. they can give to the church electronically with their cell phone – they can have small group Bible studies and conversations in private Facebook groups… There’s no need for a physical gathering of the church body for worship… because hey people have legitimate reasons as to why they can’t come and we should do everything we can to accommodate that using electronic means… we have the ability….it can be done….let’s do it.
Note: I am now removing my tongue from my cheek.
I realize the southern Baptist convention and your meeting is not a church… But the larger point I’m making is there is something to be said about everyone coming together in a single place in a single time and fellowshipping and voting, and listening to the work of the convention, and praying together, and getting to know one another…
The fact that think an argument can be made that one of the reasons there’s so much discord in our convention today… And yes even in the world in general… … Is because we are so disconnected and Decentralized…In every facet of our lives… And regularly getting more so.
There are lots of pastors in lots of locations and lots of churches that I would Not have the opportunity to meet or know anything about were it not for the Southern Baptist convention annual meeting – yes we can get on here and argue about soteriology, the “sinfulness” of this or that preference, or Trump politics or Russ Moore hatred/love or whatever but people on blogs do not know each other… Not really… Not until you make face-to-face connections sitting down over a meal and actually talking to one another.
Decentralization will exacerbate the problems of division in our convention and not encourage working toward meaningful solutions.
Tarheel (as a former North Carolinian and Tarheel disdainer I do not like this name).
1. I don’t disagree; the meeting is good. I love going to it, enjoy being there, and hate when I cannot go. I do not disagree; gathering for the Annual Meeting is good. I’m merely pointing out the real difficulties and struggles of many to attend and wish to see their arguments dealt with honestly and not thrown by the wayside as petty and uninvolved.
2. That a possible idea, might cause division (in an already divided group-we are Baptists after all); is not a good reason to examine it and think long and hard about it. The idea is not to besmirch the Annual Meeting, but provide a voice to the “average Southern Baptist” I keep hearing about from various people. Part of me likes the idea just because it might shut up some of the demagoguery that goes on as people claim to speak for the “silent majority” on every side of every issue.
3. If it never happens and things continue on as they have, then fine. I will still endeavor to attend, and still have some sorrow for the multitude of pastors, laypersons, and associational leadership that I have known over the years that have been unable to voice their concern and vote by attending.
“Part of me likes the idea just because it might shut up some of the demagoguery that goes on as people claim to speak for the “silent majority” on every side of every issue.”
No. Just no. Those people are not going anywhere….until they are laid in the in the yard beside/behind their churches.
Lol. 😉
This has been considered numerous times, As William and others have so dutifully and wonderfully pointed out in his article and in the comments…
I remain unconvinced that the potential benefits of decentralization do not come close to the drawbacks.
I have not said or implied that people who do not go to the convention do not care about the convention… I have said that for a number of reasons people who do not go do not do so because they prioritize other factors and realities… I think that’s true.
And to be clear – there’s nothing wrong in my view with prioritizing other factors and realities.
Tarheel Dave, the scenario you describe:
“Also, There are many people who do not like crowds or have to work on Sunday’s and Don’t want to rush to come to church on Wednesday night… so let’s just have a video a link of the pastor preaching and teaching in his office (or from his home recliner) so that everyone can sit at home in their recliner‘s and watch the sermon… at their convience…. they can give to the church electronically with their cell phone – they can have small group Bible studies and conversations in private Facebook groups… There’s no need for a physical gathering of the church body for worship… because hey people have legitimate reasons as to why they can’t come and we should do everything we can to accommodate that using electronic means… we have the ability….it can be done….let’s do it. ”
has actually become reality in megachurches which I am familiar with. The hassle of arriving early and getting into the parking lot (or garage)for the service and then spending 20 minutes (or more) leaving has caused many to stay at home and watch the service online. Because onsite Sunday School is a thing of the past and has been replaced by home based small groups, most attenders are likely to not interact with people they know while attending one of the multiple services, therefore they decide it is not worth the effort and they have their personal interaction with their small groups (no Facebook Groups has not replaced that…yet). I know of one large megachurch where onsite attendance has plateaued, but the number of those who watch online has exploded.
You may have been tongue in cheek, but you weren’t too off the mark in describing the trends that are facing some American churches.
I wonder if churches had it to do all over again, if they wouldn’t have begun having their worship services streamed online… It makes it too easy for many to stay at home and watch from their comfortable recliner. Also, some churches are stopping passing the offering plate since almost everyone is giving online (Hey, you can earn frequent flier points when you give using a credit card which earns you points).
I understand; and I’m not convinced satellite SBC meetings are good. To be fair, others have implied/accused not you. I’ve not been aware of the idea seriously being floated until the last few years. I’m fairly convinced by William’s reasoning; but jumped in when motivation was added to the stated reason people don’t attend.
There is a struggle to attend and the struggle is real (read that in your best whining/crying voice), I hope to attend this year; I have my hotel reserved (now I just have to be able to pay for it and the travel). I rather would see the idea rejected because it is a bad/unworkable idea; not because we can pigeonhole one side of it to suit our agenda.
Isn’t there enough of that already?
Obviously, there are some who would like to attend, but because of time and/or finances, they are not able to. However, the point which I think is being missed in this discussion is that for the vast majority of churches (my guess is 40,000) the Annual Meeting is not a high enough priority for them to send their Pastor and/or other members of the congregation to attend. Money is not a limit for the majority of them.
This begs the question: Why should these churches send a group of Messengers to attend and vote? My post was to get at those questions.
It seemed to me that the starting point for this threads discussion is an assumption that “Of course, every SBC Church should want to attend the Annual Meeting – They are Southern Baptist aren’t they?” My point is what value do these churches receive by traveling and spending a good portion of a week in attendance. Perhaps, there could be a look at reducing the number of days of the Meeting so it is less of a time commitment and as has been said previously, attempt to limit the locations to have the meeting in cities in the South where 80% + of SBC Churches still are.
The greatest value which I perceive is more relational – seeing and interacting with other pastors and friends. As I said, hearing the Presidents of various SBC agencies give an annual report is just providing information which can easily be presented on their respective websites.
Voting on resolutions about the Alt Right and not visiting Disney theme parks may motivate some on this thread to attend, but it is obviously not enticing the vast majority of SBC Churches.
William, in the OP you state: “The EC has had experts look at this.” Who are these? Is there a report available from their assessment?
Thanks.
I don’t know if any report is available. The EC atty mentioned this last June. You could contact the EC office.
Done
William – I submitted an inquiry and the EC gave a timely, excellent response (fairly long thought). I realize the discussion has moved on but I would like to share it since I think it gives some insight into the topic. Is posting an e-mail reply permitted?
It might best to reply to the email and ask if it’s ok to share publicly first, then we’ll be glad for you to copy its contents here.