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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
*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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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…… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.