Long ago, Noah descended from Mt. Sinai carrying five smooth stones and a sling to Mt. Carmel where fire fell, parted the sea, and revealed stones upon which were written the essential principles of Southern Baptist polity.
The basis of that polity has been, is now, and forever will be the trustee system. Each year, autonomous local churches gather in a large metropolitan area to hear sermons, elect officers, receive reports and to approve trustees for our various boards, agencies and entities. Those entities are then run and managed by those trustees. It was quite a revelation to me a few years ago to find out how little the trustees of those entities are subject to the wishes of the messengers of the SBC.
I was loudly complaining about the failure of certain boards to obey the “Garner motion.” That motion, approved by the messengers, stated that the BF&M was “the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the convention.” It was a reaction to the exclusionary policies of the IMB. I was under the impression that after the convention spoke, the IMB would be obligated to negate their policies. I received a tutorial in Baptist polity from the Rev. Dr. Bart Barber, who explained that this commonly held notion of convention oversight is not our actual system. We elect the trustees and the trustees govern the institutions, boards and agencies. Our authority over the process pretty much ends there.
We don’t have to like it, but there are few options available to us.
- We can pass motions, which the entities will receive as information and accept or not accept (usually the latter).
- We can vote at the SBC to defund an entity until it complies (kind of a nuclear option that would almost certainly not be passed).
- Or, we can replace the trustees – that option takes time. The last option was how the CR actually took place. We elected presidents who appointed the committee that nominated the committee that nominated the trustees. It took a decade to elect trustee majorities that supported the movement, and the CR was effectively complete.
- Of course, we can engage in the noble Baptist tradition of expressing dissenting opinions and trying to bring public opinion to bear on the trustees, but they can hear us or not. The trustees of a Baptist entity govern that entity and there is little you or I can really do about that.
So it is. So it has always been. So it probably will always be.
The trustees of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are under a lot of criticism for their announced candidate for the vacant presidency. I have the following observations about this:
1) It is the right and privilege of Baptists to dissent from this decision and to express that dissent. We do not have a Pope. We have a free church system that gives a pastor of a medium-sized church in Iowa the right to say, “I don’t like this decision” (as I recently did with LifeWay’s decision to relocate its World Changers ministries away from the non-South states and into the Deep South states). I get to have an opinion and express that opinion.
If you don’t think Dr. Jason Allen is qualified, or that his association with Dr. Mohler makes him suspicious, have at it. Be the Baptist Madonna (without the garish clothing). Express yourself.
2) It is the right and privilege of trustees to make these decisions. We have no right to demand that the trustees answer our questions or give account to us as they make their decision. It is unfair to act as if they are in dereliction of their duty when they do not respond to blogger’s inquiries or other requests for information. Maybe they will hear you. Maybe they won’t. But there is nothing in Baptist polity that gives us the right to expect that the trustees of Midwestern will give account or information to us prior to their decision. Hopefully, after their decision, they will share with us why they made the choice that they made.
3) It doesn’t much matter whether we “trust the trustees” or not. In our current system, they have the right to meet and make their decision as to whether Dr. Allen is qualified to be their president. We don’t have to trust them. Whether we do or not, the power rests in their hands.
4) It is foolish if the trustees ignore the Baptist public’s desire for information. I assert that Baptist entities and even trustees are more open, transparent and accountable now than they have been in the past. But the world of today is different than the world of 50 years ago, and the closed system of that era will not be accepted today. Bloggers and others in social media are going to have their say and the entities are foolish if they completely ignore public opinion or try to squelch it and intimidate those who speak it. The trustees of the seminary will be wise if, after making their decision, they are open, candid and transparent about the decision.
5) Just because someone dislikes the outcome does not mean that the system is broken. That has become the common refrain among us when we don’t like the vote at the SBC or at the trustee level. If they did not vote the way I wanted, the system must be corrupt or broken or rigged. But Baptist polity, for good or ill, is based on the fact that the majority that matters is the majority that votes at the SBC. They (we) decide. Any one of us can go there (if our churches send us) and have our voice. But Baptist polity only works if those who cannot muster a majority accept that decision. The only other option is the one liberal/moderates took back in the 90s – to leave.
But that is our system. We discuss. We vote. We do what the majority believes is right. We hope and pray that this majority was spiritually attuned. We move on.
These are just a few thoughts. Now, you can give your opinion.
Sounds like an impasse to me. Miller says SBaptists can express dissenting opinon but trustees don’t have to listen…has always been that way and will probably always be that way. Goes on to say that trustees would be foolish to ignore the voice of dissent. The risk of being “foolish” has never stopped them before. Here’s a thought, try reduction of CP giving to a token 1% among a significant portion of SBC churches. Over time there won’t be any choice but to rebuild the whole decision-making, crony-appointing apparatus from the ground up due to lack of funds.
If there is some sort of fundamental problem, your CP cutting makes sense. If it is just a disagreement, it is petty.
Every time someone cuts CP giving, SBC missions are hurt a little bit. A 1% reduction is anything but token.
There is always the option to designate your CP gifts that they do not go to a particular agency, in this case MBTS. When this is done a larger “chunk” of your CP gifts are going to missions, the remaining seminaries (assuming you have not defunded them-SBTS, SEBTS), and other entities- since there is nothing going to MBTS.
This gives each church a voice, and is perhaps THE “squeaky wheel” that gets concerns addressed.
I hope churches do not take the designation route.
We have some differences in strategy and ministry priorities, and some structural and procedural differences. But do we not agree that the Cooperative Program is an effective way to reach the world for Christ?
Should we not rise about petty differences (when those differences truly are petty) and join together in CP missions?
I hope the spirit of “If it doesn’t go my way, I’m going to designate my offerings does not catch hold.”
That is just one pastor’s opinion.
I’ve yet to hear of Calvinist churches designating CP offerings away from SWBTS or NOBTS. Yet, I know of non-Calvinist churches diverting funds from SBTS and SEBTS. The Cooperative Program is based on cooperation, not narrow litmus tests of doctrine. Let’s cooperate and be Southern Baptists.
Having been out of “ministerial” loops for a few years, Josh’s division of SBC churches into “Calvinist” and “Non-Calvinist” catagories is a new twist for me. Most of us were always aware that some churches leaned a little more heavily than others toward Calvinism — Never heard until the last 10 or 15 years this language of “camps.” “Let’s all cooperate and be SBaptists without doctrinal litmus tests” is the same slogan used by all theological subcultures taking the reigns of SBC leadership whether they be moderates, fundamentalists, calvinists, arminians, animals, vegetables or minerals.
And the “as it always will be” stuff was meant ironically.
“Be the Baptist Madonna (without the garish clothing).”
There’s a lime green suit joke in there somewhere…
Liberal.
Liberal in my use of my rather pitiful sense of humor.
Dave, While I am in substantial agreement with your post, including your five observations, I would quibble with at least some of your conclusions in point #5. Although I do not believe you meant to imply this, it could be inferred that you believe that only what happens at the SBC Annual Meeting — as voted on by a majority of messengers at said meeting — is the final word in terms of Baptist Polity. Of course, there are at least four different autonomous groups that are cooperatively connected within the SBC — local church, association, state convention, and national… Read more »
I think the test of each of us, and especially of our convention, is what happens when we don’t get our way.
If it is a matter of biblical conviction or gospel truth we should do the Martin Luther “Here I stand” thing. Uncompromising stands for truth. But if it is not something at that level, then one of the keys to unity is submitting to the majority, even when you disagree.
While I think the handling of this has been inelegant and not as beneficial to the candidate, trustees, and SBC at large, I am on record as saying that the seminary and new president, if confirmed, will have my prayers for stability and success.
I do not know anything about the quality of Dr. Jason Allen (none of us really does). I do not know that I had ever heard of him before the announcement of his candidacy.
But I cannot understand what has been “inelegant” or “unbeneficial” about the process. The committee met and selected a candidate. They announced the candidate. They will present the candidate as is appropriate and vote according to the process prescribed.
The only thing that they have done is to fail to satisfy the curiosity of bloggers, which I think would have been a violation of their process.
Your opening of mixed metaphors almost begged for laughter, but the subject is sobering reality. Baptists copied a political system from the US govt and from certain secret societies. The one point the landmarkers have in their favor is that the highest degree of cooperative effort you find in the NT is the association of individual churches, providing logistical support for charitable relief (i.e., Jerusalem) and missions, support of Paul for instance. Lack of control is an open door to infiltration, mystification, and covert control. Sort of like what the report was on the doedekers (greek for twelve) who sought… Read more »
“But there is nothing in Baptist polity that gives us the right to expect that the trustees of Midwestern will give account or information to us prior to their decision. Hopefully, after their decision, they will share with us why they made the choice that they made.” Bingo. Since it seems that some of the dissenters are certain that the only reason Dr. Allen is being considered is because of his Mohler connection, would it be reasonable to expect that the trustees would simply acknowledge that fact? It would be reasonable for them to be honest, but I seriously doubt… Read more »
With this in place, it is absolutly necessary to simply “Preach the word! Be ready in season [and] out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” (2 Tim 4:2). The children of Israel also were instructed to chose leaders to spy out the promised land and couldn’t pick the right one’s. God’s plan usually reveals the true heart of the people.
Good post.