There are a lot of people who are very upset about the direction of the SBC – different people have different complaints and we’ve all got some, I’m sure.
I just had a long twitter exchange with a man who asked the question why LifeWay was still selling a book after there was resolution passed a few years back that it should not be sold. I tried to explain the whole thing to him. We had a pleasant exchange (unusual enough for twitter these days!), but I realized that 140 characters at a time is not the best way to explain that system.
Years ago, I was on my high horse after the Garner motion was passed and promptly ignored by several entities. I opined loudly that when the SBC Annual meeting passed a motion, it was binding upon the entities and they should fall in line. My friend, missionary Azagen Sagna, known to most of you as Bart Barber, explained to me that such is not the case. I sought and received expert confirmation elsewhere that Bart was absolutely right. I’m going to try to explain it, but my explanation will be an utter failure. Maybe Bart will step in and either edit my post or log a comment explaining the actual facts and correcting my misinterpretations. I think I am at least in the ballpark of accurate here, even if a lawyer might not give me high marks for linguistic precision.
How the SBC Entities Are Governed
But as simply as my simple mind can state it, based upon my simple understanding – the entities of the SBC are autonomous, independent entities governed by their trustees. Those trustees are elected by the members of the annual SBC and they operate a budget that is approved by the annual SBC, but they are the governing authority over that entity. The messengers of the annual meeting, by and large, do not have the authority to dictate to the trustees of the entities what they should do. They are bound by their constitution and bylaws and the SBC has legal controls to keep them from simply going off on their own, but the entities are self-governing. They are not governed by the messengers of the annual meetings, but by their trustees.
This is on purpose. The founders of the SBC did not want the entities to be blown about by the whims of one annual meeting or the next. Imagine if one annual meeting said one thing by a 51-49 vote, the next reversed that, the next reversed the reversal. Entity employees would have whiplash!
So, every year we elect a president who nominates a committee who nominates a committee (I think that is all) who nominates trustees who are elected by the SBC. It is actually the president’s most important task. If a president wants to impact the SBC for a long time to come, he ought to spend less time appointing task forces and study groups or promoting this cause or that, and he should give his time and effort to making sure he appoints qualified committee members and that they recommend trustees who will do a good job. When he has been out of office for nearly a decade, people who are trustees as a result of his appointment process will still be shaping the future of the SBC.
No amount of motions or resolutions passed at an SBC Annual Meeting have the import of the presidential trustee appointment process.
How to Change the SBC
So, you want to change the SBC? It can be done. It is very hard – intentionally so, like a giant ocean liner is hard to turn. Our convention was made difficult to change by our founders, on purpose I suspect. But it can be done. You want to get rid of the Shack from shelves at LifeWay? You want to change what is happening at the ERLC? (I don’t, but many do.) You want to change things at one of our seminaries? There is a way.
It’s not easy. Passing a resolution is relatively easy. Passing a motion is harder, but it can be done. Changing the SBC? that is WAY harder than either of those.
The story goes that an SBC employee named William Powell figured this out back in the 70s. Let’s call this the Powell system.
All you have to do is to elect a convention president who supports your cause for 10 straight years, and if he will appoint committees who will appoint trustees who support your cause, within 10 years you will have changed the Southern Baptist Convention.
Nothing to it, right?
The story continues, of course, at the Cafe Du Monde in New Orleans, as young Paige Patterson and Judge Paul Pressler met in 1976 to discuss how they could implement the Powell strategy. In 1978, Patterson and Pressler met with WA Criswell, Adrian Rogers and several others pastors in a hotel near the Atlanta airport to discuss rolling out the strategy. My first convention was 1979 and I was thrilled to vote for Adrian Rogers as the first in an unbroken line of conservative presidents. The next few years were turbulent as conservative-loyal trustees were elected to boards and policies began to change. Few entities left the 80s with the same presidents who entered that decade in charge.
The convention changed. Like it or not, things changed. The Powell strategy worked. If you elect a president for 10 years who will appoint trustees who support your cause, the convention will change.
How NOT to Change the SBC
Frankly, most of the things we try just don’t work.
1) Blogging does little to change the SBC. We have, at times, mobilized votes at the SBC (the election of Frank Page comes to mind) and there are issues on which we have raised awareness (racial reconciliation perhaps), but you can battle blog till you turn blue in the face and nothing will change.
2) Twitter campaigns, especially insulting ones, to entity heads and leaders are not really effective. If you engage them, they will sometimes respond, though as you can imagine, they are pretty busy people. When you have a couple hundred thousand people following you, you don’t normally get to interact with all of them. But the twitter terror brigades (I use that term to refer to organized harassment campaigns led by groups or individuals designed to disrupt, intimidate or bully) are ineffective. Twitter has the block and mute feature and you will just end up on those lists.
3) Letters to the trustees and entities can have some effect, but they are taken as opinions. You can write a letter to the EC, or to LifeWay, or to one of the seminaries, etc, and express your opinion. They will get it, read it, and take note of it. Because of the volume of mail they get, you are not likely to get a personal response or interaction, but it will be read and taken into account. How seriously will they take your opinion? From what I’ve been told, it depends on how well you make your point – be concise, kind and clear. And for the love of all that is holy, edit the grammar and spelling!
4) Complaining at associational and state meetings, will not change things.
5) Hear me – passing resolutions and even motions at the annual meetings will not change the direction of the convention – with a few notable exceptions.
I considered making a motion to change the BF&M at the convention. I was surprised. But I could stand up at the convention and make a motion, and the convention could vote and we could actually change our doctrinal statement at a single SBC Annual meeting. I was surprised to be told that.
But when you pass a resolution at the convention, don’t think of it as an order to an entity, think of it as a suggestion. Motions are not necessarily binding. I don’t understand all the ins and outs of this process, but remember that entities are run by their trustees and not by the Annual Meetings of the SBC. Such is it now and such has it always been, since the days of John the Baptist.
So, I don’t mean to be Downer Dave. If you are satisfied to INFLUENCE the SBC, great. That is my goal. I suggest you write cogent, reasonable, biblical opinions in a meek and gentle spirit and try to convince people that the truth is on your side. That is what I try (and often fail) to do. If you are right, the Spirit of God is your ally and he is powerful. But if you want to CHANGE the SBC, really change it, there’s little you can do but adopt the Powell plan – start trying to elect presidents who share your view and will appoint trustees who share your view.
That’s the system folks.
You could also try just not buying The Shack.
Well, there’s that.
Dave,
Thank you for explaining the way the SBC really works. Very eye opening.
Wilbur
It was for me.
I must caution you, I probably made some mistakes in this explanation that Bart or someone else will correct, but I think I am in the realm of correct here.
Bart aside, This Is The Internet: someone will probably correct you even if you’re right.
Dave,
You are “in the realm of correct”, and have done your readers a good service.
It is possible to change an entity without the Powell Method, by gaining the ear and agreement of an influential trustee, who then takes the issues to the board as his own, and works within the board’s own polity to effect change. That happens often.
While the trustees of the entities may have similar governing documents, they are all somewhat different. One should do their research about the system and work within the system patiently, (over years) if they expect to change a controversial practice. It is a lot of work!
If the Convention decides, repeatedly, that an entity is “flaking out”, they can defund the entity, or (generally) remove one trustee at a time. On the other hand, if the trustees decide the Convention is “flaking out”, they can move to cut ties with the Convention. It seems a whole lot of formally faithful Christian organizations and denominations have “flaked out”. A top-down authority structure makes it easier, if not inevitable.
This is an accurate post.
Blogs, resolutions, letters etc. can be agents of change. But the issues they address, and the solutions they urge must then be agreed upon by a substantial number of people in the SBC, and that agreement has to last and remain on the front burner for some time.
The problem with most blogs and concerns is that they address a crisis de jure. Even if writers could get everyone to agree, the nature of what most blogs address are current developments or issues.
The nature of scripture, inspiration etc. had been a front burner issue in the SBC for years, since shortly after the turn of the century. The fundamentalist/modernist controversies go back to the 1920s and 1930s.
I suspect there were large numbers of men who were pastors and men and women who were ministering and working in the SBC who had gone to seminaries post 1945 who had serious concerns about the direction of the SBC theological institutions that had lingered for years, if not decades. Think of the writings of Criswell, and the speeches of many SBC Presidents (e.g. Owen White, I think and others) about the nature of scripture and concerns related to that.
The Elliott controversy in the early 1960s.
It goes on and on.
So when Pressler and Patterson began expressing concern, there was already a commonly held view among the majority and a deep concern that had existed for decades.
Most of what we see now, however important it may be, does not have that history of unified thinking and does not involve issues that have the longevity of that issue.
So, however important other issues may be, it is hard to name an issue to day that would rally the number of already inclined persons to take action over an extended period of time.
I still believe that blogging and resolutions and addressing issues are important things.
But every issue is different.
And you are absolutely right. Everyone claims they have grassroots support but unless it is real and committed the Powell approach won’t work.
Oops – that’s de jour!
While there is a route de jure to make major changes in the SBC, it is de facto virtually impossible, even with assorted outrages du jour to stir the brethren who think de Lawd is on their side.
What can be changed is more subtle like making decisionmaking more open and transparent.
Here’s the thing, I think most meetings at the EC are open to people who want to observe, unless there is a specific reason. Unfortunately, that involves a trip to Nashville and some cost.
I don’t know about other boards.
Generally, except “Executive Session” portions dealing with personnel, boards are open meetings.
If you are physically present.
Of course, most people get the most worked up about personnel issues.
Would wearing a “Let’s Talk About Calvin” tee shirt to the convention be advisable? LOL.
Thanks for a worthwhile article that explains the SBC endeavor rather well, I’d say.
God bless!
Print them, we’ll sell them and give the proceeds to Lottie – until we get asked to leave.
Naw, I think the “Let’s talk about Jesus” shirt would help put the focus where it ought truly be.
Thank you, sir, for the good work you do here.
“Such is it now and such has it always been, since the days of John the Baptist.”
A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Prepare the way! It’s my turn at the mic!”
I feel a little silly. I had not read, “The Shack.” I thought it was a story about living in a parsonage.
I wonder if anyone has purchased or read the book in the last couple of years. It just wasn’t that good.
Its popularity begs to differ.
Flogging The Shack is a waste of time. It has come and gone and not left much of a ring.
I do believe that “being in the realm of right” is a wonderful expression that conveys both humility and conviction without being arrogant or foolish.
Dave and Bart,
Great job! Well done. You guys are 100% correct on the change challenge. Funny how the actual how to differs from what most might think!
The quickest way to change things and make your opinion count is to withhold money. If enough churches withhold money, believe me, it will get noticed and eyebrows will be raised. The SBC will be wanting to know what is going on. Lifeway, will be wondering why their sales are off. Trustees will be wanting to know where is the money.
Yes, I think things can be changed quickly if the churches pulled together. It will not be a 10 year plan either.
I’m not saying I’m for such a move, but things can be done in ways we least expect.
I hated to even mention this, but if things went really wrong in the SBC, it could be corrected quickly by the churches. Right, Bart and Dave?
I think if things went wrong quickly, right now, many churches would try to change things, but it would be a slow, multi-year process.
Many other churches would simpy dissassociate from the SBC, either partially, or completely.
Many others would notice “something funny” going on, but would do nothing about it.
Recent GCR responses are probably the closest thing we have to what you are talking about Jess…Many churches have reduced CP giving, increased Lottie Moon Giving, and the GCR gave them “permission” to do that and still call it great commission giving.
The result is that many state conventions are having to quickly re-evaluate their budgets, since the majority of CP money goes to the states. But even there, I don’t know that the withholding money effect can really be called “quick.” It still usually takes YEARS to effect any lasting change in a large organization.
Andy Williams,
Are you saying the SBC has so much money that it would take years before the effects are felt. Would you clear that up for me.
I agree with William below, the amounts are so large, that it would be very difficult for a coalition to grow large enough to make a significant financial dent in any given year. with 45,000 churches, you would have to get probably at least 5,000 – 10,000 churches to make drastic giving changes in the same fiscal year to see immediate impact, and if your church is like mine, we don’t easily make huge changes to our yearly budget, and in fact those changes are only made once a year.
by contrast, if even several hundred churches made big giving changes, the effect would not be huge, unless it happened to be the 4-500 biggest SBC churches…
What WILL likely continue to happen is churches tweaking their giving year by year, and SBC states and entities tweaking their spending year by year to try to keep up.
I don’t think the GCR altered the trajectory of church giving very much, although it did create some impetus for states to slightly lower their cut of CP dollars.
Cutting giving can be a rapid route to church change. We’ve all been threatened as pastors, I suspect, and in some churches a handful of people can force change.
In the SBC the sums are too large to do much by trying to convince enough to stop giving or, in LW’s case, to stop spending. They are virtually immune.
It would take a catastrophically poor decisions by LW to generate sufficient interest in monetary punishment. All we have so far is the gripe du jour about their retail stock.
“”I don’t think the GCR altered the trajectory of church giving very much, although it did create some impetus for states to slightly lower their cut of CP dollars.””
Yes, I suppose you are right. Our church was already on the trajectory of less CP and more Lottie…The GCR simply recognized it…But even if it hadn’t, I don’t think that would have had any effect on our decision making process. It makes no difference whether we are seen as giving a lower % to CP, vs giving a higher % to “Great commission giving”. We are simply giving where we think we should give.
That aligns with my thinking when I pastored.
I’m interested in your and your church’s thinking and processing of such decisions. I wish you or one of the other commenters here would write a piece, make it anonymous if necessary, about such church decisions – why, how, how much, what was shifted, what objections were raised, what gave impetus to the change, etc.
That aligns with my thinking when I pastored.
I’m interested in your and your church’s thinking and processing of such decisions. I wish you or one of the other commenters here would write a piece, make it anonymous if necessary, about such church decisions – why, how, how much, what was shifted, what objections were raised, what gave impetus to the change, etc.
Jess,
A question must be asked. Is the “quickest way” the right way.
The trustee system of the SBC is a good system. It works. It works best when men and women of biblical faith, integrity, and honor, who understand Baptist programming, policy, and procedure are elected as trustees of Baptist entities within both SBC entities and state convention entities.
Our greatest Southern Baptist entity problems in the last several years have been due to a lack of trustees who fulfilled the qualifications above.
Indeed.
Withholding money from the CP is not the way to change the SBC, it is the way to destroy it.
When a church stops giving, no one really knows why. It is actually a petty maneuver that hurts world missions but doesn’t really change anything.
Yep.