This is the most highly contested SBC presidential contest since the end of the Conservative Resurgence. I think the 1990 election in New Orleans where Morris Chapman defeated Dan Vestal by 15 percentage points was the last white hot election. We’ve had contested elections since but none like this year’s. One group casts this election as one to turn the convention around, reclaim the convention, etc. Steve Gaines and others call it “pivotal” but doesn’t explain how it is so. Maybe it’s supposed to be self-evident.
Is the SBC president that big of a deal?
In the light of current events, probably so. In the broader context of the SBC’s next decade or so, probably not. I’m not expecting a dozen years of militant traditionalists, and they’re the driver of the sea change talk this year, achieving wins and making much of a difference in the SBC’s long term future. But, it’s possible. As we saw in the years 1979-1990, presidents successfully drove the changes in the SBC.
The splendid little book, SBC FAQs: A Ready Reference by Keith Harper and Amy Whitfield answers the question, “What does the Southern Baptist Convention president do? It takes them three paragraphs. I summarize below:
- The president appoints a number of groups to serve at the annual meeting: a Committee on Committees, a Committee on Resolutions, a Credentials Committee, a group of tellers, a team of convention parliamentarians.
- The president presides over the meeting itself.
- The president serves on a number of boards and committees by virtue of his position.
Of these three duties, only the appointment of the Committee on Committees has the potential to generate much change in the convention. It was the recipe for the CR itself: elect a president who will appoint a Committee on Committees which nominates a Committee on Nominations who nominate trustees…who change institutions. It is deliberately convoluted which makes change difficult. SBC messengers are directly involved and must approve the president, the Committee on Nominations offered by the Committee on Committees, and finally the Committee on Nominations report itself. It takes a lot of energy and time to bring about substantial change in the Old Ship SBC.
No one has to approve these presidential appointments. The convention cannot disapprove or amend the appointments from the floor. When the convention elected Steve Gaines president they gave approval in advance for his appointments to the Committee on Committees, Committee on Resolutions, Credentials Committee, tellers, and parliamentarians. You and I and other messengers don’t get a vote on any of those.
Steve Gaines has two year’s worth of Committee on Committees appointments on record. Someone more in touch than I am may be able to discern how aggressive the appointments are relative to the current parties. I recognize a flamethrower or two. The whole idea of making the president an “us vs. them” issue is to eventually change trustee boards. Whether or not this will translate into any game changing trustee balances, I don’t know. I’d guess not but I’d speculate that some trustee meetings would get more interesting and have to field more questions. Nothing wrong with that. I commend our president for appointing a handful of females to these committees.
Aside from the three above, the president has a pretty good bully pulpit. I haven’t seen any SBC president, and we have had a long string of quite outstanding presidents, make much of any difference in the SBC as a whole as a result of their persuasive powers. I don’t see either J.D. Greear or Ken Hemphill changing that pattern.
Seems to me that the underlying dynamics of the SBC are not things that the office of president can change. Baptisms aren’t down because SBC presidents haven’t provided a good example. The Cooperative Program isn’t flat because the SBC presidents haven’t given enough or because they haven’t been the right kind of CP cheerleader. Membership isn’t declining because of the long string of megapastors elected SBC president.
There will be, I expect, some chest-thumping and some desparing over the election outcome. Unfortunately, it’s been set up in such a way that there will be perceived winners and losers, rather than like 2016 where it looked like we were all on the same side and were all winners. I’d like to think we are still on the same side.
I don’t see the new president as accomplishing much. I like both of the brethren but I’m not seeing any grand retro action happening. My vote will go to J. D. Greear. I think we look better for the future if we make generational changes.
I agree that the outcome of the election is not going to be earth shattering for the SBC. While, I am voting for JD Greear, Ken Hemphill would do a fine job.
However, I would be discouraged with a Hemphill win because it would validate all of the campaign tactics that his supporters have deployed. I don’t think a Greear win would silence the “rabid Trads”. But I would hope it would cause them to be a bit more introspective.
I think what has happened at SBC Today should be a lesson for us all… The ends never justify the means.
“Membership isn’t declining because of the long string of megapastors elected SBC president.”
Maybe. Maybe not. Megapastors do not even remotely represent Southern Baptists. Let’s elect a layman someday and watch the pastors — of all varieties — squeal.
Fine by me. It’s been way too long, over 40 years. I’d have no problem voting for her or him. Pick some latter day Lottie Moon, some single woman who served overseas for decades with IMB. I’ll vote for her. Couldn’t hurt. Someone can make the case for mega and celebrities being better. Show me.
For ill or good, pastors drive these elections. After all, not many churches pay members’ convention expenses. And, who wants to visit Dallas in June?
“And, who wants to visit Dallas in June?”
Ouch! Good one!
I plan to be there — at my own expense. It’s likely to be a scorcher in more ways than one.
And “thank you” to the site’s ownership team for letting me participate here.
So, from those who are close to SBC denominational politics over the past few years, what would be different about the Southern Baptist Convention if J.D. Greear is elected president, as opposed to Ken Hemphill? Looking out on the other side of either a one or two year term for either man, what is the expected outcome versus what would be the reality?
Since the conservative resurgence began placing designated “theological conservatives” on committees and boards in the SBC, it has been able to change the doctrinal and theological perspective of the SBC, though there are many who would argue that task was easy, because it wasn’t really a big change. In other ways of measuring doctrinal progress, the numbers don’t look as good. Total membership growth was already slowing down in in the 1980’s when the resurgence gained control of the boards and committees, and the SBC is now just one of many denominations whose churches are aging, and declining in both membership and attendance. Seminary enrollment has wavered, but has never recovered to anywhere near the levels it was prior to the resurgence. Missions giving and the CP have flatlined, though if you account for inflation, that’s a decline, too. Baptisms, representing evangelistic activity, have dropped to half their pre-resurgence level.
The SBC is a denomination with almost 50,000 congregations scattered across all 50 states. The factors that affect all of these statistical areas vary from location to location, and from church to church. If you look closely at the numbers, most of the megachurches in the SBC are also experiencing membership losses and attendance declines, and drops in giving. How would it even be remotely possible for one person, elected President of the SBC, to resolve all of the problems causing the statistical issues?
So why does it really make a difference whether Ken Hemphill or J.D. Greaar gets elected?
Lee and I have had exchanges for many years, decades, and has a pretty finely tuned radar for SBC stuff. My radar tells me that there is a considerable number of younger (than Boomers like us) SBs who are very missions minded but moreso in regard to overseas and outside the South work than within the 14 southern states that suck up most of CP dollars and where most of the CEOs are retirement age or older. A Greear win appeals to these. Frankly, Cal/Trad stuff is just background noise this year, although the militant anti-Cals can make it quite loud.
If Hemphill wins (an upset probably not expected by many at this stage) I’d see this younger bunch moved marginally away from the CP and involvement in SBC life. After this year’s mess, is it necessary to remind anyone that no church is required to support the CP?
I’d tweak my old friend on his used of “flatlined.” Although his meaning (no growth in CP or mission giving, or the giving trend is flat) is a secondary one, I like “flatlined” to mean dead, as in a flatlined electrocardiagram. The CP, at $500m is far from dead. The mission offerings are actually slightly increasing.
William–can you walk this out for us a bit?
You wrote, “If Hemphill wins (an upset probably not expected by many at this stage) I’d see this younger bunch moved marginally away from the CP and involvement in SBC life. After this year’s mess, is it necessary to remind anyone that no church is required to support the CP?”
Specifically can you address
1. Why do you think those younger would consider making that move?
2. What does it say about how younger generations view SBC polity & life if a segment starts moving away when they don’t get what they want (which is essentially what a Hemphill election would be)?
2a. Doesn’t this potential move, as an underlying issue, pose more long term danger to SBC life than we realize, by creating an environment exactly opposite of what we teach in the church? {{Barring a church decision being something contrary to scripture, even if the decision is not what I want, I don’t stop giving, attending, participating in the life of the church. We decide as a church and move forward as a church.}}
BTW- I am on the upper age end of that younger group, but have no desire to move away.
Just curious of your expanding this as I have heard it at other times in my own state convention (FL).
I’m interested in William’s reply as well.
For me as a member of the younger group, I can understand the possibility of moving away. I can’t say I would support such a move, I suppose it would depend on *how* a Hemphill win would occur.
I don’t accept your spin on this but am glad you asked for me to explain a bit.
2. This is a bit of a cheap shot. It’s not about getting what they want but in encouraging or discouraging the choices that are available to them. I’m not speaking for anyone but this old curmudgeon but if the shirttail crowd watches JDG get kicked in the teeth as neo-societal, or not fully cooperative, or not committed to the CP, and that in spite of being thelargest CP giving church in NC, then the simple thing to do is to make mission funding choices they wish and not agonize over whose in charge and who nominates trustees, etc. Related to…
2a. …the reality that JDG and others are promoting the CP, quite heavily, while at the same time directly funding their passion of overseas missions. We’ve always done this, CP + LM, and LM provides much more funding for IMB and has for years. So, there’s nothing new as a result of a KH win in this climate except that the CP loses because of the CP shaming, the percentage shaming, the neo-societal label, the fully cooperative false categorization that we’ve seen.
No one has to give to the CP. The system is great. But if zealous proponents start treating it like either a tax on churches or membership dues, I’m not seeing greater involvement by new generations of SBCers.
Thanks William.
No cheap shot or spin intended. Maybe I should’ve written “If their desired candidate doesn’t win.”
But your clarification stands.