On Wednesday, Dave linked to a blog post by Micah Fries entitled, “The Tie that Binds?” Micah wrote his post in response to a Baptist Press article reporting on the Louisiana Baptist Convention’s recent passage of a resolution in support of the Cooperative Program and in support of Executive Director David Hankins’ open letter to the trustees of NAMB regarding the nomination of Kevin Ezell to lead that missions agency. Micah confessed that he was “startled” when he read the article. The following quote by Dr. David Crosby, Pastor of FBC New Orleans, particularly jumped out at him:
The CP is the glue that binds us all together…. I feel strongly we should make this statement.
I would submit that Micah, in responding to Dr. Crosby’s “glue” language, either misunderstands or fails to understand the language that Dr. Crosby and others use when speaking about the Cooperative Program and the tie that does bind us together. In his analysis of Dr. Crosby’s language, Micah writes:
I lead a church that gives 8% of her undesignated receipts to the CP, and whose giving ranks as one of the top 10-20 churches in our state. There are many churches in our state larger than we are who give less. If I did not believe in the CP, we would not be supporting her. With that being said, I find the thought troubling that the CP is the proverbial “glue” which holds our partnership together. Over recent days, as I listen to discussions within our tribe known as Southern Baptists, I am increasingly hearing a sentiment that affirms this very viewpoint. (emphasis added)
I do not believe for one minute that Dr. Crosby or Dr. Hankins or the churches of the Louisiana Baptist Convention or the thousands of churches and pastors (including me) across the Southern Baptist Convention believe that the CP – as opposed to the Gospel – is what binds us together. But, apparently when Micah hears this statement by Dr. Crosby, he hears someone who not only advocates for the worst kind of pragmatism, but also evinces misplaced priorities:
In fact, believing that any program is that which binds us is tantamount to the worst kind of pragmatism. It shows evidence of a misplacing of priorities. The alternative option, and the preferred option in my opinion, is to unite around a purpose, a theology, a Gospel, and to serve that Gospel with any and every appropriate means possible until we have achieved said purpose.
I think Micah’s post, along with other recent posts from Jimmy Scroggins (a classmate of mine in the MDiv. Program at SBTS in the mid-90s), former Dean of Boyce College at Southern Seminary and current Pastor of FBC West Palm Beach, and the folks at Baptist 21 gives a clearer translation of the language being spoken by one side of the increasing divide in SBC life.
These pastors are using language like “marvel of financing expertise,” “business model,” “opportunity cost,” and a system into which churches “invest money” when describing CP. That’s all well and good, but I believe this language reveals an underlying philosophy that is at play within our Convention. This philosophy, which comes to the surface most clearly in discussions about the Cooperative Program, is about much more than CP. If we focus merely on the Cooperative Program, then we miss focusing on the underlying philosophy which, if followed, will lead to a dissolution of the cooperative missions partnership that Southern Baptists have enjoyed since 1845, long before the Cooperative Program came into existence.
Perhaps the best way to present these two competing philosophies within SBC life is to ask a simple question: “Can you really spell SBC without a C and a P?” For those of you who may not know the history of this question, let me refresh your memories. The late Forrest Pollock, then Pastor of Bell Shoals Baptist Church in Brandon, FL, gave the nominating speech for Frank Page at the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC. The Cooperative Program was front and center in this pivotal election because one of the establishment’s most well-known candidates, Ronnie Floyd, had led his church, FBC Springdale, AR (now known as Cross Church), to give .27% to CP (yes, you read that right). Yet, he desired to lead Southern Baptists as President of a Convention known for its cooperation in missions.
In addition to Jerry Sutton, another establishment candidate, Frank Page, Pastor of FBC Taylors in SC, was also running. At the time of the election, Dr. Page had led his church to contribute 12.4% of undesignated receipts to CP. After one of the most impassioned speeches in support of cooperation and the Cooperative Program, Forrest Pollock ended his nomination speech for Frank Page with these famous words, ringing out like a shot across the bow of the ruling class within the Convention:
“My granddaddy didn’t have a seminary degree but even he understood you can’t even spell SBC president without a C and a P.”
In what must have been a stunning setback for the ruling elites, Dr. Frank Page was elected on the first-ballot, defeating both Floyd and Sutton in a three-way race. To this day, I am firmly convinced that the nomination speech, particularly the rousing ending, was what sealed Page’s victory. Since the repudiation of the “more independent, less cooperative” model in 2006, we have seen a resurgence from establishment leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention who openly advocate “Great Commission Giving,” a society-like giving model, while still professing a “love” for the Cooperative Program. And, even though the Cooperative Program was supposedly “strengthened and saved” when the GCR was amended on the Convention floor, the reality is much different. For some, like Scroggins (who probably voices what many other establishment leaders believe, but do not say openly), the Cooperative Program is just one of many ways that churches can do missions:
And its not like the CP is the ONLY good way for churches to partner in Great Commission ministry. Organizations that share our goals abound and they are enthusiastically asking us for financial support. Many of them are smaller, more agile, and more laser-focused than the sprawling behemoth that is the CP.
I wonder what “smaller, more agile, and more laser-focused” organizations he is talking about? I don’t want to contribute to any myths, but could he have been talking about a certain Seattle-based church planting organization? After all, many of those other organizations must look pretty good up against such a “behemoth.” Does that “behemoth” need to get in better shape? No question. But, does that “behemoth” need to be destroyed in the process of getting it into better shape? And, if the “behemoth” is destroyed in the process, would that be such a bad thing, what with all these other organizations that are “enthusiastically asking” for partnership dollars?
How you tackle these questions comes down to the philosophy that you subscribe to when you look at the “behemoth.” For you see, that “behemoth” is not just CP. That “behemoth” is not just a “sprawling” business model that needs to be replaced. That “behemoth” is not just some organization that competes for money on an opportunity cost basis. That “behemoth” is so much more. That “behemoth” is us – Southern Baptists at the local, associational, state, and national levels!
For many of the ruling elites within our Convention, I am firmly convinced – by analyzing their actions and words – that they believe that they do not need to cooperate with other churches that make up this grand “behemoth” known as the Southern Baptist Convention. They can fund and send out their own missionaries. They can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go on their own mission trips. They can plant their own churches. And, with the proliferation of the satellite model of doing church, they can become their own mini-convention.
Oh, they might throw a bone to CP or speak about cooperation with other Southern Baptists, especially when they are running for SBC President or positioning themselves for the next step up the ladder, but they have embarked on a “more independent, less cooperative” model of doing missions. And, if a local, autonomous church – under the Lord’s leading – wants to become more independent and less cooperative, then no one is stopping them!
But, when those same establishment leaders seek to exert their influence and control over the grassroots majority of Southern Baptists and seek to radically alter what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist, then they should not be surprised when rank and file cooperating conservatives begin to stop listening to strange voices and start listening to those who speak the same language! That’s what I and the majority of messengers did in Greensboro in 2006. And those words still ring loud and clear today:
“My granddaddy didn’t have a seminary degree but even he understood you can’t even spell SBC president without a C and a P.”
I would agree that the nomination speech was powerful for Frank Page. But I like to think that there was something else that made a difference that year. A little phenomenon called blogging spread a lot of information about the CP-giving of the candidates.
On a human level, I’m not sure that Page would have won if it had not been for the information dissemination by the blogging world. How else would people have gotten the straight scoop about CP giving out to the voters?
Maybe that is just a blogger’s conceit.
Can we have a contrarian blog article that leaves out all the snarl phrases, like “ruling elites”? Maybe not. I voted for Frank Page because Ronnie Floyd’s church gave 0.29% to the CP, somewhat below my threshold. I favored Bryant Wright because I thought his 3.5% and other SBC missions support was quite sufficient. Churches of all sizes, even those who have no ‘ruling elites’ in their membership, have been giving less and less to the CP for about a generation. This past SBC fiscal year, churches cut CP giving at over twice the rate of designated giving. There aren’t… Read more »
Scott: I do not believe for one minute that … the CP – as opposed to the Gospel – is what binds us together. bapticus hereticus: If Scott is unwilling to include being bound, programmatically notwithstanding, to CBF, AoB, ABC, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Catholics, and other Christian bodies, he might wish, then, to revise his comments and focus more on CP, instead. Regardless of theological orientation, to be considered a community there is an assumption of a measure of commonality and a means for supporting such. Commonality does not preclude a wide measure of diversity; yeah… Read more »
Are you saying that, in strongly discouraging what had been the existing diversity in the SBC, ( by mandating that certain ’employees’ sign the BFM2K, together with increasingly emphasizing the importance of CP giving, by ‘disfellowshipping’, by voting down certain requests that were important to members of a racial minority, by excluding members from knowing what happened ‘behind closed doors’ for fifteen years, and on . . . . ), by strongly discouraging what had been the existing diversity in the SBC, the SBC may have unknowingly set itself up for this: “This past SBC fiscal year, churches cut CP… Read more »
Here’s some thoughts on the some of the other, and it has to do with promotion/asking: 1. An organization that makes contact, asks for support, and explains a lot about itself helps its cause with church budget committees. 2. The SBC and CP ministries have been improving on this, but there’s still a large level at which CP promotion is done as: “We’re Southern Baptists. Give to the Cooperative Program.” Without, perhaps, as clear of a reason why or as good of an explanation as to where the money goes. For example, I’ve seen some missions organizations that solicit funds… Read more »
The elites at the national level are often pro GC giving. The elites at the state level are often pro CP giving. Given the SBC’s history noted above (one that preceded the CP by 80 years) and the SBC Constitution and Bylaws, which require very little contribution in the way of CP giving, from a formal standpoint, the CP is not the glue that holds the SBC together. What keeps people together in religious circles is usually a common belief system and a common goal. The CP could fit in the belief system, but it does not rise to that… Read more »
Something held Southern Baptist together before 1925, so obviously, you can spell SBC and SBC president “without C and P.”
That’s an interesting observation.
I love the CP and hope we will make it work. But there is a deeper glue that binds us – theologically, ecclesiologically. CP has been the way we carry out our united efforts. But we have an essential bond beyond that.
Dave, The essential bond is not the CP, but rather the cooperative missions spirit that is best embodied in the COOPERATIVE Program. Gene below makes a good point when he references someone like Dr. Stanley’s model of ministry at FBC Atlanta. I have seen similar things happen with larger churches, both in NM and before in FL. Generally speaking, the larger the church, the less involved that church is at the Association and even State levels (unless of course they want to run for office). I think what this discussion, originally started by Micah’s article, will show is that the… Read more »
You know, Howell, I’m enjoying this discussion. But I think there is an underlying issue that goes beyond even the two languages you are describing.
Micah’s comment below is insightful. His church gives generously to CP, but also does a lot of independent minisitry and mission.
But a lot of churches today have little concern about worldwide missions. The discussion of CP/Independent missions is a good one. But the underlying issue may be the simple loss of passion for world missions by churches.
The church I grew up in gave 23% annually to the CP back in the 1980s. Recently, this church (which runs only slightly over 100 in SS and has an annual budget of around $350,000) built a $1 million “Family Life Center.” Now, the church has had to suspend all CP and all missions giving for 2010 in order to make the debt payments on the $1 million “Family Life Center.” It seems like a lot of churches are spending so much on themselves that they have little money left over for missions. That is one of the things that… Read more »
Jeff–
If you think executive salaries are “bloated” at the state level—why is it we can’t even get a read on what SBC Agency heads and Seminary Presidents get paid + expense accounts and travel????
Thanks Howell–
I simply told the truth as it was played out. It is a terribly sad story for me. My daddy advocated a 1% increase in mission giving each year—Stanley advocated a 49% reduction so that FBC Atlanta could grow and he could shine.
Got him elected SBC President, didn’t it????
Okay, Gene – we get it – you hate Charles Stanley. Don’t you think you’ve rehearsed that grudge often enough? Let’s move on.
Succinct and well stated.
Sometimes a behemoth won’t get into shape until you cut back on what you feed it. Keep throwing food at it and there is absolutely no incentive to change. There may be some who are quite happy that their “missions” money is going to the ERLC and the Seminaries, for example. But no doubt there are many who are not. If there is a glue that holds us together, it is the BFM, not the CP. The BFM is a statement of what we believe. The CP is a means of disseminating what we believe. It is not the only… Read more »
Are you saying BF&M is just a statement—or has it become a Creed for previously non-creedal people????
The BFM is a confession. Boyce, Broadus and Manly (the founding faculty at Southern, the SBC’s first seminary) called the Abstract of Principles a creed. All professors are required to sign it and “teaching in accordance with and not contrary to” the Abstract.
Another great statement.
Before the late 1980s, it was actually the moderates and the liberals in the SBC who were the biggest advocates of the Cooperative Program. Remember, it was Adrian Rogers who called the CP a “sacred cow,” and most of the Conservative Resurgence leaders were pastors of churches that gave very small percentages to the CP. Since they did not trust Southern Baptist seminaries or colleges, they founded their own institutions like Mid-America seminary and Criswell College. Their churches sometimes sent out their own missionaries. The moderates and liberals would say that these conservatives were not good Southern Baptists because they… Read more »
We are not required to choose between the two, at least not in theory.
We can support the CP while we also hold the line on doctrinal accountability. We need to find a way to make this happen.
I am not saying this is impossible. I am just pointing out a time in the recent past when a liberal pastor whose church gave a lot to the CP was portrayed as a better Southern Baptist than a conservative pastor whose church did not give a lot to the CP. Also, during this recent time period, attempts at doctrinal accountability were dismissed by many who argued that the CP was more important than doctrinal orthodoxy. This is why it is so dangerous to define CP as so essential to SBC identity.
Jeff:
I remember that line of argument very clearly.
It was made right along side of “we will never do anything to hurt our missionaries”.
Dave, Just got back home after being out all morning. The discussion thus far confirms what I already suspected. Namely, that there (at least) two different languages being spoken when it comes to talking about SBC life and the Cooperative Program. I think that we will probably talk past each other, because, at its heart, this is not about CP. CP is the most visible aspect of our cooperation together as Southern Baptists. Brent, Obviously, something held SBs together before the advent of CP in 1925. It was cooperative missions. Since 1925, the Lord has allowed Southern Baptists to touch… Read more »
Hardly an original thought, but I think the growing desire for independent ministry is part and parcel of the megachurch movement. My church wants to participate in the CP because we are not big enough to do it all ourselves. We have to cooperate, even if sometimes we do not agree with everything done on a national level. We don’t have any option. On the other hand, a mega church has the resources to do things their own way. Kevin Ezell’s church could adopt a “do-it-yourself” strategy because they had the resources. Ezell did not have to share control because… Read more »
“Doing it his way with his church’s money” certainly sounds like what is going on in Federal Programs these days.
Since when did Ezell become the King and his church the people who had taxes imposed on them so the King could do what he wished with it????
Too much trust—too little control from the givers of the money!!
Howell, While I think there is validity to the idea that we are speaking two different languages, I think you are probably way off on the independence concept. I know many pastor’s who are leading significant churches, and who do much in missions outside of the Cooperative Program, but who cooperate extensively with other churches organizations. Be careful that you are not equating cooperative missions = Cooperative Program. While CP is one way of doing cooperative missions, it’s not the only way. I think the more important question to ask is why some SBC churches, many historic ones at that,… Read more »
Micah, Thanks for the dialogue. The church I pastor also does missions outside of the CP, but our main missions partnership is through partnering with other Southern Baptist churches through the Cooperative Program. I do not think anyone would argue that there are other ways of doing missions besides CP. The question becomes whether it is the best (not perfect) way to accomplish more together than we can apart. I simply do not think that some within the Convention believe this anymore. Hence, the “more independent, less cooperative” model. But, herein lies the problem. I do not think that Jimmy… Read more »
Howell- I agree, thanks for good spirited dialogue. Let me add what I think might be one more caveat. This would not be as difficult if churches were to reexamine their priorities. Let me explain. Our church gives 8% to the CP, which I believe is still above the national average (though I may be wrong). It is not, however, our primary method of doing missions. We give another 15% to various other cooperative missions efforts in addition to the 8% we give to CP. In fact, my desire is to see us move to a place where 50% of… Read more »
I’m only 53, still a young man, of course. But it is my recollection that in “old days” it was almost considered heresy – certainly scandalous – for an SBC church to do missions outside the SBC.
That mindset has certainly changed.
Dave- Remember that I never said we were doing missions outside the SBC. I simply said we were using money to support missions that weren’t necessarily being done through the CP. In fact, off the top of my head the only thing I can think of that we support which is not SBC is our local Pregnancy Resource Clinic which our church originally founded and which is now independent. With that being said, if the missions effort was the right one and was worthy of support, but not necessarily “SBC” I would have no problem recommending that we invest in… Read more »
I meant outside the CP, not outside the SBC. I was saying that years ago, a church that supported missionaries outside the CP would have been viewed suspiciously.
Micah, Thanks for the reply. Could you clear up something in your above comment. When you say that your church gives “another 15% to various other cooperative missions efforts,” could you be more specific? Are you saying that you give funds directly to SBC causes (agencies, entities, seminaries, etc.) without necessarily going through the State Convention? You indicated to Dave that you didn’t give that additional 15% to non-SBC causes (apart from the crisis pregnancy center) but that you just didn’t give through CP. If that is the case, then in essence you are giving a set amount to the… Read more »
Howell-
You are close to accurate with your description. We give some to the association, some to our local BSU Director, some directly to the IMB & NAMB as well as a good amount to our own church planting efforts. We are currently helping plant churches in North Dakota, San Francisco & Guatemala as well as a Hispanic congregation here in St. Joe.
There are other things as well that come out of that money, but hopefully that communicates the idea.
Interested in investing in a church plant in NE Sioux City?
Might be raw analogy but viscerally; next time you see the Movie Mystic River; think about the line the Sean Penn Character says when was the last time he saw Davey Boy; And if I got my characters right, Penn’s character said he was going down that street right there in the back seat of the car. Last time Southern Baptists saw the Cooperative Program was in Houston, 1979 and its been fogged for 30 years now and it ain’t comin back. You cannot deceive good trusting people in the pew for 30 years and expect good to come of… Read more »
Tom, if you don’t have something to talk about other than to complain about the CR, maybe you should find somewhere else to comment.
I hate to be the one to inform you, but the CR happened. Its done. I’m glad about it even if you aren’t.
Move on.
Howell– So well said! I was born in 1946. The first real memories of SBC growth was a Watch Night service we had at the Clarkston Baptist Church (outside Atlanta) where my father was pastor. The theme was “A Million More in ’54.” It was followed by “Flying High in ’55.” The focus was on growth in numbers. HOWEVER, that was equally focused on a growing commitment to have churches, at least, tithe their budget to Missions. The really great churches gave as much as 50% to Mission causes!!! My father was leading Clarkston to add 1% per year to… Read more »
Gene:
What a small world. I lived in Decatur from 1986-1989 (where my Grandmother was a member of First Methodist from 1943 to 1998), and I attended a church in Clarkston called Christ Community Church (SBC) pastored by Barry St. Claire. He was a youth guy at the HMB before pastoring that church.
Small world.
Yeah, the 2006 CP study group had a great plan for increasing CP giving. The plan was, “You churches give us more money.” As far back in my memory as my very first days as a pastor, almost 30 years ago, the same plan was put forth. Didn’t work. Hasn’t worked. Won’t work.
What might work is a radical transformation of the CP along the lines that Bryant Wright advocates.
Frank Page is working on a ten year plan. Let’s see if he can put forth something new.
William,
The radical transformation and redefinition of the SBC that Wright advocates will decimate the State Conventions. I personally do not believe that is a wise move. If you think that a nationalized and centralized command and control can do a better job than the State Conventions, then so be it. But, I’m not prepared to do away with State Conventions and channel money to an increasingly out-of-touch establishment. God bless,
Howell
The word “decimate” originally meant “to reduce by 10%.” Therefore, I think that “decimating” the state conventions is a great idea. Most state conventions are bloated bureaucracies that need to cut their expenses by 10% so that they can send more CP money to international missions. Right now, the majority of CP money never leaves the deep South where there is a church on every street corner.
Jeff, Could you explain to me how many State Conventions that you are currently affiliated with through your church? I would be curious to know how you came to your conclusion that “most state conventions are bloated bureaucracies?” Seems like I’ve heard that language somewhere before. Also, how much is enough for “international missions?” A large Lifeway survey of pastors and laypeople, completed at the beginning of 2008, showed overwhelming support for the current allocations between State and National and between NAMB and IMB. Despite the rhetoric, I wouldn’t think that those numbers would be radically different today. I suppose… Read more »
My perspective is probably different since I live in Texas. The BGCT is definitely a bloated bureaucracy that keeps too much of the CP money in Texas – partly motivated by the hatred that many BGCT leaders have towards the SBC. The SBTC does run a much leaner operation and sends 51% of CP to the SBC, partly a result of being a new state convention that does not have many institutions. Based on Romans 15:18-24, I would say that more money should be targeted for international missions. In that passage, Paul leaves behind partially reached areas in order to… Read more »
Howell,
I think there are lots of people who think well of the states, as you do. They will have plenty of support.
I am a newbie here and no experienced insider to SBC debates. I am a leader in a local SBC church and have been for a couple of decades. The CP/GCG debate has revolved around where the money is going. I suggest that more attention be given to where and how the money is spent. While the CP is a good idea for us to combine and cooperate, it is essential that the money be spent most effectively. Too much of our resources are used in the deep south and not deployed effectively for global missions or into unchurched parts… Read more »
Welcome to the debate floor when the state nor national meeting is taking place!!! Actually, with the vague nature of the reported budget for NAMB it is almost impossible to tell exactly where money is going. The is particularly true of Administrative salaries which used to be given in detail. As to there being too much spending in the South, I have to differ with you. Urban growth is taking place more in the South than any other part of the country. Some practical matters: I was part of the first HMB Partnership Mission in the 80’s to the Southern… Read more »
Gentlemen (and ladies if you happen by) – I’m weary of the constant CR-bashing by a few of you. No matter what we write about, you use it as a reason to vent your hatred for the leaders of the CR. It’s done. Unless the subject is the CR, or you are responding to someone who addresses the CR positively, I’m deleting the comments. We’ve given you a chance to demonstrate your hostility. Now, lets move on! Some of you are just obsessed. No matter where the blog starts all you want to talk about is “The CR was evil.”… Read more »
Dave,
Good for you. I really think that will be helpful to the discussion of the CP.
Bill wrote me a comment which I hope he will post here. I want to clarify my last comment in light of what he said. I understand that the CR was a significant event in the life of the SBC and that it is incredibly polarizing. Sometimes, the CR is germane to the discussion and can hardly be avoided. It was a formative moment in SBC history. Some of us think it was a work of God. Some, like me, feel it was a good thing though many mistakes were made in the conduct of the movement. And some think… Read more »
Those who will not learn from the past (or admit the truth of the past) are destined to repeat it.
Is that an original thought from you Lydia? 🙂
I kinda figured you were close to my age. I did not realize you were that much older. 🙂
It is the Lydia variation of Santayana.
That’s OK. Just as long as you “Remember the Alamo.”
“Based on the money given, it does not seem like unreached peoples are the priority for the SBC. What percentage of money given in a SBC offering plate ends up on the international misssion field? 2%? 3%? What percentage of total CP money ends up on the international mission field? 20%?” All I could find was this, and it is not clear to me, so maybe you can sort out answers to your questions using this info: “North American Mission Board 2009 Revenue/Expenses REVENUE (actual)* Percent Cooperative Program 30.17% Annie Armstrong Easter Offering 37.53% Unrestricted Gifts 6.74% Investment and Interest… Read more »
Christiane:
According to the info you posted, 87.92% makes it to the mission field. 12.08% is spent on administration.
If almost 88% of NAMB’s money reached the mission field, Kevin Ezell wouldn’t be emptying the grand HQ building in Alpharetta by offering incentives for NAMB people to retire. You cannot learn much of anything about NAMB’s budget from the figures above. Southern Baptist administrators know how to classify just about any and every expense as ‘missions’ because they know that is the money term.
“Southern Baptist administrators know how to classify just about any and every expense as ‘missions’ because they know that is the money term.”
Exactly.
EZELL OFFERS RETIREMENT INCENTIVE TO NAMB STAFF Telling North American Mission Board (NAMB) staff “considerable change” is coming, President Kevin Ezell shared a retirement incentive with employees during a Sept. 30 meeting that will be the beginning of an overall reduction in force in the months ahead. “There are a lot of changes and some things coming down the road. I don’t know what all those are,” Ezell said. “Knowing that there are changes coming and not knowing who exactly that would involve, we wanted to offer an incentive to those who might already be thinking about retirement.” Ezell described… Read more »
And how much of a cut in salary will the NAMB president be taking?
That is, actually, a very good question. If Ezell wants to reverse the negative perception of him in blogs, that might be a great first step.
First thought is that if Ezell is really going to work and has to ” take the heat ” from reductions in employment and burn some midnight oil, he probably deserves his money if it can be allowed. Second thought is about cb’s “Remember The Alamo”. All Texas Baptists know that the Alamo was a Spanish Mission and was Catholic. Yup, they were there first.
Ezell doesn’t seem to have the character it is going to take to “pull it off” in my opinion. I don’t mean “moral character,” but leadership character. He’s whinny and condescending. In today’s Baptist Press interview he basically had this answer for his critics: “I made it in, now you are obligated to support me.” If he had been elected Pope and I were a Catholic, that might work — but he’s not the former and I’m not the latter. I know of know place in the Bible that compels me to blindly follow someone who is an obvious hypocrite… Read more »
Could you reference where he said NAMB wasn’t “worthy” of support. I would love to see that quote.
SSBN,
I probably have some thoughts that run similar to Dave’s here. What was the date and title of the article you reference here?
I have heard reference to some disturbing comments made by Ezell about CP, state conventions, Annie, etc. Just haven’t seen the comments themselves. I’d love to do a post called “Actual Quotes by the Real Kevin Ezell” and put up some of the things he has said. Maybe then he will take responsibility for his words and answer some questions. But we either need to get the quotes and document them or not put words in Ezell’s mouth. I’m not saying the quotes don’t exist, SSBN. I’m just saying I’d like to see them. So, I guess I’m making a… Read more »
I wasn’t quoting exact words but summarizing the interview with BP. I believe it was Friday.
I was commenting more on Ezell’s “tone” than his exact words. I think my summary was accurate. He is either very naive or very pompous — I don’t know for sure which, but I have my suspicions.
The tone is no different from that which he used in his first volley with people who have questions. I think the article brings this out even though Baptist Press threw underhanded to him to help his batting average.
This is the kind of stuff that Geoff Hammond was unable to pull off. Some key staff were at odds with him from the moment he walked in the door.
Ezell looks like he will have a stronger hand for whatever reason, and may actually be able to set the course he needs to lead the organization.
Louis, I have been deeply disturbed by some of the things Ezell has said and some of the attitudes he has displayed. But I think that you are precisely right that NAMB needs the strong hand and Ezell seems to be the strong hand.
Dave, I completely disagree that what is needed is “a strong hand.” What is need is a strong character. I don’t think the way to build a “cooperative spirit” is with stronghandedness, in my opinion.
In my short history with the SBC (three plus decades) stronghandedness has usually brought short term results at the expense of long term harmony. Our agencies are just not set up with the trustee system to work well without a strong, free give-and-take spirit.
Hopefully they didn’t hire a “pawn” , someone they can push around, guide and direct. If he doesn’t have the authority then he has nothing as every person will be guarding their own ox. Not knowing Ezell, I hope he wouldn’t accept the job with those conditions. I also think it would be easier on everybody if things were out in the open.
I guess in my view Ezell, or any agency leader is a “pawn” if by that one means he can only make small moves in a limited direction.
The trustees are the chess masters, not the president.
My fear is that Ezell does not possess an understanding of the NAMB agency that is going to be able to build a concensus, but will only create more controversy which is something we do not need in the SBC at this point.
Back to the original post I have to say that I consider CP the glue for SBs. It seems that we can say that the ‘glue’ is the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or His Gospel Mission but those are just words. It reminds me of James, if you see someone hungry…. The CP shows what we really are. It is where the rubber meets the road. The mega church deal is a two edged sword. There is a lot of good that can be done by mega churches. A lot of resources can be created and put to use. But… Read more »
I was raised hearing the phrase The Rope Of Sand, in reference to the Cooperative Program.
Maybe others can let me know if they are familiar with that characterization as well in RE the CP
There was a movie of that title describing CP giving. It is simply what holds us together without having strands which bind us.
With CR it is a steel cable compelling churches to do what the leaders don’t do!!!
However, it is getting rusty and frail after 40 years of brine being poured into the wounds of broken relationships.
The “glue for Southern Baptists” has always been and always will be theology.
Without biblical theology the CP will be a “Rope of Sand” but never have the “Strength of Steel.”
cb– History of the SBC which has not yet been redacted will never support your theological contention. Autonomy allowed for each church to do it’s own minisistry and exact theology. It was clear that there was never to be a Creed since each church spoke for itself (BF&M 2000 destroyed that idea). Further, the convention did the bidding of the local church as decided at the Annual meeting with all churches represented and voting (the Executive Committee is destroying that one). Ours was a “bottom up” governance rather than “top down.” If you want more clearcut legal proof, then I… Read more »
Like I said,
The “glue for Southern Baptists” has always been and always will be theology.
The SBC was the SBC before the CP. It was the SBC because of the theological persuasions of the churches comprising its structure.
It was a theological persuasion that brought the CP into existence.
CB, How does cooperative missions play into the founding and subsequent history of the SBC? There is no question that theology is an integral component of any organization, including the SBC. Obviously, the SBC predates CP. Would it be fair to say that the CP, while functioning as a funding mechanism, is much more than that? That the CP embodies the cooperative spirit that Southern Baptists have been about since our founding in 1845? The problem that I and others see is not just a “tweaking” of a funding mechanism, but a radical redefinition of what it means to be… Read more »
Howell, I really do not know if what is happening today is a “tweaking” of the funding mechanism. It is my opinion that the jury is going to be out on that one for a while. My point is that it was theology that brought the specific group of Baptist churches together to become the SBC. Has the CP been a symbol of of something for Southern Baptists through the years beyond its primary function as a missions funding methodology through the years? There is no doubt that it has. Among established missionary sending denominations it has been the Flagship… Read more »
What you are describing in this mega church is EXACTLY why the CP was brought into existence. Pre-CP, missionaries had to go about soliciting funds for some 4 years to spend 1 on the mission field supported by many churches. Another type person would just join the big church capable of supporting him and have nothing to do with smaller churches wanting to send missionaries too. The wise leadership of the SBC noted far more can be done collectively than when separated. They also formulated the idea of AUTONOMY so that no church had to give up its individual freedom… Read more »
I am surprised at what is being said about Ezell here. So far as I know, none of the commenters here know him or have even had a conversation with him. I expressed an opinion that he didn’t consider NAMB “worthy” because he chose not to give to it believing direct spending was a better choice. His explanation was that he just did as a pastor what he thought was right. Now, as NAMB CEO, where $100m of his $130m budget comes from the sources he disdained, he will have to finesse that earlier attitude. We will see how well… Read more »
William– What you say is wise and insightful. In a way it is “poetic justice” that he now has to solicit funds from churches just like the one he lead = doing their own controlled thing! We used to have budgets with line item disclosure of every employee’s income from the top down at the HMB headquarters. Do you think that might be wise? Most churches disclose line-by-line what the Pastor and Staff are paid. It works for the good, should a church be underpaying according to what members are making. They see it and insist on fairness. Really, 10… Read more »
“He had some early cringeworthy statements but seems more settled and I get the sense that he is genuine and reasonable. ”
No, he just learned not to express his own thoughts publicly. He is outside his protected Highview Bubble so he had to learn the hard way.
Read the Baptist Press interview on Friday, Oct 8. It doesn’t seem to me he has learned anything.
My question is: Wouldn’t it be more wise to treat everyone fairly at the NAMB by saying, “We have a shortfall in income, therefore we will all take equal percentage cuts to match that shortfall–starting with me as the newly elected leader.”
Now that is an honorable and honest approach to a problem brought on by his own church’s giving practices! He made it, now he can solve it by personal sacrifice at the receiving end of mission giving.
If he had the guts to do this, along with honesty, I would immediately give him the respect he deserves!
His church is not in trouble. The SBC and the NAMB are. Probably some of the solutions his church put into effect immediately without playing the “mother may I game” were necessary to keep it profitable and are some of the changes needed to keep the SBC from hemmoraging money. It might not be as simple as to where it’s spent but just not spending as much. That can’t happen without someone feeling the effects. Some much more than others. I , after 5 years senority, as a result of the Iranians turning the oil spicket off was laid off,… Read more »
“”I am surprised at what is being said about Ezell here. So far as I know, none of the commenters here know him or have even had a conversation with him.””
Two things. 1) Ezell does not return communication, so he doesn’t care to talk with anyone not of his personal chosing (which is his right); 2) I only commented on what he said in print. “From the aboundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Words matter.
SSBN– I was–and am–a critic of the way Dr. Ezell ran his church budget with respect to Missions. I was also assured by one who knows him personally that he would be fair and open as he assumed his duties. That is all we can ask. In return, I think we should give him a chance to show what he is made of. It is my personal opinion that, rather than severely cut back on personel, he might consider all people taking cuts–including himself–so that staff salaries coincide with the current level of support. As a small businessman I am… Read more »
SSBN, so far you have criticized Ezell by putting words in his mouth, by referencing an entire interview, and by saying you don’t like his “tone”.
Can you do any better than that?
Yea, William, I can quote him but it won’t sound any better and I assumed you could read, so I didn’t want to be condescending. I did not put any words in his mouth — there isn’t room with his foot in there 🙂
CB, I do think that there is more than a “tweaking” going on within the SBC and with CP. Where we end up is anyone’s guess at this point, but I am not confident that we will even have the same “identity” as we have had up to this point. I think we are moving back to a pre-1925 “more independent, less cooperative” model of missions, which does not bode well for the Convention as a whole. My belief, which is why I have been so outspoken on this issue, is that when CP is so radically changed, then the… Read more »
Howell,
Your sentiments are similar to mine. That is why I said the jury is still out as to the “tweaking” on this one.
I do think change is coming. And some of the change will be radical in nature. So I agree with in in that a “tweak” may become a complete “overhaul” in the end.
Isn’t it interesting that you have conservative inerrantists who hold to basically the same theology but who are now at odds over methodology and, in some respects, ecclesiology? Well, as I see it there are conservative inerrantists and then there are conservative inerrantists. For instance there are conservatives who would be willing to work with moderates, give them representation and a voice in how the SBC is run. They themselves are not moderates and disagree with the mainstays of moderate theology (rejection of inerrancy, pluralism, etc) but are willing to agree to disagree with moderates and have no problem cooperating… Read more »
Joe, Don’t have much time to respond today as I will be moderating our Association’s Annual Meeting starting in just a few hours at our church. But, since you quoted part of my comment directed to CB, let me take a moment and answer. If you think that those of us who question the prevailing movement regarding the Cooperative Program and the future of the SBC are not “real conservatives,” then I think we have a real language barrier. But, I’m not surprised at this reaction, since some within the SBC establishment, including at least one former SBC President on… Read more »
Howell,
“radical redefinition of the SBC”???
I do not think the true “SBC Majority” who voted by an overwhelming majority in Orlando to approve the recommendations of the GCR task force would agree with your use of such “Radical Hyperbole” to describe what their actions.
Grace Always,
Greg, The word “radical” was not used by me initially, but rather by Bryant Wright, the new President of the SBC. He used it both before his election as President and has continued to use it after his election. Therefore, I will continue to use the word, even if you or others do not think that it fits. And, I am most assuredly not using the word as hyperbole. As to the true SBC Majority, I guess if you think that 75% of those who voted for the GCR, who in themselves represented about 10% of all SBC churches, constitutes… Read more »
Howell,
I do not think opposition to the prevailing movement regarding the Cooperative Program and the future of the SBC makes one something other than a true conservative. My point was that there are people who call themselves conservative but would be willing to allow moderates to serve on boards and be employed by the SBC and there are real conservatives who would never consider such a thing. However, people who are pro-the current direction and anti-the current direction may not fall on one side or the other theologically.
As if not being sure about the future and direction of our Mission-sending agencies weren’t enough—now we are not sure if “evangelical” should be our banner or not.
NOBTS Provost undertakes its discussion:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11735&Itemid=53
Interesting—velly interesting—some of us remember “Laugh-In.”
My last comment, SSBN. You can do better but you will not? Got it. Good bye.
I like how William doesn’t mince words. I enjoy the relative hospitality and good sense at his blog though I disagree with him strongly on many points.
I wrote this to David Miller because I only wanted to address him rather than anyone else. At the time I wrote this post, I thought that all dissenting, rather than all dissenting with intent to impugn, discussion into the Conservative Resurgence was being shut down. I wanted to address my concerns to David Miller alone because public back and forth sometimes does more harm than good. Here is my comment in its unedited fashion per David’s request: “The problem with this stance is that the Conservative Resurgence is to the Southern Baptist Community as the Cold War, The Great… Read more »
Thank you for posting this. I appreciate it.
The continued attacks on the GCR task force recommendations that were approved by an overwhelming margin in Orlando, and the continued sniping over the decision of the Board of Directors of NAMB to call Kevin Ezell as the new President of NAMB, are perfect examples of why many in my generation have washed their hands of the SBC. My question is not whether Kevin Ezell is worthy of leading NAMB or not… my question is “Why in the world would he want to?” Some of you guys don’t believe in the Cooperative Program… all you are interested in is power… Read more »
Greg, I agreed with the 20% who voted against the GCR Task Force Recommendations. I also understood those recommendations to be “referrals” in nature, asking the entities to “consider” the actions proposed rather than necessarily “implementing” them. That’s the kind of language that was used and the substance of Dr. Mohler’s comments left the same impression. Now everyone is talking about “implementing” rather than “considering” which has me wondering about a false mandate. Later, I disagreed with the 37 who voted for Dr. Ezell, agreeing instead with the 12 who opposed his candidacy. I don’t know if I’m “sniping” at… Read more »
Rick, great post, thanks.
Rick, Thanks for the comments. What you wrote is exactly where I am right now. And, for the record, I do not know you personally. I do not know personally the other folks that are coming out against the GCR Task Force Recommendations. I have not been asked to write “hit” pieces. That is so ludicrous, but is right out of the playbook that grassroots Southern Baptists are growing weary of. When things are done blantantly and when people say that they are for transparency and then unilaterally seal their own records for 15 years in an act of hubris,… Read more »
The two languages thing is absolutely true.
I’m still not completely sure which I want to become fluent in.
Howell,
Perhaps you have not been ask to write “hit” pieces, but then why would anyone have to ask you to do what you are already doing? And you can be assured that I would not make such a claim if I did not have prof…
And yes we are speaking two very different languages in the SBC right now… One group is pressing forward toward a greater future for the SBC, a great commission future if you would, while another group is clearly afraid to let go of the past.
Greg,
It is my sincere hope that the SBC is heading toward a “Great Commission future” as you referenced.
Yet, a question does arise about the “past” of which you referenced also.
How much of the “past” should we let go? Are there specific elements of the past that we should maintain for stability as we seek a Great Commission future? Foundations are important Greg. They stabilize us as we venture upward.
Does that make any sense to you? Or am I in left field?
CB, That makes perfect sense to me… and apparently it makes sense to the vast majority of those at this years convention in Orlando who approved the recommendations of the GCRTF but made it equally clear that we should not abandon the foundation of the Cooperative Program. Support for the Cooperative Program, and support for the GCRTF recommendations (including Great Commission Giving) is not an “either or” choice… And I reject those who try to put forth this “False Dichotomy”. The SBC is made up of a very diverse group of churches and it is pure ignorance to say that… Read more »
Rick, If we use your logic that a 75% vote at the annual convention is not reflective of the will of the churches of the SBC then we might as well stop having a convention. You, as well as I, know that the convention does not have the authority to mandate anything to the entities of the SBC… the convention can only make it’s wishes known by “recommendations”… in this Dr. Mohler spoke with absolute integrity! Each Board of Trusties is now “Considering” how they will implement these “recommendations”. I get the impression that your real problem is that you… Read more »
Greg, My hope is that the autonomous entities will not only consider “how” to implement the suggestions, but “whether” to implement them. The SBC was asking, not telling, right? I don’t have a problem with boards doing things that I personally disagree with. They don’t have to ask me first. But I think you may be underestimating the opposition to the GCR. The articles by State Convention Presidents, the blogs, the split trustee votes for EC and NAMB, all these facts point to more division than the 80% motion to refer would indicate. In fact, as time goes on, I… Read more »
Greg, I’m sorry that you see what I have written as “hit” pieces. Certainly that is your perogative to view them as such, but no one is forcing you or anyone else to read them. I am happy to write publicly, both here at Voices and on my own personal blog, and to take full responsibility for what I write. From both your response to me and to Rick, I would assume that you are a supporter of President Obama and his policies, especially the Health Care Reform Legislation that will radically altar our nation’s economy and health care services.… Read more »
Howell,
You can “assume” there is Cheese on the Moon if you like… but you better pack some peanut butter just in case, our you will be eating saltines by themselves.
Grace Always,
I’m not sure, Howell, but I have not seen anything that would indicate to me that Greg has many liberal-leaning bones in his body.
I don’t think Greg has “Liberal” bones, but I bet some of them are beginning to “lean.” He is not as young as he once was. 🙂
CB,
I don’t know about “leaning bones”, but they sure hurt more at 46 than they ever did at 36 🙂
I am learning first hand that “Getting old is not for the faint of heart!”
Greg,
No more true statement will be made today than “Getting old is not for the faint of heart!”
No doubt about it. A young person does not have the stamina to handle being old. Only an old guy has the heart for it.
Greg, CB, and Dave, It is quite evident that we are speaking different languages on this issue. I should have been more clear in my writing and am tempted to try one more time, but I do not think that it would be productive. For the record, I believe that all folks that are proponents of the GCR, including Greg, are tried and true conservatives, both theologically and politically. When it comes to the GCR and the “radical” changes that have been proposed, I just find it interesting that these same theological and political conservatives are using some of the… Read more »
Howell,
I think maybe you missed a couple of my comments. I don’t think we (you and I) are speaking “different languages on all things here.
CB,
My apologies, cousin. I missed the smiley face at the end of your earlier comment about Greg’s “liberal bones.” Based on your other comments, I did indeed misread your last comment. Sorry about that. I’m still not sure that some understand my use of Obama in my comparisons, but I trust that you got it. Thanks for the understanding. God bless,
Howell
WOW!!!‘
I think you are exposing some things which don’t want to be exposed.
It is a shame that the “back room” is running a show that the “front room” can’t quite believe could actually be happening! It’s not very pretty and it certainly does not follow the spirit of Christ in our day.
Just my opinion as one wishing the SBC could find it’s former success.
Greg: I think that you have hit the nail on the head. It’s not that talking about theology or developments in the SBC, pro or con, is a bad thing in and of itself. But it’s the constant argument and the unfriendly nature of that argument that many people find to be a turn off. I don’t believe that a church or denomination can make any decision and it not have consquences. But I do believe that churches or denominations that are following a positive direction for where they want to go spend their energies are acting more wisely and… Read more »
Going along with Martin Luther and Louis, I shall say of Louis’s comment: “Here I stand.”
BTW, I think Dr. Patterson said the same thing once. And he did…….stand, that is.
I don’t know if my solution will work, but I am weary of EVERY post becoming a CR free-for-all. So I just published a post on the CR and now everyone that wants to comment on the CR can do so there. I will delete CR-focused comments on other comment streams where they are not germane.
Maybe a bad solution, but its the one I came up with.
Thanks, Dave!!!
Good move!!!!
Gene,
Truthfulness should be the order of the day, don’t you think?
Dave, Howell, and CB,
What is your take on the response of the Louisiana Baptist Convention to the Great Commission Resurgence as reported here: http://baptistpress.net/BPnews.asp?ID=33803
(verses)
The response of the Florida Baptist Convention to the Great Commission Resurgence as reported here: http://www.gofbw.com/News.asp?ID=12172
???
Its clear to me that the people and entities of the SBC are most certainly NOT on the same page.
Greg, I think that this shows that the language divide is much broader than some might want to acknowledge. Over the summer, I talked with my brother-in-law, who is a pastor in Florida. When he told me that there was an equivalent GCR Task Force for the Florida Baptist Convention and who was on it, I predicted to him that this committee would recommend a 50-50 split. In state conventions like Florida and Kentucky, you have folks in leadership who are 100% behind the GCR. In states like Louisiana, you have folks in leadership who have serious concerns about the… Read more »
Howell, Do you think it is healthy for the future of cooperation within the SBC to have the leadership of one entity (Louisiana Baptist Convention) publicly question/criticize the decision of the Board of Trusties of another SBC entity in selecting their leadership? How do you think the leadership of the Louisiana Baptist Convention would feel if the roles were reversed and the Board of Trusties of NAMB passed a resolution calling into question the wisdom of LBC selection of it’s leadership? In the past there has been an unwritten rule of decorum in the SBC that the leadership of one… Read more »
Greg, I’m not sure that you are saying this, but if you mean that no other autonomous state convention of Southern Baptist churches can publicly question/criticize a decision of another entity, then I think we would have had a problem with the CR back in the day. However, I think the bigger issue is how folks are seeing what is happening today. When there is dysfunction and a move in a direction that churches or conventions believe is harmful, then I think it is incumbent upon them to speak out. That should always be done in a spirit of love,… Read more »
Howell, “When there is dysfunction and a move in a direction that churches or conventions believe is harmful, then I think it is incumbent upon them to speak out.” Again you make an unfounded accusation against the current leadership of the SBC… What “dysfunction” are you referring to? Those who were opposed to the GCRTF recommendations did speak out… We had a lengthy discussion leading up to the convention in Orlando and a spirited debate at the convention itself. Then the vote was taken and the recommendations were approved by an overwhelming majority. The debate is over… and now many… Read more »
As we used to say (for those old enough to remember him): “It’s as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face.”
“”Of course, the NAMB leadership is not “their” leadership but “our” leadership, “”
In the same way President Obama is “my president” 🙁
Greg, I suppose “dysfunction” is in the eye of the beholder. That you don’t see it just goes to prove the point of my original post, namely that we have folks who are speaking two different languages mainly because they are seeing things differently. As I have already referred to some of the dysfunction prior, it would do me no good to keep referring to it because you either do not see it or wish to see it. Can one still be in favor of a Great Commission Resurgence within our churches and Convention and yet oppose the recommendations of… Read more »
Howell, “Can one still be in favor of a Great Commission Resurgence within our churches and Convention and yet oppose the recommendations of the GCRTF or do you equate the two?” When it comes to those who are truly in favor of a Great Commission Resurgence “actions speak louder than words.” So far I have seen absolutely nothing form the Anti-Great Commission Resurgence activist (including the LBC) that would indicate they are in favor of pursuing anything even closely related to a Great Commission Resurgence. If they are truly committed to a Great Commission Resurgence but just do not like… Read more »
“”How do you think the leadership of the Louisiana Baptist Convention would feel if the roles were reversed and the Board of Trusties of NAMB passed a resolution calling into question the wisdom of LBC selection of it’s leadership?”” I think this is a mistaken understanding of the polity of the SBC that is an underlying problem: NAMB does not have the same rights as a local church. The implication of your question has the tail wagging the dog, or the cart before the donkey. NAMB is not the local church and therefore has a “limited autonomy” when compared to… Read more »
I should clarify: the State Convention is closer to the local church so shares more fully in the autonomy of the local church.
I would agree that neither the State Convention nor NAMB should be having these types of volleys. It should be the local church making these types of determinations.
I think we have two many hogs at the trough.
SSBN,
“I would agree that neither the State Convention nor NAMB should be having these types of volleys. It should be the local church making these types of determinations.”
EXACTLY!!!
Greg, I am sorry that you have such a poor opinion of State Conventions and the faithful men and women who strive to carry out the Great Commission on a daily basis. That you have “seen absolutely nothing from the Anti-Great Commission Resurgence activist (including the LBC) that would indicate they are in favor of pursuing anything even closely related to a Great Commission Resurgence” says more about your views than I could ever hope to elicit from you in ongoing dialogue. And, by the way, I’m sure glad that conservatives back in the 1970s and 80s showed a “lack… Read more »
Howell, It is clear that you wish to end our little debate, so I will let you go after this comment. You say: “I am sorry that you have such a poor opinion of State Conventions and the faithful men and women who strive to carry out the Great Commission on a daily basis. “ For the record, I believe that there are many faithful men and women who are doing a great job in our State Conventions… I did not say otherwise, and I will not let you hang that stone around my neck. This debate is not about… Read more »
Greg, I do believe that our debate has hit an impasse. That you think Florida has taken a “cooperative stance” while Louisiana has taken a “confrontational stance” goes to the very heart of my post. In regards to the “Great Commission Resurgence,” we are speaking different languages. Although I do not know you personally, I don’t believe that I have ever questioned your personal commitment to fulfiling the Great Commission. I don’t believe that I have questioned the establishment’s commitment and passion for the Great Commission. I don’t believe that Dr. Hankins and or Morris Chapman have questioned others’ commitment… Read more »
Just for the record: I doubt Greg’s opinion of State Conventions can be any lower than my opinion of California’s. It’s a money pit that recycles the last names of generations of new theocrats.
Greg,
Does this unwritten rule of decorum in which the leadership of one SBC entity refuses to criticize another SBC entity also apply to, say, the President of Southeastern Seminary criticizing, say, the North American Mission Board, the State Conventions, and the Executive Committee?
Rick,
I know where you are going… and just to show you that I believe this sort of thing is harmful to our cooperative efforts as Southern Baptist no matter who is doing it… YES!
Your consistency is admired. So would you also agree, then, that the driving force behind the GCR was rooted in the kind of public criticism that should never have taken place? It follows that if the earlier criticism never happened, then the later counter-criticism would never have happened either.
Rick,
I agree that some things were said that should not have been said, and that our cooperative efforts are now suffering because of these statement.
However, what the LBC has done is far more egregious because it is targeted directly at the BOT of NAMB, and is not the sort of general criticism of the SBC priorities as a whole we saw leading up to the convention in Orlando.