There’s a presidential race on steroids
I never thought I’d live to see an ordinary pastor be president but through an odd route, here comes Bart Barber to end the run of megapastor presidentes. At least Barber talks to us. I don’t have much to complain about with him. I like cows, longwinded former bloggers and such. He’s done a good job. Our first Twitter/X president.
We have tribes in the SBC, you say? Six, count ’em, six presidential candidates:
Jared Moore. Former SBCV writer, smart guy (he has a PhD now from Suthun Seminary now, they don’t hand them out to dumb guys, do they?), good family man, bunch of kids, faithful pastor who’s churches support the CP with above average percentages as I recall. Not his first SBC presidential rodeo but I’m not seeing that the SBC needs to go where he is, creedo/schmeedo. If he’s so smart why is he personally nominating a 1VP who doesn’t support the CP. 1VPs are irrelevant, but this is a head scratcher.
Keahbone. I love that just “Keahbone” is fine with him. Heavily involved in the SBC abuse reformation business which, since it is in a shambles right now, is a problem for him. Anything at all about what has happened concern him? Not seeing Keahbone as president but he is likable and I respect him.
Clint Pressley. I think his church is a megachurch and I’ve had my limit of those but that’s just me. To be candid, I can’t think of anything he’s said that makes me want to vote for him. In response to the 990 push, he seems to be saying, “Hey, we’re good on that. Trust the trustees.” Total avoidance.
Bruce Frank. I’d consider voting for him unless he shows up in a black t-shirt or a hoodie, or, maybe I’d vote for him because he shows up with a black t-shirt or hoodie. Another megachurch pastor. I think I said I had my limit but would give him a second look. He was a top dog on the first sex abuse task force and I’m not sure that will end up being a net positive for the SBC. He can get stuff done. I have an open mind.
David Allen. Mid-America guy now (my alma) but I’m not seeing his name belonging in the same sentence as that of Adrian Rogers but then I don’t see anyone’s name in the same sentence with AR. Seems to be in love with adjectives and metaphors. He’s for SBC transparency. Aren’t we all? No specifics. I agree with some of his statements on the sex abuse mess but when he or anyone touts an undefined “biblical” approach, that’s just rhetoric. Let’s see details.
Dan Spencer. Under my radar, but then lot’s of SBC stuff and people are under my radar now. His announcement included this: “He is the great-great nephew of M.E. Dodd, “the father of the Cooperative Program” and the great-great grandson of George Martin Savage, who was president of Union University and Dodd’s father-in-law.” I’ve already had my limit of SBC pedigrees but I’m open to hearing what he has to offer. So far, I guess I’ve missed it.
The Cooperation Group recommendations
No one does Grand Study Groups like we do. This group studied, assessed, ruminated, and evaluated and has four recommendations.
- That the EC create a more “robust” process for BFM amendments. Let me restate this: The BFM is now a bush league statement of faith because it was amended in an ad hoc fashion, virtually no debate or thought process. Add to that the nonsense involving forward slashes. This is proof that the distinguished messengers of the world’s largest deliberative body aren’t deliberative at all and are easily stampeded. Don’t we have leadership? Uh, no, which is why any hack can do this. As usual, the SBC closes the barn door after the horses are gone.
- With grave looks the CG recommends “messengers preserve sole authority for seating messengers at the annual meeting.” More plainly, the idea of letting the dysfunctional EC kick churches out and then maybe the messengers will let them back in on appeal was nuts. A handful of EC members decide, in secret, these decisions, without even a public discussion, and then it can be undone? Nuts. What were we thinking?
- Entity trustees must affirm the BFM, not just closely identify with it nor affirm it with any caveats or provisos. Got it. An estimated 40% of churches have practices that directly violate the BFM now we’re making trustees swallow every word with no reservations? Shall we exclude as potential trustees members of churches that violate the BFM in regard to the Lord’s Supper? I mean, here’s a guy who participates in a church that repeatedly and blatantly violates the BFM but he can set that aside in order to be a trustee? Shell game. No one will care about this because it looks good on paper.
- The EC should “evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of a public list of churches.” These guys are good. Now that people search the SBC church list to find and target females in any sub-senior pastor role, or some miscreant is arrested for child porn on his computer and it’s made known he is a member, perhaps staff, of and SBC church, let’s just ditch the list. Presto! Problem solved. Presently, it takes an act of God to get a church dropped from the SBC list. It is a total mystery that churches which declare that they haven’t been SBC in decades are still on our SBC list. Incompetence? Inertia?
The Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force
Database? What database? The process is in a shambles. We SBCers love the idea of a carefully staged and scheduled process. On this, we’re at the finger pointing stage right now. The celebrated database ought to be scrapped. It’s unworkable. Someone important ought to say it. The SBC, I read, is defending itself against 42 sex abuse lawsuits. Imagine if some group of independent experts pronounced individuals as having “credible reports” of sex abuse and put them on a public list. That’s the road we voted to travel. I don’t think it leads to safer churches. It undoubtedly does lead to lots of additional lawsuits. The current ARITF said there are plenty of examples of such databases and they don’t get sued all the time. Show us. The EC flung itself headlong towards bankruptcy and will spend years suffering the consequences of their decision to waive ACP and indemnify Guidepost against liability. ARITF actions will only shorten the process. Maybe Jeff Iorg has a plan.
990 level reporting
I’m not optimistic. Candidates prattle on about transparency. Means nothing. Why not require entities to publish CEO compensation (and no funny business hiding compensation)? Alas, that will never happen. Once trustees are addicted to secrecy, and it’s a long, long addiction for us, they won’t ever ever give that up because they like to feel important, have expenses covered, get pats on the back from CEOs and maybe get a nice denominational job down the road sometime.
It’s a system that if not already broken is just waiting to supply us with the next train wreck. I hear that some entity trustees don’t even know what their CEO is paid. True? How about if they sign the BFM? Nope. Secrecy will prevail. I don’t know if greater reporting would solve anything but it’s our money. Show us how it’s spent.
_________________
I’m taking the year off, so I don’t have a vote to cast. I wouldn’t vote for Allen or Moore, am not seeing anything substantial in Pressley. All nice guys, etc., etc. Probably not Keahbone. Not Spencer. Frank, maybe. It’s a tough call. How about ranked-choice voting? How about I text in my vote?
I’ve been to Indianapolis. Wasn’t that where Dan Quayle railed on about stuff in an election year? Why don’t we just say no to heavy political stuff at our meetings? I dunno.
Best part of Indy92 was my trip to the USAF musem in Dayton. Fabulous!
