Dr. James Merritt, former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, has announced to Baptist Press that he will nominate Walter Strickland for the office of 1st Vice President of the SBC at the 2017 annual meeting. This is exciting news as we plan to gather in Phoenix, AZ in just over a month.
Strickland is a graduate (M.Div and Th.M.) of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Aberdeen. Strickland also serves as the Special Advisor to the President for Diversity & Instructor of Theology at SEBTS. His responsibilities in that role include overseeing Southeastern’s Kingdom Diversity Initiative.
Strickland was quoted in an April story in Baptist Press regarding Southeastern’s new missions scholarship program which “offers minority students financial assistance for Southeastern mission trips along with help in preparing to go, such as raising funds and obtaining a passport.” He said, “We recognize that every tribe, tongue and nation are not just the recipients of God’s mission, but they ought to be mobilized on mission as well.”
Below are some quotes from the Baptist Press article announcing the nomination.
From Merritt:
“As our nation and our convention become more diverse, it is imperative that our leadership reflect the diversity that marks the Kingdom of God and Heaven itself,” Merritt, pastor of Cross Pointe Church in Duluth, Ga., said according to a news release. “Beyond that we need people in leadership that reflect the best of Southern Baptists theologically, spiritually and personally.
“Walter Strickland meets both of these needs perfectly and I am excited about nominating him for the position of first vice president at our upcoming annual meeting in Phoenix.”
Regarding GC Giving:
Strickland is a member of Imago Dei Church in Raleigh, N.C., which told Baptist Press it gave $88,234 in Great Commission Giving for 2016. That total amounts to 9.8 percent of Imago Dei’s undesignated receipts, according to the church.
More from Merritt:
Merritt said Strickland “desires to see unity in Christ proliferate throughout the SBC and be a driving focus of our cooperative work together. He sincerely believes that we are better together and wants to see younger generations honor older generations of Southern Baptists who have given us so much. He believes that biblical diversity comes as we all celebrate our unity together in Christ by loving, honoring, blessing and encouraging one another in our unique roles and contributions.”
To this point, Strickland is the only announced nominee for the office.
I’ve seen a lot of positive reactions on social media about Walter Strickland’s nomination. I met Walter at the convention last year and got to talk for a few minutes. He was very gracious and seemed like a great guy. I’ve heard nothing but good things from some of his colleagues at SEBTS.
So I don’t know anything about the nominee, nor his church, but does it really matter what the CP giving of his church is if he’s not the pastor or the one setting those numbers? Will people really care? Having never attended an annual meeting, I’m pretty clueless about what really does and doesn’t matter to the people who vote.
For most people it will matter less than it would if he were the lead pastor. There’s a format that’s normally followed and certain expected information that appears in the BP articles announcing nominations. That’s normally geared toward pastors because most nominees are… and some people would ask if it weren’t included – so I think BP is just making sure they cover the bases up front.
I do not think most will care – for the reasons you mentioned…
IMO, a GCR church is giving to the SBC so I would tend to not necessarily disqualify (for my vote) them if they skip the CP and give directly to the ExCom…
Whether one likes the idea of GCR giving to the SBC as opposed to CP (I personally prefer a both/and not an either/or) – it is certainly official and acceptable giving – as the messengers approved that method years ago. So for purposes of SBC office elections – The way I see it that they are giving to SBC work so I’d have no issue casting a vote for them.
However, if a person such a church were nominated for a position in North Carolina I would object strongly – as they would not be cooperating with the NC convention.
Tarheel, I think that’s an excellent distinction between state and national responsibilities. Thank you for that insight.
Is there any SBC position/office where CP support is important? Or, is it just one of a few giving options?
CP giving always matters to me, but it’s just one factor.
Nick, the whole point of the CP is that it is a cooperative partnership between the SBC and state conventions. A GCG only church doesn’t support the CP which is said by both the state’s and SBC to be our primary giving plan. Each one merely seeing after their own areas of responsibility is to eliminate the CP.
I understand what the CP is, and I’m a huge supporter of it. However, I also recognize that almost no-one in a church other than the Senior Pastor and a few other men can really do anything to change the percentage given to the CP. I served on staff at a church 8 1/2 years, and there wasn’t a thing I could have done if I wanted to see the CP giving changed. So, while I might take it into consideration for a senior pastor, the number doesn’t mean much to me against or in favor of a non-pastor candidate.
In regard to SBC nominees’ church Cooperative Program giving, either it matters, it doesn’t matter, or it matters but may be overridden by other considerations. We have mostly followed the last in electing presidents whose CP giving has almost always been far below the average percentage for an SBC church.
About the First VP nominee’s church giving record the following points may be made:
1. The percentage of undesignated offering receipts given to the Cooperative Program is .0037.
2. Although the church calls its direct gifts to the Executive Committee’s SBC allocation budget “Cooperative Program” giving, such is not. Some in the SBC have offered these type of direct gifts, which are divided among the two mission boards, seminaries, ERLC, Exec Comm, and Historical Commission, as an alternative to “normal” CP gifts through one’s state convention which keeps the majority share on average. These are not CP gifts precisely because they bypass the state convention.
3. Baptist Press has a delicate job reporting this and one notes that (a) Great Commission Giving for the church, at a healthy 9.8% is put forth first in their article, (b) BP puts scare quotes around “Cooperative Program” when reporting that almost all of the church’s “Cooperative Program” giving is direct to the EC. The article makes no comment on this nor did BP seek a quote from anyone at the North Carolina state convention about it, leaving the analysis and explanation to others.
I don’t think the VP positions are very important and it seems evident that the positive contributions of the nominee to minority enrollment and diversity at SEBTS overcome the deficiencies in his church’s CP giving record.
A point is often made that if the CP is our primary giving channel then at some point those elected to office, those hired as executive level employees of our entities, and those elected as trustees should show some record in their church of CP support, even if the nominees are not the senior pastor. I’d guess that most messengers will overlook the CP giving of this nominee’s church and make a decision based on the totality of the nominee’s accomplishments and value to the SBC. I don’t know anything about his church other than what BP reported on giving.
Side notes on this: Churches can apply “Cooperative Program” to any giving they want and plug in any figure they choose. BP gave the money received by the state convention which is where CP giving goes. I’ve always attempted to downplay that our relatively new giving metric, Great Commission Giving, would have any impact in the SBC. While GCG isn’t a useful number in the ACP (some entire state conventions choose not to collect it from their churches), it can have an effect on individual decisions regarding elections. Still, it is a legitimate number, aggregate giving to all SBC causes, and messengers should be able to evaluate a candidate on this basis if they wish.
Article 3, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3 of the SBC Constitution reads: “Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.”
Giving in ANY of these ways means a church is cooperating with the Southern Baptist Convention and is eligible to have their messengers seated at the convention. To frame the giving of any church that meets our definition of cooperating as anything other than positive is, in my view, inappropriate.
What excites me about his candidacy is that it will feature his role as VP of Diversity at SEBTS. Danny Akin’s model of advancing diversity should be replicated throughout our convention. It is working. Why not replicate it? Our convention would be the better off if we did. Grateful Merritt is nominating him. Grateful he’s running.
Might I add, his title is, VP of Kingdom Diversity. And that word Kingdom is worthy distinguishing qualifying term, from how the word diversity is used in the secular realm.
A note here for future comments. I’m not going to allow the comments section to become a complaint section of his church’s missions giving. William has addressed some of those issues above, and done so fairly without attacking. Walter isn’t the pastor of his church and we all know members often have little influence over giving percentages. Moreover, the church didn’t ask for scrutiny in this area, it’s simply normal for BP to include the information.
The normal paradigm for nominees has become: this guy’s is such a great pastor his church has grown so large and he give so much to missions… That’s obviously not this nomination. His nomination is framed quite differently and I believe those reasons stand on their own merit.
Brent makes the point that since the nominee is not the senior pastor at his church, the giving records should be viewed differently. I’ll buy that for the 1st VP position but wouldn’t for SBC president. I pointed out some wrinkles in the giving business, some of it goes back years in various forms. I’m curious as to why the church’s support of state convention is so meager but like his work at SEBTS and will likely vote for him in Phoenix.
No need in getting all bogged down on this one. Sounds like a great guy.
There was a brief comment stream brouhaha this morning that I would like to address. Walter Strickland’s church gives a smaller percentage to the Cooperative Program and does most of their giving in what is now called Great Commission Giving – giving to SBC missions causes but not through the normal state convention/Executive Committee/CP system.
Those who are currently running things (and I believe doing a good job) pretty much deleted the whole string of comments.
I would like to address a few things very directly here – knowing that I will likely offend many. After this comment, I will go back to my PC-preparation hidey-hole and not engage in any kind of back and forth.
1. Any candidate puts their record on the record when they allow their name put into the hat for public office. When Walter Strickland runs for office, his church’s missions giving is an issue.
2. There is no set amount that qualifies or disqualifies a man for any office. Dennis Salley left a comment that said, “No one from a church giving less than 1 percent through CP should be an officer, trustee, director, or entity head in the SBC.” That is his opinion. He is welcome to it. Frankly, I would agree with him in general about the office of SBC president. It is why Frank Page was elected in 2006 over the expected favorite.
However, he cannot cite any policy or regulation. Dennis should not vote for Walter Strickland, but he does not get to set rules for the entire SBC.
3. imago Dei does not give much through the traditional CP, but they do support Southern Baptist work. People, you don’t have to like it, but the GCR was approved by an overwhelming vote and it actually IS SBC policy.
I am a CP fan, a CP supporter, and I wish churches like this one would consider greater CP support. But that is the choice of an autonomous church in accordance with SBC policy.
4. Walter Strickland is not the pastor of that church, nor did he set that financial policy. The fact that he is a member there means that he is in some sense supportive of it, but he is not the Senior Pastor.
Is it a factor reasonable people could consider? Yes.
Should it be the ONLY factor anyone considers? I don’t think so.
My guess is that those who summarily dismiss him on this basis may have other reasons for doing so and are using that as the reason.
5. David Brumbelow’s comment, the flashpoint of the kerfuffle, was well-deserving of moderation – filled with logical non-sequitur, insult, and silliness. If I were still running things here, I would likely have either responded harshly to it, or deleted it.
*It was illogical – He made a comparison between what Jack Graham did (escrowing CP funds to put pressure on Dr. Russell Moore) and Imago Dei (which supported SBC missions but just not through the CP as a primary funding source, but never asked for anyone to be called on the carpet). It was a silly argument.
David’s comment (partial): “When Jack Graham only considered doing what Walter Strickland’s church is doing about the Cooperative Program, SBC Voices condemned Jack Graham.”
*It was trolling – David tried to twist the discussion of the post into a discussion of his choosing. It is rude. It is wrong. If you raise the issue of the church’s CP giving – that is a legitimate issue. But to invoke the Jack Graham issue is trolling – trying to turn the discussion to HIS choosing rather than to the topic at hand.
*It was inaccurate – SBC Voices does not have an editorial position. We are a collection of individual authors. Granted, most of us did not agree with Graham, but we are not united in our support of Dr. Moore. David just doesn’t get it.
*It was whiny – In follow-up comments, David complained about being persecuted and treated unfairly. I thought that deleting the original comment was wise.
David – do better. Don’t troll. Try to stick to the topic and respect the author. You have your own blog and you can write whatever you wish there. But when you come here, you can do better than you did this morning.
I am not moderating comments here right now, but reasonable discussion of the role of CP giving in candidate selection seems to me to be wholly in order.
Intense criticism or insult toward a single church does not seem particularly helpful.
In my decade of blogging, I can tell you that managing comments is the greatest pain of blogging. Many people have started to not even allow them. We are not there yet.
But sometimes our hearts yearn for it!!
Dave Miller,
I disagree.
But since several of my comments here have been deleted, you obviously have the last word.
David R. Brumbelow
You don’t think you can do better?
I think you can.
Dave Miller,
Why not allow my comments and let the readers decide?
Rather, you delete my comments, then say they were:
“filled with logical non-sequitur, insult, silliness, trolling, inaccurate, whiny, illogical.”
My deleted comments would prove otherwise.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I am not going to cross swords with you.
You have a blog where you can write whatever you wish.
Here, you have to be respectful and stick to the topic. Please do so. You can engage the topic of the discussion or you can move on.
But you cannot troll the discussion here to turn it into a discussion of whatever grudge you carry about other issues.
It’s over. Please either engage the topic or move on. Your choice. One more comment that is not “on topic” and I will put you into moderation.
Dave, I accept your “rebuke” and acknowledge that I can not set the rules for the SBC. Should have expressed that as an opinion. My intent was to defend CP. I have generally made that a major critia for my vote for convention offices along with the other “qualities” a candidate might have. It is was one reason I did vote for Frank Page (and that he was my pastor in seminary). I just would like for CP to mean more than it seems to sometimes. The churches I have pastored have been faithful in CP giving.
As I said, for me it would be a decisive issue in voting for SBC President. Less so for the VP offices.
My point, which I think you understand, is that each of us has the right to set our standards.
I have a question for you. Do you have a breaking point? Or is it a little more fluid?
For me, when voting for President, CP is an important factor. Very important. Not the only factor but one of the key factors.
I have listened to nominating speeches at convention as well as following BP on those who will be nominated. I have looked at the region of the country, diversity of the candidates – the SBC is multi ethnic, type of work (pastor, missionary, director of missions, entity employee, CP). I will lean CP as A deciding factor other things being equal. I like to think that I am open minded but CP has been a way of life and every year I am asked to promote it!
I think you and I are pretty close on this. All things being equal, I’d vote for the 10% guy over the 2% guy, or even the CP guy over the GCR guy. But that certainly wouldn’t be my only factor.
Dennis and Dave Miller,
I agree with you guys.
I think Walter Strickland is a great choice for 1st VP.
The CP/designated matter is not trivial (nor does it hinge on the staff position of a nominee) but can wait for another context to be thoroughly discussed.
Well said.