Baptist Press is reporting on a meeting of “SBC Conservatives” led by Kent Cochran, with about 20 people in attendance. I have no idea who was there (the details of the meeting were kept secret and attendees names withheld). I would make the following observations and points.
1) The beauty of the SBC is that anyone can meet and can express their opinions. We are a free church/free convention. They let Wiley Drake speak about 500 times yesterday. In reality, for all the talk by groups on all sides of being marginalized, no one in the SBC is marginalized. Become a messenger, come to the convention and bring a majority of messengers with you and you win your point.
2) Why is this news?
I am guessing there were a lot of meetings of 20 people or more going on all over the convention, none of which was reported on by BP. Why did this meeting get reported on? I was involved in a dinner party last year which had almost this many people, but BP was completely silent about it.
3) I resent a little bit their self-designation as “SBC Conservatives.” I am SBC and I’m about a half a tick left of fundamentalist. I don’t even know what they were trying to organize or what their goals are, but the name annoys me a little, because it seems to imply that if we aren’t on their side, we aren’t conservative.
4) They have opened a website, “SB Conservative Resurgences 2” (not sure why the double plural is used – perhaps that is a typo that will eventually be corrected), but there is not a name attached in any way. We have no idea who these people are, except for Kent Conrad. There is a phone number and an address.
Again, the implication here is that those who disagree with them are not really conservatives, but are trying to reverse the course of the CR. That is simply not true. While there may be a few closet moderates hiding among us, you could not ask for any clearer assurances of a commitment to inerrancy than the one given by Bryant Wright in his presidential address, or those by other leaders.
To imply that those who have stylistic differences with the traditionalist Southern Baptists are secretly trying to turn us away from our core commitments to inerrancy and sound doctrine is unfair and unworthy of those who were involved.
I won’t have time to do it, but I would love to hear what info you can get through the phone number if someone wants to call and report back.
5) The motion they made died a quick and painless death, being referred to the Committee on Order of business and then immediately ruled out of order because the EC is already doing what they requested.
6) My guess is that very little will come of this group and it will likely be forgotten in a few weeks. Maybe I will be wrong. It won’t be the first time.
I would LOVE to hear from someone who participated in the group and get a counterpoint here. In fact, I would love to publish a follow up article by a participant in the group explaining the purposes of this group.
Again, they have every right to do what they have done. We have every right to oppose it. That is what being Baptist is all about.
Dave, your link to their website isn’t working. Also, are you ken to “Norm Miller” over at Baptist Press? :).
I assume that this group represents the “Grassroots Southern Baptists” that Lumpkins always talks about? If so, 20 is a pitiful number.
Keep in mind the original CR started with what, 3 guys in a cafe?
And a clear enemy (so to speak)…
True. I’ve seen several responses to this group that have said “20? That’s no news-worthy crowd.”
Without attacking or defending the CR, one could hardly state that the Pressler, Patterson, and (wasn’t there one more?) having coffee was not newsworthy. So, you’ve got more people, a potential clear enemy, even if it’s a straw-man, and faster communication. All kinds of things, both good and bad, are possible from a small group.
The problem is their premise that if they somehow can share the same information coming out of all this coverage, as well as BP and ABP, then people will flock to their banner, their cause.
Their entire premise is flawed which is why they have no credible claim to a “majority” no more than the last SBC “majority” group from a year or two ago.
If you want to champion something, then fine, go champion your cause and try to convince others to come over to your side. Don’t claim to be a majority when you can’t even fill the party room at a Denny’s.
Unity or not, this is a political group in its infancy. If their devotion to their cause is evident to the hard work and effort that they’ve put into their website, this group won’t be around next year and they’ll be calling themselves something different.
The problem with the Pressler/Patterson argument is that it is ONE movement that succeeded. How many other small coalitions never got off the ground?
Pressler/Patterson didn’t deserve news coverage either when their meeting was in single (even double) digits.
Their movement also had a plan of action that revealed itself over a period of years. They didn’t just stand up and say here we are and we’re going to take you all down!!!
Though I just had an image of Paige Patterson yelling out, “OHHHHH YEAHHHH!!!!’ as he snapped into a Slim Jim.
I assume that this group represents the “Grassroots Southern Baptists” that Lumpkins always talks about?
From the connections, it sounds more like they represent the ilk of missouri fundamentalists representing all the face-palm statements & actions associated with my beloved state…
Mike, if they’re not the “grassroots group,” then I wonder how many there are in the “grassroots group”? These people seem to be arguing for some of the same things.
Yes, but as you alluded- their bark is a lot louder than their bite. They always act as if their is this big backing to their opinions and yet none can be found.
In addition to the claims that the anti-Calvinist camp is leading a second Conservative Resurgence, the worst part is their commitment to relying on vague, general, open-ended feelings of discontent and stealth tactics. According to the article, it was “announced at the outset that the session was on background rules, for attendees to be assured their comments would not be attributed to them.”
This allows them to maximize their support by attracting people whose issues with the SBC are unrelated, and especially if they can get said people to THINK that the issues are all related (i.e. the ones peddling the notion that “the Calvinists” are the root of all the troubles). If they had to have an open, direct dialogue, the supporters that they hope to benefit from would have to face certain facts, i.e. you could drive off every single Calvinist from the SBC and you’d STILL have the GCR, you would STILL have the traditional/nontraditional divide (as if Rick Warren is a southern traditionalist for example), you’d STILL have most – if not all – of the organizational changes, you’d STILL have the megachurch issue, you’d STILL have leaders elected because of popularity/politics despite questionable giving to the CP/Lottie Moon by their churches, etc.
I am not saying that they are purposefully misleading people. (I did imply that in the past, and I am now backing away from that accusation against them.) Instead, I state that their choosing vagueness, stealth tactics and inappropriately bundling together of perhaps legitimate but often unrelated issues definitely has the effect of shielding them.
Here is the link to their website: http://www.sbcr2.com/
Looking at their web site, I think it’s just a rush job on typing out the information to post there, but what they have written reminds me of something poorly translated from another language.
The opening of their website says, “The Lord was please with Solom.” Pardon my ignorance, but who is “Solom”? Is it a misspelling, or some sort of dimunitive or contraction for Solomon?
John
Looking at it… I don’t see the m… So it reads “The Lord was pleased with Solo.”
The force is strong with this group.
😀
Jared:
The number is much greater than 20. It is just those 20 that were willing to participate in this formal (though off the record!) meeting. The many, many others probably simply didn’t know about the meeting, or had other priorities. Also, lots of the grassroots that many are speaking of simply sat the convention out this year because they know that they don’t currently have the numbers or clout to pass anything. It appears that they feel that the real action is going to start next year – when, as one blogger noted, the meeting will be in New Orleans – and continue in subsequent years.
Also, you might want to avoid stuff like “20 is a pitiful number” because it is convenient to the “aggrieved affectation” so helpful to their garnering support that I mentioned in this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/biff-baptists-in-full-fellowship/#comment-45730 in response to a fellow’s stating “See, this is why I think we might want to separate. I don’t like being called disingenuous. If you’re going to keep calling me names, it will only make me want to separate even more.”
Job, my point is that the most vocal in the “grassroots groups” would have us believe they’re the overall majority. Where’s the proof though?
Well, interestingly enough the song that plays on the homepage was written by a Calvinist. (Hint: John Newton) 🙂
The site is registered to someone in Republic, Missouri. The email is the same as the one in this comment by CASEY.
I’m curious about the DVD and what constitutes a serious conservative.
I wonder if any of these guys are connected to the old “Baptist Fire” group. If so, all it would take to bring them down would be to sick Tim Brister on them.
D.R. I used to be a member of the Baptist Fire Group! I even lead my church in an altar prayer about the heresy sweeping through the sbc: Calvinism!
“Well, interestingly enough the song that plays on the homepage was written by a Calvinist.”
Their common response to such inconvenient truths as, you know, Baptist history is that while it was somewhat acceptable for Baptists in times past to be Calvinists, now that we know so much more about theology, evangelism and missions etc. and particularly since the vast majority of Baptists have “voted with their feet” in rejecting Calvinism, there is no excuse for being Calvinist anymore. A good example example of this attitude can be found when a well-known blogger claimed that Thabiti Anyabwile “lacked both the exegetical depth of a seasoned expositor and the sober analysis of a mature biblical theologian” because he is, er, Calvinist in this entry: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2010/09/9marks-focus-at-southeastern-baptist-theological-seminary-by-peter-lumpkins.html
So, back then, they were just proto-Baptists emerging from the Reformation, but now we are SO much smarter and wiser … that sort of thing. (That plus the common trick of asserting that the SUCCESSFUL Calvinist Baptists of old either “weren’t really Calvinists in their hearts” or “weren’t really Baptists.”)
“Invitation Only” Meeting???
How very LIMITED of them. I would thing they would be more concerned with the inclusion of everyone.
Shouldn’t “whosoever will” be invited to come?
😉
There was a claim on one website that the number of those meeting was somewhere around 100 with that just being representative of a much bigger group. Looks like those statements were quite overblown.
Here’s the 100 claim, and it does make it sound like the meeting itself would have 100. Not just that 100 people had expressed these concerns.
Screencap after it was taken down from Missouri Baptist Pathway’s site: http://brenthobbs.com/files/MBCmotion_story.png
I am currently meeting with an (undisclosed) number of “Conservative” Southern Baptist, in an (undisclosed) location, to discuses (undisclosed) issues we have with the SBC.
We will be bringing a resolution (undisclosed of course) to an (undisclosed) future SBC convention to study these (undisclosed issues).
You may visit our New web site www.(undisclosed).com for more information.
Very truly yours (undisclosed),
So much for BIFF 🙁
HAHAHAHA!!! Awesome. And count me in. But don’t forget the (undisclosed) handshake to get in.
Looks like you’ve got enough there for a BP story!
A site that http://www.sbcr2.com (which states that they are still very much under construction) links to (which is also very much under construction:
http://www.sbchistorytn.com
Pardon my (and Google’s) ignorance, but what exactly are “background rules”?
Haha. I had the same question… but didn’t care enough to type in into google. 🙂
When you meet with a journalist, you can specify ahead of the meeting that you are giving them information “on background.” This allows you to speak fully but not on the record. I cannot remember if it bears with it a promise of future “on-the-record” statements.
It’s a form of speaking “off-the-record.” Not the same as being an “anonymous source” who is quoted directly but not attributed, but rather a way of saying things but not being directly quoted or directly attributed.
It’s useful when you’re trying to explain a complicated situation and do not want one-liners quoted out of context by those reporting the matter, but rather want to help them understand the whole situation.
You must specify that you wish to speak “on background” and the journalist must acknowledge that you are speaking in that manner. Their ethics bind them to keeping the confidentiality. Those who lack ethics are held to it by threat of job loss and the inability to ever work in reputable journalism again.
This is what I remember from Journalism classes. Anybody with better info, correct me.
thanks. i was looking for it under Robert’s Rules of order/meetings/parliamentary proecudure, etc. instead of journalism terms.
Jared:
They are a “majority” in the “Moral Majority” of Jerry Falwell sense, in that it is only the people who agree with them actually matter because they are “the real Southern Baptists that are the lifeblood of the convention” (just as Falwell’s supporters were “the real Americans who make this country strong”) and that those who disagree with them are “the elites who have gotten themselves into position of power and hi-jacked the convention while no one was watching.” Falwell and similar felt that the real problem was that the overwhelming percentage of Americans simply didn’t know what was happening to the country, and once they were properly educated, they’d join the Moral Majority and like groups. Well, the “Conservative Resurgence 2” is convinced that rank and file Southern Baptists are unaware of the changes and the direction of the SBC, and once they are, that said Southern Baptists will join their forces. Towards that end, http://www.sbcr2.com/About.html claims: “Most pastors and church member do not know what is going on because there is not central place for them to go to, to find out what is happening at all of the convention ministries. We will not discriminate. We will merely inform you of what is going on so that you will have the knowledge to make informed decisions.”
So, similar to Falwell, they are convinced that they are right and are good people, that most of the SBC is composed of good, right-thinking people, and that these good, right-thinking people will inevitably join them once they learn about the dire state of affairs and are offered the chance to do so. That is the more altruistic way of looking at it.
A more cynical interpretation: Falwell knew that he did not have and could never get an electoral majority. As a result, rather than attempting to influence both parties, Falwell and the other religious right leaders concentrated on the GOP, feeling that if they could only take control of it, they only had to beat the Democrats and impose their agenda on everybody else. So, “Moral Majority” only practically meant a little more than 25% of the voting age population (assuming the electorate is 50/50 Democrat/GOP), and as such actually was “our people, the good people who count versus the rest, who don’t.” Along those lines, the Conservative Resurgence 2 knows that all they need is the support of enough messengers who attend a future annual meeting. Allow me to propose that such is a lot easier to obtain than is a reliably conservative Congress, White House and Supreme Court all at the same time. So, actual majority or no, the SBCR2 people have a much greater chance of succeeding than Jerry Falwell ever did.
Just for the record, if your read the record of when the Moral Majority was in its zenith, the number of abortions plateaued and then declined.
Also, you don’t need 50% or more to be a huge influence in American politics, as I’m sure you know. The Moral Majority had such an influence it seems to me.
And, while we are bashing Falwell, let’s at least give him credit for a consistent ministry beginning with door-to-door visitation that has over 20% of his town attending his church (the last time I read the statistics).
Also, there is this small university that has so many people in their online college they had to cut it off at somewhere over 30,000 until they could restructure. And, this does not include his world-class in residence university.
I did not always agree with everything this brother said or did, but from people who knew him personally–and I’ve known several–they all to a man and woman say he was the real deal.
So, I pray the “conservatives” will have the same success as Falwell. They already have the parodies flying, so that is a hopeful sign.
Well, the website portrays women in positions of authority so they can’t be too serious about the whole Conservative Resurgence thing…
Bill,
I consider myself a conservative and in my organization (home) a woman is in charge. We call her “wife and mother” 🙂
mine too, but we’re not discussing our home life…haha
Dave,
I don’t like the term “Conservative” being hijacked either. But as any good debater knows, if you control the terms, you control the debate. Conservatives are “nearly” universally viewed as the good guys in the SBC since the CR, and the group that claims that title will hope to microwave some of that leftover goodwill for themselves. Similarly, if you can paint your opponents not as “fellow Conservative inerrantists with different viewpoints on soteriology and methodology” but as “liberals” or the dreaded “Emergents”, then you’ve microwaved some leftover vitriol to send their way also.
The real liberals and (especially) the Emergents have nothing to do with the SBC, and we should quit painting fellow Conservatives as their associates just to gain votes.
Ugh…
This website looks like it was made by a high school kid needing extra credit in a computer class. If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t have stock photos, this many grammatical errors, and very little actual content. This group could have the cure to cancer and no one would actually take them seriously just based on the website.
Bill,
Agreed. Very bad start. But, it is the finish that will count.
Frank, sorry, gonna have to disagree with you on this one.
You can’t come forward with this media coverage and put out this type of website. If you’re gunning for media coverage, then when you get it and they recommend their readers to go to a website, then you better have a good website, not something that was clearly thrown up in the past couple of days.
This is one of those aspects of media and promotions that far too many churches and organizations just don’t grasp for some reason.
Holy lack of proofreading Batman!
Ascol said earlier today on Twitter that info he received pegged them as having 14 total in attendance with 2 of those being journalists to cover the event.
Now we know what really drives them crazy about the new NAMB. They aren’t allowed to inflate numbers anymore! 🙂
“Why is this news?” is a perfect question here.
I also find it funny they are calling themselves “Baptist Conservatives” as if those who disagree with them arent… The calvinist believing, Acts 29-friendly, elder-led SBCers they hate so much are as theologically conservative as they come.
Don’t let truth get in the way of a good tagline. Besides, we all know the true measure of conservatism is views on alcohol. 🙂
“Conservative” in this cases uses the definition “those who wish to undo any recent changes and prevent any new ones.”
*IF* that’s the sense in which they’re using the word, they are knowingly departing from the broad usage in SBC life in order to garner support. The dictionary may say they’re right to do it, but ethically it’s way wrong.
Plus, I don’t think they mean it that way.
Probably not their intention.
But it does fit: “whatever is happening now, we don’t like it” is the force of what I see from them.
Not that I like everything either, but…
I think that is the idea I get from them. But, maybe they know something that the general populace of S. Baptists do not know.
Could be? Let’s wait and see.
I’ll make a final comment and then I’m going to get back to work. I need to limit my “blogging” (or blathering, depending on who you ask).
There seems to be a sense on SBC Voices that this Convention was all about “unity.” I hope that is true. However, apathy and unity can look a lot alike in the beginning.
I hope you all have a great week and Sunday is a great celebration.
Intereesting – all these loving, unifying comments about a group in the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow
Yes, because a group of invitation only people meeting to rip apart the SBC is the definition of “unifying”.
Jason,
You said, “A group of invitation only people meeting to rip apart the SBC.”
Read the Baptist Press article again.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35543
I think it is a little premature to say they want to rip apart the convention.
David R. Brumbelow
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that they want to verbally attack the current structure, leadership, and direction of the SBC and its entities.
Or make that, “Interesting – all these loving, unifying comments about a group in the SBC.” I hate typos.
David R. Brumbelow
Contrarians tend to generate contrary responses.
I think this crowd sees through that kind of nonsense, David. This is a group promoting division. I don’t mind saying that we should call out and expose divisive people.
Everyone over here is happy to unify, even with diverse theological perspectives (within BF&M 2000, of course). But there’s no excuse for the divisiveness shown by this group. I don’t mind telling you I’ll call them out, poke fun at them when I can, and let as many people as I can know that they do not represent Southern Baptists.
Unity is our desire. Division is what they have chosen.
Setting the Reformed issues aside:
I’m not as informed on the whole CP/GCR issue. It’s not that the information isn’t out there somewhere or hasn’t even been discussed here. It’s just that too many political maneuverings consist of hidden motives to wade through. So someone correct me if I misunderstand the central issue at hand with this group.
From their web site, it seems as though their understanding is that the GCR will cut some funding to the CP. What I interpret this to mean is that perhaps the GCR will put some policies in place that promote fiscal responsibility. And these folks are concerned about it. Or it could mean that the GCR diverts financial resources from the CP to the GCR.
IF this is true, and IF the GCR is a good thing, then people who lose their place in the CP might be able to move to the GCR, or we can see this as a good move anyway.
Their site links to another site on SBC history that provides some characterized treatment of the GC, namely that the GC exists to centralize and regulate fundraising, as though that were entirely a good thing. There are certainly pros to this, although there are cons as well.
The pros are that, well, everything is controlled and funds are not handled in a disorganized way. The cons are that channeled resources are too often increasingly siphoned off into growing bureaucratic-ish structures instead of going to the places they were intended. (Another ‘if’) IF this is the case and they are championing bureaucracy, then I might be inclined to consider them liberals in disguise.
I hope I’m wrong. Can someone enlighten me on this? And I don’t want the ostensible reasons for the debate – I need the real reasons people want things (as charged as that revelation could get) because that’s where truth is. We will stand on truth and fall on the misrepresentation of ours or others’ positions.
This group seems to represent poorly the anti-GCR crowd, in the same way that the 700 Club poorly represents real Christians.
Maybe nobody really cares. Whoever said apathy and unity look alike nailed it. There’s nobody here. We’re not doing that much.
David Platt did preach a great sermon that will have me reflecting on the precise nature of the Great Commission relative to people groups for some time to come.
But mostly, this has been as dull as it was predicted to be.
There is something to be said for dull. It means I don’t feel the need to pick up a paper bag for new headgear.
Yes, there are worse things than boredom. You don’t have to tell me. I was raised Episcopalian.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but first we did away with both evening sessions. Then we referred and overruled so much business in the morning session that we moved the agenda forward 15 minutes. Just now, with nothing to do, we moved the program forward 30 minutes.
It kind of makes you wonder, “Why bother?” Let’s all go home!
Al Mohler is talking about Secret Seal Team Six. (They must be the ones guarding the secret GCR box at the SBC Archives.)
What I find interesting is that a certain blogger always hammers on those who post “anonymously” on his blog, and demands that everyone use their name. Yet when it comes to this group, that “anonymity” is all of a sudden a good thing.
You’re not the only one that noticed. 🙂 The whole situation is just strange.
I wonder if the guy who wrote Calvinism in the SBC is part of this group.
Dave,
I don’t have time to go into detail, but I’ll respond with a few thoughts. I was unable to attend the meeting do to a previous commitment, but would have attended if I’d been free. Though I know Kent I do not intend to speak for him or anyone else in the group, I assume my concerns represent the concerns of many in the group.
1st this is not an anti-CR effort by any means. I thank God for the conservative resurgence. If it had taken place 20 years earlier I might have attended one our SBC seminaries. If I wasn’t an old fud pushing sixty I’d love to attend one of our seminaries today! If it had been up to me, I’d chosen a different name than SBC Conservatives. My issues have nothing to do with the CR or theological issues in the SBC.
2nd It is not about being against change in the SBC. It is about taking a thorough look at what we’re changing and why. Last year in Orlando, then Missouri Baptist Convention Executive Dir., David Tolliver presented a motion to postpone adopting the GCR Task Force Report until state execs and agency heads could examine what the affects would be on the institutions and state conventions. It was roundly defeated. A year later GCR is decimating state ministries. It seems to some of us that the tail is wagging the dog.
3rd it’s about what seems to be a head-long rush toward becoming a top-down denomination instead of remaining a bottom-up convention. Long-standing Baptist polity seems to be at stake.
4th is the perception that, indeed, an SBC elite has emerged consisting of mostly mega-church pastors and agency heads. The GCR Task Force had virtually NO representation from a ‘typical’ SBC church that Frank Page just this morning said represented 85% of our congregations. The perception is that we’re still a convention of mostly small churches being ruled by large church pastors who ‘know best’ where the convention needs to go.
5th regardless of the rhetoric extolling CP there seems to be a head-long rush to return to societal giving and a movement away from cooperative giving. If something is broke (NAMB?) OK fix it. But if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Some of us don’t believe CP is all that ‘broke’.
There are many,like myself, who are simply asking that we slow down, catch a breath and e valuate where we’re going with GCR and how it is affecting the family of Southern Baptists on other levels.
Well, I’d like to say more, but texting is tedious!
I actually agree with some of those concerns, but I think that some of that is turning around.
But the way that was done – an invitation-only meeting where names were withheld, it just gave a bad impression.
We will have to see what comes of it.
If the GCR was so devastating to State Conventions, I would think more that 20 people would show up (even in light of the sub 5000 attendance overall) in support of the motion. I dont buy Job’s argument that there were more who simply were “too busy” or what not. Furthermore, the fact that this group with exception of the leader, is trying to keep peoples names out of it, shows that they are not willing to stand up for their convictions. They are not willing to be bold. They would rather sulk in the shadows.
Furthermore, if the GCR was so devastating, the several state leaders would not have stood up at the beginning of the meeting with Pastor Wright in a affirmation of cooperation and unity. Unless you want to say, THEIR states are not hurting…Which if true only leads me to wonder why states that support the GCR are doing well, and those that dont are, as you put it “being devastated”.
I suppose you can say “What choice do state execs have but to grin and bear it and put on a good face?” NAMB has made its decision to end it’s cooperative agreement with the states and the states will have little choice but to downsize as a result.
Now then, I absolutely believe most of our state conventions need to downsize, but it bothers me that doing so has not been their choice but something forced on them by the national convention.
The reality is that they would not have downsized had this not happened. The bureaucracy feeds itself.
State conventions do not run the SBC (though many think they do). The cart was leading the horse.
Churches (represented by messengers) stepped up and spoke…that is how we do things…and their will was made clear, overwhelmingly clear.
But weren’t the Cooperative agreements money forwarded to NAMB by the states? I think I speak for many when I say that other than in new work areas, most established state conventions should not be having employees paid by NAMB. If the state conventions feel those positions are so important, they can stop forwarding as much to the SBC and pay for those positions. They won’t do that however, because there would be a public outcry in most places over keeping even more money in state. But I think many people see a bureaucratic redundancy in state conventions forwarding on money to be processed through NAMB and then sent back to fund convention staff. I’m not saying these staff don’t have important jobs or aren’t great people; many that I have met really are, but why that gets promoted as NAMB when it’s just more state convention money has always been beside me.
Josh—other way around. Cooperative agreements sent money from NAMB to states. States picked the projects and workers, NAMB provided part of the cash.
Doug,
What I meant was that any money that NAMB was sending to the states for the cooperative agreements was money that already had passed through the state’s hands on its way to NAMB. It’s not as if “top-down” money is being changed on the states, rather money that states approved to go to NAMB might actually be used for what most would consider North American Missions, rather than fed right back to the states.
I can only speak for my own state convention–Missouri. Before GCR was approved, our state exec. already had put together a committee to look at our state convention’s structure with the intention of down-sizing to about half of the current staff. NAMB’s decisions have hastened the need for down-sizing.
As I already said, I believe we needed to do this. We have twenty or so employees partly funded by NAMB. As part of the old-line conventions that we have that many employees supported by NAMB is a little silly. But, and I reiterate, I don’t like that decisions on the national convention level are having such drastic affects on other levels of SBC life. Again, it’s the tail wagging the dog. What do some of our pioneer areas do when these cooperative agreements end? In Indiana, virtually all of (if not all) of the DOMS are funded by NAMB. When the agreements end, what happens? The loss of every DOM in Indiana affects not just an individual, but an association of churches that look to that man’s leadership in helping them be on mission in their area.
There is another issue. As these cooperative agreements are fazed out, do the state conventions just withhold more CP dollars for their own personnel and projects? If they do, doesn’t this defeat the purpose of GCR?
Again, let me say it clearly, I’m not against change in the SBC! But I do believe that we’re in uncharted waters here, and I’d hate to see us adopt a new paradigm of missions support (actually a return to the old societal giving), while sacrificing historic Baptist polity of autonomy at every level of Baptist life.
David Krueger, let me start out by saying: Greetings to a former pastor of FBC-Adrian, MO from the current pastor. Some church members here still talk about you (positively, that is!) 🙂 (of course I’m writing this assuming you are that David Krueger, but I’ll take my chances as Krueger doesn’t strike me as the most common of names!)
As a younger guy who has always been smaller-ish church as well as an SBCer all my life, I wonder if certain concerns aren’t (unintentionally) exaggerated?
I think a lot of state conventions (and I certainly believe this about the MBC–I’ve also been a Missouri boy all my life except for 3 years of college and 3 1/2 years of seminary) are bloated and need downsizing and a change of direction yet it doesn’t seem a catalyst for such change was going to occur without something trickling down from the top. Which, in our own way, the messengers at the convention voting GCR items forward is a bottom up approach. It just cuts out the middle man (the state conventions). The direction from above still ultimately comes from below, its just that instead of messengers voting downsizing in their own states they voted to move in that direction on a national level.
Also as a small church guy, I don’t get the perception that we are being left out. Again: we’re the ones who vote. Maybe messengers don’t directly appoint trustees, but we vote in the ones who do. If the messengers as a whole wanted more small-church representation, they could make it their priority to nominate and support small church guys or guys who pledge to incorporate more small church representatives on boards and committees. But we keep voting for the guys we do.
Sometimes I hear the excuse: well small churches can’t afford to send messengers to various meetings. They managed back during the time of the CR and they could do it again if they really wanted to.
And in today’s era of news and technology I don’t buy that people are uninformed about stuff, so that means: a) people are satisfied or b) people are apathetic as a whole when it comes to the SBC.
I fit into category a. I’m happy w/ the leadership, I’m happy w/ the GCR, and I’m happy w/ the changes and potential changes we’ve heard about. Small church/big church does not matter with that.
But if most people/churches actually fit into category b instead, then we really do have problems as a convention and they are bigger than we realize.
Mike, yes I’m the David K. Who was in Adrian. I have fond memories of our time there. No time now to respond … In-between flights.
Well stated, Mike.
Mike,
It’s Friday morning, and I have a little more time to respond.
Like you, I have been a small-church pastor all my life. When I was young I saw many friends using smaller churches as ‘stepping-stones’ to larger congregations. That alarmed me, and so I have chosen to stay a small-curch pastor.
I don’t think my concerns are exaggerated. On the national level, our smaller churches (except for men and women serving on boards, agencies, and committees) are virtually ignored. At the convention in Nashville–about five years ago–a bi-vocational pastor delivered the annual sermon. It was the first time in anyone’s memory that a bi-vocational pastor addressed the convention. Since then, no small-church or bi-vocational pastors have been on the national platform even though they make up the bulk of SBC ministers. When Johnny Hunt nominated the GCR task force, there was only one person who represented what we might consider a ‘typical’ Southern Baptist Church. All the rest of the committee were from large churches or mega-churches. Dr. Frank Page emphasized the role of the small church in his Ex. Dir. report and said that he will not forget us. I want to believe him and I remain cautiously optomistic.
I agree that most state convention–expecially the old-line conventions in the South–are probably bloated and need to down-size. Missouri was and is in the process of doing exactly that although things are on hold until we call a new Ex. Dir. Yes, messengers from local churches voted to adopt GCR, but sometimes we do things without fully thinking through our decisions. That is why I would have like to see the convention take some time to pull all the state execs. and agency heads together and examine what the ramifications of adopting GCR might be. As it is, GCR is like Obamacare–we had to vote for it before we could find out what’s in it! Some have not been totally pleased with what was in it! Ask almost any State Convention Executive Director.
Saddly, I agree that appathy afflicts many of our churches when it comes to the national convention. Outside of our mission boards the national convention seem far away and somewhat nebulous. As we’ve seen over the last year, it is not and the decisions made on a national level can filter down to affect even the local church.
I remain cautiously optomistic about our leadership. I have issues with SOME of GCR and will continue to watch and see where it takes us as a convention of churches.