K.V. Paxton is Lead Pastor at Grace Baptist Church, Quinlan, Texas. He’s a Palestinian-American, graduate of Criswell College, Midwestern Seminary, and a veteran of the United States Air Force.
The Southern Baptist Convention is at a crossroads. We may not be battling for inerrancy like we did during the often-referenced “Conservative Resurgence,” but the future is no less at stake for our convention. Millennials and minorities, both inside and outside of the SBC, are watching what we do next with great interest on a host of topics. And though I am often given to hyperbole, I do not think it is hyperbolic to expect a potential mass disengagement of young SBCers if they see the wrong choices made or that their voice isn’t being heard. The future of our convention is at stake.
With this in mind, I am casting my vote this June in Dallas for J.D. Greear as the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention. What I mentioned above is partly why I believe in Greear. Allow me to give you 3 main reasons why I am voting for Greear next month:
Honors the Past with an Eye on the Future
As a casual observer of Greear’s in the last decade or so, I have seen and heard him honor the past while leading his church into the future. Greear has acknowledged that he stands on the shoulders of those who came before him and offers gratitude to them for their contributions. However, Greear has cultivated an environment at the Summit Church that reaches the next generation. On top of this, Greear’s vision is to continue (note that word, since they are already doing this) to plant churches well into the future.
Further, one look at Greear’s members and staff will also show an eclectic collection of people across generational lines and different ethnic groups. Greear has proven that he can bring generations and groups together for the cause of Christ and has explicitly stated that diversity will be a goal of his as president.
This we need because, for better or worse, real or perceived, the generations coming up in the SBC feel as though past generations will not let go of leadership or the status quo. What we do not need is a disengagement of previous generations, nor a disengagement from the generations coming up. We need someone who can unite all generations to work together for the future of our convention.
With the election of J.D. Greear we will show that we are moving into the future while we honor those who came before us. We do not forget them, we do not leave them, we honor them and say, “join us” as we take the SBC into a new and necessary season of fruitful ministry. Greear has demonstrated that he can do this.
Unity
In 2016 Greear was nominated to be the SBC president and withdrew from the race with Steve Gaines because of continuous runoffs. Greear withdrew in order to preserve unity in the SBC and to show to the watching world that we are united. He did not have to do that, instead he could have allowed the process to move forward, but he chose unity.
Since he has been nominated this year, Greear has continually called for unity and civility in this process, something we wish would not even need to be said, but in our current climate, is necessary. And while Greear is not a so-called “traditionalist,” he has not, does not, and will not place traditionalists outside the camp nor exclude them from the table.
On the other hand, we have a presidential nominee stating that those who believe in limited atonement do not “believe in the same God.” To declare that our reformed brothers are somehow “outside the camp” is not only unhelpful and uncharitable, it creates an unnecessary line in the sand. Does that speak to how he will lead? You be the judge.
Indeed, Greear has been endorsed by some notable traditionalists in part because they know that he would be a unifying force for their “tribe,” for reformed SBCers, and others. We desperately need unity, and Greear can be a unique voice to bring us back together. Observe in his own words:
“We must avoid the temptation to let smaller doctrinal issues or any personal preferences replace the centrality of the gospel as our unifying standard. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is narrow enough to unite us on the essentials and broad enough to allow freedom in the peripherals.”
This is unifying voice we need.
Proven Leadership
Finally, Greear has demonstrates proven leadership at the Summit Church, some I have mentioned already. He has stated that as SBC president he will point the convention to personal evangelism, church planting, church revitalization, college mobilization, and engagement of the next generation in cooperative mission.
As pastor of the Summit Church, he has shown that he can do this as the Summit engages in all of these things already. The Summit Church gives 19 percent of undesignated receipts to Great Commission Giving, according the Baptist Press. This includes 40 SBC church plants in America and 200 around the world.
On top of this, the Summit has a vibrant and growing college ministry, which is actively engaged in multiplication and missions. In fact, the Summit Church asks college students to give a summer to go on a mission trip. Remember the unity and reaching across generational lines I mentioned earlier? Well Summit asks Baby Boomers in the church (which there are plenty) to do the same things in regard to missions.
It gets better: according to the Gospel Coalition, “Of the 46,000 churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Summit has the most missionaries on the field—seven-times as many as the next church with the International Mission Board.”
Greear has shown that he can do what he says he would do as SBC president, and what he has listed is what we desperately need.
It is high time the SBC moves into a Great Commission future full of diversity and unity. Not that we haven’t in the past, but the crossroads we are at demands action that will prove these commitments. While we must all do our part on the ground level of our churches, we must also us our voices and ballots to ensure the convention as a whole does this for the foreseeable future. A positive step in this direction is by electing J.D. Greear as the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Because of the reasons listed above, and a host of other reasons, I will proudly cast my ballot for him next month. I hope you will do the same.
I agree that nothing replaces the centrality of the Gospel but, the one thing I see that disturbs me is the statement that infers there are “smalller doctrinal issues”. A man, a church or a convention will stand or fall on it’s doctrine. Speaking for myself and as a messenger from my church, I have not decided who I will vote for at this time, but I want to know that our next president is firm in his doctrine.
I think what the author was trying to point out that is that we do have tertiary differences that still allow us to fall in line together under the BFM. We need someone who will united us in the mission of the church and the BFM, not someone who will further “tribalize” the SBC.
K.V., I want to thank and congratulate you for writing the best commentary on the upcoming SBC Presidential election that I have seen anywhere.
I describe myself as, “Old, Reformed, and In Need of Rest.” I have served as Pastor of two SBC Churches for a total of eighteen years and between those two pastorates I served sixteen years as a DOM.
I have loved and admired Dr. Hemphill since I heard him speak at Ridgecrest while he was Senior Pastor at FBC, Norfolk. His little book, “The Bonsai Theory” is one of the most helpful things I have ever read and used over the years.
I am stunned and terribly saddened to read your statement that Dr. Hemphill has said that those who believe in limited atonement (in the context of 5-Point Calvinism, I’m sure) do not, “believe in the same God.” Could you please let me know the source of that quote (not to doubt or challenge you) as I simply would want to read it with my own eyes.
I am the Pastor-Teacher and Chairman of Elders at the Church I serve, but I am only one of six Elders. I certainly realize that 5-Point Calvinism is a minority view in the SBC; but, if that statement clearly reflects the position he holds; and, the Messengers elect him (or anyone else) holding that view, I will have to earnestly pray about recommending that our Elders ask the Church to sever ties with the National Denomination and designate our CP giving (5%) to our State Association.
It is one thing to support a Denomination where the majority disagrees with you; but, it is another thing altogether to support a Denomination who elects a President who declares that you are a non-Christian.
Now I think Hemphill was probably unhelpfully overstating what he actually thinks. I think if you asked him straight up if he believes a 5-point Calvinist worships a different God than him, I expect he would say no. It was spoken words, from an interview. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt that he would clarify. But I think its concerning that a presidential candidate would make a potentially harmful statement like that in the first place, realizing one of the jobs of the SBC President will be to lead all Southern Baptists.
Thank you for the quote. I hope that he did not truly mean exactly that. I am certainly aware that some in the SBC would believe that. As I have opportunity, I will try to ask him that specifically. I will pray that the Messengers would not show approval of such a position by electing someone who held that position to be President of our Denomination.
J.D. Greear’s church only gives minimal support to the Cooperative Program (less than 2.5% for most years) compared to what Hemphill’s church did (back when he was a pastor), which gave roughly 10% to the Cooperative Program (four times the average percentage of Greear’s church). If you’re not supporting the Cooperative Program, how can you really claim you’re a Southern Baptist? Hemphill has advocated extensively for the Cooperative Program and stands by the 10% target even today. I agree with Richard Land that ” the current struggle over the next leader as a battle between the “Billy Graham wing” of the SBC versus the “John Calvin wing. . . . This is about the gospel and whether or not the gospel is for everyone, not just the elect.” J.D. Greear plainly represents the “John Calvin wing.” Rick Patrick put it this way: ” Everyone who hears is capable of believing by exercising their own free will. This position, articulated in Hemphill’s excellent book entitled Unlimited, reflects the view of Herschel Hobbs, Adrian Rogers, and Billy Graham over against the view of John MacArthur, John Piper, and Tim Keller. As Ken Hemphill cooperates with all Southern Baptists, he embraces our convention’s majority salvation doctrine view.” I agree with Rick Patrick’s ten reasons why Ken Hemphill is the right man for the job: 1. Ken Hemphill envisions a bright future honoring our Southern Baptist heritage. 2. Ken Hemphill is gifted at connecting with basic, grassroots Southern Baptists. 3. Ken Hemphill is an experienced and proven leader with a stellar record of service. 4. Ken Hemphill appreciates our association and state convention partnerships. 5. Ken Hemphill boldly affirms God’s loving desire to save every person on earth. 6. Ken Hemphill pours his life into mentoring the young Christian leaders of tomorrow. 7. Ken Hemphill is committed to the principles of Southern Baptist congregational polity. 8. Ken Hemphill believes in working together by welcoming every Southern Baptist to the table. 9. Ken Hemphill is a champion for the Southern Baptist Cooperative Program missions strategy. 10. Ken Hemphill is a recognized leader in church growth, revitalization and kingdom expansion. I also agree with Patrick’s conclusion: “Will we continue to embrace the traditional beliefs and cooperation methods that have proven to be effective for generations? Or will we exchange them for other beliefs and cooperation methods that have proven to be ineffective over the past decade?… Read more »
1) “If you’re not supporting the Cooperative Program, how can you really claim you’re a Southern Baptist?” – You literally mentioned that he supported the CP before this. What you didn’t mention the amount of people Greears church has baptized, sent out as missionaries, and have sent out as church plants. Should we do some comparisons between those metrics? I think you might be surprised by what you find…
2) “I agree with Richard Land that ” the current struggle over the next leader as a battle between the “Billy Graham wing” of the SBC versus the “John Calvin wing. . . . This is about the gospel and whether or not the gospel is for everyone, not just the elect.”” – Forgive me for being blunt, but what an incredibly ignorant statement. I don’t want a Graham or Calvin wing…I want a the Jesus Christ wing. This type of divisiveness and disunity is what made Land a poor leader, and we need to do so much better than this. Some of my closest friends disagree with me on soteriology. And if it’s about the Gospel, then you should have no worries since both men proclaim the Gospel.
“If you’re not supporting the Cooperative Program, how can you really claim you’re a Southern Baptist?”
John, you can have your own opinion, but you don’t get your own facts. The Summit Church gives more money to the Cooperative Program than any other church in the whole state of North Carolina.
Adam, first I’m sure that J.D.’s church gives a huge amount of money to the Cooperative Program.
John’s point concerns how we determine Cooperation. Is it by Dollar Amount or by Percentage? If it is by Dollar Amount than my little church of 60 should never even be considered as a Large Cooperator. We give pennies compared to a church like the Summit. However, if we go off of Percentage, then if John’s numbers are accurate (2.5%) then my little church exceeds (sacrificially speaking) the Summit because we give right around 11%. I praise God for mega-churches and their willingness to give to the Cooperative Program, but the little churches of the SBC contribute (estimated) about 50% of the money. Jesus spoke about this with the rich man and the widow’s mite.
I’m not saying J.D.’s church isn’t giving a huge amount of money, nor am I saying J.D.’s church doesn’t give with a cheerful heart, but the Cooperative Program (in my opinion) was built based on equal sacrifice, not equal contributions from its Cooperating Churches. I may live in yesterday’s dreamland with this opinion, but nonetheless I believe it to be true and I encourage our congregation to give sacrificially to the SBC, to Lottie, and to Annie so that we can join all Southern Baptists sacrificially to see the gospel go forth.
Example: Lebron James giving 50,000 dollars to a charity is like me giving 5 dollars. No sacrifice on either’s part. J.D’s church sacrifices for many other causes (as I understand it), church-planting, mission trips, etc. However, John’s comment (as I read it) was concerning the Cooperative Program specifically.
Amen!
Nate,
John is seeking to disparage JD and The Summit Church. That’s why I responded the way that I did. It is simply ridiculous to assert that a church which gives more money to the CP than any other church in its state is somehow uncooperative. If giving $500,000 to the CP is uncooperative, then may God give us more! He is cherry-picking numbers to support his anti-JD position.
I happen to believe that there are a whole host of factors that should be considered when determining cooperation: CP percentage and total dollars, GCG percentage and total dollars, participation in SBC life, BF&M agreement, etc. The fact that a church is not the top church in one of these areas does not make them uncooperative.
It does not disparage smaller churches like yours and mine to give thanks to God for The Summit’s cooperation with Southern Baptists.
Summit Church is free to determine how much it wants to support the Cooperative Program. But it is relevant that a relatively “rich” church spends 97.5% of its millions in annual donations on something other than the CP. How that is not an indication of how important the pastor views the CP escapes me.
It’s interesting that in 2012, J.D. Greear wrote “Admittedly, we have let our direct giving to the CP get too low.” Yet the percentage is still tiny compared to what many less wealthy churches contribute to the CP.
The CP is what pays for missionaries and seminaries. The IMB had to cut thousands of jobs since 2012 because rich churches like J.D. Greear’s failed to donate their percentage share to the CP. Tuition for seminary students continues to increase also because of diversion from the CP to other priorities.
To attempt to cut off discussion of this issue by suggesting (a) Summit spends lots of non-CP money on “missions” and (b) they give a tiny percentage to the CP but it adds up to more dollars than poorer churches that sacrifice a larger percentage to the CP wholly misses the point.
Hemphill is committed in words and deeds more to the CP than J.D. Greear, period.
One blog reported “Many members of Greear’s church The Summit Church were not even aware the church was part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Shocking, but Greear said as much in his February 4, 2018, sermon:
‘The third question some of you just asked is, ‘Since when did we become Southern Baptists?’ And I get that. That’s not something we really wear on our sleeve here. There are obviously parts of the Southern Baptist Convention that we’re not excited about, that we don’t really feel represent who we are as a church..’
“This echoed something Greear said to The Gospel Coalition in a November 2017 podcast. Greear told TGC, ‘I think very quickly after I had grown a little disillusioned with the SBC, I found out that every other network I started to get in, there was like: They have crazy uncles in here too.’”
Adam, I believe I stated that I praise God for the Summit’s contributions, I did not say Summit disparages the contributions of my small church or any other. You were the one who (if I read your statement correctly) posited that Summit is “better” (my interpretation) because of the amount they give: “They give more to the Cooperative Program than any other church in North Carolina.” As I said that would be like comparing Lebron James giving 50,000 to a charity with me giving 5 bucks. There is no sacrifice there for Lebron or myself. The question is whether we determine sacrificially giving to the Cooperative Program based on dollars or percents. Once Again, I praise God for the mega-churches, but in my opinion, sacrifice is based on percent of budgetary giving, not on amount. I’m old-school. To me, regardless of John’s motives (I don’t know his heart), Summit giving 2.5% is pretty dog-gone low no matter what the dollar amount is if the criteria is Equal Sacrifice, not Equal Contribution.
Having said all that, I’m not saying J.D. shouldn’t serve as President or the Hemphill should just based on CP Contributions. However, I do think this notion of paying homage to mega-churches because of the amount of their contribution is a bit laborious.
Also, could you please clarify to me what the difference is between CP Cooperation and GCG cooperation and participation in SBC Life (cooperatively?). We are autonomous churches. We Cooperate through the Cooperative Program, we Cooperate by giving to Lottie and Annie. We are not “forced” to have the BF&M as our church’s confessional statement (though I agree with it). So I’m a bit fuzzy on you separating these things to determine “cooperation.”
Adam can give an adequate answer to this but the simple point that is always missed when you ask about Cooperative vs Societal giving is that we have ALWAYS had both, at least since 1925. The balance has shifted according to the desires of the churches but we still employ both. I’d also challenge the use of “sacrificial” as a measure of CP giving. We appeal to churches to consider the CP and then should be grateful for what is given, not complain about what metrics are judged to be unmet.
William, I’m sorry if you missed my point, because I know you have written on this quite a bit. While I’m in favor of discerning sacrifice through percentage, I’m never going to disparage the Summit for the amount they give. However, I’m not going to jump up and down and praise them for the amount they give either. So I think I agree with you there will always be both styles of cooperation in the SBC. Furthermore, I challenge my church to give sacrificially to the Cooperative Program and we do that by continuing to increase our percentage. As a small church I believe this helps us to focus on being sacrificial.
So, let’s not heap praise for giving the most of any church in North Carolina, nor disparage them for their 2.5%. By the way, Adrian Rogers statement on giving is fine, but a rich church’s statement on giving is a rich church’s statement on giving. That’s like saying I’m a great basketball player because I can beat a Five-Year old one-on-one.
It’s perfectly acceptable to praise churches for their giving be they big GCG givers, % givers or whatever. I appreciate your church’s giving.
Nate, I have not said that Summit is “better.” As you stated, that’s your wording and your interpretation. It is not what I said. Either I am struggling to communicate clearly (very possible) or you are struggling to understand what I have said. I’m not sure how to communicate what I intended to communicate in a way that would not lead you to make such a leap, so I will just bow out now.
The percentages are public record. Look them up.
BTW, analogously are dollars or percentages how the vast majority of SBC pastors teach the biblical concept of tithing? Traditionally, the tithe for a multimillionaire is much larger than the tithe for a pauper, but the percentages are the same.
While there is no “tithe” argument for the Cooperative Program (although Hemphill’s suggested 10% standard is analogous), a church’s support for the CP is directly and expressly indicated by their giving percentage. A lower percentage indicates a lesser commitment to the CP.
To whom much is given, much is required. Rich churches should of course be paying the largest number of dollars to the CP.
Diverting money from the CP to other causes sends the message that the CP is not as important.
The tithe 10% was God’s divine equalizer. With everyone giving 10% everyone made equal sacrifice.
The CP is representative in nature. 10% given by churches represents 10% tithe given to the churches.
Each church should model what we ask from our members. If a pastor truly believes and supports the CP then it shouldn’t be a problem.
This is by no means my endorsement of Hemphill nor my non-endorsement of Greear.
I saw Greear’s humility in St. Louis and I rejoice in all the other accomplishments.
Just thought the % debate is actually silly.
If Hemphill is so pro-10% I wonder if he would allow himself to be nominated in June by a pastor who gives less than that?
Really? That’s the best you’ve got?
Who will have more persuasive authority on encouraging support for the Cooperative Program in a time when it is faced with financial challenges? Hemphill, who has a long, consistent record in support of the 10% goal? Or J.D. Greear, who has a record of finding all sorts of other things to spend money on, and who (depending on who’s listening) often seems ashamed of Southern Baptists and their Convention?
Also, in addition to J.D. Greear being the non-traditionalist candidate, he’s reportedly the pro-Russell Moore candidate. He’s quoted as saying “Russell Moore is a great representative at the ERLC.” If you’re happy with the current direction of the ERLC, then J.D. Greear is virtually a guarantee of more of the same. But if you’re one who has grave concerns with Moore and the ERLC, why would you vote for Moore cheerleader J.D. Greear?
There is a several decade long trend in CP giving. The idea that if we get the right cheerleader that we can go back to the old days of 10% averages, and that is about forty years in the past, is naive. The greater threat to the CP is that we would so disparage below average percentage churches as not being “fully cooperative” or some other way, that these would gravitate to more direct giving.
There is a two-word answer to the percentage/dollar question: Adrian Rogers.
And I’ll predict that neither KH nor JDG will impact CP giving. They dynamics are far beyond the election of the SBC president.
“HEMPHILL: The reason I allowed my name to be placed in [nomination] is because I am such a strong advocate of the CP. [Hemphill cited statistics reflecting a decline in overall CP giving from over 10 percent in the 1980s to 5.16 percent today].”
[NOTE: J.D.’s church gives to the CP at LESS THAN HALF OF EVEN THE CURRENT REDUCED PERCENTAGE].
[HEMPHILL CONTINUES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CP]: “That is a serious issue…if we don’t address it, we aren’t going to just be bringing hundreds or thousands of missionaries home, we will be addressing the whole missional enterprise of Southern Baptist life.
We need to renew our commitment to a cooperative mission strategy and the giving mechanism.
I believe CP giving follows a biblical pattern. [Hemphill cited 1 Cor. 16, and 2 Cor. 8-9].
There was a volitional decision against societal giving at a critical moment in our history, when societal giving was found to be inefficient and ineffective…. [Asked about Great Commission Giving, Hemphill cited a 2008-2017 decline from $542 million to $475 million].
Part of GCG is really a neo-societal method of giving. I don’t think we’ve turned back to a societal method, but we have gone to where churches select budget items they like or … go outside the SBC and give to some entities, ignoring others. GCG may have inadvertently inspired that.”
No need to quote KH to me. I’ve already read it. Important point: the SBC didn’t make a “volitional decision” against societal giving in 1925. It created the dual system we have, which we all celebrate and appreciate.
“Neo-societal” is KH’s unfortunate invention designed to marginialize a considerable proportion of SBC churches. Churches should drive the direction of our cooperative work, not denominational employees or officers.
You need to phrase it neo-autonomy. Then maybe people would understand the SBC works from the bottom up, not the top down.
“Neo-societal” is a more accurate descriptor because it represents a return to the old, wasteful days when individual missionaries and independent (often unaccountable) societies barnstormed individual churches to raise funds for missions, and when individual missionaries often had the burden of raising all of their own donations.
The independent Baptists — some of whom even still teach the CP model as somehow sinful — have always relied on this model, to uneven effect. Nothing really all that “neo” about it.
Without the CP, there’s really no compelling reason to be a Southern Baptist.
” Churches should drive the direction of our cooperative work, not denominational employees or officers.”
I don’t know what that means.
The CP percentage decline is more than just societal giving versus CP giving. If we were really going to discuss this comprehensively we would have to throw in the increasingly inefficient diversion of missions or “Great Commission” money for what I’ve been previously castigated and called down for calling “junket missions” (i.e. subsidizing huge travel expenses for extremely short-term foreign visits by ordinary church members). An example of this is of a local church financially assisting its members to go on abbreviated missions trips for a week or a few days at the cost of thousands of dollars. While I do not oppose short-term lay missions nor the sometimes life-changing effects that such trips sometimes have on the participants, no one has yet been able to demonstrate to me how subsidizing international air travel yields as good of a “bang for the buck” as donating to the CP for better funding of a full-time missionary force. And I strongly suspect that some churches following this trend have merely decreased their CP giving to pay for it, at least in part.
The data is not available to me as to what percentage of The Summit Church’s GCG budget, if any, is consumed by inefficient “junket missions,” so I’m not suggesting this is directly applicable. But the problem is, in my observation, becoming more widespread, and increases the inefficient use of money donated for missions.
It means that churches making opportunity cost decisions with their missions money have driven the mix of SBC support rather than leaders picking percentages.
GCG shouldn’t include church spending on their own short term, mission tourism trips but the numbers are self-reported and cannot be checked. The aggregate GCG numbers are not a statistic in which I have much confidence.
I’ll would be pleased to have most any civil discussion on SBC giving and mission support. I’m not much interested in non-SBC missions.
I know of places where you’d get blistered for that “missions tourism trips” quip. I’d borrow it, but I don’t need anymore “scars.” . . . . 🙂
I’m semi-retired, not running for anything other than grandad of the year, and an ascerbic, edgy phrase is my curmudgeonly trademark. Besides, it’s accurate.
While I do not oppose short-term lay missions nor the sometimes life-changing effects that such trips sometimes have on the participants, no one has yet been able to demonstrate to me how subsidizing international air travel yields as good of a “bang for the buck” as donating to the CP for better funding of a full-time missionary force.
Are you kidding me? In my state of LA, approximately 65% stays in state, and at present a portion is being spent to run the Hemphill campaign through the state paper, website, etc. About 25 cents of every dollar goes to this missionary force of which you speak (IMB and NAMB). The societal giving of which you disparage, (Lottie and Annie) is the only thing keeping our Mission boards running, not CP.
I thought the LA Baptists had denied the false charge that CP funds were being used to support Hemphill.
Example: NASHVILLE (BP) — A Louisiana Baptist Convention-hosted website promoting Kenneth Hemphill’s candidacy for Southern Baptist Convention president was not funded by any Cooperative Program money, Hemphill told Baptist Press today (March 19). Nonetheless, the site is being moved to an independent server this week to avoid “any impression that it was inappropriate.”
Questionable response at best. Doesn’t prove charges were false at all. They got caught. That is fact. If KH did indeed move his site, and reimbursed LBC for hosting the site with LBC employees who are paid with CP funds, then now LBC is profiting or at least doing business with the KH campaign.
https://sbcvoices.com/more-inappropriate-lbc-campaigning-calling-up-disaster-relief-workers-for-hemphill-rallies/
That link was to a bag of innuendo and nothingness.
It’s shocking how rev’d up some “SBC Voices” can be over basically nothing. But I now understand better this is mostly a pro-Greear and anti-traditionalist site (which explains the abysmal dearth of blog posts supporting Hemphill . . . and Patterson . . . and the CP . . . . )
Tiptoeing through the TULIPs . . . . 🙂
Just think it would be inconsistent to be nominated by someone who in practice gave less than JD last year, if a major part of your “campaign” were percentage given to CP…
Ben,
Your stats (which you’ve not bothered to post) may be wrong on the CP percentage-to-percentage comparison. Just reviewed the LA Annual Report. FBC Bossier City was over 3.2% CP (low but better than the percentage data I reviewed on Summit)
Nominating someone is not the same as being the principal champion of the CP to 47,000+ churches for at least a one-year term (customarily with automatic reelection . . . . )
I agree that nominating is not the same as being the candidate, however, 3.2% is a far cry from the “bar” that is being held up by Hemphill supporters. Just seems hypocritical to me.
I’d gladly trade an extra 7.5% for the many, many quality young people they send to the field every year. The financial problems at the IMB of yesteryear are largely fixed. Our problem now is that we don’t have people signing up to come serve. Not short-term, not career, and not even team associates. Of course we would welcome more CP dollars, but if we don’t have churches like Summit that are constantly sending people, then those extra dollars just sit in an account.
You would have to admit John that this CP argument is a disingenuous in light of the fact that the Summit gives almost 20% of their budget when Great Commission Giving is included. And on top of that, they gave 375,000 in special offerings to NAMB and IMB. If you want to vote for Hemphill, go for it, but let’s drop this “Headline Grabber”.
I appreciate these discussions and appreciate the opportunity to engage in them. I am curious, Who gets to determine what is cooperative and what is not? I understand where the 10% comes from but why do people feel this also applies to denominational structures? Does it also apply to associations? How about other para church groups? If not ,why not? I see that that church is charged with taking the gospel to the world not denom structures. We can work with our denom but ultimately the church has the responsibility. IMO this 10% is arbitrary. If a church wants to give 10,20 ,30 % that is fine. For me, JD giving 10% to CP means that the vast majority of their missional giving stays in the state of NC and America. In this scenario a small proportion goes to the IMB and the UPG’s who have zero to little access to the gospel. It appears a little self serving for others to demand that a church they are not a part of should give the vast majority of their money to the CP or you are somehow less of a SB. IMO if a church desires to reach ethnic groups with the gospel you give most of your money directly to the IMB instead of the CP. I would never demand that others give to the CP or they are somehow wrong. Where they give is their decision. I think JD is being wise and Kingdom focused in their giving. I think it is time that States quit keeping upwards of 60-70% of CP giving for their own programs right here in the most evangelized country on the planet. Just my opinion.
Just a couple of thoughts about your message and, to be clear at the start of mythoughts – I have not come to a decision yet about who I will cast my vote for. Both J.D. and Ken are people I have met and believe both to be men of integrity and desire unity. First, it is true that J.D. graciously stepped aside two years ago to forge unity. I was able to speak to him and shared with him the day after he did it. That was, without a doubt, one of the most spirit filled times that I have ever felt on an SBC floor. But it wasn’t simply because J.D. stepped aside, rather it was because J.D. and Steve, BOTH were prepared to step aside for the sake of unity in the convention. After they counseled with each other, with such a gracious heart, J.D. did step aside and Steve stepped up and these two years (from my view) have been good. I applaud both men for the way they got together ‘off-stage’ to consider the convention. Certainly, J.D. exhibited divine graciousness in his actions. As far as I am concerned (and I am one that views things a bit different from J.D.) – no one can argue J.D.’s love for the Lord or debate his character or that fact that if he is elected, he will do a good job. In fact, we seem to have two good men who will be nominated for this responsibility. Personally, I am glad we have two godly choices. All of this said, I must push back against what is written in the first paragraph because I have spent a lifetime of ministry pushing back against it in the local church. While I do not believe you meant it this way because I believe you desire for unity and harmony among the SBC family, the statement about ‘disengagement’ almost sounds like a ‘threat’. Again, I do not believe you intended it that way, rather you were stating what you were afraid ‘might’ happen. But just to read the ‘hard-cold-black-and-white writing’ of a blog could give the impression that “If we don’t get our way, we’ll take our marble and go our way.” As much as denigrating either of these two men who love God deeply is wrong, it is equally wrong to have a ‘my-way or the ‘highway’ mentality. I… Read more »
Jerry,
I read it similarly to the way you did. I think that is a bad perception that exist out there. Who is to blame? Probably both “sides” but if the perception is out there then there can be some truth to it.
It could have the effect of solidifying the perception as truth of it does happen even on a small scale. It would also bring into question those who support JD especially because of his unity message.
It just wasn’t a good message to put out there.
Thank you for your thoughts and engagement, brother. While I see what you are saying, this was not my intent. This is more a fear than it is a threat. My hope was that some would see this from the side of younger SBCers who, as I said, whether real or perceived, believe they have tried to gain more access to leadership in the denomination and have not succeeded. Those SBCers might see this election as a litmus test for this. We are then in danger of younger SBCers disengaging. Whether they will or not, it is impossible for me to say. I hope that clears it up a little bit.
Gotcha – thanks for the update…
Thanks for this post regarding your thoughts about the upcoming SBC election. To digress for a second, if what I am hearing on the internet is true, the SBC may be getting ready to be hit by another PR nightmare brought on by some very unwise actions related to the sexual abuse of a teenage girl. I hope it’s not true, but I fear it is. Now, back to my thoughts about this post. I agree with your point that the issue of Calvinism should not be a dividing point in the SBC. We are going to have Calvinists (or sort of Calvinists) and non-Calvinists. The BFM is not settled on this. I could vote for either. I agree with you that the SBC should not divide over that issue. But I disagree that a truly important part of this election is how the SBC addresses “hot topics” in the broader culture, and that this election should help chart a course in those matters. And there is the mention of millennials and minorities – and how if the SBC doesn’t address hot topics the right way, there will be an exodus. This is distressing. The BFM does not address “hot topics.” I would not want the SBC to start addressing hot topics in a monolithic way. People in the SBC disagree over a lot of hot topics. As we should not make Calvinism a dividing point, we also should not make hot topics in the culture the dividing point in the SBC. The SBC has gone on record in the BFM on some topics, but those matters were debated and incorporated into the BFM. It is not only inconsistent with the BFM and our communion of faith to divide over hot topics, it is also unwise. If we let hot topics drive us, we will be looking to the broader culture to set the agenda for us, and then we will come up with what we believe to be the best way to address the hot topic, and then the SBC will try to project itself into the public arena to speak for the churches so that the SBC looks most appealing to the culture. This is not the way that Jesus set for his church. Different people in the SBC are going to believe different things about many issues, and different churches will have different approaches. That is the… Read more »
I see this election as a choice to double-down on methodologies and practices that were helpful in the past, or create a SBC that speaks and is effective to our current culture.
The truth is one candidate has revitalized a plateaued/traditional church into a multicultural, multigenerational gospel sending machine. That is what the SBC needs to be relevant in our “post-christian” culture. The methods and ways of the past are not effective in where I serve out of the Bible belt. That is why I am voting for J.D. Greear in a few weeks.