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 more »
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… 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.… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
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… 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.