2009 SBC Annual Meeting Review, Part 1

Before I even made it home to Texas, I had begun to mull over my week in Louisville, Kentucky. I hope to spend a few posts in reflection over the week’s events, with a little bit of looking forward mixed in with my hindsight. To sum up at the outset, I think that we had a good annual meeting as Southern Baptists, and even I, an early critic of the GCR document, am hopeful about the outcome of the Reorganization Task Force. I am not giddy over it. I don’t think that “Years from now we’ll all look back and see that the SBC was saved forever from certain destruction in 2009,” and I don’t think that convention reorganization will make local churches better at pursuing the Great Commission, but I do think that we have a chance either to make the SBC worse or make the SBC better at this juncture, and I think that some of the folks serving on the Reorganization Task Force just might be able to accomplish the latter rather than the former. But now, to the details.

The dominant topic leading up to the meeting, the dominant topic in the hallways during the meeting, and the dominant topic in analysis after the fact has been the Great Commission Resurgence. Dr. Danny Akin of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary preached a sermon outlining the Great Commission Resurgence as a number of “axioms.” The folks over at SEBTS then launched a website for the movement. A number of signatories affixed their name to the statement, which went through some number of revisions as the number of signatures increased.

After the publication of the initial document, and with each revision, various Southern Baptists analyzed and opined about the document: on blogs (in no particular order: Trevin Wax, Nathan Finn, Marty Duren, Alan Cross, Micah Fries, and myself), in online streamed media, and in newspapers (SBTC Texan, Florida Baptist Witness). Axiom-by-axiom, people parsed the nuances of each and every word. Entity heads jousted in the denominational press over the implications of the document and the fate of the convention if we adopted it or rejected it.

And then it never even came to a vote.

The Vote that Never Happened

That’s right—and you might have missed it in coverage of the convention—the Southern Baptist Convention never deliberated the Great Commission Resurgence document. It did not appear as a resolution. No motion came affirming the document. The Great Commission Resurgence document, contrary to what you might have presumed, was nowhere on the agenda of SBC’09. And I’m OK with that.

All along I argued that restructuring should rise or fall on its own merits without piggybacking on a jingoistic affirmation of the Great Commission. And that’s what Southern Baptists did. We voted not on the “Great Commission Resurgence,” but on a motion from Dr. Mohler to the effect of Axiom IX:

That the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 23-24, 2009 in Louisville, Kentucky, authorize the President of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a Great Commission Task Force charged to bring a report and any recommendations to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida June 15-16, 2010, concerning how Southern Baptists can work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.

This is the kind of task force that Johnny Hunt mentioned as an implication of Axiom IX, which reads:

IX. A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure. We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.

At the midpoint of the 20th century the Southern Baptist Convention was a convention characterized by impressive institutions, innovative programs, and strong loyalty from the churches. But the convention has too often failed to adapt its structure and programs to the changing culture. We are frequently aiming at a culture that went out of existence years ago, failing to understand how mid-20th century methods and strategies are not working in the 21st century.

Some of our convention structures at all levels need to be streamlined for more faithful stewardship of the funds entrusted to them. We must address with courage and action where there is overlap and duplication of ministries, and where poor stewardship is present. We are grateful for God’s gift of Cooperative Program dollars to both state and national entities. Both state and national entities must be wise stewards of these funds, and closely examine whether the allocation of Cooperative Program dollars genuinely contributes to Kingdom work or simply maintains the status quo. We are grateful for those churches and state conventions that are seeking to move more Cooperative Program dollars beyond their respective selves, and encourage this movement to continue and increase in the days ahead.

We must take steps toward simplifying our convention structures in an effort to streamline our structure, clarify our institutional identity, and maximize our resources for Great Commission priorities. We should ask hard questions about every aspect of our Convention structure and priorities and pray for God’s wisdom and blessing as we pursue wise answers to those questions. We must be willing to make needed changes for the good of our churches and the spread of the gospel. We believe that North American church planting, pioneer missions around the globe, and theological education are three priorities around which Southern Baptists will unite. Our Convention must be examined at every level to facilitate a more effective pursuit of these priorities.

The Great Commission, missions and theological education is the responsibility of the local church. As a convention of churches, we cooperate together to support theological education so that we can continually train competent shepherds who will lead churches through teaching, love and example, and who will see to it that the churches they lead are Great Commission churches that are promoting missions and advancing theological education. We are blessed as Southern Baptists to have such an avenue to serve the local church. Furthermore, we are grateful for the impact of the Conservative Resurgence that has given us seminaries committed to the inerrancy, infallibility, and the sufficiency of the Bible.

We believe the local church must be “ground zero” in a Great Commission Resurgence, and that our associations, state conventions and national agencies exist to serve and assist the churches in their divine assignment. We are convinced that as our people see our entities in this light, they will respond in even greater support of the Cooperative Program.

So, although the pre-Convention preparation included ten axioms, only one of those axioms came before the Southern Baptist Convention this week for consideration: Axiom IX. The task-force motion passed overwhelmingly. I, along with almost everyone else in the convention hall, lifted my ballot in affirmation of the motion. More on that later in this post.

In the aftermath of the vote, Southern Baptist reactions treated this Axiom IX motion as being the entirety of the Great Commission Resurgence. That’s unfortunate and misleading. “Tweets” on micro-blogging site Twitter heralded this annual meeting as one that generations to follow would mark as a historic milestone in Southern Baptist history. Ed Stetzer erroneously implied that the SBC had considered and affirmed Axiom V of the GCR document in the form of a resolution (NOTE: Ed has amended his post to remove the implication, because he’s the kind of guy who cares about accuracy even in something as small as this). Newspapers from across the SBC discussed the approval of the “Great Commission Resurgence” document.

I think that on the way into the Louisville Expo Center a great many people presumed that we would vote on the GCR document, and then on that way out a great many people presumed that we had voted on the GCR document. The SBC Annual Meeting is both a somewhat Byzantine process and an Augean collection of schedule items. Nobody stays for it all, and nobody understands and follows all that happens while they are actually in the hall. Some people left Louisville believing that we actually voted on the GCR document, even though we did not.

I don’t know whether the GCR document was withheld as an oversight, as a strategic move of some sort, or as a realization of Nathan Finn’s nightmare (see his post linked above) come true that the GCR is essentially nothing more than the reorganization.

My Affirmative Ballot

Even without the parts of the document that I liked best, I voted in favor of the Reorganization Task Force. One reason dominated all others in convincing me to vote as I did, and that reason can be expressed in two words: Johnny Hunt.

First, Johnny Hunt’s sermon on Tuesday morning was the most powerful sermon of the entire convention by far. What he preached is what I believe. He emphasized the local church. He emphasized personal ownership of the Great Commission. He emphasized a commitment to the Bible. He threw no stones. He never gave the impression that he was all jazzed up about buying round four of Jim Beam for the prospects at First Church of the Tavern (a.k.a. “methodological diversity”). Johnny Hunt’s sermon touched me, encouraged me, convicted me, motivated me, and won me over.

Second, Johnny Hunt is the president of this convention. He deserves some latitude to lead. He deserves, and has, my respect. I decided to trust Johnny Hunt, and my ballot reflected that trust.

Third, I was confident that Bro. Johnny would appoint a good task force, and he did not disappoint. I believe that the eighteen members of the task force will serve Southern Baptists well. If there are any individual members of that group who do not have my confidence, more of them do have it and therefore the task force as a whole has my trust and confidence. More diversity in the task force (geographic as well as demographic) would have been a plus, but we Southern Baptists are ultimately a people of quality, not quotas.

Fourth, I am confident that our SBC President will afford us all ample opportunity in Orlando next year to consider any specific recommendations from our task force. I predict that the following topics will arise within the task force, although I make no predictions about which of these, if any, will emerge:

1. Changing the name of our convention away from “Southern Baptist Convention.”

   This has already been mentioned. I will argue against the removal of the word “Southern” as unnecessary, but I will fight against the removal of the word “Baptist” with every fiber of my being. I will blog in the wee hours of the morning. I will stage sit-ins and compose ballads for the “movement.” I will chain myself to the podium and write letters from an Orlando jail. I will go to war.

   But, that’s easy for me to say, because I don’t think I’ll have to. Even if a name change comes out of the task force, the word “Baptist” will still be intact. If it is not, the change will never pass on the convention floor. Even if it is, the change still may not pass. The convention has considered this matter before and it has never yet passed.

   By the way, don’t misunderstand my insistence upon this point. There are a great many churches without the word “Baptist” in the name of their churches. Some of them actually are Baptist churches, even if they do not display the name. Furthermore, a great many churches with “Baptist” right out there on the sign are no longer Baptists in any meaningful sense. I would not go to war over whether somebody else’s church chooses to identify as Baptist in the name of their church.

   But the removal of “Baptist” in the name of our convention is a different matter altogether. It will be advanced by those who believe that being Baptist is antithetical to carrying out the Great Commission. Such people must be opposed, because the opposite is true—biblical ecclesiology goes hand-in-hand with Great Commission effectiveness. However the local congregations are named, let us remain a Baptist convention of Baptist churches.

2. Changing the definition of “Cooperative Program giving.”

   There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Cooperative Program at present. Conservative churches in some state conventions yet untouched by the Conservative Resurgence are dissatisfied with a system that mandates their support of a state convention that they find abhorrent in order to receive credit for their support of a national convention that they embrace. As a freedom-loving people, they chafe under what is (if we will be honest with ourselves) the one point at which we Southern Baptists espouse connectionalism.

   Yet the most remarkable “cooperative” of the Cooperative Program is not the intercongregational cooperation that it represents, but the cooperation among state and national entities that it has facilitated for nearly a century. Jiggering around with the Cooperative Program always poses the very real risk of a return to the societal method. Indeed, the infatuation of some proto-Antinomian Southern Baptists with groups like Acts 29 represents a flirtation with societal missions.

   Convention missions is hard. In some respects it has lost its way, although it remains the best path forward for Southern Baptists. Let us all pray that we can rehabilitate the convention method rather than replace it with a return to the societal system that served us so poorly in the past.

   The nonnegotiable mark of Convention missions is this: No system should be considered by Southern Baptists that counts designated giving as Cooperative Program giving. Local congregations should be able to choose whether they are supporting one state convention, two state conventions, or no state convention at all, but their Cooperative Program funds must go to the support of the SBC’s adopted budget, and not to individual entities in a manner designated by the churches. Churches are autonomous and should have the right to support entities however they desire, but churches that do not support the SBC’s adopted budget should not be acknowledged in the same manner as those who do.

3. Decentralizing power away from the Executive Committee.

   If I wanted to usurp control of the Southern Baptist Convention away from the churches, this is what I would do: I would create an oligarchy to make the major decisions for the Southern Baptist Convention, and then, while that oligarchy met to do the real work of the convention, I would plan a conference for the pastors to keep them occupied with preaching and singing while the strategic votes were taking place.

   The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention is not quite that caricature, but neither is it entirely something else. Morris Chapman has too much power in the Southern Baptist Convention. His “fight or flight” reaction at the potential loss of his power was on clear display Tuesday morning at the convention meeting. He lashed out against people confident in Baptist distinctives. He lashed out against culture-chasing ecumenists. He lashed out against Calvinists. One SBC observer at the back of the hall (privately) said it best: “We’ve now found the basis for real unity in the Southern Baptist Convention—Morris hates us all the same.” It was a hyperbolic statement, but one that captured the mood of the convention floor after the Executive Committee report.

   Of course, Morris Chapman doesn’t really hate the people of the SBC. But he has become enriched and empowered by a system that continually consolidates more and more power at his well-appointed desk. The system that has served him so well is now in jeopardy, and he is behaving the way that people behave when they feel threatened.

   Sole membership was a mistake. I voted in favor of it at the time, because I had no desire for SBC entities ever to Baylor our convention. But the price of protection against potentially renegade entities has been a very un-Baptist consolidation of power. This task force will have failed miserably if it does not bring back to us some method for undoing this dangerous mistake that we have made.

4. Abolishing the North American Mission Board.

   I have already blogged elsewhere about this potential action, and I will neither belabor the point nor lengthen this post by adding any further verbiage on this topic.

5. Reducing our present number of seminaries.

   Every few years someone tabulates the ratio of dollars of real estate equity to FTEs at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and wonders whether we would be better served by selling off the Mill Valley campus and investing the derived resources in theological education elsewhere.

   Good question.

   Expect the committee to consider the closing of Golden Gate as well as Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is one option that could realistically come to the floor of the convention for a vote.

   We need to think carefully before we take this action. Any sort of a retreat from the areas most in need of our church planting resources should be balanced by deliberate efforts to shape our system of theological education toward the church planting needs of our own continent. Perhaps the way forward could build upon the approach adopted by Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, TN. The folks at MABTS have opened a satellite campus in Schenectady, NY. The campus has become a hub for church planting in the upper Hudson Valley.

   Perhaps Southern Baptists should explore the retention of seminaries with main campuses in our regions of greatest strength, but then launch satellite campuses of those seminaries deep into pioneer territory. Students who agree to attend these satellite campuses while planting convictionally Baptist churches in those pioneer areas should receive free tuition courtesy of whatever Southern Baptist entity is charged with North American church planting. That entity should also pay for these students to attend occasional week-long classes on the main campuses of the seminaries. Administrative payrolls at the satellite campus should be minimal or non-existent.

   If such a system could be accomplished without negating the fiscal advantages of eliminating two of our seminaries, then Southern Baptists should give the matter their consideration. However, we may find that our present system is actually more efficient fiscally. I would like to see hard numbers on this one before coming to any conclusion. But I would be opposed to any action in this regard that would represent a retreat back into our SBC “shell” when we should be working all the harder to penetrate pioneer areas with the gospel.

6. Overturning Resolution #5 from SBC 2006.

   We heard a great deal of floor action this year against Acts 29. This unrest from Southern Baptists toward Acts 29 is primarily addressed against their libertinism toward deviant sex and alcohol. Expect the task force to hear from those trying to push Southern Baptists away from our historic stance against Demon Rum and into the arms of Anheuser Busch.

   I have hopes that this effort, if made, will not survive the committee process. Antinomian forces in the SBC only succeed if they can cloak pro-alcohol policies in code-language or obfuscating phrases. When Southern Baptists get an unobscured opportunity to vote on the question of alcohol, they do what they did in 2006, just three years ago. Since the convention is on the record for this question so recently and so firmly, we have reason to hope that the Acts 29 position will remain out-of-bounds for SBC entities.

Obviously, not all of these ideas will survive the committee. Also, since my crystal ball has a crack or two in it, it is likely that I will not bat 1000…that not all 7 of these ideas will be discussed by the task force. Some ideas will likely emerge that I had not considered.

Fortunately for Southern Baptists, we have some good people on the task force who will provide needed wisdom for this day. Also, we messengers will have the final word on whatever should take place. With that fact in mind, I join with thousands of other Southern Baptists in praying fervently for our task force and our convention in the days ahead.