Dr. Rick Patrick, Pastor
FBC Sylacauga, Alabama
Exec. Director, Connect 316
Then their eyes were opened and they knew they were Baptist; so they covered their name on their church sign, website and letterhead—for they were sore ashamed of their own denomination, despite its provision of generous funding.
In the history of the world, the Southern Baptist Convention may be the single largest institution that has ever attempted to thrive while simultaneously striking its name from every form of public display, promotion and advertisement. Businesses and politicians pay billions of dollars for name recognition. Organizations want people talking about them. The advertising proverb most frequently cited is, “All publicity is good publicity.” It is a first-order principle of public relations and advertising that one’s name must be presented before the world.
If the world does not like the name, then by all means, do what is necessary to change their opinion. But never remove your name from the eyes of a watching world. No successful company, government, business, or charity has ever done so. Having elaborated upon this subject in an earlier article entitled Bringing Baptist Back, the present essay offers additional lines of evidence, revealing that this self-defeating practice has negatively impacted not only our church planting efforts, but also the ministry philosophy that prevails at stealth SBC churches where the members of the congregation do not even realize they are Southern Baptists.
Stealth Southern Baptist Church Planters
The affiliation of our church plants with our Baptist denomination is consistently hidden. Below is the complete list of the 42 church names found in the 2018 NAMB Prayer Calendar. These churches all receive Cooperative Program funding from the Southern Baptist Convention. Only two of these churches (listed in blue) are openly forthcoming about their Baptist affiliation. Both happen to be reaching international populations. Everyone else apparently believes the questionable theory that admitting to prospects they are a Baptist Church will interfere with the process of evangelism, either by hindering the Spirit’s power to draw them through the gospel or by poisoning the free will of people whose only reason for rejecting Christ is that they dislike the name on the church sign. Inexplicably, leaders firmly opposed to pragmatism in other areas of church life nevertheless swallow this approach. Only five percent of the NAMB Church Planters listed on the prayer calendar are openly identifying as Baptists.
Dios Con Nosotros, Chicago, IL
Eden Church, San Jose, CA
Focus Community Church, Plainfield, NJ
Revolution Church, Miami, FL
The Neighborhood Church, Philadelphia, PA
West African Church, Cincinnati, OH
Palm Vista Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ
Northfield Community Church, Northfield, MN
Mosaic Boston Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, MA
The Heights Church, Denver, CO
Hopelink Community Church, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada
Christ Covenant, Atlanta, GA
Group 99 Church, Fountain Valley, CA
Mile City Church, South Lyon, MI
Fellowship Church Rouge Park, Pickering, Ontario, Canada
Level Ground Community Church, New Orleans, LA
Milestone Church, Natick, MA
Journey Church Mount Clemens, Mount Clemens, MI
WALK Church, Henderon, NV
Phares International Evangelistic Church, Somerset, NJ
Grantwood Community Church, Parma, OH
Filipino International Baptist, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Iglesia Bautista Gracia Eterna, West Valley, UT
Heart and Soul Community Church, Detroit, MI
Graffiti Church, New York, NY
Flourish Church, Seattle, WA
Nations Be Glad Forefront Church, Minneapolis, MN
Lightcast Church International, Jamaica, NY
Multiply Church Calgary, Calgary, Aleberta, Canada
Dwell Church, Edgewater, CO
Metairie Korean Church, New Orleans, LA
Christian Liberty Church, Baltimore, MD
Neighborhood Church, Overland Park, KS
Valley Life Church-Camelback, Phoenix, AZ
Seven Mile Road Church, Malden, MA
City of Joy Fellowship, East St. Louis, IL
City of Blessings, Covington, GA
Disciples Assembly, Lenexa, KS
Clarkston International Bible Church, Clarkston, GA
Renaissance Church, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Lightcast Church International, Woodside, NY
Ignite Church, Breese, IL
Is it wrong to suspect that the primary reason these church planters are technically Southern Baptist might have something to do with the money we give them? Would you understand it if I told you this notion makes me feel like we are being used? It feels like they do not particularly associate with us or identify with us, and yet they still cash our checks when we send them. I’m thinking of the teenager embarrassed to be seen in public with his grandparents who nevertheless receives a hundred dollar bill from them on his birthday. It feels like the SBC is more committed to our planters than our planters are committed to the SBC—at least when it comes to openly and honestly admitting they are denominationally and doctrinally Baptist.
What if we were to incentivize Baptist loyalty and identity? What if we donated twice as much money for those SBC church plants willing to claim their Baptist roots, doctrine and heritage by placing the word “Baptist” on their sign, website, bulletin and letterhead? Maybe we could do better than 5%. Maybe publicly loyal Baptist affiliation on the part of our church plants would begin to extend beyond those of Hispanic and Filipino culture.
Stealth Southern Baptist Church Pastors
Never assume that the only people ashamed to identify with Southern Baptists publicly are the church planters. Increasingly, Pastors of fully established Southern Baptist Churches do not bother to teach their members about their affiliation with our convention. They do not mention it from the pulpit, on their website, on their sign, on their letterhead, or in their bulletin. The members of their congregation are kept completely in the dark about the fact that their church is a Southern Baptist Church. They have no idea they are Southern Baptists.
Listen to the words of one such Stealth Southern Baptist Pastor as he explains to his congregation that they are part of the SBC. To put the matter in context, his explanation was necessary due to questions arising from his announced candidacy for an office in the Southern Baptist Convention:
The third question some of you just asked is, “Since when did we become Southern Baptists?” (Laughter) I get that. It’s not something we wear on our sleeve here. There are obviously parts of the SBC that we’re not excited about and we don’t feel like really represent who we are as a church…*
What I appreciate about this statement is its brutal honesty. There are parts of Southern Baptist life that this Pastor really wishes he did not have to explain to his flock. He’s not exactly proud of the entire Southern Baptist Convention. In his own words, there are parts of the convention that do not excite him. These parts of the SBC do not represent the identity of his church and thus he does not really wish to publicly associate his church with the SBC by wearing such an affiliation on his sleeve. As an autonomous church, his congregation has every right to take this approach, although I consider this the very definition of a Stealth Southern Baptist Church.
One might reasonably wonder, “Why then does this congregation choose to affiliate, even secretly, with the Southern Baptist Convention?” The Stealth Southern Baptist Pastor provides the answer to this question, revealing six million motivations for their church’s involvement in the SBC:
…but I will tell you that on the whole we are very grateful to be a part of a network of churches that cooperate for the purpose of mission. I’ll give you just one easy example to get your mind around. There are 158 members of The Summit Church that are serving overseas as missionaries with the IMB which is the international missions arm of the SBC. For us to pay for our members, just our members, for us to pay for them overseas, would cost us in excess of six million dollars a year. It doesn’t cost us really anything. I mean, we give to the SBC, but…they’re able to go just freely because of the cooperative efforts of 46,000 churches across the United States so we’re very grateful to be a part of it.*
Once again, what I appreciate about this statement is its brutal honesty. A Stealth Southern Baptist Pastor does not have to love everything about the Southern Baptist Convention in order to collect the six million dollars needed to support the missionaries that his church considers to be “theirs.” One might reasonably argue that the 158 missionaries in question should truthfully be considered “ours.” They are missionaries of the entire Southern Baptist Convention since all 46,000 churches are paying that six million dollars. What is the “one easy example” used by this Pastor to explain his church’s secret SBC affiliation? To paraphrase his answer, “They give us a lot of money.”
Frankly, this kind of loyalty is tenuous at best—hanging on by a thread. Organizations doing things right attract members who are unashamed to affiliate with them openly. As the Southern Baptist Convention financially supports new churches and existing ones, it is not too much to ask that they embrace our Baptist name and denomination publicly and unapologetically. I am not at all embarrassed by the Southern Baptist Convention. My church knows we are Southern Baptists. We wear it on our sleeves. You don’t have to pay us to be in the SBC. In fact, you couldn’t pay us to leave. We are Baptist and unashamed. And we wish more Southern Baptists felt the same way.
* Greear, J.D. “Your God is Too Small.” February 4, 2018. summitrdu.com/message (0:43-4:01)
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at soteriology 101 and is used by permission.
As we approach the 2018 SBC Annual Meeting, the political lines are being drawn. Recently, JD Greear was nominated to be the next SBC President. I can imagine that as the members of the Convention consider their options, foremost on their mind is that person’s theological alignment. Today, the most hotly contested theology is the realm of soteriology (doctrine of salvation), especially since the rise of Calvinism’s popularity over the last two decades among the “young, restless and reformed” within the SBC.
In 2009 a Time.com article proclaimed, “Calvinism is back…”. The article goes on to claim that its rise is due, in large part, to the personalities at the forefront of the movement.
…with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle’s pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom’s hottest links.
While Driscoll’s pugnacity was his undoing, Calvinism grew unabated. Calvinist internet behemoths like The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, GotQuestions, Stand to Reason, Christian Research, Apologetics Ministries (CARM) and Ligonier Ministries dominate Google search options for questions about theology proper and apologetics, not just soteriology. When it comes to the battle for internet supremacy in Christendom, there is Calvinism and then there is everything else.
This supremacy extends to the seminaries funded by the SBC. Albert Mohler, one of the leading figures of the New Calvinism, is President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship SBC seminary. Just after tweeting a promotion of Tabletalk, produced by Ligonier Ministries (an exclusively Calvinistic source began by the late RC Sproul Sr.), Dr Mohler gave his own hearty endorsement of JD Greear as the next SBC President.
In a recent article put out by The Gospel Coalition, a list of the top 125 most influential leaders in the “gospel-centered movement” was released. What was meant by the phrase “gospel-centered movement?” The author Jared Wilson explains,
“I tried to think keenly about all the folks whose voices have given shape to this still-developing movement, sometimes called ‘young restless and Reformed’ (YRR), ‘neo-Reformed,’ ‘gospel-centered,’ etc.”
JD Greear made the #52 spot on Wilson’s list of the top most influential in the rise of the “young restless and Reformed.”
Tom Ascol is executive director of the Founder’s Ministry, which unashamedly seeks to establish Calvinism as the core theological tenant of the SBC. From the Founder’s “About” page:
Founders Ministries is committed to encouraging the recovery of the gospel and the biblical reformation of local churches. We believe that the biblical faith is inherently doctrinal, and we are therefore confessional in our convictions. We recognize the time-tested Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) as a faithful summary of important biblical teachings and the abstract of that confession known as the Abstract of Principles.
Much in the same way The Gospel Coalition implies “Gospel-Centeredness” requires an adherence to Calvinism, The Founders Ministry is asserting that without Calvinism the gospel needs “recovery.” Does Greear secretly support this “recovery of the Gospel” agenda? After all, the first point of his stated reasons for running is “the gospel above all.” One has to wonder if he means “the gospel” as defined by The Gospel Coalition and The Founders in the sources quoted above? What do you think?
Despite Greear’s Calvinistic associations, endorsements and even his own clear soteriological sermons on hotly contested passages such as Ephesians 1 and Romans 9, there are many who still insist he is not really a Calvinist, or at least he is not the type to promote one soteriological view over the other.
Really? How do we know that?
In the same way Calvinistic pastors often “go stealth” while being interviewed by a search committee so as to avoid detection, could it be that a presidential nominee may not be all that forthright about his own beliefs or agenda regarding this highly controversial issue? If you were a Calvinist with political aspirations within a convention that overwhelmingly rejects Calvinistic soteriology would you downplay and distance yourself from those beliefs so as to be a more likeable candidate? More importantly, would Greear?
So, is JD Greear really a Calvinist or not?
The notoriously staunch 5-point Calvinistic blog, Pulpit and Pen, headed up by controversial and contentious Podcaster JD Hall, certainly affirms him as a fellow Calvinist, writing:
“Greear holds to a more solid, Calvinist position on salvation. He authored a book titled Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart: How To Know You Are Saved, in which he states he struggled for many years with the assurance of salvation and repeated the “Sinner’s Prayer” many times during his life. He now rejects the concept of “asking Jesus into your heart,” and holds to a biblical doctrine of salvation. He has also spent a considerable amount of time defending the historical truth of Scripture.” […]
Greear is also a part of the New Calvinist Acts 29 network, currently under Matt Chandler’s leadership. Acts 29 is a network of (supposedly) independent churches whose primary purpose is to plant more churches. Their website states that they are characterized by “Theological Clarity, Cultural Engagement, and Missional Innovation.” Sounds okay, right?
Acts 29 was founded by the befallen pastor, Mark Driscoll. The network is comprised of churches that promote charismania, have a low tolerance threshold for discernment, and a general taste for popularity.” <link>
What does being a part of the Acts 29 network entail? As previously pointed out on the Soteriology 101 YouTube channel (starting at the 2:45 mark), according to the Acts 29 website one must affirm Calvinistic doctrine to be a part of this group. Here are screenshots from the Acts 29 website:
To be a part of the Acts 29 network JD Greear must affirm confessional Calvinism, despite how he may have tried to distance himself from the unpopular TULIP doctrines for political purposes. Once elected, will he work behind the scenes to fulfill The Founders’ mission to install a Calvinistic confession? Will he appoint committee members who will nominate new Seminary Presidents and other entity heads that are supportive of “the gospel recovery” agenda. If so, those appointees will certainly increase the influence of the so-called “gospel-centered” (i.e. Calvinistic) movement. Is this what the pastors and laity in the SBC want?
Given that The Founders Ministry has actually encouraged fellow Calvinistic pastors to avoid full disclosure while interviewing so as to gain leadership positions (see here), how can we know for certain that is not a strategy being employed to gain the national positions of leadership within the SBC? How else can you explain the blatant imbalance of Calvinistic leaders within a convention which overwhelmingly rejects Calvinistic soteriology?
The growth of Calvinism in the SBC is fine if that is what the Convention actually wants, after all, it is governed as a democracy. If the majority of the Convention knowingly supports The Gospel Coalition and The Founder’smission to adopt Calvinism as standard SBC theology; then that is the will of the Convention. So be it.
However, the democratic system of the SBC is warped if the members are not fully informed as to who they are voting for or what their goals for the Convention will be.
The President has the most influence over the direction of the SBC in his ability to make committee appointments. Here are some of the President’s powers:
The president appoints the Credentials Committee (Bylaw 8B), tellers (Bylaw 10D), the Committee on Committees (Bylaw 19), and the Committee on Resolutions (Bylaw 20). He is also a member of the Committee on Order of Business (Bylaw 21) and an ex officio member of the boards of the Executive Committee, International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, LifeWay Christian Resources, and GuideStone Financial Resources (SBC Constitution, Article V).
If the majority of SBC church-goers do not hold to Calvinism (as the polls indicate), then it is their right to fully know that the presumptive front runner for the Presidency believes and teaches Calvinistic soteriology. If a majority within the SBC trust a Calvinist to make appointments that will impact the future of the SBC’s theological education and leadership; fine, but they should go into that vote with their eyes wide open.
Dr. Rick Patrick, Pastor
FBC Sylacauga, Alabama
Exec. Director, Connect 316
I don’t really understand how things like this happen, but on Thursday, February 15, 2018, less than 72 hours after David Platt announced he would be resigning as the President of the International Mission Board, I received notices from no fewer than three independent sources, on the same day, telling me that a certain candidate had already been chosen as the next President of the International Mission Board.
Some of the sources even shared additional details. The announcement would be made public prior to the SBC Annual Meeting in Dallas. The individual selected as the next IMB President would leave a vacancy in their current position. Even the selection of their own replacement was already described as a done deal.
Of course, none of this made any sense to me at all. Monday’s press release had stated: “A presidential search committee will be comprised of IMB trustees selected by trustee chairman Dr. Rick Dunbar, a member of First Baptist Church, Madison, Mississippi.”
Southern Baptists have not even been informed of the names of the trustees on this Search Team. The Search Team has not yet begun their work. They have not yet collected resumes. They have not yet conducted interviews. They have not yet received references. They have not yet had the time to pray over the matter.
And yet, it would seem that somehow everybody already knew what the result was going to be. Before the Search Team had even started its work, I was being told that the result was already a foregone conclusion.
Can anyone explain this to me? Because the only explanation that makes a lick of sense gives me the heebie-geebies. Think about it. If we already know the result of a committee’s work before the committee even meets, then it must be true that somebody, somewhere, is in a back room, pulling the strings and calling the shots, determining the outcome of meetings that have not even been held yet, and setting in motion the steps that will eventually lead to the outward display of their private decrees.
I have long suspected that certain Southern Baptists might be quietly working behind the scenes to accomplish a hidden agenda within our denomination. But I never expected to find the smoking gun, the incontrovertible proof that real decisions are not being made by the groups elected by Southern Baptists to make them, but by shadow coalitions functioning as puppet masters before our public leadership teams have even been selected.
What other explanation can there be? Could it be that the Southern Baptist Convention functions like the game show Jeopardy by first revealing the answers and only later asking the questions?
Theoretically, how could all of this be accomplished? One would have to influence the selection of the committee members in a very specific way. As a condition of being placed on the committee, they would have to promise in advance to vote for the candidate one desired. If they made no such promise, they would not be selected for the committee.
The reason this is so profoundly disturbing is that it flies in the face of our congregational polity, for if this is truly going on, we are no longer making decisions through democratic processes. If a secret group can control the selection of the Southern Baptist executive managing our largest budget and supervising the greatest number of Southern Baptist employees, then they can do anything they want.
No, I am not going to mention the name identified by all three independent sources as the next IMB President. Neither will I mention the individual we somehow already know will take this person’s place at their current post. Why not? Frankly, it’s not my place to announce such news. Besides, the committee may choose to resist such a secret mandate and move in an entirely different direction. I am holding out hope that they will do so.
Honestly, I don’t want to believe that any of this might be true. Words cannot describe the sense of corruption and betrayal I would feel if the candidates going through the IMB Presidential search process are denied a fair opportunity to earn the job because the decision has already been made and even announced through the Baptist grapevine.
Frankly, I have come to terms with the existence of a rumor mill in Southern Baptist life. I could live with the answer being leaked AFTER the Search Team had completed their process and come to a decision. However, this is something very different. It is a predetermined result—a predestined Presidency. For some reason, I have a strong visceral reaction to such prejudicial decisions, viewing them as both clandestine and unjust.
Despite today’s strong evidence to the contrary, I am still hoping and praying that the process of selecting the next IMB President is one that is truly fair, open, honest, and transparent, rather than one secretly fixed in advance.
Southern Baptists deserve nothing less.