sbc IMPACT!

By Debbie Kaufman on May 13, 2008 at 12:23 am

I can very much support this.

By John Daly on May 13, 2008 at 5:32 am

This should be the very first item of business. Folks will be more serious about the convention if they have a voice in its proceedings (without having to go). I would take a greater interest myself.

I have no desire to use hard earned vacation time and resources to attend the annual convention. I think paid staff can get used to the Tuesday-Thursday time frame of conferences and meetings and really don’t take into account that lay folks can’t always swing mid-week events.

Why not a Friday-Sunday event? Elders/pastors find someone to preach for them when they go on vacation do they not? If the SBC is serious about its convention then let’s start by making it easier for the rank-and-file to attend. Nah, that would make too much sense.

John in St. Louis

By Lew A on May 13, 2008 at 5:33 am

The potential cost (monies, logistics, etc) of this sort of exercise outweighs any practical benefit, as far as I’m concerned. Then again, the cost of flying people out to these conventions outweighs any sort of practical benefit for me as well.

Perhaps 9% of the convention members does represent the views of the whole… ~91% just don’t care.

God’s Glory,
Lew

The Pursuit Online Store

By M. Steve Heartsill on May 13, 2008 at 5:51 am

During seminary days, I remember the first time the SBC provided our school with a live video of the meeting. While students rarely could attend the SBC meeting, we were able to watch the proceedings and be active as much as our class schedule allowed.

I would think the costs wouldn’t be prohibitive at all! I would be curious whether or not a huge number of pastors, staff members, or laymen would participate in such online voting, or is the previous comment correct–91% don’t care. Hopefully, they do.

Steve

By Geoff Baggett on May 13, 2008 at 6:50 am

What would be the added cost?

The event is already streamed via live video. Every SBC church is already in at least three password protected databases (LifeWay, SBC, and IMB).

Any of the IT guys could testify … the only expense would be setting up the database and mailing out the pass codes. Even that could be done electronically.

I firmly believe that participation would increase dramatically.

I have been a SB staff member / pastor for 20 years now, and I have never attended the SBC. Many years I was bivocational. Most others I was already gone most of the summer for youth camps. But, most of all, I could never truly justify (to myself or my church) the expense of attending a three-day business meeting.

Electronic attendance and voting is just common sense. Participation will be increased dramatically. I know that my church would have the maximum number of participants involved.

But … then again … maybe that’s what some people are afraid of, huh?

I suggest that none of us hold our collective breaths until this makes it out of committee or anywhere in the vicinity of the “floor” at the SBC annual meeting. :)

By Geoff Baggett on May 13, 2008 at 6:56 am

Dave,

Have you heard anything from the committee? What are the odds of anything being done with this?

By Lew A on May 13, 2008 at 7:19 am

It’s a little more than just setting up a database and mailing out passwords. The logistics is really where it gets you - at least if you want it done correctly.

Things to consider:
1. How to determine who can vote (easy as you have pointed out).
2. #1 combined with how to determine how many votes they get (that’s easy too).
3. #1 & #2 combined with how to be sure that the votes are used by the correct people (i.e. one person using three votes, etc.).
4. How to open and close voting for specific topics over the internet.
5. How to allow for conversation before a vote takes place - chat online? over speaker phone? Who gets to speak? How long do they get to speak? Will there be a limit?
6. Time delays for counting the votes.
7. Timezone issues (conference starts at 2AM somewhere).
8. What if the group does not have internet to their building? Do we have stats for those who do?
9. If I sat longer I could probably think of a few more… the basic question is, how is this functionality going to be programmed and implemented?

God’s Glory,
Lew

The Pursuit Online Store

By roger ferrell on May 13, 2008 at 7:20 am

This is an idea whose time has come. Part of the decline in the SBC is because of our irrelevance in communicating the way the rest of the world does. This is a step in the right direction. This would also be a tremendous affirmation to small churches who cannot afford to send messengers and to churches far away from the convention site. What can we do to help make this happen?

By Dave Samples on May 13, 2008 at 7:33 am

I don’t know what the cost would be but it pales in comparison to a disengaged convention that simply sends CP gifts and trusts that the convention will make wise decisions. My small state saw 26 of its almost 400 churches and missions send messengers last year to San Antonio. That’s 6.5% of our churches. By the way, in Colorado about half of our pastors are bi-vocational and will most likely never attend a national convention. It will cost my church about $1300 for me to attend. That’s for the Holiday Inn Express and a flight that I booked two months ago. More than not caring…most of our churches in Colorado will not see this expense as good stewardship of limited ministry dollars. If it is true that most of our churches are small (100-200), then it is likely that most of our churches cannot afford to send messengers to the convention. I think that it’s time they had a voice.

By John Daly on May 13, 2008 at 8:09 am

Well I’ll lay my cards out and say that I’m part of the 91% that doesn’t care. Mainly because what goes on at these conventions is SO irrelevant to the day-day activities of SBC life. For example, I spend my time in pro-life activities and they invite pro-choice speakers? Yea, I’m pretty much done after that.

However, on-line voting will cause me to study the resolutions and take voting very seriously. Maybe I will begin to care. It’s a huge step in the right direction and worthy of immediate support. Or we can just have another alcohol resoultion which goes back to my first point.

By Bernard Shuford on May 13, 2008 at 8:12 am

I second this motion heartily. If the SBC doesn’t allow for this kind of thing to start happening, it’s one more nail in the coffin. Sure, it changes the atmosphere of voting drastically, but I’m convinced the cost will be negligible compared to the alternatives. Even charging an “online voting fee” to offset the costs should encourage churches to participate. After all, $10 or $25 per voter is nothing compared to the $1300 Dave mentioned above. I agree - we’re wasting useful money.

The “resistance” is going to come from those who realize that even FEWER churches will attend the actual convention once this is in place.

By Rob Ayers on May 13, 2008 at 8:24 am

The “viewing” site would require High Speed internet connection, which many of our rural areas do are not served with as yet.

One of the ways could answer some of the problems of logistics/control would be the use of local/regional sites, or even associational sites (depending on the size of the association). Tellers could be appointed to check the credentials of the churches and their messengers at each site, with each site connected to the SBC database. Microphone and video capabilities would be available for each site, and for each debate the chair would be sure to include in the discussion these various sites. Voting could take place like in the main convention hall - tellers collect ballats, count the ballots, or even process them into the system using a scan card system, that would automatically tabulate the ballots, and send them on.

The start up cost of implementing the system would probably be a little pricey - but with everything after a time these costs would go down. But like many, I believe the time for this has come.

Rob

By Rick Boyne on May 13, 2008 at 8:56 am

I LOVE this idea! I can afford the time to go, but my church can’t afford to send me and our other messengers.

I would certainly be favorable towards an “online voting fee”; it’d be a whole lot less expensive than travel fees!

By Geoff Baggett on May 13, 2008 at 9:00 am

Rob,

Good thoughts … except the Associational approach would exclude the 25% of our SBC churches that are not part of any local association.

High speed internet is not that big of an issue anymore. Anyone, anywhere can get high speed by satellite.

But I really don’t think cost would be the determinative factor. After all, we drop $500,000 in CP money (or so I’ve heard) for every IMB trustee meeting, wherever they may be meeting in the world. The money is there.

By John Johnston on May 13, 2008 at 10:01 am

I have been thinking along the same lines for a while. The attendance is falling at the annual SBC while the average age of messengers climbs. Few young pastors or church members bother to attend. This proposal would at least give the opportunity for many more of our churches to have a real voice in the SBC. I hope this resolution passes!

By Dave Samples on May 13, 2008 at 11:51 am

Geoff,

I don’t expect that I will hear anything until perhaps closer to the convention, if then.

It’s very exciting to hear the many ideas that are stemming forth from this seed. I appreciate everyone’s comments. I believe that broad public support prior to the convention will give this resolution the possibility of seeing the light of day. I would encourage those who support it to do what Geoff has done and promote the idea far and near. That’s the power of communication in the day in which we live. I too believe that this is a step in the right direction for reviving a very sleepy giant of a denomination. Why wouldn’t we want broad involvement by the churches of the denomination?

By Geoff Baggett on May 13, 2008 at 11:54 am

One word … “Control”

By Bernard Shuford on May 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm

For the same reasons we don’t elect our country’s officials online.

By Kevin on May 13, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I don’t think live interaction would be completely necessary for this to work (thought it might be helpful). The motion discussions I’ve seen have been very limited due to each speaker’s time limitations.

Perhaps there could be a website in which those for and against motions could write their thoughts. Voters/messengers could read this before voting. This is already happening through blogs.

Just a thought.

By volfan007 on May 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm

If we do this….if…if…then, regional sites would probably be the best way to control computer geeks from stuffing ballot boxes. And, it would give each church the ability to vote….not just the ones with internet availability and know how. You’d be surprised how many Pastors out here still have nothing to do with the internet.

So, if you set up at local Associational offices, or even more regional with several Associations meeting together, it might work. And Geoff, if your Church was a member of the SBC, then the Association could nothing to keep you from the regional meeting of the SBC. But, like, what if the meeting in your area was held in Paducah, or Murray, and several Associations in W. KY met together to insure no voter fraud or ballot stuffing…to confirm messengers, etc.? What about that?

David

By Geoff Baggett on May 13, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I agree with Kevin. Why is interaction necessary? Why do we always feel we need to “speak our piece?” If you want to speak for or against something, buy a plane ticket and get a seat on the floor of the hall. Otherwise, listen to the discussion, weigh the options, and cast your vote.

David,
That’s still not acceptable, from my point of view. You’re still requiring lay people to miss days from work … of which they have very few.

Frankly, I’m saddened that we have to be concerned about voter fraud and ballot stuffing … within the Body … among the people of God.

And as for so many pastors having nothing to do with the internet, well … ;)

By volfan007 on May 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Geoff,

How could we have the SBC without lay people missing work? A regional meeting would require a little travel, but not much. You could leave in the morning, and be home at night. Or, if it was a county wide, or Associational wide, then you wouldnt even have much driving, but people would still have to miss a few days work in order to listen to the motions, resolutions, etc and vote.

And, Geoff, sadly, voter fraud and ballot stuffing is a reality. Some people just want to win too bad.

David

By volfan007 on May 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Geoff,

Also, about the Pastors and laymen who are not internet savvy, is this not all about getting more people involved? I would hate to think that my Dad couldnt participate and vote just because he doesnt like the internet.

Also, there are several older Pastors in my Association that brag about how they dont even know how to turn a computer on, and they dont want to know.

Regional type meetings would take care of that. Someone could show them which buttons to push.

David

By Dave Samples on May 13, 2008 at 1:59 pm

David,

It’s possible for this to be done in many different and creative ways. Certainly, associations, etc. could host “convention parties” while still allowing individuals (like overseas missionaries) the opportunity to log-in and vote. I don’t think that the ability to speak at the convention is all that important. I’ve attended several and have never once gone to a microphone. My opinion is usually voiced by someone eventually. This would allow me the opportunity to attend the convention occasionally and to attend other conferences with my convention money without missing the opportunity to vote on big issues. I can tell you this…with online voting a resolution would acually mean something.

By roger ferrell on May 13, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Most state conventions have video conferencing capability and a multimedia projector and could host an event where messengers could come and watch and vote, and this would provide for interaction and fellowship as well. This would be easy and almost free to set up.

As far as pastors not having internet access or ability, I’m sorry to be so blunt but that is a lousy excuse. Surely everyone knows someone in their church or a child or grandchild who has internet access. I can’t imagine anyone in the US or Canada saying they cannot get online somewhere, somehow. And really, they should know how to do this. It is not an age thing. There are plenty of older pastors who have learned to use computers. And if you don’t care to learn that yourself or find someone who does, or call your DOM or your state convention to find out, or go to an internet cafe or Apple store and ask an employee or go another local church with internet and ask that pastor or secretary to help you or get in your car and drive to your state convention or get on a plane and go to the SBC, then you probably should not be voting on contemporary issues in SBC life.
I’m not trying to be rude here, but I really feel this is part of the problem in the SBC: a refusal to join the 21st century and confront the culture around us. You don’t have to love the internet or even use it on a regular basis, but to not be able to get on it and cast a vote? That is either overwhelming apathy or intense stubbornness.

By the way, if you know someone who does not know how to get on the internet and they can’t find another solution, I would be glad to walk them through it over the phone. Just email me and I will pass my # along.

By volfan007 on May 13, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Roger,

That is very narrow of you.

David

By Bernard Shuford on May 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Roger narrow?? I doubt it :)

It continues to amaze me how few of the SBC small churches have decent websites. Many are absolutely terrible, with all due respect. One pastor in our area actually (I have been told) condemns the Internet as a tool of Satan and maintains that we should have nothing to do with it. He pastors 2-400 people.

I maintain that any church without a website is either “doctrinally” opposed to websites or else is failing to do what churches are called to do. They’re too easy these days, and 10 year olds have MySpace, for crying out loud. We don’t have an excuse.

I am in the process right now of trying to get a website started for the Baptist association that Tony Sisk and I are involved in. It’s not been easy, simply because there’s little belief that it’s necessary, it seems. Only the desire to have a calendar for all the county VBS dates has driven it to happen, even though I offered to do it - at entirely no cost to the association - many months ago.

Like David says, many Baptist churches are way behind the technology curve, but that’s part of the problem, not an excuse. It’s akin to refusing to get a telephone number or placing a listing in the local newspaper.

Some churches might have a “belief” or “conviction” problem. Those, I’ll concede. However, churches with a supposed evangelistic purpose, especially those whose members all have internet in their homes, or even televisions with dish and four cell phones, have no excuse. None.

This would have its difficulties. But so does any new system. That’s not an excuse to not do it. I make my living doing things that are hard, and that are expensive. Customers are willing to pay because there are clear rewards.

The reward here is huge - allowing a much higher percentage of participation. The cost, per member, would be miniscule. We might be shocked what our Convention really wants.

And, as someone said, therein lies part of the problem. The powerful may want to retain the power, and make sure it doesn’t filter down to being a true democratic system. They may also feel that leaders of churches - pastors and elders - should make the decisions for the conventions, rather than church members, who might be spiritually immature or perhaps not even be Christians at all.

It’s a tough call.

By Lin on May 13, 2008 at 8:10 pm

This is an idea that is way past due. The internet voting is not a big deal and is more secure than what you think. I have used such technology in the past in corporate america and it has been set up where one vote allowed on one item. You couldn’t ’stack’ it if you wanted to. But you had better get it right the first time! And voting would have to happen during the times alloted.

They could hire an independent company to facilitate this.

It is really ridiculous we are not doing this. But it would change the power structure intensely to more bottom up. That is a good thing.

By Lin on May 13, 2008 at 8:13 pm

BTW: Regional sites are a bad idea and usually do not work. If one is going to travel, they will just go to the convention. The whole point is to be able to do this from your office or home.

By Tim A. Blankenship on May 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm

This would be a great idea if everyone could have the fellowship, hear the same messages brought by the preachers and speakers.
There is an element of commitment that goes with attending one or our conventions.
No pastor would be for having online worship with our church. The whole purpose of the gathering is violated by this.
I know the SBC annual meeting is not our individual local congregations, however there is more to the meeting than voting.
My vote would be against it. However, it does not appear that I will be able to attend, so that shows my lack of commitment this year.
I pray the resolution will fail.
T.A.

By volfan007 on May 13, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Lin,

By regional, I dont mean extensive travelling. I mean, down the road a piece… you know, where you can sleep in your own bed at night. I dont mean so regional that you’d have to stay overnight. It could even be more close…like an Association meeting together. In my Association, that would be just one county. So, I dont think that the regional idea is that bad.

David

By roger ferrell on May 13, 2008 at 9:22 pm

David,
Considering I’ve put on about 40 pounds since college, I’m choosing to take “narrow” as a compliment. :) But seriously, narrow would be if we ONLY met online. We are not proposing taking anything away from the convention, only adding another option. Folks can and will still attend the old-fashioned way, and should if they can. I think “narrow” would be having the means to do this and not doing it, thus continuing to have a shrinking number of Southern Baptists making the decisions. On the contrary, this proposal is the opposite of narrow.

Bernard,
Thank you for defending my honor, or my width, or whatever. I respect those who choose not to use the internet. I do think that is a valid conviction. But they could still go to their state convention office, read choices on a screen and vote. There is no risk of sin in that (unless they vote against the Spirit’s leading, of course).

Tim,
When you say, “no pastor would be for having online worship with our church” I must disagree. I am all for online worship, and many churches have this. But I would stress this is not for those who are too lazy to get up and come, but for those who are out of town or traveling on business or ill who still want to join us in some sense. And what about shut-ins? Is this not a wonderful tool for them? Would there not be some validity to having online voting and watching of the convention for faithful Southern Baptists who are now 90 years old and unable to travel? Or in at-home hospice? Or under the weather? Or in prison? Or on a mission trip that week? Would allowing them to participate online increase or decrease the fellowship? And could they not hear the messages online as well?

By Dave Samples on May 13, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Tim,

I don’t know Tim…I think quite a few churches broadcast their worship on television and the net. The purpose of the annual meeting is not koinonia but rather to do the business of the convention. As far as commitment goes–don’t follow me around in Indy–I just might skip some of the boring stuff. You “pray” the resolution will fail? Seems kind of strong…

I simply want to allow the elected messengers from 42,000 churches the opportunity to voice their convictions without spending big bucks and big time to attend. I would absolutely support your ability to vote “no” on this resolution without going to Indianapolis. Unfortunately, you’re shut out…

Thanks for the comment…

By Dave Samples on May 13, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Good thoughts Roger…I just want to be clear…The convention procedings are already being broadcast on the net and we can already register online.

By roger ferrell on May 14, 2008 at 8:40 am

Dave,
I know. But making a point of getting people together locally to watch and participate in the convention would engage many, many more people than are currently attending. I think being able to vote in the proceedings is the key to these gatherings taking place.

By Kevin on May 14, 2008 at 10:35 am

I think voting fraud is a non-issue. The system could easily be set up with security to protect against voter fraud.

I also think we could have a multi-level system. Those who need to watch/vote from home could do so via internet. Similar options could be available for those who want to watch via associational office (video conference). The “old fashion” option would also be there for those who can attend.

By Geoff Baggett on May 14, 2008 at 11:07 am

Kevin,

Now THAT’S good thinking … a tri-level approach.

But, again, hold not thine breath … ;)

By Kevin Peacock on May 14, 2008 at 11:21 am

It sounds to me like the dilemma of trying to schedule a committee meeting when all the members could be present. If that were the only option, then very few meetings would ever take place. The intent of the suggestion is to include a whole host of churches and messengers who could “attend” by way of satellite or the internet. No solution will cover every contingency, but this idea could greatly increase participation in the meeting across the SBC. If folks feel like they need to “dialogue” and “speak their piece” at the convention, let them attend in person.

By Liz Eubanks on May 14, 2008 at 11:39 pm

I attend a small church. We probably were allowed 4 messengers, but voted on none and sent none. I, however, watched the complete SBC last year, including the pastor’s conference, via the net. I would love to have been able to vote as a messenger from our congregation.

I think giving options, so there is more participation, is a good idea. We have attended 10 or 12 SBC’s in our life, some as messengers and some as pastor/messengers. I would hate for there to be no attendance for the wonderful sermons that come out from the convention and pastor’s conference, but surely people close enough would attend.

Liz

By Dave Samples on May 15, 2008 at 6:56 am

Liz,

I suspect that attendance at the convention would increase as more people become engaged in the process. Online voting would only make attendance at the convention more attractive. This is all about providing a way for more participation by the churches.