;)
Reflections on the SBC
Posted by Bowden McElroy in Baptist Life
I was unable to attend the SBC annual meeting this year but I tried to follow it on the net. I was encouraged by much and disheartened by a little; below are my thoughts about the meeting and about the SBC in general.
First, some reflections on conservations I’ve had with friends and clients over the past few months. One couple I know are trying to decide – having been Southern Baptists all their lives – whether or not to join a Presbyterian USA church or a United Methodist church. Why? Because their teens feel unwelcome at their home church but are accepted by the youth at the other two churches. I’m not sure, I told them, you’ll be happy with all of what either of those churches believe. Not a problem, I was assured; they know what they believe and don’t feel a need to be in 100% agreement with any church they join.
One of my partners is a Presbyterian elder who is now attending an Independent Christian Church. Why? A close personal relationship with the pastor. He has the same attitude as the couple above: he knows what he believes and doesn’t expect to agree 100% with the Statement of Faith of any church he joins. Nor does he believe it is reasonable for anyone to expect him to.
These are just two examples out of many that convince me we are living in a post-denominational world.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not forecasting the end of the SBC. Asking if the SBC will be here in ten or twenty years is a silly question: of course we will be here. Predicting the death of a denomination is a little like environmentalists predicting the “end of the earth”. Life as we know it might change one day but the earth will still be here. (It may be only a rock inhabited by cockroaches, but it will still be here.) A better question is what will the SBC look like in 20 years. Those of us committed to the SBC can tweak the BF&M, the BoT’s of all the entities, and the structure of the organization until the SBC looks just exactly the way we want it; the perfect denomination that all agree with. (Okay… that’ll never happen but I’m trying to make a point.) But if most believers in America agree with my friends above – commitment to an organization or a doctrinal statement is nice but not necessary – then what’s the point?
For me, the point boils down to two things: seminaries and international missions. I really don’t care too much about the rest of what we do at the national level. Give me theologically sound and affordable seminaries and the ability to participate in the sending of missionaries beyond North America and the denomination will have done all I could ask of it. In the past, we had to cooperate on a grand scale in order to accomplish both of these tasks. But technology is shrinking the world and it is conceivable that smaller groups will be able to accomplish both of these tasks just as effectively with fewer resources. (Some would say we are already there.)
We need people in positions of leadership that recognize the smaller, flatter world in which we live. People that are willing to look beyond geographic networks to affinity networks that reach across the country or across the world. People who realize that a church, or a small group of churches, may be able to accomplish what previously required an entire country of churches.
Which brings me to this year’s Annual Meeting. The best news is not the election of a new president or the passage of a regenerate membership resolution. The best news is that “More than 90 percent of the newly elected trustees of Southern Baptist Convention entities have not served on an SBC board before.”
There is no guarantee that the new trustees will see the need to change in order to meet the needs of a post-denominational world. But people new to the process is a good first step. Human nature is to simply do more of what worked in the past. And then blame others when it is no longer working in a changed environment. The willingness to bring in fresh faces – and hopefully a fresh appreciation for the need to adapt to the “flat earth” of the 21st century – is the best news of this year’s Annual Meeting.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Bowden,
I am reasonably confident that I’ll be a member of an SBC church in 20 years. I am far less confident that my children will be.
Definately good news on the trustees part. Any idea how the 90% compares with past years?
Bowden,
I agree with your last paragraph. From all indications, the convention reflected the leadership and leadership style of Dr. Frank Page. He fulfilled his promise of including new people into the mix. He fulfilled his promise to bring a new, more humble attitude to the convention and to its work. Hopefully, that new direction will continue. If not, more and more couples may be departing the SBC for other places.
We are at a crossroads in the SBC. May God grant all of us wisdom in where we go from here.
Steve
Taran,
I don’t know what the numbers were in years past… but I’m confident it wasn’t that high. “New people” was one of the ‘reforms’ that some were blogging about three years ago and it was one of the goals of Dr. Page.
The 90% is a little misleading. Trustees can serve two consecutive terms and the second term is a given. What the numbers really mean is 90% of those elected to a first term are new to service in the (national) convention.
Steve,
There are two groups of issues facing the SBC: doctrinal (e.g. alcohol, ppl, Calvinism, etc.) and methodological. While the two groups intersect in places, this post is about the need to be smaller, leaner, “flatter”… a new paradigm for structuring a denomination.
Bowden,
I agree with your reply. We are facing these two issues, both doctrine and method. I would submit that they intersect in more than a few places and both will/could help us move toward a smaller, leaner, “flatter” denomination. That is, if we heed your words and the words of other younger leaders.
However, I don’t see the trend in our convention to be one of leaner structure. A study of the Annual Report will show that our denominational offices are still large, maybe as large as ever. Have we seen cuts in those offices? Overall, no. Our denominational offices still consist, for the most part, of white men over the age of 50. Have we seen younger leaders coming into those offices? Again, no.
I am encouraged by the direction Dr. Page led us and the new direction he tried to implement. However, look at the new officers for the convention. Young leaders in that group? No. What about among the candidates for office? Again, no. Will these 50+ year old white, male officers be at the same meetings as the younger, emerging leaders? Probably not.
In that vain, I am not encouraged.
I just want to say that I was very encouraged by the attendance of the younger crowd. I was at the SBC, and I had scores of under forty people sitting around me each and every time. Now, they may not have filled out the SBC survey, but they were there. In fact, I asked several of them if they had filled out the survey and turned them in, and they said no. So, they may not be counted….older ones tend to fill these things out and turn them in is my observation…but the young crowd was there….in force.
I was thrilled to see them there, too…after all the talk about young people not coming to the convention anymore.
David
Steve and David,
Steve wrote: “if we heed your words and the words of other younger leaders.” I’m neither a leader (I’m just a lay person at my church) nor at 47 am I particularly young.
I’m not sure chronological age is the best indicator. Plenty of people my age see the need for a paradigm shift… and I’ve met an awful lot of “old-thinking” 30-year-olds.
Steve,
Part of my being encouraged has to do with the changes I see at the local level. I’ve written before about how my association is changing things. Change in the denomination will likely occur both from the bottom-up and from the top-down.
Bowden, you are as young as you feel…right?
I agree, change generally happens on the local level first. There seems to be more lasting change if it first started as a ground-swell type of movement. I don’t always see the top down movements lasting or catching hold for long.
But, if we could see both happening, I believe great things could be done for God! Maybe things unlike anything else we’ve ever seen before!
For many years, when I first entered the ministry, I always enjoyed being the youngest minister in the association…or that the church had ever called…Now, I just remember those days and most of the memories! With age, memories tend to fade or sweeten…
What were we talking about?
David / Volfan007,
([Edited by B. McElroy] Re: Your comment about the younger ones being on your right and your left…) As noted on other Blogs from those that were not walking around in a FLOG, the young ones were not Messengers, they were paid workers and were not wearing Messengers Badges,
http://biblicalspirituality.org/ruin.html
Wayne Smith
Volfan007,
I guess the best question to ask is “How many young pastors were there?”
That is what will tell the true health of the convention.
Grace Always
“For me, the point boils down to two things: seminaries and international missions.”
I agree with you 100% on this.
The young people that I saw where sitting in the convention hall with messenger badges and ballots. They voted. And, I doubt very seriously if all the young ones that I saw where all working in some exhibit booth. If that were so, then the exhibit booths would have reached to Terre Haute. I saw a lot of twenty somethings and thirty somethings at this years convention…more than I have ever seen before…and I’ve been to many conventions.
I guess the problem with knowing how many of the young pastors actually were at the convention is due to many of them not filling out the convention survey and turning it in…which several of them told me that they did not do that. So, what other record would you have to be able to tell how many young pastors were there?
All I know is what these two old eyes saw, and I saw a lot of young people…a lot more than I’ve seen in the past. I’m sorry if that doesnt fit some of yall’s agenda.
David
Bowden – I just wanted to correct a common misconception that has been floating around the blogging world over the last number of years. The misconception is that only with the coming of Frank Page have we seen new blood finally brought into the trustee system. The fact is that 97% of the 190 new trustee nominations from the 2005 and 2006 convention had never served on an SBC trustee board before. Also, I believe that it was the 2006 Committee on Committee or the Nominating Committee which was 100% composed of individuals who had never served in SBC life. I don’t know how many were new in 2004 and before, but it was desired by Welch and Graham to get new people involved. It appears Welch had accomplished it…I am not sure about Graham.
Benarie,
Thanks for the information. Still, it appears to be a relatively new phenomenon.
Bowden,
My previous comment hasn’t been posted, maybe because I attempted to add a link.
But a BP article from June 14, 2006 is entitled, “97% of new SBC trustees are first-time nominees.” Those were trustees from the Bobby Welch era.
I think a number of folks have been misinformed or have not realized that, while some trustees have previously served, most have not.
Also some experienced pastors and laymen help to add know-how, leadership, and continuity to our SBC boards. So, to a point, reappointing those who have previously served can be a good thing. But sometimes reappointing a few high profile trustees can make it seem like the big majority of trustees are just being re-elected over and over.
Of course, out of 16 million (or whatever is your favorite figure) Southern Baptists, most of us will not have the opportunity to serve. Nevertheless, I think for years now, the big majority of trustees have been first time nominees.
I do agree with your post, however, that these new trustees will very likely bring needed change to our convention. I also like your overall positive tone about the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow