Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Who deserves to hear the Gospel?

A disturbing trend in some very influential circles in our convention is the attitude that no one deserves to hear the Gospel twice while there are those who have yet to hear it once. That might sound good. It is certainly emotionally moving and motivating. That mantra is being used to stir people’s hearts for the nations. But at what cost?

Jesus charged us with reaching the nations. Since our inception, Southern Baptists have always been passionate about joining together to reach the nations for Christ—it’s in our DNA. But we have also always been passionate about joining together to reach our Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria for Christ. I have never seen an area that we can afford to neglect with the Gospel. Have most of our resources as Southern Baptists been concentrated in the American Southeast? Yes. Is that area so evangelized that we can now pull out and martial our resources in another area? No.

During the period of time commonly referred to as the First Great Awakening, there was no place that was more evangelized than what is now the American Northeast. In the subsequent years, evangelism efforts focused almost exclusively outside of that area. The thought was, everybody has already heard and responded to the Gospel in that area—now it’s time to move on to those who have not been evangelized. Within a generation, the area which had been so fervently on-fire for Christ was now what historians call, “The Burned-over District”. The decline continued to the point that the American Northeast is now one of the most secular regions of the Western World.

I am not arguing against our emphasis on getting the Gospel to unreached people groups. I applaud this emphasis. But Jesus has not called us to an either/or mentality. He has called us to be witnesses everywhere at all times. That includes those who have never heard the Gospel as well as those who have heard and rejected it 1,000 times. Remember that God still sent Isaiah to preach to Israel—even though He told him that they would continually reject his message. The entire history of God’s relationship with Israel is one of them rejecting Him, but God continually sending His prophets to them. I thank God that He has never had the attitude that, “No one has the right to hear the Gospel twice as long as there are those who have never heard it once.” God has never had that attitude and neither should we.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Messengers must be allowed to vote online.

The only way for our convention to accurately reflect the will of the majority of our churches is to recognize the voice of every possible messenger. It is no secret that over 80% of our churches run less than 200 in average Sunday morning attendance. Because of the outstanding Cooperative Program giving of most small churches, we are allowed the same number of messengers as even the largest mega-churches. The problem is, most small churches and small church messengers cannot afford to send their full contingency of messengers. For example, due to our CP giving, Brushfork Baptist Church is allowed to send a full slate of messengers to the convention. Financial considerations only allowed us to send me and my wife. Even though we will only allow the church to pay for our hotel, it is a significant expense that causes a strain on our finances. Similarly, the gas, food and other expenses that my wife and I choose to pay put a tremendous strain on our personal finances. Many small churches and churches with bi-vocational pastors are simply not able to absorb that cost and send any messengers.

I believe that each messenger from each of our 40,000-plus churches needs to have every opportunity to participate in the business of our convention. Technology provides that opportunity.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Never depend on someone else to do the right thing.

Early on in discussions about the interim report of the GCR Task Force, several of us commented on the necessity of voting on the recommendations individually. Although I was fairly confident that the Task Force was going to presented them that way, we discussed the parliamentary possibilities if the report was presented as a whole. There were several options available that would have at least forced a vote on considering the recommendations individually. Had that happened, I think the outcome might have turned out differently. We will never know.

I sat amazed as the Task Force boldly presented their recommendations as a whole. My amazement grew to shock as no one moved to divide the question. A motion was made to table it, which would have effectively killed it. Although opposed to the recommendations, I voted against the motion to table. I thought that the diligent work of the Task Force should at least be decided upon. Another motion was made to refer the recommendations to the Executive Committee for further study and consideration. This seemed to be a fair motion, but was soundly defeated. The mood of the messengers (whether for or against) was to deal with the issue without further delay.

The right thing to do was to decide the issue that day. I still believe that the right thing also would have been to decide on each of the recommendations separately. I was not alone in feeling that way. As a matter of fact, nearly everybody that I talked to—both for and against—felt that way. So why did it not happen? It didn’t happen because no one made the motion.

A motion to divide the question is a simple motion. It requires a second (which the man in the rear-left of the convention hall would have eagerly and loudly made). It does not even allow debate, so absolutely no eloquence would have been required. After the motion and second, all it requires is a simple majority vote. I believe it would have had a good chance of passing—but we will never know. We will never know because no one made the motion. We will never know because I did not make the motion.

Sitting back and hoping someone else will do the right thing is the same as doing nothing. I did nothing, so we will never know what might have happened.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

It’s hard to see past our immediate context.

It's hard to see the forest past the immediate tree we're looking at.  People automatically tend to filter methodological decisions through their immediate contextual grid. Diversity is not only important to our convention, it is essential. Achieving racial diversity, non-essential theological diversity, regional diversity and church-size diversity throughout our denomination is crucial as we move forward. A white, urban Calvinist hipster has valuable insight for the direction of our convention. So does a black, inner-city revivalist missionary. So does a mega-church, multi-staff nationally known pastor. So does a rural, traditional, bi-vocational pastor. We are not a convention of white, Southern mega-churches. We are a convention of churches of all types, styles, sizes and stripes. We have churches that need planted as well as churches that need to be renewed. As a convention, our focus must be on Jerusalem (local), Judea (regional and national), Samaria (those in our region/nation who look and act different than us) and the ends of the earth—at all times in all ways. The only way that can happen is if we diligently strive to have diversity in all areas of our convention. On the boards, committees and staffs, and even on the platform.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

All issues are theological at their core.

The only way to figure out the best methodologies is to have your theology right. While the Southern Baptist Convention has settled the question of biblical inerrancy and authority, there are still great differences of interpretation in what the Bible actually says and its implications for how we function as a convention of churches. Our words clearly articulate the primacy of the local church. Our recent actions have not matched our words. Is the convention to try to act as one large church? Are the entities of the convention to take on roles and tasks traditionally and theologically reserved for local churches? How is our polity theologically informed and should we maintain and defend our traditional role of boards, committees and trustees made up of hundreds of members of diverse local churches scattered throughout our convention? Or should their clear will be usurped or manipulated by small ad hoc committees of influential personalities? Our ecclesiology should consistently inform those issues and prevent us from potential denominational shipwreck.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Politics are necessary, but don’t have to be ugly.

“Politics” carries a negative connotation in our culture. “Polis”, the word from which we get “politics” simply refers to a gathering of people. In other words, politics is what happens anytime a group of people gather. Despite the negative connotation, we can’t escape the fact that politics happen. Whether in the local church, or at a denominational level, politics are a necessary fact of life. Since politics are inevitable, we must focus on how we conduct ourselves during and after their processes. Will we be fair and just in trying to promote our positions and accomplish our ends? Will we be gracious and humble in defeat? In the months leading up to the convention and in the convention itself, we saw positive and negative examples of both. It is my prayer in the days to follow we will exhibit the mind of Christ as we move forward. I praise God that political differences were publically handled gracefully and peacefully from both the floor and the platform of this year’s convention.

Read more »