Annual Meeting Review and Evaluation

I’ve been meaning to write this SBC Annual Meeting wrap up for several days know but I keep stopping after the opening sentence because I’m having a hard time knowing where to begin and where to stop. Quite frankly, I’m thoroughly disappointed by the activities of our messengers at this convention as well as convention leadership. There definitely were pockets of good and I don’t want my disappointment to overshadow the good news coming out of the Convention.

For one, the reports of the Seminary presidents were wonderful. Each gave a strongly worded commitment to top rate scholarship founded on a commitment to Biblical authority. I wasn’t alive, let alone active in the convention, when the seminaries had gotten so far off track into liberalism. However, I do come from a state where Baptist colleges such as Carson-Newman and Belmont have largely abandoned their commitment to Biblical authority and thus I can appreciate institutions of higher learning which honor Biblical authority.

Furthermore, the messengers received very encouraging reports from the Domestic and International missions agencies. Record giving in both the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings was just one of the ways in which God’s hand could be seen in Southern Baptist missionary efforts. I would encourage you to read (or watch, if you can get the SBC video player to work properly) the NAMB report and the IMB report for further details.

Lastly, I’m glad that the messengers in Greensboro voted Frank Page in as the Convention President. His laid back demeanor and statesmanship was much appreciated throughout the days of the annual meeting. He was exceedingly gracious when moderating the meeting and dealing with messengers. He also showed a willingness to use a firm hand when necessary. A vote came up (I can’t remember the issue under consideration) which required a 2/3 majority vote. Initially Dr. Page thought the vote required a simple majority and had indicated the majority had it. The messengers (my self included) began to verbally express our disagreement with the chair’s evaluation. Dr. Page, when advised a 2/3 majority vote was needed, reversed his decision. He then turned to the messengers and firmly stated that he was changing the chair’s ruling but that we were not to “holler” at him. We messengers laughed as if he was giving us a good-natured ribbing but there was no excess humor in Dr. Page’s demeanor. From there on out no one moaned or groaned at decisions coming from the chair.

When I went to San Antonio I had three issues which I was most concerned about. One, I thought that Tom Ascol’s resolution on integrity in reporting church membership statistics was a badly needed catalyst to begin the process of returning SBC churches to a right focus on regenerate membership. Secondly, I thought that Wade Burleson’s (at least I believe he was the originator) idea of developing a database which would record and disseminate information regarding our SBC ministers who had been involved in scandals regarding children would be helpful in demonstrating that the SBC took this issue seriously enough to do something concrete to stamp out the problem. Lastly, I wanted to see attention given to Voddie Baucham’s initiative to develop legitimate alternatives to government education which, like government cheese, leaves much to be desired in terms of quality.

Sadly, none of those three issues even made it to the floor for discussion. All three were caught in the Resolutions Committee filter.

Tom Ascol’s was the only one of the three which was considered for discussion at that only because Tom made an issue of it. I struggle with why anyone would have a problem with Tom’s resolution. One person objected to it on the grounds that it steps on local autonomy. At the time I was struck by what a strange Baptist world I was living in, where autonomy as a Baptist distinctive would be used as a barrier to a resolution encouraging regenerate church membership, another Baptist distinctive. Regardless, considering that Tom’s resolution had nothing to do with making any local church actually do anything the objector’s point was completely invalid. Thus far Tom’s resolution has been rejected on the grounds that non-attending members can be targeted as contacts and most recently because the motion interfered with local church autonomy (which is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest). I’m curious as to how many more excuses will be used before the SBC decides to be more honest with itself and it’s culture.

Tom’s resolution, even being rejected before arriving at a vote, enjoyed a measure of attention that the other two issues of concern would envy, considering they were never even brought to the point of discussion of whether or not they should be embraced. Oh, did I mention that the messengers did pass a resolution stating firmly that we were against child abuse. You be the judge: is it better to make a statement along of the lines of “We don’t like child abuse and want to see it stopped” or to create a system that might actually do something to end child abuse? The refusal to do anything beyond paying lip service is evidenced in regards to Voddie Bachaum’s initiative as well. Southern Baptists have made much noise about pulling out of public schools and investing in private education. However, it becomes apparent that, when a resolution dealing with putting action to the issue can’t even make it to the floor of the convention, we are satisfied with just making the noise.

Looking back on the convention it has become clear that the biggest decision made by the messengers at this year’s meeting was the adoption of the Executive Committee’s statement about the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Those who wanted to see the motion pass were so focused on seeing this become a reality that they schemed in hotel rooms, occupied microphone stands, and strategized to end discussion of the matter on the floor before anyone could speak against the motion. Regrettably, that cowardly and despicable effort (more on that in a later post) prevailed, at least insofar as the motion did indeed pass. This passage brought a great deal of crowing by those who so carefully crafted the scheme and with it’s passage boldly proclaimed this action as the end of doctrinal accountability beyond the issues which the BF&M 2k addressed directly. This naive view of their assumed gains came crashing down (in reality, if not in their imaginations) once Albert Mohler took the platform and expressed his interpretation of the motion. To thunderous applause (at least as much as 8000-ish messengers can thunder) Mohler assured the gathered body that Southern would use the BF&M as a guide and not an end to doctrinal observation. Regardless of what intention those who framed the motion are seeking it is obvious that the convention messengers were not looking to end greater doctrinal accountability but rather encourage it’s beginning with the BF&M 2k. Because of that, any attempts to make the BF&M 2k the ceiling of doctrinal accountability within SBC entities will melt away under the heat of the will of what the messengers intended to do, not what they were supposedly manipulated into doing. And make no mistake, their intention was expressed when they loudly cheered Al Mohler’s assurance that the BF&M 2k would be the basis for doctrinal accountability at Southern Seminary.

So if so much went so bad this year what can be done to fix the problem?

1. Churches must send more messengers, particularly messengers that are interested in doing business at the convention.

The last time the SBC met in San Antonio there were more than 32,000 messengers present. This year there were approximately 8,000. A great number of those spent their time at the meeting hoping that someone would call for the question on the motion being considered so we could be done with this troublesome business mess and get on to something more enjoyable. It was precisely this attitude which Ben Cole and his conspirators played on in their attempt to force their will upon the convention, regardless of what the people would actually want. This has to end or we will continue to see small, well coordinated groups of individuals push an agenda that is far out of step with the majority of the people in Southern Baptist pews. To attend the convention as anything other than someone prepared to do business from a well-educated position about the pressing issues is nothing short of an abrogation of responsibility and should be viewed as shameful dereliction. It is time for SBC churches to make a priority of being at the annual meeting prepared to guard and promote that which has been entrusted to us by the people we represent.

2. There must be more time given to debate and deliberation of proposed motions and resolutions.

There is a certain type of person who hates the idea of discussing a motion/resolution. I know because I used to be that just that type. They mistakenly believe that every issue, regardless of how complex, can be evaluated in the amount of time it takes to tie a shoelace. Thus, the approach of anyone to a microphone for discussion is met with a sigh of frustration and contemplation of going forth to end discourse. Really, I can understand this. How many business meetings have you been a part of where you prayed that Christ would return so that Brother or Sister Soandso would have their speech interrupted? However, The SBC’s annual (read: once per year) meeting it is not an appropriate time to use your Robert’s Rules Fast Forward Button and end discussion on complex and nuanced issues that impact the operations of entities commissioned with training ministers, deploying missionaries, and educating believers. People with agendas to push, who care nothing for what the majority would think about the issues they are pushing, prey on this impatience and unwillingness to deal thoughtfully with these important matters to railroad binding decisions which do not reflect the will of the majority. Those who refuse to thoroughly deliberate and contemplate these matters betray their obligation to be faithful stewards of an entity as large as the SBC. I’m loathe to gripe about a problem without presenting a solution so here is an idea…

3. Trim the “fluff” from the program by placing non business related items on a separate day of the program.

If the purpose of the annual meeting is to encourage cross-SBC congregational singing then let that be known and stop holding business sessions. On the other hand, if the purpose is business then stop hurrying the business sessions so that the next 1st Baptist Big Church choir/vocal group can regale us with their musical acumen. Separate the two so that those who came to handle the affairs of the convention aren’t rushed into poor decisions and those who came to be entertained can stop being interrupted by business sessions. On a related note, could we please insist that those people assigned to certain tasks on the agenda actually stick to their assigned task? I’m speaking of those people who were assigned to lead prayer at the convention. Let me be perfectly clear: we need people to lead prayer; prayer is important. However, there was only one gentleman who I remember that, when it came time for him to lead prayer, stepped to the microphone and said “Let us pray.” All the rest took it as an opportunity to sermonize (and not briefly). Please stop that. There is a (at least) two day Pastor’s conference which is ample time for giving and receiving sermonizing. I’m sorry if you weren’t invited to preach at the Pastor’s conference but your assignment to lead the convention in prayer is not an opportunity to preach at the Southern Baptist Convention. I know that probably sounds horribly bitter. Perhaps it is. The fact of that matter is that I’m incredibly frustrated over the continual push to speed up the business sessions, which leads to truncated discussion on important issues, when it goes alongside people preaching when they should be praying and an endless slate of choirs and congregational singing (not to mention lengthy and repetitive videos interspersed randomly throughout the day).

Here’s my proposal: Continue to do the two day Pastor’s conference. Let all the preachers preach and the singers sing. Then, on the first day of the business sessions, actually have a business agenda. Take proposals of motions. Allow the one proposing to speak to it briefly. Have the resolutions that the Resolutions Committee approved read with a time of discussion. Have ½ of the scheduled miscellaneous business sessions. Have the seminary/agencies reports that night (if time allows) with a question and answer time. The next morning have the other ½ of the scheduled miscellaneous business sessions and any of the seminary/agency reports that weren’t done the previous night. Have a time for consideration (read: discussion) on the proposed resolutions then the vote. Take the rest of the time to consider and then vote on the motions, moving in order from those proposed first on the previous day down to the last motion proposed on the second. Afterwards have the President’s address and the various recognitions so that people have a good reason to hang around.

To some that will seem exceedingly utilitarian. I would answer that it is a form that follows the intended function of the business days of the Annual Meeting. It should also work out well for the messengers. Those that aren’t interested in doing business would know when to cut out and return. Those who are interested don’t have to set through all the non-essentials that bog down the schedule for those who are there to conduct business.

Miscellaneous San Antonio Stuff
- San Antonio is a beautiful city which, although hot, made for a pleasant setting to house the annual meeting. Surprise, surprise, the vaunted Riverwalk is indeed beautiful and worth checking out if you are in San Antonio.
- San Antonians (?) love being Texan, hanging flags, and their Spurs. I can appreciate their lone-star patriotism, smile at the abundance of flags everywhere, and join them in loving good professional basketball. Actually, considering the scarcity of NBA fans in my life, it was quite refreshing to be in a city that was excited about the NBA.
- It was nice catching up with Steve Weaver and his wife Gretta. Their newest child Lydia is beautiful. I also got to catch back up with friends I’d not seen in a long time by the names of Greg Long, his wife Susan, and Darrell Winters. I pressed the flesh with Jerry Vines, Ed Stetzer, Russell Moore, Tom Ascol, and Voddie Bauchaum just long enough to tell them I appreciated what the were doing and encourage them to keep it up.
- I also had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Chris Wilson of Belmont Heights Baptist Church in Nasvhille, TN. He was kind enough to buy Christie and I lunch (something I always appreciate) and the intra-lunch conversation convinced me Belmont Heights have themselves a fine pastor. If you are looking for a church in the Nashville area I recommend you check out Belmont Heights.

Other SBC Wrap Ups

Steve Weaver

Tom Ascol

Ben Cole

Nathan Finn

Robin Foster

Don Hinkle/Scott Lamb

Herschel York

In addition Bart Barber, Marty Duren, Wes Kenney, and Wade Burleson have all posted concluding thoughts on the 2007 Convention, just not in one large post.