Mohler acknowledged that the idea of changing the convention name is a highly
charged issue that has the potential to create division (emphasis added) if not handled
responsibly. (full article here)The Monday evening announcement led some Executive Committee members to express
concern over the possibility of a name change and of the task force being asked
to serve without convention approval. Some also said the issue could be
divisive. (emphasis added) Wright responded by saying any proposed name change must be approved by messengers. (full article here)
A unilaterally appointed Name Change Study Task Force created without apparent Constitutional authority. Who would have thunk that such an unprecedented action would have had the potential to create division within the Convention? If the way in which this Task Force came into being is not the height of irresponsibility, then I would really hate to see what rises to the level of “not handled properly” within the context of the Southern Baptist Convention. Of course, it has become obvious that most (all?) within the highest levels of SBC leadership will not soon (if ever) publicly admit that the process that President Wright set into motion last Monday night was “not handled properly.” And, if that cannot be admitted at the outset, then grassroots Southern Baptists need to prepare for more “improper handling” of the Name Change issue in the days and months ahead. But, just like with beauty, “improper handling” is in the eye of the beholder. And, improper handling does not mean evil or immoral (although it can in some cases). In the case at hand, it simply means unwise or irresponsible.
What some might characterize as “improper” others will see as wise and entirely reasonable. Who gets to decide what is proper and what is improper? The strength of Southern Baptist polity (or governance if you prefer) is that the churches of the Convention — in and through their duly elected messengers in annual session — have the final word not only on the Name Change, but also on the propriety or impropriety of the “unusual” process that has been used in this instance. President Wright acknowledged as much when he said that the messengers must approve (or reject) any proposed Name Change.
However, there are some within the Convention who apparently don’t want much said about the improper handling of the Name Change. “No harm, no foul; nothing to see here; let’s move on.” Seen as particularly egregious are those dissenting voices who have characterized President Wright’s actions as “disrespecting the will of the messengers” (here) or “violating Southern Baptist polity.” (here) In what some have seen as an effort to set the rules of the debate in favor of Name Change proponents before the debate has even begun and to quiet certain voices, there have been calls for Southern Baptists on both sides of this issue to engage in “civil debate.” One person calling for this “civil” tone is Dr. Nathan Finn, Professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In a recent article (here), which was subsequently commended on a post at the popular SBC Voices blog, Dr. Finn implores his fellow Southern Baptists:
I want to plead with you, whatever your opinion might be on a name change, to call down the strident and unhelpful voices that share your perspective. Don’t let the mean or arrogant or irascible or elitist or ignorant tones dominate this conversation.
With all due respect to Dr. Finn (and others), his advice (which, on its face, no one would disagree with) seems somewhat familiar, perhaps like the advice that was proffered during the run-up to the GCR. However, who gets to determine who is one of those “strident” or “unhelpful” voices that need to be called down? Will we be called down because we didn’t call down those whom others believe are strident or unhelpful? Likewise, who decides what is a “mean or arrogant or irascible or elitist or ignorant” tone that should not dominate the conversation? And, who gets to set the standard for what is “over-the-top” rhetoric? If a person doesn’t like how someone else writes or the arguments he presents, then change the channel. No one forces anyone to click on a particular post. Therefore, unless something is so egregious that someone must be “called down,” don’t look for me to call anybody down anytime soon. Although I don’t believe that Dr. Finn’s article was meant to stifle debate, some leaders within the SBC would do well to remember not to try to shut down the debate before it begins. That may have worked during the GCR, but it will not work again!
And, in the days before the internet and bloggers, it didn’t work when a true grassroots movement of Southern Baptists (as opposed to the top-down approach currently in favor) challenged an earlier generation of SBC elites who did not think that the rules applied to them. The “moderates” in power in 1979 found that they could not control the debate leading to the Conservative Resurgence. The “conservatives” in power today will soon find that they can’t control the debate this time, either!
I don’t know, Howell. I am not as sanguine as you are that they won’t be able to control the “message”. Which is the same as controlling the debate in some cases as we see on several blogs.
The reason I say this is because the CR is 30 years old. Almost an entire generation has been raised up on authoritarianism and “those who are specially anointed to lead” in the post CR world of the SBC. They were not raised so much on the Priesthood as some of us were.
You can hear this in many of the comments of the younger people. They have been taught to follow the leaders and know nothing else. There is also the call for civility which seems to suggest that any disagreement is uncivil. I wish people would link to the “over the top” stuff so we can see whatthey are talking about.
These are people who cannot imagine Mohler would make a wrong decision….and even when he makes a very bad one like being involved in this, they tend to give him total benefit of the doubt and question themselves before they question him.
Some do not understand how Wright violated polity. I do not get this since the convention has it’s own governence. Do they not understand this? They do not seem to think this is important which means there is plenty of room to do such things over and over.
Everytime we allow things such as the records being sealed, we are our own worst enemy. But many tend to forget and treat each encroachment as if it is a new thing. It isn’t. It is a continuation of unwritten policy that will become SOP. It will be too late to change anything.
Lydia,
I’m not throwing in the towel just yet (not that you are either). I wrote a commment on Voices the other day that I think is important to remember in this debate. For all the “comments of the younger people,” there are countless others who never comment. Some of those may like the direction the Convention is headed, but others — perhaps many others — do not. By looking at the comments on certain blogs — say SBC Voices for instance — we might come to the conclusion that the SBC is made up mostly of young Calvinists. Even as a regular contributor at Voices, I am in the minority there. However, I don’t think we can base the constituency of the SBC merely on the vocal few. It reminds me of the story of the cocktail party in Manhattan following the landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972. One of the party goers was flabbergasted that Nixon won because she did not know anyone who voted for him. Many within the ruling class and the younger, church planter (and with overlap, Calvinist) class do not know anyone personally that is against the GCR or the total focus on church planting or that does not favor a name change. Nixon talked often of a silent majority. Maybe I’m off base, but we might see and hear that silent majority speak loud and clear in New Orleans that “enough is enough.” If it doesn’t happen in New Orleans, then you are probably right that it will be too late to change anything. But, I still have hope that the majority of Southern Baptists — both young, middle aged (which I suppose is where I fall), and older — understand that it’s not just about the ends, but the means that we use to get there. When we forget that, I’m not sure I want to be a part of that. Keep speaking out and let your voice be heard. Thanks for your words this morning. Have a great day and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Of course our leaders want to stifle the debate. That has been their M.O. and it will continue to be as long as they are successful using it. Nathan Finn is a nice young man, but he has been and continues to be, used as a pawn of Danny Akin. Anytime Akin wants to get his point of view to the blogosphere it typically comes through Finn or the other contributors at the Between the Times blog.
Dr. Mohler has already played the “spiritual card,” in that he has said that all “Gospel-minded” people will want to change the name (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36190). A statement like that is offensive to me as it implies that if I am not for a name change, then i am not “Gospel-minded.” Shame on you, Dr. Mohler. This is the same sort of rhetoric we heard from the GCRTF supporters (if you are for the Great Commission you will vote for this). It is blatant guilt-mongering at its best.
If someone wanted to destroy the Southern Baptist Convention, they could not do a better job of it than through what is happening now with our current leadership.
The current direction of the SBC (reformed, ashamed of our name and our history, lackof support for CP) will destroy our convention and I, for one, will not be a party to it.
Regards,
Les Puryear
Les,
I would probably not use the word “pawn” when describing Dr. Finn’s relationship with Dr. Akin, but I think it is entirely appropriate to point out the obvious connections that the two men have. This would help grassroots Southern Baptists see that Dr. Finn’s post may or may not be the unbiased piece that some are portraying it to be. Not only is the “spiritual card” being played, but I believe an even bigger card and much more insidious card will be played in New Orleans. Not only will I not be a party to this type of politics of personal destruction, I will continue to shine a bright spotlight on the words and actions of those in power. If the grassroots does not stand up in New Orleans, then the SBC as we know it will cease to exist. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
The majority of mainline Southern Baptists are not social media savvy, do not blog, and have no idea that this and other related developments within SBC life are taking place. Things of this sort are hatched well in advance of the annual convention, where messengers must scurry to review and decide. On the other hand, SBC’s young, restless and reformed, and certain SBC leadership which influence and encourage them, are effectively networking with each other on the web on an on-going basis. If local church leaders are not informing their people of these things, most of the SBC faithful have no clue what is headed at them. But shepherds are in a tough squeeze on this, lest they be viewed as stirring controversy and division in their flocks. Thus, the grassroots are not adequately informed and not involved.
Max,
Even though some mainline Southern Baptists are not up on the lastest social media, I think that we can still inform them of what is happening within the Convention. Pick up the phone, direct them to read blogs, and do whatever it takes to get the word out. I have never said that this was a conspiracy, but I believe that many within power within the SBC are part of an effective network that is operating a well-oiled political machine. If anyone thinks that these actions are happening randomly and without major coordination, I would say that is the height of naivete. When our leaders talk transparency and then seal records for 15 years (records which may contain conversations about name change), then we have a major problem. And, just like in government, the only thing that can help fix this problem and abuse of power is to let the sunshine in and to expose the words and actions of leaders who would like all of this to fly under the radar. Not this time! Thanks for stopping by. God bless,
Howell
The name change is part of the game change — the New Oligarchy of the GCR continues to work their plan. The talking points seem to be the Three R’s:
1. Racists — as “Southern” Bapists we must change our terrible image as slaveholders.
2. Regionalists — as “Southern” Baptists we must project a new image of being cosmopolitan and urbane.
3. Reaching — this will help us win more people and plant more churches.
Ron,
I love the illiteration. As Ed would often say to Johnny, “You are correct, sir!” My student pastor and I often joke how we can put pressure on people to serve or to do something by saying, “If you love Jesus, you will (fill in the blank).” That’s what this will come down to. If you love the Kingdom, the lost, seeing people saved, removing barriers, etc., you will do whatever it takes to see that accomplished. Of course, in this case it will be changing the name of the Convention. When the President of the Convention, in 2010, likened those who opposed the GCR to rebellious spies who died in the desert, my eyes were completely opened. Spiritual abuse happens at the local church level and it happens on the national level. I will continue to speak out against this type of abuse of power wherever and whenever it occurs. I like your use of the “New Oligarchy.” I may have to borrow that 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Here is a link to an article about it in my local paper. (It was also in the printed version)
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110923/COLUMNISTS22/309240017/Southern-Baptists-again-consider-name-change