San Antonio Hindsight: Part Three

Word of the Year: Irenic

The report of the Committee on Resolutions was, in my analysis, reflective of President Frank Page's peaceful spirit. Any resolution that had the slightest whiff of any controversy whatsoever made its way into the wastepaper can. The committee's anti-controversy policy was evenhandedly applied to all parties. As soon as I saw the report, I was more than happy to leave the Resolutions report alone entirely and respect the committee's quest for peace. It was a good enough disposition of this year's flood of resolutions. Nevertheless, allow me to observe that this approach to resolutions, if applied year-after-year, will eventually become counterproductive. Consider, for example, the heated debate over the meaning of the vague EC statement on the BF&M. At least two submitted resolutions dealt squarely and specifically with this topic: Les Puryear's and mine. Neither resolution was ambiguous. Les did a good job of writing his. I think I did a fair job of writing mine. The Committee on Resolutions decided to trash both of our resolutions. The SBC (through no fault of the Committee on Resolutions) wound up adopting a vague statement that both Les Puryear and I supported and in favor of which we both voted. Conflict can be constructive when it resolves something. Consideration of either of our resolutions would have been definitive—would have resolved something. We avoided that moment of contest in San Antonio, but as a result the conflict remains entirely unresolved. I don't savor the idea of the SBC becoming like the members of a disfunctional family who caustically argue with one another every night without achieving any resolution. Neither do I savor the idea of the SBC becoming like the members of a disfunctional family who stuff it all in and ignore matters of difference until the unresolved conflict kills the relationship. Rather, we ought to give our convention processes the opportunity to address differences frankly and to bring some resolution to issues hanging up in the air. Eventually, a dogged determination to avert substantive conflict will only make it fester. But for one year—this year especially—the Resolutions report was a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Dr. Page.

Endorsements, Part One

For President of the Southern Baptist Convention: Frank Page I was wrong. Not in voting for Jerry Sutton. Dr. Sutton would have made an excellent president. If he ever runs again, he has my vote. I was wrong about Dr. Frank Page. I've wanted to say so for some time, now, but I've been reluctant to do so, knowing that some would not take my remarks seriously, alleging that my retraction is some act of fealty in return for an appointment to the Committee on Committees. Actually, I doubt very much that Dr. Page reads Praisegod Barebones, I doubt very much that he has any idea at all who Bart Barber is, and I doubt very much that he personally selected my name for service on the Committee on Committees. For all I know, if he had known more about me, he might never have appointed me! Certainly, we've never had the pleasure of personal acquaintance. At Greensboro last year, I knew only two things about Dr. Page: The basic gist of his dissertation (which I did not read for myself until later) and that he was being advanced in certain circles as the "dissent" candidate. I am not a dissenter. I publicly predicted that he would side with moderates and liberals. Rather, he has carefully and publicly distanced himself from such things as the New Baptist Covenant (Ben Cole's spin notwithstanding). If I had last year to do over again, I would still vote for Dr. Sutton. But this year, having observed him for a year, I can gladly vote for Dr. Page and recommend that you do so, too.

The Thorny Problem of Texas Appointments

One of the issues that people will be watching as SBC 2007 approaches is the list of committee appointments from Texas. Much discussion has taken place asking what would be a fair delegation from Texas. Sometimes people act as though the answer to this question is an easy one. It isn't.

The structure of the Southern Baptist Convention simply doesn't anticipate the current situation in Texas. Right now in Texas there are two Southern Baptist state conventions, the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. BGCT's relationship with the SBC is less friendly than SBTC's relationship with the SBC. The SBC has a limited number of options available to it:

1. It can make some effort to distribute appointments evenly between BGCT-affiliated churches and SBTC-affiliated churches. The SBTC is a smaller convention than the BGCT, but it fowards 52% (it will be 53% by the time of SBC 2007) of its CP receipts to the SBC. The SBTC plans eventually to max-out at a 55%-45% split. The BGCT has a much larger budget, but it forwards only 21% of its CP recepts to the SBC (a number that may possibly decline further by the time of SBC 2007). The net effect is that each convention forwards about the same dollar amount to SBC—something in the neighborhood of $10 million. If one uses dollars forwarded in CP as the standard for apportionment of appointments, then an even split would seem to be appropriate. Several problems complicate this approach:
   1. What is a BGCT church? What is an SBTC church? A significant number of churches in Texas are dually-aligned with both the BGCT and the SBTC. If a member from such a church is appointed, does that count as a BGCT appointment or an SBTC appointment? People sympathetic to the BGCT tend to treat such appointments as SBTC appointments, but is that really accurate or fair?
   2. What about equity with other state conventions? The end result of this approach is that both BGCT and SBTC wind up with about half the number of appointments as that of other state conventions that forward fewer dollars to the SBC CP than either of these Texas state conventions. In the case of SBTC, it would have half the appointments of states that underperform it both in the measure of percentages and the measure of dollars. Is that fair? I think not.
   3. Do the BGCT's recent actions vis-a-vis the SBC not have some impact on what is fair? BGCT has locked SBC seminaries out of the exhibits at the BGCT annual meeting. BGCT has started a missions network to compete with the IMB, a literature publisher to compete with Lifeway, a Christian Life Commission to counter the ERLC (although the CLC's creation far predates the present controversy), and multiple seminaries to draw students away from the SBC seminaries. Why is the SBC bound to practice some overly restrictive notion of "fairness" toward the BGCT when the BGCT does not reciprocate with any goodwill toward the SBC?
2. It can ignore the BGCT and appoint people solely from the SBTC. Yet this is not particularly fair, either. Not everyone in the BGCT agrees with what BGCT leadership is doing. Some churches turn a blind eye toward convention politics. Although BGCT keeps all but a trickle of its CP money in Texas, some BGCT churches designate around the BGCT budget and continue to support faithfully the SBC. Some people would gladly join SBTC but are in the minority in their churches and therefore remain in BGCT. Also, the BGCT has not yet consummated its plan to leave the SBC. So, there are faithful Southern Baptists whom conservatives could support who are somehow still within the confines of the BGCT. It would not be fair for BGCT affiliation to be an ipso facto disqualification for appointment to an SBC committee.
3. It could completely re-evaluate the current system of state-by-state apportionment of nominees. This would give the opportunity for a new set of answers to address new questions posed by a new reality in Southern Baptist life, because Texas is not the only state either facing these problems now or soon to face them. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive of a solution that would be able to gain sufficient support to move forward. The SBC could apportion nominees to each participating state convention, but such an approach would encourage states to have as many state conventions as possible—not a desirable outcome. The SBC could apportion nominees proportionally either by membership or by contributions to SBC CP causes, but such an approach would kill any idea of meaningful membership reform and would be open to a whole host of abuses. Somebody may be brilliant enough to develop a panacea, but that person is not me.

In conclusion, I have to ask this question: Is the point of appointments and nominations really some sort of a "fair distribution"? Maybe we ought to be focusing on effectiveness rather than fairness. I think that we ought to select people to serve our convention who are in theological agreement with the messengers, are well equipped to serve in the area in question, and whose loyalties are not divided among the SBC and the CBF or other institutions. If we are putting into service people who meet these criteria, I am prepared not to care which state conventions may contain their home churches.

We Played the Flute for You…

<Satire Alert>
Dear Dr. Patterson:

We are sick to death of dealing with you. Things have changed in the SBC. It is time for you to acknowledge that we won 1 out of 20 votes at the Greensboro annual meeting, and therefore we are the rulers of the SBC. As rulers, of course we get to set the rules. So why do you keep disobeying the rules? There's a new sheriff in town, bucko, and if you don't step in line, we're going to remove the rather large stick from Kevin Bussey's eye and come after you with it.

But we want to be longsuffering and patient. Perhaps you have forgotten the rules. We know that, once people get older than 40, life is pretty much over and you can't remember anything any longer. So, for one last time, we're going to review the rules with you:

1. You may not have an opinion about how anyone does anything anywhere—especially regarding anything that happens in the Southern Baptist Convention. Above all, you and the seminary may never ever seek to communicate behind-the-scenes any opinions about how other agencies ought to run. Other agencies will refine their theology without the input of theologians, thank you very much. To seek to communicate privately with other agencies will be considered smoke-filled-room collusion and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
2. However, if another agency is doing something with which WE DISAGREE, then the previous rule will be considered null-and-void. But beyond that, not only will private communication be OK, but anything less than your full efforts to disseminate such criticism of other agencies will be considered DICTATORIAL INSUBORDINATION. We warn you, sir, that we will not stand idly by while you use your bully pulpit to remain silent. To seek not to criticize other agencies publicly will be considered censorship and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
3. However, the previous rule will not apply to public information that we have not approved. It we're talking about....oh, I don't know....someone's dissertation, then under no circumstances can you allow anyone to have access to that material. You go get one of those elephant guns out of your safari room and YOU PERSONALLY STAND GUARD OVER AT THAT LIBRARY. Remember, public sermons that criticize other agencies, but with our approval, you are under obligation to promote, but suppression of dissertations or other material that might tend to embarrass us will not be considered censorship; in fact, you are under personal obligation to suppress such material.
4. You must return our telephone calls IMMEDIATELY. No matter what else may be going on. Even on days when every press organ within 500 miles is calling. WE ARE IMPORTANT NOW!!!!!!!!!! When we say "Jump!" we expect you to ask "How high?" and to do so within no more than twenty minutes. And we're not talking about some staff flunkie. By golly, you pick up that phone and you call us and you get your instructions and YOU DO IT RIGHT AWAY.
5. No matter what you do, we are going to criticize you. After all, hatred of you is the only thing that binds together our rather diverse coalition. So please understand, that it isn't personal. We have commented publicly that we respect you and consider you a brother. It isn't personal; it is business. Our political movement can only keep going forward if, periodically, we trot you out and use you to remind people how much we all hate you because we think you once-upon-a-time trotted out people to use them politically. Especially if one of us has recently said something embarrassing from which we need to divert attention, we will be using you politically.
6. Remember, we have unanimously elected you the only person in Southern Baptist life who must be labelled, must never get the benefit of the doubt...we will carp and criticize every move you make until the day that you die (and Lord, may it come quickly). But don't forget, it is all in an effort to teach you to be less critical and more gracious and tolerant.
7. And we fully support everything that you and others did to make the conservative resurgence take place, but we just wish you hadn't done any of it. We are solid conservatives, and we will not tolerate anyone who is not conservative teaching in our seminaries, but we don't want you firing anybody. NO FIRING IN OUR SEMINARIES. If you don't obey us on this point, you're fired.

I hope this helps to set things straight. We realize that this is a time of difficult adjustment for you. It is a new day in the SBC. We're leaving politics behind forever, and we're getting organized for San Antonio to make certain that it happens.

Sincerely,
(You know who we are)

Interlude: Suggestion for Frank Page

As someone who has read every word of Frank Page's dissertation, I am very glad that he is, apparently, disavowing some of what he wrote twenty-six years ago. The folks over at Ethics Daily have called him out on this. Marty Duren has released a press statement reiterating in undisputable terms the recantation of his dissertation.

I suggest that Dr. Page write an academic article detailing a strong case for the ordination of only men as pastors. As someone who has written a dissertation in the field on the other side, Page would seem to be better qualified than most to refute feminist views. He offered to the world a lengthy and forceful case for the ordination of women as pastors. If Page believes that to have been the dissemination of error, wouldn't it be appropriate for him to dedicate some serious attention to providing a correcting publication of similar quality?

Also, although his current press release along the lines of "I've changed my mind since then" sounds suspiciously like "I actually voted for women in ministry before I voted against it," (Did Dr. Page earn any purple hearts fighting for the conservative resurgence?) if Dr. Page were to write a strong, cogent, academically sound paper supporting the view articulated in the BF&M 2000, that would go a long way towards settling the fears that I harbor about him and the future he envisions for the SBC. It would also perhaps clear up his present view of the inspiration of the Bible—one that I hope also has changed for the better since he wrote his dissertation.