Unenumerated Categories of SBC Messengers

Baptist Press reports today the official messenger counts for SBC 2011 in Phoenix. They are, pretty much, what was reported back during the actual event, but demographic breakdowns now appear with the numbers, giving age categorizations and state-by-state analysis of the attendance.

The state bringing the most messengers to Phoenix was Tennessee. Perhaps that puzzles you. Why would a state so far away from Phoenix be the state contributing the largest number of messengers to the meeting? Are Tennesseans just the most loyal, faithful, and trustworthy Southern Baptists?

Well, maybe they are, but a more likely explanation is the fact that the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, one office of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention are all headquartered in Tennessee. Tennessee accounted for a whopping 1 in 12 messengers in part because of the fact that a large number of employees from these entities—who are also mostly members from Nashville area churches—are required as a part of their jobs to come to the convention. The next three most represented states were Georgia (NAMB), Texas (SWBTS and Guidestone), and North Carolina (SEBTS). Together, these top four states represented 27% of the total messenger count.

Looking at these numbers gives me the opportunity to say something that I always said to my Baptist Heritage classes back when I was teaching. There are three categories of messengers present at each year's SBC Annual Meeting:

1. Those whose job requires them to be there and pays for them to attend. Most of this category are the people who are employed by the denomination. Some number close to 100% of these people will be in attendance every year, many of them registered to vote.
2. Those whose job, while it does not require them to be there, will pay for them to attend. That's me, partially (my church's SBC convention allowance is $500, which comes nowhere near paying for the full cost to attend). Mostly these are the full-time pastors (and their families) of larger SBC churches. A surprising number of these folks actually will not come to the convention, but this category will be amply represented at the meeting. This number will also include those who have been appointed to committees or who are otherwise serving the convention in such a manner that their expenses are being covered by the rest of us rather than by their home churches, and the preponderance of that subcategory will be in attendance.
3. Those who have to pay out of their own pockets to attend. These are the majority of Southern Baptists and they represent an enormous number of Southern Baptist churches too small and too poor (or too penny-wise and pound-foolish) to pay for their pastor to attend. A very small percentage of these folks will attend, and they ought to receive a standing ovation at every year's convention. They love the SBC.

This is why we all ought to make every effort to attend SBC meetings when we can. When numbers dip, they disproportionately come out of categories two and three. The denominational employees of the SBC are fine, wonderful people. An enormous quantity of them were once exactly what you and I are now—faithful members and pastors of SBC churches who love the convention and served it well even before being hired by the SBC. But no matter how noble our denominational employees are, it is a mistake if we ever get to the point where the opinion of the denominational employees is the determining factor choosing the future of our convention. That's not our polity; that's Roman Catholic polity.

The harder it is for you to attend the SBC Annual Meetings, the more you ought to try to go and be a voice for the people like you who can't go every year.

The Nadir of the SBC?

The headline is inherently ominous: " Phoenix SBC attendance lowest since '44." Like most people, I was prepared to see a slight dip in SBC attendance, just because we were going all the way to Phoenix. But as the headline makes clear, the paucity of messengers in Phoenix cannot be explained by the vagaries of geography and political cycle that normally cause messenger count to oscillate: This was historic: Many of our churches could have hosted this annual meeting in their own facilities.

The proposed explanations are predictable. "It's too far away!"

But the last time we were in Phoenix we had 47% more messengers.

"It isn't a 'real' election year."

But in 2003, the last time we were in Phoenix, it was a re-election year (Jack Graham) just as it was this year. In fact, this year's elections were MORE contentious than they were the last time in Phoenix: all of the offices went unopposed in 2003, but not all elections were uncontested this year.

"It's the economy(, stupid)."

But the previous record was in 1944. The economy has not been waxing continuously since 1944. We've had more economic downturns in that span of years than I dare to count: Three that I remember myself.

"It's the bitter fruit reaped from that evil Conservative Resurgence."

<sarcasm>Yes, if only we could experience the robust growth of non-conservative Baptist groups like the BGCT or the CBF.</sarcasm> I'm willing to concede that controversy can drive people away from a group. For the sake of discussion, allow me to grant temporarily that we are declining in messenger count entirely because of the Conservative Resurgence. If so, then why would the blame fall only on conservatives? It takes two to tango. The Conservative Resurgence was caused by a century-long pattern of responding to grass-roots concerns about denominational liberalism with a disingenuous "There, there" mouthed by doublespeaking denominational bureaucrats. If the SBC apparatus had demonstrated some willingness to respond to messenger concerns in 1925, 1963, and 1970, then 1979 would likely have looked much different. We were headed down the same road as the ABC, compared to whom our messenger registrations totals look like Pentecost. I am not moved by claims that the Conservative Resurgence has killed our denomination.

"It's because our meetings don't reach out to 'younger leaders' in the SBC."

But this was THE 'younger leader' convention year, as the stereotypes go. This was the year of the Necktie Nazis. This was the year when there were more Acts 29 folks on the platform than Southern Baptists. A deliberate campaign is underway to woo a certain caricature of 'younger leaders' into our annual meetings.

Fact are our friends. The facts are coming in. The more that we bend over backwards to try to interest people who really aren't that interested in the SBC, the more that we accomplish two things: (1) We fail to bring in a category of people who are never going to be interested in the SBC (more on that below), and (2) we drive away people who really are interested in the SBC by showing them the backs of our hands. The SBC really needs to consider the old proverb about the bird in the hand.

This was the year that nobody came. I was cajoled in a friendly fashion on Twitter earlier this week (when I said that I would watch the live-feed while wearing a tie) to embrace "the new normal." Are sub-5000 messenger counts the "new normal," too? We're soon to be told how this was actually a good year of attendance, but the numbers say otherwise, unless you have an agenda to construe them.

Of all of the younger folks around us, why is it so hard to court the particular group for which our convention has such passionate, unrequited stirrings? By an unscientific analysis of tweets coming from the convention, I would highlight a few things:

Our Annual Meeting is going to be a hard sell to anybody who doesn't like congregationalism. It is the epitome of congregationalism, and that's not going away any time soon. People at our meetings are going to speak their minds. Some of them will speak their convictions about right and wrong without running it by a press secretary first.

Our Annual Meeting is going to be a hard sell to anybody who considers himself or herself "post-denominational." Although our structure is different from that of the more hierarchical, non-locally-autonomous groups, to a post-denominationalist, we certainly are a denomination.

The Southern Baptist Convention is going to be a hard sell to people who are ashamed of being Southern or ashamed of being Baptist. Or, if they are neither Southern nor Baptist, it is going to be a hard sell to those who despise Southern-ness and Baptist-ness. People want to change the name sometimes—I think that's a surrogate for changing the makeup of the convention. The name fits us pretty well, or at least it has done so. We have redneck roots. Some of us are proud of them; some people are mortified by them. But Just for Men has never manufactured enough dye to cover those roots up. That's who we are.

Pandering is unattractive. I don't like dye-jobs anyway. "Hey, Southern Baptists! I'm a younger leader. Who are you?" The correct reply is not "Who do you want us to be?" I'm not a star-studded analyst of the generations, but I think that younger people are not moved by disingenuous branding and marketing. I'd much rather that the SBC be a genuine something than a malleable, Potemkin anything.

I hope that this year was the nadir of the SBC. A nadir marks a bottom point from which you rise. Some very positive things are at work in our midst. I hope that we can go another 70 years of never hitting this low point again. I believe that our North American Mission Board needed a fresh start, and although my antennae are up against intermingling with Acts 29 (although I am working on an upcoming post about things we need to learn from Acts 29), I believe that Kevin Ezell is making some hard, healthy changes at NAMB. He has my prayers and my support. I am really excited about Tom Eliff at the International Mission Board. I look around me and see a rising coterie of good, dynamic, convictional Southern Baptists who are well poised to lead this family of churches into the coming decades.

Let's invest in who we have rather than pining for who we do not. Let's design our Annual Meetings with those in mind who are committed to attend them. Let us not make the mistake of trying to bring in those who don't come by driving away those who do. It would be far easier to succeed at the latter half of that project than the former, and it would be a shame to wind up entirely empty-handed.

Surely, we won't do that.

Unity and Cooperation in the Southern Baptist Convention

Tomorrow will be the first time in their lives that my two children have failed to attend the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. In my own twenty-four years of service as a Southern Baptist pastor, I have missed the meeting many times, having often lacked the funding to attend. Since 2001 in New Orleans, however, I have attended every year.

Not this year.

My reasons are manifold. The economy is not good, and we've made budget cuts at FBC Farmersville. I chose to number my convention allowance among them. I do not believe that this would be a wise long-term strategy, because attending the convention is important. If we can afford to send nearly $100,000 through the Cooperative Program each year, we can spend a few hundred to have our voice in how that money is spent. But, in response to a short-term financial need, I think that it can be wise to miss the meeting for one year.

Also, the arrival of their newest child prevented my brother- and sister-in-law from attending, and they are constant members of our party. Phoenix is a lengthy distance from Farmersville. It is an "off" election year. The meeting has good opportunity to be tranquil. I saw nothing listed in the program that I couldn't enjoy as well over the Internet, if not occupied otherwise. As I said, I had many reasons to choose not to attend.

Today the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention have signed an Affirmation of Unity and Cooperation. The statement is a nice indication that people care about or wish to have unity and cooperation. Fine. But I have to admit that I'm impressed little by the drafting of documents and the publication of statements.

Here's what impresses me. By email, text message, Twitter, Facebook, phone call, and indirect contact, more people than I could possibly count have contacted me to try to locate me, set up a meal with me, or express their regret that I am not present. I'm a person who is passionate about ideas. I've passionately advocated for ideas that contradict other people's ideas in our convention. And yet, among those who have looked for me this week have been people from a wide variety of geographical regions, educational pedigrees, ecclesiological convictions, soteriological convictions, ages, and temperaments.

I could live without the speakers. I could live without the travel inconvenience. I could live without the music. I really miss the people. There's my statement of unity and cooperation: These are my friends and my brothers and my sisters. Some of them are dead wrong on a thing or two, but I've not given up hope of convincing them (grin). And ultimately, whether I agree with them or not, I cannot escape the fact that I love them.

If the Lord is willing, I hope to be in New Orleans next year. I hope to see you there.

Resolution on Religious Liberty

Here is a draft of a resolution I plan to submit to this year's Committee on Resolutions for the Southern Baptist Convention:

ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

WHEREAS, Jesus declared “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world then my servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, my kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36), indicating that Jesus has not authorized any earthly realm to pursue aims related to His kingdom by resort to physical coercion; and,

WHEREAS, Jesus taught in Matthew 13 in the parable of the tares and the wheat that He has not authorized the removal of the tares from the field of the world until the end of the age, knowing that the persecution of men for cause of religious conscience always results in damage to the wheat as well as to the tares; and,

WHEREAS, the Apostle Paul has reminded us that “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (II Corinthians 10:4), indicating both the wrongfulness and ineptitude of all attempts to win spiritual battles by resort to physical coercion, which is not “divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses”; and,

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists, along with other Baptizing churches and other members of the free church tradition have historically used our influence as citizens to advocate for complete religious liberty for all people; and,

WHEREAS, the United States of America is presently involved militarily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the governments of which deny their citizens religious liberty; and,

WHEREAS, the government of the United States of America, through the United States Agency for International Development, campaigned on behalf of constitutional revisions in Kenya to implement Sharia law among Moslems in Kenya; and,

WHEREAS, Sharia law makes conversion away from Islam a civil crime subject to punishment as severe as capital punishment; and,

WHEREAS, Said Musa was convicted in Afghanistan of a crime and sentenced to death before being exiled from his country for his having converted to Christianity from Islam; and,

WHEREAS, the United States of America enjoys tremendous influence in world politics; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting June 14-15, 2011, in Phoenix, Arizona, affirm complete religious liberty as God’s plan for all human beings; and, be it further

RESOLVED, that we believe that the military forces of the United States of America, whenever they place American soldiers into harm’s way, should number among their primary objectives the provision of complete religious liberty to all peoples; and, be it finally

RESOLVED, that Sharia law or any other separate system of legal jurisprudence is entirely incompatible with religious liberty and with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.