Why I Would Support a Name Change for the SBC

I've yet to hear any good reason articulated in support of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. The data do not support the idea that changing our name will make us any more effective, and the present process is transpiring in direct and willful defiance of a prior, yet-unrescinded vote of the messengers of the SBC.

Nevertheless, I can think of a circumstance in which I would entirely support—even advocate on behalf of—a name change for the Southern Baptist Convention.

There are a number of smaller Baptist groups around the nation that are biblically conservative and convictionally Baptist. Some of them might not regard the Southern Baptist Convention as conservative enough (even now!) for a partnership, but some of them would. Some of these organizations historically came into being as splits from the SBC, and others of them are refugees from the unabated leftward decay of the ABC.

What would happen if the SBC made active overtures toward these fellow Baptists in the interests of mutual cooperation and merger? Would some of them say no? Probably. Would all of them move slowly and have concerns? Likely. But could such an effort lead to a greater synergy of Baptist effort in the United States of America? I think it could.

Consider, for example, the recent rapprochement between the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas. This is a bold, exciting new detente between the two parties of what was a virulent debate in our grandfathers' days. It took place without any movement whatsoever beyond the bounds of the Baptist Faith & Message.

Why is this happening only in Texas? Why is this happening only with the BMAT? There are similar groups of Baptists throughout our land! Our Executive Committee should place a high priority upon this kind of outreach to other inerrantist Baptist groups in the USA.

If we were to accomplish something substantive like such an alliance, I'd be delighted for us to adopt a new name for our expanded fellowship (so long as we honored the will of the messengers and worked honorably through our polity to do so). A name change would be highly appropriate in such a circumstance, and would be something higher and more inspirational than the empty Madison Avenue posturing that plagues our fellowship on occasion.

An Historic Mending of a Denominational Split

If you are a fan of Christian unity, then you ought to be a big fan of this.

The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) and the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas (BMAT) are announcing an historic agreement (HT: Southern Baptist Texan, Baptist Progress) that will bring closer two groups of Texas Baptists who have been separated denominationally for a century.

This is progress toward good biblical unity—the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" mentioned in Ephesians 4, grounded in the "one"s of Ephesians 4. Neither side is compromising itself doctrinally (read carefully the terms of the agreement). Instead, the innate centripetal force of doctrinal unity is pulling together cousins in the faith heretofore separated only by the legacy of the sometimes-cantakerousness of their sibling-fathers.

The Frill Is Gone....The Frill Is Gone Away

A No-Frills Convention?

A recent experience set me to thinking about our cooperative work as Southern Baptists.

A few nights ago our local television news program announced that Dallas-based Southwest Airlines was inaugurating service to Boston’s Logan International Airport from Love Field. It is the kind of story that has grown commonplace in Dallas, from where Southwest’s empire continues to expand, gobbling up routes from lesser competitors. At the conclusion of the story, the reporter employed a phrase that really caught my attention: She referred to Southwest as “The no-frills airline.”

In some quarters, I’m sure that the phrase “no-frills airline” is bandied about as an insult toward companies like Southwest. It subtly diminishes Southwest’s loyal customer base as those who can’t afford the frills. It fends off comparisons by placing Southwest into a different category—other airlines’ profitability and timeliness and customer service should be compared with other “frills” carriers, and not with those in the wholly separate “no-frills” class.

My time spent flying commercially has gone very disproportionately to Southwest Airlines. I’ve flown a little on now-defunct Piedmont Airlines; some on US Airways; some on ASA; some on Northwest; some on Delta; some on ValuJet; some on regional carriers Lone Star, Big Sky, and Mesa; and a fair amount on the other Dallas-based carrier, American Airlines. I’ve flown on Southwest Airlines more than I’ve flown on all of those other airlines combined. My reasons for flying on Southwest mostly have to do with the cost (probably like your reasons, if you’ve flown Southwest a lot). I would be willing to consider paying more if I had any reasonable expectation that I would be getting something valuable in return. Nevertheless, my flying experience does include time spent on both “frills-included” and “no-frills” airlines.

Having seen both sides, I sometimes find myself wondering what the frills are.

The Good Leg

Consider, for example, my most recent flying experience with American Airlines. We left from DFW airport bound for Heathrow on a beautiful Boeing 777 airplane in the American Airlines livery. I took my seat back in row 36. When I sat down, I noticed two things. First, I saw that every seat had its own little TV screen (the 737s in the Southwest Airlines fleet don't have that). Second, I saw that the TV screen for my seat wasn't working.

That's no big deal for me—a non-functioning TV screen. Like I said, I never have my own TV screen when I fly. Certainly I'm not some spoiled person who has to have a TV screen in order to suffer through a flight with hoi polloi. Nevertheless, as we wended our way over the North Atlantic, I came to discover some nasty side-effects of my broken TV. The only way to turn on the light is with the TV controller, so there go my plans to read on the trip across the Atlantic. The only way to summon a flight attendant is with the TV controller, so I hope I don't need anything. The only way to listen to the instructions for filling out my British Customs form (which I'll now have to do in the dark) is on the TV, so I hope that I guess correctly.

Mine was one of a block of about 15 seats that had non-functioning TVs. Several other passengers requested from the flight attendants that they fix the TVs (I did not). Flight attendants promised several times that they simply needed to go up front and reset the units. “Any minute now…,” you know. We landed in London eight hours later with the TVs still not functioning.

That was the good leg of the trip. Nothing but a few minor inconveniences.

2:20-ish

After a wonderful 10 days of mission work in London, we boarded American Airlines 87 bound for Chicago's O'Hare Airport. The direct flight to Dallas (#51) had been full when we booked our travel, so we were stuck with the connection at ORD. Flight 87 departed late while American found standbys to fill empty seats and arrived late in Chicago, but we had planned enough time between the flights to leave us a little bit of breathing room. Twenty minutes late, we disembarked our second American Airlines 777 of the voyage.

Again, coincidentally, we had flown in row 36 (the TVs worked this time). American's 777s are outfitted with 42 rows, so we were pretty much in the back of the airplane. Consequently, we were pretty much the last people off the airplane and the last people in line at Passport Control. Ours was not a speedy trip past the CBP personnel—by the time we had cleared passport control and had moved to the baggage carousel, flight 87 had been on the ground for a full 40 minutes.

And yet in all of that time, not one of our flight's bags had arrived yet.

That's right: The entire 777 airplane (which was almost entirely full) had disembarked, walked to Customs, cleared Passport Control, and had found a perch encircling the carousel to await the arrival of their bags, and the baggage handlers in all of that time had not managed to deliver a single bag from the belly of the airplane. We waited ten more minutes for the bags to arrive, and then the first of them came.

From our luck so far, you can guess by now where our bags came in the sequence of those from our flight, can't you? All three of our bags came in the final ten bags to be unloaded into the carousel. Yikes!

By now, I was worried. It was 1:58 PM. Our connecting flight to DFW was scheduled for departure at 2:20 PM. We still had to re-check our bags and make our way to a different terminal in order to make it to our Dallas-bound flight. We ran…RAN…with our bags to the re-check agent. As we got into line, we breathlessly told the agent: "We've got to hurry; we're booked connecting onto flight 2331 and it leaves in just twenty minutes!"

"Actually," she said, "It just left three minutes ago."

WHAT!?!?!?

As it turns out, here's what happened. American Airlines booked us on a connecting itinerary from Heathrow to DFW that included a tight connection from flight 87 to flight 2331. Then, they decided to change the time of flight 2331. They pulled it forward fifteen minutes from 2:20 to 2:05, all without bothering to tell us. They claim that they tried to email us. I have several other emails from American Airlines, but I never got that one. My wife never got this email either. We had provided American Airlines with telephone numbers, but they never tried to contact us. No ticketing agent at the gate ever bothered to mention, "By the way, do you realize that your home-bound itinerary is now an impossibility since we've changed the time of your connecting flight?" No kindly agent at Chicago met us when we disembarked AA87 to say, "You've only got a few minutes to make your flight to Dallas! Let us do everything we can to help you make it home!" Then, after changing the flight time, they sent the flight away even earlier than the scheduled time, again, all without telling us.

Well that's a major breach of faith and inconvenience, but it shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, right? Because DFW is a major hub for American Airlines. American's international headquarters is at DFW. There are going to be a lot of AA flights to Dallas, right?

Is That Dell Griffith Over There?

And there were. There were six of them, in fact. All overbooked. American Airlines informed us that they were not going to get us to DFW. We conceded the fact (with a smile…in fact, the ticket agent remarked in surprise that we were taking it all so cheerfully) and offered a Plan B—could American Airlines at least get us to Houston? After several minutes of frantic computer work (we’re thankful for that guy in Chicago), he was able to book us from Chicago to Miami to Houston, where my in-laws agreed to pick us up at the airport a full 25 hours after we first set out on our journey (we supposed) home.

Our flight to Miami was yet another Boeing 777, so we had no problem finding our way to the very last row of seats. Tracy grew up near Miami, where her Dad worked for an airline, so she knows something about the local layout. One of the terminals at the airport is apparently under construction at present, so our flight received a gate assignment at “the old Pan-Am terminal.” This portion of Concourse E sits out as a remote island on the tarmac, separated from the remainder of the facilities.

The Captain taxied our jet up to the gate and allowed an automatic parking device to place us at the gate. If you’ve flown, you know the drill. The engines shut down. The passengers all stand up. The overhead bins all open. The lines in the aisles form and then wait for the door to open. We waited…and waited…and waited.

Finally, the loudspeakers broke the silent anticipation with the Captain’s voice. The automatic parking device had failed. The ramp couldn’t connect to the airplane successfully. We might have to wait while they get a tug to drive over, mate up with the 777, and reposition the airplane. And we did have to wait for precisely that.

We offloaded the jet and marched out into the now-dark-and-gated terminal shops of an airport that had already seen its bedtime come and go. As I mentioned before, our island of gates was separated from the other terminals (including our connecting flight to Houston). The only way off our island was a train (Floridians love a monorail), and our throng from Chicago pressed into the boarding area for that train.

The first group embarked upon the train ride. The doors closed. The lights flashed. The time expired. The doors opened again. The first group of people were still there, staring right back at us. The train was broken.

By this time, we were laughing instead of crying. I was tweeting the whole episode as it occurred. References to Steve Martin and John Candy in “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles,” were spreading like wildfire.

The powers-that-be sent over a bus filled with outbound passengers for another red-eye flight. Our pilot and flight attendants begged the bus to take us back to the main terminal with them on their return. They refused: “We’re going to fix the train!” And eventually they did so, but it is really difficult to see why they couldn’t allow a few connecting passengers at the very least to ride an empty bus on a trip that it had to make anyway.

We did finally make it over on the train. We did finally catch the 737 to Houston Intercontinental. We did finally make our way overland from Houston back to Farmersville. We did have all of our belongings with us when we got there. The trip from Heathrow to home finally did in fact succeed.

But nothing about it felt “frilly.”

Polite Non-Responsiveness

Along the way we never grumbled, never spoke a cross word, and never took out our frustration upon any American Airlines employee. Upon our arrival at home, friends and family said, “You really should contact American Airlines. They should give you a free flight or something.”

I decided that I would contact the airline. After all, it had been a pretty dreadful experience. If nothing else, they at least ought to get feedback—an appraisal of their performance from someone affected but not ill-tempered. Thus I first determined to tell my story. I looked for a phone number to call Customer Service for American Airlines. I found none. I called the main number and had the most delightful conversation with a computer (such a friendly android voice it had), but after repeated tries I could not convince it to allow me to speak with a person.

Finally, I found an email form by which I could tell of our disappointing experience. The form is carefully constructed to prevent you from having anyone’s actual email address at American Airlines, mind you. The length of what you can send them is carefully limited as well.

I decided that I should ask for something very modest. No free round trip tickets to Hawaii. No all-expense weekends at the Waldorf-Astoria. Instead, I decided to ask for something that I had seen the airlines give away to people before just for signing up for a program or whatever. So I asked American Airlines to give us double AAdvantage miles for the trip. That wouldn’t add up to enough miles for us actually to upgrade a flight or attain some “elite” status with American. The only way that this “gift” would be valuable to us at all or would cost American Airlines a penny would be if we came back to American Airlines as a continuing customer. It seemed to me the perfect request, since it involved both a concession on American’s part and a commitment on our part to fly American Airlines again several more times. A brief glance at my past frequent-flyer history with American Airlines would immediately reveal that there has never been a period in my life when I have flown with American enough for me to have used these miles to do anything—my request, if valuable or costly at all, would require me to become a far better customer to American Airlines than I have ever been in my life. They really could have incentivized me to start a long-term relationship with American Airlines, but they squandered that opportunity.

In three rounds of very polite back-and-forths, the folks at American Airlines flatly refused my request. They also stridently maintained that none of this—their late flight from Heathrow, their sluggish baggage handling in Chicago, their unilateral changing of my flight time—none of this was actually their fault at all. With regard to their changing of our flight time, they told us that they just have to do this sometimes. In other words, they do not regard this is an exception, but as a part of the range of things that we should expect possibly to happen when we fly with American Airlines—your flight just might leave thirty minutes earlier than they told you. They said all of this with a refined niceness likely washed through the advertising and legal departments, and the conversation was very pleasant—utterly unsatisfying, but pleasant. And in the end, neither side got what they should have wanted: I didn’t receive double miles for the trip, and American Airlines certainly received no intention on my part to purchase future tickets from them. I hear that British Airways has excellent customer service. If I make the two trips to London that are possible next year, I'll soon find out about British Airways's service, I promise you.

The sad part of it all is that American Airlines has the best pilots in the world, the best flight attendants in the world, and every opportunity to succeed. Unfortunately, these people have to serve in a system (maybe it's the fault of management?) that offsets their incredible competence and conscientiousness by its disregard for the passenger.

Frills Up and Down My Spine?

My travels with Southwest Airlines may not feature many frills, but my bags always fly free, the flights dependably depart on time and arrive on time, and I am always pleased to receive precisely what I bargained for when I bought the tickets. American Airlines has obviously worked hard to train their staff to put a friendly face before the customers. We never had any unpleasant experience with any human representative of American Airlines. Also, American Airlines offers first-class seats (that we can’t afford), airport lounges filled with liquor (that we don’t drink), “platinum elite” perks (like getting to walk into the airplane early), and things like that. Southwest Airlines offers none of these things, focusing instead on having airplanes that get you where you want to go safely and on-time. Those are the "frills" that give me happy shivers about an airline. There's a reason why Southwest Airlines is perpetually profitable and American Airlines is not. Success comes from doing the main thing reliably well.

Before I end my airline travel narrative, I want to say that I, too, enjoy and embrace the sentiments articulated by the comedian Louis CK on the YouTube video "Everything's Amazing; Nobody's Happy." The point is not that our life was ruined by American Airlines. We went to London and back in a matter of less than two days traveling time. That truly is amazing. The point is simply that American Airlines should get back to a focus on that—restoring a reliable travel infrastructure to use the miracle of flight to get people from point A to point B—taking responsibility for that service and focusing less on the so-called frills. Flight is a miracle that a lot of companies sell. Some do it better than others. I get to make choices when I fly. American Airlines may very well know why I fly, but that's not what I need from them. I know why I fly; I need someone who knows how to make that flight happen safely and on-time with minimum hassle.

A No-Frills Convention!

I believe there is a parable in this whole experience for us Southern Baptists, both in Texas and beyond, and that's my point in writing. In our adolescence, I see the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention as a “no-frills” cooperative body, which I celebrate. A lot of the programs and employees and institutions that other denominations or cooperative bodies have, we don’t have. We do, however, have a great and efficient system for linking congregations to grow healthier themselves while planting other churches in Texas, in North America, and around the globe. I like that. I don’t want the “frills”; I want the dependable focus on the main thing. Fellow SBTCers, let's be so very careful as our convention grows older not to mess that up.

On the national scale, as our North American Mission Board envisions another chapter in its existence and as our Task Force imagines the best future for all of our Southern Baptist Convention entities, I want to encourage them to focus less upon public relations and less upon ancillary frills. First and foremost, let us have a Southern Baptist Convention that knows what the basics are and accomplishes them predictably and satisfactorily.

Another Baptist Convention in Texas?

BGCT blogger Rick Davis reported yesterday of rumors that some within the BGCT are contemplating a departure to form yet another Baptist state convention in Texas. (HT: Aaron Weaver, aka Big Daddy Weave)

Having not kept up with goings-on in the BGCT, I don't know what to make of this. Are we talking about three or four people or three or four hundred people? Was this talk prior to or subsequent to the most recent annual meeting of the BGCT? In Davis's comment stream, Ken Coffee (recent unsuccessful candidate for the BGCT vice-presidency) suggested that the sore spots for these folks were the plans to morph the BGCT into a national convention and the BGCT's hostility toward the SBC.

To any such folks, if they exist: If you are comfortable with the BGCT's budget priorities (80% for us, 20% for the rest of the world) and with the liberal doctrinal positions and low view of the Bible manifest at the Texas CLC, some of the BGCT universities, etc., then you ought to wait things out and not do anything drastic right now. If your sole objection is to BGCT expansion beyond Texas, I'm not sure to what degree such plans are really on the table any more. The name change to "Texas Baptist Convention" (if adopted) seems to imply a return to a Texas-only philosophy at BGCT. If your only objection is to the tension between the BGCT and the SBC, then you need a reality-check—the BGCT's budget priorities and liberal doctrinal positions, juxtaposed against the SBC's financial plans and conservative doctrinal positions, guarantee ongoing tension between these two bodies in their current relationship. Don't let some of the folks on blogs fool you—attempts to bring the SBC to liberal positions on women preachers and the like are failing.

On the other hand, if you are uncomfortable with the BGCT's doctrinal positions and budget priorities, then you ought to try a dual affiliation with the SBTC before you go and start a third state convention. None of the blogs that I've read have given any explicit shortcomings that these allegedly discontented BGCTers have with SBTC that would convince them to start a third state convention rather than joining the other one already in existence for a decade now. I could speculate as to a few possible items in that category.

It may be that you've heard horrible things about the SBTC that have eliminated any interest in joining. I would ask you, why not find out for yourself? Isn't it possible that the BGCT is not the most objective place to learn about the SBTC? If your church is comfortable with the SBC's statement of faith, then you meet the criteria to belong to the SBTC (and if not, then I've already suggested that you might just ride things out over at BGCT for a while). If, after adding an affiliation with SBTC, you find that the SBTC is every horrible thing that its detractors have alleged, then you can quite easily end your SBTC affiliation, and you will still be aligned with BGCT. If, on the other hand, you find that SBTC has been misrepresented, then you'll have saved yourself the work of establishing a third convention.

It may be that you've met a person or two connected with SBTC whom you haven't liked that much. Such an experience frankly slowed the rate at which I dipped my toes into the SBTC pool. But quite obviously, since you're considering breaking away from BGCT to start something else, you have had some sort of a bad experience with some people at BGCT. Yet you're still a member of that convention. Every convention, church, Sunday School class, fellowship group, you-name-it, is a mixed bag. I've found the SBTC to be a warm, wonderful, Christ-honoring, gospel-spreading, mission-affirming fellowship of Baptist believers. You might find it differently, but don't you owe it to yourself to find out for yourself?

It may be that you're tired of all of the fighting—not interested in being a part of some sort of government-in-exile. Guess what: Neither was I. I was pleasantly surprised at first and continue to be pleased to find that BGCT is never mentioned at SBTC events. We've moved on. In fact, if you haven't moved on, and are looking for a place to join in BGCT gripes, then please don't come to the SBTC. Souls are too precious and time is too short for such things. The place to gripe about the BGCT is the BGCT annual meeting.

It is your privilege as believers to choose your own affiliations, and it is your duty as believers and stewards to pursue vigorously what you believe to be the best strategy for proclaiming the gospel to the world. But before you start something new, you owe it to yourself and to your progeny to have considered and tried every option for affiliation with present groups. Perhaps that process will lead you to a newfound sense of belonging within the BGCT. Perhaps it will lead you to join your brethren in the SBTC. Perhaps it will lead you to launch something new. Whatever should come of it all, my prayer is that you might honor the Lord, remain true to His Word, and diligently pursue His work to His glory.

Good Common Sense on the Homemaking Concentration

I had compiled and uploaded the first installment of the Praisegod Podcast, a discussion of the homemaking concentration at SWBTS, when I read the latest opinion article by Gary Ledbetter on the subject. His is so good and so in line with what I said that I'm scrubbing my podcast and linking you to his article instead. A Silly, Dangerous Idea? by Gary Ledbetter

The Best Thing About the SBTC…

…was that I had to come home to find out what had happened at the BGCT annual meeting.

Our church knew several years ago that we were very unhappy with the BGCT. But we were very slow about joining the SBTC for several reasons.

1. We wanted to be careful of the whole "rebound relationship" phenomenon. Being unhappy with BGCT is different from being happy with SBTC. You know, you can be a strong, healthy Baptist church without being affiliated at all. We prefer to be in cooperative relationship, but although this is needful, it is not a necessity. So, we resolved that we would consider a relationship with the SBTC to be a separate issue from our deteriorating relationship with the BGCT.
2. My interaction with one prominent member of the "opposition party" in the BGCT (before the SBTC organized) had left me with an unfavorable impression of the whole thing.
3. We had no intention of joining a "government in exile." If the purpose of the SBTC was nothing more than to snipe at the BGCT, rebuild a shadow copy of the BGCT, etc., then we weren't interested.

After dipping our collective toes into the water a few times, the only eventual question that we had left was, "Why didn't we do this [join the SBTC] a long time ago?"

It is the third point in particular that I have in view with this post. I just never hear much about the BGCT at SBTC events. I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard any reference to the BGCT at an SBTC event. I'm not just talking about from the platform—I'm talking about in the hallways and parking lots and in restaurants and hotel lobbies. The only reference to the BGCT that I heard this year was from a non-SBTC speaker.

The SBTC has moved on. FBC Farmersville is moving on, too. I have stopped reading the Baptist Standard. I almost never employ the words "Charles Wade" in a sentence any more. It's delightful. I enjoy state convention meetings again. Ten years ago, who could have thought that was possible?

Someone wise once told me, "Don't spend all of your time worrying about what people think of you; they don't think of you as much as you suspect!" I can honestly say that is my experience of the SBTC's relationship with the BGCT. The past is behind us. The future is before us. May God enable both conventions to do something worthwhile for the Lord in the future.

SBTC's Glossolalia Resolution

Art Rogers has taken notice (see here) of the SBTC's resolution "On Glossolalia and Private Prayer Languages" that passed overwhelmingly last night. I would like to offer a few thoughts about the resolution:

1. The article over at Twelve Witnesses suggests that "we should not divide ourselves on such an issue" and the comment stream goes on to mention that "Ken Hemphill has come out against making PPL an issue to divide over." Perhaps those involved will be glad to add to the names of those who do not regard this as an issue to divide over—jot down Bart Barber, Malcolm Yarnell, and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention:

   RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Cor. 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship...

2. Note: Art has revised his article to remove the verbage that led to this second rebuttal. Thank you, Art. The article also suggested that this was "a resoution opposing 'toungues' [sic] in any form." That's odd...the resolution I remember said:

   WHEREAS, Some conservative Texas Southern Baptists affirm that certain spiritual gifts have ceased to be necessary, because the apostolic witness is now canonized in the New Testament (Heb. 2:3-4); and
   
   WHEREAS, Other conservative Texas Southern Baptists are cautiously open to the continuation of spiritual gifts, but are extremely wary of sanctioning modern practices as biblical; now, therefore, be it
   
   RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention meeting in Austin, Texas, November 13-14, 2006, declare that Southern Baptists in Texas typically believe that the modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture; and be it further
   
   RESOLVED, That we are opposed to unscriptural teaching relating to speaking in tongues, whether such speech be done in private or public...(emphasis mine)

   Obviously, this resolution acknowledges both the cessationist and the "open but cautious" positions and opposes only "unscriptural teaching" relating to speaking in tongues. The resolution also specifies that the typical Southern Baptist in Texas believes that "the modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture." Thus, the resolution opposes any teaching regarding these practices that is unscriptural, and it further proffers the opinion that private prayer languages fall within that category. This is far different from "a resolution opposing tongues in any form."
3. This is a resolution, not a motion. A motion sets policy or takes an action for the convention. Because this was not a motion, it did not set any SBTC policy or take any sort of action. I have no reason to believe that anyone on the Resolutions Committee or in the messenger body at large had any desire to add this topic to our confession of faith or to be a "PPL exclusionist." Every SBTC messenger surely knows that we have at least one church within the SBTC that holds a different view, yet no action was even attempted against that church. Resolutions cannot do that sort of thing, anyway.
   
   Nevertheless, resolutions are important. They exist to answer questions regarding what the churches of our convention believe or would opine on some topic or another. Some have posed the question as to whether the majority of Southern Baptists are not actually (contrary to all indicators for the past hundred years) harboring some furtive endorsement of Pentecostalism/the Charismatic movement/the Third Wave. When we are uncertain what Southern Baptists believe about something-or-other, resolutions are a great way to get the pulse of the churches. They are not perfectly representative, but certainly they are more representative than my blog or anyone else's.

So, why pass a resoution on glossolalia? To run people out of town on a rail? No. To give SBTC churches an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding about what the majority of us believe.

The Best Resolution from SBTC

On the Sufficiency of the Word of God for the Entire Christian Life

WHEREAS, the Word of God is the divinely inspired revelation of God (2 Tim. 3:16), holy men having been moved by the Holy Spirit to speak the Word of God and write the Bible (2 Pet. 1:19-21); and

WHEREAS, the Word of God accomplishes the purposes for which the all-wise God sends it (Isa. 55:8-11), being a living, active, searching, and judging instrument of God (Heb. 4:11-13); and

WHEREAS, the Word of God converts souls, makes wise, rejoices hearts, and enlightens eyes (Ps. 19:7-8); moreover, it endures forever, is altogether true and righteous, and is to be desired above all things (Ps. 19:9-10); and

WHEREAS, the Word of God brings warning against human sin and reveals eternal reward (Ps. 19:11-12), having the ability to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), through the instrument of preaching and its reception by faith (Rom. 10:14, 17); and the Word approaches the human heart and mouth through preaching and must itself be internally believed and externally confessed for human salvation (Rom. 10:8-10); and

WHEREAS, the Word of God is the only source of wisdom and knowledge that is eternal (Isa. 40:6-8), that is profitable for teaching, reproving, correcting, and instructing in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16), and that is able to bring completion to pious people, thoroughly equipping them for every work that is good (2 Tim. 3:17); and

WHEREAS, all human forms of wisdom and knowledge are temporary and thus ultimately lack relevance (Isa. 40:6-7), are corrupted by sin and thus utterly lack righteousness (Isa. 55:6-7), and are severely limited and thus are unable to redeem (Isa.55:8-9); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention meeting in Austin, Texas, November 13-14, 2006, call upon Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is relevant, and that the Word of God establishes the standards by which all forms of human wisdom and knowledge and all aspects of human culture and activity must be judged; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the we call upon Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is righteous, and that fallen human beings lack righteousness; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is able to redeem sinful human beings, and that they may look nowhere else than to the Bible for the source of redemption; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every Christian home to place the Word of God at the center of its life through daily family worship, private devotions, and personal memorization; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every church, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, and other church leaders to keep the Word of God central in worship, proclamation, discipleship, evangelism, and in any and all methodologies adopted for these ends; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every missionary and every missionary board to keep the Word of God central in worship, proclamation, discipleship, and evangelism, and in any and all methodologies adopted for these ends; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every Southern Baptist educational institution, including home schools, schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries, to make the Word of God central to their educational goals, entire educational curriculum, and every course’s content; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every Southern Baptist engaged in secular education, including public elementary schools, high schools, technical schools, colleges, and universities to present the Word of God constantly, consistently, and compellingly to the lost people with whom they are engaged; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every Southern Baptist engaged in secular commerce, whether as an employer or employee or as a seller or buyer of goods or as a provider or recipient of services, to present the Word of God constantly, consistently, and compellingly to the lost people with whom they are engaged; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage every Christian voter and every Christian magistrate to make their decisions with regard to the making, execution, and judgment of laws based upon and under the authority of the Word of God, and therefore with the highest regard for universal religious liberty; and be it finally

RESOLVED, In summary, that the totality of the Christian life, corporately and individually, in the family, in the church, and in the broader society, must be based upon, focused upon, and have as its goal the proclamation of, the Word of God.

On the Road Again, SBTC Annual Meeting

Starting today, Tracy and I are in Austin at the 2007 2006 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. If you're going, too, I look forward to seeing you.

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.