« SBC name change: it's good...it's bad...it's ugly (part II) by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Al Mohler: "Calvinism is the shape of our future" by Peter Lumpkins »

Feb 28, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

selahV

The odd thing to me in all of this is, if "Southern" is so detrimental to the expansion of the Gospel message beyond the "South", then how have we managed to to grow to the 16-million we have throughout the world? I contend it is because we as Southern Baptists have not focused on the word "Southern" but on the Word who in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. We as "Southern" Baptists have carried the name of Jesus on our banner and He alone is who makes the difference in who comes to our churches. When He is lifted up, men are drawn to Him. selahV

Max

Amen Hariette! You get a gold star for finally lifting the name of Jesus in the comment stream! It's not about our name, but His. That's why we contend for the faith and how we deliver the precious message of Christ to all people in all nations. Majority Southern Baptists are Great Commission Baptists, with no geographical boundaries!

Debbie Kaufman

Because we are not 16 million? This has been shown time and time again. We are shrinking, not growing. Two churches being thrown out makes it even less than 8 million.

Mary

The elites decided the name of the Southern Baptist Convention was going to be changed. They then set into a process toward change so as to mute the voices against a change.

First step form a "task force" under the authority of the President. This had never been done before and change advocates rely on "technicality" to defend this. Messengers in the past clearly voted against the idea of a "task force" to study a name change so the elites sneakly went around the messgengers by a "technicality."

The task force was alledgely charged with studying the posibility of a name change. There was nothing to study. Everything they determined had already been known prior to the forming of this task force. The name cannot be changed because of the original charter - the SBC would lose some protections under the original charter etc. Everybody knew that, nothing new here. The expense to change the name would be great - nothing new here.

There was NOTHING to STUDY because everything was already known before one of the task force arudous schedule of two whole meetings.

So what was the PURPOSE of the task force really? Why the purpose was HOW to change the name, not IF we should change the name.

Anybody want to see the biggest YESMAN in the SBC only needs to search Dave Miller's comments where he kept proclaiming a name change cannot happen without 2/3 majority of the Convention for two straight years.

Guess what? The "task force" figured out a way around that impossible hurdle for change advocates. We'll do a "nickname" an "opitional" name. Only need a majority vote to get that one through. And viola! The name of the SBC has unofficially officially been changed. All the intsitutions will be adopting the new name forcing a top down decision.

Oh you can keep SBC if you want to hold on to the old racially divisive name - it's all good, the SBC will now be divided between those who embrace the future and those who hold on to our racism with the old bad name.

And of course anybody who doesn't agree with the whole process needs to shut up and stop pointing out the pure crass politicaly manipulations which have occurred. Get on board with the yesmen who will tell us what's important and what's not. Why are you people against the Great Commission and for your old racist name?

lmalone

"So what was the PURPOSE of the task force really? Why the purpose was HOW to change the name, not IF we should change the name."

The purpose? My take is to have a name the YRR could rally around and plant new churches as GCB. Long term, it seems to be about having a new denomination which is more top/down and authoritarian style with Acts 29 type churches, SGM and other Gospel Coalition people which are very authoritarian churches and ones Mohler really likes. As to the Akins and other mega church people going along, I think they see this as a way to increase numbers quickly.

For Mohler to announce that SBTS would now be known as a GCB institution says it all. It is a done deal. We really don't need a vote after that. I am amazed an employee of an SBC institution had the nerve to declare that on a tweet. He must feel very safe in his position and power.

Mary

lmalone, I think you are describing the motivation for a name change and I agree the motivation is to make the tent large enough to bring in the Acts 29/SGM types.

I think there are many people in the mega/Akin world who think the SBC needs to be run more top down. It would be the elder rule model of Acts 29/SGM at a denominational level.

But the purpose of this task force was HOW do you change the name and bypass the rules of the convention that would have gone against a name change. You can't "study" what needed to be studied for free, so this was only a screen because the elites already knew the answers to the questions - legal and monetary. The only question to be answered was HOW to push this through.

Mohler is THE kingmaker in the SBC. So of course he's confident and can blatently insult whomever he chooses. There is no one who will hold him accountable and you see the YESMEN blowing off Mohler's unChristlike attitude as "funny."

Mary

I think Dr. McKissic might miss the point that this is a step in the process to change the name. A name change would not have passed at the convention at this time. The "elite" have decided on this gradual top down forcing the name to be changed over time as the best way to go about changing the name. The name IS being changed - this is the first step in the process until the votes favoring the name change are available.

Because of the problems with the original charter, I don't see how the name change will ever legally be changed but this is a step toward the d/b/a name.

lmalone

"Because of the problems with the original charter, I don't see how the name change will ever legally be changed but this is a step toward the d/b/a name."

I don't agree with this. I think it is a step toward a new denomination using the resources of the SBC to change over, one that is more top down with a sort of elder led polity. More like Acts 29 and SGM. The SBC will simply cease to exist. The real question is the legality of this eventual new denomination taking over the seminaries or even if that is necessary.

Mohler is a big supporter of CJ Mahaney and even gave a statement to the Courier Journal congratulating CJ's "strong leadership" when he stepped down. Anyone who has been following the horror stories of the survivors of SGM know what this means. For Mohler to make that public statement in support of CJ and ignoring even those sexually abused and SGM's insistence they not call the authorities, tells me a lot about what Mohler believes in terms of "authoritarianism". SGM is a serious shepherding cult that used to be the People of Destiny. They have kept the same polity as SGM because it still operates as a shepherding cult. CJ went to Capitol Hill Baptist for "discipline" even though his own rules at SGM were that the disciplined pastor had to stay within SGM for discipline. The rules did not apply to CJ.

Again, I was sad Mohler was not rebuked or censored by the trustees for his statement to the press concerning CJ Mahaney. But I doubt they know about the survivors and how long it has been around. IF it were one or two abuse stories I might understand it but the problems are systemic within SGM and their polity which is top down. The abuse stories run a wide gamit from SGM churches and are astonishing in the handling was exactly the same. There are simply too many to ignore. Not to mention CJ's and SGM's large donations to SBTS. And recently, CJ's son in law a former pastor of SGM who left SGM when CJ stepped down is now getting a "real" ministry degree from SBTS. Some have said he was even given a job of sorts at SBTS.

I think this authoritarianism we see from SGM and Acts 29 types is where this new GCB denomination is headed. And people are jumping on the bandwagon without thinking this through. Once you tolerate end runs around the messengers because you like the direction, it will be used on something they might have a big problem with and it will be too late by then.

Bottomline is that they did not have the messengers vote on a name change study because it would not pass. Perhaps a few already had this "nickname" strategy planned for other task force members. Who knows and besides conjecture is now sin. Which is why they don't operate in the open and with voting first.

Mary

lmalone, I don't see it as a move to a new separate denomination as much as it's a complete takeover of the SBC by those who believe it should be the top down type structures of SGM/Acts 29 cults. The SBC won't be anything like the denomination we know, but completely remade into an elder rule denomination.

I think we agree that Al Mohler's vision for a denomination is that of elder rule with all the power concentrated in the hands of a few and messangers having less and less say. Definately, they believe that the messangers need to be "shepharded" into making "correct" decisions. Thus when you know the peasants would not vote correctly on a new name you have to go around the poor ignorant peasants, by forming "technically" allowed "task forces" and than move to "optional" names that will be adopted by all the entities of the Convention thus forcing the change from the top down. Than a few years down the road, you get the argument - we're all using the name so let's make it official.

Bob Hadley

Seems like the arguement of who can best do the work for the sheeple... the national entities or the state entities. Where have I heard that argument before?

What is the only real caveat here? Follow the MONEY. He who controls the money affects the future.

><>"

dr. james willingham

Peter, I am a Sovereign Grace believer, a calvinist I guess you would call me though I am not enamored with John Calvin as I found predecessors of Baptists in England who preached the same doctrines and even got burned at the stake for it before John Calvin was ever born much less converted, and I am in agreement with much of what you say about the SBC name. I take it from the perspective of being descended from early SB ministers. One ancestor made the Ala. Baptist History in 1840. And I am no lover of government by eldership. I come at the matter from the perspective of having done Baptist church history research for 6 years, written a thesis (MA) in the field and other papers, including an address and a play, and having served as Chairman of the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. Historical Committee from '77-81 and the Historical Committee ofthe Baptist State Convention of NC, '85. The Baptists are Congregational in Church government, because that is what the Bible teaches as is crystal clear from a study of ekklesia in the NT and even illustrated by a secular example of the city of Ephesus in Acts 19. According to C.C. Goen, The Great Awakening, some 200 Congregational Churches moved over to the Baptists back in the late 1700s or thereabouts. they were able to do this once they were persuaded on believer's immersion as the church government was essentially the same. You are right on this issue and have taken leave of your senses about the Sovereign Grace issue, the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions. What do you do with Manly, Sr., Boyce, Rice, Furman, fuller, Mercer, Marshall, Stearns, the Craigs, in addition to a host of others who affirmed their commitments to the doctrines of Sovereign Grace? And what do you do with the fact taht the first liberl practice of allowing for differences on the atonement came in 1787 in the union of separate and regular baptists in Va., when the limited atonement folks decided to allow that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man would be no bar to communion> By the way, Do you know that Charleston Assn. recommend the works of John Gill to its respective ministers and ministerial students? You do know what he believed I suppose?

peter lumpkins

Dr. Willingham,

Did you mean to post on this thread or another one? I assume another one for nothing I can see fits this thread.

Nor, am I sorry to say, that, given your great learning, does the info you've provided offer any insight I can tell pertaining to the issues I've raised on the newer posts about Mohler's prediction of Calvinism's future in the SBC and his concession toward Brad Whitt's concern about "creeping Presbyterianism".

Have a great Wed evening fellowship at your church, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

dr. james willingham

I meant to say (and I must have been distracted by your other comments on calvinism)that I agree that this name change business is for the birds. Sorry I got distracted.

Louis

I have concluded in all of this discussion that I have not seen one person change his or her mind. People either like the name, or they don't.

The name will belong to the future of the SBC and those who make up its churches in the years to come.

peter lumpkins

Louis,

And so goes the saga of free speech...being Baptist.

With that, I am...
Peter

Hobart M. Tucker

Peter,

I would like to add some perspective to Brother Dwight’s statement that “I don't believe you will see any serious additions of Black churches joining the SBC until we see at least two-three minority entity heads.”

I agree with the sentiment of his comment in terms of the conviction that there should be more minority entity heads and more minority senior staff members. However, I want to offer some information that perhaps will change the perception he created about African American churches joining the SBC.

Immediately below I have charted a decade of data about individual membership growth (1998-2007) and a narrative about the numbers regarding congregational growth (1998-2008).

I think reasonable thinkers will read the data below and conclude that the name “Southern” Baptist Convention certainly was NOT a hindrance in attracting ethnic churches (especially African American congregations) in the decade prior to the issue being exploited by the GCRTF/YRR crowd. Indeed it seems the being a part of the Southern Baptist Convention is a strong draw!

However, I would offer that in searching for the numbers below, I learned from a NAMB insider some information that leads me to believe that this growth is likely to change. Apparently, Kevin Ezell essentially gutted the previous emphasis on ethnic church starts [seemingly in favor of the young white male demographic that represents the YRR (Calvinists) recruited to the campuses of SBTS and SEBTS]. I think a budget check (before and after) combined with a look at personnel changes will confirm this insider’s assertions. I am working to get this information.


-- HMT

Membership Membership Net Percent
Racial Group 2007 1998 Change Change
================= ================= ================= ================= =================

ANGLO 14,970,495 14,700,709 269,786 (29.1% of change) 1.84

---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

AFRICAN AMERICAN 825,527 348,787 476,740 (51.3% of change) 136.69

HISPANIC 189,909 114,314 75,595 66.13

ASIAN 145,060 78,361 66,699 85.12

---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

ALL NON-ANGLO 1,296,516 637,934 658,582 (70.9% of change) 103.24

TOTAL 16,267,011 15,338,643 928,638 6.05

==================================================================================================================================

In large part, African American congregations FUELED growth in the SBC from 1998 through 2007 (and even into 2008 – see below). African American individual membership grew an astonishing 136.69 percent and composed 51.3 percent of the overall growth in the SBC (compared to 1.84 percent growth in Anglo individual membership and 29.1% of the change). And this is despite the cultural hesitance of ethnic churches to submitting ACP reports.

In terms of congregations, here are some highlights about the changes from 1998-2008:

1. There are 9,946 congregations (includes churches and church-type missions) in the 2008 database that were not in the 1998 database.
2. There were 4,724 congregations in the 1998 database that are not in the 2008 database.
3. Of the net change of 5,222 congregations, 1,777 (34%) were Anglo and 3,445 (66%) were not Anglo.
4. The number of Anglo congregations grew by 4.6% from 1998 to 2008, while non Anglo congregations grew by 57%.
5. In 2008 non Anglo congregations had risen to 18.9% of congregations and 8.2% of total membership (up from 13.4% of all SBC congregations and 4.1% of the SBC’s total membership in 1998).

Hobart M. Tucker

All,

I apologize. The chart above is virtually unreaable. Here is the data presented in a different format.

-- HMT

--------------------------------------------------------

SBC MEMBERSHIP GROWTH (1998-2007)
928,638 (16,267,011 - 15,338,643) OR 6.05%

Anglo Growth
269,786 (14,970,495 - 14,700,709)
(29.1% of SBC growth)

Non-Anglo Growth
658,582 (1,296,516 - 637,934)
(70.9% of SBC growth)

-- African American membership grew by a whopping 476,740, or 136.69%, which accounted for more than half of the growth in the SBC (51.3% of SBC Growth) for the decade.

-- Hispanic membership saw strong growth of 75,595, or 66.13% (8.14% of SBC Growth)

-- Asian membership increased 66,699, or 85.12% (7.2% of SBC Growth)

--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Southern Baptists do not collect ethnic information for individuals but only for an entire congregation’s self-identification as predominantly “Anglo,” “African American,” etc. Some congregations may have a high percentage of ethnic members but be predominately “Anglo,” so all members reported for that church would be counted as “Anglo.”

Likewise, an “African American” church might have large numbers of “Anglos” who worship with them, but all members for that body are counted as “African American.”
--------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is that in large part, African American congregations FUELED the growth in the SBC for over a decade. African American individual membership grew an astonishing 136.69 percent and composed 51.3 percent of the overall growth in the SBC. And this is despite the documented cultural hesitancy of ethnic churches to submitting ACP reports.

The comments to this entry are closed.