I’ve read with interest the latest posts from Southeastern seminary’s blog, Between the Times. Especially those which caught my attention are by Dr. Danny Akin, Southeastern’s president, and Dr. Ed Stetzer, a Lifeway employee and visiting professor at SEBTS.
Why?
I’m glad somebody asked! Consider…
First, let’s note Dr. Stetzer’s contribution in the blog entitled, “Let’s All Take a Deep Breath about NAMB” (//link). Stetzer writes:
“But, as has been for the past decade, a large amount of heat is focused at NAMB.Fair enough, but some have turned up the volume to 11 on their amplifier to make sure their voices are heard above all others.”
While Stetzer offers no examples to substantiate his observation, he encourages all to give the “benefit of doubt to NAMB trustees…They are not perfect, but neither should they be maligned.”
Great exhorting, Dr. Stetzer!
My question is...
Who and/or where are trustees being maligned? Are they being maligned in denominational state papers? Is Baptist Press maligning NAMB trustees? Are twitterers maligning trustees? Or are pastors in conferences maligning NAMB trustees?
How about blogs?
Are blogs maligning NAMB trustees?
If so, I’d like to know because I’ve a pretty healthy record of defending trustees and thus would like to get in on the action myself.
In other words, let's you and I take on the maligners, Dr. Stetzer...
Tag-team!
If, on the other hand, we cannot find NAMB trustees being visibly maligned, why are we exhorted concerning maligning trustees?
And,
if no maligning is visibly happening, I have to ask,
Is this not encouraging an atmosphere which, in itself, creates conflict? Are not myths born of such circumstances? Creating a mythical enemy and doing battle with it?
Sweet!
A nice way to get a message out even if nobody's complaining. That is,
complaining publicly...
Indeed Myth-making is a fine art some have developed to great advantage by squashing what people are suspected of thinking.
Stetzer goes on to suggest that NAMB’s ‘task is too critical to “put on hold”’, and therefore concludes “Whatever happens in the future, NAMB cannot stop and wait for the next executive to be appointed.”
Stetzer is referring to the trustees’ decision to appoint Richard Harris as Interim President and Frank Page as Vice President of Evangelization. He goes on to say,
"If we place the mission work in North America on pause because we need a new slate of executives at NAMB, then we have forgotten (or just plain neglected) just Who is the Head of the church.”
First, no one proposes NAMB’s task be frozen in time—at least any of whom I have read. Second, appointing the Interim President, Richard Harris, was a great choice. Is any one arguing otherwise? Third, as far as Frank Page being VP, I know of few (if any) who think him either an incapable choice or obviously wrong choice for NAMB.
In fact, the questions I raised suggested his over-qualifications, making some wonder why he was not tapped for president instead of vice-president (//link).
Fourth, Stetzer’s point that we should not place North American missions on hold while we fill a new slate of executives at NAMB is--forgive my French--patently absurd.
Why?
A) NAMB has leadership. Richard Harris was acting president after the president resigned, and now he is the elected Interim President for an indefinite time-period.
B) The Evangelization Group (EG), I’m told, had an acting VP, Thomas Hammond. But even if it didn’t, the EG has six teams all with experienced leaders. Hence, to suggest NAMB’s mission would be on hold if the trustees didn’t hurriedly appoint a Vice President for Evangelization is categorically inconclusive.
In fact, it's just plain wrong.
Furthermore, it also overlooks the stark reality that a president needs extensive input into the selection of those who report directly to him. Would Stetzer settle for less? If not, why would he expect the next president of NAMB to do so?
Finally, in Stetzer’s overly-jealous defense of the appointment of a NAMB VP prior to the finding of NAMB’s president, Stetzer attempts to “spiritualize” the decision by appealing to Christ’s Lordship. Note again his words:
“If we place the mission work in North America on pause because we need a new slate of executives at NAMB, then we have forgotten (or just plain neglected) just Who is the Head of the church” (emphasis mine).
While I am in full agreement with the theological presupposition that, at the end of the day, we’ve got to let God be God, to frame the issue as did Stetzer is plain, old-fashion spiritual snobbery. What Stetzer, in effect, is saying is, the decision made is the decision God wants. If the decision is questioned, the Lord’s Headship is questioned. If someone has a question about the timing of NAMB's appointment, he or she apparently not only maligns NAMB trustees, but also denies Christ's Lordship.
Since no one should malign trustees--not to mention deny Christ's Lordship--no one should question the timing of NAMB's VP appointment.
The problem with this kind of thinking is, it is a blank check for any decision whatsoever.
Here's how it works...
O.K. I see Stetzer's point: if we wait on the process to find a president before we act on appointing a person we believe is the right guy for VP, we’re not trusting God to work it all out. Remember Christ is Head here! He's in charge and will make things happen. Got it...
But!
The very same could be argued exactly backwards.
Consider: if we go ahead and appoint a VP because we think NAMB’s mission will be stalled, we’re not trusting God to work it all out. Christ is Head. He's got it under control. Trust Him.
Do you see what I’m talking about? The principle Stetzer wants us to consider works equally any way we want to use it. Fill in the blank!
In fact, we hear the GCRTF saying, “If we don’t act now and take some risks by restructuring the SBC, we have forgotten (or just plain neglected) just Who is the Head of the church.”
Is this not precisely what they are saying thus far? Is this not how the urgency was framed when Dr. Mohler brought the motion to the 2009 SBC?
On the other hand, however, others could viably say,
“If we act now by restructuring the SBC because the numbers are going down and culture is changing, we are placing our faith in new structure and new methods and not in God. In fact, we will have forgotten (or just plain neglected) just Who is the Head of the Church.”
See what I mean?
Playing Stetzer’s games over God’s will may sound “spiritual” but in the end makes mockery of the Lord of the Church.
No thanks Dr. Stetzer. I want evidence.
And…
evidence is not an enemy.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I think you misunderstand Stetzer's statement about Jesus' leadership. Look *one* more time at the quote:
“If we place the mission work in North America on pause because we need a new slate of executives at NAMB, then we have forgotten (or just plain neglected) just Who is the Head of the church”
It is not an argument that we need to just trust this or that decision to be God's will, it is an argument that God is, in fact, the head of his church and a president of an organization is less important than Christ. It is important for NAMB to have a president but the missionary work of NAMB continues without one because Jesus Christ continues as head of the church. Missionaries were spreading the gospel long before NAMB ever had a president.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2009.10.14 at 11:10 AM
I just wanted to clarify a couple of things because I am not sure I understand:
1)What evidence are you wanting to see? Is it evidence of Trustees being maligned?
2)what is the central point of this post? Are you stating that Stetzer's article makes a "Mockery of the Lord of the Church" as your central thesis?
Thank you for clearing these up for me.
Posted by: Luke Tolbert | 2009.10.14 at 01:50 PM
Luke,
Thanks for your courtesy.
The "evidence" line may primarily be gauged by the series of rhetorical questions I ask right after "May question is..." Secondarily, it is a smart alek pun attempted on Stetzer's famous line, "facts are our friends" ;^)
As for my central "point" or "thesis", I'm really not sure I have one on this log. I realize that sounds strange but blogs are not always articles or essays which invariably have a central "point" or central "thesis."
But, if one insisted, I suppose mine would be a counter-point to what I interpret as Dr. Stetzer's overly-zealous defense of a premature VP appointment. Yet how much more impotently one could communicate I haven't the slightest clue.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.10.14 at 03:31 PM
Chris,
Thanks, bro. But I must be dense. I haven't a clue how your interpretation of Stetzer is supposed to salvage his flawed point.
Let's assume your interpretation of Stetzer is correct: "God is the head of his church and a president of an organization is less important than Christ."
I am perfectly willing to grant the theological presupposition, Chris.
What I will not do is grant such a presupposition, framed in such a way as to squelch questions pertaining to administrative decisions, which, from my standpoint is precisely what Dr. Stetzer did in the post under consideration..
If I grant such a presupposition, will the same courtesy be granted to another who argues backwards from the same premise?
Here's how it would look:
When a premise serves equally well for both sides of the question, it's time to look elsewhere for a definitive answer. At least, that's how I see it.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2009.10.14 at 03:51 PM