I posted earlier on 9Marks Ministries’ history-making-moment by being an officially-sponsored exhibitor at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention in Phoenix. For publishing this factually-oriented info, I was accused on the one hand of being divisive and on the other of attacking 9Marks. My accuser appears to think SBC Tomorrow exists to either avoid factual information or offer interpretations of factual information which are consistent only with a presupposed understanding agreeable to him. Alas, I must dissent. Indeed I will continue to dissent and call plays like I see them regardless of the mob’s cry, “Off with his head!” >>>
Hence, I offer another factually-oriented piece.
Dr. Kevin Ezell has called for honesty in numbers of church plants. I could not agree more. A blogger-friend of mine has rightly saluted Ezell’s call for honesty in reporting. Who can argue with this? It is sound moral reasoning to demand accountability from those with whom we affiliate; those who wear our name; those who receive support from us; those who commit to us their resources to distribute; those who partner with us; those who teach us; those who serve on our boards, agencies, committees, task forces; and those elected to represent us. Accountability is necessary.
Now the motive behind padding church plant numbers is, on one level, irrelevant. After all, it is theoretically conceivable to “think up” a scenario where padding church plant numbers could be viewed as morally acceptable. It remains highly unlikely, however, such a scenario could possibly fit the circumstances about which Kevin Ezell addresses. Hence, his rightness follows in calling for an end of dishonest numbers to make the appearance of more “success” or “activity” than in reality exists. The bloated figures represents the addition of questionable information which skews acceptable accountability.
Now let’s consider what I think is a similar situation of skewed accountability. Perhaps Dr. Ezell will join other Southern Baptists (including me, of course) in decrying lack of accountability dressed in another garb.
So, take, for example, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary’s (SEBTS) sponsorship of 9Marks Ministries as an official-exhibitor at the 2011 SBC. We’ve already established the appropriateness of entities offering sponsorship. Thus, we are not questioning Executive Committee protocol for allowing SBC entities to sponsor “other groups” as exhibitors at the SBC. Instead we raise the question of SBC entities sponsoring “other groups” or ministries which show no visible concern for accountability to Southern Baptists.
Let me show you what I mean.
One common, visible means Southern Baptists have utilized through the years in measuring accountability is the Annual Church Profile (ACP). Mega-churches love it because it visually demonstrates their passion for evangelism and church growth. Missions-oriented churches love it because it visually demonstrates how much they give to missions outside their local context. Pastor Search Teams love the ACP because it visually demonstrates what a prospective pastoral candidate has accomplished, at least in some tangible way, over his ministry tenure. Those giving nomination-speeches for their candidate at state and national conventions love it because they can milk it for valuable stats which bolster their candidate. Pastors who get a phone call from a church’s Pastor Search Team love the ACP because they can look up the church to get a factual glimpse about the church’s size, budget, location, ministry stats, etc.
While the ACP does not cover all either infallibly or exhaustively, we nonetheless utilize the data from the ACP as a fairly reliable accountability tool. You get the picture. The ACP is used on multiple levels—some much more significant than others—to hold churches and ministers accountable.
Now consider this:
9Marks Ministries is run by Dr. Mark Dever, Senior Pastor of Capital Hill Baptist Church. Dr. Dever is well known throughout the Southern Baptist Convention. In Reformed circles, his name is a household name. Dever serves as trustee at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Indeed Dever’s church apparently has a lion’s share of members serving in the SBC in some board or committee position capacity.*
Nevertheless, for Southern Baptists to hold Mark Dever accountable for his representing Southern Baptists; for his and his members’ service on SBC boards, committees, and agencies; and now, as an official exhibitor at the SBC--passing out all the “free material” to Southern Baptists--remains completely impossible if one checks our standard means to measure accountability—the Annual Church Profile. Why? Well, Dr. Dever evidently has not submitted an ACP since the year 2000 (see below). At least, that’s what comes up when one attempts to hold him and Capital Hill church accountable.
Please understand: there are other ways to gauge accountability. No one disputes this. On the other hand, just like Dr. Ezell runs the numbers and concludes they “don’t add up” those who desire to “run the numbers” on Dr. Dever to gauge accountability for his broad representation of Southern Baptists, his service to Southern Baptists, his church’s unusually high representative influence on SBC boards, agencies, committees, etc, and now his official exhibitor status to pass out “free materials” among Southern Baptists are just outta luck, so to speak.
May I ask what the difference is between those whom Dr. Ezell cites as adding data which blurs accountability and Mark Dever’s church withholding data which buries accountability? The fact remains, as the conundrum is teased out, I personally don’t think there is much, if any, difference.
Perhaps then Dr. Ezell will join me in calling for openness and honestly in submitting appropriate data from those like Dr. Dever and Capital Hill church serving our boards and agencies, data indispensable for Southern Baptists in measuring accountability. Perhaps he will join us in our call for proper data for accountability purposes from Dever, his church, and 9Marks as I and others join him in calling for the rightful end of padding data to skew accountability in church planting circles. We hope he will..
Even more, perhaps Dr. Ezell will join me in insisting that SBC entities like SEBTS decline to sponsor exhibitors which do not offer full disclosure for accountability purposes. If Southern Baptists like Dr. Dever desire an official booth at our convention to pass out “free materials”—i.e. a platform on our reputational nickel--then they must produce the goods to hold them accountable.
Now, whether or not SEBTS is convinced Dr. Dever and 9Marks are fully accountable is entirely beside the point. We are confident SEBTS believes them to be so. Nonetheless, any Southern Baptist ought to be able to check the data for himself or herself. The problem remains, when the info is unavailable to the public, it’s hardly possible to hold anyone accountable.
With that, I am…
Peter
Download Capitol Hill Baptist Church ACP composite
*someone told me the Southern Baptist Convention has five representatives serving boards and committees from Capital Hill and that Capital Hill is the only D.C. church with representatives serving the SBC. While this rings accurate and comes from a reliable source, I have *not* checked its accuracy to date.
How about an attempt at accountability on regenerate church membership?
Oh yeah, the resolution passed a few years ago meant nothing
Posted by: Douglas R Belardi | 2011.06.15 at 05:16 PM
How does the SBC hold a church accountable (for money given or persons baptized) without violating the cherished baptist principle of local church autonomy? Sounds very presbyterian to me.
My church holds the SBC accountable, not vice versa. They can choose not to fellowship with my church for specific reasons if they so choose, but those reasons are listed in our constitution. The ACP is not a tool of accountability. It is a tool to allow ExCom and Lifeway to study our convention, nothing else.
Posted by: Chris | 2011.06.15 at 06:51 PM
Peter, thanks for the question raised of Dr Mohler today. I was pleased with his gospel-centered response. I haven't been able to watch the video feed much because of work but I hear you have been making the rounds to several microphones! I pray your presence and activeness in the convention helps to better it and glorify God.
I posted a few comments the last time you mentioned Dever and some other apparently elder-led, reformed leaders, a couple weeks ago. I was not and still am not intimately connected to 9 marks but I am taking classes at setbs and it is very, very obvious the appreciation that Danny Akin and others at the school have for Mark Dever, CHBC, and the 9 Marks ministry. They are in their 3rd or 4th year of having an annual fall conference at SEBTS, going through one of the nine individual marks each year. Mark Dever and Danny Akin are close friends, probably dating back to when Akin was a professor at SBTS. I don't know about the ACP reports, this is the first time I've even heard of it, but I trust the products and mission of CHBC and the larger 9 Marks ministry is obvious.
Again, I hate to harp on this, but I would be slow to lump together Acts 29 or other mostly non-SBC groups with Dever and 9 Marks (as some commenters have done in the last couple days). They may have similar-sounding ecclesiologies and their soteriologies are certainly nearly the same, but Dever has not shown anything that would separate him from Baptist distinctives and a commitment to the SBC. I would check out 9 Mark's recent articles, from just this week, refuting James MacDonald's (leader of "Harvest" church planters, a ministry closely tied to and similar to Acts 29) recent blog post ranting against congregationalism.
Posted by: Stephen Beck | 2011.06.15 at 07:00 PM
Peter,
While in seminary I worked for a Bible study software program and we had an exhibit at the SBC several years in a row along with several other software companies. There is precedent for allowing non-SBC entities space on the exhibit floor.
Bill Pfister
Posted by: Bill Pfister | 2011.06.15 at 08:04 PM
Bill
Please please please. If you're going to address the post speak to something I actually state not something I specifically and explicitly deny.
With that I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.06.15 at 09:13 PM
Chris
To argue thusly is sheer nonsense. The difficulty is I actually think you know this but you attempt to make a point anyway
With that I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2011.06.15 at 09:23 PM
9Marks doesn't decline accountability to Southern Baptists - it is accountable to the Southern Baptists who are members of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church.
Posted by: Jackie | 2011.06.15 at 10:09 PM