Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (IV): “Are These Issues Do-able?”

(Note: I was greatly saddened to hear of Wade Burleson’s resignation from the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board of the SBC yesterday.  As with many others, Wade was my original source of information as to what was going haywire in the SBC in regard to entity trustee overstepping.  It is sufficient to say here that I have immense respect for Wade and Rachelle, as well as his father and mother, Paul and Mary.  May the Lord guide Wade in regard to how He will see fit to use Wade in the SBC in the future!)

The current brief series is a humble attempt to lay out both the issues that, in my opinion, should make up a well-considered, but easy-to-understand, “platform” for the reform movement–to the extent it is an indentifiable movement–in the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the characteristics that would make for a compelling presentation of such issues.  For whatever it’s worth, whether anyone much is really listening is, to a certain extent, less important than whether this is attempted.  Why?  Because, to this point, reform-minded SBCers have largely only been united by what they are against.  Somebody needed to move things in the positive direction of seeking to specify what we are for, not just against. 

Now, I was definitely not excited in the least about the role of being the one to do it.  However, as far as I could tell, nobody else was either.  So, I took a step of prayerful faith.  It was that simple… and it was that difficult.

Here (in no particular order) are the six areas of needed reform that I have laid out and explained in the previous posts in the series:

- Spiritual leadership

- Transparent accountability

- Independent leadership

- Term limits

- Godly ethics

- Necessary training

And, here are the five elements (again, in no particular order) that, in my experience, make for a compelling presentation.  It must be: 1) passionate; 2) clear; 3) common sense; 4) attractive; and 5) do-able. 

Having discussed the first four of these in the last two posts, the time has come to ask the “bottom-line” question: Are these areas of reform actually practically do-able?  Or, are these reforms which are so desparately needed in the SBC in reality just ‘pipe dreams?

The first angle which should be laid out on the table here is the difference required between passing a regular motion and amending the SBC Constitution or Bylaws.  As you likely already know, a motion requires only a bare majority of those voting, while a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority. 

Well, in my opinion, it would be quite do-able to pass motions in any, if not all six, of the above areas in Indy.  I do think at least half of those who will be in Indy will be of a mind to vote that way.  But, the SBC is so evenly divided at present that to amass the extra 16 2/3% of the vote to amend the Constitution or Bylaws is going to be a much bigger mountain to climb.

Why?  As I see it, for two reasons: 1) Since Indy is close to Louisville, the Mohler forces will be out in greater numbers than in the last several SBC meetings; and 2) In trying to pass constitutional amendments, you are always up against the inertia of the status quo.

Having said these things, let’s proceed on our quest to try to determine whether any, or all, of the six areas in which reform is needed in the SBC are realistically do-able or not.  Here goes:

- Spiritual leadership: I definitely think this is do-able.  What would be gained by arguing against it, given that it is clearly biblical?  Instead, I think it would gain surface support, but would be somehow circumvented after passed by the same group politics behind the scenes and lofty, even if less than fully accurate, rhetoric in public.  Still, even if that sort of thing happened, this is an area of reform that is worth the calculated risk.

- Transparent accountability: Again, I don’t really see how anyone could argue against this without coming across as wanting completely unaccountable trustees and administrators.  So, I think it would mostly be met with public silence from the powers that be, but with the order going out to vote it down.

- Independent leadership: The only thing that could be said here is that there are a handful of wise veteran Southern Baptists whose experience we would lose if this reform was instituted.  But, not much of substance could be argued.  It would again get down to putting out the word to vote against it.

- Term limits: In my opinion, this would be a virtual carbon copy of the ‘independent leadership’ issue.  And, interestingly, if you could get a truthful hand vote on how many people in Indy had been in favor of term limits when it came out as an item in the Republican ‘Contract with America’ in 1994, I would bet it would be overwhelming.  But, in this case, the word would be whispered to oppose it, even though it would allow more and more SBCers to serve.

- Godly ethics: Again, how could you possible publicly oppose tightened ethical standards in the SBC?  They couldn’t do it on principle, though possibly they could nit-pick the specific ethical standards laid out for more or less irrelevant reason (just to, so to speak, undermine confidence through “a technicality.”)

- Necessary training: This is the only one which I think would receive major public opposition.  Why?  Because it would be argued that it would not matter whether the administrator in charge had the necessary training, as long as someone in the inner circle did.  Now, that sounds OK… except for one thing.  The untrained honcho would still be calling the shots and, in most cases, the trained underling would still be afraid for his or her job, if he or she opposed what the power figure wanted to do, often based on viewpoints that might be considerably different if seen through adequately trained eyes.

In conclusion, if all six were put for votes in Indy, it is extremely doubtful that more than one or two would pass the two-thirds vote standard.  But, that is the nature of the case in almost any context in which much change is needed: it does not come quickly.  However, if even one or two were passed in Indy–and I would leave it up to others seeking such reform to decide which of the six areas are either most urgent or most likely to pass–there would be positive momentum.  Then, perhaps one or two more might get through in Louisville in 2008, and so on from there.

Obviously, this kind of reform is an uphill battle, to say the least.  There is no organization behind it, as Patterson and Pressler put together through great effort in the late ‘7os.  There is, instead, simply growing and spreading moral conviction that something–actually, many things–are terribly wrong and the present set-up, based on our Constitution and Bylaws, is highly ineffective in addressing any of the ongoing abuses.

But, for this growing moral conviction to become the kind of widespread moral indignation that refuses to take it any more will probably require some kind of providential catalyst personality or event.  But, what or who could that be? 

In my opinion–which, along with $3.00 or so, will get you the cheapest cup of coffee at Starbuck’s–it could involve Wade Burleson.  Ultimately, though, that is completely in the Lord’s hands… as it should be.

What do you think?

Coming Friday: Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (III): “Are These Issues Attractive and Will They Create Passion?”

Last week (see that post below), I laid out the six areas that, after careful reflection, I think are the most needed general areas of reform in the Southern Baptist Convention, with explanations as to why I see it that way.  They are (in no particular order):

- Spiritual leadership

- Transparent accountability

- Independent leadership

- Term limits

- Godly ethics

- Necessary training

At that time, I also listed and explained five elements of the compelling presentations that I have repeatedly seen over the years, with the obvious logic being that it, in the current atmospehere in the SBC, it is going to take a most compelling laying out of these positions for them to get the consideration they deserve.  Those five elements (again, in no particular order) are that the presentation be: 1) passionate; 2) clear; 3) common sense; 4) attractive; and 5) do-able. 

I have already applied the tests of simplicity and logic (i.e., common sense).  Today, I will consider the attractiveness and ability to create passion criteria.  The bottom-line practicality issue (i.e., do-ability) will be the subject of the post on Wednesday.

So, are these six areas of needed reform “attractive” to the average Southern Baptist, especially those who are likely participants in Indianapolis in June?  Let’s think about it together.

- Spiritual leadership: If the rank-and-file can be helped to see that the election and appointment process in the SBC has become virtually as secular in the way its handled as either the Respublican or Democratic parties, I think this issue can find legs as a legitimate reform.  However, if the current approach to politicking is allowed to remain assumed as “normal” for a supposed spiritually-committed denomination, then there is little hope.

- Transparent accountability: The way Paige Patterson and SWBTS are attempting to dodge the scrutiny of the discovery process in the Klouda lawsuit may go a long way toward making “transparent accountability” an attractive issue.  Why?  Because you don’t seek to hide things when there is nothing to hide.  Enough said.

- Independent leadership: Frank Page makes this argument well.  Nothing terrible happened while he was president.  In fact, things were handled in a godly, caring manner by someone who did not owe anyone, or any group, favors.  On the other hand, if Al Mohler is elected in Inday, who knows how long the list of people who have to get something for being “loyal soldiers” is going to be, much less whatever other politically-motivated decisions might be made with the combined power of being the president of the largest seminary in the SBC, as well the president of the whole ball of wax?

- Term limits: Without term limits, the top leadership and trustee roles are highly inbred.  Is there any situation in which “inbreeding” has long-term attractive results?  Not that I know of.

- Godly ethics: How many scandals can you remember that have been caused by people trying to skirt–or simply ignoring–even minimal ethical standards?  Many.  How many scandals have been caused by observing high ethical standards?  None.  How many known borderline ethical problems (i.e., a notch or two below “scandal” level at this point) are we mulling over now in the SBC?  More than enough to demonstrate that the current lip-service to bare minimum ethical standards is not working well at all.  I think this area can be argued pretty effectively in much this way.

- Necessary training: Would you let a doctor operate on you who had not been to medical school and done a surgical residency?  Not in a million years.  Would you trust your life savings to someone who had no real training and meaningful experience in making advantageous investments?  Some do, but it is a very risky bet.  Those things being true, why would the SBC allow certain people to be in positions in which they are directly responsible for millions of dollars of our money, but who have nothing remotely approaching the kind of training and experience required by responsible public entities?  It takes your breath away to think about how dangerous this is.  As such, it can be a very attractive issue.

But, are these issues which can engender passion in the wider ranks of the SBC?  Please try the following thoughts on for size.

- Spiritual leadership: Do Republicans or Democrats candidates make their appeal for support simply on the basis of “I’m one of the right group”?  No.  They lay out their qualifications for the type of job that they are seeking.  Well, since all leadership roles in the SBC are spiritual leadership roles–we are, after all, still an evangelical Christian denomination, aren’t we?–should not that be first and foremost among how we look at the candidates?  It certainly makes me passionate when I recall with a nauseous stomach that the most passionate thing that Mac Brunson said in his entire speeach nominating Jim Richards for 1st VP in San Antonio was “He’s one of us!”  The potential of almost unlimited abuse with a virtual group nominee election guarantee should be obvious to all.

- Transparent accountability: Does the name Richard Nixon mean anything to you?  For anyone over 45 or 50, Nixon is the “poster boy” of those who declare “I am not a crook!” but, after investigation, are found to have done–then covered up–a huge amount of things that remain horrible embarrassments to those who voted for him.  You may say, “That sort of thing would never happen in the SBC!”  My answer: The best way to make sure it doesn’t is to require that our leaders be open and transparent in everything they do.  Remember Richard Nixon–and many pastors, not a few in the SBC, who have been caught doing what was at the time considered to be the unthinkable!

- Independent leadership: Even though it could backfire, I think it could be very effective to bring up the name of the Patterson family member who is a former SBC entity trustee and is now in jail.  No, Paige did not commit this man’s crime(s), but neither did he have the discretion not to compromise the name of the SBC by seeing that a person of this questionable moral/ethical ilk was placed in a role in which the reasonable expectation is of one who is “above reproach.”  If it is made an issue that this sort of playing fast and loose must not be tolerated in the name of nepotism (or cronyism), I believe that a lot of people would get passionate about it.

- Term limits: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”… and the longer you stay in power, the closer the degree of “power” gets to “absolute.”  In this obviously logical light, I think many people would get passionate about keeping power in check through turnover among the powerful.  And it is completely fair.  It would even allow for more among the ranks of the current power bloc to be elected to key positions now being hogged by a few names who are re-cycled over and over.

- Godly ethics: All Southern Baptists have a right to know exactly what Paige Patterson, and every other well-paid SBC entity head, makes.  At least, that’s what the documents we claim to “do business” by say.  Why then has that information not been forthcoming?  For two reasons: 1) Because, frankly, there is not enough specificity in the ethical standard to really get at things; and 2) Even if there were, there is no clear penalty for such an ethical breach–in this case a passive-aggressive ignoring of the properly requested information by Paige et al.  Now, if the shoe had been on the other foot (i.e., it was Paige doing the demanding of information), just how much passion would be enflamed?  A bunch… and I think the dramatic double standard can be pointed out with very strong effect.

- Necessary training: As argued under “attractiveness” above, it should scare the living daylights out of all SBCers to think of the danger of having untrained entity honchos overseeing, in most cases, multiplied millions of our dollars.  It would not take much at all for a major financial disaster to take place.  For those of you with knowledge of Texas, I only need point to the financial debacle in the Rio Grande Valley that recently was a good bit of what cost Charles Wade his post as the head of the BGCT.  So, these things do happen… and can happen in the SBC.  If we are not passionate enough to want to safeguard the Lord’s resources any better than we are doing now, something is terribly wrong!

This is what I’m thinking.  I’d be very interested to know how you see things.

Coming Wednesday: Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (IV): “Are These Issues Do-able?”

Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

As always, this is my weekly article from the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  I hope you enjoy my winter-bashing… and appreciation for what it precedes!          

             “My Love-Hate Relationship with Winter” 

            As I am writing this article, it is another gray, misty, cold day in the Texas Hill Country.  No, we don’t get too many of those in this part of the country, but any are too many for me.

            You see, I do not like wintry weather much at all.  Yes, I can handle a couple of days in beautiful snow up in the mountains, attempting to ski (I’m terrible!) or just playing in the white stuff.  But, come day three, no matter how gorgeous the snow drifts, I get cabin fever even outdoors and feel like I’ve got to get out of there before my mental health is compromised.

            Seriously, I would do just fine with two seasons: Spring and Fall.  And, I tolerate Summer pretty well, even the 100 plus degree heat of July and August (and often June and September!) in Texas.  My gripe is with Winter, and more specifically, with the cold temperatures or the gray, depressive weather that pops up too frequently in December, January and February (which sometimes extends into March or even early April).

            The only truly redeeming feature that I can figure out about Winter is that, in God’s cycle of creation, it has to happen.  What do I mean by that?  Well, it’s actually pretty simple and common sense: You can’t get to Spring without going through Winter.

            Think about it: If we don’t at least tolerate the brown deadness of most of the vegetation during the Winter months, we will not get to see the green grass, and the wildflowers (such as bluebonnets and Indian paintbrush) for which the Texas Hill Country is justly famous.  And, while I cannot speak for you, I know that I do not want to miss any of the spectacle of nature’s rebirth each Spring in our beautiful part of the Lord’s creation.

            The sequence of the seasons also embodies a priceless spiritual lesson.  There is no way to make it to new life except through death.  In other words, unless you die, you cannot be born anew.

            This may seem like mumbo-jumbo to some of you reading this.  But, to those who are already Christians, what I am saying not only makes perfectly good sense, but they are hoping and praying that you will keep reading, even if what I just said sounds odd to you.

            Besides, you need to read a little further in order to realize that what I am talking about actually allows you to miss out on the spiritual “winter” and move straight to the spiritual “spring.”  You see, Jesus has already died in your place, so that you do not have to undergo the ravages of the spiritual “winter.”  And, by the way, that is no small thing.  You see, the spiritual “winter” never ends.  It is eternal death, which, in its essence, is separation from God and unending punishment for our sins.

            But, there is absolutely no need to go through even one instant of that suffering, since Christ has already paid it all.  All that is needed now is for you to believe that Jesus paid for your sins, which will give you eternal life (John 3:16) and keep you from ever having to face the last, and never-ending, season on the spiritual calendar of life.

            No, I don’t like Winter and the icy elements very much at all.  But, in the grand scheme of things, that is no big deal.  I can handle wintry weather well enough.  But, the spiritual “winter” is another thing entirely.  I do not want anyone to have to go to and through that awful destiny.  So, if you have never personally exercised saving faith in Jesus Christ, I respectfully plead with you to strongly reconsider your unbelief.

Coming Monday: Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform

‘Platform’ (III): “Are These Issues Attractive and Will They Create Passion?”

           

Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (II): “Separating the Wheat and the Chaff”

In the biblical world–and still in a few undeveloped parts of the world today–the winnowing process at the conclusion of the wheat harvest is crucial to its success.  The first part of the process is the loosening the straw from the grain, either by an animal’s hoofs (e.g., Deut. 25:4) or a toothed threshing sledge (e.g., Isa. 41:15).  Next, it is tossed into the air with a winnowing fork (e.g., Jer. 15:7) and the wind blows away the straw and chaff, leaving only the grain.  Finally, it is sifted (e.g., Amos 9:9b), in order to remove any small remaining debris, so that all that’s left is the grain.

The time has come to winnow the ideas that have been tossed around for some time now as needed areas of reform in the Southern Baptist Convention.  I will begin that process today and continue for two more posts–next Monday and Wednesday. 

In my last post, I laid out five things that made for compelling presentations that I have heard over the years: 1) passion; 2) clarity; 3) logic/common sense; 4) attractiveness; and 5) practicality/doability.  Today, I am going to lay out a short list of the reform ideas that have gained traction as I have thought and prayed, as well as by interacting some with you.  In addition, I am going to, so to speak, using two of the five criteria, throw them up in the air with my verbal winnowing fork and attempt to see what is “wheat” and what is “chaff.”  The two I will bring to bear today are clarity and logic.  On Monday, I will test according to passion and attractiveness.  Finally, on Wednesday, the focus will be the all-important issue of practicality.

What are these issues that I think deserve wide consideration as needed areas of reform in the SBC?  In no particular order:

- Spiritual leadership

- Transparent accountability

- Independent leadership

- Term limits

- Godly ethics

- Necessary training

Are each of these areas “clear” and simple to explain and understand?  I think so, but let me try them out on you:

- Spiritual leadership refers to choosing leaders on the most important basis of their biblical maturity and godliness.  While this seem obvious, it certainly is not what has been emphasized most (and not really at all) at the SBC meetings I have attended.

- Transparent accountability means that everything which is not truly confidential in nature is open to the wider constituency and that those making the decisions are answerable to the constituency and take full responsibility for those decisions/actions.

- Independent leadership means that leaders are not already in somebody else’s pocket, whether a family member, co-worker or friend, when certain issues arise, but instead personally seek the Lord and His Word for the proper guidance in every case.

- Term limits means that the same people don’t keep getting elected or appointed to boards or committees, allowing more and more talented, committed SBCers–and there must be many more in a denomination of, realistically, over 6 million members!–to serve.

- Godly ethics means that the SBC will not be satisfied with meeting only the bare minimal ethical standards in areas such as fund-raising and financial disclosure, but will indeed “avoid all appearance of evil.”

- Necessary training means that, in positions which require a certain skill set to do the job well (e.g., budgeting and managing a large budget), a certain amount of training must be insisted upon… or you’re courting disaster.

Now, if (hopefully) those brief explanations are sufficiently clear, we come to the test of “logic/common sense”: 

- If the SBC claims to be a biblicist denomination, it only makes sense that we would insist upon truly spiritually mature leadership, leaders who are godly examples to the wider flock.  And, neither giftedness or success is necesarily an indicator of spiritual maturity.

- When things are done behind closed doors and there is little to no disclosure and even less answerability, the only two reactions will be: 1) much suspicion of what’s being done; or 2) even more suspicion.  Logically, the only way to calm the fears of the people of the SBC is for transparent accountability to become the way that every board and committee, as well as every administrative unit, does business all the time.

- Independent leadership makes sense because the long history of nepotism and cronyism is full of examples of special treatment and corruption.  Does it make sense to continue a practice in which, over the long haul, the vast majority of such relationships have been dramatically flawed by the thirst to retain power, even if somewhat less are out-and-out corrupt?  At best, it is a major calculated risk!

- Actually, term limits is almost a sub-set of independent leadership.  The latter is the retaining of power through others, while a lack of term limits allows the continuation of power by the power-hungry person himself or herself.  Since “power corrupts,” or so says Lord Acton’s dictum–which, to my knowledge, has never been answered–does it make sense to let that corrupting influence have full sway in the SBC?

- If we in the SBC are biblical, then we certainly should be characterized by fully godly ethics in the way we do things?  Does it, then, make sense to operate by the minimum (often secular) ethical standards in various areas?  If you are a consumer, it doesn’t any make sense to build houses or cars or television sets or computers according to minimum standards.  Why would it make sense in running the entities of the SBC?

- Clearly, necessary training makes sense if a person is really responsible in their job and not just bluffing their way through it or only serving as a figurehead.  Now, if the job is just a “payoff” for your loyalty and all you’re doing is drawing a paycheck, things may appear otherwise.  But, that not logic in play.  It’s defending your own rear end when, if you’re honest, you know you should never have been given the job in the first place.

OK, now I’ve spoken my piece.  What do you think?

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Coming Monday: Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (III): “Are These Issues Attractive and Will They Create Passion?”

Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (I): “Compelling Common Sense”

As I have thought fairly broadly about how an SBC reform agenda/platform should be presented, I have also thought back over the kind of presentations which have been most compelling to me–and many others around me.  Every such presentation had certain things in common.  I’d like to focus on those for the remainder of this post, then begin my attempt to do these things with the items that I believe should be included in Wednesday’s post.

In no particular order:

First, all such presentations were passionate.  If you are truly serious about making a difference in a long-standing status quo situation, your heart must be in the effort as much as your head.  Certainly there is a time for cool-headed analysis, in order that your objectivity in evaluating things is not clouded.  But, by the time what needs to be done is clear, you must be as emotionally committed as you are intellectually convinced or you will come across as half-hearted or even double-minded.  And, that will fall as flat as a flounder.

Second, all the compelling presentations I’ve ever heard were clear.  I was around academia long enough to know that there are indeed not a few professors whose classroom lectures and writings abide by the dictum “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.”  But, in the real world, for ideas to be taken seriously, they must presented in a format that is most understandable by as many people as you are trying to convince.  While the acronym K.I.S.S. (i.e., “Keep it simple, Stupid!”) insults the intelligence of some, it is nonetheless critically important in having a message that appeals to the broadest possible base.

Third, every message which has ever compelled my attention, then my agreement, made excellent common sense.  Now, while I am a person who has greater theoretical abilities than I do practical skills, I still hear myself saying over and over–whether out loud or in my head–”That’s makes sense” or “That just does not make sense at all.”  And, I doubt very seriously that I am in the minority in having that kind of reaction when I hear ideas or viewpoints laid out.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that, whether most people realize it or not, the presuader has gotten pretty close to “getting over the hump” if his or her presentation makes good ole common sense to the individual listener.  Even if that is not completely accurate, the persuader has certainly gotten past the point of where the listener might think “There is no way I’m buying into something goofy like this!”

Fourth, every truly compelling presentation that I recall hearing (and responding to positively) offered attractive ideas.  Let’s face it: As much as we might wish that each person would always ask first and foremost “What is best for the whole group involved?”, it is far more likely that the individual listener or reader is going to quickly get to asking “What’s in this for me?”  Now, I’m not saying that the “What’s best corporately?” question has no value.  I’m just saying that, if you are theologically realistic and honest, you will admit that it falls in somewhere behind the desires of the individual.

Fifth, and finally, every compelling presentation I can remember was practical.  Maybe other people are quite different from me on this–though I seriously doubt it!–but I do not ever recall being moved off ground zero by any idea or group of ideas that did not come across as at least relatively realistically achievable.  In fact, I think that what happens with most thoughtful listeners is that, after they have grasped an idea and it makes sense and has at least some meaningful appeal to them, the next natural question to enter their minds is something like “But, is this actually do-able?” or “What would have to happen for this to come about?”

Before closing, let me say that, at this juncture, I strongly suspect that points 4 and 5 are going to be the “kickers” with the SBC.  In order to bring about the reform that has been sorely needed for decades, it is going to be necessary to give excellent answers to both the “What’s in it for me?” and the “How do we get there from here?” questions.

Having now offered my initial observations in this area–which could be so crtical in the months ahead, I would be very interested to receive your thoughts on what makes for a compelling presentation.  Thank you in advance for your ideas!

Coming Wednesday: Nailing Down a Proposed SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (II): “Separating the Wheat and the Chaff”

Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

The following, as always, is my weekly article in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  And, as you start reading, feel free to pile on about me being a Cowboys fan, given their pitiful playoff showing.  However, you need to know that I was born at Baylor Hospital in Dallas, have two degrees from Dallas Seminary (ThM, PhD) and taught for four and a half years at Criswell College in Dallas.  Hence, I claim absolutely no objectivity in my fanhood.

                        “Living Vicariously” 

            One primary dictionary definition of “vicariously” is “taking part in the experience or feelings of another.”  In that respect, I’m pretty sure many Dallas Cowboys fans are still experiencing the bitter pain of the ‘Pokes 21-17 loss to the New York Giants. 

            However, even though sporting events have been the realm in which I have tended to live vicariously over the course of most of my life, it is hardly the only area in which such an outlook is common in our culture.  For example, even in a day in which recording television shows is very easy to do, many people refuse to miss their favorite soap opera or prime time shows except in the case of an emergency. 

Another very common—and very sad—practice is for parents to live vicariously through their children.  They either seek to re-live the “glory” they haven’t felt since they were in school or to feel like “winners” or “high-achievers” through their kids in ways they never were able to do when they were that age.

All of these attempts to live vicariously are, to one degree or another, reflections of lives that are empty in certain areas or ways.  And, if nothing else, they show us to be those who are content to be largely passive sidelines observers instead of those who are active participants.

Now, it must be admitted that, in numerous cases—such as major sporting events–you and I are not eligible to participate and, if we are to have any part at all, it can only be as a fan.  However, it should also be observed that getting into the habit of living vicariously through others can easily subconsciously bleed over into other parts of our lives.  One tragic result of that spill-over is people who are more and more passive across the board in their behavior and relationships.  Another—and fortunately somewhat less frequent—impact of living vicariously is the blurring of the line behind reality and fantasy, with the result being that a person so affected begins to live more and more in an unreal world.

Suffice it to say that living vicariously is, in limited doses, a natural part of life.  But, taking it too far can, and too often does, result in anything from an unbalanced passivity to a virtual break with reality.

But, we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater in regard to this concept of living vicariously.  You see, there is another definition of “vicariously” that is worth looking at here: “substituting in place of another.”

In the Bible, this meaning of “vicariously” is central.  Jesus died on the Cross and paid for mankind’s sins, when every single person who has ever lived deserved to have to pay that price for all eternity.  Theology calls this “vicarious atonement.”  Jesus substituted for you and me.

However, unlike the passivity of living vicariously discussed above, Jesus’ vicarious atonement requires an active role on the part of each person who hears the gospel message.  There must be active trust in His work on the Cross, that it is sufficient to pay for all your sins, past, present and future.  You see, Jesus does not force His atonement on anyone.  It is completely your choice whether you accept His offer or not. 

            Have you chosen to live eternally vicariously through Jesus’ death on the Cross, substituting for you?

Coming Monday: Nailing down and simplifying an SBC reform agenda toward an early “platform” status

Toward an SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (II): “But, It is Broke!”

If your experience is anything at all like mine, you have heard the old adage “If if ain’t broke, don’t fix it” used in some pretty amazing justifications of the status quo over the course of your lifetime.  Sadly, whether for the sake of traditionalism or because of fear of the unknown or change, protecting ”business as usual” is much more the exception than the rule with human nature.

And, that is at least as true in most Southern Baptist churches.  Thus, it should not be a huge shock that the pressure to maintain the status quo would also be enormous in the wider workings of the Southern Baptist Convention.  That is why I am very well aware that any reform movement in the SBC is fighting a double-barreled uphill battle.  Let’s talk about that briefly.

To be brutally honest, not only will the Conservative Dominance strongly oppose anything that remotely smells like reform because the current flawed system is their means to maintain their power, even as it was to gain that power in the first place.  However, if you have been to an SBC meeting in recent years, you have probably noticed that, as the overall attendance has grown smaller, the proportion of gray heads has become notably larger.  And, sadly, it’s a simple fact that it is much harder for most older people to face the need for change–even when it is very much needed, much less get on board with the change and welcome it when it takes place.

So, does that mean that the crying need for reform in the SBC should be overlooked or forgotten, given that it is a longshot at best?  Should cynicism win out, given that the deck is pretty much stacked against reform efforts?

If you are feeling that way, I would respectfully request that you ask yourself the following questions, all of which look back at “longshot” examples in history: 1) Generally, where would you and I be spiritually if Martin Luther had not attempted reform in the Roman Catholic Church, making his decision based on the odds of success?  2) Specifically, where would Baptists be spiritually if the Anabaptists had not chosen to risk their very lives for the truth of believer’s baptism, against all odds?  3) Where would you and I be politically and spiritually if those who decided to sign the Declaration of Independence had just decided to shut up and accept the dominant status quo, instead of acting against all odds?  and 4) For those of us here in Texas, where would we be if a small group of Texian patriots had not thought it was worth it to defend the Alamo, against incredibly long odds?

The answer to all four questions is, simply, “We would not be anywhere close to the blessings we possess today.”  But, the corresponding reality is that there was much pain and many setbacks, some worse than others, in the process of all four of those major reform/change situations.  That reality must be also be soberly considered in the current situation.

But, what has brought us to the present situation?  Interestingly, from a historical standpoint, it is because the SBC was ripe for reform in the 1970s and what was undertaken proved to be but a half-measure.

What do I mean by that?  Well, the election of conservative presidents of the SBC eventually produced the total turnover of entity trustees, which resulted in conservative entity heads and, eventually, a guarded overhaul of the Baptist Faith and Message (at least, in comparison to what it is becoming more and more obvious that the Dominance leaders really want in the BFM).  To that extent, “reform” did take place in the SBC.

However, given that the SBC Constitution and Bylaws had been the means to the end of the prior liberal/moderate consensus gaining and manintaining power, should not the new conservative leadership moved quickly to make the kinds of changes that would do away with the massive loopholes that made abuse and corruption so easy to do… and keep doing?  The answer is “Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!”  But, it didn’t happen, and to that extent, the Dominance has proven to be like the Lutheran Church, changing only the most obviously heretical and corrupt aspects of Catholicism, but not touching so much else that was problematic.  Thus, even today, Lutherans remain “Catholic cousins,” much as the structure and approach to power at the top of the SBC remains extremely similar to the pre-1980 situation.  In that sense, there was very little “reform” in comparison to what really needed to be done.

Having noted these things, I think it is fair to say that no reasonable argument can be made that clings to a shallow ”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.  Even the very means through which the Resurgence gained control testified loudly to the fact that the system has been “broke” all these years, even though it is still sputtering along, having long since outlived its effectiveness.  The problem at hand is getting people to admit that requiring that change wait until the system is past saving/salvaging (i.e., beyond reform, to the point of having to almost start over from scratch) is absolutely foolhardy. 

Think about it.  When a person is nominated for high SBC office with the rallying cry “He’s one of us!,” referring to a political allegiance, instead of “He’s a godly man, who will put the glory of Christ first!”, what does that say about our system: if it’s supposed to be spiritual, it’s “broke!” 

What does it say when a group decides that they should steer clear of the Convention floor and use entity trustee action to get their way on doctrinal matters?  It screams that there are massive loopholes in a “broke” system.

What does it say when there is a vast discrepancy between the stated church membership figures in many SBC congregations (and, as a result, the overall SBC membership), yet very few have the courage to speak up for integrity?  It is another very sad piece of evidence that the system is “broke.”

What does it say when beligerent entity heads can arrogantly stonewall the Convention’s stated right to be provided certain kinds of information or can stand on the podium of the SBC meeting and thumb their noses at motions passed by the Convention?  Those are very public indicators that the system is disastrously “broke,” not to mention that some of the most powerful among us view themselves as above the law, not accountable to “follow the rules” like everyone else. 

Bottom line: The system has been very badly broken for a long time and, for the SBC to regain the credibility and integrity that honor the Lord, it must be fixed… before it gets to the point where it may not even be worth fixing.

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Toward an SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (I): “A Contract with the Southern Baptist Convention?”

Surely most of you remember the Republican “Contract with America,” authored by Newt Gingrich and others, which was set forth only a few weeks before the 1994 mid-term elections of the first Clinton presidential term.  As you probably recall, the Contract contained a number of, at the time, radical ideas about reforming the United States government, including term limits and several ways to promote both transparency and accountability in the way the legislative branch of our federal government does business.

It is insightful to review the fact that almost every Republican incumbent and every single Republican candidate trrying to unseat a Democratic incumbent signed the Contract with America.  Even though they could not deliver on all its promises, the Republicans were at least saying loud and clear that the abuses which had been largely responsible for allowing the Democrats to remain in control of Congress for several decades needed to be addressed with fresh measures that would reform the corrupt “business as usual” approach to governance. 

Again insightfully, it must be noted that, when the Conservative Resurgence–long since become “Dominance”–gained the power in the SBC, the only significant changes made were in the people in the key positions and, eventually (i.e., in 2000), in the Baptist Faith and Message.  Now, it should be recognized by all that, because of the stronger theology of those who took the various power positions, significant improvement took place.  However, it should also be admitted that the “business as usual” that continued by virtue of the virtually unchanged political process allowed by the SBC Constitution and Bylaws did nothing other than transfer the potential for the maintaining and abuse of power to the new conservative elite.  And, now, even though many will disagree with this assessment, Lord Acton’s dictum, that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” has become 99% as true for the current conservative ruling elite as it was for their moderate/liberal predecessors.

Given this situation, which is at least substantially due to a group taking political advantage of holes through which you can drive Mack trucks in the SBC Constitution and Bylaws and related documents, it may be an idea whose time has come for there to be framed and set forth a reform “Contract with the SBC” before the meeting in Indianapolis in June, 2008.  Thinking in that general direction, before breaking for Christmas (see my December 19, 2007 post), I summarized the following four areas strongly needing reform that I had observed from my study of the SBC Constitution and Bylaws:

“1) Given how often churches and other ministries get burned when they don’t very carefully check the references/spiritual track record of those they hire, the SBC absolutely must do the same with all candidates and appointees. 

2) Given how many pastors and others in ministry fall into various kinds of grievous sin largely because of lack of accountability, there simply must be realistic means of accountability built into the Constitution and Bylaws. 

3) Given how much corruption has occurred in society over the centuries due to nepotism and cronyism, such practices in the SBC must be completely stopped. 

and 4) Given how long-term power tends to corrupt–and the greater the power, the more absolute the corruption–strict term limits, without the possibility of repeated service, should be instituted.  

Then, in his guest post last Monday, Matt McGee built off these four in his assessment of what needs reforming in the SBC Business and Financial Plan (I am italicizing his key observations):

1.  Those who serve must be spiritually qualified to do so.  In the realm of finances, I would add that those who serve must also have sufficient financial education and/or experience.

2.  There must be realistic means of accountability built into the Business and Financial Plan.  I would go even further by endorsing principles of radical transparency in addition to principles of accountability.  With accountability, we can hold people responsible for their decisions after the fact.  With radical transparency (at all stages of the decision-making process all relevant information is publicly available), the churches can head bad decisions off at the pass before the decisions are made in the first place.

3.  There is no place for nepotism and cronyism, and we must have safeguards against such evils built into all our foundational documents.

4.  There is a need for strict term-limits to keep anyone from gaining too much power.  This concern is less applicable, but still appropriate, to the Business and Financial Plan than it is to the Constitution and Bylaws since financial administrators don’t have the same level of authority as entity heads and board members do.

With these opening comments in mind, I propose the following reforms to the SBC Business and Financial Plan:

VI.  Fund Raising Activities – I would add specific safeguards to require that all approved fundraising be done in an ethical manner.  While the ECFA is far from perfect, its fundraising standards ought to at least be adopted as a bare minimum.  Within evangelical Christianity (including some SBC churches and entities) the M.O. in fundraising is often to share all information that would tend to make a potential donor want to give and fail to disclose all information that might tend to cause a potential donor not to give.  Thus, everything the fundraiser says is technically true, but the overall impression he gives to potential donors is extremely misleading and gives the donors a far too rosy impression of what is really going on.

IX.  Gift Annuity Agreements – Change “encouraged” to “required.”

XIII.A.  Change “each such committee shall include at least one such trustee who is competent by training and experience in fiscal matters” to “a majority of each such committee shall consist of trustees who are competent by training and experience in fiscal matters.”

XIII.B.6.a.  I disagree with a premise underlying this provision of the Business and Financial Plan.  The most natural reading of the provision indicates that as long as an entity president’s expenses and perquisites do not exceed market rates, then such expenses and perquisites are necessarily in keeping with biblical stewardship.  In the United States, the “market” would justify all kinds of extravagant expenses when Christ instead calls us to lives of simple devotion to Him.

XIV.  The statement “Members of cooperating Southern Baptist churches shall have access to information from the records of Southern Baptist Convention entities regarding income, expenditures, debts, reserves, operating balances, and salary structures” needs to be rewritten entirely.  There are three problems:  (1) too little financial information is available (e.g. the salaries of individual entity heads and other administrators are not available), (2) there is no built-in provision for accountability, and (3) the process for accessing the information is not specified.  These flaws resulted in the disastrous responses to Ben Cole’s letter requesting financial information from entities.  Grossly inadequate responses were praised because they seemed good by comparison to the lack of any response whatsoever from SWBTS and NOBTS.  The numerous entities that blatantly did not comply with a clear provision of the Plan have not been held accountable in any way.  To solve these problems I propose changing the text to the following:  “All financial information and records of any kind (with the exception of contribution records of individuals) from Southern Baptist Convention entities shall be public.  All financial records of all entities shall be available on the SBC web site.  No entity may keep any internal financial records of any kind without also making such records available on the SBC web site unless the records concern contributions of individuals or unless the release of such records would violate state or federal law.  At any time if an entity is not in compliance with these requirements, such entity shall immediately be ineligible to receive Cooperative Program funds until the entity is in compliance.”

I also propose adding the following provisions to the Plan:

I would require the highest-ranking financial officer of each entity to have a graduate degree in business from an accredited school.  For some reason, in Christian circles it has become acceptable to hire people to do jobs for which they aren’t qualified.  When I was a student at SEBTS, I noticed that many campus jobs were filled (at ridiculously low wages) by students and spouses who had no relevant education or experience related to the job.  Can you imagine a public university foregoing searching for a qualified person and instead hiring a random student to do a job for which he or she has no qualifications whatsoever?  If your goal is to become an executive at Guidestone, you have a better chance of reaching that goal by attending seminary (3 of 9 current executives) than by earning your MBA (2 of 9 current executives).  The President/CEO of Guidestone has no graduate degrees in business and no professional financial designations (e.g. CPA, CFP, CFA, etc.).

I would require that the highest-ranking financial officer of each entity not be related to the entity president or any board member of the entity.

I would require the board of each entity to directly hire the entity’s highest-ranking financial officer apart from any influence or involvement on the part of the entity head.

I would make sure that financial officers have the freedom (without fearing for their jobs) to share financial concerns directly with the board when they feel the entity head is not responding appropriately to their concerns.  This provision is necessary as a check on the power of arrogant leaders who know nothing about finances yet nevertheless insist on not following the reasoned recommendations of financial experts.”

 

There is great wisdom in what Matt has laid out.  He has seen the tragic realities of unchecked power linked to unqualified personnel up close and personal in a missions organization and I have seen it in the academic arena and the local church.  While I am aware that there are many who would prefer to believe that their heroes, their pedestalized leaders, would never do such things, it must be stated that such a viewpoint is the very kind of naivete that has allowed such things to happen and continue to happen.  What is needed now is for the masses in our churches to awaken from their slumber before things move even further in such wrong directions.

 

Yes, as we look back to the mid-1990s with at least fairly close to 20/20 hindsight, it must be recognized that quite a bit of the Contract with America never came to legislative fruition.  Still, even having said that, it remains true that the Contract made a significant difference in reforming Congress and other aspects of the U.S. government which had long been abused in the interest of maintaining or extending political power. 

This classic example sets before us the reality of any reforming process: It is highly unlikely that everything which is desired to be reformed will take place.  However, unless the sincere attempt is made to bring about such reforms, it is even much more unlikely that any of the most desperately-needed changes will take place on their own. 

Coming Wednesday: Toward an SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (II): “But, It is ‘Broke!’”

Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

Since I was away from blogging for two weeks, the following article (my weekly column in the Canyon Lake Times-Guardian, as always) is a few days dated.  But, I still think it has some things to say that we–me especially!–would do well to hear.  Enjoy!

                    “New Year’s Resolution?” 

            Did you make a New Year’s resolution (or more) this year?  If so, only a few days into 2008, how is it going?  I hope it’s going well, but, from extensive past experience and observation, I am hardly confident that is the case.

            You see, in years gone by, I frequently made multiple New Year’s resolutions and, sadly, they never lasted very long into that year.  So, as you can imagine, it was very frustrating.

            Finally, I gave up on making my own resolutions and decided to observe how things went with other people who made resolutions.  I reasoned, “Maybe I’m doing something wrong and I can see how others succeed.”  So, I took several years to observe others and whether they could keep their resolutions.

            Well, I did, in fact, note that several people were able to keep some modest, realistic New Year’s resolutions.  However, I also noticed that most people had the exact same experience that I did.  They would start off with real enthusiasm, only to fall flat within a relatively short period of time.

            At that point, honestly, I was ready to give up on New Year’s resolutions altogether.  Why even get involved with something that frustrates and discourages you that much?  And, why get the New Year started off on such a sour note?

            But, that completely negative attitude only lasted for a short period of time.  As I will explain, I instead decided to simply adjust the meaning of “resolution” in my mind, so that something very positive could potentially happen in the place of the predictable failures that had been there before.

            What do I mean?  The common understanding of “resolution” in regard to New Year’s is “to resolve to change something in your life for the better.”  And, that’s not a bad idea, obviously.  But, the 30 pounds or so I lost in 2007 happened without a New Year’s resolution to spur it on (or tempt me to give up early on).  In other words, meaningful change in our personal lives does not require a New Year’s resolution.  And, in my opinion, there is a much more helpful way to define “resolution” as we look at 2008.

            You see, for our purposes here, another equally valid definition of “resolution” is “the result of resolving a problem or a conflict.”  Why not make it your New Year’s resolution(s) for 2008 to focus on resolving a problem or conflict that is causing considerable pain or difficulty in your life?  Wouldn’t that make the most sense?  Wouldn’t that likely impact your life more positively than the normal type of resolution?

            Yes, it is true that there is no guarantee that you will be able to resolve the personal problem or interpersonal conflict?  But, how will you know unless you try?  It can’t happen unless you get beyond the fear and denial and give it your best shot.  And, even if you don’t get it totally worked out, there is real satisfaction in knowing that you gave it everything you had.  And, would you want to die—or the other person, with whom you have the conflict, die—without at least trying your best to find mutually agreeable middle ground and mutual forgiveness.

            Are you willing to give this adjusted approach to “resolution” a chance or two in your life and relationships, to see whether it might work?  It could revolutionize your self-image and at least some key relationships.

            But, before anything else, you might want to check on whether you need to resolve your relationship with the Lord?  In case you didn’t know, He has already done everything that is needed to be reconciled to you by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to the Cross (2 Corinthians 5:17-20).  Your part of that eternal “resolution” with God is faith in Christ.  And, in stark contrast to the common understanding of New Year’s resolutions, that kind of resolution has never failed for any who have trusted Christ in all of history.

Coming Monday: I will resume the series dealing with needed reforms in the SBC.

“Cracks in the Foundation of the Dominance”

Before beginning my first post-New Year’s piece, I would like to address two very different, but equally current (at least for me), issues:

1) In thinking about the proper priorities for my life and ministry in 2008 over the past two weeks, it has become obvious that I need to cut down the time I spend on writing my blogs.  Last year, I came to a point at which it became clear that I needed to write shorter, less complex posts.  But, I was only partially successful from that point forward, largely, in retrospect, because I thought so much in preparation for writing that I usually had way more to say than I could cram into the amount of space that I could expect even a fairly interested reader/commenter to navigate.  Now, with much else clamouring for my time and energy, I am simply going to have to “work smarter, not harder,” which definitely includes figuring out how to say more in less space, with less time invested.  While this does not mean I am less interested in, or committed to, SBC reform, it does (hopefully!) mean that I am coming to grips to with the realities of life for which I am a steward before the Lord.

2) I am tiring of the continuing use of the term “Resurgence” as the continuing terminology for the now clearly Conservative domination of the Southern Baptist Convention.  It was a sufficiently accurate description in the 1980s and ’90s, when the “resurgence” was still mounting toward the eventual passage of the BFM 2000.  However, closing on 30 years into the movement, “resurgence” long since has become ascendancy and complete control (i.e., dominance).  Hence my usage of “the Dominance” in my above title.

(PS- Honestly, the only way in which I think a legitimate case for the continued usage of “resurgence” in 2008 can be made is if the powers that be in the movement truly believe that they somehow lost power in 2006 and 2007 when: a) Frank Page got elected over their hand-picked candidates in Greensboro in ‘06; and 2) the Garner BFM2000 Motion passed in ‘07.  If they are convinced that they fell from power because of those events–right?!–then 2008 would begin–or reassert–the “resurgence.”)

When I was in college at Mississippi Sate, for several months I dated a girl who lived in the exclusive Northeast Jackson (MS) area known as Eastover.  Her father was a very successful businessman and her family lived in a most impressive home.  To say the least, coming from my humble small town roots, I was awed by such a magnificent house.

But, as I continued to visit there over the months, I began to notice something: There were barely visible cracks in some of the walls, which I later found out were related to significant cracks in the foundation of the house.  From that point forward, having seen the vulnerability of that edifice to its foundational flaws, I was considerably less impressed.

As some of you with knowledge of central Mississippi might know,  of that geographical certain areas in that region have a type of soil known as Yazoo clay, which is “volcanic” and, thus, not stable enough to support a great deal of weight without shifting.  And, that, of course, is what has caused the cracking in the foundations of numerous nearby homes and office buildings.

I use this illustration to help explain a reality I see increasingly clearly in the Conservative “Dominance” of the SBC: It is not nearly as impressive after you notice the significant cracks in its foundation.

You do well to ask: “Luter, what in the world do you mean?  Why, the ascendant group has been as solid as a rock for the last almost 30 years.”

Really.  Well, how do explain two things: 1) the glaring high-profile voting losses in ‘06 and ‘07; and 2) the failure of that group to take what is clearly now centerpiece aspects of their ongoing theological agenda to a Convention vote, but, instead, take the chicken’s way out and “legislate” through entity boards they control through trustee appointments?

When you give it even a little mental effort, the obvious answer is that they simply no longer–if they ever did–control the size voting bloc that almost everybody has long believed they had in their hip pockets.  Like me in regard to my former girlfriend’s house, many of us have been so awed by the external impressiveness of the movement, that we have simply assumed it was an impregnable fortress.

At this point, we do well to briefly go back and review things from the beginning, then move forward to our current vantage point, having made some helpful observations.  First, looking back, it is now quite evident that the movement succeeded to a large degree because it rallied the troops emotionally behind a small number of a focused key issues, notably biblical inerrancy. 

Sure, I admit the changes that were played out in the BFM2000 were somewhat more wide-ranging, but the BFM was due for a generational overhaul (i.e., it had been 37 years since its last version had gone into effect).  However, just how far do you think that bunch would have gotten if they had shown their true theological colors back then and had rolled out as part of the BFM2000 the two issues that are now churning the waters with certain entity trustee boards: 1) tongues/private prayer language; and 2) a significanty narrowed approach to what is proper baptism?  Think about it.  There is absolutely no way the BFM2000 would have ever passed with those positions being represented!

Now, that point might be debated in regard to the baptism issue, since there is not enough research or state by state voting data to say for sure.  But, after the Lifeway survey on tongues/PPL released just before the SBC meeting in San Antonio last June, which indicated that 50% of SBC pastors are continuationists (i.e., believing that tongues/PPL still exist), can there be any realistic doubt that that single issue would have put the BFM2000 down for the count?  No.

The movement was also as successful as it was largely because it managed to effectively tar and feather quite a number of otherwise conservative SBCers with the label “moderate,” simply because they did not see fit to villify all other Southern Baptists who were broader in their beliefs.  How else do you explain the continuing retiscence of the major movement leaders to embrace Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for President?  At least to a significant degree, it’s has all the marks of a one-sided vendetta going back to the ’80s, when Huckabee was president of the Arkansas Convention and refused to kowtow to Patterson, Pressler, et al.

Another true oddity of the movement is how it has managed to paper over two massive areas of difference in its ranks: 1) between aggressive anti-Calvinists and aggressive Calvinists; and 2) between the separate fan bases who have virtually deified Paige Patterson and Al Mohler, as well as the huge differences between the two men themselves, who, though thrown together as crucial political allies, don’t particularly like each other (though they desperately need each other!).

Think about the Calvinism issue for just a moment, as it intersects with the Patterson-Mohler factions issue.  With Al Mohler now committed to running for SBC president in Indianapolis, what would happen if Patterson withdrew his support due to Mohler’s Calvinism?  Al would be dead in the water, given that only about 10% of the SBC’s pastors are Calvinists. 

Likewise, what would happen if Patterson tried to continue his behind the scenes crusades, as well as his stonewalling on providing required financial information in response to proper inquiries and in the annual SWBTS seminary report without Mohler’s at least behind the scenes support?  Since Mohler is in a power role as the president of the SBC’s largest seminary and in the Great Commission Council, Patterson, as much of a legend as he is, would still be in trouble.

However, at some point, because of their egos and their intense individual desires to control things and shape the SBC in their individual theological image, Mohler’s Calvinism will overreach and Patterson’s utter distaste for Calvinism will show itself.  And, that’s about all it would take to splinter the “Dominance.”

And, if that’s not enough foundational flaws to get you thinking, as I close, try these on for size.  What is going to happen to the movement when Ben Cole’s book, documenting even much more than what has already come out about Dr. P, hits the bookstores?  Or, what would happen if Patterson loses the lawsuit to Dr. Sheri Klouda and it hits SWBTS to the tune of many millions of dollars?  

Yes, his fanatical followers have been able so far to blindly ignore his opulent lifestyle, his reckless disregard for required reporting of data and the fact that, dropping below 4,000 enrollment at SWBTS sealed Ken Hemphill’s doom, but dog-paddling at just above 3,000 students (while aiming at 6,000 and only falling short by 50%) aparently means nothing in regard to evaluating Dr. P’s integrity or effectiveness as a seminary president.  But, it could become much tougher times to keep your head in the sand like an ostrich about the stacking up of such problematic behavior/decisions in the time ahead.

And, lest it be thought that I am focusing too much on Patterson, let it also be said that Mohler must walk on eggshells in the time ahead.  Yes, he is able to trot out a lot of people to say a lot of nice things–which are, as far as I can see, reasonably true–about him as he mounts his early campaign for the presidency of the Convention.  But, please note that none of them are folks who work with him behind closed doors on a day-to-day basis.  His admirers, at least so far, have all been “at a safe distance” friends.

As you may recall, Mohler vaguely admitted his anger problem in a faculty meeting at Southern, but has not yet really apologized or repented, as far as I know, though his out of control tirade in San Antonio was in front the whole assembled Convention and his abusive behavior to a number of co-workers at SBTS has never been effectively denied.  Add to that the fact that five of his former lieutenants, while refusing to openly criticize Mohler’s angry personal leadership style, also refused to defend him.  And, wrap it up in a bow that remembers that Mark Coppenger was let go by the trustees as president at Midwestern for not a whole lot more than what Mohler has gotten away with behind closed doors for a number of years.

One last image as I bid you adieu: the damage done to a beautiful hillside home by a mudslide.  I lived in Southern California for almost a decade and saw numerous huge expensive homes in places like Laguna Beach just collapse and slide down a hill due to what, in other parts of the country, might not even seem like torrential rains at all. 

The house seemed untouchable one day, then its underpinnings gave out and it was essentially a pile of rubble the next.  That can happen–that does happen more frequently than we think.  Foundational flaws often turn out to be fatal flaws in the long run.  Enough said.

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”