Is the BGCT turning back toward the SBC?

[Sandy]

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=53

I only see one member of the search committee appointed to find a new executive director for the BGCT with CBF ties. Some of the churches who have perpetual representation on the more powerful boards and committees, and multiple members scattered throughout the convention bureaucracy, are missing from this list. That's in contrast to the last search committee, which was almost completely tied down by CBF-supporting churches, and included several well-connected coordinating council members from Texas. Other than an inordinate number of executive board members, which is going to happen in the BGCT whenever there is any big decision to be made, this committee seems to be tilted in the favor of the convention's churches that are more supportive of the SBC. It is shocking that there is no one on the committee from Dallas Wilshire, Lubbock Second, San Antonio Trinity or Houston South Main. And I thought that they showed some real sense when Wayland's President Paul Armes was named as an advisor.

It almost appears that at least some of the BGCT leadership is getting the message that an overwhelming majority of its churches do not want to leave the SBC, or alter their support for its mission programs, in spite of what might be a mild dislike or disdain for SBC leadership and what they've done. They might not like the SBC's leadership or the way they've gone about doing things, but they clearly don't want Cooperative Program giving to be used as a wedge to force issues and fight the leadership. The BGCT's undesignated CP gifts have dropped like a stone, over 30% in five years, and have experienced another rapid fall off this year, far beyond what economic recession and the general trend toward postdenominationalism have done in other conventions and religious bodies. Yet, the churches continue to increase the designated percentage of CP gifts that are forwarded on to the SBC.

It may be too late to make a change, but deep change is the only way the BGCT is going to avoid becoming the second largest Baptist body in the state. The next executive director needs to be completely free of any ties to any moderate Baptist group, particularly CBF, and his theme needs to be realistic in that churches need to see a deliberate and decisive turn back toward warmer relationships with the SBC along with the social ministry emphasis and the generic "missions and gospel" programmatic approach that characterized Everett's short tenure. In addition to a more SBC-aligned executive director, the entire executive board needs to resign, because the first thing the new exec needs to do, is to make sure the CP giving that is passed along to the SBC is increased.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I think Sandy's analysis is just a bit flawed.

The opposite of the CBF is not always the SBC in Texas Baptist life. Those aren't the only two options.

Just because members of the committee are not CBF supporters does not mean that they are cheerleaders for the SBC. Sure, it's true that most churches in the BGCT still support Lottie, Annie, and the IMB. But they are also extremely committed to Texas Baptist institutions and Texas Baptist ministries. They might not support CBF but that doesn't mean they have any intention of changing the status quo. After all, changing the status quo would mean less $$$ stays in Texas, would mean Texas Baptist institutions and ministries suffer.

I have my doubts that we'll see the BGCT start sending more money to Southern, Southwestern and the ERLC anytime soon....

What does "more supportive of the SBC" look like in Texas? Give some examples.

I note that David Lowrie (who I really like) is on the committee. I guess that means he's not going to be a candidate. Who do you think are contenders, Sandy? It will be interesting to see if the BGCT seriously considers someone currently outside of Texas again. Samurai mentioned an unnamed Baylor VP as a candidate. I can't think of anyone who would be interested or qualified at Baylor with title VP (and it wouldn't be a pay bump for a Baylor VP either).

[William Thornton]

If the trends continue the BGCT will be the second largest Baptist state convention...in Texas.

No one can look at what has happened there and not say that the BGCT is in freefall. But heck, they earned it: valleygate's squandered millions; Wade's head in sand posture; Everett's doing interims as CEO, as if Sundays are optional for the BGCT leader to be in BGCT churcheS; love affair with TBC and it's colorful ex-director. But wait! There's bound to be more...unfortunately.

I might ask Sandy, to whom else might they turn? They seem to have exhausted their desired constituency.

Give them top billing for entertainment, though. It's been fascinating to watch.

Wm, not a Texan, never will be, couldn't stand the drama

[Neil Heath]

I would not rejoice over any state moving to be more aligned with SBC, because I see that as a step backward and a negative trend for the cause of Christian work and witness.

Granted, Texas needs to get their act together and install a leadership team that can take them where they need to go. And perhaps show them where they want to go. But I would rather be in a faithful minority than join a majority going in the wrong direction.

Education is key to leading Baptists, or as someone as said, "tell the truth and trust the people". A lot of harm has been done in Baptist life by not doing that very thing. The takeover was a direct result of not doing either, IMHO.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed; Maybe they will call you back to Texas.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Do you have your calendar marked fro the BFNE meeting in May ? And yes I know you are working out side of Baptist life. We welcome observes. No registration fee.

[Haruo]

[Stephen Fox]

I am pretty much with Neil Heath and Big Didd on this one.

The fellow from Fitzgerald Georgia has good take on Baptist mess at his blog, recently endorsed by ED.com, I think it was. I think I made a link here.

William needs to join his team, engage his blog. SBC carries much more baggage than BGCT, and I have to believe in his Heart William knows it; but I continue to relish his participation on this board.

[Jerry_B]

I for one would be fine with being the second largest in the state of Texas. The second largest that supports children's homes, multiple universities, BWA, border mission work, etc..., the SBTC doesn't concern itself with these matters. Instead the put on several mega-church type "cool" events which cost who knows how much and ....well, that's about it. Everything else is just a tip of the cap to how great and wonderful all things SBC are.

I have been hoping for years that the BGCT would declare its independence from all things SBC and allow those wanting to be fundamentalists (or at least associated with fundamentalists) to go on their fundamentalist way. I just know there is a place somewhere in between the fundamentalism of the SBC and the liberalism of the Alliance for Baptists to cooperate with one another, it's not an either or, zero sum game.

The BGCT could stake out this niche in Baptist life but for whatever reason ($$$$) have refused to pull the SBC plug, which is really too bad. On their current tracks the SBTC and BGCT are in nothing more then a race to irrelevance.

[Haruo]

But Jerry (good to see you post, btw), don't you realize that Big is Cool in the Eyes of the Lord? Seriously, which one do you think is God's favorite rent-a-car company?

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

The SBT deserves its own topic.

I plan to offer an incredibly insightful and brilliant blog on the organization after the first of the year.

[Jerry_B]

Do you know how much money it would take to generate the millions of dollars the BGCT gives to the universities each year, especially when the economy is like it is? Yes, it is a small percentage for the BGCT but the effect would be big for the schools. Just this year the convention voted down an executive board approved attempt for the HBU to elect non Baptists to it's board.

Not being in the SBC doesn't automatically mean CBF, that's my point. Yes, our church supports CBF missions, but we also allow folks to designate to the SBC if they choose. Now that portion is smaller each year as those members age, but there is a place that is non SBC yet not CBF either. These churches support the 1963 BFM, don't support women being pastors, are conservative in their outlook but not fundamentalist and think that the historic Baptist principles of soul freedom and the like are worth standing up for. There are churches full of people that are tired of having to explain "No, we aren't that kind of Baptist" whenever the SBC does something silly and embarrassing. That number of churches would be larger then 250.

The church I pastor don't need the BGCT, we certainly could do what we do without them, yet we choose to support them (proposed to increased from 10% to 13% this budget year) because we believe in Howard Payne, Wayland (have students at both), Buckner, South Texas Children's Home and the like. They are great ministries worthy of our support.

The BGCT has stumbled, without a doubt. Obviously Everett was a mistake, but I had that feeling from the beginning, so no shocker there at least from my point of view. Wade was OK, though his unwillingness to "embarrass" some people that needed "embarrassing" was costly in more ways then dollars and he overreached in thinking the state wanted to be involved with the New Baptist Covenant. It's nothing that can't be "fixed" however with the right leadership in place and clear vision of what the BGCT has been and what it could be.

There is real opportunity in Texas, the world is coming to our state and a state convention committed to supporting the mission's work already happening in our churches and inspiring a graceful approach to missions instead of dictating what a church should look like is a convention that will find itself relevant for the long haul. There are some hard decisions that have to be made by the BGCT, no doubt, but not making them ensures mediocrity.

[Sandy]

[Jerry_B]

I think you misunderstood me a bit.

These churches support the 1963 BFM, don't support women being pastors, are conservative in their outlook but not fundamentalist and think that the historic Baptist principles of soul freedom and the like are worth standing up for. There are churches full of people that are tired of having to explain "No, we aren't that kind of Baptist" whenever the SBC does something silly and embarrassing. That number of churches would be larger then 250.

These types of churches are out there, I encounter them all the time.

On the other points. I am well aware that the BGCT is going through difficult times right now. You think the solution is running back to the SBC, I don't. The BGCT should emphasize the importance of the local church in evangelizing their community, education, stay apolitical, be financially transparent and avoid the extremes of right wing fundamentalism.

For another thread, how churches can support international missions without supporting the IMB.

[Sandy]

Jerry, I don't think turning back to the SBC will solve all of the problems the BGCT is facing at the present time. Though some of their difficulties are indeed related to the general paradigm shifts of post-denominational thinking, and the recession (given that Texas' conservative politicians have declared that their state didn't experience it as bad as everyone else did) much of what they are experiencing has been aggravated and enhanced by the hard line posture the convention's leadership took regarding the SBC's conservative resurgence. Under the prodding and pushing of Texas Baptists Committed, they misread a little bit of Texas independent-mindedness, and some mild dislike for those Texans involved in the resurgence and mistook it for outright opposition. In retaliation, they used CP gifts as a weapon, threatened to use the BGCT as the base for a rival Baptist Convention of the Americas, and engaged in a petty spitting war that included refusing to allow Southwestern Seminary exhibit space at state convention meetings. They mis-labelled those who support the SBC as "fundamentalists" (they aren't) and continued to push leaders into place to deliberately advance a left-wing agenda.

All of that has made the current difficulties faced by the BGCT much more severe than it had to be. Over 2,000 churches have switched affiliation, and many of those which originally chose a dual affiliation are now opting out of the BGCT altogether. Those remaining in the BGCT, over 4,500 of them, are uniquely aligned with the SBC, do not participate in any of the alternative giving plans, don't support the BWA, CBF, or any other "moderate" Baptist cause, and have increased their support for SBC causes to a level that averages eight percent higher than the BGCT's 27% threshold. There is no Baptist Convention of the Americas, few out of state churches have affiliated, and the BGCT, which once budgeted and distributed over $60 million in CP gifts just approved a budget of somewhere around $38 million, and is hoping that another 6 to 8% decrease in giving won't affect this year's proposal. The SBC, on the other hand, now collects more money from Texas Baptists, via both the SBTC and the BGCT, than it ever did when the BGCT was the largest state convention.

I'd say that a restoration of relations with the SBC is now a necessity for the BGCT to cut its losses and face a much diminished and re-organized future. It's clearly what the majority of its churches want to do.

[Jerry_B]

You point out many of the problems past and current, I could add some others unrelated to SBC relations as the BGCT hasn't done a good job of in state relations. I would prefer the blaze your own trail route for the BGCT, but I am fully aware I am in the vast, vast minority. There is movement toward "can't we just get along" to which I say no, I don't want to cooperate with the SBC, they don't represent the kind of Baptist I am or ever want to be. But neither do I want to a part of pushing a left-wing agenda, because I'm a conservative guy. I guess that leaves me somewhere in the middle.

I will be watching where this all leads, the BGCT has some decisions to make and depending on what those choices are I am well aware that I may very well find myself in some way in the independent camp, which is fine.

[Sandy]

The current relationship structure between churches, state conventions, associations and the SBC is under the strain of the pressures of post-denominational paradigm shifts, so the way things are developing in Texas may well set the tone for the way Baptists work through it. Though it may not go according to preferences, these kinds of things usually wind up creating a more effective, efficient way of doing things in the long run.

Southern Baptists in general, and Texas Baptists in particular, have some cultural baggage that has a tendency to hold them back and interfere with genuine change. They tend to be very klannish and cliquish, and choose their leadership in a way that is not unlike the heirarchial denominations they criticize. Getting the prestigious, sugar plum denominational leadership positions is more a matter of who you know rather than what you can do, and that's just the way it is. The pastorate is the base occupation for launching careers. That's how someone can be promoted from a newspaper editor to seminary president, which would normally not be possible in the real world.

The advance of the "resurgence/takeover" from 1979 onward in the SBC narrowed the BGCT leadership too, into a "circle the wagons" perimeter designed more to protect the influence and self-appointed prestige of those in power than to advance the aims and vision of a Baptist state convention. I can name a dozen churches from which most of the TBC and state convention leaders of the past three decades have been drawn. That they are churches which are most definitely theologically and doctrinally to the left of most of the rest of the churches was unfortunate for the convention's institutions. The formation of the SBTC was the open opposition, an eruption of dynamic proportions given the size of the BGCT. What appears as apathy and disinterest in the BGCT itself, sagging convention attendance and rapidly dropping CP support, is actually the more passive opposition to the leadership, something characteristic of Baptists who would rather not make a fuss.

What will it all look like in the end? I'm no prophet, but I can see that, with the exception of Baylor, which doesn't really need financial assistance from its Baptist constituency to survive, the other universities will become dually affiliated with both state conventions, once the BGCT is either normalized by leadership that moves to the right of where it is now, or until it dwindles down to the point where it is too small to control them with money and trustee leadership. Baylor led the way when the convention approved its self-perpetuating trustee board and that will preclude any legal wrangling when the other schools eventually decide to do the same and take steps to do so. There may be some churches which determine to operate independently, others whose participation in denominational structures will be marginal to satisfy some members who still want to do so, and still other, new associations which we don't even envision at the present. But the BGCT, as it now exists, has no future except in the event of a move to the right, back into closer association with the SBC, to stabilize its financial situation.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[quote="Sandy"]Quote from Kevin Pinney, Baylor chemistry professor and researcher, in the article:
" "It is not always easy to find people without offending them. They can even have strong Christianity and still not want to be asked about it."

That's an interesting quote. If that's really the essence of what's required in taking a "regional Baptist university" and turning it into a "world-class research university" then it seems to me it amounts to downplaying the Christian emphasis of the school, and faith of its faculty, in order to gain some kind of nebulous academic acceptance from, whom? A secular news magazine publisher? I would have serious questions about the strength of someone's Christianity if they didn't want to be asked about it. The Apostle Peter wrote that Christians who have the kind of strong faith that is so visible in someone's life it makes people ask them about it are to "always be ready to give an answer to those who ask you about the hope that you have" (I Peter 3:15). Along those same lines, Jesus said that a city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. Many of Baylor's staff and administrators seem to have difficulty distinguishing between "Christianity" and "religion" and use the words interchangeably in speaking about the "Christian" or "religious" emphasis at Baylor. The problem with that is that Christianity is not a religion, and it is changed, diluted and misinterpreted when it is categorized and interpreted as such.[quote="Sandy"]

My hunch is that perhaps the level of openness about faith is different in fields like chemistry and engineering than in the social sciences/liberal arts. My phd program is interdisciplinary. I've taken classes in Church-State, Religion, Sociology, Political Science and History. My professors have been open about their faith background and commitments.