It has taken me a week to sit down to write my reflections on my experience of the BGCT Annual Meeting in Amarillo.
One noteworthy experience of this annual meeting was the historic election. In a previous post, I indicated that I supported (and cast my vote for) Joy Fenner as BGCT president. I still support Joy and do not have second thoughts about voting for her. While I recognize the historic significance of electing a woman to serve as president of our convention, I also recognize Joy as a person worthy of holding this position. Her background as a missionary and her leadership experience with Texas WMU have prepared her for this position as much as any pastor or denominational leader. I believe Joy is perhaps the best “historic” president we have had in recent years and will serve well.
I have great respect for David Lowrie. I first met David in April 1996, when he and I shared responsibilities officiating at my father-in-law’s funeral. However, I have even more respect for David now than ever before. I truly believe David has a Kingdom perspective for his church and for the future of Baptist witness in Texas.
After a week of reflection, I am less concerned about the close vote in the presidential election—only 60 votes separated the two candidates. I have heard some refer to this close vote as “the end of the BGCT” and as a sign that we are “hopelessly divided.” I would agree with this interpretation if there were two organized, political parties vying for control of the convention. Yet, this is not the case. David Lowrie did not run on a political platform and has pledged his support for the new president. I believe him.
Perhaps a political campaign would have brought more people to Amarillo. As it was, there were only 1740 votes cast in this election. In my opinion, the low number of registered messengers is a more telling sign than the 60 votes that separated the two candidates. I am trying to choose between two possible interpretations for the relatively low attendance in Amarillo.
First, it could be a sign that the generation which cared about denominational politics is dying out. I am 36 years old and was one of the youngest people in attendance. I am pastor of a church that ranks in the top 150 churches in Cooperative Program giving through the BGCT. Most of the younger people attending the BGCT meeting fall into the same category: they were pastors and spouses of historically supportive churches. The days of busing a full slate of messengers to the convention to vote for a political may be over. If so, Baptists in Texas will be better for it. The low number of messengers could be a positive sign of a hopeful future.
Second, this could be a sign that the BGCT is becoming less relevant. The BGCT Annual Meeting is definitely not relevant to the lay people of our church who are under the age of 50. I fear this is symptomatic of the decline of the entire denominational enterprise. Which leads me to ask a question: How long should we keep a denomination on life support?
I remember using an illustration in a sermon when I was pastor in Mississippi. I asked a rhetorical question about propping up dead and dying church programs. I said something like, “If your horse dies while you are riding it, will you stay on the horse?” A six-year old girl in the back of the congregation answered loudly, “NO!” I answered her, “That’s right. When the horse dies, you get off.”
If our beloved denomination is no longer relevant to our churches, then we have to get off the horse. I do NOT mean we should withhold funding. I just think it is time to evaluate our relevance. If we are no longer relevant, then we must invent / re-invent something that is relevant. We need something that no longer resembles the denominational structures of the 19th Century, no matter how effective those structures might have been in the past two centuries.
I realize these are just questions. I do not have the answers. I believe Texas Baptists now have an opportunity to create something uniquely Baptist and distinctively Christian which has never existed before now. Perhaps the “Study Committee” authorized by the messengers in the Annual Meeting can begin this type of dreaming. But whatever happens…Please don’t call it a restructuring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you are right on both counts. The generation that was won to the Lord and involved in the churches back in the 50's, 60's and early 70's is dying out. Those folks, mostly in their 60's, 70's and 80's now, made up the bulk of the messengers at the BGCT. They get a kick out of a meeting that once dragged out over parts of three days and has been mercifully shortened to one and a half. They revel in the hallway conversations, in the wandering among the exhibit booths, in the cumbersome, lengthy business sessions, in the formalities. The only reason I go is because our church feels that someone should be there and wrote it into my job description. I don't know what I would do if it were not for the breakout sessions. But the older generation that enjoys convention life is aging, and dying off, and the result is fewer messengers at the convention.
The relevance of the various layers of Baptist life is also an issue. Denominational lines have blurred, churches network with various independent providers for services and products that were once the exclusive domain of the denomination.
Relevance is also a legitimate question. Churches network with all kinds of different organizations for services and products that used to be the exclusive domain of the denomination. There is also the question of the efficiency of the organization itself. Many churches now do missions on their own. Does it really take an executive staff and a building full of administrative assistants to manage the operation of a dozen entities and nine colleges and universities, especially when they all pretty much have their own heads and run themselves? And there is always the question of why it is necessary to spend a lot of money to travel to a distant city, stay in an expensive hotel, eat in restaurants just to conduct business that many people perceive to be cut and dried in advance.
I think low attendance at BGCT meetings may be due to a third factor. We've lost 1,800 churches to the rival state convention. Those messengers no longer come to the BGCT. Remove the element of the controversy of the past decade or so that drew out larger than normal crowds and you may be seeing what is typical participation for the churches that are still left in the BGCT. The claim is that we still have 5,700 churches affiliated with the BGCT, but I would bet that number is probably closer to 4,500. And a good number of those participate only because they still have some members in the congregation that insist on it. In my neck of the woods, I could point you to half a dozen churches that will stop sending money to the BGCT as soon as the handful of older members in their church that insist on it die off. That's the result of denominational politics.
I do believe the size of the vote for David Lowrie is an indication of a high level of discontent with the current BGCT administration, and with Texas Baptists Committed. People are tired of that sort of thing. There is a perception out there, not completely without foundation, that the leadership of the BGCT is slanted toward the theological left. The executive director search will be a major indicator for most Texas Baptists with regard to the direction of the convention. If an individual who is perceived as a "friend of the left" is selected, you will see another large exodus of churches from the BGCT.
I'm not trying to be a prophet of doom, but I believe I see some things coming down the pike.
Post a Comment