Bloggers Who Live With Their Mothers and Wear Housecoats During the Day

Bruce Prescott called my attention to an article by the Associated Baptist Press regarding Kevin Ezell's nomination to be the President of the North American Mission Board. It seems Dr. Ezell spoke to his church last Sunday, September 12, 2010 about the impending vote of NAMB trustees to make him the agency's President. I have written of my admiration for Dr. Ezell as a pastor/leader, but have also made known my puzzlement over the NAMB Presidential Search Committee nominating someone who has not traditionally been a strong advocate for the Cooperative Program.

I am not the only one who has expressed wonderment over the selection of Dr. Ezell due to his church's historic low giving to the Cooperative Program. I'm not opposed to Dr. Ezell being NAMB President, and frankly, he could wind up being a wonderful, effective leader that takes the North American Mission Board into a new era of church planting and missions.

But I must say I am amazed at one of the statements Dr. Ezell made to his church last Sunday. ABP reports Dr. Ezell said:

"Because of the visibility of the position, there are people across the United States who want to look for things that perhaps I do not do as well or they think we should do different, and perhaps be critical of myself or of Highview, just to try to get their name in the paper ... Typically those are bloggers who live with their mother and wear a housecoat during the day. Just ignore them, but I apologize if you are hurt by anything that they might say about me or indirectly about you."

Statesmanship is a quality of leadership that organically brings people together through eldership, a spirit of caring for others, and a benevolent concern for the whole while resisting a partisan attitude. Not all leaders are statesmen, but all statesmen are leaders. The SBC needs statesmen.  Dr. Ezell's quote above does not negate my belief that Dr. Ezell is a strong leader. It does, however, mitigate against any belief that he is a stateman.

One of the things that turns leaders into statesmen is the ability to be gracious to all, even those who criticize. Regardless of whether or not the proposed NAMB President has the temperament to handle the criticism that will come his way, it would be helpful for him to be gently reminded that it is both inconsistent and illogical to call his critics "bloggers who live with their mothers and wear housecoats" and then "apologize for the hurt" those bloggers cause. Criticism from respected leaders hurts. To publicly disrespect the character of one's critics and then turn around and acknowledge their criticism hurts is a fallacy. It's best to either remain silent in the face of criticism or answer the criticism while displaying respect for the critics.

Leaders who turn into statesmen learn this lesson quickly. I am hopeful Dr. Ezell learns this lesson quicker than most.

A Different Take on Dr. Kevin Ezell's Leadership in His Church's Small CP Giving

When Al Mohler's office issued a press release in early January 2008 that the President of Southern Seminary would allow his name to be entered into nomination for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, I wrote a blog detailing the reasons why I believed Dr. Mohler would not be elected President.

The third reason for my rationale involved Al's home church, Highview Baptist in Louisville, Kentucky, Highview's low percentage giving to the Cooperative Program and their nearly non-existent giving to the traditional SBC missions offerings, including the Lottie Moon Offering for international missions and the Annie Armstrong offering for continental missions. I wrote in January 2008 the following:

"Mohler is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, where he serves as a "teaching pastor" and a Sunday school teacher. The church contributes 3.3 percent of its $5 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program and nothing to the SBC's two mission offerings according to Baptist Press. The mission's giving of one's home church is more important than it might seem at first glance, and in the coming months and years I am quite positive that this issue will only grow in importance in the minds of those whom will chose who leads the SBC."

Although Al Mohler later pulled his name from nomination for President of the SBC, Highview Baptist Church and her pastor, Dr. Kevin Ezell, spent a few weeks "clarifying" their missions giving. In one press release Highview's pastoral leadership explained that the church gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to missions, just  not through the traditional CP mechanism. Explaining their low CP giving, Dr. Ezell stated:

"As for our Cooperative Program giving, Highview has chosen to give the majority of our cooperative funds directly to the SBC instead of funneling the funds through the Kentucky Baptist Convention. The reason is simple: The KBC retains 64% of those funds, and we want to ensure that more of our dollars went directly to evangelism, missions and other programs that Highview supports."

Last week, September 1, 2010, the Search Committee for the President of the North American Mission Board announced they would be presenting Dr. Kevin Ezell for approval as the new President of NAMB. One of the advantages of the Internet is to look back over the past several years and make observations based upon the written record and not simply one's faulty memory. I'd like to give a couple of observations on Dr. Ezell's nomination that might be a different take than most.
 
(1). The Southern Baptist Convention has just come through a mega-shift in terms of leadership. Dr. Ezell has publicly stated that he led his church to bypass his state convention in the church's missions giving, and then the Presidential Search Committee of NAMB, the mission organization tasked with working directly with the respective SBC state conventions, is nominating Dr. Ezell as NAMB's President. I believe Dr. Ezell is a phenominal leader and a wonderful man. I have no argument against him as a person. My observation is a philosophical one. When Dr. Ezell is elected, the Southern Baptist Convention's Cooperative Program as we have known it for decades will be over. We are increasingly moving toward the 1800's model of SBC giving called "societal." Churches will give to those "societies' or "agencies" that best reflect their own ideology or philosophy and/or benefits them the most. Cooperation between state and national agencies in the Southern Baptist Convention, cooperation between churches and their respective state conventions and national missions' agencies, and between mission minded SBC churches will be over. SBC churches, SBC state conventions, and SBC national agencies will be emphasizing their own work and requesting respective cooperation from others, depending less and less on the "Cooperative Program."
 
(2). When Dr. Ezell is elected, a new crop of leadership, including the new President of the Southern Baptist Convention (Wright), the new President of the North American Mission Board (Ezell), and the impending new President of the International Board (the top prospect is a stunner), will now be asking for people and churches in the Southern Baptist Convention to give more to the Cooperative Program and the national missions offerings, but at the same time, attempting to cut cooperative links traditionally tied to the offerings. As I mentioned in the previous post, I find it very interesting that those who formerly refused to give to the CP change their tune when elected to leadership. What's changed? The answer of course is, "The leaders have changed." So, I must ask the question: Do we give to the CP because we like the leaders or do we give to the CP because we like way we are doing missions? I think if Southern Baptists stepped back and took a hard look at the missions work of the SBC over the past few years, we would come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with our agencies when we spend millions of dollars to "change" the way we do missions every time new leaders are elected. The gospel is not a political philosophy that changes like the platforms of Democrats and Republicans. However,  the SBC is looking more and more like a wasteful government agency than a gospel organization.
 
(3). I like Bryant Wright, Frank Page and Kevin Ezell. They are really fine men. The concern I have with the SBC as it relates to my church is the fact that our church gets way more excited about the mission work we do directly in India, Africa, Guatamela, New York and our own state than we do trying to figure out why our national agencies spend tens of millions of dollars constantly changing methodologies, organizational structures, and the way they do missions at the whims of new leadership. Frankly, I wish we listened more to the missionaries on the field (state, national and international) than we do to the ever changing leaders in Nashville, Richmond and Atlanta. Until we have a mechanism that allows our appointed missionaries to have more of a say in what our Convention accomplishes in the field, there is a hesitancy to give more to national offerings just because "new leaders" have emerged.
 
A Principle: Any move toward "societal" giving in the Southern Baptist Convention creates an atmosphere where larger churches become more and more convinced that the best "society" for accountable, effective missions giving is the local church, not a national board.
 
I'm not saying the above principle is right or wrong, it is simply a fact. That's the danger of political and ideological infighting in a Convention built on cooperation. The cooperation fractures to the point the local church believes the best investment in mission dollars is the work being done by its own members.

Southern Baptists and Mormons Maybe More Alike in Church Practice Than We Want to Admit

Recently some Southern Baptists expressed dismay that Glenn Beck, a popular political analyst and television commentator was invited to address Liberty University graduates at 2010 Commencement Ceremonies. Glenn Beck is a dedicated Mormon. But before I jump on the bandwagon of those concerned that a Baptist University would allow a practicing Mormon to give its Commencement Address, I wish to point out that it could be that Baptists, and even Southern Baptists, have much more in common with the Mormon Church than some wish to admit. A Southern Baptist missionary overseas emailed me the following comments:

"I, and many of my colleagues, follow your blog. Thanks for the work you put into it. It is very much appreciated.

I was reading some stuff of Mormonism and I stumbled a quote from a blog called Mormon Truth, a blog written by an obviously disenchanted ex-mormon. Anyway, on the May 25, 2009 posting there is this quote:

"Oh yeah, I forgot...Mormons aren't allowed to ever criticize their hierarchy either because 'its wrong to ever criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true'"

As a missionary I and a few others have been increasingly frustrated with this type of atmosphere so rampant in the SBC and especially in the IMB. Criticism, even if true, is not allowed. The IMB President's closing letters to the missionaries (he is up to 21) just reinforce this. All blame is placed at the feet of complaining missionaries with little, actually no, thought given to the idea that the "complaints" of the missionaries might be true. I was only sharing this because I was really struck with how similar the tact of the LDS is so similar to the predominate leadership in the SBC and IMB.

Ok, that's enough of that. Again, thank you for fighting for truth. Know that there are many missionaries on the field who are thankful that you are bringing things to light that should not be hidden.

God bless."

I know precisely to what this missionary is referring. When an organization becomes heavy on the top end, with no allowance for communication, criticism and suggestions from the front lines, then the organization must create a climate where leadership cannot be questioned.

This is one of tactics used in mega-churches, large religious organizations and conventions. It's also one of the reasons that Southern Baptists should seriously look at the long term effects of the GCR report. The further removed you get from the field of actual ministry, and the more you depend upon national headquarters to make decisions about what should be done in local municipalities and states (instead of the local missionaries on the field), then the more you are throwing money at a problem with no real solutions.

Just ask New York City Southern Baptist pastors about their experience with the North American Mission Board and their top down approach to doing ministry there. The criticism voiced was dismissed as irrelevant and all that is left to show for the NAMB ministry are rooms stacked full of high dollar office equipment in a building at 72nd and Broadway and an association of local pastors who have fought having to file bankruptcy because national headquarters refused to listen to their pleas that NAMB's efforts were duplicating their own. NAMB's now gone, and the New York Baptist Association is left to pick up the pieces. They will make it, but what would have happened had national headquarters been open to suggestions and criticisms before they made their move to strategic city ministries?

It's time we Southern Baptists listened to criticism. It will help us in the long run.

In His Grace,

Wade