It was supposed to be a day of celebration. After all, the event was the dedication of a new church building. Instead it was a sad day when fewer than half the church members joined the festivities. And even they wondered about how they would pay for the new complex.
About two years earlier, the church’s new pastor had a vision of a new brick building located along a sweeping curve of a well-traveled county road about two miles from where the old wooden building stood. Some members bought into his vision, and the church made plans to relocate and construct a new building.
When decision time came, the motion to relocate passed by one vote. Such division might have caused some churches to take a second look at the project. But not in this case. Buoyed by a majority vote of one, the pastor moved ahead.
On the day the church was dedicated, his victory was clear for all to see. He had his new building, an impressive sight from either direction. Unfortunately he lost most of the church members as every step toward the new building seemed to result in fewer and fewer people committed to the project.
I left that service wondering if church leadership is about winning or about building a working consensus within the body of Christ. That is still an open question.
Sadly the young pastor moved to another church a few months after moving into the new building, leaving the members to struggle with a huge debt and a critical reputation for the next two decades.
James L. Sullivan, former president of the Baptist Sunday School Board (now LifeWay Christian Resources), used to talk about a bulldozer setting out to make a path from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Sullivan pointed out that a bulldozer is powerful enough to scrape aside obstacles in its path but when it reaches its final destination, it has only debris scattered along its way.
His point was bulldozing toward some goal may do more harm than good. This is especially true in volunteer organizations in which working together depends on common commitments to common values resulting in common goals.
Hudson Baggett, former editor of The Alabama Baptist, used to ask, “What convention?,” when told that because the convention had voted on something, the issue was settled. Baggett asked if 8,000–10,000 messengers could adequately reflect the thinking of 14 million Southern Baptists (now the Southern Baptist Convention claims 16 million-plus members) or if 1,000 messengers could reflect the values of 1 million Alabama Baptists.
Baptists recognize the impossibility of “representing” others by our polity. No messenger represents anyone but himself or herself. Actions by a convention or opinions expressed in resolutions are binding only on those present and voting.
Baggett asked about the churches that were not represented when a vote was taken, about opinions of lay leaders, about those who help the individual congregations, which make up a denomination, function week in and week out. “What do these people think?” he frequently asked. And for him, what people in the local church felt was far more important than the result of some vote during a convention.
Baptists’ congregational polity indicates that effective leadership is not so much about winning a vote in a church business meeting or a denominational annual meeting as it is about building a working consensus that allows the whole body to move forward together. After all, God is not divided.
The Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) Task Force report illustrates this point. These words were written before the vote on that important report. But one thing is clear: No matter the outcome of the vote on the GCR Task Force report, it is like the first inning of a ballgame. If the report was adopted June 15, then the next inning will be played in the various SBC entities charged with studying the issues and making decisions about implementing the recommendations. State conventions will play an inning as they determine how best to respond to the various recommendations. Of course, none of the recommendations will be effective without buy-in from local Southern Baptist churches, so the inning played there will be the most important of all. And there will be another inning in the national convention as messengers vote on implementation.
Whether the report was approved or declined, the game still continues. Every denomination must constantly change to face new challenges and respond to new opportunities. Issues raised by the task force are not going away because of some convention vote. They must be addressed so again, SBC entities, state conventions and, most importantly, local churches will all play a part in determining the final outcome.
Just as it would be wrong for GCR champions to ignore the concerns of those who oppose the report, it would be equally wrong for opponents to ignore the passions of those who favor the proposed changes.
The report calls for unity where Southern Baptists work together in love for the sake of the gospel. The report lifts up the importance of relationships in which we consider others more important than ourselves. The report calls for us to speak truth to one another rather than attention-grabbing sound bites. The report envisions a future when all Southern Baptists are welcomed.
This kind of future is not based on winning. It is based on building a working consensus whether in a local church or a national body.
The pastor of the church mentioned above was ahead after the first inning of his church-relocating game. He got his new building but ended up losing the game. We hope Southern Baptists will be wiser than that young man and that we will be more concerned about building consensus than about our side winning.
Share with others: