Who Can Eat from the Denominational Table?

Who Can Eat from the Denominational Table?

Every entity of a convention — state or national — fulfills an important role in the life of its respective convention. But what role do conventions play in the lives of the entities they sponsor? That question lies in the background as Southern Baptists gather in Nashville for their annual meeting June 21–22.

The issue before messengers in Nashville — which will have been decided by the time this editorial is read — relates to New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and a technical question called “sole membership” (see June 9 issue of The Alabama Baptist, page 4, or visit www.thealabamabaptist.org and search for “sole membership”). But the question of convention relations goes beyond this one issue.

Using a family analogy clarifies the concerns. Convention entities consider themselves part of the denominational family. Entities contribute to the family in all the ways requested of them. Entities help strengthen the family. Their work builds up the family’s leadership, increases the family’s resources, confirms the family’s sense of purpose and supports other parts of the denominational family.

As in all healthy families, all the parts work together for the good of the whole.

In return, entities anticipate being treated as family members because they are part of the family. They believe they will be cared for, nourished and nurtured. In practical terms, that means family members will pray for them, seek their well being, avail themselves of services when appropriate and support the entities through the convention budget.

Simply stated, as family members, entities expect to eat at the family table along with all other family members. But increasingly that expectation is not shared by all parts of the denominational family.

In strategic planning meetings, budget discussions and other venues, entities are being told they have no right to expect to be nourished from the denominational table. Entities are being told they are vendors, not family members. They hear their value is in providing products and services that the family needs.

Entities get the message. They are allowed to participate in the family only as long as their services are needed and their conduct is appropriate.

The convention budget is one expression of family participation. It also is an expression of family discipline that is exercised by those charged with recommending the family budget. It is impossible to draw direct lines between hallway conversations by decision makers and what happens in a public forum. Still it is interesting to hear threats to an entity’s annual appropriation in the convention budget because budget makers are unhappy with some internal development of an entity or some entity’s strategy.

In theory, this should never happen. Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) bylaws, for example, specify that the SBC Executive Committee, the group charged with formulating the annual SBC budget, has no “authority to control or direct” the internal affairs of an entity.

The bylaws further state that the Executive Committee can function on behalf of the convention only in “matters not otherwise provided for.” Obviously areas assigned to entities lay outside of the budget makers’ responsibility.

But humanly speaking, one’s personal feelings always color one’s denominational responsibility. As a result, it is understandable that budget decisions, or the threat of budget decisions, can be used by the budget maker to influence the decisions and directions of other parts of the family.

Some call this centralization of authority. New Orleans Seminary President Chuck Kelley raised this issue in his efforts to resist the Executive Committee’s request concerning sole membership. It is the same issue that caused a large portion of Baptists to oppose the creation of the SBC Executive Committee in 1925.

What happens on an SBC level can happen on a state level. Earlier this year, a threat was made to defund the Louisiana state Baptist paper unless the paper relinquished its status as a convention entity and came under the control of the executive director. The paper refused. Now all wait to see what the state’s proposed budget will reflect.

Budget makers usually refute charges that they are trying to control entities through the powers of the purse by pointing out that all they do is recommend budgets.

It is true that messengers approve the budgets,  but in almost four decades of watching state and national conventions adopt budgets, changes to budgets on the convention floor is the rarest of actions. Practically speaking, the power to recommend is the power to set direction.

So the question remains. Are convention entities part of the denominational family, or are they vendors from whom the denomination buys products and services? Are convention entities entitled to financial support from the convention budget because they are part of the family, or does that support depend on keeping budget makers happy? What should entities expect from their sponsoring conventions?

The answers to these questions will not come quickly or easily but how they are answered will go far in determining what kind of convention Baptists will have in the days ahead.