Brad Whitt claims to be considered irrelevant. He is incredibly relevant. As a man who is called of God and serving out of obedience, he is, by definition, relevant – as are the “young, restless and reformed” pastors, as he calls them. Both can, and will, be used of God to further his kingdom (whether they are wearing ties, T-shirts, or camel hair).
The problem with his article (and, perhaps, some articles that he would see as opposing his) is that, in its passion, it fails to make any usable salient point, unless his point was that there’s going to be a fight and everybody better pick sides. He was given the honor of the microphone, with the chance to exercise leadership. Did he succeed? That depends on the grace with which we read.
Southern Baptists are at a crossroads and must evaluate their effectiveness at accomplishing their mission – not maintaining the bureaucracy. Not only is this wise, it is what was overwhelmingly voted for at last year’s national convention. The Southern Baptist Convention has existed for 165 years, and still there is talk about building at home to be strong to reach out elsewhere. The Cooperative Program was created to reach elsewhere. Are not the 2,200 churches in South Carolina, using more than 95 percent of their budgets, able to take care of growing the work here? If not, in what century will the convention be strong enough to move out with purpose? These are tough facts and tough questions. Southern Baptists must put aside emotion and be pragmatic.
To his credit, Whitt does mention needed changes and tweaks. That should have been the central piece of his article. He should have been specific in his suggestions and given questions that need answering. He would have been better served focusing on the common points located in The Baptist Faith and Message around which we base our cooperative effort. He chose instead to distract with centuries-old theological debates, methodology, and tradition that nowhere are treated in our documents governing cooperation.
Whitt paints two camps, apparently divided along theological and methodological lines – one giving faithfully to the Cooperative Program, and one not. That’s a broad brush that even a small amount of research would show as untrue. His tone implies that those who are unhappy with the convention are stealing from it. Actually, most of them are just walking away, neither taking anything from the convention nor giving anything to it. They have taken his friends’ advice to “forget about it.” Here, Whitt’s leadership is commendable. He has at least chosen to not throw the baby out with the bath water and is entering the discussion.
Whitt’s zeal and track record are both commendable. It appears he is doing an excellent job leading his congregation and has taken on some tough tasks for the kingdom. He has given sacrificially of his time to the convention. He has earned the right to be heard. But a wise leader would spend more time listening and asking questions so that when he does speak, he is a leader toward unity and not one toward division, toward a kingdom focus and not a bureaucracy focus.
What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editor addressing this or another subject.