Yes! I Support Biennial Meetings.

To register your support for biennial meetings, please visit http://tinyurl.com/79ugw2u. I will only list your name, church, and location on this page.

Thank you again for enduring all these posts on biennial meetings. I hope they were informative and helpful.

For Christ and the gospel,

Daniel

Biennial Meetings: Saving $10 million, really?!

When I asked the Executive Committee to review the costs and potential savings associated with the annual meeting of the SBC, I asked them to consider everything -- the convention center, the buses, the parking, the hotels, the flights, the car rentals, the meals, the child care, the coffee, the Exhibit Hall, the shipping and erecting of booths, lighting, staging, the publications, the computers, monitors, webcasting, staffing, and anything else that goes into an annual meeting.

According to this article, "the Executive Committee said the change would save several hundred thousands of dollars in years the convention doesn't meet."

I assume that the Executive Committee did not understand my request because I cannot fathom how this statement is accurate unless they are counting only the direct expenditures by the Executive Committee.

Allow me to explain how our Convention of churches approaches and likely exceeds $10 million for its annual meeting. I am intentionally conservative in my estimates below.

Direct Convention Expenses

I do not know a current figure for direct convention expenses by the Executive Committee. I do not have my copy of One Sacred Effort by Brand and Hankins with me this afternoon, but, from memory, I believe they estimated direct convention expenses at $900,000 per year. The book was released in 2005. I suspect direct convention expenses remain near $1 million annually.

Messenger Expenses

There were approximately 7,800 messengers at the SBC in New Orleans. New Orleans is not an inexpensive city. Most convention locations are quite pricey. Even though I overnighted in New Orleans for only two nights (many are there for at least 3 nights), the cost of my travel, food, lodging, and parking was nearly $1,000. Based on my conversations with other messengers, I did very well! Assuming every messenger spent an average of $1,000, Great Commission Baptists spent $7.8+ million last week.

Agency Expenses

"Booth space" in the Exhibit Hall is not inexpensive. Even a modest exhibit filling a 20ft. by 20ft space can cost upwards of $30,000 not counting additional costs to ship, assemble, and staff these booths. Just surveying the Exhibit Hall and doing a little "mental math" suggests that our Convention probably spends at least $1 million on filling the Exhibit Hall.

SBC Convention Math

$1 million + $7.8 million + $1 million = a very conservative $9.8 million

State Conventions

I assume that state convention meetings vary greatly in terms of their overall costs. I suspect that states in the southeastern US naturally spend more than those in the northeast or midwest simply because of the size of space required and the numbers of messengers in attendance. In states like Georgia, Florida, Texas, Alabama, and etc., I am hoping a reasonable and conservative guesstimate of the total convention costs (using the same methodolgy as above) would be approximately $1 million for each state. Other state conventions probably cost less than $50,000.

Based on the very loose (but hopefully conservative!) mental math above, I guesstimate that the average state convention costs at least $325,000 in direct convention expenditures, travel, lodging and etc. Assuming that the 42 state conventions cost an average of $325,000 each year, another $13.65 million could be saved if state conventions also moved to a biennial meeting schedule.

SBC + State Convention Math

$9.8 million + $13.65 million = $23.45 million every 2 years/2 years = $11.7 million/year

Concluding Thoughts

I recognize that not every person who attends the Convention each year will take their money and use it for a mission trip or donate it to Lottie Moon or Annie Armstrong. Nevertheless, churches would have more resources for ministry in their community or to save and send messengers biennially.

Agencies would save significant dollars typically spent for purchasing, erecting, and staffing booths at the SBC and could re-deploy those dollars to hire a professor, send more missionaries, or commission more church planters. The direct expenditures by the Executive Committee in the "off years" could be a significant way of reaching mark of at least 51 percent of the SBC allocation budget being used to fund the IMB.

Considering a move to biennial meetings is not considering change for the sake of change; it is considering meaningful change for the sake of mission and ministry - for the sake of Christ and the gospel.

I thank you for your consideration and welcome your questions or comments.

Possible Other Biennial Objections

1. What about the end of Trustee terms and the need to approve new Trustees on an annual basis?

If biennial meetings began right away, Trustee terms that are slated for an odd number of years (i.e. 5 years) and which are scheduled to conclude in an odd-numbered year would either need to be reduced or extended by one year.

However, it will take until at least 2014 to approve biennial meetings because amendments to our governing documents must be approved by a supermajority of the messengers for two meetings in a row.

Furthermore, if biennial meetings were approved, we would also need to approve a special-called meeting to replace any annual meeting for which we already have a contractual obligation.

What this means is that there should be plenty of time to align Trustee terms to a biennial meeting schedule without reducing or extending any Trustee terms. Those agencies that have Trustees who serve for five-year terms would need to either increase or reduce the term by one year. My personal preference would be to opt for four-year terms as this would allow for even more Baptists to have an opportunity to serve in these important roles.

2. What about emergency situations?

The Constitution already makes provision for a special-called meeting. If the emergency is worth spending several million dollars, we should call a meeting and resolve it. The exception should not make the rule; the Constitution already has provisions for dealing with exceptional cases.

3. I recognize that I may be overlooking some credible objections.

If you think I have missed something, please comment on this post. If you convince me that we should stay with annual meetings, and I'm open to that possibility, great! If not, I will try to respond as charitably and convincingly as I know how. Thank you for considering biennial meetings and helping me think well and thoroughly about the idea.

Up next

Can we really save more than $10 million each year by moving to biennial meetings?

Biennial Objection #4: We are a Relational People

Of the four objections offered by the Executive Committee, I am most sympathetic to the observation that, "Southern Baptists have always been a relational people." I love being a Baptist, and I love being with Baptists especially with a cup of coffee in hand and a plate of beignets in front of me.

Several Baptists who agree with the idea of returning to biennial meetings have shared with me that the only minor reservation they have is the loss of an annual opportunity to meet fellow Baptists.

They also add, however, that they are often unable to attend annually anyway, primarily due to the costs associated with attending a Convention.

The Baptists who are most capable of attending annually are those whose Convention trip is paid for by: the Convention, a denominational agency, or a large church. The vast majority of Southern Baptists are still members of smaller churches, and annual meetings are often beyond their reach.

Moving to a biennial meeting could put the Convention within reach of more pastors and smaller churches and actually broaden the scope of relationships that are forged and deepened at the Convention.

The average American family has a net worth today that is 39.9 percent lower than it was in the spring of 2008. We live in different times; we are facing significantly reduced church and denominational budgets; resources are scarce; we should be discussing the high price of meeting annually and seeking ways to invest more resources directly into mission and ministry.

The lostness of the world, the presently very low attendance at annual meetings, and Christ's expectation that we exercise faithful stewardship of His resources demands that we at least seriously consider biennial meetings.

Of course, moving to biennial meetings would not stop Baptists from being "a relational people." Southern Baptists were relational when they met on a Triennial basis, and they are relational today.

Fortunately, we have opportunities to foster relationships in ways that Baptists, even 25 years ago, could have never envisioned. From North Carolina, I frequently keep up with fellow Baptists of a wide variety of ages living in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, Tennessee, and etc.

Furthermore, if the SBC moved to a biennial meeting schedule in even-numbered years, and the states moved to a biennial meeting schedule in odd-numbered years, Baptists would still have an annual opportunity to "relate" to one another. I recognize the SBC cannot make states adopt a biennial meeting schedule, but it can be recommended. This approach would, I believe, facilitate greater participation by greater numbers of messengers from greater numbers of churches at both the state and national levels.

As much as Baptists are relational, they are also missional. We are never more obedient to Christ than when we are scattered among our neighbors and the nations extending God's salvation to the ends of the earth by showing and telling those in the wilderness that the world is not as it should be, that we know the Way to a better land.

For the sake of Christ and the Gospel, biennial meetings are worthy of our strong consideration. We can make this change and remain a relational -- and missional -- people doing everything possible to exercise faithful stewardship of the resources Christ has entrusted to us for the advance of His Kingdom.

Biennial Objection #3: We are not Hierarchical

The Executive Committee's third objection states, "Southern Baptists are not hierarchical and therefore need to meet annually to discern the will of the messengers through God's leading to effectively and efficiently facilitate our cooperative mission endeavors to reach a lost and dying world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

The Executive Committee is exactly right when they declare, "Southern Baptists are not hierarchical", but their objection quickly goes astray when they write, "and therefore need to meet annually to discern the will of the messengers. . . ."

We were not hierarchical when we met on a Triennial basis, a biennial basis, or, theoretically, now. While this objection may initially sound compelling, it actually represents a category shift in argumentation.

Hierarchy is a function of who has ultimate authority in making decisions and how decisions are made, but it is not a function of how often decisions are made.

For example, a church with congregational polity that moves from quarterly business meetings to semi-annual meetings is not automatically accepting a change that introduces hierarchy. The messengers to the Convention, like the members of a local church, establish the parameters for the administration of the Convention through the approval of budgets, policies, and etc.

As long as the messengers have the same level of control over the same things they control now, and as long as they have the opportunity to call an emergency meeting to address a legitimate crisis or breach of authority, a biennial meeting does not introduce hierarchy at all.

In the life of the SBC, a primary instrument that the messengers of the SBC use to govern the agencies we fund and cherish -- the convention allocation budget -- is already approved on a biennial basis.

If one follows the Executive Committee's argument to its logical end, the Southern Baptist Convention should meet every day, for this would be the only way to assure that we are not hierarchical.

The very existence of an Executive Committee recognizes there is a difference between governing the Convention through the approval of budgets and policies and administering the Convention's agencies during the time between Convention meetings.

If this distinction, that of governance and administration, is not maintained (and it is an appropriate distinction), it is difficult to understand how we can even have an Executive Committee or how the Convention could ever not be in session.

Hierarchy is introduced by reducing or eliminating the authority of the messengers to govern or by unnecessarily limiting the ability of messengers to address the Convention when the Convention meets. It is not introduced by adding 365 days between meetings.

As long as messengers to the Convention are truly able to govern, and the Executive Committee truly limits its activities to facilitating, administering, and otherwise carrying out the wishes of the Convention as expressed in their meetings and governing documents, no additional hierarchy is introduced by a return to biennial meetings.

Historic Baptist polity and lines of authority are not threatened by a return to biennial meetings.

**One bonus argument here. A move to a biennial meeting could actually improve the opportunity for Baptists to be involved in their Convention. In my own informal questioning of messengers at this year's SBC, I learned that many messengers are only able to attend intermittently because of cost. This change would enable smaller churches to save for two years to send their pastor to the convention. I will discuss this further in a concluding post on the topic, but, for now, I simply want to note that this change could actually increase attendance at meetings and allow a greater percentage of the churches of our Convention to participate.

Biennial Meetings Objection #2: Timely Consideration and Discussion

The second objection to biennial meetings is that, "The current annual meeting schedule of the Convention enables messengers the opportunity to facilitate timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention."

Following a convention in which only 1 of 19 motions was referred to the messengers for debate or discussion, and only 30 minutes was allotted for introducing such motions, this is an interesting objection indeed!

If New Orleans is our model, eliminating a Convention meeting would eliminate 30 minutes of introducing motions and almost zero minutes of consideration and discussion of interests brought to the floor directly by the messengers and not by a pre-appointed committee.

To be sure, I am very much in favor of timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. With that said, I would like to make a few observations.

First, the election of officers in the odd-numbered years is already a perfunctory matter. Currently, as long as there is not a moral failure, we return in odd-numbered years to re-elect the president and the other elected officers to the second year of a two-year term. Why not just elect them to serve a two-year term?

Second, just take a look at the 2012 Book of Reports which includes the proceedings from Phoenix in 2011. It is a very thin document - especially after you extract the reports from the institutions which could simply be made available electronically without the need for a multi-million dollar meeting (I will explain my financial calculations in a later post).

Third, agency budget allocations are already approved on a two-year schedule. So, the real "interests of the Convention" -- how/why/where to invest the resources that God has entrusted to us -- are already a conversation that we have agreed to have once every two years.

Occasionally, there are other things to talk about, but they can usually wait. In those rare instances they cannot, our governing documents already make provision for a special-called meeting. If there is an issue worth a multi-million dollar meeting in the off years, we should call a special meeting. If there is not, we would be exercising wise stewardship by waiting another 12 months.

Fourth, in calling for a biennial meeting schedule, I assume that meeting in the even-numbered years would be best. This would continue to give the Convention of Great Commission Baptists an opportunity to speak with one voice on issues confronting our nation in the years in which we have significant national elections - i.e. Presidential elections and mid-term congressional elections.

In short, moving to a biennial meeting schedule does not limit our ability to engage in timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. There may be other factors that are limiting such disucssion, but such a charge cannot be laid at the feet of biennial meetings.

Indeed, if a biennial schedule enabled more messengers to attend and churches to be represented (and I believe that it would), a biennial schedule would actually allow for more messengers to take part in our Convention's "considerations and disucssions."

It is time for the timely consideration of biennial meetings.

Biennial Meetings Objection #1: What about Reporting?

Of the Executive Committee's four objections to adopting to a biennial meeting schedule, there is really only one that sounds insurmountable.

The Executive Committee writes, "The SBC Bylaws and Business and Financial Plan require the publication and presentation of annual ministry, financial, and budgetary reports." (emphasis added).

In this objection, our governing documents seem to be given an authority over the Convention that is inviolable. The implication of the statement seems to be that the documents simply cannot be changed. One wonders how a convention that used to meet Triennially ever came to have an annual meeting schedule.

We are Baptists, and the messengers to the Convention may amend their documents - period. The Convention has amended her governing documents in times past, and we may do so again if we determine this is the wise and prudent thing to do.

To be sure, the governing documents, as currently written, require the publication of reports, and they most certainly should. However, a biennial meeting schedule does not have to significantly change this requirement.

To accomodate a biennial meeting schedule, we could either 1) eliminate annual reports altogether (a bad idea) or 2) amend our governing documents to allow for reports that are made to churches, pastors, state conventions, and denominational leaders in the "off years" rather than directly to the Convention proper (not a bad idea at all).

The Executive Committee already receives reports from agency leaders on a regular basis; budget allocations are already made on a biennial basis, and agencies would continue to report as they currently do to the Executive Committee.

The only difference: in the off-years, agencies would report all of the same information to the Executive Committee, and those reports would be made available electronically and disseminated as widely as possible among those who associate with the SBC. The reports that would otherwise be given by agency heads on the floor of a convention could still be made to the Executive Committee and delivered, recorded, and made available to all SBC churches.

Arguably, more Baptists could hear from our agencies in the off years than in the years of the Convention!

In short, the reporting objection is a non-objection. If we can change the frequency of our meetings, we can also change the frequency and/or acceptable means of delivering reports.

To see how the amendments I proposed would allow for a biennial meeting while preserving a form of annual reporting in the "off years," you may read the amendments in their entirety here.

What Happened to the Biennial Motion at the New Orleans SBC?

To everyone who appreciates and understands the rationale for the amendments I introduced in New Orleans seeking a return to a biennial convention schedule, thank you for your encouragement, interest, prayers, and support.

If one meeting of the SBC every two years was sufficient to conduct the business of the Convention in the era of the horse and buggy, it seems a biennial meeting should be sufficient in the era of FaceBook, Twitter, and the world wide web.

Of course, we should not embrace biennial meetings simply because we can. We need a compelling reason to make such a change. Currently, there are nearly 7 billion compelling reasons to consider biennial meetings.

The Convention declared in 2010, along with the distinguished leaders who served on the Great Commission Task Force, that prioritizing the use of our resources for maximal effectiveness in fulfilling the Great Commission is deeply important to us and should impact the way we conduct the business of our Conventions and agencies.

Prioritizing access to the gospel and funding the advance of the gospel is not merely the stuff of convenient strategic planning, it is inherent to the gospel itself.

The call for biennial meetings is not an esoteric call for rethinking everything we do as Great Commission Baptists. It would actually change very little of what we do.

It would, however, give us an opportunity to invest millions - yes millions - more dollars in training pastors and missionaries and reaching our neighbors and the nations.

Any proposal that would allow us to deploy millions more in pursuing the very things we seek to accomplish through our cooperation deserves the consideration of our Convention.

Godly people can certainly disagree on implementing such a change, but we should not fear or avoid a discussion of its merits.

When the Committee on Order of Business referred my motion to the Executive Committee, they turned the motion over to the Committee that had already outlined its disagreement with biennial meetings following my motion requesting the study in 2010.

I attempted to ask for a floor debate, but the question was called very quickly in a rapid series of other motions that were, appropriately, referred to the Trustees of the agencies in question.

For motions dealing with with the governing documents of the Convention herself, the appropriate "Trustees" to consider the motion are not those of the Executive Committee but the messengers of the Convention directly.

My initial motions to amend our governing documents were in order and, as such, the default recommendation from the Committee on Order of Business should have been to the messengers, not the Executive Committee. We are still Baptists, are we not?

The problem with my motions was that they were regarded as neither wise nor or desirable by the Committee and were subsequently referred without the clear understanding of the Convention that a discussion could (and should) have taken place.

The Committee is simply supposed to determine whether motions are in order. The job of the messengers is to determine if they are wise. No where in the Constitution or Bylaws is the Executive Committee given authority to weigh these matters independently of the Convention herself.

The purview of the Executive Committee does not include protecting us from unwise decisions regarding amendments to our governing documents. The Constitution itself provides these protections by requiring an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the Convention messengers for two successive meetings in a row!

That is, rightly, a very tall order. This is all the protection we need.

I hope, next year, for an opportunity to have a family conversation regarding the wisdom or lack of wisdom in moving to biennial meetings.

If we can save and redeploy millions in the battle to reach billions without sacrificing transparency or sound business practices, the proposal deserves serious consideration by the people to whom God has entrusted this Convention - the messengers themselves.

Coming up next

In my next post, I will list and respond to the objections of the Executive Committee to biennial meetings as given in their response to a request for a financial study of the cost of Conventions in 2010.