Quantcast
Sponsors
Special Reports
EDITORIAL: A model of cooperation for the FBSC’s future
by JAMES A. SMITH SR.
Executive Editor
Florida Baptist Witness

Article Date: Nov 16, 2009

In a very real sense, one person decided the outcome of the pivotal vote at the Florida Baptist State Convention annual meeting in Pensacola last week establishing an “Imagine If … Great Commission Task Force”: John Sullivan.

In a no less tangible way, one person ensured the best possible outcome of that task force’s work by fulfilling his promise to appoint a broadly representative task force: John Cross.

If not for the actions of both men, the results in Pensacola — and the reverberations beyond — could have been very different.

In many ways, the two Johns represent the divergent styles and generations at work in the FBSC, and the manner both of them dealt with the key issue at the annual meeting is an example for the rest of us in the months and years to come.

John Sullivan, 73, executive director-treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention since 1989, is the very epitome of traditional, although that has not prevented him from being able to work with those less so. Although the innovative Cross truly cannot be numbered among younger pastors at age 46, he clearly is seen as a faithful standard-bearer of their concerns.

That there would be a Great Commission task force coming out of the FBSC annual meeting really was never in doubt. The closely watched Southern Baptist Convention’s Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, approved in June, was the ever-present backdrop for deliberations in Pensacola. Although he repeatedly noted his vision for a study committee was birthed in his heart long before the national GCR, FBSC president John Cross was determined to extend that movement into the Sunshine State.

Nevertheless, it mattered greatly to many persons at the annual meeting — on both sides of the question — who would select the membership of a task force to determine how Florida Baptists can be more effective in fulfilling Jesus’ missionary mandate.

The outcome of the vote on the amendment of Rodney Baker, pastor of Hopeful Baptist Church in Lake City, to the motion by David Uth, pastor of First Baptist Church in Orlando, hinged on Sullivan’s brief remarks before the debate began. Baker wanted to empower the FBSC Committee on Nominations (which includes the president) to pick the group, rather than just the president, following the SBC model, as moved by Uth.

Granted a “point of personal privilege,” Sullivan answered the question many messengers were clearly asking themselves and each other — and me: what is Dr. Sullivan’s opinion? In the weeks leading up to the annual meeting, he declined two opportunities from the Witness to address the question.

After nearly 21 years of service and uniformly credited for his leadership of the Florida Baptist Convention, it mattered greatly to many messengers what Sullivan thought about a study that some perceived as potentially critical of him and the FBC’s work. Indeed, more than a handful of Florida Baptists both before the annual meeting and in Pensacola expressed concern to me that a Florida GCR-type effort was merely a veiled effort to force Sullivan into retirement.

Sullivan told messengers he had “no problem” with having a task force or with Cross’ prospective members of the group to which Cross had made him privy.

“Please know and understand that the work of the Florida Baptist Convention is always done in the sunshine,” Sullivan concluded in his brief remarks, to a chorus of “Amen!” and strong applause.

Having affirmed both the possibility of a task force and its likely membership, I believe the outcome of the amendment was settled. That an estimated one-third to perhaps as much as 40 percent voted for the Baker amendment anyway demonstrated that many messengers were still concerned.

The debate on the Baker amendment showcased the divisions among Florida Baptists.

Supporters of the amendment expressed support for the FBC’s work and concern about the small Cooperative Program support of Cross’ church — the “elephant in the room,” according to Spike Hogan, pastor of Chet’s Creek Church in Jacksonville.

Opponents of the amendment expressed support for Cross and his vision, as well as concern that its approval would be a rejection of a “place at the table” for theologically conservative but methodologically innovative churches, according to David Hughes, pastor of Church by the Glades in Coral Springs.

However, because Sullivan did not openly oppose (unlike some other denominational executives in recent months) and, more than that, gave assurances he did not have a problem with the task force or its membership, the amendment failed. If Sullivan had even hinted any concern, I believe the vote might have been very different.

Having been empowered — with only a few, scattered votes against the Uth motion — Cross rewarded the confidence of the FBSC by announcing later in the day membership of the task force. As promised, the group — surprisingly large with 30 members (not including Cross and Sullivan, who will serve ex officio) — is broadly representative, although I would have expected more than three women to have been appointed.

Following the advice of Sullivan, Cross appointed two former FBSC presidents — Willy Rice, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Clearwater, and Tommy Green, pastor of First Baptist Church in Brandon.

Especially noteworthy, I believe, was the inclusion of Richard Powell, pastor of McGregor Baptist Church in Ft. Myers. Cross was elected last year over Powell by 12 votes. Cross also deserves much credit for appointing Baker, not allowing their disagreement over the method of selecting the group to be an impediment.

As expected, Cross also appointed a number of persons who well represent the more innovative churches of the state for whom his election was so important.

Just as the outcome of the key vote could have been different but for Sullivan’s timely well-chosen remarks, the task force’s potential for success has been greatly enhanced by Cross’ even-handed appointments.

Still, Cross’ task force has a difficult duty. No doubt, there will be strong disagreements in assessing the vitality and missional relevance of current ministries as well as recommendations for the future. The differences between older, more traditional pastors and younger, more innovative pastors will certainly color the work of the Cross task force.

Both groups should heed the words of Ken Whitten, pastor of Idlewild Baptist Church in Lutz and a member of the SBC GCRTF: “I think the tension that we have between the younger and the older is that the younger generation says about the older, that we are irrelevant. The older generation says about the younger generation, you are irreverent. And I think both of them are wrong. And I think both of them can work together.”

The magnanimity and graciousness of Sullivan and the deference and respectfulness of Cross are models for how Florida Baptists from both generations ought to cooperate in behalf of extending the Great Commission in the Sunshine State and beyond. As the “Imagine If” task force does its work, the model of the two Johns will need to continue.

Florida Baptists should faithfully pray for the “Imagine If” task force, eagerly anticipating how God will use it for His glory in our state and beyond in advancing His Kingdom.

Bookmark and Share

You must be login before you can leave a comment. Click here to Register if you are a new user.

Login ID:
Password: Forgot password?