A few weeks ago, as our church was considering the adoption of a new structure for our organization, one of our older members asked the most important question of all questions that were asked about the changes. He asked, “What makes us think that these changes will win any more people to Jesus?” The answers to his question became the driving force that led to the adoption of our new structure and schedule. We believe this change will enable us to become more missional in our programs winning more people to Christ.
I have asked myself the same question concerning the crusade now being fought in cyberspace to bring reformation to the SBC, “if the reformers are successful, will it cause the SBC to win any more people to Jesus?” My answer is based on an assumption of what drives discord within our ranks believing that discord is a hindrance to the evangelistic efforts of our beloved convention. Without judging the justness of the cause, a surface observation reveals that attention given to the fight at hand takes away from ministry removing warriors from the battlefield without to the battlefield within.
In order to understand why the victories sought by the blogging reformers will not bring a more evangelistic fervor to the SBC, let us understand what divides us and prompts us to quarrel with one another. There is first the theological, second the methodological, and third, the political. The primary thrust of the debate is rooted in theology so let us begin our discussion on that point.
Confessions of faith are simultaneously polarizing and unifying. They unify those in agreement and polarize those that are not in agreement. The absence of statements serve the same purpose. The tighter the boundaries are drawn, the fewer there are who can agree. Wider boundaries are also exclusive. We have experienced that in our own convention. When those with wider boundaries are in control, they by default exclude those who have convictions about the parameters compromising the gospel and therefore choose not to fellowship and participate. Baptists are Baptists because they agree on certain doctrines meaning we agree on certain interpretations of Scripture. Theological debate will always be both polarizing and unifying. If the blogger reformation is successful, some will leave the convention over theological reasons. Will the victory then allow the energy being spent on winning by either side be channeled toward evangelism? If history repeats itself, this is not likely.
The second issue we fuss about is methodology. If the blogger reformation is successful, there remains a battle to be fought over methodology. The BF&M is primarily a theological document. If the reformation is successful and if the two seminary presidents that are out of favor with the coalition are replaced and if the trustees are replaced on the mission boards to their liking and if the leader of the ERLC either repents which is highly unlikely or is replaced, what will be the methodological test? The current debate over a method used to witness to Muslim’s is but the tip of the ice berg. Imagine a trustee board of a seminary or mission board who had no say so over the methodology espoused by their professors or missionaries? How would such an environment be received by the SBC? Again we would divide over methodology. One camp that will divide over methodology is the reformed camp. Already there are cries against methodologies used by some SBC churches by the reformed camp that already feels alienated.
The third area is in the realm of the political. The reformers would have us to believe many in the so called status quo camp are merely exercising politics for the sake of politics. While there may be a few on both sides of the issues who just like to play politics, it seems to me that both sides, and all sides for that matter, are genuinely acting out of convictions. Even so the politics will serve to unite those of like mind together while polarizing them from the other camps.
So what must happen for us to win more people to Jesus? We must turn our focus to vision and join together for the sake of the Gospel. If the BF&M serves as our values statement and the great commission our mission statement, the next step is to establish a compelling vision to accomplish our task. Imagine the possibilities if the elder statesmen of our convention could invest their energies into building a positive vision among our younger leaders that would compel them to stay in the SBC for a vision. Imagine the possibilities if our elder statesmen could embrace the kind of vision that Bobby Welch sought to inspire or the vision that Frank Page is seeking to inspire? What if our elder statesmen again began to encourage our younger leaders to fight for souls rather than fighting in the political arena? Could a joint effort in evangelistic efforts serve to temper our political battles?
Being from Texas, I wonder why we have slipped evangelistically. We now have conventions representing both approaches yet fail to keep up with the population. I have a feeling it is because we miss men like Carlos McCleod who consistently motivated Texas Baptist to charge hell with, not a water pistol, but a fountain flowing deep and wide with the message of the Gospel. This post is really not a diatribe against the blogger reformation. Some of their efforts may be much needed while others may not. What this post is about is a solution to our evangelistic stupor and my belief that the blogger reformation will do nothing to curb the slide. It could, in the end, encourage a further slide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Your church .. the one with the walls and members .. does not win people to Christ. The church .. the one without walls .. does.
Organizational changes affect the one with walls, and the question there would be if the changes help that church train and edify the Body of Christ so that more souls
will be won. By the members.
Soul winning isn't the pastor's job, it's soul-equipping. So my answer to the question would have been "Will they help YOU reach souls?"
Just my opinion, and certainly not criticism. You're the Presbuteros there and know what's needed, not I.
Bob, thanks for the comment and welcome to LifeEveryday. We believe the changes in our organizational structure will enable the members of the congregation to shift from an inward focus to an outward focus. You hit the nail on the head for what we are hoping to accomplish. My prayer goes the same direction for the SBC.
The way that variety used to be delt with was to find a Baptist church that did things close enough to the way you thought that they should be done and work there. Now I keep getting the feeling that if you are not exactly (or close anyhow) like me, I won't cooperate with you.
If the rule ever becomes that Baptists have to be very close to alike before any cooperation should take place, then there won't be many people in that version of Baptist. I'm starting to suspect that I may no longer fit enough of the specifications to be Southern Baptist.
Bennett Willis
Bennet, I would say if a person spends too much time reading the continual flow of negative generated on blogs, that person would come to the same conclusion. It seems as thought the pessimists are carrying the day. I choose not to succumb to this steady diet of discouragement. I cooperate willingly with many other Southern Baptists who agree on certain doctrines. I see their churches winning people to Jesus and they have no questions as to whether they are accepted as Southern Baptists.
In observing the SBC Outpost and Wade's blog the last few weeks has convinced me that this internet brawl is probably more destructive and divisive than constructive. I expect most of the bloggers who are chewing each other up would really have little difficulty in serving together. This post was merely personal observations that led to the same conclusion.
If the blogger coalition is successful and it helps you to feel more at home as a Southern Baptist, I really doubt it will help us be one bit more evangelistic. We need a new voice and it is not the voice of dissent but the voice of vision.
I set out to better understand "reformed". The first link below is called Reporting on Southern Baptists for Dummies. It is reasonably accurate and as the author points out something every reporter should read before writing about anything Baptist. http://www.baptiststart.com/print/sbc_reporting.html I put it in because it was humorous and I needed some humor.
I looked at the 1689 confession--obviously not the whole thing—but at some sections that I anticipated I’d have problems with. I found the scriptures quoted in support of the two sections that I copied below totally unconvincing.
3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
Then I looked up TULIP. The conclusion that I came to is that I am about a 1.5 point Calvinist. But if a more pointed Calvinist based church wanted to cooperate with mine on a project that seemed to promote the Kingdom, I’d be willing. But I’d probably be careful not to get too personally close to them—and they are certainly free to feel the same about me, but there is no reason that it should come up. But at this point, I sort of feel that a 5 point Calvinist is from some other planet. The “elect” concept seems so crippling to me. It seems to make any prayer or evangelism simply a “look good/feel good activity” since neither make any difference at all—and this seems to conflict with a number of things that Jesus said on prayer. Most of the evangelism directives could still be valid, but prayer is supposed to make a difference in the way things will go.
This said, I agree that we need a new vision. Our young adults drop out of church and too many of them stay out. Those who come back often do it because they feel a need for God in the lives of their children. Maybe the change in marriage (much later) and having children later in life gives the habit of not being involved in church (I can’t think of a better word) more of an opportunity to settle in and they just stay out.
The vision needs to involve activity. I am amazed at the number of young professionals who take one or more years of their career and go “do good” somewhere. The numbers of good organizations that enable this to happen are similarly amazing—and I’m sure that some of them have Baptist somewhere in their name or history. But I know of no one using these if they do exist.
Most of the vision variations that I see functioning are relatively free of doctrine (past the basic and big ones) but they have a simple vision and strong commitment to it. The longer I look at it, the less use the SBC is. Its only “unique” purpose seems to be to pool the money from the thousands of small churches and support missionaries. The mission boards could just post their specifications and if there are any who meet the, then appoint those. Of what real use is the rest of it? Let the seminaries develop their support from churches which agree with the philosophy the seminary chooses to adopt—or let them take a market approach. LifeWay either can support itself with its products or not. County, regional or state conventions (or even churches) can start new churches—or the mega churches can just franchise their operations.
It’s been a long and sobering day.
Bennett
Bennet you say:
“The longer I look at it, the less use the SBC is. Its only “unique” purpose seems to be to pool the money from the thousands of small churches and support missionaries. The mission boards could just post their specifications and if there are any who meet the, then appoint those. Of what real use is the rest of it? Let the seminaries develop their support from churches which agree with the philosophy the seminary chooses to adopt—or let them take a market approach. LifeWay either can support itself with its products or not. County, regional or state conventions (or even churches) can start new churches—or the mega churches can just franchise their operations.”
Your dialogue opens up a very interesting topic that I believe if it gets a proper discussion in the ongoing SBC debate could spark a measure of unity. My response will include a review of the history of the cooperative program. I write with the understanding that more people than you and me will read this posting and therefore will include some information that those who know little about Baptist history will interact with the discussion.
Many of the arguments for and against your remedy for SBC life were made in the 1920’s prior to the adoption of the cooperative program. Prior to the pooling of finances to support convention endeavors, our mission sending agencies used what was called society method to fund their ministries. Often times this resulted in missionaries seeking their own support from various churches. This method took them off the field for fund raising activities and created a spirit of competition for available dollars. Likewise, other agencies found the terrain of finances difficult to navigate.
The legacy given to us by our SBC forefathers was a system that solved many of these problems while creating others. At the adoption of the CP some churches pulled out of the convention and formed other conventions that remain on the societal method. The success of our seminaries and our mission sending agencies must give glory to God for the formation of the CP that has enabled much greater effectiveness in our efforts.
There has been and always will be great diversity among Southern Baptists. This diversity has fueled many great debates and allowed for divisions and schisms. Churches are primarily started by local churches. They are often financially supported by Associations, state conventions and sometimes with assistance of NAMB through the state conventions. This allows all SBC churches to share in the cause of church planting.
I am one who does not believe the system is broken nor do I believe we need to return to the societal method. We have certainly drifted in that direction with each of our seminaries now housing a fund raising department. A look at what the BGCT has done over the last 15 years further reveals a shift toward a societal method. Is the system sometimes strained? Yes. Is it easily affected by political movements? Yes. Should we abandon it? Show me another system that has worked equally as well in the last 82 years and I might agree. Until another system is developed and comes to the front I will continue to support the SBC, exercise the autonomy of the local church and keep on preaching Jesus.
Since we are talking from an old post, there may not be many other readers--but I write for a somewhat larger audience also. :)
I had forgotten the society system. But note that I did advocate still using the SBC to collect and organize mission money from small churches. [And I often have problems identifying the money given to the cooperative effort from many BIG churches.] This is clearly an appropriate use of an organization.
And this circles back around to the BFM as a minimal or maximal document. If the mission boards (for example) honestly and transparently display their standards/expectations for appointees, I suppose that I could deal with almost any expectation. If I did not like it, I would find another place to do my activities, send my money, etc. However, adding requirements "on their own" seems both sneaky and dishonorable. The use of the BFM as a limit would make this activity even more dishonorable should it be continued. But as I have said in other comments, I don't think that the entities are going to consult with the messengers in any way on the issue.
In a letter to The Baptist Standard when Dr. Chapman announced that the SBC would not accept money from the new Missouri convention, I said that I think that refusing to accept money from the BGCT is the long term plan on how to deal with us. At some point the conservative convention in Texas may siphon off enough money that gifts to the BGCT approach the basic needs of the convention. When that happens the SBC will suddenly develop morals relative to taking money from an "uncooperative" association and cut us loose.
Just as the major use for the SBC in the minds of most Baptists is to collect and distribute money wisely, the purpose of Baptists in the minds of most of the SBC management is to send money.
I realize that the brush that I am using is way too wide, but after all it is a comment, a point of view--not a policy—so don’t evaluate what I say for about 10 years. :)
Have a nice day.
Bennett
Bennett,
I am enjoying the dialogue.
I surely would disagree about the SBC refusing funds from the BGCT. There is a base of support within the BGCT that continually cooperates with the SBC even at the dismay of the BGCT leadership and the TBC crowd in particular. This crowd learned a valuable lesson in 2001 when they sought to limit how much money forwarded to the SBC would go to the seminaries. The largest exodus of churches to date occurred in the following year as well as many churches bypassing the BGCT sending funds directly to the executive committee.
It is of worthy note that a candidate for BGCT president has emerged with a plank in his platform of renewing cooperation with the SBC. His election is not likely but the announcement is a reminder of the SBC support within the BGCT. David Dykes, who nominated David Rogers for SBC VP last year, serves as pastor of a singly aligned BGCT church. One would be in grave error to assume rank and file BGCT churches are in lock step with the BGCT leadership.
The greatest threat to the BGCT money train is not the SBTC; it is funerals of the gray gravy train that fills the coffers without an influx of a younger generation. Unless the BGCT pulls more moves as they did in defunding the SBC seminaries, the exodus is likely to slow with a change of Executive Directors and a change of direction in presidential leadership. Even if David Lowrie is not elected this year, there will be more centrist candidates in the future. Just as Frank Page was elected to the SBC a more centrist candidate will at some point emerge for the BGCT. (My forecasting hat is in place)
Now is not the time to give up on SBC work and politics, it is the time to engage with a hope for a great future. The glass is ¾ s full not ¼ empty.
I like forecasting--I guess if we were continualists we might even call it prophesy. :0 And obviously I'm enjoying the discussion too. No one I know locally seems interested in all this. They either don't care or are actually too busy doing something useful. Or maybe we don’t talk about it because we might damage our cooperation…
I've said many times in comments that the only use that most Baptists have for the convention(s) is to collect and distribute money--and you mess with how that is done very carefully. :| The BGCT did mess with that and it was an error.
What about Missouri? The only purpose of the SBC’s not taking money from the "new" convention (seems to me) was to cripple them--and it probably did in some churches. I suspect that Dr. C and friends even thought that this might be enough to crush the new convention completely. (I thought it might, but it apparently was not.) The old convention there has moved on to a rule that you can't be dually aligned (translated--can't give money to anyone other than the MBC, especially to the CBF or the BGCM) and has tossed out several churches that had mostly left already. I’m really curious about what they will do this fall at the state convention meeting about enforcing their rule. [Putting on my forecasting hat: I think that they won’t do anything. Remember the BGCT error.]
If this works out well for the MBC (churches go back to the MBC exclusively) then I could see the same effort being tried in Texas at some point. But this is clearly a power play and may blow back all over the MBC--or not. I regard the Missouri situation as a much "darker" version of the CR--and a result that we should worry about in the SBC which seemed to support Moran in that effort.
Bennett
Gary, these are the sentences from the post that I started with. “Imagine the possibilities if our elder statesmen could embrace the kind of vision that Bobby Welch sought to inspire or the vision that Frank Page is seeking to inspire? What if our elder statesmen again began to encourage our younger leaders to fight for souls rather than fighting in the political arena? Could a joint effort in evangelistic efforts serve to temper our political battles?”
I have some thoughts on what a new vision might look like. Since I am not gifted in casting visions, I’ll try to put in some characteristics that I regard as critical and point out an example—and a problem.
Why would anyone want to become a Christian (of course this assumes that they have some degree of free will and a choice in the matter)? The usual reason for an adult is that they appreciate the life that they see one or more Christians living. Another reason is that they feel that Christ is an answer to something that is missing or needed in their lives. They may receive a vision—uncommon but it happens. Their peers may be Christians and over time they come to believe that Christ is the best example of how life should be lived. They may analytically look at life (and how Christians live it) and decide that all the data support belief in Christ. They may grow up in a home that is so permeated by belief in Christ that they simply become believers almost by osmosis. And there are many other ways come to belief in Christ as a personal savior. I notice that all of these (visions excepted) involve positive contact with Christians and that is almost always necessary. But we are talking about a vision here. The vision needs to be more than, “Hit the streets.” It has to engage and motivate people—youth and young adults for example.
Reasonably the vision should fit/follow/support/encourage the reasons that people come to Christ and be big enough to make a difference. The vision should not involve doctrine. I don’t know anyone who has come to Christ because of a doctrine—at least not any of the ones that we argue about. The people that we are loosing from Christianity and not reaching for Christianity are not influenced by someone saying, “You need Christ.” They simply say, “Why?” and then move on while we are formulating an answer that is relevant to them. The vision should involve cooperation. This is because for all Christians our commonalities far exceed our differences—think of whom we will be sharing eternity with (and why) if you have doubts on this. Lack of cooperation is one of the reasons commonly given for disrespect of Christianity and it sure is hard to defend so let’s get together on this vision.
So you need a vision that reaches out and grabs people. You need a vision that motivates them to get involved, to join and to support. Let’s talk about one. Remember Rick Warren’s comment that the Church (ALL of us) has the resources to fix problems that no other organization is capable of solving or motivated to solve. This is an impressive vision and the problems that he proposes be worked on are worth the effort and would make a difference. This is a vision that the SBC could join with total commitment and one that “would draw people unto us.” But it might require cooperation with organizations that we won’t even be caught in the same block with so will we take it up? I have not heard it even seriously discussed by elder statesmen.
Can we come up with a better vision than this? What sort of vision are we talking about? I think it needs to be kinetic, useful, difference making, positive. It needs to unite more than Southern Baptists because we are just a small part of the Whole. Gary, you do this for a living. You’ve a lot more practice than I at this sort of thing. Put something out here. Let’s try on a few visions on and see if we can find one that might fit.
Bennett
Bennett, I am going to have to postpone a serious response with ample processing time for a few days. The walls are sort of closing in, in the task department. I will however, throw out a few things that quickly come to mind while reserving the right for adjustments in a few days.
Vision in Christian life flows from revelation. Any vision for a church, individual or Christian organization that does not begin with revelation is man made. That does not mean that it is doomed to failure but it does mean that God probably has a better plan.
If the vision begins with divine revelation, doctrine is important. Here is why. Casting and reaching visions is hard work. It is often trying and takes years of disappointment before victory comes. Revelation comes from an encounter with an Almighty God. Moses vision came full circle meeting the I AM. Anything less for one who is trying to walk with Jesus will run out of inspiration and fall flat or turn into a human institution. Some level of doctrine is crucial. If it is a humanitarian effort, it needs to be fueled by the doctrine of God's mercy and commands for us to be holy as He is holy. Case in point is Samaritan's Purse. Equally important is the doctrine of soteriology or salvation. This doctrine also drives Samaritan's Purse. God given vision is driven by sound doctrine.
You mention Rick Warren so think about his vision and how it emerged. Rick is a missionary evangelist turned church planter turned Mega Church pastor turned world impact leader. He is an example of taking care of the small things and being trusted with bigger things.
Rick truly has a kingdom vision and so does Franklin Graham. The ironic circumstance is that the SBC accomplishes more (quantity) of ministry than these two combined yet we are continually criticized in the media.
Writing without thorough thinking makes me wonder if visions in SBC life my have to come from our mega churches. I know this makes many small church pastors cringe, but again think about Saddleback. They have been criticized for their stands and there methods by fellow Southern Baptist. At the same time it had little effect on their ministry. I am sure it hurt in the heart, but they go on. Case in point, churches may be able to withstand criticism from other Southern Baptist better than the convention itself. Perhaps the vision in the future must include networking in a new way. Anyway, I will give more thought to your ideas and get back at another time.
Not a problem for me. School starts tomorrow and class email has already begun--students in a week. Tasks here are getting out of control also.
We probably said more of the same things in the last two than usual. Maybe you are making some progress with me. ;)
We're looking for some characteristics of a new vision--or at least I am working along that line. I'm still not convinced about the "value" of tertiary doctrines to a new vision but I'll think about it. Obviously though you have to have your philosophical act together for the vision to be stable...But doctrine should not be a major part of the vision (my quick thought). And it seems to me that the vision should encompass more of us than usual and I'll probably hang in there with this for a while.
Let's get something done in the real world.
Bennett
Post a Comment