In order of importance, from the greatest problems in Southern Baptist Churches to issues that are less of a problem, here are 10 reasons why I am NOT a good contemporary Southern Baptist pastor…
1. I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says. I neither have the luxury nor the God-given ability to speak beyond the Scriptures as if my words carry divine authority. If it’s not in the text, then it is unknowable through the Bible (unless the interpreter is given new revelation; which he or she is not). In other words, I believe that the Bible is sufficient in all that it says, and it does not need my ingenuity or speculation. If there is no warrant from the text for typology or spiritualizing, then I do not have authority to spiritualize the text or to typify what is not there. In other words, if the truth is not present in the text that is being preached, then I have no authority to preach truth that cannot be found in the text. Thousands of sermons are preached on a weekly basis where Southern Baptist pastors take a text, and they may preach truth, but it cannot be found in the text in front of them. Instead of trusting the power of God to speak through the meaning of the text in front of them, they add to the text some ingenuity or they spiritualize it in order to point to truth found elsewhere. Unbeknownst to preachers, this method of interpretation communicates something about the text in front of you; and it also teaches your people to wrongly handle the Scriptures. It is no wonder why your people refuse to be evangelistic or obedient to the Lord in many areas, for you have taught them to spiritualize the text without any biblical warrant. The text is capable of communicating sufficient truth for His people to live in the sufficient grace of God through faith in Christ alone. In other words, context should motivate the message instead of ingenuity, perceived attention-keeping, or the easiest way to make a bee-line to Christ.
2. I believe that biblical discipline is biblical and therefore is not optional. Every church I pastor will be lead to eventually affirm and submit to the biblical discipline of the church. We ALL desperately need accountability. Plus, Christian love is not Christian love whenever biblical discipline is absent. Concerning implementing this biblical necessity, I will be longsuffering with the body of believers that I pastor. If they will not agree this year, then I will pray, teach, and encourage until they do. A pastor that has no desire to implement biblical discipline does not love his congregation in a Christ-like way. If he did, he would want them to be biblical. Instead, he has traded the biblical definition of love for the worldly definition of love. “Refuse to encourage biblical discipline,” cannot be deduced from an inerrant, sufficient Bible. For this reason, I believe that much of the hoopla given to the necessity of having an inerrant Bible in the SBC is just blowing smoke, because we do not operate as if we believe that the Bible is inerrant.
3. I do not care about numbers; I care about God’s glory. I know that the New Testament Scripture writers were not Southern Baptists because if they were, they would not have merely counted the men that were saved, but they would have counted the men, women, and children as well; same goes for the people that were healed in Christ’s miracles. You cannot argue biblically that numbers indicate success in the Scriptures. The man that emphasizes numbers must call the Apostle Paul, Peter, and even Jesus failures at various points in their ministries. My ministry therefore seeks the souls of men by equipping the saints for the work of the ministry so that they and I can take the name of Jesus with us as we go about our daily lives. Primarily, love for God, and then love for sinners will motivate us to pursue the lost using only methods that bring glory and honor to God; namely, the gospel in my ministry is contextualized without being compromised propositionally or even implicitly through God-demeaning methods.
4. I believe that reaching sinners with the gospel is not the church’s primary goal; rather her primary goal is found in helping sinners and saints see God’s glory in His church and world through Christ. I do care about how sinners are “reached” and how God’s people are motivated, because God cares about these realities. If you are using contests, bribes, money, etc. to get God’s people to be obedient to Him, then you are not bringing glory to God. God not only cares about the end results, but also about the means that we use to arrive at these results. If you have contests and competitions in order to “grow” your church, then you are not producing mature Christians; and thus are not fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt. 28:20). It is impossible to teach Christians all that Christ commanded by giving them other idols to enjoy instead of Him. If God will not motivate them, then giving them an idol to motivate them only steeps them further into idolatry: Congratulations, you are encouraging your congregation to sin. Although you may think yourself a God-glorifying pastor, biblical reality communicates your fashioning of a Golden Calf with the title, “sinners saved above all, by wicked means if necessary, to the detriment of revealing God’s glory if necessary.” God is not impressed although many at the Southern Baptist Convention may be. Maybe you’ll get a plaque, certificate, or your name in lights?
5. I believe that much of what passes as biblical leadership today is unbiblical. I believe that a third of what John Maxwell says is unbiblical, and is actually detrimental to pastors and churches. If you cannot universally prove the leadership principle that you have formed based on a proof text, then you cannot argue that a good leader must possess that trait. I’m just thankful that most Southern Baptist pastors have not applied Maxwell’s method for interpretation to the doctrine of salvation. Imagine taking the sacrificial system of Israel as a stand alone proof text for salvation while ignoring Abraham’s justification by faith and the entire New Testament; your soteriology (doctrine of salvation) would be terribly wrong. This is what Maxwell does with many of his leadership principles: he takes a text on its own while ignoring the rest of Scripture. As a result, churches now expect their pastors to look more like Donald Trump than the Apostle Paul in their leadership abilities. The common, everyday pastor is doomed for failure, not because he isn’t biblical, but because he is not some worldly standard that the church and terrible leadership has placed on him. I contend that Maxwell is a terrible leader because he ignores context in order to proof text his own opinions. I desperately long to be a good leader; but, a good biblical leader is defined by the Bible in light of the whole, not by the opinions of John Maxwell or any other “leadership guru.” Pragmatism governs business; and the church is not a business.
6. I believe that a preacher’s ability to keep his audience’s attention is terribly overrated. There is virtually NO responsibility on the hearer to listen because what is being preached is THE Word of God. Instead, hearers must be wooed before they will listen; however, we communicate something demeaning about God by thinking that we must woo HIS people before they will listen to HIS WORD. Overemphasizing the preacher’s style and delivery argues that God is not valuable enough in and of Himself to be heard by His people. Pastoral responsibility in keeping attention therefore should be discarded because “theatrics” have no place in the pulpit; rather, preaching must seek to add nothing to the Word of God, while excellently allowing it to stand on its own. In other words, if your people believe that the Word of God is boring, they should still think that it is boring whenever you get finished preaching. If their love for the Word of God is not because of the Word of God, but is because of your natural abilities, then they do not love the Word of God: Congratulations on keeping their attention. Furthermore, overemphasizing the preaching ability of pastors causes the pastor that follows you or the everyday Sunday school teacher that does not have time for “theatrics in teaching” to fail miserably when they teach the congregants that have been wooed by you instead of by the Word of God. The Word of God is sweet to mature Christians regardless the garnishes that accompany it; while it is sour, bitter, or boring to those that do not love it. Theatrics cannot produce a love for the Word of God because when pastors use them they communicate that the Word of God is not worthy to be loved based on its intrinsic properties alone. In other words, I believe in emphasizing the Word of God; my pulpit style and methods must reinforce this truth, instead of seeking to win the congregants to my abilities.
7. I believe that evangelism should primarily occur on a daily basis as our people verbally take the name of Jesus with them as they go. We need to quit overemphasizing VBS, and we simply must continually emphasize the necessity of Southern Baptists verbally taking the name of Jesus with them as they go. This MODERN mentality that evangelism is having an event, and getting people to come to our building is detrimental to the New Testament example: namely that God’s people must take Jesus with them as they go about their daily lives. In order to answer the lack of evangelism among our church members, we’ve wrongly emphasized a MODERN approach to evangelism. This mentality simply gives our people another reason to refuse to be evangelistic on a daily basis because this is “something that is carried out at the church building.” We must get back to the New Testament example; if our people do not respond, then we must pray and preach until they do. Furthermore, the number of baptisms in the convention should not even be discussed, but the amount of our church members taking the name of Jesus with them should be discussed. If Southern Baptists take the name of Jesus with them as they go, then the number of baptisms will probably increase due to God blessing our obedience. Finally, the bible does not hold Christians accountable for the number of baptisms, but it does hold us accountable to whether or not we are sharing Jesus with others. Quit emphasizing what the Bible does not!
8. I believe that Modernism is an idol that should be repented of. The emphasis on buildings, programs, pragmatism, music, etc. de-emphasizes the gospel. It shows how ashamed we are of the gospel. We believe that people will not come to Christ without _________ or that God’s people will not worship Him without _________. We fill that blank with buildings, programs, music, etc. when the gospel should be the primary truth in that blank; and anything else placed in that blank must have biblical warrant. Buildings, programs, and music are dreadfully overrated. Furthermore, if buildings, music, and programs are really what grows the church or produces maturity, then most of the rural churches in our convention cannot afford such luxuries (over 80% of our churches). What are they going to do? Maybe that’s partially why their baptisms are so low; we have taught them our MODERN approach to evangelism, and they cannot afford to be the social centers of their communities.
9. I believe that expository preaching should be the primary diet of my congregation. Expository preaching should be the primary diet of the church because it guards the church from the pastor’s fallen perceived hypotheses concerning the church’s needs. There is nothing wrong with a pastor recognizing a need, and spending time addressing that subject; however, even this type of preaching should be carried out in an expository fashion based on a specific passage(s) or verse(s) preached in the context of the unity of the entire canon. I believe that I am fallible, and that my perception of my people’s needs is not objective, but is rather skewed based on a limited knowledge of the facts and my various hobby-horses. God however sees the whole congregation from eternity past; and He has provided His sufficient Word in order to sanctify them with His gospel. In light of this truth, pastors must allow the Scriptures to speak in their original context, while applying them to the contemporary context of their hearers.
10. I believe that a polished personality is a violation of the 9th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Lie. If you know exactly what to say and how to say it in order to get the “best” response from your people, then you are a manipulator; you have taught yourself, made yourself fake, in order to get the “best” reaction from your people. In other words, you are a liar. I believe that a pastor must be real; he must genuinely love his people. Regardless if his people like him or not, he must love them; not merely exhibiting learned/fake behavior in order to elicit the response he wants from his people towards himself. Furthermore, the goal of ministry is to win people to Christ, not to ourselves. Winning people to ourselves is not synonymous with winning them to Christ. John the Baptist is an outstanding example of this reality.
What are your thoughts about this list? Is there anything that you would add or take away?
Do you agree? Why or why not?
[like]
Chris Roberts (75)
Dave Miller (63)
Bob Hadley (60)
Debbie Kaufman (49)
dr. james willingham (48)
Les (41)
Christiane (30)
cb scott (29)
Bill Mac (27)
Rick Patrick (27)
Jared:
You said:”I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says. I neither have the luxury nor the God-given ability to speak beyond the Scriptures as if my words carry divine authority.”
That does not seem to square with what you were saying about masterb——n in your previous post.
Tom, I appreciate the comment. I believe that in carrying out God’s definition of sexual morality: sex between one man and one woman for life within marriage, to its consistent end, necessitates that masturbation is a sin. Since it’s a sexual act outside of marriage, it falls into the category of sexual immorality. I don’t think I’m “going beyond” the Scriptures or speculating… I think those that argue in favor of masturbation are adding to God’s definition of sexual morality. They are speculating, not me.
Jared:
But the Bible does not speak directly to this issue, yet you are concluding something is a sin. Is that not a dangerous road to travel?
Tom,
I disagree. When God defined sexual morality, He did not include masturbation. In order to sanction it, we must add to God’s definition.
Also, if I only call sin what the Bible “directly” calls sin, we cannot come against abortion, stem cell research, etc. However, if we implicitly apply God’s Word, we can come against these things as sin; including masturbation. This is not “adding to” the Bible; it’s merely building on the foundation that God has supplied.
Very good insight, Jared. The proper use of Scriptural hermeneutics is not limited to rightly assessing the grammar and syntax, it also involves proper application that changes through time.
The Bible is a “canon.” It is a proper standard by which anything and everything throughout all time can be measured to discover if it is “righteous” or “unrighteous.”
A yardstick does not contain all the inches in a universe but it contains enough to measure the entire cosmos. There is nothing that impacts our lives on which the Scriptures are “silent,” even if there are some cultural issues on which the Scriptures are not explicit.
Jared:
I’m learning in my old age that for me it works to agree to disagree on somethings.
So thats what I am going to do here on this issue.
Blessings to you and yours.
Tom, I appreciate you brother.
Here’s my thing, Jared. I agree with pretty much everything you say. Your style/philosophy of ministry are very close to mine.
But I’m wondering if it is fair to lump all contemporary churches together in opposition to these things.
I think maybe that what you are targeting is the Emergent movement (Rob Bell, et al) or the Seeker movement.
Uh, oh. You used the “E” word.
No, he hit the right group.
And to be honest, Rob Bell does have Emergent ties, but Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren are the torch bearers. Rob Bell has gained notice for not only being a part of this movement, but for also being an extremely gifted communicator.
You’d be surprised how much of the Emergent Church is in the SBC these days, if not in theology, definitely in practice, particularly amongst the younger generations.
How do Southern Baptists view the ‘Emergent Church’?
I guess. from this post and comments, that there may be a range of opinions, perhaps showing up in different generations among SBC pastors ?
?
For me, a large part of the theology in the Emergent Church goes from suspect to heresy with some distinctions here and there that I love.
However, it is some of the stated practices (or lack thereof) found in the worship service methodology that I really love and wish SBC churches would implement.
The sad part is that many justify ignoring the methods of many emergent church proponents by suggesting that they are a part of the theology of the Emergent Church.
That’s why I’ve stated numerous times:
Methods =/= Message
Christiane, except for that which is in the BF&M 2000, or things we have spoken about at our annual conventions, the SBC does not hold monolithic positions. There is no papal figure in Nashville issuing directives about what we can and cannot believe.
We hold to fundamental gospel doctrines (salvation by grace through faith alone, etc) and we hold to basic Baptist doctrine. But you constantly ask, “What do Southern Baptists believe…”
We try to study and implement the teachings of Scripture, and do not have an ecclesiastical authority that issues directives about our doctrine.
There is not “Southern Baptist Position” on the Emergent church. Most of us here would probably say the Emergents have sacrificed truth, even the gospel, for cultural relevance and acceptance.
That is my view, but it is NOT an official SBC position.
Bill, could you give some Scriptural support for your contention that the methods do not equal the message. I think the whole idea of a temple cult (“cult” used in the religious sense not the apologetic sense) suggests that the “methods” of worship are as important as the message.
In fact, it is through the cult of the Old Testament (the shadows if you will) that we get the message (substance). However, I do not mean to suggest that every detail of the message is clearly and once-for-all dictated in Scripture.
So, I guess I can agree somewhat: the methods are not exactly equal to the messge, but the two are very strongly linked.
And, I share you feeling of ambiguity about the “emerging types.”
Frank,
Are you actually suggesting that preaching 3 points and a close is scriptural?
Are you suggesting that we have to have a bouquet of flowers right in front of a pulpit?
Are you suggesting that we have to have a pulpit of a certain size?
Are you suggesting that we have to have a prelude, song, welcome, three songs (unless its baby dedication), prayer, special song (with plates passed), and then the sermon?
Are you suggesting that we have to use hymnals?
Are you suggesting that we have to have lapel mics instead of countrymans?
Are you suggesting choirs have to sing in robes?
Are you suggesting that we have to have pipe organs? Pianos?
Are you suggesting that nothing is subject to change?
Methodology.
And the Bible is very clear on traditions hampering the spirit…
Frank,
Sorry about my tone, I generally edit myself before clicking submit but I’m at work and I didn’t do that this time.
Frank,
I’m also sorry because this is an important issue with me.
A pastor whom I am very fond of was run off with many of my questions actually being gripes about him and his ministry.
We actually had some people demand his resignation for swapping out a large pulpit for a small lecturn.
I’ve let my emotions run away with me here.
Bill, apology accepted. I’m no saint when it comes to hitting the send button on half-baked cookies.
The answer to all your questions–as I’m sure you won’t be surprised–is, “no.” These are the details I was talking about. However, it just seems to me that when someone suggests “no more pulpit” (as with some in the emerging crowd) it morphs into: no more confrontational, prophetic preaching
While the two “details” are not directly related, the spirit behind both seems to be intricately linked–thus, my suspicion when someone wants to make what seems to be a minor “method” change.
For me, that’s the reason why I feel creativity is being squelched to some degree.
A pastor that I was working for wanted to do some sermons focused on worship…
I suggested why not rearrange the elements of the worship service where the worship portion occurred AFTER the sermon so that elements of the sermon are still fresh on the minds and hearts of those in attendance.
Yeah, that didn’t go over very well because they were concerned about a backlash from the senior adults.
Dave said, “Most of us here would probably say the Emergents have sacrificed truth, even the gospel, for cultural relevance and acceptance.
“That is my view, but it is NOT an official SBC position.”
I agree. I would even go further and say that Bell, Pagitt, and McLaren are unregenerate heretics. But, like Dave, I speak for nobody but myself.
Squirrel
While I’ve not study the leaders or followers of the “Emergent/Emerging” Church enough to evaluate the whole movement, this I will say for myself:
I’ve not seen a thing produced by any of that group that is faithful enough to Biblical Christianity that I would approve its use in the church I pastor. I have seen a PBS documentary that’s more faithful to the texts of the Old Testament and that I’m more ok with than all the samples of the Emergent movement.
However, El Squirrelo could be right. He often is.
Dave,
I don’t mean to lump everyone together. In my experience in the SBC, most pastors/churches are against many of the above things. Few may be against all of them.
I’m hoping that there are many pastors that are “terrible contemporary” SBC pastors as well. You sound like one of them. Maybe I’m not as alone as I feel.
I’m a contemporary pastor with values and morals that are as old as Adam and Eve.
As long as you don’t dress like them.
Only in the summer.
Perhaps this post and a few comments here will help you not flee to that cave without realizing that there are also 7000 (or more) that have not bowed the knee to Baal.
It’s tough to be alone. You’re not. Just many of the folks like you, other than our sparring around here, have more on their plate than publicity. You likely fit with that as well: we’ve got churches to pastor, families to love, things to do. But we’re here. Let’s get coffee sometime and encourage each other.
I have come to realize that while my church has some very good ministries, we are not really set up to reach unchurched/secular twenty-somethings. We are considering starting a church across the river (South Sioux, Nebraska) that would be a more modern/contemporary style of church.
What we are looking at is what is called Simple Church. Not a lot of the accoutrements of the traditional Southern Baptist Church. Meet. Proclaim God’s Word (exposition), worship passionately, fellowship in small groups and minister in the community. A contemporary musical style and casual atmosphere.
My point is that if that church comes off the ground, it will be very much contemporary, but will fit in with almost everything you say.
Again, I agree with every one of your points. I just the issue is not so much STYLE as it is cultural compromise.
Dave, I find myself in the exact position you find yourself. I’ve been able in the last two years to move primary service into the 20th Century (yes, 20th, not 21st), but I don’t see us reaching “20 Somethings” without a more radical approach. That radical approach would no doubt harm the rest of the church–thus, it is a lose-lose situation.
So, our church voted to establish a “Twenty-Something Chapel” that meets after our early evening service on Sunday which is 5:30 to 6:30. We have a very nice Fellowship Patio that we are turning into an outdoor Cafe. We have beefed up the guitar for the 20-Something Chapel as well as turned up the volume on the drums.
We are still in the beta phase but are going to a pre-launch phase soon with a full launch at Easter. With the 20 Something Chapel, I can be contemporary and still remain employed.
Are you actually one of my associate pastors?
Yes, we are not reaching an important segment of society, but if we rework everything to target them, it will tear everything else apart.
I’m going with a church plant – right now a satellite. I will preach at both places..
No, we aren’t using satellite. I’m told the screen isn’t wide enough.
Dave, I’ll be preaching at the 20 Something Chapel. I’ll change into skinny jeans and use a Bible App on a smart phone instead of the Paper Bible I got from Guttenberg. I’m considering a wig, but that’s still up in the air. Maybe a little Botox.
Oh, and I’ll contribute for a while to the praise music on bass, though with a distinctive “70′s” sound.
Also, I’m (the church) is helping a long-time friend of mine start a house-church in another state. So, I can be contemporary without tearing my church apart. And, the church loves the idea. They love young people–just have a hard time with their music and life-styles.
PS–In my congregation of 100 or so, I have 5 seniors who are there almost every Sunday who are 90 or older. I have another 9 or so who are 80 or older and hardly ever miss.
I want to honor these dear saints without neglecting the younger ones.
Dave, that sounds great! I agree as well that style isn’t the issue. I don’t really care what “style” per se a church has, so long as they seek God’s glory above all by being faithful to the Scriptures. Scriptural obedience should be the goal. I fear however that the Scriptures are placed by the wayside in many cases.
That’s not a fear, that is a reality. Compromise is rampant.
Compromise is the “new cancer.” It starts slowly and progresses more rapidly the longer it is around. Compromise kills. It is indeed rampant, and getting worse — in my humble opinion.
Hey Jared,
If I understand you correctly, I think we may be in disagreement concerning #1. My perspective can be found here:
http://sbcvoices.com/the-relationship-between-the-old-testament-the-new-testament/
I would argue than “any” text in the Bible is in the text. However, I suspect (and if I am wrong, please let me know) that the kind of thing you may be referring to is merely the immediate context or the context of the book or the O.T. context (if a specific O.T. text is being looked at for example). If so, then this is where we disagree.
I think the texts that my post brought up show that the “pointing forward towards Christ” movement of the Old Testament is absolutely comprehensive. And I think this necessarily involves a heavy dose of typology.
However, I would make a distinction between responsible typology and allegory. And I think Jim Hamilton (professor at Southern) seems to be on the right track concerning the former.
God Bless,
Benji
Benji,
I think we agree brother; namely that typology MUST have textual warrant. I think in order for us to typify something without textal warrant, we must be divinely inspired. Do we agree?
Jared,
I do think we must have textual warrant. However, that brings up the question of what constitutes textual warrant. I think almost all evangelicals would agree that Adam was a type of Christ since Romans 5 explicitly says so. However, I do not think the text has to be this explicit about typology for typology to be present.
Benji,
What is your formula for textual warrant? I’m cool with explicit and implicit.
Jared,
I am too. Could you give an example of a typological interpretation of Scripture that you think is without warrant? I think that might help me to better understand where you are coming from.
Benji,
My primary problem is with preaching that spiritualizes for pragmatic benefit. While I was on vacation, I heard a Southern Baptist pastor preach a sermon titled: “From stars to stables.” He preached about the wise men following a star and winding up at a stable (where Jesus was). He used it to answer how God may be leading us in life by a “star” (our dream), and we end up at a “stable” (not where we thought we were going, but it is ultimately for our benefit).
Jared, the idea of “Star to Stable” is worse than pragmatic application — it’s not biblically sound.
The Wise Men never ended up at a stable.
Frank, you right. This church had over 400 people attending too…
Jared, that simply knocks me out! Certainly that crowd at that church proves how biblically illiterate our nation has become.
Jared,
I enjoyed this article as much as the last one that was posted here at SBC Voices. There is no doubt that you are completely motivated to the proper discipleship of Christians. There is a tremendous need for this and I honor your committment to it.
I do have some concerns though, that maybe you are going a bit too far in terms of what was going on in Biblical culture. I was alarmed by your statements regarding the proper marriage age for children so they can avoid any sexual sin. While I don’t think you meant any harm, the idea that young people today could actually have a successful marriage at ages 14 and 16 is… well… not only not pragmatic, but probably illegal as well. The scriptures seemed to condone polygamy, etc. Those are all things, we object to. So my question is: Where do you draw the line between what you think scripture may teach and what you will teach?
Chief Katie,
I disagree with you. I do not believe that I’m “going too far.” Parents are biblically responsible for raising their children unto the glory of God in His world. It is their responsibility to see to it that their children are ready to be young men and women when they become adults. Also, I don’t believe it’s illegal for a teenager to get married. I’m NOT saying that they must get married while they’re teenagers; what I’m saying is that they should be PREPARED to be married at the age their bodies desire sex within marriage. It is the parents’ responsibility to help them be prepared. Furthermore, I think it would actually be better for teenagers to cultivate self-control in their lives before they get married… thus, meaning that they marry at a later date than in their teenage years.
Saying that the Scriptures “condone polygamy” is biblically unfounded. God’s definition for marriage has always been one man with one woman for life. It is true that God did not condemn polygamists; but, this does NOT mean that He has ever been ok with polygamy.
Concerning where I draw the line, I simply preach and believe what the Bible says. If the Bible indeed “condoned polygamy,” I would preach this (but, the Bible does not).
Jared,
Perhaps a better word than ‘condone’ would be ‘allow’. But either way, God evidentally doesn’t have a huge issue with it, or He would have condemned it, yes? Solomon had 700 wives and 300 Concubines! And we aren’t talking about insignificant people in the Bible who practiced polygamy. The reason I raise this issue is that polygamy is going to be be the next battle for marriage. In fact, there has already been a petition to the Supreme Court regarding it, and fundamentally, they will use the same arguments homosexuals do. When we decide to take an opposing view, it’s going to be very difficult to stand completely on scripture. Polygamists are known for marrying very young girls. So, it is a concern to me. I also live in AZ where we have one of the largest Fundamental Mormon communities that practice polygamy in the entire nation. It’s a cesspool of abuse upon young women and it breaks my heart. I understand completely that this is not what you are talking about, but they use your very same arguments with very different motives. Your’s are pure, and they are not.
All I’m suggesting is that marriage isn’t something to be placed on an absolute continuum. The average age in this country for girls to experience their first menstrual period is TWELVE. That means that they can conceive and biologically, their bodies are indeed ready for sex. Some young girls experience their first period at NINE. In your particular state, the age for marriage (both young men and women) is 18 without parental consent, They may marry at 16 with consent or if they get the cart before the horse and are already pregnant. Then a judge may approve a marriage at less than 18 years old. But legally, they cannot marry younger than 16 even if you agree to it. I don’t think that just because their bodies are ready, that these children are anywhere near ready for marriage.
I agree completely that parents must prepare their children for marriage. Aside from their primary relationship with Christ, marriage is the most important decision people make. Personally, I don’t think twelve year old girls should even consider marriage. They should have Godly advice from Godly parents regarding it. Yes… we should teach our children about abstinence. I did so with all three of my children. Self-control is clearly one attribute of the fruit of the Spirit. On that I agree with you as well.
I’m not a woman’s libber, Jared. I’m a complementarian. If I could have things my way, women would return to their homes to raise their own children properly instead of dropping them off at the day care center. I’ve caught a lot of heat from Christian women for those beliefs. But I also recognize, that working moms are almost a fact of life in our society. I had to work to feed my family, but it surely wasn’t ideal.
I agree with almost everything you have written on this site. The only issue where I depart is that I firmly believe that girls at 12, 13, 14 and 15 are way too young to marry. I’d even go so far as to say 17 is too young. Same for boys. I’d love to see hundreds of thousands of people raise their children the way the Duggars have raised theirs. I know they prepare their children for marriage and teach abstinence along with self-control in all areas of their children’s lives.
I can disagree with you on this one thing, and agree with the rest. Perhaps my thinking is clouded because of my own family background, but I stand by my assertion that young teenagers should not marry.
God Bless.
Chief Katie,
I appreciate the response. Once again, just because God didn’t condemn polygamy doesn’t mean He was ok with it. There are several evils in Scripture that God’s judgment is not included in the narrative, but they are explicitly forbidden in Scripture elsewhere. Polygamy is one of these things.
Concerning teenagers getting married young; one pastor I served with in TN married one of his female students; she was 12 and he was 22. He was her school teacher. They’re still married today over 50 years later; and they’re very godly, faithful Christians. If 16 years is the youngest possible age, then it would be good for Christians to aim for that goal, making sure that they’re children are mature enough to marry at that age. Of course, some children will mature faster than others; but, prolonged immaturity should not be able to be laid at the feet of parents.
We can indeed disagree; even agreeing to disagree. Keep on keeping on for God’s glory alone.
I believe in the OT God specifically told someone “I gave you wives”. I think it was David.
JARED,
I don’t think that the Apostles were concerned about ‘numbers’ either. They had already been taught ‘by example’ that the ‘numbers’ would come, not through their own powers, but by the Hand of the Lord:
4 After He had finished speaking, He said to Simon,
“Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch.”
5 Simon said in reply,
“Master, we have worked hard all night and have caught nothing,
but at your command I will lower the nets.”
6 When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish and their nets were tearing.”
St. Luke’s Gospel, Ch. 5
It was AT HIS COMMAND, that they lowered the nets.
“He called the wise men by a star, the fishermen by their art of fishing. ”
(St John Chrysostom)
1. Agree wholeheartedly
2. I’m for it, just like you are. I doubt we’ll ever see it due to the fact that no money family member would ever be brought up and no pastor wants to file for unemployment the following Monday.
3. Yep. I agree here too.
4. I like this mentality. I’d love to see more of it.
5. Are you advocating a staff driven model or a laity (committee) driven model of church leadership? I’m a staff driven proponent personally.
6. I’m with you to a point. I have no problem with creativity being demonstrated from the pulpit. I have a problem with the whole open, 3 points, and pull absolutely every topic to an alter call with the 1,2, and 4th verses sung. Then again, I’m someone who believes that an alter call shouldn’t be the end all result of every sermon. I think pastors should be allowed to flex their creative muscle and be able to not only preach different formats, but also change the flow of the worship service itself.
7. I would type Amen in 72 font if Dave would allow it.
8. Ditto here too. Though I’m seeing more of the “conservative” pastors doing this rather than the contemporary pastors when it comes to buildings and space. I’m also getting tired of getting on television as the end goal for every media ministry ever created in the SBC. That’s very shortsighted and very cost intensive with little return on investment.
9. I’m a fan of expository preaching….when done creatively. Methods and exposition aren’t one in the same, despite what some conservative pastors think.
10. I’m with you here, though I would contend that this is more an assault on more traditional pastors rather than the up and coming contemporary pastors. All I have to do is point and the suit/tie get up.
Surprisingly, you’ve modeled yourself more after the contemporary pastors that I’ve come across than the traditional pastors that I know.
You might need to rethink your target.
Bill, you make some interesting points. By “contemporary pastor,” I meant “today’s pastors in the SBC.” I meant, compared to all other pastors in the SBC.
Basically, like you said, “I’m a terrible traditional Southern Baptist Pastor.”
I’m not sure, Jared, how big a fan of Henry Blackaby you are, but his book “Spiritual Leadership” was one of the best books I’ve ever read. Fantastic!
The gist is that we have no right as pastors to foist our agenda on the church. Our responsibility is to discern God’s agenda and serve that.
It’s about Him, not me.
Dave, I’m bothered by Blackaby’s emphasis in “Experiencing God,” but, this disagreement must be reserved for another article
. I would however be open to reading some of his other works. I believe he’s a godly Christian man.
No doubt about that.
“I’m bothered by Blackaby’s emphasis in ‘Experiencing God,’”
Me, too. A friend of mine described it as “tongues-less charismaticism” and I think he’s right on the button.
But, as you said, that’s for another discussion…
Squirrel
Jared:
I really don’t disagree with what you have said.
But let me add (and I don’t think that you will really disagree with this) that it is not sinful or idolatrous to think and act strategically about how and when the Gospel is presented. In fact, in my opinion it can be just as sinful and idolatrous to deliver the Gospel intentionally in a way that gives no thought to the situation and perspective of the hearers.
It’s usually a question of degree.
The classic example – we conduct services and provide Bibles in the language of our congregants or hearers.
In a by-gone age, it was believed that only Latin would do, and that English was a vulgar language.
No one today would agree with that position, but it was the dominant (to the death dominant) position a few hundred years ago.
So, can modern preachers chase get caught up in chasing the culture so hard that what they do is idolatrous and sinful? Sure.
But preachers can often try to preserve cultural tradition and make it so sacred as to not be touched, and that can be as sinful and idolatrous.
Louis, I think we must contextualize in light of our present culture, without compromising the Scriptures or God’s value. We must understand that our methods communicate truth about God as well. Thus, our methods should scream “God alone be glorified,” as our words do as well.
What often happens in churches is that the gospel is preached, but it is denied through the ungodly methods used by pastors, teachers, ministries, etc.
Jared,
I agree with what you are saying here… However, I think you mislabeled the title of your article. It should be:
10 Reasons Why I Am A TERRIBLE “Traditional” Southern Baptist Pastor
Grace for the Journey,
Greg,
By “contemporary,” I meant “today’s” Southern Baptist Pastors. I didn’t think about the baggage that came with the term.
So, the title could be, “10 Reasons Why I am a TERRIBLE Southern Baptist Pastor.”
1. Good summation. Joel Osteen is the master of this, but there are certainly counterparts in the SBC.
2. I agree, but here’s the hard part. How does a church go from practically no church discipline (even though it is included in most church by-laws) to implementing church discipline? Where do you start and what types of “sin” do you start with? Easier said than done in our modern culture, particularly when you have lots of lawyers to advise wayward church members
3. Agree and Disagree. Are numbers the be-all-and-end-all of church health and a sign of God’s blessings? No. If that were the case, then Lakewood Church and the Mormons would be the healthiest, most blessed “churches” in America. Biblically speaking, they cannot be.
However, I would disagree than numbers are not important at all. Both the O.T. and N.T. include within the inerrant Word statements about numbers (120, 3000, etc.). These represent people who are (hopefully) being impacted with the Gospel. Do you think that numbers can be one sign (small, medium, large, mega) of church health, but not necessarily the most important sign? Are numbers so unimportant that those churches that have not baptized one single person in the last umpteen years should get a pass? I don’t think that’s what you mean, but I could be wrong.
4. Good point. I agree with you about the “contests, bribes, and money” argument. Would quibble on one thing — in the Great Commission, Jesus says to “teach them to OBEY all that I have commanded.” We are not just to teach them what Jesus commanded, but to obey. We will not make it this side of heaven, but so many people misquote Matthew’s Great Commission and leave out the Obey part.
5. No question about that. As Dave recommends, “Spiritual Leadership,” by Henry Blackaby, is an outstanding leadership resource. While the church is not a secular business or institution, I do think that we can glean principles of leadership from non-Biblical sources as long as those principles do not conflict with Scripture. John Maxwell is not my all time favorite leadership guru, but I would not dismiss all secular leadership material as unworthy of reading and learning from.
6. Agree and Disagree. Theatrics, as you call it, should have no place in the preaching of the Word if by “theatrics” you mean manipulation of the audience. Those preachers and revival speakers who intentionally use stories (some real, some not so much) to tug at the heartstrings of the hearers can often cross the line into bad theatrics.
However, I would disagree that being interesting and engaging in one’s preaching is somehow a “sin” or wrong. We might draw the line in different places, but preaching or teaching God’s Word in a boring way is sinful! To the extent that we can speak and preach in such a way as to hold our hearers’ attention, then that is a good thing. Should the Word of God, all by itself, hold their attention? I suppose it should, but I seem to remember somewhere in Scripture about a man who used “extra-Biblical” stories (most certainly in an engaging way) to bring to life the Biblical principle He was trying to convey.
7. Agree and Disagree (just a little). I think you are right in that we should take Jesus with us (i.e., wherever we go, “let others see Jesus in me”). We should not check our relationship with Jesus at the door of the church building when we exit.
That being said, I do think that a church’s facilities can be used to carry out the Great Commission. I’m not ready to sell all the buildings and move into house churches just yet.
8. Disagree and Agree (in principle). I think I know what you meant to say, but the way that you said it comes across as much harsher than I think you need to be. Your main point — that “modernism” has become an idol that we need to repent of — has validity. However, we live in a modern culture. Do you think that we can use the tools of this modern culture — internet, media, buildings, music, programs, etc.) — to fulfill the Great Commission? If my church is getting ready to dedicate a new education facility on March 6 (which we are), does that mean that I am “ashamed of the Gospel” as you seemed to imply? I’m not sure that I would throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue. Are you also saying that “buildings, music, and programs” are luxuries that most rural churches cannot afford? Every rural church that I have pastored or known of has had all three. I may not know what you mean by that statement.
9. Agree mainly. If you mean that our sermons must be Biblical, text-centered messages that have as the foundation the inerrant Word of God, then I would wholeheartedly agree. If you mean that “expositional” sermons must generally be verse by verse, chapter by chapter in a book of the Bible, then I would disagree. That is one way of preaching expositorily, but I would not say that this has to be done in order to be faithful to Scripture. I have preached that way and in fact am teaching verse by verse through Revelation on Sunday nights. However, I don’t typically preach through books of the Bible on Sunday mornings. I would simply not be as dogmatic as you are on the defintion of “expository.”
10. Agree (mostly) and a Question. There is no question that we should be geniune and authentic both in and out of the pulpit. Those who manipulate and put on pretenses are not setting good examples. That being said, one question. You said, “Regardless if his people like him or not, he must love them?” What did you mean by that? I have seen and heard of far too many pastors who are truly not liked by their congregation — not because he is preaching the truth — but because he is a mean, ill-tempered person who has no business in the pastorate.
Jared, overall a very well written and thought-provoking article. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I appreciate your comment and questions.
Concerning #2, my goal is to eventually encourage the church to submit to biblical discipline. Individual members: active and inactive will be visited; and the Scripture will be thoroughly explained. Those that refuse to submit through signature will be excommunicated. It must be the decision of the active membership. If they disagree, then I’ll keep teaching and preaching until they eventually agree. It must be handled with loving care. The goal is still restoration, not excommunication. Those that submit will be lovingly held accountable for open, unrepentant sin. The goal is not head-hunting; but, the church must respond to public sin.
Concerning #3, I don’t think numbers can point to health. I say this because they do not seem to be a barometer in Scripture. God instead seems to be concerned with faithfulness. Yes, numbers were recorded, but rarely; and more for a reference point it seems.
In #6, you said, “I seem to remember somewhere in Scripture about a man who used “extra-Biblical” stories (most certainly in an engaging way) to bring to life the Biblical principle He was trying to convey.”
I know you don’t mean this; but, this is what I disagree with: the Word of God had life before Jesus told these stories; the principles had life without His parables. Jesus’ stories Added nothing to the Word of God. I’m not against telling stories; but, these stories should not seek to add to the Word of God. If a normal, godly pastor cannot follow our ministries and succeed, then we have won people to ourselves. We should guard against this. If people only want to hear us preach, then we may need to change our preaching style.
Concerning #7, I’m fine with evangelism occuring at the church. My church still does VBS, findithere, etc.; I just think what happens at the church should be an extension of what is happening on a daily basis in the community; church building evangelism should be secondary, instead of primary. The emphasis should be on personal evangelism instead of getting the community to come to a building.
Concerning #8, I’m not against buildings, music, excellent facilities, etc. My concern is that we believe God cannot grow His church without these things. Our trust should be in the gospel, not in modernism.
Concerning rural churches not being able to be the “social centers of the community,” I mean that they cannot aford to compete with the culture. My church is over 50 years old, and it’s virtually falling apart. It’s not aestetically pleasing. God however can grow His church without “nice facilities.” Also, my church cannot compete with the movie theater; we don’t have a “youth room,” or “children’s area,” etc. We barely have heat and A/C; but, God can grow His church without these things. He is greater than modernity. His gospel transcends and infiltrates culture.
Concerning #10, I meant that as pastors we should not be concerned with being liked, but with being biblical. This means we should lovingly preach the truth. “Being mean” is NOT being biblical. If people dislike us, it should be because they dislike the Word of God; or because they’re adding ungodly expectations to our ministries: be at every event, laugh at all their jokes, burp their babies, etc.
Thank you for the thoughtful interaction; and encouragement.
Jared,
Thanks for the dialogue. Let me reply to your reply in the same order:
#2. You said, “If they disagree, then I’ll keep teaching and preaching until they eventually agree.” Question: What happens if they you keep on keeping on, but the members of your flock do not eventually agree? How much time do you give it? How much preaching and teaching do you do on this particular issue? Understand, I believe that church discipline is Biblical and warranted, even though it is vastly underused. If you are in an established church (which you say you are), I think you may have your work cut out for you on this one.
#3. I will have to agree to disagree. While I do not think numbers can be the primary (or even secondary) way that a church evaluates its health, I think to discount numbers entirely, as you seem to do, is not warranted, either from a Biblical perspective or a practical perspective. You may not be coming at this like some others, but far too many church leaders do not want to use numbers in any way (even minor ways) to get a picture of church health and/or vitality, mainly because these church leaders do not have very many followers.
#6. Of course, Jesus’ stories — at least the ones recorded in Scripture — are indeed the inerrant Word of God. The parables He used are the Word of God the Son, but not all the parables that Jesus used were recorded in Scripture. The ones that have been recorded in Scripture we know and understand to be “God-breathed.” When Jesus ministered, did He only use the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament)?
While each parable has one main point, it can have many applications. I’m still not sure I understand your point on this. Is anything that we say that is not actual Scripture itself wrong? I don’t think you mean this, but I am not sure. Can a pastor use illustrations (i.e., “stories”) to help our hearers more easily understand Scripture or to understand how the truth of God’s Word applies to their lives? Or, would this be “adding to” Scripture?
#7. Agree
#8. I think you are setting up a false premise. It is not either/or. It is both/and. Only God can grow His church and it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation. However, I think that we use whatever we have available (i.e., buildings, budgets, people, programs) to the very best of our ability. Ultimately, God will bring people to the church that He wants to be there. In any spiritual competition, God wins. We just need to be faithful to do what God has called us to do with the resources that He has given us to do ministry.
#10. We are preach and teach in a winsome (loving) way, even when what we have to say may not always sit well with our people. However, we always need to be careful that we are not stepping on toes just to step on toes, but it is the Holy Spirit who is doing the convicting. Lots of preachers don’t know the difference and love to unload with both barrels on their people.
Lastly, as to the “ungodly expectations,” I would encourage you to not look at them as “ungodly” for that connotes that what they are asking you to do is somehow sinful (which I don’t think you mean). For a member of your congregation to ask you to be at an event is not sinful. Even asking you to be at every event I don’t think would be ungodly in the sense that I would use it. Inappropriate and unfair? Yes. But pastoral ministry and life is often unfair. Thankfully, God’s grace is sufficient.
We always have to set boundaries for our ministries, including setting firm boundaries for time with our families. But,as a pastor, people will always expect things that I cannot give them or cannot give them at the time they need them. They won’t set the boundaries for us.
Thanks again for your thoughts on these important issues which affect the church. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
You raise some good points and questions.
#2 – Concerning how long I will give a church to adjust to Scripture before I leave? I don’t know the answer to this. I talked with a pastor just the other day about this who has served his church for 12 years. He is a Calvinist Southern Baptist; and when they were transitioning to “no altar calls,” “elder lead,” “biblical discipline,” they lost 250 people in 4 years. In my mind, this would not be an option for me. Is he wrong? I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s wrong. I wouldn’t move as fast as he did though. It’s hard to place a number on “longsuffering.” I’m guessing a 10-15 year plan. Furthermore, If I thought we would lose a ton of people, I would probably leave for another church (If I believed the gospel was active in my present church.)
Concerning how much teaching and preaching to do, this is a relative answer as well. I would say as much as is necessary. It’s more important to teach it until there is a response from the church: yay or nay. I also think it’s good to provide the church with books, articles, sermons, etc. that graciously deal with the subject. Mark Dever has some good stuff on this over at 9 Marks.
#3 – We may have to agree to disagree, but I want you to consider that every church has circumstances that effect numbers so much that it’s very, very difficult for numbers to communicate anything: reputation, active evangelism, staff, methods, paedobaptism (baptizing young children), easy-believism (raise your hand, sign a card, etc.), local cults, cultural influence, entertaining services, previous squabbles, etc. I know of one Southern Baptist Church that has a fire truck baptistry that shoots out confetti (of course they’re going to baptize more children!). Furthermore, William Carey didn’t see a convert until his 7th year. Was he a failure for the first 6 years? I agree that there must be fruit, but this is not always tangible; therefore, it is very difficult to point to numbers as health. I can however allow for numbers being a subordinate mark of church health, below many more marks.
#6 – Of course Jesus’ words are Scripture. The parables are Scripture. What I’m speaking against is pastors that “add to the Word of God” through “spicing up the Word of God.” People should enjoy the Scriptures through enjoying our preaching; however, many pastors believe that if people enjoy their sermons, they’re enjoying the Scriptures; and this is NOT the case. Our preaching should exalt the Scriptures, instead of exalting ourselves. This is what I mean by preachers “adding to” the Word of God.
#8 – Of course God can grow His church through excellent facilities. What I’m coming against is people that believe God cannot grow His church without modernity. Although He indeed uses modernism, His gospel transcends it. We do NOT have to have an “if we build it, they will come mentality.” We’re agreeing on this issue.
#10 – I agree. Ministry is difficult; and we will not be able to please everyone. We should indeed accomadate for the sake of the gospel, and Christ’s church, while not forsaking out family.
Jared,
Thanks for the continued dialogue. From your follow-up to my questions and comments, it would appear that we are a lot closer than we are apart. Continue to be faithful to the Lord where He has planted you and He will bless. Have a wonderful Lord’s Day tomorrow. God bless,
Howell
I really like and agree with #10. There is far too much flash in some personalities to be real. I know very, very few pastors but I’m well acquainted with some IMBers who value shiny sparkly things in their leadership roles. Ugg.
Perhaps southren baptist pastors should spend less time on the internet and interacting with one another and more time . . . in the Bible, in prayer, intentionally reaching out to lost people with the gospel, BEING a pastor instead of TALKING about being one.
Whew! Good thing I’m not a pastor!
bill,
“I believe in the OT God specifically told someone “I gave you wives”. I think it was David”.
************
Indeed! II Samuel 12:8. God (speaking through Nathan) told David that He had given David all of Saul’s household and would have given him more. However, I don’t see any evidence that David actually married any of them.
The fact remains that Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc… all had multiple wives. I don’t know, what if anything, that actually means, but we can be sure, the polygamists will use it to their advantage.
Hi-jack secured.
I have enjoyed reading Jared’s thoughts.
Blessings to all.
I would say that what God allows is not indicative of what God approves. Another verse comes to mind that might be useful for the polygamy topic. When Jesus was asked why Moses, and by extension God gave room for divorce he said, “because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8) I think you can apply the same sentiment to polygamy that Jesus applies to divorce.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }