Not many would disagree in saying that the SBC is quite diverse. We are diverse in every area of church life. We are diverse in our style of worship; fundamentalist, traditional, contemporary, blended, modern, and this list could go on forever… With 16 million Baptists on record we have 160 million ways of doing things. I do not want to spend much time talking about diversity in our style of worship, but more importantly our diversity in our philosophies of ministry.
One would have to be ignorant not to see all of the diverse opinions within the SBC. We are all trying to figure out what the best way to ‘make disciples’ is. Not only from the way we approach the music in our church, but more importantly the way we approach the people in our church and in our community…aka our philosophy of ministry.
Let me give you a little background of myself. I was raised Catholic, very catholic, pre-Vatican II catholic, my grandparents have stopped speaking to me catholic. I think you get the point. My parents divorced and my mother, two brothers, and I decided to try the ‘Big Baptist Church’ down the street. Four months later God saved my soul in this church. He saved me, grew me, and called me into the ministry in this church. This is a seeker-sensitive church. Everything this church did was because either Saddleback or Willow Creek was doing it. God used this church greatly in my life. It is because of God’s work in my life that I am more sympathetic to the seeker-sensitive movement than most.
The seeker sensitive movement is only one face of the SBC. We have many faces. We have seeker-sensitive churches, house churches, traditional churches, fundamentalist churches, emerging churches, blended churches, and everything else that can be thought of. The question is this: is this diversity healthy? Does all of this diversity help the SBC or is it destructive?
I once heard a Christian say that, ‘we would be better off if we just kicked out churches like Saddleback.’ Is this true? Would the SBC be better off if we kicked out every church that a certain group of people believed practiced an unbiblical philosophy of ministry? There is definitely a hint of arrogance in this type of attitude. First and foremost, we ought to approach this topic with humility and grace.
I cannot bring myself to believe that the SBC would be better off without the diversity that we have. God used a seeker-sensitive church to save me, some of you, and many more. He has used very traditional churches to save others, modern churches, emerging churches, etc… In our humility, we ought to thank God for using churches that aren’t perfect, like yours and mine. This does not mean that we should condone and approve of all philosophies of ministry. I do not believe that the seeker-sensitive movement has a biblical philosophy of ministry and yet God saved me through it. We do need to have courage in standing and preaching what we believe the Bible says about ministry! But, let us also remember this, everything that any church does needs to be covered by the blood of Jesus because nothing any church does is perfect and pure.
I am not saying that this is a topic that we should all just turn our heads away from the ‘other guys.’ We ought to have healthy dialogue. Do we not all want to be as biblical as we can as we fulfill the Great Commission? Of course we do, so lets talk about what that looks like. Let’s open the Word and see what Scripture says! Let’s stand and be strong in our biblical convictions; while at the same time being humble and gracious to those who do not agree. As I said before, I do not at all believe in the philosophy of ministry that the ‘seeker-sensitive’ movement holds. Yet, I am very grateful for the work that God does through them.
Rather than be decisive and harsh, we ought to celebrate our diversity as we all try to ‘make disciple of all nations.’ I thank God for the diversity in the SBC. He is using us, in all of our broken ways, to make His name great!
At the end of each post on SBC Voices, we suggest related posts from other Southern Baptist websites and blogs. These will often include contrary points of view and should not be understood as endorsements.
What Other SBC Voices Are Saying
- Report of the Southern Baptist Convention Peace Committee by SBC in St. Louis, Missouri (June 16, 1987)
- 7 Types of Southern Baptists by Trevin Wax
- The Many Faces of The SBC by Wade Burleson
- What Are the Most Pressing Issues Facing the Southern Baptist Convention? by Nathan Finn
- Whence and Whither? by Timothy George
- Baptist ID: Dr. David Dockery on “The Southern Baptist Convention Since 1979? by Tim Brister
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (41)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
cb scott (29)
Arrogance IS a problem within the convention. And pride as well. I think the two probably go hand in hand. Many times I feel like I just want to know God and His Word but I’m so distracted, and aggravated, by the theologies of men.
I DO want to dialogue with people who see things differently than me but I also want for people to understand that when there is no clear cut yes or no, then what they are putting forth as truth is in reality just opinion based on one or two scriptures, while leaving out whole other portions of scripture. I also want to make sure LOVE is remembered on both sides and there is no love shared if all we are doing is saying “You’re going to hell…” if you don’t believe in MY way of thinking.
Have a blessed week!
Sallie
@Sallie: I agree, and it’s not a caricature to imagine many very prideful people in Southern Baptist Convention. Too often, they make it up the pulpit ladder.
@Matt: Thanks for writing this post, it’s something we all need to think about. I think many Southern Baptists want unity but don’t realize that there can be good / bad ways to be unified. Different perspectives and disagreement often help us make better choices and get back to the Gospel. The danger is in how we disagree, as you pointed out.
Matt,
I believe the diversity is healthy. At its best it should stimulate spirited discussions and drive all who are involved to examine and evaluate everything we do in light of Scripture. That can only be good.
Some controversy is unavoidable, but I agree there’s too much harshness and not enough graciousness in much of what we say and do.
In many ways, I appreciate the diversity in the SBC, but it’s also agonizing because it is dealt with so poorly.
Also, the lack of understanding about what the essentials are and what unites create further problems.
Well Gunny, maybe you and I ought to do an interactive series about what are and aren’t the essentials… and why?
First of all, what a great question.
I agree with both Gunny and Sallie. Also, tolerance is a word not welcome in many Southern Baptist conversations, but isn’t that exactly what uniting in diversity is? Tolerating other views within the Southern Baptist life that are orthodox, and have nothing to do with not believing that scripture is the final authority, agreeing on the essentials(which I do have a definition as to what I think they are), but as some have said, in lesser things, disagreeing on the interpretation?
That is not at all what uniting in diversity means. Tolerance on the non-essentials is acceptable, but uniting in diversity means that because you believe Scripture is the authority you look to it to see what doctrines ought to divide and what doctrines we can have unity in diversity. In the case of philosophy of ministry I think there is a lot of room for unity in diversity. There are a lot of ways to fulfill the Great Commission. We should unite with all different ways to fulfill our calling. Just because our church does it a certain way that doesn’t make every other way unbiblical. When it comes to philosophy of ministry the battle is more over preference than doctrine. That is not always true, but most of the time.
You are right.
Debbie,
I really appreciated your comments. I have also wrote a post about the theological diversity in the SBC and we will get to dialogue more there. Unity in Diversity is much more difficult when it comes to theological matters.
Matt
@Matt Svoboda: Thanks again for writing this, we always need to keep our attitudes right when disagreeing with others – especially fellow Christians that we are commanded to love.
If we understand the nature of biblical teachings and how they work in application, we would, perhaps, be able to have our diversity and unity at the same time – without so much controversy. One of the things that I found out is that most, if not all, of the scriptural doctrines are two-sided and apparently contradictory (to the human mind), that the are this way on purpose in order to provide a tension in the human mind that enables one to be balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Differences among people are usually predicated upon preferences for one side or the other of a two sided doctrine, with prejudice against the side one dislikes. Interestingly enough, this can lead to the anomaly of people on opposite sides of an issue coming to the same conclusion. Intellectual feasibility is not something of which most Bapists are very cognizant. Paradoxes and antinomies are utterly nonsensical with the majority of them. However, the answer to much of our problems wih unity and diversity lie in prescisely this area. An examination and reclamation of the principles in the mental realm would go a long way toward restoring creativity and liberty to our deliberations and actions.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
There are just a lot of folks who cannot accept the fact that not everyone sees things the same way they do. That’s true of people on all sides in most of our controversies.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..WOW! Words of Wisdom from "Between the Times" =-.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }