Today in the SBC we see some folks who seem to want to change the world and the SBC. I read an interesting article in THE TEXAN this week on generational divides in SBC leadership. It struck me as rather poignant. Nathan Lino wrote:
“…While I do think we need changes, I also believe the SBC has among its current leadership the wisdom, discernment, and patience to bring about the needed changes for future health and growth.
I do not think the present generation of SBC leadership needs heavy input from 30-year-olds to help make these decisions. My generation does not deserve, or has not yet earned, a voice in the conversation or a seat at the table.”
When I read the article, I thought about our first church. Our hearts were in the right place when we began our ministry there. Some of the changes my husband implemented (and they were more additions rather than outright changes), were construed as messing with the status quo. On more than one occasion we heard, “We’ve never done it that way.” Fortunately, we also heard, “This is great! We never would have thought of doing this!” However, we admit at times our zeal was a bit too zealous.
I taught youth then. The youth wanted to do things in that little country church that I knew would cause division and problems with some of the older folks. We introduced lots of new things with them that are still going on today, but I cautioned them. I told them, “what we think needs changing today, may be what God is going to use you to change tomorrow. You’ll have your chance. Our times are in His hands.” They listened. Many things changed. But slowly. The youth grew up and their leadership brought new ideas. They are deacons, Sunday School teachers, Media Directors (who would have thought?), Worship leaders, and committee chair-folk. They now have two morning services–one contemporary and one traditional. They recently launched their own website. Amazing! They learned to compromise and cooperate.
Today some argue the things that changed in the SBC in times past, aren’t all that great. Some think we need to change a lot more. Even my friend, Matt Svoboda, wants to change the convention’s name. I’m not sure I like that change; people have tried that before; and folks have thought of it, too. I’m definitely not one to squash the process. However, as we learned in our first church, as we were “out to change the world”, change is a process. Bulldozers can do a lot of damage. Whatever changes we settle on, I pray we bear in mind: Do we “change” for change’s sake? Or for Christ’s?
{ 6 comments }
SelahV,
I appreciate the heart of this post and I admit that some times people want change for changes sake.
Clearly, I don’t think a name change falls into that category.
I also want to point out that sometimes things stay the same just for the sake of avoiding change. In my opinion, that is partly what the SBC is stuck in. It happens with groups, conventions, etc. that have a lot of history. The saying becomes, ‘But its always been that way.’
Avoiding change for the sake of avoiding change is just as dangerous as wanting change for its own sake.
With our traditions and the change we need may we aim to glorify Christ.
Hey Matt, thanks for your take. You ought to write us a list of what changes you think the SBC needs. I think the problem with people who espouse change is that they fail to define what “change” means. Specifics could help immensely when folks want others to change. Explanation of the specifics is also necessary. What do you hope to gain by the change? What could be the fall-out? Would the change benefit more than it will hurt? Or would the change hurt more than it would benefit.
Our country just went through a few years of hearing “Change” is what we need. Change is what we’re getting. And it is a frightening thing to wake up every morning to some of the changes we see being introduced.
But as I’ve often heard my husband preach, “For things to change, I have to change.” God doesn’t always change things in my life by my prayer, He changes me to meet the things in my life.
That said, I love change. I change about 5 times every Sunday morning. By the time I’ve left church, I’m praying I’ve changed for the better. selahV
selahVs last blog post..ANOTHER WEBSITE LAUNCH
Prior to changing a brand, it would be wise to study corporations (profits and non-profits) to discover if it was actually helpful. Some regret doing so, and one state convention has been in such a state of change the result has been a huge loss of confidence among much of their constituency.
Branding change can be effective if it reflects systemic change and identity. However, some of the cultural backlash against the Southern Baptist Convention as a denominational entity is that we have embraced convictions regarding inerrancy of Scripture; that there is no salvation apart from Jesus; and we have confronted our culture with these and other convictions regarding biblical ethics at the edges of life. These are not welcome in a culture of religious syncretism, pluralism, and tolerance for all except conservative values.
I realize many have expounded convictions poorly and huge mistakes have been made. But one’s manner of communicating truth does not negate the truth; it negates the ability of the communicator. I also realize some of us could excuse ourselves and the denomination by appealing to our lack of “compromise”. That is not my intent. But I do believe we must carefully consider how much of the backlash against the SBC is rejection of our beliefs and values or rejection of our communication of those beliefs and values.
Hello Bro. Ted, I think you have something here. I do believe that though I lean heaviest on your take of SBC rejection being “our communicaton of those beliefs and values”, that we can also say that a large portion of the population (those who outright reject Christianity in any form–religion, especially) fuel the backlash also. At times I think we brothers and sisters within the SBC are our own worst enemies. That said, I do appreciate your contribution to this stream. It makes more sense than a thousand blogs I’ve read, (and a few dozen comments I’ve written). Thanks. selahV
selahVs last blog post.."THROUGH LIFE OR DEATH"…is there confidence?
SelahV – you are most kind! Thank you. I deeply appreciate your thoughts as well.
Is Pogo Theology part of the BF&M? “We have met the enemy and he is us?” I’m just sayin’…..
Ted Es last blog post..DOES YOUR ‘INSIDE CULTURE’ COMMUNICATE LOVE?
What was lost in the moderate/conservative controversy was trust and manners and charitableness toward one another as brothers. I remember when I decided for sure to vote conservative from the get go (I have been voting so for yrs or ever since some mod. student called me ignorant for believing in the virgin birth) was when I was told be some mod. professors that they could not have a verbal inspiration on the faculty of the seminary that I attended. I remember saying to one professor, “I am more liberal than you as I could have you on my faculty, but you could not have me on yours.” (I could say that because I had confidence that the truth would win in the end which a lot of conservatives lack andwhich is probably the reason the professors use to get so mad at me) He turned beet red in the face. Sadly, I must admit, the conservatives who won and occupied some of the positions (not all) were just as mean spirited as some of the mods. (not all mods. were mean spirited) It was during those yrs. after the victory that I realized how dearly I could pay for the so-called conservative victory which has a whole lot more to do with power than with theology. Thankfully, not all are so mean! And that is my hope, for when the Awakening comes, there will be souls to be wrought upon. I want to say here THAT I AM THANKFUL FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING THE LORD AND FOR SUFFERING THE “REFERRED PAINS” OF CHRIST IN STRIVING TO SERVE HIM.(Cols.1:24). I trust that some medically knowledgeable person will know what I mean by referred pain.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation
Comments on this entry are closed.