I’ll admit it. I was torqued off by Dr. Ezell’s words to his church that disdained bloggers who criticized him. I was not among those bloggers, but I still felt the unfairness of the criticism.
That thread was really active yesterday. But as the day wore on, the comments started to trend a little too negative for my comfort. There seems to be some real anger out there toward the SBC and its leaders and style. I understand that. I get a little frustrated at times.
But I do not think that simply venting our anger is productive. Let’s turn it positive (group hug, everyone).
What would you suggest to Kevin Ezell about how to make NAMB more effective?
Here’s my initial offerings:
1) Focus NAMB’s work where there isn’t a Southern Baptist Church on every street corner.
I’d like to do a little exercise here. Anyone south of the Mason-Dixon line live in a city of around 100,000? Sioux City is just under that. How many Southern Baptist churches does your city have? We have two churches, each of which averages less than 300 in attendance on Sunday morning. And we are a uniquely strong SBC city here in Iowa.
Its a different world in the Northeast, the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Plains states, the Northwest and the far West. It seems to me that the NAMB focus ought to be outside the Deep South – where SBC churches abound.
2) Ezell and NAMB need to work to assure state conventions in New Work areas (and other areas as well) that they do not hold the state conventions in disdain and disregard.
State convention work in New Work states is dependent on NAMB funding to keep going. There is a general sense up here that NAMB wants to bypass cooperation with state conventions and fly solo in new-work states.
If Ezell and NAMB intend to work with the conventions in partnership and cooperation, they need to say so.
Are things going to change? Of course. They will and they probably should. But at least NAMB could assure state conventions that they are going to work in partnership with them.
3) I hope and pray that Dr. Ezell will be a new leader in convention openness. Where secrecy abounds, so does distrust.
Much of the negativity in yesterday’s comment stream focused on the tendency toward secrecy today. It is counter-productive and creates a climate of distrust.
Trust the people. Tell the people.
Your Turn
What do you think Kevin Ezell needs to do at NAMB? Let’s pretend he is going to read this and tell him what we think needs to happen.
What you said, and, get the folks in the local pews exposed to the possibilities of, and the rewards of, their involvement personally in missions.
We send a group of 100+ to a mission field here in the USA, every year. Our church pays for the expenses of everyone (we do have 2 buses and we go where we can drive). We do construction, backyard Bible clubs, and block party outreach. We know how to do these things.
I suppose we’d be happy to have folks from other churches who are interested in being involved in such work, or learning how, but nobody ever asks. And I dare say there are lots and lots of churches out there that do the same thing, and lots and lots who’d like to send folks along with us, or learn how.
We’ve been to SC, NC, AL, WV, KY, TN, and MO, and have also gone to Kingston, Jamaica and Nassau.
NAMB could be the “joint”, or “ligament”, that puts it all together, and virtually without cost, were they inclined to do so.
With the possible exception of West Virginia, you’re doing missions in the South. How much more gas would it take to go to Philly, Newark, Lake Placid, Bettendorf, Casper or …. International trips regularly figure in a day or two for mission volunteers to take in the sites, plus a day at either end for settling in or wrapping up. What about South Dakota, with a day to view the Black Hills or the badlands? What about Montana, with a day to view Yellowstone or Glacier? What about — you pick the state, there’s something special to see there for those willing to DO something special there for God.
Sheila, with obvious exceptions to some churches, at a majority of the churches that I was either employed by or attended, it’s nigh impossible to get a group excited about going to do missions….across town or even in the neighboring state.
I dont’ know why, but my thinking is this. IMB has done an incredible job of marketing their missionaries and their activities whereas NAMB has dropped the ball. We had 150 youth want to go to Canada for choir tour one year. The next year, we were going to Texas, 60 showed interest. All of the sudden, people had things to do and parents were actually upset that we weren’t going out of the country again because “those countries need to hear about Jesus” and the youth pastor fired back with, “So does your neighbor.”
That’s just my thought.
QUOTE it’s nigh impossible to get a group excited about going to do missions END QUOTE
Bill, I think you hit the proverbial piece of pointed steel on the northern sector!
All the strategies, changes, new stuff, etc. will be about as useful as a new suit on a corpse if we don’t get some grassroots passion about seeing people — neighbor people — saved.
He came under pretty intense fire from some corners regarding his seeming lack of enthusiasm for CP giving as it is currently structured. The question is: Why? Advocates of the status quo will want him to recant, repent, and fall in line. But what if there are serious problems with the CP as it now is? I would encourage him to try to help the SBC understand why he has done what he has done and what ideas he has to make it better. Perhaps directed giving and the CP can coexist, and he can take the lead on how to make that work, to have the greatest impact on the great commission on this continent.
AMEN Bill… AMEN!!!
QUOTE Perhaps directed giving and the CP can coexist END QUOTE
I don’t think so because of a perception issue. If the perception is (as you imply) there are problems with the CP approach, people will (have) stopped giving. That’s one problem with “co-existence.”
Another is not a matter of perception, but polygamy. Having a CP program along with a directed giving program is like me taking another wife — I don’t see it working. It’s also a little like the “separate but equal” doctrine in the South at one time — the separate part worked well. The equal part never worked at all.
Nevermind the fact that the CP tries to assist all the missionaries whereas directed giving supports chosen missionaries, usually members of said church.
Which means that the missionaries who happen to come out of large church will have far more at their disposal than those who come out of a small, rural church…
Dave,
“I’ll admit it. I was torqued off…”
It’s a relief to learn that you are indeed human after all… 🙂
Yeah, like that was ever in doubt.
Hello? Yankees fan? Of course it was in doubt.
Sorry Dave, but a city like yours of 100,000 would not even be on Kevin Ezell’s radar. I serve in a western city of around 150,000. There are only 21 SBC churches in our local association. Our association has been praying, and setting aside money, for a new church plant in our area for three years. We have just called a church planter for this work. He happens to have been a member of Ezell’s church for the last few years. From what I understand when he approached his pastor for help with this church start he was told that their church only focuses on church plants in areas of 500,000 people or more. The answer was no.
This is the man who will be leading NAMB?
Hopefully, that strategy will not be continued at NAMB.
That’s discouraging to hear. sigh.
1. I thoroughly agree with the stop planting churches in the parking lots of existing churches. I live in northwest Louisiana and like I’ve stated in the past, there are literally a hundred plus Southern Baptist Churches within a four parish (country for everyone else) area. We need help in rebranding and re-invigorating the churches in the area, not building even more churches. It’s almost as if we have a complacent older generation and a younger generation with no clue how to focus their desires to do missions in our communities. Like for me, I’d be more than happy to travel and build churches all over the country. World Changers is my thing because I like construction. Not too many opportunities like that come across my path down here. If I could make that a career and support my family, I’d swing hammers and roof buildings for the next thirty years. I like building stuff.
Sorry for that tangent…
2. It was my impression speaking with some of my associational contacts that even the GCR taskforce treated state leaders as little more than stepchildren. I think one of the greatest potential hits to the GCRTF credibility was their choosing to conduct business at local resorts rather than local churches. I’d have love to have seen the money spent there which could have been saved by using churches as meeting areas. The Southern Baptist Convention’s leadership has almost made it business as usual to eschew state leadership and their concerns. This isn’t just a NAMB problem, it’s a convention problem. I foresee many problems on the horizon because of how the convention has and is treating the state conventions.
3. Again, it’s the whole convention, not just NAMB. You just saw what was supposed to be an innocuous committee seal their own records for fifteen years. I guarantee you that had the motion come up at one of the more attended times of the convention, the convention would’ve voted to unseal those records. I was watching online and watching the twitter accounts and it was apparent that alot of the messengers were absent at that point. Again, what was there to hide in what was supposed to be a fact finding, not a decision making and definitely not a political maneuvering committee. It reeks and it’s stench is going to taint any all other things that the convention and its entities try to put forth. If NAMB wants to appear transparent, then the convention is going to have to be transparent. They’re intrinsically linked to each other.
Kevin Ezell just got dropped into the perverbial fire concerning NAMB and the Cooperative Program. There’s obviously standards of CP giving or the 2.2% wouldn’t have been an issue. As far as his view against bloggers, it’s been proven already that there are bloggers that will legitimately present evidence, bloggers that will sensationalize, and bloggers that will defend the regime, regardless of the evidence. All Kevin has to do is make sure he knows which bloggers wear which hats and just befriend those who resemble Baghdad Bob. Then he’s golden until he decides to move onto something else.
Bill, check your email. Did you see something from me?
Its a good thing, not a bad thing.
But I LOVE getting your emails…
Sarcasm noted and appreciated, sir!
I would honestly encourage Kevin to spend some time looking at what others are doing that are having great success in North America in the area of planting new churches, and reviving older ones.
Also, and I know this will shock some Southern Baptist to learn this but, we are not all alike… we need to allow for, and embrace, our diversity of worship, leadership styles, and theological opinions in the planting of new churches. Planting “Like Minded Churches” can be a great motivation to get others involved.
Grace Always,
I would offer a few suggestions:
1) Cut his own salary. I’m sure it’s pretty high and could use some trimming. Along with that cut his expense account. And ask every Church or organization that invites him to speak to pay his expenses plus a stipend that goes directly to NAMB. Thus, every speaking engagement would be a fund-raising event for NAMB. All that would go a long way to restoring faith in the SBC leadership.
2) Cut the fat at NAMB. Cut positions that don’t directly work with the local Church. Resort missionaries, IS/C2, and even campus ministries that don’t directly relate to Churches need to be reexamined in light of acheiving the Great Commission through THE CHURCH, not para-church ministries and workers.
3) Impliment a program for Chruch revitalization. Have a process where a Church can receive funding and resources from NAMB to revitalize and reach out to the lost in a particular area, instead of simply planting a new church. There are churches in my area who have millions of dollars worth of land, buildings, and cash who are still dying. We need to utilize the resources we have already on hand. Part of that might be to appoint volunteer and part-time missionaries which work with Churches to get them up and going. I know that at my Church if we had 3 young couples start coming and participating, it would completely reshape our Church.
4) Actually do Church planting and not just Church plant assistance. Do it from scratch and make sure when the the plant is up and running on its own, it is a fully-funded, operational, and cooperating Church, giving to the CP, NAMB, and the IMB. I know of some Churches who have received funding from NAMB and state conventions and now they are up and running, don’t give back a dime. That’s shameful.
5) Become a SIMPLE organization, like the design of Rainer’s book, SIMPLE CHURCH. Had one clear objective and bring everything in line with that objective. I think NAMB has too many hands in too many projects and no one knows what the main objective is. Streamline and accomplish the goals you set. Cut every program that doesn’t directly achieve the stated goal.
I know some of these things are harsh, but I think they need to be done. There’s been too much disfunction for too long. We need an overhaul and soon.
D.R. Randle:
What is Ezell’s salary?
I doubt that is public information.
I don’t want to guess, but I imagine it’s much larger than what is needed to live comfortably in GA. And I figure it is much larger than what he was getting from Highview. But Dave Miller is right – it’s not public info. Either way, taking a cut would show a commitment to utilizing money more effectively.
I’d advise him to look at the untapped resource of plateaued churches. Statistics show that nothing much of the “new stuff” is working. Sure, you will find an anecdote here or there that may give the appearance that other approaches are working, but the raw data suggests that “new is not necessarily better.”
If our goal is really to increase Kingdom growth, then planting churches that grow by transfer (or die in two years) will not cut it. I suggest a 5 year commitment to revitalization where the bulk of the money is spent on strenghtening what we already have in place.
I give my suggestion about a snowball’s chance in the Sahara of being implemented.
See D.R.’s post above, #3. This gives me great encouragement to know that if my idea is crazy, at least I’m not alone!
I think the only folks who might see it as crazy are the NAMB folks. I had an interview with a couple of NAMB guys some time back about our associational effectiveness and I told them our Church needed help from NAMB (specifically financial or human resources) in order for revitalization to take place. I later found out that they wrote down that I needed a Stewardship Campaign. I’m not kidding.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
The Southern Baptist Convention is not known for being innovative or forward thinking.
D.R.,
I would be interested in talking to you about off line one day about your interview with the Associational Strategies guys.
C.B.,
Sure, anytime. You can send me an email through my Church’s website – Cleveland Road Baptist in Bogart, GA.
Interesting…
I just read D.R.’s comment. I see the same there as does SSBN. I think D.R.’s number 3 is a valid idea.
So what is the standard of giving to the CP?
Historically speaking of course…
My current church does 15% off the top and I’m thinking the new pastor we got will continue the trend since he was our associate pastor…lol.
If we’re going to castigate someone for 2.2 or even in the 3-4% percent range, what is the standard of giving to the CP?
There is no standard.
Churches are autonomous and can decide what they want to give.
The SBC bylaws have a standard for being able to send messengers, but it is really low.
The governing documents have no standard of giving for executive leadership or trustee leadership.
I think that is a wise policy that has been in place for many years.
Louis is right.
Southern Baptist churches are autonomous……… and hopefully that will always be recognized in the SBC.
Over the past couple of days, I spoke with several ministers that I either regard as a peer and friend or as a mentor. To a man, they all stated that in promoting the CP, the mantra was, “this is the tithe of the church” and as a result, many mid to small size churches give 10% or very close to it to the CP. Now, they all didn’t truly agree with it, but they all stated that it was either how they sold it or their pastors sold it to their respective congregations.
So far, among small to mid level pastors, the standard is 10% or very darn close to it.
They also all stated that as far as they knew, large churches rarely give much to the CP because they can either fund large projects directly, have conflicts with leadership within the associations, or give large sums of cash which is a small percentage but advertise the amount rather than the percentage.
Just what I’m finding out in the field…
Also, it’s my understanding that employees with NAMB are almost solely judged on their number of church plants rather than the success of the church plants. Can anyone verify or refute this?
Here are my ideas for Ezell and NAMB. All of this is based on the assumption that they will have a lot more money at their discretion once the state convention partnerships have ended.
1) Fully fund church planters with a good salary and ministry budget for their first year (or two?). After that, gradually lower their funding to zero over the course of the following three to four years. In this time frame, the churches should become self-supporting.
2) Only commission as many church planters as can be funded according to point #1. If funding is good and positions are limited, then only the most capable candidates will become church planters. As the success of these new churches becomes evident, CP giving will increase and the number of church planters can increase as well.
3) Base the decisions about where to plant churches on an area’s level of gospel saturation (see http://micahfries.com/charting-a-gcr-future-for-namb/). Focus on the least saturated areas first. If an area has very few gospel preaching churches per capita, plant a church there. Plant in major cities, but plant in other areas of need as well.
4) If you’re going to hire anyone other than church planters, hire campus ministers for colleges outside the South (think Ivy League, etc). But please keep the priority on church planting.
5) If you’re serious about reaching areas outside of the South, move the headquarters out of the South. Go to Chicago, Pittsburgh, Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Cleveland, Detroit… anywhere but suburban Atlanta.
ON Point 5…those places could sure use evangelizing. selahV
Dr. Ezell has inspired me. I am going to ask our state convention to give only 2% to the CP because of admin stuff. The rest will go directly to missionaries and mission trips/projects.
🙂
Sarcasm noted. Any serious advice?
I was joking, but I am also serious. I would suggest the first order of business is to apologize for his unkind remarks.
Hold your breath on that one, Jeff.
Dave, And that is why I think he should not be president. I can handle his poor 2% giving to the CP, but his response to criticism is not worthy of being president of NAMB. He will not listen to his critics, and will only surround himself with yes men.
I thought we were going to keep things positive on this post?
I prefer honest rather than positive. Positive is what has gotten us all into this mess with the prior administrations.
I don’t think we always need to be positive. God stated 8 of his 10 Commandments in the negative.
But we need to seek to be productive. That’s what I’m looking for. We need to face the problems, but do more than just complain about them. Lets work on solutions.
In regard to the whole “church planting” push, I think it would be helpful is we used some of the LifeWay research money to see how much has been spent on church plants and how many church plants last past five years.
My suspcion is we are “funding failure” — and to the tune of millions of dollars.
I think if you did that study on the present efforts you would be exactly right. Right now SBC church plants have a huge failure rate compared to some other organizations. That is why I think it is so important to offer church planters a good salary and budget. If we do that, then we will raise the success rate by attracting talented pastors to plant churches.
I don’t claim to be a talented pastor, but my own experience could be an example of what I mean. It bothers me a LOT that there is only one English-speaking SBC church in the city of Boulder, CO. I would love to go plant a church there. But within the current SBC structures, I would probably have to spend more than half of my time fundraising just to be able to rent a meeting space in the city and cover minimal living expenses. To me, that’s prohibitive.
As for revitalizing current churches (especially churches in the South), I just don’t see that as a high priority for NAMB when when there are so many regions of the US and Canada that have few if any gospel-preaching churches.
Dan,
I read your first comment about moving the headquarters to “anywhere but suburban Atlanta.”
Then I read your comment saying, “As for revitalizing current churches (especially churches in the South), I just don’t see that as a high priority for NAMB when when there are so many regions of the US and Canada that have few if any gospel-preaching churches.”
What exactly do you want to say to a rapidly changing Southland? Is it, “Thanks for a great birth. I realize the culture is completely changed from what it was when strong churches were basically on every corner and those churches were financing missional efforts all over the world unlike any other region in the history of Christianity, but now your day has ended. Our priorities are in other places, so we will just have to tell the “new culture” of the Southland to go to Hell.”
Is that about the way it should go there, Dan?
CB,
The primary role of a missionary sending agency like NAMB should be to get the gospel where it is not. I’m in favor of churches in the South being revitalized (much more so than planting new churches beside the old ones), but that should not be the role of NAMB. Not everything that’s good and worthwhile falls into the category of missions.
I’m also personally biased (aren’t we all?). I’ve served in the South and am now in a “new work” state, and they are like two different worlds. For all the talk of decline in traditional SBC territory, I don’t think it’s even worth comparing that to the needs elsewhere.
Dan,
The failure of the North American Mission Board is in the idea that the agency’s “primary role” is to “get the gospel where it is not.”
It is the mission of the Church manifested on earth in local churches to “get the gospel where it is not.” Churches birth churches.
NAMB is a Southern Baptist entity. In its proper role it should serve as a resource entity to Southern Baptist churches to aid them to establish Southern Baptist churches all over North America.
What we have had for years has been a problem of the “tail trying to wag the dog.” Rather than to be a resource entity to help churches fulfill the Great Commission, NAMB has sought to be “resourced” by churches to fulfill its programed efforts to do missions. Therein, is its failure.
The health of Southern Baptist churches should be on the front burner of NAMB’s agenda. Healthy, local, Southern Baptist churches should be reproducing churches in North America.
The idea of “sickly” Southern Baptist churches being called upon to finance the mission of NAMB (or the IMB for that matter) for as long as they can hold out to do so is not working.
NAMB is not a missionary sending agency. Southern Baptist churches are to be missionary sending agencies. NAMB’s role is to to be a resource entity to Southern Baptist churches to fulfill the Great Commission. The reversal of roles has not worked because it is not biblical. Churches birth churches. And the health of those churches should be of a vital concern to NAMB.
C.B., why not use some of that money to help the ‘sickly’ Church recover ? Then the Church can do better.
Does ‘autonomous’ mean ‘you’re on your own in times of trouble’?
Don’t mind me . . . I have no idea about how things work, I was just struck by that word ‘sickly’.
CB,
AMEN to every word you said…
If half the churches in the South die in the next 20 years (and that about what it will be at the current rate of decline) then where will NAMB or the IMB get the necessary funds to do missions?
We are loosing our base, and if we don’t wake up to that fact, and make a concerted effort to address the root issues of this decline in the South it will soon be to late.
I hate to sound so negative, but we are quite frankly loosing the battle. Things are not going well in many areas here in North West Florida… and having ministered here for over 15 years I think I am qualified to say, they are not getting any better.
And while this may not be a welcome comment by some, and it may very well be misunderstood,… I do not think that poring more millions of dollars into planting new churches here in the South, or attempting to revitalize many of the churches that are now dying, will have much of an impact.
We are in a battle for the “Hearts and Minds” of the next generation… the reason many of our churches are now in decline is that we have lost the battle for the “Hearts and Minds” of the last generation (from the 60’s forward).
Until we once again take serious God’s command to “Raise up our children in the fear and admonition of the LORD”, then I don’t think things will change much. In my opinion the greatest thing NAMB could do would be to put forth a massive effort to help each Local Baptist Association to start a Christian School.
Grace Always
CB,
I agree with most of what you’re saying. I’m totally in favor of the local churches being the primary senders, etc. I guess I should have stated that explicitly instead of assuming that we’re all on the same page there.
But, I think church revitalization should be funded by an entity other than NAMB. We’ve got state conventions, associations, Lifeway, and others that could do that if they wanted to. NAMB should be funding North American missions, not North American maintenance.
Would you suggest that the IMB also start funding the revitalization of declining churches in America? Is there a realistic possibility that if they did so then these churches would begin to fully fund international missionaries? IMO, it’s the same principle… the only reason that we think of the IMB as so different from NAMB is that NAMB has spent the last several decades funding things that aren’t missions. I’m suggesting that they start making missions their focus just like the IMB does.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion. This will be my last comment as I have some pressing church matters to take care of. I know that ultimately this thread won’t any difference in what actually happens at NAMB, so I’ll be praying for wisdom for Ezell and others there.
We hear it all the time that churches plant churches, not associations or conventions. Yet, the money for plants is channeled through the state conventions instead of the sponsoring churches. So first, I would hope that NAMB money for church planting wouldn’t go to a plant unless the sponsoring church is truly committed and isn’t just a sponsor on paper in order for the plant to get funding. That would eliminate the extra layer and the channeling of funds through the state conventions.
Also, if NAMB funded the plant through the sponsor, the state conventions wouldn’t need to employ as many church planting strategists, as it seems as though most of them are simply keeping tabs on the plants that receive money through the state cooperative agreements.
And I may be in the minorty, but I think we get it backwards in reducing the funding right about the time a new church would be getting its feet on the ground. I’d rather see the opposite with funding less the first year and gradually increased annually for the length of the agreement.
Churches should be starting churches and NAMB should be there to assist and equip. I know people would be shocked if they saw how funding was done for some church plants. I know of one plant who’s mother church was just in name and gave no funding towards it. I think it is unhealthy for plants not to have mother churches as well which I have seen happen.
On paper, your approach sounds good. But, without the state convention, any church any where can ask NAMB for funds to start a church. NAMB does not have personnel to help determine STRATEGIC areas for church plants. There are tons of needs, but some are greater and more strategic. I sense a disdain in your post for state conventions; as much as SBC leadership and some others would like to get rid of them, they are necessary and do a vital work. I cannot imagine the chaos without them!!
Jon,
I certainly hold no disdain for state conventions and see your point about the need to determine strategic priorities. That begs several more questions in my mind that really aren’t worth fleshing out in this forum. I’ll just say that I think there’s a greater role for local associations in the process than is being utilized under current relationships and agreements, and will leave it at that. Thanks for your thoughts.
I would encourage NAMB to report how many fully funded missionaries they support. When I see someone say we have 6k missionaries it makes it look like they have 6k fully funded missionaries. Let the churches in the convention know that if you send a guy 400 bucks a month that he or she is counted in that 6k missionary count.
When we were seeking funding for a church plant the misconception of pastors and churches we were seeking support from was that NAMB would fund it so go ask them for the money because of the propoganda from NAMB. I appreciate the support we recieved but 400 dollars a month does not fund a church start.
BINGO!!! How many of those 6K are MSC who get no support from NAMB? THis has been a rub for me for a long time; NAMB implies that all of these folks that are appointed are fully supported by NAMB. Not true.
I’ve been a “NAMB FUNDED” church planter. Fully funded meant: $800 per month for a family of four. They did not want me to have another job. When I took a part time job that would allow me to feed my family and continue the ministry, they cut my support 75%.
I’ll bang my drum again: “we have been funding failure to the tune of millions.”
And, here’s another unintended negative consequences of State Conventions: they dilute the support and partnership of local churches closest to the areas that need new churches. In many — though not all — cases, the State Conventions have done little more than pay people to over see mission work.
The analogy that comes to mind is: 4 State Road Workers leaning on shovels watching one man dig a ditch.
It is the responsibility of local churches to plant new churches, not NAMB. It is the responsibility of NAMB to assist and facilitate the local churches in planting new churches.
You cannot just say that all new churches will be up and running within the same amount of time, there needs to be more flexibility for the differing circumstances that will challenge each new church during their first few years. Therefore, the best strategy for successful church planting is for NAMB to work with a local church (or group of churches) who will commit to being involved in the oversight and direct funding of the new church until the new church is able to stand on its’ own two feet.
So here are my suggestions:
1) Direct Involvement by Sponsoring Church(s)
2) Direct Oversight by Sponsoring Church(s)
3) Direct Giving by Sponsoring Church(s)
Grace Always,
The NAMB was doing well when it was called Home Mission Board. A name change without a greater commitment to helping the “down and out” is of little value!
1, Whatever happened to Christian Social Ministries–that was a creative and down-to-earth section which really did what Jesus did to “walk among the outcasts of his day.”
2, There was a great day of cooperation between the HMB / State Conventions / Association–together they could fund ministries which none could do separately.
3, Walk and live financially as close to the field missionaries as possible. Talk with them like Henry Ford did with his productions line employees. With the producers in the field giving guidance, every year of production changes made a better product in cars just as it can in mission endeavors.
4, Get as far away from GCR stuff as you can and restore AUTONOMY in cooperative efforts.
5, Realize what a mess “Top Down” administration has become.
6, Do things in the future which local churches cannot do separately.
7. Encourage Associations to be a locus of cooperative ministry rather than just another target for Conservative takeover.
8. Find some way to maximize the effects and ministry of small churches–they comprise still the vast majority of SBC churches.
9, Put aside every assumption that “bigger is better” which drove your church. More real ministry to hurting people is a far greater and more wise approach. Just because it doesn’t get media headlines does not mean it is not important.
10. The motto: “Enter to worship / depart to serve” is the best I could recommend! “Keep coming in droves and giving a pittance” does nothing more than entertain people these days.
Gene,
Good post. Not sure what you mean by #’s 2, 4, 7 but I’m with you on the rest.
Also the role of the state convention…if you depend solely on the sponsoring churches, what happens when someone gets mad? they cut the gifts to the church plant. What happens when the sponsoring goes through a period of low giving? They cut gifts to the church plant. There is a need for the state convention to be involved.
Jon, you have a very low view of the church and a naively high view of State Conventions. This is like our addiction to government and welfare. The church does not buck the welfare system because some of the leaders feel they need government help in caring for the needs of the world. I think we all know how that story is turning out.
You say: take the church’s money and give it to the State because the church cannot be trusted. I say, if you don’t trust the church to do missions, don’t take their money.
As I said, I think you have too low a view of the church and too high a view of the State.
I say: eliminate the State Conventions altogether and work through local associations. Only the churches in association have any kind of Biblical mandate (Rom. 15:26). The State Conventions are simply the Baptist version of Catholic hierarchy.
I would reverse that and say that while Jon may have a low view of the church (I’m not sure that is accurate), you have an extremely low view of state conventions.
I don’t know where you live, but in Iowa our state convention is a source of encouragement and support. I don’t think you should be so quick to do away with them.
I will admit this – I’m not sure we need BOTH state conventions and local associations anymore. With internet connectivity, we could probably do without one or the other.
Dave,
I’m in California. And, if you read my post you notice I said, “many State Conventions, not all.”
You outline the problem well. There will never be any serious discussion of what is best overall because of territorialism. As you say, “State Conventions are good for Iowa.”
Well, let’s say you are right — and I don’t dispute your opinion — how does it help a Cooperative effort if we are effective in one State Convention but wasting millions in others? Do you see my point?
I am very negative in regard to my State Convention — a welfare convention. I definitely do not mean to disparage all state conventions. In my opinion, we just cannot support both and I think the State is less effective than local associations.
I agree about the welfare thing. There exists a prevalent opinion that we can only do what NAMB and the BCI fund.
Perhaps the independent streak that is being bemoaned might actually have the effect of inspiring us to see what we can do outside of the approval and funding of the denominational structure.
Not a low opinion of the church at all; I think the church should be the source of planting churches. However, I do believe that the state convention has a crucial role in determining locations in the state where churches are needed and to help prioritize those. There is also a need for guidance–how many pastors of the 40,000 SBC churches have planted a church? How many can do it without some guidance? NAMB can never be big enough to provide guidance like a state convention can.
I am sorry you have had a bad experience with your state convention, but you can’t paint all of them with that brush. Ours is among the best and does a great job at serving the local church. Our churches are stronger because of our state convention. If I had to choose, I would choose our state convention over NAMB any day.
SSBN–
I beg to differ with you!!
I worked–as well as my father–with joint ventures of the HMB/NCBSC/Raleigh Baptist Association in totally new areas of ministry to the Juvenile Court.
If you see the Convention as a “dead entity,” it is because your mind is only on local church work. The success in servant ministry of national and state organizations was when ministry–rather than ideological conformity was the goal.
It has been my conviction for many years now that when we Majored on Missions and Minored on Theological differences, we grew. The second we made lock-step conformity in thinking and speaking the goal, we began the slide to the situation of plateau we now have.
Autonomy led us to “agree to disagree” on certain matters, yet work Cooperatively to support Missions. Then–and now–anytime a “good old boy” system ruled, there was trouble with those who felt ignored and by-passed in leadership.
BOTH the old and new systems had the flaw of ego and locked in friendships as our “feet of clay.” Real servant missionaries were what bound us together and gave success in growth.
Doesn’t Satan love it when people who are supposed to work cooperatively get crossed up as did Paul and Peter? Prospective new converts looked at it and thought, “If this is following Christ, then I have better things to do!”
People are much smarter and more observing than we think as we fuss and fight over “who has the biggest church / who runs this church & convention.” When we follow God in Christ Jesus as servants to all, we bring joy and growth which have been lost in recent years—again!
Gene, I beg to differ with your begging to differ with me 🙂
I am opposed to State Conventions for biblical reasons, not necessarily (though it is a part) because of organizational considerations.
The Bible teaches cooperation among churches, but the areas that cooperated were more like associations than state conventions. We cannot afford both, and I think associations have more merit.
But, my idea has the same problem Karl Marx had: he never took into account the “parochial” nature of people. Areas in the South especially are not about to give up their state terriotorial positions.
So, what I see happening is a drift back to a more “societal” giving structure. The mega-churches WILL influence other churches for good or ill, and they are “societal” in their giving as evidenced by the hoopla over the GCR.
Now, I’m not asserting any special knowlege or expertise. These are just my gut feelings.
I do think there was a time we were much more cooperative in regard to missions rather than ideology. But, with the internet, I see us being more focused on ideology (theology, doctrine, etc) rather than less. The future for the SBC will be very much different, if we have a future at all. God may be doing a new thing just like the CP was once a new thing.
I beg to differ with you for begging to differ with Gene for begging to differ with you.
I don’t actually have anything to say. I just wanted to beg to differ.
NAMB has a far more unique situation in that they are conducting missions in the backyards of existing Southern Baptist Churches. For NAMB to ignore training these churches, updating these churches, educating these churches, utilizing these churches and reinvigorating these churches is the base formula for a catastrophe.
I’m sorry, but NAMB is wasting their time planting churches in some segments of the US but their employees ARE in fact, judged on church plants rather than church reboots. It’s all about the numbers apparently. That model has to end because you can’t judged subjective successes based on objective results.
Which church is more successful? The one who baptized fifteen this year or the one who established a vibrant after school program for local children? The church who had a 100 rededications or the one who helped rebuild an apartment complex that burned down?
See my point?
Bill,
I agree… that’s why I feel all ministry efforts (church planting included) should be through the local churches that have boots on the ground, and are in a far better position than state or national workers to judge who is being faithful and who is not.
QUOTE NAMB should be funding North American missions, not North American maintenance. END QUOTE
Dan, here is where I think the train jumped the track. In birthing churhces, let’s think about biological birth. If we do not maintain the mother, what chance does the child have? The general rule is: the healthier the mother, the healthier the baby.
I think we need exactly what you oppose: a mission agency that understands: 1) who the mother is, that is the local church (not grandparents like the State, or great grandparents like the National Convention; 2) we need an agency that understands the importance of the mother’s health for the birthing of baby churches; 3) the last thing we need is a new midwife (another agency).
We are “funding failure.” I can see that this thread has sparked a good debate on why the SBC is declining and how it can regain strength. As I said, I don’t think my little voice from my little outpost as far away from the Bible belt as you can get — Hollywood/L.A. Area — will have much chance of survival.
This is especially true now that through the GCR the mega-church pastors are in firm control (as evidenced by Ezell’s coronation by those on the inside–which is probably why the records are sealed). However, in the outside chance of a lucky hit, I’m going to keep firing torpedoes (God bless the USN) at what I see is an “ole boy’s retirement plan” rather than a plan to reach North America for Christ.
I am a church planter in Surprise, AZ, having relocated from a small town in central KY last September. There is much that is wrong with the current way the SBC plants churches, but I believe the most glaring distinction is the lack of local cooperation from other SBC churches.
We had 4 adults and 4 kids as our “core group” when we began church – we were told there would 35-40 people on board; that didn’t materialize. I asked if we could connect w/ local SBC churches to see if maybe they had a family or 2 that had a passion for church planting in hopes they could join us for a year to assist with ministry/mission projects, etc…I was told that would not fly, that pastors would not want to “give up” their people. Sensing there was an economic tinge to that statement, I stated I didn’t even want the people to tithe to us, we just needed their gifts – they could continue tithing to their own church – again, a no go, not even a thought to see if it was a possibility.
Since then we have added two families this summer – both joined us from non-denominational churches – in addition I have made other contacts with people who are not interested in leaving their church, but are definitely interested in serving the community with us and helping us out with projects and such…none of those additional contacts are from SBC churches.
Changes at the top are good, but until change occurs at lower levels and pastors are willing to “let go” of their people, church planting in the SBC will most likely still have a large failure rate. It’s not enough to just throw money at a situation…
That is the kind of heart-attitude that the GCR Challenges section dealt with – challenging people to greater concern about the kingdom than about their personal kingdoms.
We recently had one of the largest churches in the state plant a church in its same city. The church was a “Simple Church” style church that meets in our local movie theater. The idea was that the person going to pastor this church would get it off the ground, learn the ropes of pastoring, and then come back to the parent church to be the “heir apparent” since the pastor of the large church is looking to retire.
Yeah, the Simple Church in NW Louisiana is running around 1300 now, 700 came over from the larger church which has sparked some bad blood that I won’t comment on over here.
Good luck getting this church to sign on to another plant…
That, my friends, is the unfortunate truth of planting churches.
Unfortunate yes, but not a reason to give up on church planting! The reality of it is our American church-consumer mindset is not going to change anytime soon but we cannot let that deter a kingdom minded approach.
I’m curious as to why the church plant pastor was going to “learn the ropes” then return to the mother church? Church planting is not a place for training/job advancement…it is new outposts of the Kingdom for places where the Kingdom is not advancing, and if anything (by New Testament standards) the only “training” that should go on at a church plant is training indigenous peoples to lead the church should the planter move on.
However, what you describe is a sad situation, as many people will be left with a bitter taste no doubt…I heard an old country preacher once say “I’m not into stealing sheep, but I can’t fix the holes in other people’s fences.” Perhaps the move from the large church was more indicative of what they were not getting from that body? Not an accusation…just a thought.
Well, the older pastor never thought that the Simple Church would take off in a city of our size. Not only did it take off, it exploded!!! The younger pastor was supposed to walk into something that would flourish for awhile, then die off, and he’d come back seasoned enough to take the mantle of the large church. After the hundreds left the parent church, the older pastor decided to make massive changes all over the church, but it’s been too little, too late and it’s been tumultuous at best since they’ve had complete turnovers in their media department and music department in the last three years. They’re particularly rough on the media department which the average lifespan of a person working in that department being literally six months. It’s hard to conduct worship with the utmost of excellence when you live in fear of your job.
I agree with you on all your points by the way.
The church plant continues to flourish, despite other churches often speaking derisively about the church. However, to me, it’s nice to see new things.
Steve–
You have described the horror of new church starts under the current thinking of “bigger is better.”
How many small and helpful businesses have failed as Wal-Mart located to the town?
You may save a buck, but at the cost of personal attention given by the mom and pop Hardware / grocery / clothing / etc. store.
I live in a small town–Bath is the oldest in NC–we have a store here which will cash checks / open accounts / be a place where us old men can gather for good conversation.
I could go over to Washington and Wal-Mart to “save a buck,” but is saving money and being confronted with bargains and “roll backs” pales in comparison with the services of a personal nature provided by the Bath General Store?
I hate waiting in long lines to “save a buck.” If I consider the time / fuel cost / wasted waiting time, I haven’t saved anything–and I have been aggrivated by being ignored by a mega store paying minimums to its employees and keeping them to a minimum in the name of “corporate profit.”
Here is my suggestion for population areas saturated with Southern Baptist Churches, yet looking to inject a NAMB presence or even reestablish a NAMB presence.
1. Enlarge the population circles which base all decisions – i.e., widen the circles from 5, 10, 25 miles to 25, 50, 100 miles when trying to figure out how much need is in a population area. These numbers are just being tossed out there, but it’s apparent that there is some sort of circle numbers which determine if a church plant is needed in an area.
2. Set caps on Southern Baptist Churches in an area. NW Louisiana doesn’t need hundreds of SBC churches, we need churches to be actively pursuing the lost. There is a difference in quantity over quality.
3. Research the requests for new churches. The SBC ought to consider denying the incorporation of some SBC churches, especially if they are the result of a nasty church split. The SBC will now have two churches that will not work together at all or for at least a few years or decades.
4. Assist in the maintenance of existing churches. This could range from provided a church for the expense of a routine building inspection to bringing in someone like Mike Holmes if the problems warrant it. Not every church can afford to have a water heater explode or replace their roof after a freak hailstorm. NAMB should be able to assist existing churches in some form. You’d be amazed at the volunteer turn out to repair things when the materials are supplied.
5. Be honest about the numbers. It’s apparent that there are discrepancies between what NAMB says is a fully funded plant versus what is actually a fully funded plant. Now is the perfect time to pull back the veil and let sunlight in on the books. It’s apparent to everyone that something’s been wrong here for years, if not decades.
6. Selective hiring – hire church planters to monitor church planters. Simple really.
7. Redesign and rebrand – NAMB needs to reinvent itself into not just a missions entity, but also a church assistance entity. There are hundreds, if not thousands of churches that need help and have no clue that someone would even care to help them. Church autonomy or not, no man can survive on an island…
8. States’ rights – let state conventions get more involved as well as local associations. The best people to ask to lead, help, and gather information are the people who live there, who walk amongst the locals, and who have their finger on the pulse of the community.
9. Service oriented – There is a need for people to lead efforts to reclaim buildings, land, structures, repairs, etc. and that will help lift up and motivate congregations and communities just as much as leading a VBS for local children. Think World Changers meets mission trips…
10. humility – There is something to be said about leaders willing to listen to their critics, even those in basements in their underwear. Those same people usually have contacts, stories, and connections which span from small rural churches to being able to pull the ear of someone in Memphis or Atlanta.
Just some thoughts and I’m sure some overlap…
Bill –
“I agree with you on all your points by the way.”
Thanks…sometimes when I spout such remarks I get looked at like I just suggested we sing all of our worship in Klingon. 🙂
Bill–
I like your take–especially the need to help existing churches having trouble maintaining their facility.
I served such a church in a transition neighborhood. What used to be the largest SS in Rocky Mount’s mill village was now attended by about a dozen old members. They had made many attempts to reach out to black neighbors, but they were really not interested. It had to do with social barriers as well as cultural.
It would have been a great idea to invite a young black minister with SBC credentials to help make the church appealing.
Long story short:
*No existing churches wanted to help the Mother Church which had helped found them–they didn’t want the competition!
*We tried everything under my pastorate with the beginning commitment that after a year we would re-evaluate.
*We ended up selling the facility to a black non-denominational group.
*We missed a golden opportunity to have a Mission Center type church with multiple opportunities to help struggling finanacially people find real ministry and spiritual growth.
*I think it would have been a great opportunity for young ministers to see real needs and use their skills to address them.
SSBN–
2. There was a great day of cooperation between the HMB / State Conventions / Association–together they could fund ministries which none could do separately.
4. Get as far away from GCR stuff as you can and restore AUTONOMY in cooperative efforts.
7. Encourage Associations to be a locus of cooperative ministry rather than just another target for Conservative takeover.
Here is what I mean:
2. The talk of today seems to be about not cooperating and doing their own thing with the NAMB (primarily church planting). In my era of growing mission commitment it was common for the State Conventions / HMB / Associations to use mission money given in trust to do new ministries together.
4. The biggest change I perceive in GCR is CONTROL. We seem to want every church in the SBC to be a mega church. Sorry, but I don’t see the mega church as being anything other than the Temple at Jerusalem with the Pharisees in control. Small churches with Autonomy as their basis gave diversity and automatic ministry which the Mega church seems to have to do by committees.
7. I speak from my personal experience as the N. Roanoke Association was a target for CR takeover. It is located a 45-minute drive from SEBTS. Those who wanted to control it–to the angst of 2 churches with female pastors / to the diversion of the Hilda Mayo Mission Fund (named after my wife’s aunt who was a denominational servant) from starting new church which the local pastors did not want in competition with them. This Association did PROBE studies which clearly showed the need for a new mission church in Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids.
When the DOM and leaders met with church pastors in both towns, the plans were scuttled totally because they were unwilling to start a new work which they perceived would take away from their selfish desire to grow a mega church themselves.
Here is our dilemma: Most pastors want that great and growing mega church so they can shine as did Ezell in the Louisville area. In the past, growth took place when churches saw a need for growth in a new suburb. They gladlly funded the new church AND encouraged their members who lived in the area to form the nucleus for such growth with their blessings and joy.
In the era of the 50-70’s of great SBC growth, there was no such thing as a Satellite Church operating under the umbrella of a mega church with pastor answering to the mega church pastor as a staff member. Numers were not counted with the mega, but showed a growing church operating AUTONOMOUSLY in a growing suburban location.
Unless Dr. Ezell is willing to adopt the concept of AUTONOMY and NO CONTROL, I see no bright future for SBC growth.
Thanks for your understanding. I just think we did a better job of growing in my era of being a full time minister / staff member of SBC churches.
I am certainly open to any new comments from my post and I thank the blog moderators for allowing me to speak my mind.
Good insights, Gene. But I disagree with some of it. Especially when you said, “Unless Dr. Ezell is willing to adopt the concept of AUTONOMY and NO CONTROL, I see no bright future for SBC growth.”
You don’t plant churches and give them autonomy. You guide them until they reach the maturity to handle things on their own.
One more thing, Gene. I know you are anti-CR. Fine. I understand that and you have the right to your opinion. But lets deal with the SBC as it is and not spend a lot of time rehashing old wounds.
I am not surprised you have a problem with control. As I understand your youth and lack of long-term knowledge of the SBC, I can fully understand why.
However, I personally know the days to Autonomy. They were good and led to growth.
In my opinion, this day of control is a negative.
I think the statistics prove it!!! When the change took place in 1979. most of us predicted within 10 years it would crash–it didn’t!
BUT after 40 years we have a problem = plateaued growth / criticism–in spades–of every newly elected leader / a questionable future.
I’m not just against Conservative Resurgence. It has some good points.
However, if those ratifying it don’t see the light and reality of the shortcomings of the Mega Church, I can’t help you—sorry!!
Gene, I’m 53, have been a pastor for 30 years and was raised in the SBC – PK/MK.
I’m not sure who you are thinking of.
Norman Jameson of Biblical Recording has a Gut Check opinion piece up today at ABP news.
Funny, isn’t it, how Baptist Press seems not to have heard of this matter in any substantive way to date.
Maybe they know as much about recent Baptist History as ………….
Dave–
I was just going by the content of your thinking which is so typical of young pastors.
We basically share the same heritage with a 10 year age difference. My father pastored in NC/SC/GA and his last 20 years were spent creating the HMB Juvenile Rehabilitation Program along with being Assistant DOM for the Atlanta Baptist Association.
I was 34 in 1979 and enjoying 2 small children and ministry of being Pastor for the first time at the little town of Bishopville, SC. It was my best pastorate in a loving community / a town-wide youth group / realizing there was more to pastoring a church than being a staff member as I had previously done. I was training people around SC for using Backyard Bible Club materials. SC had a particularly close pastor fellowship because of its size at that time.
I had watched my father instill himself in state-wide work wherever he was. He was called on to do the “experiment” in ministering to Juveniles in the Fulton County Courts. He gained quick trust with the Judge and Probation Counselors. He found a way, with Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr.’s help, to involve black churches since 80% of Atlanta juvenile crime was in the black community. He pastored a mission church in the growth area near Stone Mountain as well. His ministry allowed him to become totally familiar with new church planting around Atlanta as it was growing from its first million toward the second.
I have a long history now, at age 64, of being SBC born and bred. I have watched with a critical eye as CR took over / CBF formed / both now work with an evangelical message and ministry alongside it. Neither is perfect in my observations!
The HMB’s greatest outreach was with Mission Centers / Language Missions / Interfaith Witness / Chaplancy / Juvenile Rehabilitation. Their basic concept was Servant Leadership and a desire to be collegial with other denominations–including Roman Catholics. Dr. Corts Redford was my first known Executive Director who was followed by Dr. Arthur Rutledge.
Now, we seem to think we have the ONLY answers to being church everywhere all over America. I just don’t believe that to be the case. We have stregnths alongside weaknesses. What I see is an overriding focus on the Mega Church.
Each of these monster-size congregations is trying to run its own mission program and start new Satellite Churches. Dr. Ezell likely has the most spread out and evenly sized Satellites–but it is all under his umbrella rather than as a cooperative effort promoting Autonomy among the new churches.
I am having a problem with the control issues in CR. At the core of the movement is a small group of Mega Church pastors who meet in private and make plans involving only those obedient and subsurvient to them.
This exclusivism and egotism reminds me of Paul’s words: “Some say I am of Paul or Apollos. . .” I’m waiting for his end-of-sentence attitude = “I am of Christ.” Knowing his ego I’m sure he meant “my version of Christ.”
Somewhere there has to be ressurected the attitude Christ tries to instill of being a “Servant to other Servants” he was training to share the Good News. Whenever servanthood is replaced by egos trying to sit on the right and left of the Master, we have the same problem Jesus had with fussing and fighting.
It was in this context Jesus placed a child on his lap and warned, “Whoever hurts one of these children of mine would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the midst of the sea.” That was the toughest thing he ever uttered during his earthly ministry!!
I see 2 kinds of children: physical and spiritual (new converts trying to figure it out). They were not being positively impressed with the scramble for power between the 12. A Prince of Peace surrounded by fighting disciples is hardly a good or positive picture for lost humanity.
Gene, Cancer grows too, just because there is growth doesn’t mean things were good. Isalm is growing—strike never mind you probably think they worship the same God as Christians.
Jeff–
I would call that cancer—“Mega Church Carcenoma”
He most certainly thinks that. Has said so on numerous occasions.
Gene,
I think we are in basic agreement. My ministry began in the late 70’s so I think I understand your perception of the difference under the Home Mission Board. I think you are accurate.
Good post. Thanks for sharing.
I also think that the “mega-church myth” has done more to harm Kingdom Growth than just about anything in our modern day. I’ve always favored many smaller churches rather than one megachurch. That’s an argument I’ve seldom won — at least in the mind of denomicrats.
Bill,
That’s not the whole truth in planting churches. We planted Riverchase Baptist Church a bit over 20 years ago and it’s thriving now. And no bad blood at all, but then, it wasn’t started with the ulterior motive of being a training ground for young pastors.
And, if the church you mentioned was Baptist, then it planted an autonomous church that acted autonomously. Gee….
SSBN: I’m with you on this one. I understand all the perceived benefits of the mega church. I also don’t assign ulterior or otherwise non-Christian motives or attributes to mega church pastors. But I have always maintained that megachurches are not the ideal model for Christian churches. It is often the cult of personality, even if the pastor is not actively seeking that. Jesus said he knows His sheep by name. If the church is so big the pastor does not know his flock by name, it is too big.
Satellite churches are just an exacerbation of the mega-church problem. It boggles my mind that such things exist.
The bottom line is that we are a convention of overwhelmingly small churches who, almost without exception, take direction from mega-church personalities.
Having said all that, mega-churches are a reality, and I think societal giving (at least in part) makes sense for mega-churches.
QUOTE Satellite churches are just an exacerbation of the mega-church problem. It boggles my mind that such things exist. END QUOTE
Bill Mac, I never thought of this aspect before. The satellite church is perhaps the “ultimate expression of the cult of personality.” I don’t mean that in a disparaging way in regard to any specific pastor. I’m sure they have as godly motives as others for the most part.
Your other idea of small churches taking direction from mega-churches may go to the real heart of the matter. They are not the same. Principles in the former do not necessarily translate well to the latter. That may be why the mega-church movement has killed nearly as many churches as it has brought to fruition.
The same principle can be seen in the consolidation of public schools. Neighborhood schools were much more effective, though not as efficient (and that can be argued). Bigger is definitely not better.
Here I might add a question: in the most explosive years of the church (1st century) were there any mega-churches? My answer is no. The earliest building discovered that was set aside for specific use as a church was a converted house dated about 250 AD. (It was escavated and moved to Yale). Yet, thousands could be saved in one open air meeting. How? Neighborhood house churches assimilated the masses, not a mega-church.
So, in conclusion to this long, blustering post: Mr. Ezell. Read the Book of Acts.
Man, we are starting to get it!!!!
The main theme that I see popping up in post after post hindering church growth, church planting, and reinvigoring churches is this: competition.
We’ve become so inward focused that we’re more concerned about losing existing believers to another church than we are concerned about reaching into the community shared by these churches.
That, my friends, I believe is the core of the problem facing the North American Mission Board.
I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!
Thanks for the suscinct observation!!!
Can you hear it? I can! It’s ROLL TIDE!
Yeah—against a struggling ACC team = STEAM ROLL!!!
Just a word from one not participating, but is a dedicated SBC minister–Howell Scott:
The Slow Death Of The Cooperative Program
Posted on September 16, 2010 by Howell Scott
With the election of Kevin Ezell, Senior Pastor of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, KY, as the new President of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Cooperative Program moves ever closer to its ultimate demise as SBC “leaders” march our great Convention toward a radical and complete redefinition. I would like to say that I am surprised by the choice, but for anyone who has closely followed the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force’s deliberations (as much as one could follow closed and sealed meetings), including the debate and implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations at the SBC Convention this past June and for anyone who has clearly comprehended SBC President Bryant Wright’s thoughts on radically redefining the SBC, the election of Kevin Ezell is consistent with the reigning philosophy of certain elites who are in positions of power within the Convention.
Shortly after moving to Louisville in the late summer of 1994, my wife and I began searching for a church where we could grow and serve. After visiting a few churches in the area, we made our way to Highview Baptist Church one Sunday morning. After our first visit, we knew that Highview would be our new home church. Even though we grew up in a medium-sized Southern Baptist church in Florida, we were immediately comfortable with the large size (around 1,500 in worship) of the church. Even more importantly, we fell in love with the people that we met. After a few weeks attending, we felt led to join this body of believers and we moved our membership to Highview.
We quickly became involved in a young couples Sunday School class where we met other couples our age, some who attended seminary and some who did not. It was at Highview that we met Len and Missy, who remain dear friends to this day. After about six months, my wife and I were asked to help teach a Special Needs Sunday School class for adults. Wanting to plug in and serve, we said yes. For the next year, we had the joy and privilege of teaching these wonderful people. I hope that we were a blessing to those in our class, but I truly believe that Brenda and I received the greater blessing through our experience. In March of 1996, we left Highview to answer God’s call to pastor Guston Baptist Church, about one hour outside of Louisville.
Kevin Ezell had not yet arrived at Highview when my wife and I left. We therefore did not have any experience at Highview after Dr. Ezell was called as pastor. I have no doubt that Highview, under Pastor Ezell’s leadership, continues to have a tremendous Kingdom impact in Louisville and the world. I have never met Kevin Ezell, although I have in recent days talked with those who know he and his wife. I do not know any of the NAMB trustees who served on the Presidential Search Committee that recommended Dr. Ezell for this position. Therefore, I will not comment upon the personal merits of Dr. Ezell’s nomination and election as President of the North American Mission Board. However, that does not mean that as a pastor of a cooperating Southern Baptist church that I cannot comment on the wisdom of choosing someone like Dr. Ezell to serve ALL Southern Baptists as the leader of one of the greatest missions agencies in the world.
There will be some who will defend Dr. Ezell’s election by saying, “God spoke; the trustees listened; case closed; no questions will be taken; end of story; get over it.” Well, before we get over it, we perhaps need to ask some questions of those trustees who are supposed to represent Southern Baptists. Sometimes, like certain Senators and Congressmen, the trustees of OUR Southern Baptist agencies need to be reminded that the people still have a voice in what happens in our Convention. Trustees and leaders within the SBC hierarchy ignore grass-roots Southern Baptists at their own peril. Maybe some leaders have forgotten that it was grass-roots pastors and the people in the pews of small and medium-sized churches throughout the Convention that helped the CR succeed. If these same leaders continue head-long down the path of the GCR, they may one day wake up and find the most enthusiastic supporters of the CR are no longer following.
And just where is the ruling class within the SBC leading? Exactly where they told us they would take us — to radically redefining what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist church. While many people thought that the Cooperative Program was saved and strengthened when the GCRTF magnanimously agreed to revised language regarding “Great Commission Giving,” the reality is that the Cooperative Program, as we know it today, will cease to exist if the philosophy of the GCRTF continues to dominate within the SBC. What, exactly, is that philosophy?
It is a philosophy that thinks that the pastor of a church whose budget is $6.2 million, but who led his church to contribute only $10,000 in 2009 to the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions, is the best person to lead the North American Mission Board. It is a philosophy which believes that small and medium-sized SBC churches, many of whom give sacrificially at levels of 10% or more to the Cooperative Program, should not dare question why certain mega-churches, whose pastors serve in key leadership positions within the SBC, only give less than 3% to CP. It is a philosophy that shows its disdain for State Conventions by promoting and encouraging direct giving to SBC entities and agencies outside of CP channels. It is a philosophy which tells churches to keep sending your money to the SBC, but refuses to divulge the salaries and benefits of those who are serving the Convention. Even Congress doesn’t do that! It is a philosophy that says the agencies and entities are accountable to the churches of the Convention, but in reality has created a ruling class that thinks they are no longer accountable to rank and file Southern Baptists.
For years, many politicians thought that they could vote one way in Washington and tell their constituents back home something different. And for years they got away with it. Not anymore. Witness the defeat of many long-time elected leaders who have been thrown of out office by a weary and fed-up electorate. Over time, the politicians simply lost touch with the people they were supposed to represent and it finally caught up with them.
For many leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention, they have lost touch with the average Southern Baptist. With their words they say one thing — “we support the Cooperative Program” — while with their actions they demonstrate a level of cooperative giving that most Southern Baptists, including this one, find quite the opposite of “support.” Maybe I’m alone in how I view the radical redefinition taking place before our very eyes. I don’t think that I am. Surely there are others, in churches of all sizes, who see what is happening to our Convention. Only time will tell, but I believe grass-roots Southern Baptists are beginning to see the dis-connect between what our leaders are saying and what they are doing. And when those same leaders overreach because they think they have a mandate for radical change, they just may find that the people and churches they represent aren’t buying the hope and change that they’re selling!
Scott offers some honest input—I would hope Dr. Ezell pays close attention!!
Nicely put and 100% accurate.
I would go so far as to say that THE EZELL ELECTION, and not the passage of the GCTF Report in Orlando, is the defining moment for Southern Baptists when it comes to the Cooperative Program. In Orlando, they used words in a hollow amendment not backed up by any real action to create the appearance of genuine support for the CP.
And now for the truth: NAMB actions speak louder than Orlando words.
So, what happens to the contributions ?
Do they go into salaries for executives and seminary presidents?
Or will they reach people who really need them for missions?
I’m not sure I’m understanding the conflict you pointed out.
Among the numerous conflicts are: (1) those contributing 1% are now stewarding the resources of those contributing 10%; (2) those who favor an independent missions approach are now in charge of leading a cooperative missions approach; (3) those who believe in building up a CONNECTED ecclesiology are now in charge of “planting” an AUTONOMOUS ecclesiology; and (4) we are now structured in such a way that, if they so desire, our convention’s leaders could shift our soteriology dramatically by taking “non-Calvinist cooperative mission” dollars and using them to plant “Calvinist independent mission” churches.
Think of it this way: If LOUISVILLE wasn’t willing to cooperate when NASHVILLE and ATLANTA were leading the convention, why should NASHVILLE and ATLANTA cooperate now that LOUISVILLE is leading the convention? Principles and convictions work both ways. If you change the convention in order to please LOUISVILLE then maybe they will now be happy with it and support it with strong CP giving, but you cannot assume that in the process you will continue to receive the support of those who favored former approaches.
The group that likes the convention just like it is and the group that doesn’t will have simply traded places. In the process, all the “Death Knell of the CP” discussions become more logical, if deeply regrettable.
R-I-C-K,
Your “Blatant” Anti-Calvinism is on full display…
Why all the camouflage with numbers 1-3??? When what you’re really afraid of is that these new guys just might be a bunch of… Unwashed Calvinist.
You said:
(4) we are now structured in such a way that, if they so desire, our convention’s leaders could shift our soteriology dramatically by taking “non-Calvinist cooperative mission” dollars and using them to plant “Calvinist independent mission” churches.
So in your mind, only “non-Calvinist” give to the Cooperative Program, so only “non-Calvinist” churches should be planted with Cooperative Program funds?
Can you please explain to me how you identify what a Calvinist church looks like… and what a non-Calvinist church looks like? If NAMB begins to plant Calvinist churches what would they look like and how would they be different from the non-Calvinist church plants of the past?
Grace Always,
Greg, you are right in pointing out that nobody has really seen the “bogey man,” but believe he is now running the Convention.
Like you, I know people who describe themselves as Calvinist but do church very differently. I don’t think anyone can identify a “Calvinist church type.”
Gene and Rick,
I have not engaged the discussion here because by the time I had time to write my blog post things seemed to be winding down here on this issue. One of the reasons that I started blogging back in July was because of the direction that I saw the SBC moving in after the Orlando Convention. Rick is exactly correct when he says that the revised language dealing with “Great Commission Giving” and the CP was hollow. If you look at the body of the GCRTF Report dealing with this issue, you will see that part of the revised language was already in the report word for word. The election of someone like Ezell, who according to reports in BP and ABP, led his church to give $10,000 to Annie Armstrong Mission Offering in 2009 and $0 in 2008 is quite perplexing to say the least. I have no doubt that Highview is doing great things for the Kingdom. That simply is not the issue. The issue is what does it mean to be a cooperting Southern Baptist.
Rick, you are correct: Actions do speak louder than words. Although the NAMB actions and those yet to come (IMB President) should not surprise us because that is exactly where the GCRTF Report (at least that which was not sealed) told us we we going. Whether grass-roots Southern Baptists will follow is yet to be determined. For those that think Orlando was a mandate for radical change, they may find that most Southern Baptists are not delighted with the changes being implemented. God bless,
Howell
I had a “strange” thought come to me in my sleep last night:
Now that Kevin is in the same town as Dan Vestal of CBF, is there a possibility they might have lunch together and a discussion of how the SBC and CBF might partner in ministry????
Wouldn’t it be interesting if both men ended up living in the same neighborhood—Alpharetta is about 15 miles from Doraville where CBF is headquartered on the Mercer Atlanta Campus.
CBF has one of its missions as “partnering” with other denominations in ministry. It would also be a great test of whether they are talking in empty terms or not.
Actually, I believe that, if the statistics of both SBC and CBF were put together, on giving and growth—Baptists just might be advancing after all!!!
Just a thought.
I don’t think so.
Not a chance. The CBF and the SBC have diametrically opposed views on the Bible. If doctrine did not matter, it would be a possibility, but 1Timothy 4:16 warns us: “guard your doctrine.”
It ain’t gonna happen — that’s why it is called a “dream.” 🙂
PS — you don’t have to always be advancing to win a war.
The CBF and the SBC have diametrically opposed views on the Bible.
Exactly, which is to say that the SBC views the Bible as Christians have always viewed the Bible, whereas the CBF has a multiple choice view of what the Bible is with the real answer being (D) Any of the above.
To imagine the difference between the SBC and the Cooperate-with-anyone Baptist Fellowship, ask which of the two a church that believed the following would be allowed to participate in:
*The Bible contains errors but those errors do not extend to matters concerning faith in Christ.
*God saves people of other religions through Christ without them realizing at the time that He is saving them through Christ (il.e. they pray to Allah or God as revealed by the prophet Joseph Smith).
*Homosexuality is not a sin and to call it a sin reveals an ignorance of human biology. Paul only called it sinful because he was prejudiced.
*The miracles in the Bible concerning Christ (the virgin birth, His bodily resurrection) did not really happen nor is faith in them necessary for salvation or proclamation of the gospel.
Now, a church that believed the above bulleted points would not be welcomed into the SBC. A church that believed those bulleted poitns above would not only be MORE than welcome in the CBF but be AFFIRMED in those beliefs. Now, do all CBF churches believe those things. No. However, no CBF church would withhold fellowship from a church that did and wouldn’t extend any effort to remove such a church from fellowship. In the end, their lack of concern for biblical truth says much more about them than what they profess to believe.
Hi JOE BLACKMON,
About the SBC and the CBF:
do they differ in regarding the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, as God ?
do YOU regard the Holy Spirit as God ?
Yes, they differ. The believe that the Holy Spirit, Who is God just as God the Father is God, did not inspire scripture to be written nor did the Holy Spirit superintend the process so as to preserve the writers of scripture from commiting error. Therefore, they are saying that God is capable of lying. Further, since there are CBF’ers who believe that God saves people from other faiths through Christ without them knowing at the time that Christ is saving them, they believe that the Holy Spirit can indwell a person without that person having called on the name of Christ to be saved. In contrast, Christians don’t believe that.
The CBF believes that the Holy Spirit, Who is God just as God the Father is God,…
Had to correct a typo.
Sorry Joe–
In your usual way, you overstate and mistate so you build a “straw dog” agrument.
As I understand and know the CBF, they carefully chose their name: COOPERATIVE Baptist FELLOWSHIP. It simply means what SBC used to mean with AUTONOMY guiding churches which have differences in style and specific points of theology, but can cooperate together to share the Gospel with the world. United people who believed in baptism by immersion allowed “holy rollers” to “high church” to work together mostly supporting missionaries at home and around the world to share the Gospel through a COOPERATIVE PROGRAM of giving.
That “good news” is that Jesus is the Christ / he gave his life a sacrice for our sins (separation) / he rose from the dead and has ascended to the right hand of his Father in heaven. He left us with the Holy Spirit (paraclete) to guide us each day. He directed us in his last words that “Since we are going–go sharing the Good News with the world to the end of the Age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
When we are more interested in finding minutia over which to fight over sharing God’s love by word and deed, we don’t give a very good picture to those who simply want to be loved and forgiven of their sins–and accepted as fellow believers in Christ. I see nothing about “believing the Bible is inerrant” in anything Jesus said. He talked of believing in him as The Christ / Messiah.
It is really quite simple: “All men will know you are my Disciples when you love one another.”
It’s hard to see much love and respect in your cruel / judgemental / harsh words to fellow Christians / Baptists. Such fussing and fighting hardly tells the world we can work together as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Perhaps, this is the real problem with why we are in plateau in giving and growing new converts. God just doesn’t bless a mess!!!
Just think about it before you blast those with whom you disagree.
Wow, there sure seems to be a long of anger and cynicism out there. I think Kevin Ezell spoke unwisely, but I have to disagree with the mindset that seems to be prevalent here that this is the death-knell for the CP. That may be a little over-wrought folks.
Why don’t we see what he does and how he does it before we declare the end of civilization as we know it?
Dave,
I’m not sure that you were directing your comments at me, but as Gene copied by blog post, which deals with the “slow death of the Cooperative Program,” I’ll respond regarding death-knells and such. First, when I wrote my post I did not even know about Dr. Ezell’s comments that he made to his congregation at Highview (I’ve been out of pocket for the last few weeks). Those comments, in and of themselves, do not tell us anything about how he would lead NAMB. That he made the comments, especially in light of Dr. Hankins’ open letter, is certainly not a good way to start your ministry.
As to your “wait and see” approach, I think that it is important to remember that a person’s past actions are often (not always) a good indication of what they will do in the present and future. For those of us who were aware of President Obama’s past actions (not words), it came as no surprise the radical agenda that he has implemented and continues to implement in Washington.
For those who not only listen to the words of Bryant Wright, President of the SBC, and who see how some leaders within the SBC have “cooperated” in the past, it does not take a giant leap of logic to conclude that theirs is a philosophy which wants to embrace “Great Commission Giving” in practice while saying that they support the CP. Actions do speak louder than words and grass-roots Southern Baptists are taking note.
Others may be willing to wait and see as NAMB dismantles Partnership Agreements with the State Conventions and goes all in for church planting (a good thing, but not the only thing), but as the pastor of a cooperating Southern Baptist church, I will not be silent while our cooperative character and spirit (as evidenced through the CP and other avenues) is dismantled. That may not be popular with the ruling class, but when you continue to do things behind closed doors and in secret and when you try to make radical changes because you think you have a “mandate,” you begin to see the trust of grass-roots Southern Baptists erode. With the election of Kevin Ezell, the trustees of NAMB, who are supposed to represent the churches of the SBC, have facililated a further erosion of trust. When the President of the IMB is announced, we may see a similar erosion. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
An ABP report suggested the NAMB trustee vote was 37-12. Is there ANYONE reading this comment stream who would accept a 76% call to a church or ministry organization?
I heard from a pretty reliable source that Page’s number was 57%.
Irregardless of the exact vote–it indicates to me a deep level of suspicion and lack of unity in present Board members.
This tells me Kevin Ezell needs our prayers more than ever!
They really put Frank Page through the ringer! The drift was that he was elected by the hair on his chinny-chin-chin.
I’d be more afraid of a 95% vote.
Rubberstamp time where we come with that total…
Howell, I agree with you about secrecy, I think its a problem. My point is that we are all ASSUMING what Ezell will do.
I think we can do two things:
1) Advocate for what we think SHOULD be done.
2) Confront what is done when it is contrary to our convictions.
But I think that people are making assumptions about what Kevin Ezell is going to do. No one knows.
We don’t know if he is going to dismantle cooperative agreements. We don’t know if he is going to support or dismantle the CP.
We can look at his record and raise concerns. But, unless some of the other commenters have more of a prophetic gift than I do, we do not know what he is going to do.
Dave,
I think that those of us who are perplexed by Dr. Ezell’s nomination and election are doing more than assuming when we offer our opinions on the future of NAMB and the SBC. While it is true that none of us can know what will happen in the future, I believe that can have a fairly strong idea of what will happen based upon the clear and unambiguous language of the adopted GCRTF Report and actions and words of its strongest proponents, including Dr. Ezell, Bryant Wright, trustess of the NAMB Presidential Search Committee and others.
Component Three, “Encouraging Cooperative Program Giving and Other Great Commission Giving,” was the subject of almost all debate on the floor of the Convention. After some interesting parliamentary rulings, the Task Force agreed to insert two additional clauses into the recommendation. Only problem with that is that the first clause, “We call upon Southern Baptists to honorand affirm the Cooperative Program as the most effective means of mobilizing our churches and extending our reach,” is already including in the body of the report. The other clause is merely window dressing.
I do not know for a certainty how Dr. Ezell will lead or what he is going to do specifically. However, past is prologue. The GCR Final Report is the roadmap that will be used. I am fairly certain (and hope to be proven wrong) that Dr. Ezell that Dr. Ezell will implement the vision of the GCR. I’m sure (but do not know since it was a closed meeting) that the majority of NAMB trustees who voted to elect Dr. Ezell also believe that he will implement the vision, which by the way calls for the phasing out (dismanting?) of Cooperative Agreements within seven years
The vision is one that I simply cannot embrace as a cooperating Southern Baptist. And I will not wait until it is too late to speak up. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I have some concerns as well.
“We don’t know if he is going to dismantle cooperative agreements. We don’t know if he is going to support or dismantle the CP.”
Perhaps I have missed something here… but does the president of NAMB have the authority to do either one of these by himself???
He has a lot of influence and controls a lot of the game.
No, he cannot do it without manipulating the trustees. That may put the brakes on any non-productive plan.
I was responding to the idea expressed that somehow, Ezell’s election was the death knell of the CP. My point is not that he has been made king of the convention, but that we really don’t know what he is going to do until he does it.
At least I don’t.
QUOTE we really don’t know what he is going to do until he does it.
END QUOTE
My point exactly: why take such a huge risk based upon this man’s clear record of non-support. I think we can do better.
If a person’s past performance is not important, then let’s just put names in a hat and have a kid at McDonald’s pick a name. We could get some good publicity and maybe even a better candidate.
PS — And fries, too!
SSBN, did you “know” that they have these “things” on most “keyboards” that will “prevent” you from having to write out Quote and End Quote so often?
Just thought I’d “let” “you” “know.”
It’s a matter of “tradition” 🙂 I seem to recall seeing some code somewhere, but I leave that for the “younger SBC’ers.”
Like this? It took me longer to manipulate my fingers for those arrow things 😉
I was thinking . . . we just had a heated debate over the GCR that necessitated an amendment (however limp it might have been) to assure that Cooperative Program Giving was at the heart of the report.
Now, the best example we could find to match that proposed amended mandate is a man that does not even come close to being an ardent supporter of even the agency he’s elected to run.
This just doesn’t make sense unless: 1) the 70% of the trustees that voted him in are blind and stupid; 2) or, there is some other agenda operating that is beneath the radar. I don’t know any other way to account for Kevin Ezell.
Good point: perhaps this will guarantee a large and spirited crowd in Arizona this year.
SSBN,
“This just doesn’t make sense unless: 1) the 70% of the trustees that voted him in are blind and stupid; 2) or, there is some other agenda operating that is beneath the radar. I don’t know any other way to account for Kevin Ezell.
This is the SBC… THERE IS ALWAYS AN AGENDA OPERATING BENEATH THE RADAR!
I could let you in on what it is… but then they would ban me from the Good Old Boy Club, change the secrete handshake, and drop me from the insider email list… 🙂
Greg, a secret agenda is always “somewhat at work” in any organization. My concern, as you indicate, is that it seems to be getting to be much more of the process.
The agenda of SBC insiders accounts for one reason I’ve freely chosen to abandon the call to ministry. I know that perhaps, in my biblical ignorance, I may have been predestinated to do so, but I perceive that it’s my own decision to do so. The other reason that I’ve chosen to abandon my call is because bloggers hyper-scrupulously pick apart every little detail of life like white-washed Pharisees who glory in their own self-righteous intellects.
As I’ve mentioned before, I appreciate blogs such as this who have exposed me to the heartless blogosphere before I wasted my last twenty years of ministry being discouraged (instead of encouraged) by men who are supposed to be my spiritual brothers. Thanks again.
Anger toward SBC leaders, as Dave so aptly expressed, isn’t productive. So what is productive in this season of new SBC leaders? Bloggers such as the ones at this site should offer unconditional trust to these new leaders. Postpone the criticism until you disagree with a move made by the leaders. And even then, voice your concerns and criticisms constructively.
Kevin Ezell doesn’t deserve the criticism he has garnered. I think his comments about bloggers are right on…..many of you do sit around in your house coats blogging about theology instead of living it. And yet, in spite of the fact that only Bart Barber is man enough to admit that the more he blogs the more ineffective his ministry becomes, you want to hurl criticisms at soul winners and leaders rather than focusing on your own deficiencies.
Take off your robes, both physical and spiritual, and examine the white washed tombs many of you have become!
SSBN,
What some people call an “agenda” others call a “vision”… I guess it’s just a matter of perspective.
Regardless of that, it is undeniable that the SBC is in the middle of a “Change of the Guard”… not so much from one theological camp to another, but from one generation of leadership to the next. And it is that change (I suspect) that has many concerned, and have many asking the questions; “Where are these these new guys going to take us, and are these new guys up to the challenge?
I just want to step in here and say that the SBC has survived many a “Changing of the Guard” in the past and I am confident that it will survive this one as well. One of the reasons it will survive this changing of the guard, and the ones to come, is that the true power in the SBC lies in the Board Of Trustees of each entity, and it takes several years and multiple President elections to change the make-up of any Board.
Grace Always,
Greg, in general I would hold to your optimism about surviving the changing of the guard as we have in the past. But, I’m not so sure this time.
There is a youthful arrogance that I think is going to cause the “young” crowd to shoot themselves in the foot — let me rephrase that, “may cause.”
The Purpose Driven craze ran many of the older crowd off and many a church is but a shell of its former self. That, combined with a general apathy in Christendom and a deep, deep recession may mean that the “new guard” is writing checks with their votes they cannot cash with their offerings.
I thoroughly believe that we may be moving back to some “societal” form of missions and the face of the SBC may change to be unrecognizable to many over 50. At a time when we need giving to increase, we may be moving in exactly the opposite direction thinking that the “old guard” will just give as they always have even when they don’t seem to be appreciated very much.
I hope and pray the SBC continues in the spirit of global missions, but God is not limited by what our particular camp can or cannot do, or will or will not do. I’m ready to join the “next best thing,” if it doesn’t happen to be the SBC, then so be it.
First:
I want to thank your for this article and the good responses to it. Even Joe Blackmon has been more respectful and kind than I have ever seen him!!!
This kind of discourse is what Paul advocated: “Building the Kingdom.”
Every individual and group has a “Corporate Personality”–i.e., a mindset depending on its leaders who are chosen. That outlook changes from time-to-time, but there is a starting point. It is like our nation’s start with the Founding Fathers. Many were “diests” which is why we have freedom of religion. All advocated the democratic process. The reason we have 3 branches of government is the fear of a “King / Dictator.” The ideal of 3 government branches is that they each share power with the other in the hope that “balance and reason” prevail in the long haul. In any democracy there will be times of fussing and fighting. It is the same for Dictatorship, but the troops always arrest and kill dissenters!
200+ years of freedom and democracy result in what we have today–sometimes “good” and sometimes “bad.” With a 2-6 year election cycle to any given office we can have a “revolution without guns” ad nauseum!
Look at the SBC / CBF / Roman Catholicism / Protestant Denominations and you see the same. Time and people change. The admonition of Christ does not! Jesus said, “Since you are going–go telling / baptizing / making disciples and I am with you to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20. He started a “New Age” and it is clearly recorded in the Gospels which I fully believe and try to follow.
Even if we disagree on specifics (once 2 people get together, there will be disagreements), the joy and deepening of any union brings about a long marriage. There are troubles, life is sometimes hard, but no couple in their 60-80’s is unnoticed when they walk hand-in-hand through the mall, smiling and talking in a loving way.
Most people observing such will observe, “My how they must love one another!” On the other hand, when you see a man and woman scowling their way through the Mall, fussing and figithing your think, “Why did those 2 get together in the first place????”
My “Baptist Bride” and I have enjoyed (most of the time) a 43 year relationship which began as I was a first year student at SEBTS. Lonya was from Rocky Mount and I am from Atlanta–a 7-8 hour commute. I can see God’s hand in how we got together. It is so “Baptist” that it’s not funny–we met at the Lakeside Baptist Church College Christmas Banquet!!!
I was fully involved in my education and work to the point I had no time to do anything but go to classes / put on my keys to the Alcoholic Ward at Dorothea Dix State Hospital (Joe–notice, I had the keys, therefore I was not the Patient on the Alcoholic Ward!). I got back in at 11:00 at night to listen to the snores of my roomate. The guys at Johnson Dorm had enjoyed watching stuff on my 1 frill–a nice Zenith color TV which presented the best picture in the industry at the time. I date myself by saying color TV was totally new and astounding!
Any free weekend had been spent going back to Atlanta for orthodontic treatment or just resting and catching up on my studies. I had no time for frills in life and it was hard.
My “liberal / wild” buddy down the hall was a College Minister and my description is accurate: he was really escaping from the draft to Viet Nam / he loved Clemson / he had no qualms about drinking his beer and cheering his team on / he called himself, “The Damn Dowis” to show you he knew what he was about = a learned approach to some day being a Professor of Something Somewhere. He had no wishes to Pastor a church anywhere. He was basically there for himself!
Anyway, Joe was engaged, but had met a girl he wanted me to meet so I was lonely and bored and could not wait to attend the College Banquet and Fellowship.
We arrived early and waited for his “dreamgirl” to appear. As luck would have it, in walked the first 2 girls–Lonya and Carolyn (still my wife’s friend to this day). I don’t know how to describe it in words, but “lightening struck me down!” Her smile / green eyes / lovely legs / everything else made me drop my mouth and wonder how Joe’s dreamgirl could top that. It didn’t. By God’s grace another father at Lakeside was spared having me for a Son-In-Law. We have laughed years later as I entered the Minister’s Life Insurance ministry and we joined my wife’s home church where we are still members today. Both my real F-I-L and he were members of the older men’s Bible Class I taught!
Without going into details, Lonya and I began a whirlwind romance / got married that August / have 2 children / 6 grandchildren / are still together dispite my “quirks of humanity.” God gave her to me for the express purpose of keeping me humble. I thank her for it! She has a way of pointing out when I get uppity that I am making a fool of myself! Those green eyes can cut glass and they always tell me when she has had enough!! I value her company over “always being right!” I am convinced that is why God created women with such irresistable ways so love can conquer all things life sends our way.
Mostly, life has been good. Sometimes life has been a living hell, but our love has brought us through. Love is the key ingredient in it all—plus the fact we come from such dedicated Baptist families active in Kingdom work throughout a past generation / in the present one / extending into whatever our children and grandchildren do. One of my friends wrote a song entitled “Baptist To The Bone” which, with tongue-in-cheek, describes all our special groups like WMU / church attendance 3 times a week / Deacons / etc. I am guilty of such and admit to it!!
What I am trying to say is that we are always challenged at any change point. CR was a distinct change point. I do not judge it beyond saying, “The ‘outs’ got ‘in’ / changed things drastically / now they are at a mighty ‘change point’ and we will see whether they stick together or continue to get more at odds within the ‘in group.’ That is just part of a marriage of the largest Denomination outside the Roman Catholic Church.
1979 was a time of great unity / voting / inerrancy / Conservative Resurgence. For better or worse, a new mindset prevailed / the mega church pastor was on the rise / Reagan was President / Conservatism prevailed just as in government and American Society.
Now we have a busted economy / war still raging as in Viet Nam / people still protesting / one of the most heated Election Campaigns in years / the Tea Party further troubling the waters. We are at a crossroad in the SBC wich reflects the social unrest in America.
No one person has all the answers. It is like the elephant in the room that no one wants to admit exists–Republicans hate Democrats and vice versa / the Tea Party is rising with a message of hate / all businesses are doing 30-70% of what they did 3 years ago / retirees have lost 40% of their nest egg / not many people are happy / we are all scared and asking, “When will this mess end?”
My answer is, “When we all realize we need to work together despite our personal differences.” The magic of the SBC was a common purpose of Home and Foreign missionary sending plus the core value that while we baptise by immersion only / we have churches from the mountain snake handlers to Charleston formality / we can all work together if we allow AUTONOMY to let us work together in the personal and indivudual way churches always do in their local setting.
I will be leaving this earth in the next 20 years to my home above. I have done what I could to make a difference and make it count. Paul’s summation of his life is the same as mine. “I have kept the faith no matter how many crises nor jailings I have endured. I even won my jailer to the Lord as he saw how I acted and made his own mind up to bring me into his house and introduce his family to me.”
Whatever the outcome, I wish nothing but the best for the SBC. I would love to be more active in it, but my time of pastoring large churches is over. I find the greatest joy in running my company / supplying and pastoring small churches part-time / sharing the Gospel with customers and employees who don’t have a clue I hold a degree in Theology and, more important, am a dedicated follower of the Christ I came to know as a Baptist Preacher’s son / RA / BSU President / observer (first hand) of Dr. Thomas J.J.Altizer at Emory declaring, “God Is Dead.”
He isn’t—-I talk with Him every day!! Sorry, J.J., you were drunk as a skunk the night you muddled through your unconvincing and abstract argument at Emory’s Glenn Memorial Coloquium. You are probably miserable in your “brilliance.” I have the “joy of salvation” and “a peace that passes understanding” even though I have that 30% earning business / lost my house to foreclosure / sometimes have my lights turned off—BUT, “It’s Friday night–I know Sunday IS COMING!!!!!!”
SSBN,
“I hope and pray the SBC continues in the spirit of global missions, but God is not limited by what our particular camp can or cannot do, or will or will not do. I’m ready to join the “next best thing,” if it doesn’t happen to be the SBC, then so be it.”
Some may say that is a very “Unhealthy” attitude for a Baptist Pastor… But not me! I think that is a very “Healthy” attitude for the future of the SBC. We should not hesitate to let our leadership in the SBC know that when it comes to the quality of our North American, and International Missions work we will accept nothing less than “Excellence”.
It is also “Healthful” in that it affirms an understanding that the Southern Baptist Convention is not so much a Denomination, as it is a “Global Missions Agency”… or better yet a “Network of Local, State, North American, and International Missions Agencies”. And when it comes to who is going to receive missions offerings from my church, I (as the one who will be held accountable before God) am going to demand excellence from those with whom I partner.
Grace Always,
Greg, exactly. I’m not anywhere near jumping ship and a spirited debate in and of itself on these matters is not a cause for concern to me.
Your standard of excellence is one I can live with.
Greg,
To say that I am “anti-Calvinist” implies that I oppose Calvinists personally, when in fact, I simply disagree with their views on a few doctrines. I have Presbyterian friends and Calvinist Baptist friends. I just know the church I serve would not want to plant a Calvinist church or subsidize Acts 29 church plants.
Conflicts one through three were not merely “camouflage.” I am equally concerned about (1) leaders who are not committed financially, (2) the impact of the multi-site model on classic congregational autonomy, and (3) a church grafting approach replacing a church planting approach.
To answer your questions…
1. No, I do not believe that only non-Calvinists give through the Cooperative Program, but I do believe the ratio is about 9:1.
2. No, I do not believe that only non-Calvinist churches should be planted through NAMB, but I do think the ratio should be very close to the afore-mentioned 9:1.
3. A non-Calvinist church looks a bit like…First Baptist Atlanta or Second Baptist Houston, while a Calvinist church looks a bit like…Highview or Capitol Hill. I would say my primary theological differences would be in soteriology, ecclesiology and missiology.
4. I’m not sure exactly what NAMB planting Calvinist churches is going to look like, but I think we’re about to find out. I would have to refer this question to Dr. Ezell. From the sound of things, it may look a little like this: the seminaries take over church planting as part of the educational process with the funding coming through NAMB. Along the way, a much greater proportion of new church plants are funded in the north by our two northern-most seminaries, which happen to be the two most Calvinistic ones.
If anything about my tone suggested that I am angry, I apologize. It is fair to say I am a bit skeptical of the direction we appear to be headed in SBC life and what I consider to be a “false mandate” for changes messengers really could not fathom. I am also deeply suspicious of the secrets that have been locked away. But I’m not in the least ANTI-Calvinist, ANTI-SBC or, for that matter, ANTI-Greg.
So, what exactly does a “Calvinist worship” service look like as opposed to a “non-calvinist?” Most churches take up an offering as part of worship: how does the process differ in regard to non-calvinists vs. calvinists.
Where is your data to back up your assertion that “non-calvinists” outnumber calvinists 9:1.
My opinion is that it would be very difficult to plant a “Calvinist” or “Non-calvinist” church because I don’t think you can identify which is which. Neither of the two examples you give have ever identified themselves as a “Calvinist” church, that I know of. Having Al Mohler as a member does not a Calvinist church make.
I would be willing to bet that Highview, for example is not a church made up of 100% Calvinists, nor perhaps, even a heavy majority.
I think you may be jousting with a windmill in this regard.
SSBN,
Granted, both worship styles and offerings are quite similar at churches led by Calvinist Pastors and those led by Non-Calvinist Pastors. My data is from Stetzer’s survey at Lifeway Research and pertains more specifically to the Pastors of these churches, not the members.
I am also in agreement with you that these churches don’t label themselves that way at all. By simply using the “Calvinist” designation I admit I was painting with far too broad a brush. I would be more comfortable saying, “churches whose pastors tend toward Calvinism in their soteriology, elder rule and connectionalism in their ecclesiology and independent financial support in their missiology.”
I have no idea how many Calvinists are members of Highview, but I would be surprised if it was not a significant majority. More important to me than the individual soteriology of the members is the mindset of the leaders when it comes to the issues listed above which impact our mutual church planting efforts.
I’m not really trying to joust with anyone. I’m just observing that things are different now and it seems that the tone is being set by Louisville. If that means Al Mohler, Southern Seminary and Calvinism all get lumped together in this, I’m sorry. In fact, I probably haven’t given enough credit to our friends at Southeastern. I think I could “pin down” that windmill a little more precisely if I had access to some files that have been hidden in the historical archives in Louisville, but without that information, you’re right. This Don Quixote should just keep his mouth shut for fifteen years, even though something about all this exclusive and secretive planning just doesn’t feel right to me at all.
Nah, I wouldn’t say, “keep your mouth shut.” You make some valid observations that I am in general agreement with, as far as the “slant” that seems to be on things these days.
I think you clarified your position well and make some good points.
I’m absolutely in agreement that NOTHING should ever be “hidden” (except for personnel matters perhaps). I can’t speak for Southern, because I attended SWBTS and GGBTS. I don’t think Al is going to railroad either of these schools, both of which are broad in their theological spectrum in regard to Calvinism versus non-Calvinism.
So, speak your piece. You make some good points even if I don’t agree with all of them down the line. I don’t even agree with myself half the time 🙂
Rick,
You say, “I just know the church I serve would not want to plant a Calvinist church or subsidize Acts 29 church plants.”
Just the opposite is true with me… Calvinist churches and Acts 29 church plants are exactly what my church wants to plant.” Yet for years my church, and other Calvinistic churches throughout the SBC, have poured our missions offerings into the C.P. and received absolutely nothing back except rejection of our church planters and our request for assistance.
Response to your answers…
(1 & 2) – The ratio of Calvinist church plants being approved in the SBC over the last 10-15 years has been about .0001%. Calvinistic church planting networks, like Acts 29, sprang into being as a “direct result” of Calvinist seeking to plant churches and being denied the opportunity to do so by blatant “Anti-Calvinist” in the SBC who were in positions of authority. Using your own ratio of 9:1, do you think the Calvinist in the SBC have been treated fairly in this?
(3) – That’s a very broad generalization, but it will do. So, what you are saying is that we should facilitate the replication of churches like First Baptist Atlanta and Second Baptist Huston, but we should not facilitate the replication of churches like Highview or Capitol Hill?
(4) – Sounds really, really, really good to me! 🙂 Perhaps then we would no longer see the systematic discrimination against Calvinist church planting in the SBC that necessitated an Acts 29 Network in the first place.
Rick, you have responded very graciously… Thank you for doing so! It is a welcome change from how many non-Calvinist have been commenting here lately.
Grace Always,
“Many were “diests””
People say this all the time without realizing that the Founding Fathers numbered about 200, and only a very small minority were deists.
Statements like that above is why we now have “freedom FROM religion,” instead of “freedom OF religion.”
Though, Gene, I did appreciate the post and the spirit in which it was given. There’s some good nuggets in there.
Thanks, man!!!</b
I think most of our stories about Founding Fathers are as much conjecture and ideaslistic notions as absolute truth.
At its core, this nation was founded on the desire to accumulate wealth and fame for those not having such in England and Europe.
We condoned slavery despite the "all men created equal" idea. We took land for the Native Americans and called them heathens!
We, too often, have sought to rise on another person's back.
We kept women in their place and wouldn't let them vote.
You can name more than these!
BUT
Isn’t it a grand experiment! At the least, it is an expose of craziness in action. Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we fail miserably. We always have a chance in a democratic society to correct the wrongs and “see the light.”
A free press and media news, now adding You Tube / blogs, gets hidden things exposed almost to a fault. These days it is hard to hide a lie for long!
I have been to several places in England and Europe to see how beautiful and cultivated (I mean their fields and streams) it is. When streams and rivers are lined with rocks put there by hundreds of years of human toil, you can’t help but notice how young and natural our countryside is. Rocks around English fields didn’t get there by themselves with a smap of a finger.
New Bern, NC, had a 300th Anniversary weekend last Fri-Sun. A part of it was a re-created sailing ship I toured on which our ancestors came here over the rough Atlantic. It had to be a crowded and almost starved and smelly group which landed. I suspect, instead of sea gulls floating overhead, there had to be vultures among them smelling the stench of a 3-month journey.
I think every group needs to keep its eye on the real story of the Founders. In our case it is Jesus / Disciples / SBC Founders. We did not like ANY other church or group telling us EXACTLY what to do—BUT we were willing to put aside local church priorities in order to COOPERATE on sending missionaries.
It’s just that simple!!!!
Is Ezell a Calvinist?
Not sure, but I am told that he is not in the Al Mohler mold on this issue.
Bill,
Ezell can’t be a Calvinist… for all the following reasons:
1) There are NO Calvinistic Mega Churches.
2) Calvinism does NOT grow a Church, it KILLS Churches.
3) Calvinist don’t start new works.
4) Calvinist don’t do missions work.
5) Calvinist eat little children.
Grace Always,
Greg,
Was that all sarcasm?
If not, look into Acts 29, Mars Hill Global, PLNTD, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Mark Dever, Darrin Patrick, and their churches… to name a very, very few.
I think the Calvinists eat Children should have tipped you off!
🙂 🙂 🙂
Brandon, are you a Big-12 fan? You seem awful gullible!!
Haha I figured the Calvinists eating children was a way of being funny while still making that point! My bad, my bad.
I was there. I saw it happen in northwest Florida.