Alvin Reid is a blogger worth reading. Dr. Reid is Professor of Evangelism and Student Ministry at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a frequent conference speaker. He has written an article called “Some Thoughts on NAMB Changes & President Kevin Ezell.” It is a well-written analysis of recent NAMB changes and the work of Kevin Ezell.
I have expressed reservations about what is going on at NAMB, as well as some angst about the demeanor and style of Kevin Ezell. Some of the commenters here have been very critical of Ezell and NAMB and some of the actions taken. Others, of course, have been critical of us for questioning NAMB.
Alvin Reid does not share my reservations or the angst that some have expressed on this site. He gives a positive review of the actions Ezell has taken, and especially of his recent personnel moves. Those who are interested in the work of NAMB and its president would do well to read what Dr. Reid says about the work of NAMB.
Dave,
Thanks for posting this up. I appreciate Dr. Reid’s perspective in this article and I especially caught the mention of the tie of DR to the church planting focus. I hope that his perspective on how this will play out is accurate.
Good to get different perspectives.
“”From 1900 when there were 27 churches per 10k people in the US to 11 per 10k in 2000.”” I was not quite as impressed with the anecdotal post as you were perhaps, Dave, but I did pick up on the quote above. In a century or so we have managed to see the population of churches to people cut in half. Yet, I’m pretty sure (though I’ve not researched it technically) that we put significant money into “church planting” during this century. This I think lends credence to my other post that proposes that we plant churches like I… Read more »
Follow-up: Here’s an example close to my own heart. Our goal is to double our average attendance in church and Sunday School (yes that old Sunday morning dinosaur) in two years. This will result in essentially a church plant resulting in 100 people in two years. And, we already have the prospects without ever meeting anyone outside the oikos (sphere of influence) of our congregation. Multiply that scenario times 75% of 45,000 SBC congregations (the number of “typical” SBC churches) and the Kingdom growth is staggering. My fear is that the net effect of Ezell’s myopic vision is that we… Read more »
Frank, Part of the reason why Church Planting is such an emphasis is because it has been proven to be a rather effective Evangelism strategy, despite the failure rate (which fluctuates based on a number of factors that we are now able to measure to in order to insure more successful plants). Will McRaney of NOBTS published an article (http://tinyurl.com/4sdv6gm), which asked the question, “Is Church Planting an effective growth strategy?” He answered the question “YES”, and noted in the process that: It takes fewer worship attenders and Sunday School attenders to baptize one person in younger churches than in… Read more »
DR, the statistics don’t hold up past five years or so. Also, count the money cost per baptism or mission giving per attendee, or other statistics and you get a different picture. I’m for a both/and approach not the myopic approach being offered now–which by the way is not a new idea. Your analysis of the problem with existing churches that are struggling supports my argument they are a vast pool of ready prospects. You seem too willing to give up on them. Again, the facts just don’t support the contagion that more SBC churches–over an extended period equals more… Read more »
Follow-up. I was in the shower and it struck me what was eating at me about Dr. Reid’s post. The statistics about how new church starts are more “evangelistic” than existing churches does not bear out in statistics of Kingdom growth over the years as I pointed out. The problem is a cause and effect fallacy. New churches result in or “cause” evangelism. That seems to be the argument as articulated by D.R. I understand that argument, but I think it leads to faulty thinking. Church plants are not the cause of evangelism, but the result. It doesn’t matter where… Read more »
Been lurking for a little while, and decided I would post. I’ll let you know up front that I’ve only been a Baptist for a few years, and so am not all that familiar with the history of the entities of the SBC (maybe a future Baptist Heritage class will take care of that, hehe). My view: I think that the regionalization/decentralization is a good thing and will help in the relationships between state conventions and associations, if it is done properly, whatever that looks like. I agree though that church planting, and even planting of evangelistic churches is not… Read more »
I agree that decentralization and regionalization have a lot of promise.
early on in that last post, should read “between state conventions and associations and NAMB”
Reid likes all the new people, affirms the five Baby NAMBS, seconds the sharper focus, and commends the trustee chairman. I have no reason not to like the new people, wonder if the Baby NAMBS will be any better than the prior scheme, think the sharper focus is needed, and wonder where he was when trustees handed us utter failures. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how much success NAMB is going to have. If they avoid repeating or creating new debacles, that’s success enough for now. Annie Armstrong is coming up soon. I’m guessing that nothing so far will… Read more »
Just an FYI. Dr. Reid is a respectable professor at SE. His many years in evangelism speaks for itself. Yet, make no mistake: Dr. Reid’s ecstasy on Aaron Coe being named VP at NAMB surely has at least some aspiration in seeing certain connections take place.
With that, I am…
Peter
If there is something ominous about the connections revealed in your link, I’m not seeing what it is. “SendNY” seems to be a partnership of Baptist churches to plant churches in the NY area.
Looks like a good thing to me. If that is the heart of the man, then Dr. Ezell chose well.
Look, Dave. I neither stated nor implied anything whatsoever as being “ominous” as you put it. What I did imply is simple: Reid has every reason to be both pleased and encouraged that an organization is tapped under which he sits as a board member. Wouldn’t you? I would. Given that, if you do not see the interesting connections, well, then, know that’s fine with me, brother.
I trust your Saturday afternoon well.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Don’t you think it’s time you renamed your blog “SBC Conspiracy Theory”, or maybe “SBC Subtle Insinuation”? You seem to have a knack for always wanted to connect the dots, whether there’s a reason for it or not.
Just for clarity, folks, I had two reasons to link to this piece.
1) I truly do respect Dr. Reid and think that any opinion he has is worth reading. I especially like his cousin, Dr. Spencer Reid!
2) Since the POV of this site has been a little more negative, I thought a positive view would be a good one to read – a counterpoint to the point we are usually making here. It’s about balance.
Huggy bear 🙂
Group hug!
Dave, I agree with you — I like Dr. Spencer Reid and his colleagues as well 🙂 As to Dr. Alvin Reid’s piece, I would likewise agree that it is well-written. As one who has been critical (“negative) regarding the GCR and Dr. Ezell’s leadership approach at NAMB, Dr. Reid’s analysis is not surprising. I believe that Peter was not trying to say that Reid’s piece was “ominous,” but rather was pointing out that Dr. Reid has relationships with those involved in the new NAMB leadership. Most people probably already know that, but Peter’s link was information that people could… Read more »
I’m just glad that someone got the Spencer Reid reference.
Wait a minute, you want it to be positive, but then you bring up the BAU? I’m confused—are we happy or psycho? 🙂
Are happiness and “psycho” that different?
Honestly, I was just trying to figure out what Peter was implying.