This is the second part of a two-part series on how Hollywood and others limit their potential audiences. You can read part one, Limiting Your Audience: Janeane Garofalo and Criminal Minds, on Howell’s blog, fromlaw2grace.com.
You would think that leaders of the first GCR Era Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference — scheduled to debut in Phoenix this June — would desire to have the biggest possible audience for this annual event. Knowing that the southwestern location would itself limit the number of pastors who could attend, one might assume that the Aspire 2011 SBCPC would focus on the content and casting (i.e., speakers) to leverage turnout.
Apart from last year’s two-day long commercial for the GCR, I have enjoyed the Pastor’s Conferences that I have attended in the past. As a life-long Southern Baptist, I am predisposed to like this time of worship prior to the SBC’s annual meeting. What’s not to like — great preaching and singing and an opportunity for many pastors like me — who are in the pulpit most Sundays — to get our spiritual batteries recharged.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but from the moment I first read about the content and casting for Aspire on SBCVoices, I have been hesitant to commit the extra time it will take to attend. Even though Phoenix is a relatively close drive from where I live in New Mexico, I am finding it hard to get enthused about this year’s conference. Is it worth leaving after I preach on Sunday to drive all afternoon to arrive in time for the first session that evening? As of now, I am still undecided.
Could I be persuaded to attend Aspire? Of course, although just to ask that question should raise other questions. Why shouldn’t SBC pastors, who otherwise intend to be in Phoenix for the SBC — want to automatically participate in this year’s Pastor’s Conference? Put another way, what would cause pastors to decide to save extra time and money (hotels, car rentals, food, etc.) by skipping this year’s event?
To answer these questions, it would be helpful to know the content of the conference as well as the all-star preaching/singing cast that has been assembled. First, the content. The SBCPC website gives us a sneak peek of what pastors and other attendees can expect to receive from Aspire:
The primary elements that are going to be discussed at the conference are church planting and God’s activity among the nations. In light of that, the theme, speakers, videos, goals and offering are all going to be centered around planting churches and engaging the nations with the gospel. (Conference Goals, Aspire 2011 SBC Pastor’s Conference)
No one would argue that the content of the Aspire Pastor’s Conference is anything but Biblical. Obviously, “church planting and God’s activity among the nations” are topics that would provide a wealth of encouragement to pastors. The central theme of the conference, which dovetails nicely with the content, is likewise solid in its Biblical foundation. No one that I know would dispute that church planting — at home and abroad — is not a vital need. We may disagree as to the scope, particularly with the new NAMB, but there are certainly insights to be gained from such a theme.
However, the content and theme — primarily centered on church planting — is narrow in its scope. So narrow, that many pastors, this one included, may choose to forgo this year’s conference. I do not know if the church planting theme was chosen because of the emphasis it has been given by the new NAMB or because of other considerations. Perhaps the leaders of this year’s SBCPC wanted to tie into the massive church planting movement that the new NAMB is spearheading.
As one who has strong reservations about the GCR and the radical re-invention of NAMB, the church planting emphasis does not provide the strongest appeal for me to attend the Pastor’s Conference. With that being said, as long as I was reasonably certain that the Pastor’s Conference would not morph into some cheer-leading session exalting planting new churches as the “best way” to reach North America and the world (over against established churches), then I would see no reason not to turn up and tune in at Phoenix.
But, here’s the rub. Even if the content and theme of this year’s SBCPC are Biblically grounded (which I believe they are), that does not mean that the cast chosen to showcase the content and theme will attract as wide and diverse an audience as the event’s planners might have hoped. In fact, some of the pre-event publicity surrounding some of the cast may cause some pastors to choose to miss this year’s Pastor’s Conference altogether.
Sometimes, wrong casting choices for even supporting cast members can cause loyal viewers to switch channels or to never watch a spin-off of an otherwise liked show. My wife and I find ourselves in that very predicament because of the ill-fated casting of Janeane Garofalo in Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior. For some, her addition to this Criminal Minds spin-off is not reason enough avoid the new show. For us, it’s a deal breaker.
Much has already been written — both pro (here, here) and con (here, here, here) — about one of the original supporting cast members, Jamar Jones (who has since withdrawn from the event), and the propriety of inviting him to participate in a Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference. From my perspective, I think that the Jones’ invitation to participate in the First GCR Era Pastors’ Conference is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem within the Convention.
In finally responding to the critics of Aspire, Vance Pitman, President of this year’s SBC Pastor’s Conference, appeared to offer no concessions to those who originally raised concerns about Jones and other member of the cast of Aspire. In fact, like most producers of hit television shows who engender opposition because of their own unwise casting choices, Pitman seems intent on blaming everyone else for the kerfuffle, even Lifeway:
People Pitman trusts tell him “Jakes is not a modalist.” Besides, Pitman said, his books are for sale in SBC bookstores. “How ridiculous is it that we can sell his books but his music guy can’t play piano at our meeting?” he asked. (full article here)
That’s not the standard we will now use to determine if someone should be invited to speak at the SBC’s Pastor’s Conference, is it? I’m pretty sure Lifeway sells 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper, but I would much rather hear from John than Don. As for the “ridiculousness” of it all, perhaps Pitman needs to expand his group of trusted advisers. Surely there is someone within SBC circles that could have told Pastor Pitman that giving a part in Aspire — a Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference — to anyone associated with T.D. Jakes’ church would have not been the wisest choice.
But, Vance Pitman and the leadership of this year’s conference have their own vision of what they want Aspire to be. The vision is big, to be sure. So big, apparently, that the critics just don’t seem to understand what this year’s Pastor’s Conference is all about, whether it’s the minor casting of Jones playing the piano or Darrin Patrick of The Journey/Acts 29 fame preaching.
Isn’t that always the case though — if you don’t understand the show, it’s entirely the fault of the audience. The producers, directors, writers, and cast never shoulder any responsibility for the resulting mess. That seems to be the argument Pitman is making:
The president of the 2011 Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference defended a program he’s put together for June 12-13 in Phoenix, Ariz., saying critics who find it outside the convention’s mainstream hold too narrow a worldview.
“The Kingdom of God is bigger than Southern Baptists,” said Vance Pitman, 2011 Pastors’ Conference president and pastor of Hope Baptist Church in Las Vegas, a church plant in partnership with First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Ga., and the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“The main intent of our conference is to communicate the big picture of the Kingdom of God,” Pitman said in a telephone interview March 18. “God is alive and at work all over the world. We as the Southern Baptist Convention are one very small part of that.” (full article here)
While this makes for a nice diversion and strawman argument, no one is arguing that the Kingdom of God is not bigger than the SBC. Is the Southern Baptist Convention a “very small part” of God’s activity in the world? We might quibble on the smallness or largeness thereof, but God is at work all over the world, even outside of the SBC.
As to Pitman’s charge that “critics who find it outside the convention’s mainstream hold too narrow a worldview,” he may be right. But, then again, he may be wrong. If one can have too narrow a worldview, can one have too broad a worldview?
The problem with Aspire 2011: The Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference might not be about the kind of narrowness that Pastor Pitman is thinking about. It just might turn out that the producers of Aspire have so broadened their vision that they have narrowed their potential audience — not that there’s anything wrong with that. Will I be in the audience in Phoenix? As long as Janeane Garofalo isn’t on the program, somehow I think I will make it after all.
If nothing else, you can hang out with me!
And we can argue over the GCR in person!!
Will there be a reserved section for Yankees-bashing?
If so, I’ll skype in for that.
🙂
Jealousy is not attractive!
Yet I’m so good-looking.
🙂
Oh, boy.
I really hate not being in Phoenix. Not because of the 2 days of business meeting, but I’d love to meet all of you guys that will be there.
I really think that would be fun. Sorry I didn’t connect with anyone in Orlando last year.
Dave,
You got it! In addition to our mutual admiration of Criminal Minds, you will also find that you and I share a mutual admiration for a certain baseball team as well. Good times, to be had by all!
Two comments:
First, looking at the list it appears that the slate of preachers could not be any wider. You have mega-church, traditional church, emerging church, parachurch–it’s something for everyone. Now, there are probably some guys I wouldn’t care to see, but I think it would be hard to say that there is not someone for everyone to see.
Second–and this is the big one–if there is any pastor in the SBC who chooses not to attend the conference because they’re really not all that into church planting THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED! Nothing is more biblical than church planting, and if your not into that, for whatever reason, then I would find it difficult to say that your all that interested in anything the Bible has to say. Building one’s own kingdom can only go so far. This is not the Old Testament where there is one temple and everyone flows to it. This is New Testament times, the temple is the church, and it should sprout up wherever believers are to be found. Sure, maybe the South doesn’t need church plants (though I’d challenge that assertion), but you can’t tell me that there is no reason to be planting churches all over the Northeastern US–a place that needs a consistent gospel witness and is sorely lacking in SBC representation.
If the Pastor’s Conference is down in attendance because of it’s theme this will be just another example of how the SBC is ceding itself out of existence by it’s increasing irrelevance in the world.
I don’t think anyone is against “church planting” – we all know it is necessary. Some, though, have challenged the recent emphasis on church planting as the sole means of ministry through IMB and NAMB.
I am pretty sure Howell will tell you that he is not against church planting, but questions the NAMB emphasis there.
Of course, Howell can explain himself better than I can.
I’m curious what people think NAMB and IMB should be doing? Just look at the apostolic pattern. If we have any respect for Scripture and its emphasis on the local church then missionaries alone don’t cut it. Anywhere missionaries are going and seeing people won to Christ should necessitate church planting. The two go nearly hand-in-hand, and if one could exist without the other it is certainly church planting over missions (since any biblical church will be doing missions to its community anyway).
Of course, given the bang-up way in which the SBC emphasizes discipleship it shouldn’t surprise me that people would see a need for missionaries and not one for church planters.
Two things,
1) I’m not sure that anyone intends it to be an either/or.
2) That is a kind of intimidating Gravatar!
One more thing – a personal story. One year (this was back when most of you were in diapers – the late 80s), I went to the convention and Pastor’s Conference. It was a great getaway from a difficult time of ministry at the church I served at that time.
I was so discouraged, ready to throw in the towel and look for a job selling insurance or mowing lawns or something.
Lo and behold, the theme of the Pastor’s Conference was “Perseverence.” Every single pastor who preached encouraged us to stick it out and work through the hard times until God brought the victory. I felt like God had arranged it just for me.
The Pastor’s Conference is a conference for pastors (duh?). There is a lot more to our ministry than JUST planting new churches. We need to be encouraged, uplifted, instructed. We need, perhaps, some models of expositional preaching. We need advice on handling difficult situations.
The Pastor’s conference is supposed to be about encouraging and empowering pastors.
“I felt like God had arranged it just for me.”
There are no ‘coincidences’ in the Kingdom. You were blessed.
I was potty trained before the 80s so I object to your characterization here. I was in grade school for goodness’ sake. 🙂
I hear you about a good pastor’s conference. I have never experience one at the national level, but we have had some good ones here in the Dakotas that have been very encouraging to me as well.
“Second–and this is the big one–if there is any pastor in the SBC who chooses not to attend the conference because they’re really not all that into church planting THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED! Nothing is more biblical than church planting, and if your not into that, for whatever reason, then I would find it difficult to say that your all that interested in anything the Bible has to say.”
Todd,
I know that I use strong language in my writing, so I am not offended by your strong language. However, you illustrate exactly my reservations with this year’s Pastor’s Conference. It’s not that I or anyone else are “not into church planting.” It’s not that I or anyone else are not concerned about the Great Commission. It is the emphasis that has been placed on church planting to the seeming exclusion of established churches and other areas of ministry which can be effective in evangelism and discipleship.
When the new NAMB wants to almost exclusively fund just church planting — to the exclusion of say, collegiate ministries — I am having a hard time understanding that philosophy. The church I pastor has partnered directly (in addition to CP) with church plants in the recent past and will do so again in the future. However, if this becomes a “church planting is the best/only way to reach North America” argument that appears to denigrate established churches or anyone that even questions the emphasis placed on church planting (not church planting itself) by the new NAMB and others, then I think we will continue to have festering problems. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I promised to report back after our board meeting here. The news in our area is actually positive for the most part. I share the concerns you expressed about collegiate ministry. One of my pastor friends here is very active in collegiate ministry and it is an area of concern for him as well.
I left the meeting with a good feeling about where we are going to be as this shakes out in the Dakotas. For the moment, we actually find ourselves ahead of the curve, which is rare in these parts. There are still a lot of issues to work through and the budget cuts coming down from NAMB to the states are going to be hard to deal with I gather. I don’t know what answers we are going to arrive at, but I am a little more optimistic about the near future anyway.
Jeff,
Thanks for the update on the Dakotas. Our State Executive Board meets next month. From preliminary reports, I am not as optimistic as you are. I believe that NAMB’s reorganization, including the new strategic partnership agreements, will force States to make some pretty hard choices. Many states may make the choices that NAMB would prefer. As for New Mexico, we may make some hard choices in funding that may let NAMB know that we are still autonomous and will ultimately be responsible for implementing our own vision, not the one that NAMB would like for us to implement. We shall see in the next few months how this will play out. As an aside, I thought that the existing strategic partnership agreements between NAMB and the State Conventions were supposed to be phased out within seven years. While 10 months is technically “within seven years,” the rush may prove to be problematic. Thanks again and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I hear what you are saying about the rush job. I had a pretty good conversation with Fred en-route to the meeting and he compared it to “ripping off a band-aid” instead of trying to peel it off slowly. Probably not a perfect analogy but it works.
There are undoubtedly going to be some tough choices and some tough changes. In a convention like ours, push back isn’t much of an option. It is no secret that new work states like ours are much more heavily dependent on NAMB. I give credit to our state exec and staff for being pretty proactive to get ahead of the game as best as they could. I still have some concerns. I almost laughed when we got into a discussion about how to define “cooperating churches” in the Dakotas. It sounded like half of the discussions around here.
The church planting focus is still my biggest concern. We are working on a way to put church strengthening and church planting into a sort of symbiotic relationship. It is in the infant stages right now, but what I saw looks very promising and was a great encouragement to me. If we can make it work, it is something that will probably see use far outside the Dakotas as well.
Brother Howell,
I believe we will find, if we follow the funding, the new partnership agreements will be removed from the state conventions and made with the seminaries. However, it will not be called strategic partnerships but some type of 2+2 ministry through the M-Div degree. That way (tongue firmly in cheek) these students will not have to have a mess at established churches they can create their own mess. 🙂 Seriously, we are seeing many students not desiring to spend the times in the established churches but start new churches. This is something needed in the west and northeast, but how many more churches are we going plant in the Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, and Charlotte metro areas? Should we not seek ways to strengthen established churches. I can guarantee that if the funds pumped into start new churches were pumped into established churches one would see a church planting boom we would never have imagined.
Blessings,
Tim
Jeff,
The analogy that you and Fred use — that of a band-aid being ripped off — is a good one. There is only one slight (actually big) problem with this approach by the new NAMB — it is contrary to the intent and letter of the GCR Final Report and Recommendations. The existing strategic partnerships witht the State Conventions were supposed to be “phased-out” within seven years. Now, 10 months in, we are having “partnership” agreements given to the States. Let me ask you, Jeff. Did your Executive Director have much input in the drafting of the new partnership agreement with the Dakotas or was it delivered to him already written by his NAMB “partner?”
Some might be tempted to find a loophole in the seven year requirement by stating that “10 months is within seven years.” That is technically correct, but we have “legislative history” to interpret what this means. The interim GCR Report, issued in February, called for a “four year phase-out.” When that didn’t fly, the GCRTF changed it to seven years. No one can argue with a straight face that what is being done is in keeping with the intent and language of the GCR document, unless of course there was really no intent to take it slow. I guess we’ll have to wait until the GCRTF records are released in about 14 years. 🙂 Again, this does not bode well for so-called “partnerships” between NAMB and the State Conventions.
Bro. Tim,
I believe your analysis is spot on. If there are very few (supposedly) seminary graduates called to pastor existing churches, but rather the overwhelming majority are called to plant new churches, then wouldn’t it make sense that a way must be found to get funding to plant all these new churches, even in places like the metro and suburban areas you mentioned? It does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots as one looks at the radical reorganization of NAMB in particular.
Through the BCNM, my church supports several church plants in New Mexico. Most of these are contemporary. I’ve got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is for churches to receive funding from Southern Baptists to plant churches and then, once said churches are established, to redirect their missions giving away from the SBC’s cooperative missions efforts through CP. If CP funding was good on the front end, shouldn’t it be just as good on the back end? Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
From the conversations that we had at the board meetings last week, I got the impression that the new partnership agreement was arrived at through mutual discussion and negotiation. Of course, I can’t say much more than that (mostly b/c I don’t know much more than that).
I share your concern over the violation of the “spirit” of the GCR time line. I just don’t know how much sway we can hold to slow it down either. One of the issues that came up when we met is the fact that a lot of states are digging in, but that may end up hurting them in the long run. Now that this thing has been approved it is kind of like a bullet train. Standing on the tracks and hoping it doesn’t arrive will be dangerous to say the least In a place like the Dakotas it would likely be fatal.
Jeff,
Thanks for the additional information and insight. I would concur that the new NAMB process is akin to a bullet train. The Dakotas may not be able to get out of the way. New Mexico and other states, however, may tell NAMB that we don’t really need their partnership money. That remains to be seen. I’m glad that it seems there was a mutual discussion between the Dakotas and NAMB. Not sure that has been the case everywhere.
I would disagree with you at one point. I believe that the new NAMB is not only violating the spirit of the GCR recommendations, but the intent and language itself. This is problematic and indicative of what is happening at the top levels within the SBC. As Frank L. points out below, no one at the top seems to be listening to the grassroots. I don’t look for that to change unless the grassroots speaks out forcefully. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I’m curious what people think NAMB and IMB should be doing? Just look at the apostolic pattern. If we have any respect for Scripture and its emphasis on the local church then missionaries alone don’t cut it. Anywhere missionaries are going and seeing people won to Christ should necessitate church planting. The two go nearly hand-in-hand, and if one could exist without the other it is certainly church planting over missions (since any biblical church will be doing missions to its community anyway).
Of course, given the bang-up way in which the SBC emphasizes discipleship it shouldn’t surprise me that people would see a need for missionaries and not one for church planters.
“Of course, given the bang-up way in which the SBC emphasizes discipleship it shouldn’t surprise me that people would see a need for missionaries and not one for church planters.”
Todd, could you elaborate on this statement? What specifically is the problem you see that exists with the way discipleship is emphasized in the SBC? Perhaps you could tell us how you see discipleship being emphasized in a church plant? And how long does it take to disciple someone who comes to the LORD? Thanks, Hariette
Hariette,
My first elaboration on this statement would be how many SBC churches (or at least the vocal ones) seem to operate on only a partial understanding of the Great Commission. There is often a neglect of the portion that says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you,” as people rush to latch on to “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” As far as I’m concerned, baptism means nothing if the church in some form isn’t there to follow up on the rest of the person’s life (which, by the way, parachurch does not equal church). This is why I said that missions is pointless without church plants, since life-long discipleship is primarily the responsibility of the church (cf. 1 Peter 5.2, Titus 1.9).
I would further support this statement by pointing to the various types of programming and study material used by our churches which, again, for the large part are focused on conversion and only a negligible amount of discipleship (and most of that bordering on legalism/moralism).
As to the question of how I see discipleship being emphasized in a church plant, it is exactly what I said above about church plants and missions. Missions and by extension church plants should only be happening (in my opinion) where gospel-preaching churches are not already in place. I think people have a jacked up view of what planting is and just how available good churches are outside the South and make all of their decisions based upon a geographically isolated view of the world.
—–Todd, are you explaining your point about the “bang-up way” churches “emphasize discipleship” by saying that “many” select “vocal” churches, are ignorant concerning the Great Commission? I’m sorry. That seems a rather broad brush swipe of “vocal” churches. (could you tell me which particular churches classify as “vocal”?)
Maybe it’s the word “discipleship” that’s hanging me up. To me, discipleship is an ongoing, continual, process of edification, sanctification, and tolerant understanding that though I may teach truths, the Holy Spirit grows the person and completes the person as He sees fit for that particular individual. Church leaders are not the all to end all in the process of a Believer’s life. However, it seems to me that to disciple a new convert, one must help them understand the “moral” responsibility they have to God and man.
Holiness is not “legalism”. Sanctification is not “legalism”. Application of God’s principles is not “legalism”. Understanding the workings of the local church and her mission to reach the lost by sending folks who are called by God to go to the ends of the earth, is not “legalism”. Baptizing is not legalism. Sending missionaries is not legalism. Teaching believers to aspire to teach others through Sunday School and Wow, and Mission Friends, is not “legalism”.
It’s discipleship. Sending missionaries is as much a part of the Great Commission as oxygen is to the flow of blood in the heart. The blood cannot move throughout the veins without the presence of oxygen. We must go in order to preach in order to baptize and then to make disciples so they will “go” and “preach” and “teach” and “baptize” and “make more disciples”. A missionaries objective, in my education of the purpose is to win souls and use those souls to grow indigenous churches with indigenous leadership. Perhaps things have changed but I don’t think so.
At the risk of hijacking this thread, could I ask again for you to be a bit more clear about the “partial understanding” of “vocal” churches in the SBC and “the bang-up way” the SBC emphasizes discipleship? Are we saying the same thing with different words? thanks for the encounter Todd, selahV
“Is the Southern Baptist Convention a “very small part” of God’s activity in the world?”
For goodness sake . . . look at the impact of one small Southern Baptist woman missionary many years ago in China . . .
and don’t ever ask such a question again, please.
It’s not ‘Kingdom’ thinking to count numbers, or money, or political influence, or size of churches, in order to measure the impact of a community of Christian people in this world.
The SBC has it’s treasures in ‘the little way’ of the Kingdom . . . don’t forget that.
Christiane,
I think perhaps you may have misunderstood my question or at least the context. It was in response to something that Vance Pitman was quoted as saying: ““God is alive and at work all over the world. We as the Southern Baptist Convention are one very small part of that.” In trying to be more charitable, I may have been less clear. One can get the sense from Pitman’s quote that he does not view the SBC as something special, but rather just (his words) “a very small” part of the Kingdom.
While it maybe true that Southern Baptists, in the whole scheme of things, are a very small part of God’s Kingdom work, the message this conveys is that Southern Baptists are not really special. Perhaps this is not really the message that he and others truly want to convey, but this is what some of us hear. I personally think that the SBC, including some of our missionaries — Lottie Moon as you reference– have played a significant part in God’s Kingdom work, particularly in the 20th and into the 21st Centuries. We are not a perfect people, but I do not want to give the impression that we are nothing special either. Hope that helps clear up any misunderstanding you may have had about the question I asked. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Yes, Howell, I’m sorry if I mis-understood.
The thing about ‘effectiveness’ in the Kingdom of God is paradoxical, because sometimes it is the little ones, and the small things of this world that have the greatest impact against evil, in ways that we do not always understand.
For example, the smallest act of human kindness can be used by God more powerfully than the might of great people ‘in authority’.
God measures differently than we do. What we may see as ‘small’ and ‘insignificant’ in the scheme of things, He may use in an intervention that can change the world.
Perhaps that is part of the mystery of the ‘stable’ and the ‘manger’? C.S. Lewis, in his Narnia series, once wrote about it, this:
Queen Lucy: “‘Yes, in our world too, a Stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world.”
Sorry I misunderstood you.
I see Todd and Howell’s points…
I think it would be a more appealing conference if the focus was more in the direction of “how to help established churches get more hands on and involved with church planting in America and across the globe.”
Make sense? I do believe the emphasis on church planting IS exactly what NAMB and IMB should be focusing on, but we need to do it in a way that doesnt ostracize established churches. Sometimes it seems it is established vs. planting rather than established leading planting. And this goes back to the fundamental problem of an “organization” planting rather than churches planting churches.
The SBC needs a strong emphasis on church planting, but it needs to emphasize in a way that says “churches let us help you plant churches” and not “churches do what you can to help us plant churches.”
“churches let us help you plant churches” and not “churches do what you can to help us plant churches.”
EXACTLY Matt!!!
Grace for the Journey,
Let me second what you said and Greg echoed. Amen and amen. Strong churches are the best means of starting new churches. Just like strong disciples are the best means of making new disciples.
I know my opinion does not matter much, but I’ll give it anyway because I have a new iPad keyboard and want to justify the purchase.
Some on this thread have indicated that the sum and substance of being a pastor is to put everything into NAMB’s push to plant churches. Put on the blinders and let NAMB show you how and why.
That sentiment would be laughable if so many apparently did not swallow it lox, stocks, and bagel (feeling a little Jewish). I won’t be wasting my time at the Pastor’s Conference or buying the CDs. I’m up to my eyeballs in being a pastor and church planing is not all I have to contend with.
I say that as a pastor who has started two SBC churches (one in partnership with the Home Mission Board and one with a hardy, “Bless you, my son” from NAMB). I’m in the process of starting two more: one in a partnership with five other churches, and one as a mission of our own church. We also support a pastor of an SBC church in a pioneer area. We also gave more to Annie Armstrong than Johnny Hunt’s church and give 10 times the amount per capita to Lottie Moon than a prominent mega-church pastor.
So, I was rather amused that some young preacher boy here defined me as “should be ashamed” because I’m not a lock-step supporter of the misguided, myopic vision of NAMB, and by extension, the Pastor’s Conference.
I do have reasons to be ashamed: that’s just not one of them. I wonder if young, impertinent, prideful preachers have anything to be ashamed of 😉
Know what I do when I don’t like the cast or theme of a particular show? I don’t watch it.
I began not to identify with the pastor’s conference around ’01, and stopped attending after ’05. Here’s a suggestion from my own experience. If you don’t think you’ll enjoy the pastor’s conference for whatever reason…don’t attend. Book the extra hotel night for the back end instead of the front end, and stick around for the final session of the convention, which is usually the IMB report, and the highlight of the week.
“”I can guarantee that if the funds pumped into start new churches were pumped into established churches one would see a church planting boom we would never have imagined.””
Brilliant insight. Sadly, I don’t think anybody at the top is listening.
If by established churches you mean churches that are 150 years old with 150 members from the same clan that won’t allow the church to grow for various outdated reasons, then I disagree because that church is not only not successful now but wouldn’t be successful giving away free lunches for the next 150 years.
I’m amazed at the number of posts that show great contempt for a church that is established. It seems the longer they have been established, the more contempt.
Apparently some people on this thread know which established churches God has declared are beyond His love and care and which are not.
How about a little contempt for all (and in my state many if not most) of the “new” church plants that fizzle and die before turning five years of age.
How about a little contempt for the “new” churches that took over an established church and ran off everyone who had built the church, called it “new” and claimed a “church plant.”
So much on SBC Voices seems to be discussed in an “us/them” context. It’s like the people on the front end of the ship don’t care if the people on the rear (fore and aft for Navy folk) sink. If one end sinks, everyone gets wet.
The denomination will not splinter, but explode, if this mentality takes hold in any significant way–and I’m not confident it won’t. Some posts smack of the same attitude as one who speaks ill of their mother because she is less than perfect.
She (the established church) risk her own life to give us life. Jesus called her His Bride. I think that should count for something.
I’m for church planting as component of our NAMB strategy. I think it is headed for a major difficulty as the strategy is now outlined. There are some good ideas, but some poorly articulated or poorly developed strategies.
I don’t think we –SBC– can flourish with an attitude of contempt for a church that is 150 years old but not perfect.
The only issue that I could see with established churches is, oddly enough, the same issue I have with newer church plants.
Tradition.
In established churches, you run into walls of “this is how it’s always been done” or programs which long ago became obsolete, outmoded, or inefficient but the church either still maintains it, funds it, or requires staff to manage it because, well, that’s what they’ve always done. Obviously, exceptions do exist but I would maintain that if an established church really looked at all of its programs, I would wager good money that more than one program could either be scrapped completely or replaced with a program that has been developed that is more geared to the community around the established church.
On the other hand, it has been my experience that newer churches view tradition as something that is completely evil and do everything in their power to NOT establish traditions or routines to certain aspects of their church. This actually results in a congregation that cannot fully develop a sense of belonging which is why many newer churches actually fail before your expressed five year mark.
In conclusion, a church ought to seek to develop traditions to develop a sense of belonging for the congregation, but the church also must maintain a sense of change in order to not become a prisoner of the very traditions that they established.
Bill I like your balanced approach especially the idea of “maintaining a sense of change.”
Good point. I have served churches from 200+ years old to 2 years old. The most dysfunctional one of all was a little over a hundred. At the 2 year old one, I was the third “regular” pastor, plus there had been 3 or 4 interims. We received limited funding from the BSCNC (I think $300/mo my first year, less the year after, none after that). I was told they expected at least 3/4 of the plants are expected to die within 5 years. My question was and still is, “Then why not do more ground work to determine which ones have the greatest changes of success, establish fewer of them, and give more financial help to you do start?” No one has answered me yet.
John
I am in total agreement with Matt–NAMB should be saying to the local church, “Let us help you plant churches.” And I really think this is what they intend to do. However, this way isn’t going to be by simply pouring money into established churches. Unless we change the majority of hearts in SBC pulpits towards wanting to plant (say, by having a conference devoted to emphasizing it’s benefits and necessity!) then all I see handing a check to established churches doing is increasing the amount of Lifeway VBS material and extra-small baptismal robes being purchased.
One thing I always tell people is that the generic SBC congregation is not prepared to stomach what a successful church plant in Boston or Montreal or London looks like. They aren’t prepared to fund a church which spends most of it’s time in discipleship and seeing few converts. They would rather send money towards some missionary who can come back, show pictures of a herd of people on a plain somewhere, and talk about how many hundreds of “decisions” were made during their ministry. That’s just not going to happen in the Northeast (and I would argue that that’s not happening in any substantial way on that plain either). That’s the culture that needs to be changed and I am hopeful that that is what NAMB is trying to do.
It seems only the ‘new churches’ are worthy of support…like new churches don’t have ‘baggage and problems’? Why do we think planting churches is the be all to do all? Frankly, it is simply another ‘method’ or ‘program’ to the “programmed to death SBC denomination”. In addition NAMB is inBiblical by not having the ‘plant’ to be from the local church, ‘planting’ is NOT necessarily evangelism, and their emphasis is MEGA CHURCHES in large targeted cities. As one state quickly observed, “It is only healthy churches that should be planting churches(and they will) by their own initiative. NOT the heavy handed cash laden efforts of NAMB.”
Casey,
You mentioned NAMB focusing on megachurches in targeted cities. I don’t know if this is necessarily NAMB’s problem as it is the SBC’s. I participated in and observed several of the recent strategic city campaigns by NAMB and I can attest that the overwhelming failure of them was that they were trying to export Nashville and Atlanta to the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast. This isn’t going to work. The cultures are too different.
But then I wonder, is it just NAMB that’s causing this, or is it the churches who under gird NAMB? I mean, NAMB gets its money from the same place all other SBC institutions do: the cooperative program. So, how do you think their funding would go if they were to start supporting multiple expensive plants in urban centers that reach at most 25 people a year a piece? What if they started embracing Calvinism? What if they questioned the golden calf of making people who receive SBC funds pledge to abstain from alcohol? I wonder if the problem with NAMB has not been and is not the problem with whose running the ship but more with whose closed, stubborn mind is sitting in the pews writing the checks?