Each year prior to the SBC annual meeting the IMB reports the total for the previous year’s Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions.
Lottie Moon offering tops $153 million
The $153 million is a huge sum but is about one million dollars less than last year’s record total of $154 million. The decrease is less than one percent.
As a pastor, I always led my churches to try and give a little more. Almost always, they responded. I know things have changed in SBC life and that the LMCO, while important, does not carry the same priority with churches that it once did. I wish it did. The LMCO is the best way to spend a missions dollar in my view.
A few of things leave me flummoxed about pastors, churches, and mission spending these days:
1. I know some churches that promote an overseas mission offering and send it all to the IMB as if it were LMCO. I don’t understand why church leadership doesn’t promote it as the LMCO for International Missions. Seems to me that every generation of SBC members has to be educated. Why not make it a continual process even in a church that isn’t old line SBC but likes SBC missions?
2. Some churches partner directly with IMB and give heavily. I presume that this stream of income is not reported as LM. Perhaps this impacts the LMCO total.
3. It is within reach for even the smallest SBC church or individual to participate directly in “overseas” missions and ministry. I hardly hear of a church that doesn’t tout the fact that they send groups to Honduras, or Haiti, or India, or West Africa or other destination. Some partner with IMB ensuring that strategic goals are being served along with continuity in the work. It is not politically and ecclesiastically correct to say it but Southern Baptists fritter many millions on mission travel that has little or no impact on Kingdom work.
4. I appreciate that IMB is positive about whatever amount they receive from Southern Baptists. I, on the other hand, am entitled to express some disappointment.
5. Changes are coming to the missions funding model that we have had for generations. I wonder what such will entail.
To those here who gave and whose churches gave, I commend you for investing in global missions in the best way possible. If not as hot and sexy a topic as transgenderism or politics, the LMCO ought at least to be acknowledged in any SBC-oriented site.
Brilliant, insightful, and scintillating article. The crickets and I are agreed on it.
“The LMCO is the best way to spend a missions dollar in my view.” — William Thornton
My very favorite part of the Great Commission Task Force Final Report said: “We call upon Southern Baptists to honor and affirm the Cooperative Program as the most effective means of mobilizing our churches and extending our reach.” Additionally, the task force states that “the greatest stewardship of Great Commission investment and deployment is giving through the Cooperative Program.” http://bpnews.net/33055
Every church I have ever served has supported Lottie Moon very faithfully. I believe in doing so, as a special love offering gift to Jesus at Christmas. However, I do not believe it is the best way to spend a missions dollar. I believe that distinction goes to the CP.
I appreciate the comment, Rick.
Once I learned that state conventions suck up 60+% of a CP dollar and that those dollars were spent on some staff jobs that had nothing to do with anything legitimately called missions (and I’ll not remind anyone of the huge spending on real estate and offices for staff), I concluded that LM was my best destination for a missions dollar.
As the primary channel for funding the panoply of entities that make up the SBC, the CP is important. Both of us can leave it to churches to decide which is most important.
When you find state conventions persuading member churches that more of their church CP dollars should stay in-state, please inform me. It’s going the other way.
William,
Do you think the framers of the GCR *really meant* those lofty statements about the CP? Or do you think they simply included them as a political compromise to pacify all those who felt the CP was being diminished in the report?
Or, maybe they were honest people with integrity and godly character, who actually believed what they said?
No, that couldn’t be.
Now, Dave, there’s no need for sarcasm (i.e., “anger’s ugly cousin”) here. Mine is a legitimate inquiry about the missions priority between LM and CP.
William was brave enough to state his belief that LM is a better missions value than CP. I’m wondering how common that is in the SBC at large, even and especially among our leadership, because it departs from the very thing we stated in the GCTF Report.
I hope I can call out what I see as a pretty clear discrepancy without charges of challenging anyone’s honesty.
We know, from the facts that Ed Stetzer says are our friends, that many SBC leaders (like Kevin Ezell and David Platt) were in the habit of giving very little through CP and a whole bunch through LM when they were pastors of churches.
We also know that, once elected to SBC positions, they each “saw the light” and have vocally endorsed the benefits of the Cooperative Program.
If they say they honesty felt one way about these matters before their election, and they now completely feel the other way, then fine.
I just remember that before the GCR report came out there was a lot of similar talk concerning LM’s superiority over CP. We are still hearing it from time to time. Sometimes, the LM numbers are even celebrated first in reports, which was not the custom in the past.
My appeal is not to charge anyone regarding honesty issues. My appeal is for us to be clear and outspoken about the GCR finding that the CP is the greatest missions channel we have as Southern Baptists. It is our best use of missions dollars.
We said so in 2010. But today, I don’t hear nearly as much of this kind of talk. I hear more talk like William’s, which is why I asked him if he thought SBC leaders really DO believe, deep down in their hearts that CP > LM or that LM > CP.
Rick, you are the one who accused these leaders of acting duplicitously and dishonestly.
You cannot act the Torquemada then plead victim as well.
If you publicly accuse men of dishonesty and sinful behavior, you ought to provide evidence or expect, at the very least, that some of us will challenge your accusations.
Dave,
I did no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth.
I never accused anyone of acting duplicitously or dishonestly. You took it that way and charged me with talking about character, honesty and integrity.
The truth is, my topic had to do with the statements in the GCTF Report that say CP > LM and the reality that, both before and after the GCTF Report, people like William were and are suggesting that really LM > CP.
EITHER people are having a change of heart, as Ezell and Platt did, and the CP is truly viewed as the better missions option OR there was something of a compromise with the CP advocates to assure them that CP would officially be the top priority in the report–even if it might not really be the top priority on a personal level in the hearts of some of framers.
I can envision someone on the committee voting to put something in a report because they believe it is best for the denomination, even if they personally have convictions that happen to contradict that.
It’s like the deacon who doesn’t want to fund the drums for the youth personally, but votes to go along with it because he thinks it is best for the church.
I did not make charges. I asked about priorities and political realities. Do you really doubt that such negotiations take place when legislation is passed at the SBC or in any other organization?
My question is, “Was the CP priority language a practical concession or a truly heartfelt conviction?” My reasoning is that if it were truly a heartfelt conviction I think we would hear more CP > LM talk than we do. I’m trying to find out how many people agree with William that LM is the best missions dollar investment.
I never said that such practical concessions were dishonest or indicative of poor character or any of all that stuff you said that I said.
Let me depersonalize for just a minute and just look at the whole. If the SBC truly values the CP over LM, why are we not talking about it twice as much?
One possible explanation is that, deep down, many leaders in the SBC are like William–truly valuing LM over CP.
Rick, do you have any evidence that these people were frauds? That’s your implication. I know you take a contrary position with most people on Voices–and I have no problem with that.
But, I think impugning mens’ characters by making insinuations like this is not the most godly way to make a point.
There are many reasons, I think, that Conventions struggle to accomplish better giving patterns (just like in a church). I know I struggle to give more to my church. It is not because I’m a “fraud” (at least I hope that is not the reason), but because my life is so fluid that sometimes things change that simply prevent me from doing what I really want to do.
I am not a real fan of the whole “Convention thing,” but I don’t think all the leaders are “bad” people trying to foist a conspiracy on the churches.
Sometimes, I think I may err in my posts to suggest that I think this is the case, but that is an error I should try to avoid in discussing Convention matters.
It doesn’t require fraud. Most of the GCR group were megachurch people and very few megas make CP the primary channel in dollars or percentages. Since the CP is in the aggregate the largest single sum of missions money given through SBC churches, one can call it the primary channel.
Rick has a valid point, though. But, who cares? The SBC rarely refuses to elect a president with sub-average CP percentages.
William, I disagree. I don’t think implying nefarious behavior (I was using fraud in a non-judicial sense) of individuals without evidence is “valid.”
We differ in that regard.
It seems to me Rick is not making an accusation,
but simply asking a question.
David R. Brumbelow
Come on David B.,
Phrasing accusations as a question is still making an accusation.
IE….”Does anyone else think that __________ deceived/acted duplicitous to get a job he wanted?”
When you ask whether someone is telling the truth, or whether their public statements were intended to deceive, it raises the idea that that person would, in fact, make such a statement.
One would not ask such a question if, in fact, they did not hold it possible that these people would make deceptive public statements intended to deceive the convention.
I would never say, “Do you think Adrian Rogers really meant what he said….” Of course not. We assume that he said what he meant and meant what he said.
By Rick’s insinuations, he was besmirching the character of these men. He was raising the idea that these men would, in fact, lie to the convention and say things that they did not believe.
There seems no other way to interpret his insinuations.
He actually made another such swipe at the honesty of folks yesterday on the political post – one which several of us assumed to be an insult to the honesty (in general) of Calvinists. It was out of place in the comment stream, but it was pretty clear what was intended.
So, insinuations of dishonesty are not exactly shocking coming from Rick.
Sometimes it seems like Non-Calvinists talk more about Calvinism than Calvinists. I saw it on the political post yesterday as well. Like where did that come from?
Rick,
I have found that many times a person who accuses another without evidence is someone who would do the same or a similar thing.
So let me ask you straight out:
Do you always say what you *really mean* Or do you chose to simply sound sincere but really just say some things as a political or another type of compromise to pacify others?
When my family goes out to eat, if I would like to have BBQ, but others prefer Mexican, I will sometimes “go along” with the Mexican food decision as a practical matter, even though *deep down* my preference is BBQ. It’s a group decision and my concession yields to others. The group decision does not line up with the position I personally hold. Come on. That doesn’t make me a liar, dishonest or besmirched in character.
You guys are really coming at me hard on this. I did not accuse a single person of anything. I insinuated that there sure seems to be a lot of LM>CP hype for a convention whose official position is the exact opposite, and I asked William, the one person brave and honest enough to truly state he thinks LM>CP how to explain this discrepancy.
By the way, the secret takeover parody yesterday was a bit of a joke. I suppose I should have used an emoticon, but that’s another story.
I am bit surprised by this. I know what went from my church and my state overall to Lottie Moon was significantly higher in 2014 than 2013. But my state convention is somewhat small and I guess other states must have experienced declines.
#3 a million times amen. Something about churches that think they can do more with less than those who live there and are entrenched in that world. I’ve been around too many Christians (especially in youth/college groups) who are willing to go around the world for missions, but not across the street.
Thanks for the nudge William. As one of the younger guys here who has some reservations about giving through the state conventions, I definitely agree that the LMCO should not be abandoned but rather lifted up as a great way to support global missions. Plus, the young guys (myself included) need to ensure that they really are affirming the good things in the SBC (because there are many) and not just always nit-picking the stuff they’d like to change. We won’t bring about any change if we’re not actively supporting the stuff that’s working.
I continue to read, with interest, the continued disrespect and disparaging which goes towards the State Conventions. For me (no I am not a YOUNGER GEN person) it is indeed sad. It is sad that we feel like we have to ‘tear down’ that part of the SBC structure which has built us up.
My experience only extends to the last 40 years, but in this time I have watched as the staff of state conventions have given unselfishly of their time and giftedness to extend and expand the Cooperative Program and thus, the Kingdom of God. They have spent a great deal of time away from their families to assist the local church. They have worked tirelessly to educate and inspire member churches to ‘cooperate’ (hmm, what a word) together for both ministry and mission. These State Missionaries have been a resource for churches, small & large. Many of these state missionaries received ‘pay cuts’ to assume these responsibilities which they felt ‘called to.’ And they approach their task at the state level with a sense of ‘divine call.’
Has some money (the christian word, ‘resources’) been wasted along the way? Surely it has, but I would submit ‘very little’. But what church ministry has not done the same. I submit that it is the State Conventions, given the task of promoting the CP, that have done a pretty good job.
Additionally, I know personally of two state conventions who now are operating at less than 50% of the personnel than they used to have. Have they cut any of the services and help to the local churches? Probably, but more often than not, the answer is no. Has their service became a life-saver for many churches? I would answer ‘YES!’ So rather than ‘cutting the ministry to the local church’, the other staff is now attempting assume the responsibility of 3, 4, or 5 people.
(Expecting a vicious attack to my words) I expect some will counter: “If they can do this, then the other people were not needed and this reduction of state missionaries is good.” Problem is, our state missionaries are relegated to doing their jobs ‘okay’ instead of ‘well.’ Yet, the States and their Missionaries are still forging ahead with plans to help the local church because they know that the greatest mission field in the world today, is the USA. This begins in what we affectionately call, “THE MAINLINE STATES.” I live in one of those states and while the darkness pervades the culture, our state missionaries are ‘on point’ trying to assist their churches in being revitalized, reinvigorated, revived & on mission for our Lord.
The one thing which has not been said about the State Conventions is that they helped to build the ‘base of support’ so that there is a ‘larger pie’ of money to fund needed ministries and missions. Let us not be surprised if, as we starve the states, the CP suffers more and more. I have little interest in arguing the 60% or 50/50 or any of the rest BECAUSE, I trust those in leadership. I am privileged to know close to a half-dozen of the State Exec personally. Each one of these men is doing his best to make the best Kingdom use of God’s money given through the CP. Each Exec is highly-aware that the organization he leads is funded by “God’s Money.” What a responsibility!
Sincerely, in my humble opinion (and sincerely, I mean all of my remarks in a humble way ), I tell a story to illustrate what I feel is happening among the SBC.
A farmer told his neighbor, “I’m going to ween my mule off of food.” The neighbor express his doubts, but left the farmer to his plan. Three months later they ran into each other at the feed store. The neighbor said, “Well, did you get your mule weened off food?” The farmer said, “You know, I tried to do this gradually. The first week I gave him half of what I had previously fed him. The second week I halved it again. The third week I did the same. The fourth week I had him down to almost nothing & was so proud.” “Yea and then,” asked the neighbor? “Then that mule up and died on me.”
Killing State Conventions, I believe, will not strengthen the LMCO, Missions, or the CP. On the converse, I believe it will ultimately kill the SBC. It will not be quick or easy, rather it will be slow and painful. THE IMB and NAMB may get a bigger slice of any pie that is left – but I deeply believe, it will be a very small pie.
Jerry, no one is calling for state conventions to be killed. I don’t dispute anything about your description of SC staff being wonderful people and servants. Clearly, though, churches aren’t exerting themselves to give more money to SCs. They are giving less. The state conventions themselves (technically being the assembled messengers from churches at a given SC annual meeting) are voting to cut their percentages.
Why?
William,
The honest reasons that I blog so little are many. First, I really don’t have the time to sit in front of a computer and type all day. Second, I don’t see the ‘positive’ impact from it….GRIN….that being said, I just happened to open this up again this morning so I will respond to your question of “WHY?” and the statement that “States are voting to cut percentages” and then I’ll probably move on to the other things my day demands.
You are absolutely correct that state conventions (those assembled once a year) are voting to cut percentages. The reason, as I see it (everyone will not agree), is because the State Execs and their Staff are leading their Finance teams to respond to the GCR (Grand Currency Redirection, oops no Great Commission Resurgence – sorry) that was voted on in Orlando. The reason that the process is so slow is not because they are being ‘bull-headed’ or ‘uncooperative’ but rather, the leadership is trying to do this in such a way as to give the staff who are to be eliminated, by the change in the financial structure, time to make a natural transition to another position. This has happened many times already in the state where I reside. These cuts are being proposed by the leaders who are attempting to cooperate.
Sincerely, I have heard no one, in the groups I’m a part of, believe that the this redirection of money is in the best interest of the Kingdom over the long term. Certainly, it may help IMB & NAMB in the short term (but I believe, that will be short lived). The general consensus among people I speak with (admittedly not in the thousands, but perhaps a hundred or more) believe that as the states are weakened, the CP will become weaker and weaker which will make the “PIE” (gifts to the CP) become smaller and smaller. All of us know that the CP giving is down – this is a matter of record. However, if we continue withdraw the one place (State Conventions) that ‘fertilize’ (as it were) the seed of CP giving, the pie may well disintegrate completely. And we would return to where we began as a denomination, with Societal Giving. The very thought gives me a headache. Call me an ‘old-fogey’, but we already have too many Sundays where we are asked to place the emphasis is placed on something else other than the God we are supposed to WORSHIP. (I.E Memorial Day, Independence Day, Right to Life, Mother’s Day, Father’s day, groundhog )
Sincerely, I do not believe that you nor the majority desires to KILL STATE CONVENTIONS, but what I DEEPLY believe is that the ongoing de-funding of these entities will ultimately deploy “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” Recently, I read an article in the Alabama Baptist that one of the changes which are being made (on a year’s trial basis) is that, beginning July 1, the Evangelism Department will be entirely part-time. The leaders have thought it through, have a plan, and are attempting to work the plan so that we have a ongoing, vibrant, & consistent evangelistic emphasis in the state. To me, this is Exhibit A of what I call “Unintended Consequences.”
You may ask, “Jerry, what is the answer?” My response, “Systemically, I don’t know.” I offer that no ONE person holds the systemic answer to our difficulty. It will require a team effort of people who see the value in every facet of Southern Baptist Life (I.E National, State, Associational, institutions & entities) coming together, praying it through, & offering a comprehensive resolution.
That said, “I know” what “you know”and we both deeply believe. The real issues which confront us – are not systems, programs, or even theologies. The real issue is a spiritual one. When persecution (Like we are seeing at the hands of ISIS) makes it way into this country, into our communities, and walks into our church buildings, we will be forced to face up to the true spiritual issue. I fear when this comes, CP, IMB, NAMB, and the SBC will be the least of our worries. Call it a colloquialism, but we need real, authentic, landscape-altering REVIVAL in GOD’S CHURCH. We need a “Pentecost” among God’s people. Then these discussions will be moot.
Thanks for hearing me out. I pray that each of us will keep our eyes on the ‘prize’ and finish the race “HE” set before us. Grace to you.
I appreciate, Jerry, than when you do sit down to contribute you make a major effort.
I notice that your earlier lengthy comment is used elsewhere. It is good to air out opinions in different circles. Confirmation bias probably is as Southern Baptist as fried chicken.
William – haven’t had fried chicken, but probably should go get some. Be Blessed.
Great post and comments.
The question about the value of churches sending people to the mission field is a good one.
Even comedian Louis CK raised that question with regard to secular aid trips overseas. He questioned whether sending a teenage girl to help build a structure in Guatemala was truly a help, or whether it would be better to have a skilled person do that.
On the other hand, it probably is good for so many individual churches and believers to go overseas to see the work and to feel as though they are a part of it, rather than having the exposure limited to professionals.
Still, churches might be a bit more humble when discussing their efforts.
Previously said,
“…those [CP] dollars were spent on some [state convention] staff jobs that had nothing to do with anything legitimately called missions (and I’ll not remind anyone of the huge spending on real estate and offices for staff), I concluded that LM was my best destination for a missions dollar.”
And the IMB never overspends or wastes money?
David R. Brumbelow
Not an assertion that I made. Sure, Lindsay was right about IMB buying a copier and the money being missions money. State conventions have had difficulty outlining a vision that churches view as worthy of more of their budgets.
In spending my own or my church’s mission dollars I believe IMB to be a better value, not perfect.
The new numbers from Lifeway about the condition of the SBC is staggering and sobering….
The new numbers being reported about the condition of the SBC are sobering and staggering….
Lottie Moon Christmas Offering….down a million dollars from last year
Membership — down 236,467
Undesignated receipts — down $20,911,913
Worship attendance — down 160,238
Baptisms — down 5,067
“Great Commission giving” — down $139,954,641
“Total mission expenditures” — down $64,443,328
http://bpnews.net/44914/sbc-reports-more-churches-serving-fewer-people
No comments about the new stats that were released?
I mean, these kinds of stats should make us all sit back, and take a deep breath….then, get on our knees and pray for God to bring revival to our Churches.
Sad…smh.
David
I thought I just read in my state paper that CP gifts were up 2+%.
Part of the problem is getting the right information. The stats you state present a bleak picture if for no other reason than the number of times you state, “down.”
It’s not so much the year-to-year stats (or quarter-quarter), but the overall trend for the last 40+ years. We have been using a smoke and mirrors trick to make our stats look better, it seems to me.
I’m not an expert on stats but I do have relatively good sight for an old geaser. When I read an article on anything being “up,” in the Christian community in America, it doesn’t jive with what I see everyday.
For example, most people in our church think we are doing just great. Depending on how one phrases the reports, a case could be made as such. Many good things are happening. Our school ministry is flourishing. Our baptisms are on the move–heading South.
Whatever trend the National Convention is having, I can’t imagine it is much that different–over at the long haul–than our local churches. I see the “church-planting” statistics and things look like they are booming.
I also know that 5 “Twenty-five” member church starts (all from persons already saved) may not be all that exciting 5 years from now when 4 of them are gone and the other is about 50.
Somehow, I have to retrain myself to become an evangelizing leader. If it doesn’t start with me, it probably is not going to start a fire in anyone else.
Whatever is the problem–evangelism is the answer.
Jack,
It’s like with the Lottie Moon Offering. The positive spin put on the offering was that it was the second largest offering in history, or something like that. BUT, it was a million dollars less than the year before. A MILLION DOLLARS! LESS!
So, sometimes, people try to put a positive spin on something that’s really bad. I think these stats reflect that we’re having hard, bad times in the SBC.
We need revival. We need for our Pastors to have a new, fresh passion for God, which needs to spread to the pews. And, we need it to spread thru out the SBC leaders, as well. We need revival. We need our people to return to their first love, and have a hatred for sin, and a love for worship, Bible study, prayer, soul winning, and missions. We need to be shaken from apathy and complacency. We need to plow the hard ground, which so sadly describes the hearts of too many of SB’s pastors and laypeople, alike. That ground needs to be plowed, and made soft, where things can be planted and grow, again. We need revival.
David
A little optimism please, David. The LMCO was down <1% and exceeded only by last year's total. That's not what was prayed for or worked towards but is still very good.
Jack, the CP was up against budget goals 2% or so, partly because of the trend Rick dislikes, autonomous state conventions voting to cut their portion.
ummm…when we’re down $21 million dollars in giving, and $140 million dollars down in “Great Commission Giving,” and down 5,000 in baptisms, then it’s time for concern. Those stats are TERRIBLE.
Also, getting a million dollars less in the Lottie Moon Offering is nothing to sneeze at.
Before tomorrow…I’ll try and tackle the numbers. Some context is needed. I’m curious about GCR giving but haven’t looked at it.
Honestly, what I think we are seeing is the same thing we are seeing nationally, as the recent Pew Research stats demonstrated. Those people who just attend because they are supposed to attend are dropping off. There are fewer people coming to church because that’s what they do.
I’m guessing that the latest research explains our statistics as much as anything. Not saying things are good, but they aren’t cataclysmic either.
We are in a time of societal adjustment. It’s not just Southern Baptists, but Americans who are just not going to church as much. Mainlines are in a free fall. We are in a trickle down. It’s a cultural shift. We need to adjust to that.
Things aren’t good is an understatement.
These stats are bad.
David
Dave,
I think the trend of those nominal “cultural Christians” no longer attending our churches is only part of the reason for these continued declines year after year. Yes, it is a factor but there is more involved. The SBC has theoretically lost 700,000 members over the last 7 or so years. I say theoretically because we all know that many churches lie to artificially inflate their membership roles. But, the corresponding declines in categories such as average Sunday attendance and giving show us this decline is real.
If we are to face reality we have to see that the older generation of believers is dying off, and there aren’t as many in the younger generation to take their place. Trust me, I worked in college ministry and can attest to the fact that most kids that grow up in church are gone by the time they hit college, and they aren’t coming back. On the whole our discipleship is putrid, and our evangelism is weak and scared. Until we gain a sense of boldness in evangelism and a desire to disciple our children in the faith, nothing will change in these trends.
It may be comforting to say that the decline is all just the nominal Christians floating away, but that’s not the whole truth.
Rick asked me a question above then repeated it. The first was about GCR committee members the second changed that to SBC leaders.
1. Yeah, I think they meant it but lofty language on the CP is pro forma.
2. Yeah and Nah, they did and didn’t mean it because most GCR members were megachurch people. Megachurches give low percentages but high dollars to CP.
But all that is sooo 2010. You want churches to give more? Outline a vision, an increase plan, and persuade them. I’m all ears. A return to giving levels of 1980 is neither a vision nor a plan.
William,
Thank you for your answer. And I wish I had used your excellent Latin phrase “pro forma” to describe words that are, according to one definition, “provided as a courtesy conforming to a norm…which tends to be a formality.”
I believe your statement that most of the GCTF folks were megachurch givers of low percentages and high dollars lends credibility to my hypothesis that these CP words, though sincere, were nevertheless placed in the document more out of formality than passion.
I believe your “pro forma” explanation makes a great deal of sense.
I wonder how many of the people who are represented in the “attendance down” were also represented in the “baptisms were up” numbers?
Baptisms being down does not, contrary to the hand-wringing of some, mean that the gospel is being shared less.
Attendance being down does not mean that there are less Christians…I am one who agrees with Stetzer that we are not seeing a slide of evangelicalism – we are seeing a drop off of “nominal Christianity” – The “cultural Christians” who are not saved but attending our churches – are no longer seeing benefit to pretending anymore.
The church is not shrinking it is being defined. The wheat is being separated from the tares. The church has been bloated and now it is going through the refiners fire.
Note, the new testament knows nothing of a “nominal or cultural Christian”.
Tarheel,
Amen, and Amen!
“””The church is not shrinking it is being defined.””” Other than Stetzer’s opinion, there is no proof of this.
It is not automatic that if it gets smaller it automatically means it is getting better.
This is the danger of giving the opinion of an expert the weight of fact.
It is one thing to apply this to the attendance numbers, but then how do you put a positive spin on the declining money given to missions?
I can account for this in a number of “real-life” ways, no of which have to do with the church getting healthier or “more pure.”
The answer to the “Sky Is Falling” extreme is not “The Sky is Beautiful.” I don’t know if it is so much that Stetzer’s commentary was so far off, or the responses to it are out of touch with reality.
We have known for well over 40 years that baptisms have continually declined (not withstanding an up year here and there). At this same time, the mass of unsaved humanity has grown exponentially.
I’m with Dave the “V,” we need to take a serious look at ourselves in light of this present release of information. I will be making it a matter of special prayer at our Prayer Team Meeting tonight.
Um – I said that I am one who agrees with Stetzer – what I posted was my opinion – and even stated I am one who agrees with Stetzer – I never said it was fact. It was stated as an opinion.
Except the part about the New Testament knowing nothing of “nominal Christianity” – now that’s a fact.
I will also point out that the cries of “the sky is falling and evangelical Christianity is dying” is not necessarily a fact either.
Giving might be down because nominal christians might give as a part of their religious duty.
The church, the true Church, might be down, if it is down, it is because of God. In fact, if one believes and trusts that God is in control, then one knows that God can save even when the church fails to do its mission properly. Which, by the way, is always true. We as individuals, and we as individual congregations, and we as a convention, and we as part of the church in America, are not perfectly faithful to our Call.
What we want is to be included by God in His great work of building His people. Therefore we should seek to be faithful in all we do. But being faithful and reaping souls are not exactly synonymous. Some are called to reap, but others are called to plant or to water.
Mike, I agree that “might be one reason.” That’s my point. It isn’t the “only” reason or even the “most significant” reason, perhaps.
As far as it all being up to God regardless of what His people do, I am not a real fan of that theology. I don’t see that jiving with the Bible as I read it.
I think the reality is much different than what you outline, though I respect your right to hold that opinion. I think we both know where this discussion would lead. I’m not going to try to resolve the “determination/free-will debate.”
I think there is always reason for optimism eschatologically, but I think I have a great amount of responsibility in the here and now. I cannot simply “leave it all up to God,” when in the Great Commission He put responsibility squarely on my shoulders.
Now, I cannot resolve that paradox, but neither can I dismiss it.
My point is not to argue whether pessimism or optimism is the proper application of the statistics, but that obedience is the proper response. I think we agree on that.
Jack,
I know you were talking to Mike here – but I just want to comment on something you said:
“My point is not to argue whether pessimism or optimism is the proper application of the statistics, but that obedience is the proper response. I think we agree on that.”
Absolutely we can agree on that!