Survivor Nashville? 2
Topic: SBC| Written by: Paul Littleton|Denominations become self-perpetuating. They exist to exist. To survive. But as we’ve all seen from the TV show Survivor, once everyone gets into survival mode things start getting ugly.
When denominations and denominational entities begin to exist for themselves, for their own preservation, the denomination is in decline. When denominational leaders (the ones we used to call “servants”) begin acting in self-preserving ways the denomination is in decline. Some people will tell you that the problem begins with the denominational entities and flows down to the churches. Others will counter that unhealthy churches make up unhealthy denominations. Reality is that the relationship flows both ways.
The Southern Baptist Convention is in decline. It hardly matters that “membership” is up if every other indicator is down - including weekly attendance, baptisms and the percentages given to maintain the denomination and its ministries. Can it turn around and will it?
I am, by nature, an optimist. The glass is almost always half full. In fact, I often wish I was a postmillennialist. But it will probably come as little surprise to know that I am not very hopeful when it comes to the future of the SBC.
I think we are too institutionalized. Adrian Rogers once called the Cooperative Program our sacred cow. If it was a sacred cow then it has nearly become a fourth person in the Trinity today.
Some of our leaders share in concerns about what we are becoming and have become, but most are too invested to do anything that would lead to substantive change. If the structure of our denomination were to radically change then their jobs might change with it, so there is often too much at stake for them.
Some of my blogging friends do not believe the SBC can change apart from those leaders taking the lead. They also believe that it won’t happen, so they have left blogging about “Baptist” stuff altogether. I don’t particularly blame them.
But if things continue as they have been for the past 25 or so years what will become of the SBC? What follows are some of my thoughts. I’m not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I think I can follow some trends and perhaps draw some reasonable conclusions from them.
Let me begin with the implications I see in the dwindling attendance numbers at annual conventions and other SBC events. If the denomination continues to decline the Baptist Identity folks will win/maintain control of the convention because they will be the only ones left who care about it enough to hang around. Of course, if the convention continues to dwindle they may be left with very little to hold on to, but have it they will, nonetheless.
If that happens we can probably expect to see much of what we’ve seen for the last 30 or so years. The same old same old evangelism conferences, the same old same old pastor’s conferences, and the same old same old programs. They will likely continue their present effectiveness as well. I don’t think the SBC will thrive with thinking that says we need to keep doing what we’re doing (or go back to doing it the way we used to), but to try harder. Honestly, that is what we are already doing - or at least trying to preach ourselves into doing - witness more, baptize more, learn more theology. Do what we do, just do more of it and with more passion and energy. I don’t know. Maybe that will work. It hasn’t in my lifetime, but perhaps things will change. I’m not hopeful. But the SBC has a long history of revivalist thinking, so I may well be in the minority (just keep doing what we do and pray for a mighty outpouring of the Spirit in revival and we’ll be back in business).
Meanwhile there are churches needing assistance in other ways and they aren’t getting it because we’ve allocated all of our resources to maintaining what we already do. If we quit doing it this way there are a number of older folks who are used to it this way (and who typically give most of the money and are the majority of those who even show up) who will complain about it. Go ahead. Just try to do something radically different with your state’s evangelism conference. Or skip it one year for a completely different approach. You’ll be able to hear the wails and cries and complaints from a thousand miles away.
Our state conventions can’t all afford their own Catalyst conference, or Q Conference, or Desiring God conference. So we’ll just line up the same speakers we had at our evangelism conference/pastor’s conference three years ago and have another go at it. Meanwhile, all of the attendees laugh at Junior Hill’s jokes and get excited by Herb Revis’s fiery presentation and homespun stories, and return to our churches where attendance, baptisms and giving continue largely to decline (and those that are growing are almost exclusively doing so at the expense of the dying Methodist church or the troubled Baptist church down the street).
My own opinion is that we neither want to re-think how we do what we do, nor are we able to. And the results will continue to show as more and more choose to stay away from the things we do.
Of course, a denomination is neither sustained nor doomed based upon attendance at denominational events, but people do often vote by their absence and they are voting in the droves. Without some form of personal contact with the entities we help support how long will that support last?
Next up: what about the money?
March 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ichabod
March 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I guess I wonder why it even matters. You keep talking about the denomination continuing to do the things it does, but just more of them…I think if I had my way the SBC wouldn’t really do anything, it would just consist of a few clerical staff that oversaw and distributed IMB and NAMB money. Why do we need a denomination to plan evangelism conferences and print out Sunday school material? I know that in its simples form my denominational setup would leave some very important questions unanswered, like pastoral and missionary education, I just don’t see the importance of a bunch of denominational programs. A few really healthy churches could host all of the pastors conferences that were necessary, and I would hope a few really healthy churches could provide all of the pastoral training also.
Will someone with more of an appreciation for denominational structure please comment on how much denominational programs and conferences even really matter, even in the “SBC heyday” when they were supposed to work.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
The ultimate measure of support is the money.
Of course denominaitons and movements come and go.
I stick it out because of the positive that I see. Also, we have the ability to have an impact. I have seen that in my own life.
Abandoning the denominational cause is not necessary at this time. A lot of good is happening and our generation, in my opinion, is being called upon to lead. Leading in this day will take kindness, a servant spirit, persistence and wisdom. It also requires us to reject the idols of perfection and hurt feelings.
Of course, nothing is permanent. And God may call us to new and different things.
The one thing I know for sure is when I feel as some do (and I guess I put Kerygma and others in that camp that truly believe “Ichabod” reflects the current status), I will move on.
Life is too short, and my emotional and spiritual health are too important to be fighting over something that I feel is not worth working in. I will start or join something new about which I can be proud, and not spend my life on yesterday or things that disappoint me.
That doesn’t mean Kerygma or others are wrong. It’s just what I think would be best for me.
“Embrace the good, endure the bad, ignore absurd.”
Louis
March 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Since each SB church is autonomous, are Southern Baptists actually a denomination in the formal sense?
Our convention is only the place where we do business.
The Cooperative Program seems to be THE only thing that makes it structurally possible to look like a denomination.
Ben Macklin
March 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
It seems to me that, when “leadership” disregards the true sentiment of the rank & file, and particularly where something like the CP is supposed to be what binds us, then in fairly short order, the cooperation will be reduced to the perfunctory sending of money. When that happens, prayer for the ministry goes in the dumper.
As will the ministry, eventually.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Robin is absolutely right. I’ve studied this thing pretty closely the past couple of years, and for the life of me, I do not see the purpose for the majority of what we do denominationally. We have HUGE churches all over. Couldn’t they host a lot of this stuff? What is the purpose of associations? Hardly anyone knows. But, they could be doing SO MUCH more if we focused more on them instead of the national stuff. I really think that we’d be much better served if our state and national structures were about 1/5 the size of what they are today. We’d have a lot more money for missions and maybe we’d do it a lot better. People think that I’m crazy, but will someone please tell me what we are doing on a state or national scale that our churches could not do if they were directly working with each other. I am even talking about seminary training. Why couldn’t that happen on a local church level, if a some churches in a city partnered together?
Anyway, I will remain SBC and our church will continue to give to the CP because good things do happen. But, I don’t believe that we should farm out our mandate. We have a Bible, the Holy Spirit, and gifted people. I’d much rather partner with people I am in relationship with and know that they care about our church and ministry than continue on the way that things are going.
Oh well, forget it. We’ll just send in another check.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Alan says “What is the purpose of associations?” and then later asks “Why couldn’t that happen on a local church level, if some churches in a city partnered together?”
How far (down) we’ve come! Local churches partnering together is exactly what an association is supposed to be. Larger churches helping smaller churches to do things they cannot do alone.
Robin asked about the “SBC heyday”. In my lifetime the SBC has never been perfect. But no human institution is. But in the old days, “SBC” was a trademark much like McDonalds. Wherever you went in the world, if you attended an SBC church, you felt at home. Oh, some few were high church. Some had organs and others guitars. Most just played the piano. But you found folks who loved the Bible, studied it for a lifetime (adult Bible study was emphasized more than most other denominations), sung about heaven and sin and salvation, and most of all preached Jesus as the Only Way to the Father. You found an invitation at the end of every service, providing an opportunity for those the Spirit was drawing to faith to make their decision for Christ.
The old SBC was a “rope of sand” (James Sullivan) where power was in the local church, and the denominational structure (associations, state conventions, national leaders) worked hard to meet the needs of local churches. Seminaries, hospitals, mission agencies, children’s homes — things individual churches could not do alone — were supported by freely given CP offerings. At least 2%, but how much was determined by each church.
Fundamental doctrines of the “the Bible is God’s Inspired Word,” Trinity, Jesus, church polity, baptism by immersion, redeemed membership, Second Coming and the like were held by the vast majority.
Lord’s Supper (open/closed), women deacons (or not), local church leadership elections, programs and the like varied from church to church.
The glue that held the SBC together was not the CP per sec, but missions and evangelism. SBC churches with women deacons and those without pooled their money to send out missionaries. The CP was the financial means to do this, but the CP was only a means to the missions/evangelism end.
That changed in 1979. In that year the SBC voted to engage in a Bold Missions Thrust: to reach every person in the world with the Gospel by 2000. Perhaps the self-pride of that audacious commitment (reaching the world for Jesus, alone) was part of the problem. In any case, that same year launched the CR, which sought to make “doctrinal purity” the glue to hold us together. Those who opposed “doctrinal purity” reforms, seeing in them more a power play than a spiritual reform, were labelled “liberal” or “moderate” and were defeated.
And so, in year 2000, few in the current SBC even remembered Bold Mission Thrust, but we achieved the BF&M2000.
There was a lot of freedom, a lot of trust, in the old SBC that does not exist today. But with the freedom came diversity — and in some few cases, there came extremes unacceptable to the majority of SBC’ers. Inerrancy of Scripture was the hingepin of the reformers — defense of the Bible — and yet the term cannot be found in the BF&M2000.
While I did not agree with everything the “old SBC” did, nor did I agree with every leader, I knew my offerings were going to help missionaries who had given their lives to win the world to Jesus, to care for orphans, or help the sick. Because SBC leaders listened to churches and associations and state conventions (bottom up), the denomination reflected what most churches already believed. Today the SBC is far more top down. I still give my money to the church, trusting the Lord to use my offerings for His purposes — I leave it to Him to judge those who misuse convention funds for personal gain.
So just when post-moderns are wondering about “why have denominations?” our denomination is wielding more top-down power than ever in its history. And then we wonder why younger pastors and believers no longer attend conventions. Why seminary numbers decline. Denominational programs dwindle.
Yet, there remains 40,000+ churches, giving $100 million+ to various denominational entities, and that is no small thing.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Paul Littleman,
I really hope I never have to meet you. were you dropped as a child? You tear down the work of the saints, the work of the Lord, and the hinder the work of the Kingdom. It would have been better…
K
March 30th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Kevin Michael Crowder,
You remind me of something Groucho Marx once said: “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”
March 30th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Paul & Alan, you are absolutely right! How many future saints of the Kingdom are we missing because funds that could have sent more missionaries are tied up in multiple levels of organization replicating the same activities? What would Jesus say?
March 30th, 2008 at 5:26 am
My opinion: Years ago, we began treating the SBC as something it never was intended to be. The SBC simply is a tool (one we’ve become very sentimental about, like a hammer or circular saw that we pamper and clean but seldom put to work) each affiliated congregation may use in order to share the gospel further–just as is the state convention and the local association. Our churches may share a theology without sharing the millions of dollars that we do–the congregation I serve decided almost 100 years ago, when many of the churches represented by bloggers here weren’t yet begun, what it believes biblically–so we really don’t need each other for theology. But if we will faithfully carry out the Great Commission tasks that the Lord has assigned to each of us, then we will find that God forces us to act as the brothers and sisters in the Lord that He has made us by giving some of the resources our churches need to other congregations–we will have to interact cooperatively for the sake of missions and evangelism in order to accomplish the Great Commission (i.e., even Saddleback or Prestonwood or etc. cannot do it alone). We’ve become friends with many of the association, state convention, and SBC-level employees, and that compounds our sentimental feelings about each of those organizations; but each of those entities simply is a religious nonprofit organization whose purpose it is to help local churches stay on mission. Period. By sending our messengers annually as we do (and serving on the entities’ committees), we have the opportunity to say how effectively the organizations are or aren’t helping our congregations accomplish the Great Commission.
If the SBC–or state conventions or local associations–aren’t relevant to the needs of our churches, and of the communities we’re seeking to reach for Christ, then it’s our fault, current culture or times notwithstanding.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:14 am
DrServe,
I was trying to say that a lot more can happen in associations than we think. I have become a much bigger fan of local associations than I used to be. That question regarding associations was meant to remind us of their purpose, not to question it. Sorry for the confusion.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
This is a huge topic and a very important one. When I read the opening statement — Denominations become self-perpetuating. They exist to exist. To survive. — it reminded me that David Garrison and others have identified conventions as one of the barriers to a church planting movement. This is exactly the reason a convention is a barrier — it takes a lot of energy and resources to maintain a convention structure. I wouldn’t, at this point, advocate or support a move to shut down the SBC because I think there are a lot of real benefits to a denomination/convention and hope that the SBC can become more relevant. But there has to be a conscious willingness and effort for our convention to avoid being a barrier to real Kingdom growth.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Since a couple of people have mentioned it, I’d like to comment about this idea that our associations somehow make it possible for a small church to participate in missions.
That might have been true in the past, when few of us had the means to connect with people of different cultures, but that just isn’t true anymore.
If you’re a small church, there’s no reason you can’t be personally involved.
It seems to me that a real missions network does not connect churches in order to do missions, it would connect churches who are doing missions.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I frankly I have no desire to ever attend a state or national SBC event. Like most fellas, I work full-time, I serve in our local Body and any free time is spent with the family He has blessed me with. Vacations are precious and a missions trip would come in first and foremost in planning how to use my time. I’m passionate for my Savior, passionate for His word and for people but any trip involving Indy would be going through to my real destination. I guess my bottom line is, how do you convince the average layman that they should participate in their convention?
John in St. Louis
March 30th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Stepchild -
If the association doesn’t function right, the local church actually CAN change it. The same is not true of the state or national conventions.
Our association (12 rural west texas counties big, divided into two 6 county associations) has two employees, a DOM and a secretary. Our DOM is very mission minded but was spending a lot of time putting together Wild Game dinners, Senior Adult fellowships, and leadership training. I introduced the idea of the DOM being the mission coordinator for each church in the association since no church in our region has even a part-time missions minister; he jumped at the idea. Now, our DOM really is directing and coordinating mission trips and making it possible for each church in the association to easily send people to mission sites around the world. Our DOM is no longer organizing rallies, except for the association-wide one that we have every year.
I believe we have resurrected the association and redefined its purpose. Hope others follow suit and free their DOM’s to help coordinate missions.
Ben Macklin
March 30th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Stepchild, you are absolutely right. If a DOM identified what some of the churches in the association were already doing and then got other churches to partner, a lot of good would take place. What you have just said is why we do not need all of the infrastructure that we have created. I’m not saying that everything needs to go away completely. We can still have a State Convention. Maybe we just need around 8 missionaries instead of 66 for a state that has over 3,000 churches and 80 associations with only 4 million people in the whole state. 60% of CP money in Alabama stays in Alabama. For what? So we can replicate services again and again and again.
B. Macklin,
That is awesome! I wish that more DOM’s and associations would function that way. You’re right though, it is the only organization in Baptist life that is even a little responsive to suggestions or questions.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I suspect there will be quite a few speeches in Indy extolling not only the virtues but the complete necessity of a national convention. :o)
After reading ‘Spending God’s Money’ and witnessing my own huge church burn millions on fancy this and fancy that, I have decided we are too rich. We cannot handle it. We are Laodicea.
I say, circumvent the bureaucratic institutions with their fancy titles and big salaries and support God’s front line warriors. I believe this is what Heart Cry Missionary Society is doing outside the SBC.
We call this the ‘blitzkrieg’ method in business. :o)
March 31st, 2008 at 12:40 am
I would say this about state missions: Some states are rapidly developing in urban areas and need church planting networks with better funding. Accountability is the problem, though; just ask the BGCT and the valley mission scandal.
I wonder why we have an NAMB anymore. The IMB pulls out of every country when it has a functional national convention that is capable of sustaining a strong Baptist presence. It seems as though if we apply the same criteria for missions in North America that we apply in international areas, we’d have turned North American missions completely over to the states long ago. Perhaps only the Western States and Canada need further NAMB funding. I know of a hispanic pastor in our town that is considered a NAMB missionary.
Ben Macklin
March 31st, 2008 at 3:42 am
Ben Macklin,
You said,
“The IMB pulls out of every country when it has a functional national convention that is capable of sustaining a strong Baptist presence.”
This isn’t entirely true. In Western Europe, every country we work in has a strong (though hopelessly irrelevant) Baptist Union. Our criteria here for “leaving” would be when every people group and population segment of 100,000 people or more is more then 2% “evangelized.”
Just wanted to be sure you knew how it works here.
Also, I’m glad you were able to change some of the dysfunction at the associational level. I imagine others have found that “right” is left to the bigger churches who give more money.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:46 am
“Our criteria here for “leaving” would be when every people group and population segment of 100,000 people or more is more then 2% ‘evangelized.’”
We should put an emphasis on the San Francisco Bay Area then. Even though Golden Gate is out there, there is not any coordinated work. They have over 6 million people and are less than 2% evangelical.
I get what you’re saying. I was just thinking about places in the U.S. and how we need to see some of them as mission fields the way that we see places overseas.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:52 am
Yeah Alan, but San Francisco is in a christian nation (wink)
March 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
God doesn’t need a denomination like the Southern Baptists. We need him.
Greg Harvey
March 31st, 2008 at 10:22 am
Paul,
While I would not totally agree with all the statement I find this kind of discussion so much more productive. Present your premise and lets find a solution. If that leads to an individual thats one thing but to carry out personal vendettas against Dr. Patterson is not addressing real problems. Maybe more would be inclined to voice their opinion and we may actually find a solution. If some see Dr. Patterson as the problem you live in a small world with a small god.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:41 am
David (#11),
I agree that we treat the SBC as something it was never intended to be. The SBC was intended to be a convention of churches who cooperate together to do more effectively what we cannot do separately. What we have become is a denomination. Too often our entities do not view themselves as servants of the churches but as self-perpetuating structures with the authority to guide and instruct the churches.
That seems like a really odd concept given our history of Baptist polity. Nevertheless, here we are. The big question is “Do we know how to change and do we have the will to do so?”
I have seen some hopeful signs in many local associations. Our local association here went through a complete makeover a few years back and it has been a much-needed change. It sounds like Ben Macklin’s association has gone through the process as well.
But on the state and national levels I do not see those conventions having any interest in any sort of meaningful change. We haven’t come to the realization that this isn’t Grandpa’s SBC. It isn’t even our father’s SBC. But it is still structured like our Great-grandfather’s SBC.
A convention the size of the SBC is like an aircraft carrier. They take a long time to turn. I just wonder, in the context of our current technological age where information is doubling in less than a decade, where people no longer work at one company all their life, where fluidity and flexibility are required in nearly every area of life, if an aircraft carrier-like organization can survive?
As I look across the SBC at our entities (not necessarily our local churches, though we all know that many of them would be/are in the same boat), I’m just not certain we have the will to do what is necessary to change.
I still believe in the church. I’m just not one of those who believes the SBC or our entities are churches.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:11 am
What you say reminds me that a definition of insanity is to continue to do the same things, but to expect different results. We must be insane.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“I guess my bottom line is, how do you convince the average layman that they should participate in their convention?”
John in St. Louis,
As pastors and leaders we should NOT convince the average lay person to participate in the polity of the convention, but we should convince the average lay person to participate in cooperative missions in order that our churches might fulfill the great commission in an Acts 1:8 format.
As to the Convention polity, that takes a special calling and gift (imho). It is not for the new and/or weak Christian. We as leaders of churches know that the Convention has a long term impact on the nature and convictions of churches and members of the SBC–even doctrine.
Tha battles we fight are for the long term stability of true doctrine in the Convention. It is important work. It is vital work. It is God’s work. It may not be your work.
But please pray for those who desire that God’s Word be lifted up among the nations for years to come. Somewhere I read that Adrian Rogers called the Cooperative Program a “sacred cow.” Bellevue Baptist Church does not need the cooperative program to be an Acts 1:8 church. They have a budget many million times larger than even the Missouri Baptist Convention. My church has a smaller budget than that of the Bellevue toilet paper fund. My view of cooperative giving and missions will always be higher than that of Dr. Rogers, a man who’s life I respected and admired…and even still enjoy listening to him on the radio.
Our churches must be directly involved in the Convention. We are the Convention.
Kevin
March 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Paul,
I think this is one of the best, if not the best, series of posts on the blogosphere I have ever seen.
The National Convention [my opinion]:
The Seminaries–a very nice luxury, but not necessarily a necessity.
The NAMB–not a necessity in my opinion. Local churches [together or separate] can plant other local churches.
The IMB–extremely helpful in supporting long-term missionaries.
I think it comes down to long-term missionaries for me. Yes, SB local churches can go on short term mission trips, but, from a practical standpoint, can they in some sense [by working together or not] support and provide the necessary training for LONG-TERM missionaries?
Grace
Benji
March 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Let’s play a little game. What would it look like in the SBC if NAMB didn’t exist? I’m not saying it should be dismantled, just asking what would life be like if we didn’t have NAMB? Here are some starter questions…
1. How would church planting be handled? Would it be a natural expression of a healthy church?
2. Who would plant? Would it be “trained” folks in a professional manner or more indigenous, with local people starting churches despite the fact they have never been to seminary?
3. How would more localized conventions work? In areas of the country where baptists do not thrive, like the northeast, upper midwest, and pacific northwest, how would those conventions function? Is there a need for organized work there? (Many of the funds for ministries in these areas come from NAMB.)
4. NAMB’s existance, according to NAMB.net, is “The North American Mission Board assists Southern Baptists in their task of fulfilling the Great Commission in the United States, Canada and their territories through a national strategy for sharing Christ, starting churches and sending missionaries, in cooperation with Acts 1:8 Partners.”
The question is, do we need a national strategy? Should it not be more indigenous and localized?
Again, I’m not advocating for or against NAMB’s existance. Since I live in Delaware, the impact on us would potentially be greater than in other parts of the country.
But while some are saying NAMB isn’t necessary, it might be a good discussion as to how things would look if NAMB didn’t exist and that money would diverted to other places.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
ARE YOU PEOPLE CRAZY? Listen to yourselves. In all these comments only one of you has had enough common sense to get close to the real heart of the problem.
Look at what you are saying. You are jumping on the author of this article saying he must have been dropped as a baby, you call him an idiot, and gripe about the programs of the SBC. YOU ARE ALL HEATHENS!
This man is right. The SBC is dying, and quickly. It has been dying ever since the Fundamnentalist took it over and made church politics the main thing rather than JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED. The SBC is a denomination, a group of churches, souls for whom Christ died. YOU CAN NOT TAKE JESUS CHRIST OUT THE CHURCH, REPLACE HIM WITH DENOMINATIONAL POLITICS AND BACKSTABBING, AND EXPCECT ANYTHING LESS THAN A DYING BUNCH OF FOOLS WHO PRETEND TO BE CHRISTIANS!
In my day, before all the crap started, JESUS was the reason why we had church. Jesus was the reason why we sent missionaries to foreign countries. Jesus was the reason why held revivals and sang praise to the Living God. YOU FOOLISH GENERATION! It is about JESUS, and NOT ABOUT YOU. I rebuke you all. May GOD the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have mercy on you all for it is clear that you have completely forgotten how to have mercy for one another.
Hanging my head in shame to be counted among you,
Tim Wade
March 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Does anyone know how many church plants have been started in the past three decades and how many of those starts are still in operation?
I support NAMB but Have thought for a long time there is a better way to plant new churches.
Now, as I serve again in NC I do not see the need for new starts (anglo). We have so many. Some of the ones we have are near their end if they don’t reach somebody for the next generation. And most if not all of these are not doing much if anything to reach out.
I have had some ideas but that is all they have been. I don’t know where to take them because they are so different than what we are doing now. Something the current and past leadership really don’t want, or so it seems.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
My former church (Sojourn Community Church) was a church plant by NAMB and a local SBC church in Louisville, KY, just miles from the seminary. While the first thought might be, “why do they need a church plant in Louisville when there is a seminary there and multiple solid churches?” it does seems truly necessary. While almost all of the SBC churches of note in Louisville tend to cater to middle class and upper-middle class traditional white folks Sojourn is very different. THey intentionally planted in the Highlands, a very trendy part of Louisville characterized by, well pretty much every stereotypical element in the “liberal” world and made that “people group” their mission field. They are solidly orthodox, probably even theologically conservative, but their worship services are characterized by loud music and hip exposition. THe ministries include an art gallery, coffee house, workspace for artists, concerts and poetry jams. When I was there attendance was about 300 on a Sunday, now they average around 1200 in four services and a large portion of those are people converting from very liberal backgrounds. They really are reaching people that no other SBC church in Louisville is even targeting and I don’t think it would have been possible without NAMB funds to get it off the ground. Maybe churches would have stepped up on their own, but I have a hard time believing that.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I am involved with a church start up; our official start date is in 4 weeks. We have been doing “house church” meetings at the pastor’s home for several months. It’s kind of like the church in the previous post; reaches out to people that the SBC churches in the area aren’t reaching out to. And I’m not sure what we would have done to get this started without the NAMB.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Jon L. Estes,
I’m surprised to hear that you don’t see the need for new churches. In your opinion, how many are enough?
I think there aren’t nearly enough churches. I don’t mean more “First Baptist” buildings across the street from each other and fighting for parking space. The last thing we need is more of the same. But as long as people are not in church, and God is calling leaders to plant new churches, I think that we can never have too many.
Benji,
You ask whether churches can provide the support and long-term training for missionaries. I assure you that they can. In fact, I believe that the church is designed to do just that.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I thnk Jon Estes is right about the need for a greater number of churches. I live in a very rural county in Michigan but we have about 120 churches. I would say 100 of those are declining or near dead with no real plan to do anything about it and truth be told no real desire to do anything about it. We have plenty of churches here if the churches would get back to their God given mission.
David
March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
David # 29 # 3
As one who is has very close ties to NAMB, I think it is very possible to serve the western states and conventions with greater stewardship of the CP and Annie monies NAMB recieves. That could be used in the above mentioned states. The Exec Committee or IMB could hire a small staff to handle the distribution of funds. Each State convention has a staff that can do what NAMB does on the local field. Part of the philosphy of Church planting currently at NAMB is plant as many churches as you can and let the strongest survive.
There is way to much duplication between NAMB and the State conventions. I think the State Conventions would love to have the millions currently being spent just to keep the NAMB facility open on a daily basis. A great deal of money is wasted in the development of videos and TV programs (a new video studio currently under construction at NAMB)and new carpet, paint, windows in office doors. There is so much change,movement
and staff leaving NAMB that they have lost their influence with Associations and State Conventions and this has been going on for 10 years.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
It would be interesting to see what would happen if local SBC churches woke up to the fact that there are other, competitive Mission-Sending Agencies out there. If the IMB and NAMB got the idea they had to prove their worth, in comparison with others, to get the dollars.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
It was Carl Bates, I think, who said if the Holy Spirit left the SBC it would take us six months to notice, we were so well organized.