SBCOutpost

I have often joked that the Southern Baptist Convention is a quasi-religious incarnation of the enduring children’s tale by L. Frank Baum, known to most of us through MGM’s classic “The Wizard of Oz.”  Pastors and laymen from the hinterlands of Kansas make their way through a whirlwind of travel to find themselves thrust into a world of make believe, where Munchkins cower at the green-gassed apparitions of the Western Wicked Witch.  Where the brainless and heartless and cowardly converge along a golden road to visit the Emerald City and bow before the Great and Powerful Wizard, if ever oh ever a wiz there was.

When I was in seminary, a group of friends and I spent an evening typecasting our own version of the SBC using the characters of the Wizard of Oz.  There was the heartless and increasingly immobile tin man who wishes to cut down every tree of the forest in a massive programme of anti-global warming deforestation, the dimwitted and overstuffed scarecrow, and the cowardly lion who preens with verdant robes and picks fights he cannot finish and fancies himself a courageous king of the jungle.

The role of Dorothy was a tossup between the lead character and another prominent part of the broom-riding kind.  The munchkins, of course, are all those happy little Southern Baptists who are card carrying members of the lollipop guild and whose loyalty to the Great and Powerful Wizard is quite pitiable.  If they only knew the wizard was a charlatan equipped with little smoke and few mirrors they would probably defect.  Nobody, however, seems willing to break their little hearts and tell them the truth.

But all of that aside, I have come to realize that the Southern Baptist Convention is much like the Wizard of Oz and his Emerald City not because of the similarities to be found between the fictional characters and the real life personalities and caricatures that keep most of us snickering under our breath, but because the metanarrative is frighteningly familiar.

The whole thing is an illusion.  It is an institution that exists in isolation from reality.  Behind the curtain of the Southern Baptist Zion is nothing of substance.  But for a few days every June thousands of people enter the technicolor world of Oz and pretend as if what they are doing will actually make a difference back in Kansas.  For fifteen annual sessions now, I have journeyed to the land myself thinking that Oz was reality.  For fourteen of those sessions I think I was hallucinating in a field of poppies.

Which gets me to the main point of my hesitance about the longterm viability of this thing we call the Southern Baptist Convention, at least in its present form.  At the end of the tale, Dorothy and Toto go back to Kansas.  They know they cannot stay in Oz forever.  It was fun while it lasted, but there are chores to be done and family to be loved back in the wheat fields.

On the other hand, you have the professionals who live in Oz.  These are the men who lead our convention week to week, day to day.  Most of them don’t live in reality anymore.  They live in this fairy tale where the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission shapes events in Washington D.C.  They enjoy a world where theological education at a Southern Baptist seminary actually equips you for leadership in the local church.  They have gotten fat — literally and metaphorically — on the feasts and festivals of Cooperative Program supported luxuries.

The rest of us go home to reality.  But they just keep living the dream.

Which is why they are utterly impotent to do anything to address the malaise that now has swept over the convention.  And it’s why more and more of Southern Baptists are choosing to stay in Kansas with each passing year.

Interrupted for breaking news we continue Marty “Carmen Sandiego” Duren’s series we have themed, “Where is the SBC?” Since Marty dropped off the Outpost map some conjectured his displeasure with the Outpost. Instead, Marty has been living out of the reality he now experiences and is writing here in part 2.

We’re Not Who We Thought We Were.

One of the more replayed video clips over the last few years was that of NFL head coach Dennis Green of the Arizona Cardinals. Following a loss to the Chicago Bears in 2006, which his team had led 24-3 in the fourth quarter, came the inevitable press conference. An obviously ticked Green exploded like a man who’d been celebrating Cinco de Mayo for a month. “The Bears are who we thought they were,” has become a favorite line for sports fans ever since. What Green was saying was, “They had nothing on us. They were the team we prepared for and we let them off the hook. We should have won the game.” It was slightly more colorful in the original language.

In thinking through this series, the word “disintegration” was intentionally chosen over the word “collapse.” I do not think that we will wake up one morning in the next year to find that the United Methodists, the Lutherans, Episcopalians (in their various stripes) or SBC will have closed the doors and shuttered the windows. I do think that we will continue to see decreasing viability of meaningful gospel influence in these organizations to the point that, like water against a rock, the slow erosion results in an unstable foundation and eventual cessation of denominational existence.

Linked in Ed Stetzer’s warning shot were two papers by J. Clifford Tharp, Jr. one with the following chart indicating “Total Membership” and “Resident Membership.”

Tharp’s brief analysis included these three points: 1. Trends in Membership (both Total and Resident) are becoming very flat; 2. Total Membership is dangerously close to beginning to decrease; 3. The gap between Total Membership and Resident Membership is widening. Observant readers will notice that if the top line flattens and the gap between the two widens, then necessarily the bottom line is beginning or continuing a downward arc. On this chart, that means that Resident Membership is decreasing. As we know and will soon reconsider, Resident Membership itself is a misleading measure of biblical membership and should not be considered an accurate accounting.

We’re not who we thought we were.

A second chart (below) tracks SBC baptisms from 1950-2004.

As you can see, baptisms have remained virtually static for more than 1/2 a century (there is a minuscule increase of 45 per year). The US population in 1950 was 152,271,417. Non-stop growth brought us to 281,421,906 by the year 2000. In a non-scientific but well thought through series of observations, Nathan Finn suggests that the Southern Baptist Convention is probably reaching no more than 100,000 “unreached Americans” per year while in their book, “Who Will Be Saved?,” Paul House and Greg Thornbury write:

Statistics compiled by the North American Mission Board…reveal that as many as half of all adults baptized in Southern Baptist churches are rebaptisms of persons already baptized by Southern Baptist pastors. Another 40 percent of adults baptized are Christians from other denominations who have never been immersed. Only ten percent of all adults baptized in Southern Baptist churches are making first-time professions of faith.

And this from what is widely considered the most evangelistic denomination in the U.S.

We’re not who we thought we were.

In her new book, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, Christine Wicker takes both Southern Baptists and evangelicals to task for their faulty reporting of their actual membership totals. She notes, for example, that:

Only 7 percent of members who’ve been in a Southern Baptist church five years of less are true converts, meaning sinners who weren’t raised in the church but came through a profession of faith in Jesus. If you took out the Southern Baptists who married unbelievers and brought them to faith, hardly anybody would be left.

Behind the thesis is that there are not nearly as many committed, Bible believing, Bible following Christians in American as we have all been led to believe, the former Dallas Morning News writer (and former Southern Baptist) pegs SBC active membership at just north of four million. Though Wicker finds herself somewhere between an agnosticism and an reluctant atheisism, her understanding of what genuine church membership should be is decent. She refuses to acknowledge that the SBC consists of 16+ million members, stating, “How many members a church has is a pretty worthless measure of reality…[only] about two-thirds are even residents of the same town as the churches they belong to.”

We’re not who we thought we were.

Not content with exposing the SBC’s lack of clothing, Wicker also points out that the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) does not have its claimed and oft trumpeted 30 million members. There are sixty denominations that make up the membership of the NAE including the Assemblies of God, Church of God, Church of the Nazarene and the Evangelical Free Church of America. According to Wicker’s research, the total membership of the fifty member denominations listed in the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 2007, the American Religion Statistical Archives and the denominations’ own Web sites the grand total of the members is 7.6 million people. Active membership would be much less–less than half actually. So, what of the elusive 30 million count we’ve all heard. No one, not even NAE president Leith Anderson knows for sure. The 1990 NAE record listed only 4.5 total members.

We’re not who we thought we were.

What does this mean? Is the issue a matter of simple math? No. The issue is that, not only have we been well behind the population growth curve, we didn’t have as great a number in the starting blocks as we had been led to believe. Since every age group of baptisms is decreasing except those who are under five years old and since the number of those graduating from high school and leaving church is increasing and since the ranks of admitted unbelievers is the fastest growing “faith” category in the US, there simply are not going to be enough people to keep denominations, which are dependent on heavy financial investment, afloat. As denominationally oriented church members age and die (and they already are) younger people will not give tithes to churches that insist on supporting failing bureaucracies, thus leading further down the Post Denominational road.

We’re not who we thought we were.

1985. Some mark 1985 as something of a watershed in the survival of the Conservative Resurgence. It was the year of the Peace Committee appointment (the report came in 1987). It was the year of the Battle in Big D. It served the high water mark for messenger registration - more than 45,000.  It was the year the New York Times reported it unlikely the two groups vying for control of the SBC would find a way forward together. It was the year of the re-election of Charles Stanley. It was the year. It was the year of, “Where In the World is Carmen Sandiego?”

Marty Duren was a young lad - in his mid 20’s. Who knows where he was geographically or historically. In fact, who knew Marty Duren? Who cared? After Jimmy Draper’s alert the SBC was losing young leaders, Marty emerged as an interested “young leader.” Once the Lifeway message board devolved into something of a pointless exercise in the way forward Steve McCoy and Marty Duren initiated blogs of their own.

Marty is the originator of SBCOutpost.com. Too often critics assume Marty’s withdrawal from regular contributions to the Outpost signaled a separation from anyone who sought to keep the Outpost viable and alive. Recently, it was reported the Outpost would soon be defunct. Should the Outpost ever cease it will come on the back of sentiments similar to what Marty will explicate in a series he began today at ie:missional. Detractors, Baptist Identity constituents, and many others will break open a soda and celebrate if we ever fade into the history of Baptist blogs. Some of us believe those who need a fight need the Outpost. Something like the fact that Rush Limbaugh needs a Clinton in the White House.

So, with that lengthy introduction we will re-post Marty’s series here with permission. We will learn, “Where In the World is Marty Duren?”

The Impending Disintegration of American Denominationalism

Posted by: Marty Duren in Church, Culture, God, Gospel, Life, Mission, Missional, News

Ten months ago when I began this blog, I purposed not to engage in discussion about the denomination in which I have pastored, the Southern Baptist Convention, unless it crossed paths with a subject about which I was writing. This is one of those times.

A recent report from missiologist Ed Stetzer of Lifeway Christian Resources indicated that the Southern Baptist Convention, once characterized (because of its cultural dominance) as the Roman Catholic Church of the southern United States, has entered a downward trend of growth which, he predicts, may not turn around. If you are among those who haven’t yet, you can read the initial report here and the follow up article here.

As would have been expected, the report was hailed in some places (see Ed’s comment threads) and questioned in others. The question that does not seem to have been asked during this is simple: Has the time for heavily organized, bureaucratically inefficient denominational structures passed? My thesis is a simple one and flows from what I see happening:

The era of denominationalism is ending, therefore, time and energy spent attempting to revive them is not redeemed time.

Rather than reviving them, we should be having a planned euthanization. I will not be arguing “post-denominational” in the sense of personal preference or lack thereof, but “Post-Denominationalism” in the sense of no SBC, UMC, PCUSA, etc.

Though Stetzer’s commentary is specific to growth patterns in the SBC, all other denominations in the United States are and have been in decline with the single exception of the Assemblies of God which counts but 2.8 million members (2005). Even the respected National Association of Evangelicals has lost some of its luster since the fall of Ted Haggard, though, as we will see, it never had quite as much luster as was thought. Regardless of the denomination none have matched, via conversions, the growth rate of the population (excepting possibly the AoG), so in percentage of population terms all American denominations have been in decline for decades. At best, a few denominations have grown at the expense of others, the common scenario known as “swapping sheep.”

Is the motivation to “save the denomination” a good enough motivation to go into hyper-drive in funds promoting or doomsday scenarios? I don’t think so. When Jesus said to the people of Jerusalem, “Behold, your house [the temple] has been left to you desolate,” He was warning them that there system of belief was coming to an end. There were no more sacrifices needed, no more pouring out of animal blood, no more Day of Atonement; it was over. Their mistake was that they continued to cling to a structure that God Himself had abandoned. Shall we repeat the same mistake?

Writing with an eye to the Southern Baptist Convention, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary prof, Nathan Finn, recently asked:

So does the SBC have a future? It depends upon what you mean by “future.” I suspect the name will be used by some Baptists until Christ comes back. I also think the people called Southern Baptists will always have denominational entities that they financially support. So in one sense, I remain confident that Southern Baptists are here to stay. But if by “future” one means a vital existence in God’s economy, I have my doubts. Collectively, I fear we are too insular, too sectarian, too pugnacious, too “Southern,” too reactionary, too pragmatic, and for sure too proud to have any real future.

While I appreciate Nathan’s balanced thinking, I, for one, am not convinced that any denomination is here to stay and am convinced that the era, like the telegraph, is passing into the historical record and that we have entered the Post-Denominational (PD) era.

Commenting on Ed Stetzer’s original post, SEBTS prof Alvin Reid noted,

For several semesters I have asked our students “how many of you came from an SBC church?” The vast majority. Then I ask, “How many of you want to go back and serve a church just like that?” Almost none. These are seminarians, the ones we still have, and they see a serious need for change. Again, this is anecdotal and simplistic, but here is another idea–have someone do a survey of current seminarians to find out who they listen to on podcasts? Might be revealing.

This is not merely true of the SBC as other denominations are dealing with the same issues. No one is important enough to have cornered the market here.

Also responding to Stetzer was SEBTS president, Danny Akin, who said,

I could not agree with your assessment more! I go to bed thinking about this every night and wake up the same.We are in serious trouble. Our denomination is at a crisis moment and we will either repent, seek the forgiveness and mercy of God and perhaps experience a true and genuine revival from our Lord, or we will continue our present course and simply fade away with the Lord Jesus justly removing His hand of blessing.

But what if no amount of repentance and seeking of forgiveness will bring revival and revitalization to the SBC or any other denomination? What if, like the sacrificial system, their time has run it’s course and God is preparing a new thing? I pray that it will be embraced rather than feared.

Over the next few posts, I will be exploring why I think we will continue down the road toward a Post-Denominationalism world. We’ll see that the SBC and evangelicals have not had either the numbers or the power that we’ve thought and will continue to lose both in the US; that the Kingdom of God is shifting again (as it has before) this time from dominance in the West; and that technology has rendered the need for heavily bureaucratic, densely centralized, financially profligate organizational structures obsolete and that the lessening of the influence of denominations in culture will be inversely proportional to the influence of local churches networking in culture.

In late February the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma hosted its second Missional Ministry Conference. One of the featured speakers, Ed Stetzer, offered illustration of recent Lifeway Research during a breakout session. During the Q and A he sought to break down some of the technical features of statistical analysis for we average folks. I was left thinking it may be good to include a course in statistics for seminary students - and so we pastors.

I, like many pastors, tend to watch “trends.” For example, one of the trends I have watched over the past five or so years is attendance. Now that is not to imply some kind of weird disinterest in previous years. Instead, I began noticing attendance patterns changing in our church. I will go out on a limb and say ours is not the only church where attendance has “leveled” after a period of growth while we have continued to see additions to our membership over the years. Since we place such an emphasis upon the size of a church in order to imbue another with a sense of honor and prestige it is nigh impossible for we pastor types to leave attendance concerns to someone else. Why, when news breaks about a potential SBC President, it seems we always find mention of the size of church and the kind of growth of said church during the tenure of the “prestigious” pastor. But, I digress.

Growing up in an SBC church meant gauging “regular” attendance by weekly attendance. Over these past five years or so I have found we may need to re-think “regular” attendance. I cannot recall where I read it but it seems that we (SBC) have even adjusted our ruler for “regular” attendance to twice a month, and maybe even monthly. What do these patterns mean? We self-conscious types wonder what we may have done, who we may have neglected, what we have forgotten. After all, when attendance flags the most dreaded description has become, “plateaued or declining.” Yet, I wonder how often that particular category denigrates the work of a local congregation because analysts fail to take into account a host of factors involved in any given local context. When we see the trends we ratchet up our rhetoric and cast about for ways to invigorate and inspire to new heights (read: numbers).

Read the rest of this entry »

Art Rogers pointed me to a post by Timmy Brister. “Ministerially Speaking” is a euphemism for exaggeration. Many over the years have given a free pass to those of us who preach when we have overstated to make a point. You may have heard, or said yourself, “Now this is not ministerially speaking.” The reference indicates our own growing discomfort with the reality words mean something. Exaggeration should not pass as the truth.

I repost Timmy’s indictment on us all to continue to make my point our issues tend to be systemic rather than exclusively connected to a single persona. Had Timmy taken the same data from our church he would have made similar discoveries - and dare I say we all would succumb to the evidence of our own pastoral contexts. Tom Ascol’s repeated calls for accountability when it comes to church membership make the same point. Something is amiss when we pass ourselves off as something we are not.

Please note there the peculiar reason Timmy used the illustration he did. Rather than excoriate him, or me for re-posting, pause and think reflectively on the issues at the heart of this problem. Maybe you will offer a solution or corrective. This post is offered with the author’s permission.

“Ministerially Speaking”

“Though official statements still affirm the doctrine of regenerate church membership, statistics indicate a different reality for the great majority of Baptist churches in North America.”
- John S. Hammett, Professor of Systematic Theology, SEBTS

Introduction

A couple of weeks ago, I was sitting in class when my professor was discussing characteristics of biblical leadership, and during that discussion I learned of a term often used when talking about churches and their statistics. The term “ministerially speaking” is used when someone does not accurately present the facts or stats but rather exaggerates or embellishes the truth to their own benefit.

In Southern Baptist life, numbers and statistics seem to be a big deal. You will hear the defense and argument everywhere from the fact that we have a book in the Bible called “Numbers” to the pragmatic rationale of management principles for ministerial success. Over the course of my experience as a Southern Baptist with the heightened emphasis on numbers, I had become frustrated because of my conviction that we had auctioned the church off to corporate America and unrestrained pragmatism in the pursuit of upholding denominational dominance and triumphalism. Every time for instance, when you hear that we Southern Baptists account for 16+ million people, we of course are “ministerially speaking.” For example, while in 2004 Southern Baptists reported a total of 16,267,494 members, only 6,024,289 (37%) were on average present for Sunday morning worship. The 16 million is the number we report to the secular media, and the 6 million is the number we report to God–and that on a good day.

“Ministerially Speaking” in Focus

But at this particular juncture and season of SBC politics, “ministerially speaking” perhaps is best seen when Baptist Press announces another candidate for an SBC office. At the very heart of their reporting, you will find a lot of numbers, most of which comes from the Annual Church Profile database. For instance, let’s take the most recent candidate for president, Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Georgia.

Baptist Press reports,

“Cox has been North Metro’s pastor for more than 27 years. Under his leadership, the church has grown from 700 members to more than 4,600, with 3,600-plus individuals added to the church fellowship as baptized believers.”

I have to pause for a moment to emphasize a stat that I love, perhaps the most important of them all. Cox has been at North Metro for 27 years and stands as a testament to pastoral permanence in a flighty generation. I praise God for men like Frank Cox who find their life assignment in loving a congregation and leading them to reach their world for Christ.

But notice with me that the church has grown to 4,600 members with over 3,600 added through believer’s baptism. Those numbers are certainly impressive. But “ministerially speaking,” it could be even more impressive if you consider what Bob Terry, editor of The Alabama Baptist recently shared. In the February 21, 2008 editorial, Terry wrote the following:

“Other out-of-state speakers include Frank Cox, who is returning to the Alabama Baptist Evangelism Conference, and Herb Reavis Jr., senior pastor of North Jacksonville Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Fla. Cox, who previously spoke at the 2005 and 1998 state evangelism conferences, is senior pastor of North Metro Baptist Church, Lawrenceville, Ga. During his 25-plus years as pastor, he has led the church to grow from just under 500 members to more than 5,400.”

Now which is it? 4,600 members or 5,400? That’s a significant difference, don’t you think? But we must go on as more numbers await us.

A couple of paragraphs further in the same BP article, they add:

“The most recent information available, Southern Baptists’ 2006 Annual Church Profile Survey, lists 110 baptisms and primary worship service attendance of 1,737 for North Metro.”

According to Baptist Press, North Metro has at least 4,600 members but only 1,737 who show up on any given Sunday. We are not talking here about Sunday School, service, or ministry; rather, we are talking about those who simply sit in a pew on Sunday morning. Doing a little math will reveal that 37% of their membership are visibly present on Sunday (exactly the percentage from 2004 stated above), or put another way, nearly 2 out of 3 members do not attend “primary worship” services. Now the question then, is, why do we not talk about the numbers which are more realistic than the big, bloated numbers which so often get touted on newspaper write-ups and articles? But we must go on as more numbers await us.

Taking the same ACP data Baptist Press uses for their statistics, I have compiled the relevant data from 2000-2006 regarding North Metro as it is not really fair to look at a church over one year. So I wanted to see the church over a decent period of time, so I choose this seven-year period, and here is how the numbers shaped up:

Analysis

2000

3980 members
2636 resident members
141 baptisms
185 other additions
2003 primary worship attendance

2001

4000 members
2921 resident members
209 baptisms
246 other additions
2000 primary worship attendance

2002

4488 members
2960 resident members
140 baptisms
229 other additions
1425 primary worship attendance

2003

3931 members
3164 resident members
193 baptisms
219 other additions
1496 primary worship attendance

2004

4055 members
3278 resident members
140 baptisms
214 other additions
1676 primary worship attendance

2005

4188 members
3396 resident members
162 baptisms
199 other additions
1944 primary worship attendance

2006

4302 members
3486 resident members
110 baptisms
228 other additions
1737 primary worship attendance

Total Baptisms 2000-2006 1,095
Total Other Additions 2000-2006 1,520
Membership Growth from 2000-2006 322
Attendance Growth from 2000-2006 -266
Number of “Inactive” Members 2,565
A/A Differential* 2,615/-266
UCM Index** 60%

* A/A Differential = Total additions 2000-2006 / Total attendance growth 2000-2006
** UCM Index = 2006 Inactive Membership divided by 2006 Total Membership

The last paragraph is the totals of 2000-2006 combined. Take a moment, and consider these numbers with me.

First, while North Metro added 2,615 through baptism and “other additions,” their membership increased by only 322. What are we saying about the relationship of baptism and church membership? Ministerially speaking, the church grew by 2,615 members; biblically speaking, church membership increased by 322.

Second, again while North Metro added 2,615 during those seven years, they had a net decrease of -266 in primary worship attendance. What are we saying about the gospel and conversion when we baptized 1000+ people only to see a church decline in attendance during that same period? Ministerially speaking, the church added 2,615 people; biblically speaking, the church declined by 266 people.

Third, the total membership in 2006 was not 4,600 or 5,400 as Baptist Press reported but 4,302. But even with that number, the average attendance of 1,737 divided by 4,302 comes to 60% of the church not fulfilling their basic responsibility of worshiping God and hearing the Word preached on any given Sunday (a total of 2,565 “inactive” members. What are we saying about church discipline and the covenant community we call the local church? Imagine a corporation (if we go that route) where only 4 out of 10 of its employees ever showed up to work. How would it continue to function? So ministerially speaking, the church is comprised of 4,302 members; biblically speaking, the church has 1,737 members.

Conclusion

I could go on, but you do not need more numbers or my analysis to get the point. Numbers do matter - even the ones we cringe to look at and accept. But we must accept them. We must not be “ministerially speaking” but “biblically speaking”. My dean, Dr. Chuck Lawless, has a great blog entitled “Biblical Church Growth,” and I believe that is what we need today. I think it is clear to us all that adding 2,600+ members to one’s church should result in something more like 2,600 regular attenders (roughly speaking), not a decrease of 266 attenders. You see, behind these numbers tell us a lot about how serious we examine our churches, church membership, church discipline, the gospel, conversion, and a whole host of other things that distinctively make us Baptist. But more than being Baptist, we must be biblical, and to be biblical, we must begin with a humble confession and a honest assessment of where we are today. The problems we face will never be solved by denominational politics or presidents or anyone else “ministerially speaking.” They will be solved when we take a look at the Bride of Christ and say, “I will give my life for her that she may be pure, holy, and devoted to Christ our Head.” The reports in heaven will set the record straight, but God forbid that we wait until then to see our great need in the here and now.

It just doesn’t have to be that way, and we don’t just have to be “ministerially speaking” either.

Small town pastorates afford a variety of experiences for the pastor willing to engage the community. This is no slight to pastors in larger towns and cities who by virtue of imagination and willingness may also find a virtual kaleidoscope of ministry opportunities. Rather the statement stems from personal experience.

Attending my first town hall meeting nearly 20 years ago I heard Lloyd whisper in my ear, “We have enough votes to elect you if you will agree to run.” Talk about wanting to run. Unsure of what I had gotten myself into, I discovered the new young pastor was considered “City Council” material. It did not take long to figure out that meant, “Since the pastor only works one and a half days a week, he can read water meters, chlorinate water in the water towers, and haul garbage.” We would hire and fire. We would budget and plan. I met more folks and found more ministry opportunities than I had imagined. Conversations with townspeople garnered quick trust and a grand time in that small church.

Contextualization meant this city boy must quickly learn “country.”

We moved on to pastor another church in a small town, a small Texas town. Now only Sooner fans would make such an intentional distinction. (And yes, I did painfully watch the recent Big 12 semi-final between OU and UT. Great first half! Not so much the second half.) Quick friendships with teachers and administrators at the local school provided other opportunities - substitute teaching, bus driving and one year as basketball coach.

One year the high school English teacher needed to take care of family business out of state. She would need a long term substitute. The call came and I accepted. One of the main assignments for the period I would be teaching centered on George Orwell’s Animal Farm. I have been intrigued ever since.

Reform agendas come and go. We here at the Outpost, according to commenters, have spurred both hope and fear when discussing reform. Criticisms run the gamut. The more pointed reservations by some readers question just what kind of reform. Tactics of some writers are more criticized than the content. In my first installment I noted a quote from Tom Nettles’ The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity (327-331),

“If loyalty becomes equated with silent consent to programs, however noble, the stench of encroaching death with be evident.”

I return to Nettles’ work for this second part (again 327-331). Connecting the precarious nature of a free church denominational construct and the calls for reform by those in the SBC characterized by Dr. Patterson’s 1980 Shophar paper, Nettles’ notes,

These tensions formed the context of one of the Shophar Papters of 1980 written by Paige Patterson. Patterson noted that ‘denominational executive offices can become “Protestant Meccas” to which all must bow, with “programs” being substituted for righteousness.’ Any person, Patterson contended, that questions procedure or raises doubt about programs makes himself odious in the eyes of denominational leadership and may be ‘virtually anathematized by those who claim to be “loyal”.’

Surely dear reader you could see my temptation to simply let that quote stand for a time so that it may sink in, especially for those who consider calls for accountability and some measure of reform to be wholly disrespectful of those who led the charge that was/is the CR. Instead, I would quickly add Dr. Patterson’s words represent the nature of ongoing reform, it is the semper reformanda, it is the continuing conversion of the church, and in this case the denomination.

Rather than attack Dr. Patterson, calls are for the system to continually engage the very matters he raised in that paper nearly 30 years ago. According to Nettles’ Dr. Patterson went on to outline three areas where denominationalism tends to usurp biblical ecclesiology.

1. Only literature published by the official publishing agency of the denomination may be used.

2. The Cooperative Program is the sine qua non of what it means to be a Southern Baptist.

3. Denominational periodicals can become responsible primarily for “defending the denomination” rather than for accurate, unbiased, thoroughly researched presentation of news and truth.

There are current corollaries to the three Dr. Patterson noted then. For example, in our contemporary setting seminary presidents inform messengers they know better than anyone how to prepare young people for ministry - the local church nor its leaders possess any such capacity - is akin to “only using the literature we produce.” Questions then about the Cooperative Program today give way to one’s local churches giving percentage to the CP as the qualifying criterion for service to the denomination. Finally, now that the CR leadership firmly influences the “denominational periodicals” we need only say, “Amen” to Dr. Patterson’s charge.

Nettles’ asserts,

Patterson wanted a new kind of denominationalism. Openness to criticism, servant to and not master of the churches, meaningful deliberation among a wider spectrum of concerned people, a more open system of convention operations in selecting of personnel, etc. to avoid the old system of king-makers: these seem to be desirable patterns to pursue.

Some misunderstand even the controversial Ben Cole. What is most oft overlooked is that Patterson’s words inspired a generation to reform and they are words many still believe even if he and others do not. When actions betray the very sentiment that stirred the foment of reform appear to no longer apply calls for renewed reform are inevitable. Many have registered complaint about tone and tenor of some posts. I may have written them differently myself. However, the most important overlooked matter pertains to giving a group the promise of integrity only to give evidence it is more rhetorical than literal. We all fall prey to such a state. It is the linchpin which when removed jeopardizes our own attempts at leadership. These matters are systemic and not personal, though often we see the effects of the system on the person.

The “money quote” from this section of Nettles’ work indeed raises the systems question,

The warnings that Patterson issued do not lose their relevance when the doctrinal stance of denominational leadership changes toward conservatism. Doctrinal recovery thankfully provides firmer grounds for confidence in any associational structure of Baptists. Unity at that point provides the most basic strength for powerful and effective voluntary union. The union itself, however, must be structured with a system of checks and balances that defy the tendency for a top-heavy denomination unresponsive to church concerns. Diligence to observe the intent of these appropriate checks will go far in protecting the advantages for ministry of denominational organizations. The tendency of power to corrupt these structures, however, may again prove to be too overwhelming without special measures being taken by those most susceptible to the temptation. These seats of control may be just as alluring to the confessionally orthodox as to the doctrinal latitudinarian. Conservatives may just as easily fall prey to the allurement of importance as moderates. Imposing the agenda of a small group on an entire denomination, achieving a virtual hierarchy, can provide to be just as satisfying to the ego and marked up as spiritual success to one who is doctrinally pure as to one who is doctrinally indifferent.

You may by now see my contention, the system fails the reform. For Orwell, the animals who ran the farm did no better than the humans. Lest you think I am drawing down on our current leadership and assigning them the unseemly role of the animals now running the show, note the Farm did not change for Orwell. For me the system bears the inherent need for reform. Some people seem to have fallen prey. And pray we must.

Stay tuned for one final thought in part 3.

Last night curiosity struck and I decided to check out what those ever-loyal Joshua Convergers were up to. Much to my dismay, the Joshua Convergence is not maintaining an active website any longer, and it appears that they have closed up shop altogether.

Well, SBCOutpost.com is not so willing to let our younger leaders foil die the death of neglect. So in honor of those faithful convergers who descended on Orlando some eighteen months ago to reignite a Holy Ghost revival and rally the teeming masses of resurgent children to the aid of their faltering fathers, I am proud to repost the extant video clips from that momentous and prophetic meeting.

Outpost contributor Benjamin S. Cole was interviewed today by Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptists, discussing a range of topics including the New Baptist Covenant, Wade Burleson, and the SBC presidential candidacy of R. Albert Mohler.

Listen to the archive.

Evangelicalism in general and the SBC in particular may be at a crossroads.  We can already see the rift in our own convention that the blogosphere has exposed.  People who’s theology is not six inches apart are polarized over a variety of lesser things, mostly politics of either a denominational or governmental sort.

The pages here at SBC Outpost reveal that all too often.  The things that divide us can be seen in posts about global warming and presidential portraits.  In a denomination of [ahem] 16 million - give or take nine or ten million - we can see reflections of evangelicalism as a whole.  The question is: where will the future take us?

There are those who advocate a return to the good old days.  Bring back John Dagg.  Resurrect 18th Century Associational church life.  Let us be what we used to be.  Re-establish the old landmarks [snort, snicker - pun intended].

Opponents of this view warn that it will lead to obscurantism.  First we’ll become like Independent Baptists, railing against cultural evils to ever-shrinking crowds as we develop a “remnant” mentality awaiting the second-coming so that God can rescue us from this great big mess.  Then in twenty years we’ll become like the Amish.  Cute.  Odd.  And irrelevant.  Proponents see it as the only way to be faithful.

There are others who advocate a new day.  Recognize that the SBC/evangelicalism has never been as homogeneous as it is being portrayed and rally around those things which are essential and with which we all can agree.

Opponents of this view warn that it will lead to a slippery slope into the well-worn path already cut out by mainline denominations.  First we’ll talk about cooperation, then poverty and AIDS, then we’ll give up on the Bible and adopt an anything-goes ethic.  Proponents see it as recapturing the main thing - the gospel.

Bill Leonard warned that this sort of rift would lead to a splintering of the SBC.  The New York Times suggests evangelicalism as a whole may be right there with it.

Are these our options?  Does anyone care whether we come together or not?

Calls for accountability and reform must be balanced with potential visions for what could be. At the very least, one should offer a picture of how we may be more effective. I recently listened to several of the chapel messages given during the Convergence Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Alvin Reid noted that should the 1950’s make a comeback we will be prepared. I could not help but laugh. Operating on little rest and lost notes, Dr. Reid gives some compelling critique as well as hopefulness for the future.

J.D. Greear and I served a very brief time together on the General Council of the BWA representing the SBC. We differed on the final decision of the SBC and still get on quite well. I may see a bit more value in Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz, but J.D. and I share a healthy commitment to contextualized ministry. J.D. gave a great message in San Antonio. He does another fine job in Session 1. Listen carefully as he notes the three kinds of people reached with the Gospel in Acts 16 - well worth your time.

I also listend to Ed Stetzer, Mark Driscoll and as noted above, Alvin Reid. I am certain Dr. Akin’s session added to the event.

Taken together there is a compelling vision for ways in which we could move forward, the questions that must be asked of new movements and the necessity to hold on to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Enjoy.

[Update:  I offer a link to Steve Knight’s post at the Emergent Village Website. He has put together a post listing quite a few responses to Mark Driscoll’s comments at the Convergence Conference. They range from the wildly supportive to the extremely critical. Toward the end of the post, one might want to read Scot McKnight’s post linked describing the “Five Streams of the Emerging Church.” This would be another taxonomy like the one Dricsoll proposed or  another offerd by Ed Stetzer.]