The Decline of the SBC

The Southern Baptist Convention appears to be in decline. I say appears because the “Bagdad Bob’s” of the SBC are poo-pooing recent membership numbers that demonstrate this is a stark reality. There has been a firestorm over this release, especially in the commentary provided by the head of Lifeway Research, Ed Stetzer. People at all levels of the convention leadership are exhibiting different reactions. Some are upset, while others are acknowledging reality, and still others are wondering why it took so long to get published.

Being a Southern Baptist, and pastoring a Southern Baptist Church in Delaware, I felt I needed to weigh in on this issue. I, in general, do not blog about SBC issues, but this is as much a missiological issue as it is a SBC issue. It should wake up not only the American church, but the SBC about the state of the church in this country.

I want to first address the importance of this decline in the SBC. For years, we have been told that the reason other denominations were in decline was the move toward liberal theology. I guess we were wrong, because it appears theology was not the factor. With the reality that the SBC likely has tipped and is on its way down, this is very disconcerting for many. This is especially distressing for the oligarchy leadership who think they own the SBC. The move toward conservative theology has produced the lowest evangelism rates and the tapering off of membership since before the takeover began. I am conservative in theology; however conservative theology alone does not move one toward evangelism. Thus the conservative resurgence did not lead to a Great Commission resurgence convention-wide.

Read more

A Response to Dr. Yarnell’s Latest Paper

Dr. Malcolm B Yarnell III, or as I affectionately call him, “Yarni”, (that’s not a knock in all honesty) has published a paper for the Center for Theological Research entitled, “Shall we ‘Build Bridges’ or ‘Pull Down Strongholds’?” I confess to not holding the education of Dr. Yarnell, nor am I an academic type. Despite the fact that I have sworn off posting about the SBC for the most part, I am choosing to respond to this paper because it deals with missiology and missional theology.

In this paper, Yarnell has two purposes. First, he hopes to demonstrate that “Paul’s use of a pagan poet or two does not establish an apostolic principle that other religions should be searched for helpful statements that we can then identify as authoritative general revelation.” He also hopes to convince the reader that Acts 17:16-34 is not an excuse for “finding relevancy in culture rather than Scripture.” It appears to me that he attempts to state that someone who argues for contextualization suggests the move by Paul at the Aeropagus indeed is an illustration of general revelation. I don’t know of anyone who makes this assertion.

Sadly, this is an attempt to brand those who attempt to contextualize the Gospel as neo-liberal. It is an anathema to him that Christianity has different expressions in different cultures. For Dr. Yarnell, there should be one meta-narrative for the whole world. This is an expression of modernism, which Dr. Yarnell apparently does not understand is not necessarily the dominant worldview either historically or geographically. In fact, the majority of the world has even yet to approach modernity in thought. Only those influenced by Western thought have a modern worldview and therefore, post-modernism only exists where the modern worldview has been dominant. There is a post-modern West, but not a post-modern world. Also, in his noting this, he has elevated Western thought to a place where it does not belong. It is arrogance to say that Christianity in a modern worldview is the best (or only) appropriate worldview. Not only is it arrogant, it is wrong, especially understanding the rise of Christianity occurred within an Eastern worldview.

Dr. Yarnell also makes broad generalizations that only apply at best to fringe thought and treats them as normative. He intimates that some of the most conservative evangelicals are really wolves in sheep’s clothing. Though differentiating “emergent” from emerging, he states that “[i]f the emergent movement is shaped by a liberal outlook that is moving toward syncretism, the emerging movement may be shaped by a post-liberalism that tries to avoid syncretism but still struggles to be considered orthodox.” He lumps Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer into the emerging category and implies that they are either neo-liberal or post-liberal but certainly not orthodox. Actually, Driscoll is one of the most conservative and orthodox theologians of our day (some would even say hyper-conservative) and Stetzer should in no way be considered liberal or post-liberal. He is as conservative as they come. Yet Yarnell embraces John MacArthur’s views on the emerging church. MacAthur is a modern-day heresy-hunter, going after anyone that doesn’t agree with him while not truly understanding those he is attacking.

Yarnell seeks to take apart the arguments of David Bosch and Dean Flemming, (though primarily Flemming) whom he identifies as liberal and borders on heretical. He also associates Ed Stetzer here with Flemming and indicates that Stetzer is a leading contributor to Driscoll’s missiology.

Flemming, Yarnell says, has made three critical mistakes. “First, he incorporated a hostile form of exegesis from which to construct a theology of contextualization. Second, he downplayed the confrontational aspects of Paul’s sermon in order to stress convergence. Finally, he even asserted that gospel preaching could occur without reference to the cross.”

While I, at this time, cannot speak to the first mistake, I will speak to the final two. Yarnell does not define confrontational until the end of his paper. When he does get to defining it, he notes, “the necessary factors for a confrontational, biblical, evangelistic presentation of the gospel are present in this passage: divine sovereignty, human lostness, the death and resurrection of Christ, the coming judgment, a call to repent, and a willingness to believe.” If this is what a confrontational, biblical model of a gospel presentation is, then I have to believe that Jesus was neither biblical or confrontational in his presentation. Whether is was the story of Zaccheus, or the woman caught in adultery or the woman at the well, none of those aspects are found in Jesus’ presentation. In fact, in Jesus’ presentations hell is not mentioned and heaven is only associated with salvation in one instance - the rich young ruler. He often pronounced judgment on the religious leaders for their attempt to place extra-biblical burdens on the people trying to control behavior, but not to those with whom he shared.

Peter must not have been confrontational or biblical either. In Acts 10:34-43, he leaves out divine sovereignty, a call to repent and a willingness to believe.

In Yarnell’s interpretation of the Areopagus sermon, he attempts to re-place the sermon within the context of the book of Acts, the New Testament, the Old Testament and specifically, Acts 17. I absolutely agree that is what he should do. And that is what each of us should with every text. Unfortunately, in his attempt, he fails to understand that context. He goes through an extensive exegesis process to develop an interpretation of the text. Yet Dr. Yarnell attempts to make the reader believe that those Paul would have been talking to understood all the implications of his exhaustive exegesis. Even if we assume that what he intends for us to understand is exactly all of what Paul was trying to communicate, that communication would have been in vain had the hearers, the Athenian academy, not understood what Paul was trying to say. So Yarnell inappropriately assumes that the hearers of Paul’s sermon would have understood the implications of what Yarnell believes Paul is trying to say.

As he sums up his paper, Yarnell turns to five applications to the Post-modern context. In his first application, he states: “To speak of ‘enabling’ the gospel or of ‘making’ it ‘relevant’ appears to imply a low view of Scripture. It appears to assume either that grace actually resides in us rather than in Scripture, or in the culture rather than in Scripture.” This is a falsehood. Actually, making it relevant implies that we attempt to announce the gospel in language and terms that our hearers understand, i.e., to translate it for others. The preaching of the gospel means that we preach the message of Christ in the language of the people, in their own context. Choosing not to contextualize the message is condemning people to hell; if they can’t understand it, why even share it? If they don’t understand it they might “die tonight and spend eternity in hell” and we wouldn’t care because we’ve done our part. And since they didn’t understand it the way we shared it they’ll spend eternity in hell. (Of course, one could believe in the gift of tongues and assume that if we attempt to share the message the best way we know how, the Spirit will help the hearer understand it in his/her own context.)

In his attempt to liberalize contextualization, Yarnell has really demonstrated that he is more bound to a methodology than a theology, or if to a theology, a theology that only comprehends one model of expression. He also demonstrates that he wishes to label conservatives who are methodologically different as liberal or post-liberal, assuming a guilt-by-association stance.

In addition, in Dr. Yarnell’s attempt to strike at contextualization, he never asks the question, How would the Athenian academy understand what Paul said? He tells us what he believes Paul was saying, but not how it would have been heard. And that is ultimately what the proclamation of the gospel is all about, isn’t it? We need to partner with the Spirit to speak in a way for the message to be heard, and that doesn’t happen unless we contextualize.

Does he achieve his premise stated at the beginning? I would say no. There are limited stories in Acts that we have of the disciples sharing in a context outside of their own. Many do not include a true confrontational or biblical expression of the gospel according to Yarnell’s definition. Yet we do have a case where extra-biblical, cultural material is used to make a point. (Paul’s use of the poets in Acts 17). While narratives do not always demonstrate a universal principle, it can give a model to employ. And when dealing with people in different cultures and backgrounds, Paul chooses to use cultural components to re-enforce, or make his point. This brings into question the validity of Dr. Yarnell’s assertions.

In addition, it appears that all he wants to do is to take a swipe at missiologists. He has taken to building straw men so he has something to burn while preaching and teaching at SWBTS.

You would think they would have at least asked

I called Joel Rainey today just to check on him. I really like Joel; he’s been an influence on me theologically as well as practically. So we’re chatting away, and he said to me that congrats were in order! I had no clue what he was talking about. He told me that he was told by one of our state convention staffers that I was elected 1st VP of our General Mission Board.Now, let me explain that for you non-SBC’ers out there. We have the national convention. But the SBC is really made of local associations who make up state conventions who make up the SBC nationally. In my state convention, the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware, the majority of the decisions are made by the General Mission Board. We meet three times a year and are presented with things our state staff need to do and we discuss them and vote on them. Most of the decisions are made this way, though some decisions do have to be voted on by the convention at its annual meeting. So I was told today that I was elected 1st VP of the board that makes approves/makes most of the decisions of our state convention.

Now, you know if you read this blog much, a couple of things. First, I don’t talk about the SBC very much. You know, I went out with a girl one time who ordered a steak extra rare. They brought it, she looked at it and said, “It’s too done”. The thing was still mooing. Extra, extra rare is how much I talk about the SBC any more. Now I USED to, but I gave up on the national version of SBC for the most part about a year ago. The second thing you know is that I do not like politics. And I for sure couldn’t tell you Roberts Rules of order any better than I could a menu at a Orthodox Jewish pork BBQ joint. That is, to say, that I ain’t got a clue.

Now, our GMB had a meeting this past Tuesday. I had another meeting scheduled (I forgot about the GMB meeting) and didn’t make the 90 mile one way trip there. So I’m talking to Joel today, and I hear this story. I wasn’t even there! So I contacted the state staffer and he confirmed it and was shocked that I wasn’t at the meeting where I was voted on. I told him, no one asked me if I would serve and I still haven’t heard from anyone at the state about the vote. I was, and am clueless about the job and what it entails, or even who nominated me.

I don’t mind serving, because we have THE best state convention in the whole SBC, and yes, we are mavericks. We, unlike some state conventions, are more worried about the kingdom and the gospel than whether a church partners with a group whose leader happens to drink a glass of wine or two. However, in a stroke of irony, one of our seminaries does participate with a group whom the SBC on multiple occasions has deemed heretical. Isn’t that odd?

BTW…I’m happy to serve. I just wish someone would have asked.

Non-Christians can’t pray at Baptist Church

What the @#$$%##? According to a story from Fox News, Hyde Park Baptist Church, a SBC church in Austin, TX, prohibits non-Christians from praying on its campus. The church canceled an interfaith Thanksgiving service that was to be held on their campus. Their reasoning was that church officials thought “interfaith” meant different sects of Christianity.

According to the article:

Gill said much of Hyde Park’s concern was over some of the actual prayers that would take place on the premises.

“The fact that there was going to be a prayer service caused them concern,” she said. “The space for our prayer afterward, that’s what caused the most amount of alarm. That was influential in making their decision.”

Now I can appreciate that you don’t want people channeling spirits or you don’t want devil worshipers setting up shop on your campus, but it’s just a bit odd when you won’t let Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc come to your church and sit down and have a meal together, build relationships and share in prayer. Why not engage those people in relationships and build bridges and create an opportunity to talk later about Jesus and the restoration of life that he came to bring? Why not participate in a group that is trying to work together and bring peace to a city? It’s obvious the church doesn’t want to do that because they aren’t a member of this interfaith group and the didn’t send anyone to participate, though they were still invited to the new location. I’m beside myself…

It appears that the church members didn’t agree too much with the decision of the church leaders. According to the article:

there has been talk that some Hyde Park congregants were disappointed that their church decided not to provide its facilities for the event.

“What I’ve heard is that the congregation was disappointed, especially because many of them do not feel this way,” she said. “There’s a whole community that goes to this church - it’s not their fault.”

I’m embarrassed to be SBC even more than before.

Storytelling at SEBTS

The ding at my computer the other afternoon was the sound of email. My Baptist Press news updates had arrived and I skimmed the titles to see if anything looked interesting. The third line down stated, “NORTH CAROLINA–TRUSTEES: SEBTS track focuses on oral societies. http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=26625”. I couldn’t believe my eyes quite honestly.

So I clicked on the link and began reading the story of how Southeastern Seminary’s trustees had approved a new track in orality studies for their master of arts in intercultural studies degree. The track, according to the article, “is geared to train students to share the Gospel in non-literate societies through oral storying.” The article goes on to state that the track “will offer high-level training in Bible storying techniques which have been found to be an effective evangelism tool among cultures with a predominantly oral tradition. The degree was developed in consultation with the International Mission Board.”

I just about fell out of my chair. This is huge!

Finally, one of our SBC seminaries has recognized the need for the incorporation of storying into evangelism. This track will have to deal with metaphor development, semiotics, which is the study of signs (see Matthew 16:1-4 to recognize the semiotic nature of our faith), and most of all, how to tell a good story. It would be nice for the school to have script writers and fiction authors come into the class to help students understand how to create verbal imagery. This is just a recommendation Dr. Akin.

Hopefully this program will also help students learn how to reframe the gospel story in a way that is contextual because Christianity is contextual. There are people who have practiced Christianity for centuries without the influence of our westernized version of Christianity. It looks different than ours and is practiced different than ours and uses language that is different from the language we in western Christianity use.

Contextual evangelism, especially via storying, is becoming a necessary process even in our own country. The framing of our message causes noise in our message. Consider how we share the Gospel. When we frame the gospel message as getting into heaven (which is true), we are indicating that it is more of a then and there gospel with little meaning for the now. When we frame the gospel as keeping us from hell (which is also true), we are indicating that all people need to do is have fire insurance. And we wonder why we need resolutions about regenerate church membership.

But when we reframe the gospel message in a complete way, a way that includes creation - with man as eikons (images) of God - and then the fall, redemption, and finally restoration, we begin to present a full and complete message that God, through Christ, is restoring us to the pre-fall condition, fully human and in complete harmony with God, ourselves, others, and creation. It is the story of redemptive history and our place in it that creates a community of faith, not a series of facts.

The reason we need to hear this and revisit this because of the “Curse of Knowledge.” Communication professors Chip and Dan Heath explain in their book, Made to Stick, ”Once we know something, we find it hard to imagine what it was like not to know it. Our knowledge has ‘cursed’ us. And it becomes difficult for us to share our knowledge with others, because we can’t readily re-create our listeners’ state of mind.”

In the book Made to Stick the authors try to answer two major questions: Why do some ideas thrive while others die? And how do we improve the chances of worthy ideas? In their research, they discovered six principles that make an idea stick. They are:

1. PRINCIPLE 1: SIMPLICITY - Proverbs are the ideal. We must create ideas that are both simple and profound.
2. PRINCIPLE 2: UNEXPECTEDNESS - We need to violate people’s expectations. We need to be counterintuitive.
3. PRINCIPLE 3: CONCRETENESS - We must explain our ideas in terms of human actions, in terms of sensory information.
4. PRINCIPLE 4: CREDIBILITY - Sticky ideas have to carry their own credentials.
5. PRINCIPLE 5: EMOTIONS - We are wired to feel things for people, not for abstractions. Sometimes the hard part is finding the right emotion to harness.
6. PRINCIPLE 6: STORIES - How do we get people to act on our ideas? We tell stories.

What can all of these be found in? A good story, not a set of propositions or facts. And the Gospel can be shared in a way that all these principles come into play.

As a guy in the Mid-Atlantic, I have had to learn to engage people in their story so they will listen to my story. While some are more of the “just the facts” kind of people, I have more success in teaching and sharing the gospel when I use stories and frame the conversation in language they are familiar with. This is especially important in areas where the work of soil preparation has not taken place, where the rocks and thistles and brush have not been removed to create good soil where the seed of the Gospel can sprout and flourish. This is becoming increasingly necessary in our own culture, in addition to cultures where storytelling is the main source of communication.

Storytelling is important to the communication of the Gospel.

I have one request and one caution for the seminary as they institute this. The request is that they incorporate parts of this program into all their evangelism work. This would be a huge help to those who go outside the context of the baptist belt.

The caution I have comes from this statement by Dr. Akin:

Ultimately our goal is to get the written Word of God into the hands of every people group on the planet. Until that is achieved, we dare not delay in passing along by verbal means God’s truth to those whose culture is orally driven

I understand that literacy and reading are important pieces of the education puzzle that help a community and people become more integrated into our glocalized world. However, if the primary means of people communicating and teaching is through storytelling, we should not attempt to impose our own view of communication or our own language onto a different culture. We need to let them be the people they are, not the people we are. And if we do get a copy of the scripture into the hands of those who can read, we need to understand that the stories may be reframed in their language, metaphors, and context, not simply the NIV in Swahili.

Thank you Dr. Akin. Thank you SEBTS trustees. And thank you to Dr. Rankin for leading our IMB and for helping Southern Baptists learn how to communicate the Gospel contextually.

Next Page »