2009 SBC Annual Meeting

The big issue at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville is the introduction of the Great Commission Resurgence. It is a document calling on people to come together around the Gospel. It has some great points, and in general I have no issue with it. However, there is a controversy surrounding the document. The big deal around this document is Article IX, which states:

A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure. We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.

The original copy of this document caused a great deal of angst among those who serve on the State Convention staffs. The feeling is that one of two things are going on here. The first is an attempt to either do away with the state conventions or to circumvent them by encouraging church to give directly to the SBC denomination instead of through the state conventions and the cooperative program. This would force the states to either agree to pass more money through to the national convention or not have money coming into their own financial channels as monies go directly to the national convention. Either way, staff and ministries are cut.

The second thought is that this is an attempt to get more money for the seminaries. It is well known within the leadership of the SBC that the seminary presidents are longing for the convention to take up a special offering for the seminaries just as they do for Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. They want more money.

It is important to note that the cooperative program of the SBC arose in the 1920’s, a period of time when the rise of the progressive movement, which calls for government management in areas of economics and personal choice in the areas of social policies, was growing in influence. It was also a time of great economic upheaval. During this current era of big government and an economic downturn, it appears that the call to restructure the SBC completely is an attempt to become more centralized in policies and economics. Just like socialism cannot solve the problems that frustrate our country, a more centralized structure will not solve the issues that plague the Southern Baptist Convention.

So instead of just issuing criticism on this one point, I want to offer a suggestion on how the SBC could restructure and be more efficient. Here’s my plan. No one will really care, and no one will endorse it. That’s okay. It’s just how I think we need to implement Article 9.

Let me begin by saying that the only real way to make effective change of the convention structure is to kill it. We need to blow up the structure and start over! That will not happen, so here is my alternative:

First, transfer the control of the seminaries to the state conventions in which they reside. For instance, transfer NOBTS to the Louisiana Baptist Convention. The same will the other five seminaries. This allows the seminaries to diversify into Christian colleges where a more integrative level of Christian education can occur. They can offer degrees such as MDiv’s in Global Business or MBA’s in International Missions. This facilitates the second item, which is to…

Transfer Christian higher education to the state-affiliated colleges. There is no reason our state-affiliated colleges can’t offer the bulk of our theological education, particularly MDiv’s & PhD’s. This allows for a more local educational experience, greater contextualization, and the ability to again have a more integrative level of education. State conventions without affiliated colleges could start one, partner with an existing Baptist college as education by extension, or partner with a like-minded evangelical institution.

Third, we should merge the two mission boards. The purpose of the mission boards would be to facilitate church planting in USAmerica and reaching people groups all over the world.

Fourth, shut everything else down. Yep, shut the rest of the bloated organizations down. Lifeway is a profit producing organization and could continue. Guidestone can charge service fees as do all other investment groups and could survive that way. Otherwise, shut everything else down. Items like disaster relief get handled by the state conventions.

This decentralizes the convention. A friend of mine noted to me via twitter that “centralization serves the organization; decentralization serves the people the organization was organized to serve.” I agree fully. Decentralization will reduced the bloated bureaucracy and centers the convention squarely around missions.

The state conventions would send 25-30% of their cooperative program dollars through to the missions agency. The offerings for Lottie and Annie could continue. It would likely result in more dollars for missions, especially with a stream-lined mission board focusing on limited functions.

This would negatively impact the control and power that the current oligarchy would have over the convention, which is why this would not be implemented. It might also cause a reduction in the affiliation of Southern Baptist identity, which would cause angst among some groups.

On the positive side, however, it would make the convention more nimble so that it could react to the changing needs of the culture. In addition, it would prepare pastors better for ministry in the culture, particularly if the education is more integrated and contextual.

The SBC does not need to become more centralized but less if we are going to be more efficient in reaching our world for Christ. Of course, it is a waste of time if we have not fallen in love with Jesus first, but that is for another day.

Ed Stetzer as Captain Pomo!

Hmm….It seems that Ed Stetzer has made a postmodern turn. After reading this article by Todd Littleton, it may mean that the SBC could be falling in line with a more biblical epistemological and philosophical concept than the modernism that we have for too long embraced. Way to go Ed!!

Here’s the link to Ed’s turn

Let's All Go to Sunday School!

A few weeks ago, I had a call from a lady who used to be the Minister of Education of a large denominational church in the South. She, along with my denominational tribe were planning an event to train leaders in Sunday School in our state as part of a big event that will be happening over the next couple of years. She wanted me to attend and to bring my Sunday School director. She also told me they were going to also begin working out the opportunity to partner us (and other churches in our tribe) with Ministers of Education from churches in the South so we could have insight into how to effectively run our education ministry. I told her that we didn’t have Sunday School, so she said they would treat our small groups like Sunday School. I also told her that because of our size I would be the only one attending, assuming that I went. She really wanted me to bring someone. She also pushed for a commitment, though they did not have the date, place or time determined yet.

Today I received a call from that same lady letting me know that the event would be next week at a certain church in our state. She wanted me to bring my Sunday School leadership. I told her again that we don’t have Sunday School and that I would be the only one from my church attending. She again pushed for me to bring someone that could be trained as Sunday School director. I made no promises.

So I was driving home and thinking about this call and it really frustrated me. There are a few reasons for that frustration:

1. I just finished doctoral work on changing behavior. I know this: information does not lead to transformation. Sitting in a Sunday School class will not bring about spiritual formation. All it does is dispense information that few will really take home with them regardless of the ability of the teacher. In other words…Sunday School really is not effective for spiritual formation. Trust me, I’ve been in Sunday School for 35 years in all kinds of contexts…I know it well.

2. Why would I listen to a Minister of Education from the South who has no idea how to do ministry in my context? If they want to facilitate discussion with my leadership, that’s one thing. But to help me do ministry in an area where they have no clue about people in this area is a bit silly.

3. We don’t have Sunday School. We do spiritual formation as part of leadership development in a holistic way. We mentor, not hold Bible classes.

4. Studies show that our denominational way of doing things is not effective. Why are would I want to perpetuate a system that doesn’t work? To quote the (in)famous Ed Stetzer, “What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing the same way and expecting different results.”

What we really need to consider is changing the system not the method. Spiritual formation is a journey towards wholeness. It requires emotional healing, a new way of thinking, a community of faith, and identity transformation. It is done in sharing life experiences. It is most effective around a dinner table, at the golf course, fishing, on vacation, or around a campfire, not in a Sunday School class. Our denomination needs to change the system, not the method. In fact, we need change a lot of systems.

But what do I know? I’m just a guy who pastors a church in the Mid-Atlantic that has trained, mentored and released over 100 missionaries that our church has sent out to do ministry all over our country in the past five years in the marketplace.

So the question I have is this…Do I go to this meeting next week? And if I do, how do I tell this lady nicely that I appreciate her but I am not into perpetuating a program I do not believe works? Any thoughts? Of course, it could be that I’m just being too harsh. Feel free to comment on that as well.

Mr. Blind Mice

Ok, so there’s more than three, but they do need to wake up…

A couple of years ago, I wrote my first and only blog post for the old SBC Outpost regarding my dismay after learning that one of my tribe’s seminary president’s would not allow his professors research time in the field, even if on a sabbatical. In that post, I also lamented how that same seminary had very few, maybe as few as 1 or 2, professors who had served anywhere outside the traditional Bible belt. I concluded that apart from one seminary in particular, the practical ministry experience of most professors at Southern Baptist seminaries were located within the Bible Belt. My concern then, and my concern now, is that my tribe’s seminaries were sending out people who could not do ministry in a post-christian culture that so much of USAmerica had become. They were simply making little Southern, Southern Baptist ministers.

I said that because I grew up in the USAmerican South but now I live in Delaware. Pastoring in Delaware brings a unique glimpse into the transition going on in our country. It is home to Barratt’s Chapel near Lewes, Delaware. Barratt’s Chapel is the oldest surviving church building in the United States built by and for Methodists. But it earns its title as the “Cradle of Methodism” because of what happened here in 1784. Apparently, during this service the sacraments of baptism and communion were administered for the first time in the new country by ordained Methodist clergy. So Delaware has a long Christian and evangelistic history.

But because of its location and cost of living, Delaware has become a fast growing state. People from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and other New England states are moving here. And they are bringing with them their New England views of life, truth, religion and community. It is much different from the Southern culture I grew up in.

Recent data from the current American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] shows that New England has overtaken the Pacific Northwest as the most unchurched area in the country. That attitude has crept into our state.

Reading the results of this new research, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, observed this disturbing information. In a blog post dated March 27 entitled, The Eclipse of Christian Memory, Dr. Mohler makes these observations:

Christianity once formed the worldview of New England. While it was never true that all New Englanders were believing Christians, it is true that the worldview that gave birth to colonial America was explicitly Christian in substance and, most specifically, in moral commitments. That first era of New England history was pervasively Christian and pervasively Protestant. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, New England was reshaped by the arrival of millions of immigrants from Europe, and millions of these were Roman Catholics. Thus, by the arrival of the twentieth century, many New England neighborhoods and city centers were shaped, very noticeably, by Catholic moral teachings.

Now, as the first decade of the twenty-first century draws to a close, the increasingly secularized character of New England helps to explain why the region is now ground zero for same-sex marriage.

He goes on to say:

For the better part of the twentieth century, the nations of Western Europe led the way in the abandonment of Christian commitments. Christian moral reflexes and moral principles gave way to the loosening grip of a Christian memory. Now, even that Christian memory is absent from the lives of millions.

New England is following the same trajectory. In recent decades, the Pacific Northwest had the distinction of being the nation’s most secular region. But the Pacific Northwest was never as highly evangelized as New England. In effect, New England is rejecting what the Pacific Northwest never even knew.

New England, like Europe, is fast becoming a post-Christian culture. And, as the late Lesslie Newbigin reminded us, evangelizing a post-Christian culture will be far more difficult than evangelizing a culture that never knew Christian commitments. As New England has followed Europe, will the rest of the nation follow New England?

His post concluded by saying:

New England is losing the remnants of its Christian memory. We need a new generation of Christians who, like Jonathan Edwards, will bring the Gospel anew to New England. New England was the cradle of colonial America. Is it now the cradle of America’s secular future?

I want to say to him, and others like him so cocooned by the culture of the USAmerican South: “Where have you been? USAmerica has been on a post-christian for some time. Are you blind?”

Really. It irks me to no end that the largest protestant denomination in the country is oblivious to the reality that this country has become, apart from a localized area, post-christian.

One seminary president, Chuck Kelley at New Orleans, is calling for a return to typical SBC programs from the 1960’s and 1970’s such as Sunday School, Discipleship Training, and revival meetings (Listen here and see here).

I want to say…What? It really shows an ignorance to what is happening here in USAmerica.

A friend of mine who have lived in the Northeast and is a denominational guy made a very profound statement a few weeks ago. He believes that when Southern Baptists made an intentional attempt to move from a regional to national denomination they lost any ability to create a typical Southern Baptist, and by extension, any strong cohesive agreement en total to the SBC. The reason? A Southern Baptist in Vermont (the last state the SBC entered…1972) is so different than a Southern Baptist in Alabama.

It’s time for our convention to wake up to this reality. And it is also time for SBC professors to come to the post-christian USAmerica and spend time here learning about the real world which will be coming to the South sooner than they expect. Or better yet, hire professors who have recently spent time in this post-christian USAmerican culture and give them the freedom to teach.

That leaven may be able to permeate our denomination and allow us to fulfill our theological and evangelistic mandate after all.

Is the SBC at Risk?

iMonk (Michael Spencer) has a series of articles on the coming evangelical collapse. If you haven’t read these, and if you don’t read iMonk, then finish reading this post and begin to scoop up everything he has written. There is not a better blogger around that Michael Spencer.

Spencer states that evangelicalism is going to decline quickly to a smaller, more chastened, more diverse, less influential form. I think he is correct. I wrote about some of this myself last year looking at the issues of the economy, particularly gas prices.

So the question I want to raise, as I venture back into my tribal environment for a moment, is this: if Michael is correct, what does that look like for the SBC? What does the behemoth structure that is the “largest” evangelical denomination look like if evangelicalism declines as it is anticipated?

Here’s my prediction:

1. Not all of the six seminaries survive. Right now, the two that need to survive are Golden Gate and Southeastern. There may be only 3 at most in total that survive the cut.

2. The cost of seminary will be prohibitive for many because the financial support will not exist to offset the costs for Southern Baptists. That will result in less people at seminary, again potentially reducing the number of seminaries needed.

3. The lack of jobs in Southern Baptist churches will also keep people from going into the ministry as a profession. The end of the professional ministry is firmly upon many of us. It is going to be an even greater reality in the years to come.

4. The mission sending agencies will decline unless they can offset the financial fallout. It may actually result in the merger of the two primary missions sending organizations.

5. Other institutions associated with the denomination will be have to be disbanded or minimized, such as Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

6. Colleges affiliated with state conventions will carry more of the load of theological education. But they will need to provide a more multi-disciplined approach, incorporating training in other areas such as business or education into the curriculum so that graduates will have marketable skills in the economy.

7. If the financial fallout does occur, then the number of state conventions that survive will smaller, and the number of associations, particularly in the “pioneer” areas, with be smaller. They all depend on support from the North American Mission Board.

8. Churches will take more control of the mission work; the denominational institutions will not be able to support as much.

9. Ministers will flood the workplace as churches disband and staff members are released from their full-time pay and denominational employees are cut from the financial fallout.

10. Churches will have to work with churches from other denominations to get work done. The body of Christ may not be so fragmented as it is now.

The financial fallout is beginning, and will be in full force when a certain demographic dies out. At the rate in which younger Southern Baptists are leaving the denomination, unless they are somehow persuaded to be involved, the fallout could be disastrous.

Have I missed anything? What would you take exception to?