U.S. News had a special issue recently entitled "Secrets to a Stress-Free Summer." On the cover was a picture of a 230 foot suspension bridge in Vancouver and a caption that read "Picture yourself on this bridge. No email. No cellphone. No PDA. Now you are ready to hear the secrets to a stress-free summer. Take a deep breath everyone, it's time to slow down." This really caught my attention, and upon reading the companion story inside I found out that Americans have fewer paid vacation days than Europeans but still don't use all of them. Thus the phrase "vacation deprivation" to describe the condition of the typical American worker.
It's not all that surprising that we don't take all our vacation time. Some folks don't take any at all. I've had people tell me that it's more stressful coming back from a vacation than going on one. They dread all the work that's going to get piled up for them while they're away "relaxing." I can appreciate that sentiment. But, it's very important that we take time away from the daily grind to retool and refuel. There ought to daily, weekly, and annual opportunities to pull back for rest.
Some church folks don't think preachers deserve a vacation. They'll say, "the devil doesn't take vacations. " My thought is "Well, I didn't know the devil was supposed to be my example. And if I didn't take one, I'd be as mean and miserable as he is!" I heard that comeback somewhere and have made it my own. Clearly, Jesus should be our example and if he thought it was important to "get away" from things, then that ought to be good enough for us.
I'm preaching from Mark 7:24-30 this Sunday about "The Persistant Woman." Without getting into the story, I'll mention that Jesus entered Gentile territory (Tyre) with the intention of hiding out. "And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden" (v24). This incident occurs after a previous effort to get some rest but the crowd found out where Jesus was and prevented it (Mk 6:30-33). Jesus always had compassion on the crowds, but felt it was important to be alone for rest and reflection. There are several passages that indicate this truth.
In looking forward to my own vacation, I am reminded of what a precious commodity time is and unlike money, once you spend it, it's gone. Yes, there'll be stuff piled up for me upon my return, and I'm hopeful that nothing critical develops at the church that might require an early return from my trip. You can't allow this possibility to keep you from taking off. It's also good to be reminded that things can get along without you for a few days. So, there's at least one thing I'd like to accomplish this year: take ALL my vacation days. I don't want to deprive myself or family of the time. Plus, the church folks might enjoy time away from me as well.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
Every Member a Minister
It's been about two years since we started talking about transitioning from the deacon family ministry plan to deacon ministry teams. Our deacons were introduced to this concept by Dr. Gary Carver (Pastor FBC Chattanooga) at a deacon retreat, yet have not been able to implement the approach until now. Good things come to those who wait. We have good deacon leadership in place and the timing coincides with our church's move toward becoming a missional church.
The church used the deacon family ministry plan for a long time. The thing about the plan that troubled me was that I couldn't tell who was actually keeping up with their families. There was so much expected of a deacon in remembering birthdays, anniversaries, deaths, and illnesses, plus just "touching base" with folks periodically to let them know someone is thinking about them. It was no wonder that many of our deacons became frustrated and guilt-ridden about not being able to fulfill their deacon duties and live normal lives with jobs and families of their own. Very few deacons can perform all the tasks that the family ministry plan places on them, and those who are able to do them usually are retired in good health. So, after two years, the pieces are coming together to kick off the teams in the Fall.
The beauty of the deacon ministry teams is that each deacon can select one team to be on and have one ministry focus. Deacons don't have to be "jack of all trades" but find an area they feel strongly about. We're using the word "passion" in describing how the deacon should fulfill his or her ministry. There are two influences that are complementing each other in moving our church toward this new deacon concept. First, we are adopting a missional mindset. Our church learned about this term when Dr. Bo Prosser did a leadership weekend for us. Prosser works with the Center for Congregational Health with the CBF. Second, our deacons really bought into the team strategy after watching a video of Dr. Tom Stocks (Pastor Rosalind Hills BC) explaining the pitfalls of the family ministry plan when compared to the team approach. I could tell our deacons resonated with much of what he said.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the deacon ministry teams is that members of the congregation can participate. Members will be introduced to the teams and encouraged to select one. Some of our folks are already doing ministry and can simply plug into the team that most closely matches what they are already doing. Others will be challenged to get involved, maybe for the first time. It will take time for members to buy into this methodology because they have been conditioned to sit back and wait for a deacon to "check on them" even if nothing is wrong. That's a significant weakness with the family ministry plan. I never really cared for members who called asking who their deacon was and when asked what was wrong they said, "Oh nothing, I just haven't been called." I don't have any misgivings about transitioning the deacon approach, and realize there will be opposition once we get started. Change is hard for some people, and some will have the deer in headlights look and not want to move forward even though the old way wasn't working.
I am convinced that teams can be a great way to incorporate a "every member a minister" mentality in the congregation. The team mindset takes seriously the spiritual giftedness of deacons and church members. Yes, there will be problems to sort out and a positive attitude will be important. It will take time, but we're "burning the ships" and not looking back. I'm reminded of something I read in a book on pastoral ministry: "If you want to avoid criticism, the best way is to say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing." Nothing good ever comes easy, and I hope I am pleasantly surprised when these changes become reality. Our church deserves some successes, and I'm hopeful that making this transition will be one of them.
The church used the deacon family ministry plan for a long time. The thing about the plan that troubled me was that I couldn't tell who was actually keeping up with their families. There was so much expected of a deacon in remembering birthdays, anniversaries, deaths, and illnesses, plus just "touching base" with folks periodically to let them know someone is thinking about them. It was no wonder that many of our deacons became frustrated and guilt-ridden about not being able to fulfill their deacon duties and live normal lives with jobs and families of their own. Very few deacons can perform all the tasks that the family ministry plan places on them, and those who are able to do them usually are retired in good health. So, after two years, the pieces are coming together to kick off the teams in the Fall.
The beauty of the deacon ministry teams is that each deacon can select one team to be on and have one ministry focus. Deacons don't have to be "jack of all trades" but find an area they feel strongly about. We're using the word "passion" in describing how the deacon should fulfill his or her ministry. There are two influences that are complementing each other in moving our church toward this new deacon concept. First, we are adopting a missional mindset. Our church learned about this term when Dr. Bo Prosser did a leadership weekend for us. Prosser works with the Center for Congregational Health with the CBF. Second, our deacons really bought into the team strategy after watching a video of Dr. Tom Stocks (Pastor Rosalind Hills BC) explaining the pitfalls of the family ministry plan when compared to the team approach. I could tell our deacons resonated with much of what he said.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the deacon ministry teams is that members of the congregation can participate. Members will be introduced to the teams and encouraged to select one. Some of our folks are already doing ministry and can simply plug into the team that most closely matches what they are already doing. Others will be challenged to get involved, maybe for the first time. It will take time for members to buy into this methodology because they have been conditioned to sit back and wait for a deacon to "check on them" even if nothing is wrong. That's a significant weakness with the family ministry plan. I never really cared for members who called asking who their deacon was and when asked what was wrong they said, "Oh nothing, I just haven't been called." I don't have any misgivings about transitioning the deacon approach, and realize there will be opposition once we get started. Change is hard for some people, and some will have the deer in headlights look and not want to move forward even though the old way wasn't working.
I am convinced that teams can be a great way to incorporate a "every member a minister" mentality in the congregation. The team mindset takes seriously the spiritual giftedness of deacons and church members. Yes, there will be problems to sort out and a positive attitude will be important. It will take time, but we're "burning the ships" and not looking back. I'm reminded of something I read in a book on pastoral ministry: "If you want to avoid criticism, the best way is to say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing." Nothing good ever comes easy, and I hope I am pleasantly surprised when these changes become reality. Our church deserves some successes, and I'm hopeful that making this transition will be one of them.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Churches that grow Pastors
I'll be completing 2 years of ministry at Signal Mountain Baptist Church next week. I know this because our church secretary reminded me of this fact last Monday plus our staff looks for excuses to have lunch together. Celebrating anniversaries is one of them. We also recognize foreign holidays if it meets our purposes. It's true that time flies, especially when you have three small children as I do. It's wonderful to mark the passage of time by seeing the changes in Cally, Lucy, and Matt. No matter what happens at church, they are eager to have their Daddy come home. I am trying to enjoy the moment.
This is the third time I've been a pastor. Each church has been similar in size but different in temperment. It's a wonderful thing when the personality and philosophy of a pastor and congregation mesh. There are many aspects about our church that I appreciate, but none more so than the mission and ministry mindset of the people. Our church is pretty well-informed bunch in regard to denominational matters, and some of our members are leaders in their professional fields. They bring their skills and leadership into the church, and for the most part this has worked out well. Their are times, however, that I find leading the church to be akin to herding cats.
I wish I could say that the churches I've served have experienced astronomical numerical growth. That has not been the case, and in each situation I've struggled with the dynamics of population and demographics. My first pastorate was in a rural setting with no population growth unless you count calves that are born to farmers down the road from the church. It was a very stable environment, and even though we had folks join the church the overall attendance increased only slightly. It was a pleasant surprise, though, that I got to baptize quite a few young adults.
My second pastorate was a downtown situation in a transitional neighborhood, which is another way of saying that the church changed from a community fellowship to a commuter congregation. The racial demographic changed, as the apartment complex that once held many members became a "housing project." The church didn't change with the community around it. Many of the buildings that had been zoned residential had been changed to commercial, so this also played a factor. We had members "drive in" from all over town and the church even changed its name to reflect the idea of being "centrally located" in the county. The church had been in decline for 50 years, peaking in the '50s and going down the other side of the Bell curve ever since. We had young couples join while I was there, but it seemed like I was doing a funeral a week. It took an emotional toll on me. Nothing I seemed to do could change reality. I tried to get them to look at relocating, but the love of the building prevailed.
Now, the third time around, I'm in a community church where the folks who attend actually live around the building. It's a new phenomenon for me, and for the most part one that I enjoy. The population of the town has remained steady for several years, so there hasn't been a significant number of prospects moving in. Plus, our town is transient in nature, in that young couples move in for a few years and relocate based on new job opportunities. We've seen some numeric growth, but not an overwhelming increase due to a new pastor. It's been slow and steady, which I think benefits us in the long run.
There are pastors out there who are known for "growing churches." This label is a ticket to be punched at larger congregations along the ministry route. Many pastors work just as hard as others but don't experience the numeric growth due to location and other factors beyond their control (laziness is not one of them). The eureka moment for me has been learning that there are churches out there who "grow pastors" and are good at it. This is their ministry. It doesn't matter who the pastor is, there won't be much growth and the church has developed a comical viewpoint that says, "we were here before you came, and we'll be here when you leave." It's nice to know where you stand. This mentality can be crippling for ministry I know, and may contribute to shorter tenures. It can be reassuring for the laity because their existence doesn't rely totally on the pastor. Pastors can learn a lot from these kinds of churches that will benefit them in larger churches down the road.
I went back for the 100th anniversary of my first pastorate and discovered the church had had 40 pastors during their century of existence. This reality didn't seem to bother the members, as they had come to accept their role as "putting a saddle on" young preachers. I benefitted from their graciousness, too. If I had had a bad experience then, there's no telling where I'd be today. The same is true of many pastors, I'm sure. There are churches who will always give the pastor more than he can give them. I remember vividly what the Deacon Chairman said to me in the parking lot of the church after services one Sunday. I'd only been there about a year, and was the only pastor they'd had with a Ph.D degree. He said, "Danny, we know you're not going to be here long, but we want to take care of you while you're here." The latter part of that statement kept me from fretting about the former. I'm only now realizing its power and meaning for a young, inexperienced, pastor who really didn't know much about ministry.
It's a wonder that churches put up with the poor excuses for preaching and ministry that inexperience bring. I'm deeply indebted for the love, patience, and understanding of that first church in getting Lori and me off to a good start in ministry. Even though I wasn't able to grow that church a lot numerically, its members were instrumental in growing me. I'll always be grateful.
This is the third time I've been a pastor. Each church has been similar in size but different in temperment. It's a wonderful thing when the personality and philosophy of a pastor and congregation mesh. There are many aspects about our church that I appreciate, but none more so than the mission and ministry mindset of the people. Our church is pretty well-informed bunch in regard to denominational matters, and some of our members are leaders in their professional fields. They bring their skills and leadership into the church, and for the most part this has worked out well. Their are times, however, that I find leading the church to be akin to herding cats.
I wish I could say that the churches I've served have experienced astronomical numerical growth. That has not been the case, and in each situation I've struggled with the dynamics of population and demographics. My first pastorate was in a rural setting with no population growth unless you count calves that are born to farmers down the road from the church. It was a very stable environment, and even though we had folks join the church the overall attendance increased only slightly. It was a pleasant surprise, though, that I got to baptize quite a few young adults.
My second pastorate was a downtown situation in a transitional neighborhood, which is another way of saying that the church changed from a community fellowship to a commuter congregation. The racial demographic changed, as the apartment complex that once held many members became a "housing project." The church didn't change with the community around it. Many of the buildings that had been zoned residential had been changed to commercial, so this also played a factor. We had members "drive in" from all over town and the church even changed its name to reflect the idea of being "centrally located" in the county. The church had been in decline for 50 years, peaking in the '50s and going down the other side of the Bell curve ever since. We had young couples join while I was there, but it seemed like I was doing a funeral a week. It took an emotional toll on me. Nothing I seemed to do could change reality. I tried to get them to look at relocating, but the love of the building prevailed.
Now, the third time around, I'm in a community church where the folks who attend actually live around the building. It's a new phenomenon for me, and for the most part one that I enjoy. The population of the town has remained steady for several years, so there hasn't been a significant number of prospects moving in. Plus, our town is transient in nature, in that young couples move in for a few years and relocate based on new job opportunities. We've seen some numeric growth, but not an overwhelming increase due to a new pastor. It's been slow and steady, which I think benefits us in the long run.
There are pastors out there who are known for "growing churches." This label is a ticket to be punched at larger congregations along the ministry route. Many pastors work just as hard as others but don't experience the numeric growth due to location and other factors beyond their control (laziness is not one of them). The eureka moment for me has been learning that there are churches out there who "grow pastors" and are good at it. This is their ministry. It doesn't matter who the pastor is, there won't be much growth and the church has developed a comical viewpoint that says, "we were here before you came, and we'll be here when you leave." It's nice to know where you stand. This mentality can be crippling for ministry I know, and may contribute to shorter tenures. It can be reassuring for the laity because their existence doesn't rely totally on the pastor. Pastors can learn a lot from these kinds of churches that will benefit them in larger churches down the road.
I went back for the 100th anniversary of my first pastorate and discovered the church had had 40 pastors during their century of existence. This reality didn't seem to bother the members, as they had come to accept their role as "putting a saddle on" young preachers. I benefitted from their graciousness, too. If I had had a bad experience then, there's no telling where I'd be today. The same is true of many pastors, I'm sure. There are churches who will always give the pastor more than he can give them. I remember vividly what the Deacon Chairman said to me in the parking lot of the church after services one Sunday. I'd only been there about a year, and was the only pastor they'd had with a Ph.D degree. He said, "Danny, we know you're not going to be here long, but we want to take care of you while you're here." The latter part of that statement kept me from fretting about the former. I'm only now realizing its power and meaning for a young, inexperienced, pastor who really didn't know much about ministry.
It's a wonder that churches put up with the poor excuses for preaching and ministry that inexperience bring. I'm deeply indebted for the love, patience, and understanding of that first church in getting Lori and me off to a good start in ministry. Even though I wasn't able to grow that church a lot numerically, its members were instrumental in growing me. I'll always be grateful.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
It's Good to be Free
Guess who's going to North Korea? Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church, has been invited to come to the communist country next week. Tensions are already high between North Korea and the United States, particularly with the firing of a 7th medium-range missile. Even prior to these recent events, North Korea has been known for its religious persecution. Warren apparently understands this reality: "I know they're going to use me, so I'm going to use them." Saddleback is the largest Baptist church in the nation, and members consider Warren's trip a victory for religious freedom. However, a Christian Worldview Network spokesperson has another perspective. Ingrid Schueter, producer and co-host of a Christian talk show on the network says "not for a moment do these leaders worry they will have a Christian revival on their hands. Warren is loved and feted because his message is absent the cross and Christ's call to die" (ABP). Why was Warren invited? Time will tell.
We're 230 years old! July 4th is celebrated across our land with hamburgers, hotdogs, parades, and fireworks. And flags galore. One aspect of our Constitution that has particular meaning for me is the Bill of Rights, and specifically the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Other parts of it include freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to address the government for a redress of grievances. I wonder what North Korea's constitution looks like.
We are a religious nation. Some would say we are a "Christian" nation. However, we must not confuse patriotism with freedom in Jesus Christ. Being an American doesn't make me a Christian. Jesus addressed a similar issue with the Jews who felt like being Abraham's descendants gave them privileged status. He responded, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now, a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So, if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (Jn 8:34-36). They believed their physical lineage and geographical location secured special favor with the Almighty. This sort of thing is going on in our country today.
Historically, Baptists have been on the front lines in the fight for religious liberty. We have been on the receiving end of persecution in centuries past and would think we'd learn from it. But, growth and prosperity have caused many Baptists to change their tune. W.A. Criswell's comment in a 1984 television interview aptly describes the shift away from a key Baptist distinctive. He said, "I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel's imagination." Interestingly, Criswell followed a pastor at FBC Dallas who held to a completely different viewpoint. Dr. George W. Truett gave a sermon on the East steps of the Capitol Building in 1920 recalling Jesus' words to "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and to God the things that are God's." Truett said that these words were "the most revolutionary and history making utterances that ever fell from those lips divine. It marked once and for all the divorcement of church and state."
We're in trouble when Criswell's viewpoint gets more applause than does his predecessor's. There is a movement in place that seeks to wrap the church in an American flag and turn places of worship into political temples. It's almost as if you have to adhere to a particular political persuasion in order to be accepted in some churches. If you happen to disagree with the pastor or other leadership in these politically-consumed churches, then you are labelled as "just not believing the Bible." When politics and piety begin to mix, you know that something is going to be compromised. As with Esau from the book of Genesis, churches are giving away their prophetic birthright for a political bowl of stew.
Walking down one of the aisles of the Resource Fair at the CBF meeting in Atlanta, I stopped to look at a book entitled "Exiled." I must have been walking too slow, because the next thing I knew the author was selling me his book. The book is a compilation of essays written by men and women who for one reason or another found themselves marginalized from the SBC. He signed the front page, looked at me, and said the words he had written--"It's good to be free." He was talking about freedom in a denominational sense, but the words can apply to a broader theme. It is good to be free as Americans and as Christians, but we must not confuse the two. The Apostle Paul said that "our citizenship is in heaven" (Ph 3:20).
I believe in getting involved in politics by supporting candidates and going to the polls. But keep it outside the doors of the Lord's House. Preach issues but don't endorse candidates. Take a stand on the Word of God. Encourage people to vote, but don't make political party affiliations a test of fellowship in the church. Let's be more concerned about being on the Lord's side than whether He is on ours. People are living and dying without hearing or seeing an authentic Christian witness. Churches can all too easily fall prey to the politics of power and position. Keep the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" in place. If we don't, then either the church or the state is going to lose. I think I know which one.
We're 230 years old! July 4th is celebrated across our land with hamburgers, hotdogs, parades, and fireworks. And flags galore. One aspect of our Constitution that has particular meaning for me is the Bill of Rights, and specifically the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Other parts of it include freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to address the government for a redress of grievances. I wonder what North Korea's constitution looks like.
We are a religious nation. Some would say we are a "Christian" nation. However, we must not confuse patriotism with freedom in Jesus Christ. Being an American doesn't make me a Christian. Jesus addressed a similar issue with the Jews who felt like being Abraham's descendants gave them privileged status. He responded, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now, a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So, if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (Jn 8:34-36). They believed their physical lineage and geographical location secured special favor with the Almighty. This sort of thing is going on in our country today.
Historically, Baptists have been on the front lines in the fight for religious liberty. We have been on the receiving end of persecution in centuries past and would think we'd learn from it. But, growth and prosperity have caused many Baptists to change their tune. W.A. Criswell's comment in a 1984 television interview aptly describes the shift away from a key Baptist distinctive. He said, "I believe this notion of the separation of church and state was the figment of some infidel's imagination." Interestingly, Criswell followed a pastor at FBC Dallas who held to a completely different viewpoint. Dr. George W. Truett gave a sermon on the East steps of the Capitol Building in 1920 recalling Jesus' words to "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and to God the things that are God's." Truett said that these words were "the most revolutionary and history making utterances that ever fell from those lips divine. It marked once and for all the divorcement of church and state."
We're in trouble when Criswell's viewpoint gets more applause than does his predecessor's. There is a movement in place that seeks to wrap the church in an American flag and turn places of worship into political temples. It's almost as if you have to adhere to a particular political persuasion in order to be accepted in some churches. If you happen to disagree with the pastor or other leadership in these politically-consumed churches, then you are labelled as "just not believing the Bible." When politics and piety begin to mix, you know that something is going to be compromised. As with Esau from the book of Genesis, churches are giving away their prophetic birthright for a political bowl of stew.
Walking down one of the aisles of the Resource Fair at the CBF meeting in Atlanta, I stopped to look at a book entitled "Exiled." I must have been walking too slow, because the next thing I knew the author was selling me his book. The book is a compilation of essays written by men and women who for one reason or another found themselves marginalized from the SBC. He signed the front page, looked at me, and said the words he had written--"It's good to be free." He was talking about freedom in a denominational sense, but the words can apply to a broader theme. It is good to be free as Americans and as Christians, but we must not confuse the two. The Apostle Paul said that "our citizenship is in heaven" (Ph 3:20).
I believe in getting involved in politics by supporting candidates and going to the polls. But keep it outside the doors of the Lord's House. Preach issues but don't endorse candidates. Take a stand on the Word of God. Encourage people to vote, but don't make political party affiliations a test of fellowship in the church. Let's be more concerned about being on the Lord's side than whether He is on ours. People are living and dying without hearing or seeing an authentic Christian witness. Churches can all too easily fall prey to the politics of power and position. Keep the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" in place. If we don't, then either the church or the state is going to lose. I think I know which one.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
How Important is Your Church?
We had a married couple visiting from Jackson, MS in worship today They are visiting a family in our church for the July 4th holiday. He told me he was minister of music at Castlewoods Baptist Church and I immediately said, "Oh, I've heard of that church. I came from Meridian, you know." Meridian is only 90 miles from Jackson. He said, "You're probably thinking of Crossgates Baptist Church. We're a lot smaller than they are. Folks confuse us all the time. It's something we're used to." I said, "You're right. I was thinking of that church." We got a good laugh out of it, but my perspective changed. One moment I was talking to a staffer from one of the largest churches in Jackson, the next I was speaking to a man from a church running about 50 in Sunday School.
This seemingly innocent conversation had an unexpected impact on me. I was reminded of an article in The Baptist Record (MS state paper) years ago entitled, "The Search for the Significant Church." I can't remember the specifics of the story, but I think it had something to do with how we measure the importance of churches. The larger congregations seem to get more attention, especially when you factor in the 3 B's: buildings, budgets, and baptisms (preacher talk). It's no wonder many smaller churches have an identity crisis and have pastors who struggle with the significance of their work. Now, I know that churches aren't supposed to compete with each other. After all, we're all on the same team. Still, there is that commercialism lurking just underneath the surface that rears its ugly head from time to time. Church members add to this perception by looking down the road and saying "just look at all the programs THAT church has. Why can't we do that?" Oftentimes they have no clue as to the differing budgets and staff sizes and how these differences are important.
Preachers deal with this sort of thing all the time. That's why I choose my conferences carefully. I've attended pastors' conferences that were supposed to be learning opportunities but turned out to be bragging sessions about church statistics, finances, and church growth. The guest speakers are introduced with something like "Under Dr. So and So's dynamic leadership and preaching, his church tripled their membership from 500 to 1500 in two years!" I've been waiting to hear something like "Dr. So and So has served 3 years at his church and they've been losing in SS attendence and struggle with their budget. He doesn't know what to do!" That would pack them in, would it?
What I don't need is a pastor who has relocated his church to a suburb where folks are moving to in droves to tell me that "if you'll do what I did you'll double your church in three years." It irks me when a pastor won't acknowledge that he's benefitted from the growth of his town or city, or especially if he gained a lot of members at the expense of another church's problems. Almost without exception pastors of "blowing and going" churches are asked to lead conferences attended by ministers whose churches run less than 200 in Sunday School. These smaller church guys are doing good work without the benefit of new folks moving into the area. I have spoken to pastors who have stopped attending conferences because they get so discouraged by them (actually, by national standards, churches running 200 are among the larger congregations).
You hear in seminary that 75% of Southern Baptist churches are declining or plateaued. What you don't find out until after graduation is that many of these "declining" churches are located in rural areas with static growth numbers (it's also interesting that "moderate" congregations were accused of being unevangelistic yet SBC stats are pretty much the same without them--we all have work to do in this area). You never hear much about any ministry going on or how hard pastors work day after day with little results. It's no wonder pastors are discouraged. This isn't an excuse for laziness, but an effort to be real with the numbers, location, and context of each church situation. The Annual Church Profile, which gives stats for membership, giving, and baptisms only tells part of the story.
Chapel wasn't mandatory at NOBTS, but I did attend most of them, unless a faculty member was speaking whom I didn't care much about. One time Dr. Ed Young, Sr., pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston, TX came and I made sure I heard him. I remember that day because he left the pulpit and came down to the pews to "talk church." One student asked about how he could get his church to grow and if there was anything out there he hadn't tried. Dr. Young answered and said there were three keys to growing a church: "location, location, and location." Surprisingly, it wasn't about great preaching, ministries, or service, even though he mentioned the importance of them. It was about WHERE the building was located. I've thought about that statement a lot, and believe there is merit to it.
One thing I've tried to do is move away from the "church growth" model to a "church health" mentality. Every good pastor will tell you that he wants his church to grow, but not every good pastor is able to pull it off. I've seen pastors draw a large crowd through some type of sensational event, even stooping to bizarre tactics. I read about one country pastor who said he'd kiss a pig if his church got 200 in SS--they ran 50. His folks invited everybody and anybody for the Sunday in mind not so much for the glory of God but to see their preacher kiss a pig (I guess I could shave my head, but that wouldn't be a great loss).
There are many large churches out there but that doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy. Church health opts for a slower, more gradual and intentional approach in helping people grow as disciples rather than determining how many people were in church on a given Sunday. Don't get me wrong, I'll check the giving records and SS attendance on Monday morning. Nowadays though, I don't get my value as a person or minister from them. This has been a liberating discovery. I aim to do my best and leave the rest to the Lord. After all, growth is God's job (Acts 2:47b; I Cor 3:6).
Consider the ministry of Jesus. I've searched the gospels pretty thoroughly and can't find a single occasion when the Lord said, "Look at a what a big crowd we have today!" That's something I would say, but not him. He loved the crowds and had compassion on them, but transformed persons on a more personal and intimate level. Growing disciples was his concern, and it should be ours as well. Any church that is worshipping the risen Savior, loving one another, and sharing the gospel is an important church to the Kingdom of God. These churches give their monies to missions, go on mission trips, teach the Bible, do VBS, attend weddings and funerals, cook food for sick folks, and love one another through the joys and difficulties of life. Their size (or lack of it) doesn't keep them from making a difference for Christ. That guy out of Jackson serves a church like that, and that makes it important in the Kingdom. I don't know him all that well, but at least we have that much in common.
This seemingly innocent conversation had an unexpected impact on me. I was reminded of an article in The Baptist Record (MS state paper) years ago entitled, "The Search for the Significant Church." I can't remember the specifics of the story, but I think it had something to do with how we measure the importance of churches. The larger congregations seem to get more attention, especially when you factor in the 3 B's: buildings, budgets, and baptisms (preacher talk). It's no wonder many smaller churches have an identity crisis and have pastors who struggle with the significance of their work. Now, I know that churches aren't supposed to compete with each other. After all, we're all on the same team. Still, there is that commercialism lurking just underneath the surface that rears its ugly head from time to time. Church members add to this perception by looking down the road and saying "just look at all the programs THAT church has. Why can't we do that?" Oftentimes they have no clue as to the differing budgets and staff sizes and how these differences are important.
Preachers deal with this sort of thing all the time. That's why I choose my conferences carefully. I've attended pastors' conferences that were supposed to be learning opportunities but turned out to be bragging sessions about church statistics, finances, and church growth. The guest speakers are introduced with something like "Under Dr. So and So's dynamic leadership and preaching, his church tripled their membership from 500 to 1500 in two years!" I've been waiting to hear something like "Dr. So and So has served 3 years at his church and they've been losing in SS attendence and struggle with their budget. He doesn't know what to do!" That would pack them in, would it?
What I don't need is a pastor who has relocated his church to a suburb where folks are moving to in droves to tell me that "if you'll do what I did you'll double your church in three years." It irks me when a pastor won't acknowledge that he's benefitted from the growth of his town or city, or especially if he gained a lot of members at the expense of another church's problems. Almost without exception pastors of "blowing and going" churches are asked to lead conferences attended by ministers whose churches run less than 200 in Sunday School. These smaller church guys are doing good work without the benefit of new folks moving into the area. I have spoken to pastors who have stopped attending conferences because they get so discouraged by them (actually, by national standards, churches running 200 are among the larger congregations).
You hear in seminary that 75% of Southern Baptist churches are declining or plateaued. What you don't find out until after graduation is that many of these "declining" churches are located in rural areas with static growth numbers (it's also interesting that "moderate" congregations were accused of being unevangelistic yet SBC stats are pretty much the same without them--we all have work to do in this area). You never hear much about any ministry going on or how hard pastors work day after day with little results. It's no wonder pastors are discouraged. This isn't an excuse for laziness, but an effort to be real with the numbers, location, and context of each church situation. The Annual Church Profile, which gives stats for membership, giving, and baptisms only tells part of the story.
Chapel wasn't mandatory at NOBTS, but I did attend most of them, unless a faculty member was speaking whom I didn't care much about. One time Dr. Ed Young, Sr., pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston, TX came and I made sure I heard him. I remember that day because he left the pulpit and came down to the pews to "talk church." One student asked about how he could get his church to grow and if there was anything out there he hadn't tried. Dr. Young answered and said there were three keys to growing a church: "location, location, and location." Surprisingly, it wasn't about great preaching, ministries, or service, even though he mentioned the importance of them. It was about WHERE the building was located. I've thought about that statement a lot, and believe there is merit to it.
One thing I've tried to do is move away from the "church growth" model to a "church health" mentality. Every good pastor will tell you that he wants his church to grow, but not every good pastor is able to pull it off. I've seen pastors draw a large crowd through some type of sensational event, even stooping to bizarre tactics. I read about one country pastor who said he'd kiss a pig if his church got 200 in SS--they ran 50. His folks invited everybody and anybody for the Sunday in mind not so much for the glory of God but to see their preacher kiss a pig (I guess I could shave my head, but that wouldn't be a great loss).
There are many large churches out there but that doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy. Church health opts for a slower, more gradual and intentional approach in helping people grow as disciples rather than determining how many people were in church on a given Sunday. Don't get me wrong, I'll check the giving records and SS attendance on Monday morning. Nowadays though, I don't get my value as a person or minister from them. This has been a liberating discovery. I aim to do my best and leave the rest to the Lord. After all, growth is God's job (Acts 2:47b; I Cor 3:6).
Consider the ministry of Jesus. I've searched the gospels pretty thoroughly and can't find a single occasion when the Lord said, "Look at a what a big crowd we have today!" That's something I would say, but not him. He loved the crowds and had compassion on them, but transformed persons on a more personal and intimate level. Growing disciples was his concern, and it should be ours as well. Any church that is worshipping the risen Savior, loving one another, and sharing the gospel is an important church to the Kingdom of God. These churches give their monies to missions, go on mission trips, teach the Bible, do VBS, attend weddings and funerals, cook food for sick folks, and love one another through the joys and difficulties of life. Their size (or lack of it) doesn't keep them from making a difference for Christ. That guy out of Jackson serves a church like that, and that makes it important in the Kingdom. I don't know him all that well, but at least we have that much in common.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Dan Brown bashing
We were in the newspaper this week. Our local twice-a-month paper ran a front page story about mountain churches trying to "crack" the DaVinci Code. I remember asking one of their reporters whether any other churches were dealing with the book or movie and she turned this into a news story. Apparently there was enough interest to write about it. There was a picture of me in there with several of our members to boot. I haven't had any requests for autographs, though. The reporter also dealt with the subject in an editorial, referring to her experience in one of our sessions. You never know how the media is going to relate church to the public, so you hope for the best.
It's interesting to hear how other churches are handling (or not handling) the book. Of the four churches mentioned in the paper, ours and a Presbyterian church did some type of study on it while the Church of Christ and Episcopal church passed on the opportunity. The two that were doing nothing said things like they were too busy sharing the love of Christ or didn't want to give the Devil any attention other than rebuking him. To each his own, and it's not a test of fellowship to do a study of Dan Brown's book. But, our church is dealing with it to capitalize on a golden opportunity to discuss our beliefs and learn how others view the church.
If I had announced that we were having a doctrinal series on "the person and work of Christ'" or "The authority and inspiration of Scripture" there would not have been the response that I have had since starting the discussion on the DaVinci Code. I regret admitting that, but suspect that this would be true in a large majority of Baptist churches. Talking doctrine with many church members would be a yawner for sure, especially without a catered meal. Many Christians (at least Baptists) accept with the deity and humanity of Christ for the most part and don't need convincing about it. They could use a fresher course to have some ammo to discuss their beliefs with some degree of intelligence (After hearing some Baptist preachers and denominational leaders, you'd think having a little brain power is a bad thing. Besides, you can always say that those who disagree with you "just don't believe the Bible"--I digress). Anyway, Baptists are also "people of the book" and are passionate in their discussion about it. Unfortunately, too many take God's Word for granted because they've "heard all the stories." So, utilizing the DaVinci Code makes sense to demonstrate how faith intersects with real life. There are too many misconceptions about God, Jesus, and the Bible for the church not to respond in a positive way. As one of my theology professors said, "Wrong ideas about God are idolatrous." Bad doctrine messes people up.
We are in the middle of this study and will be finishing up in a few weeks. We've talked about issues raised by the Brown novel with a cup of coffee in one hand and the Bible in the other. The newspaper reporter seemed to suggest we were "focusing" on the DaVinci Code, but in reality we are talking about theological issues that surface in its reading. I have been encouraging by the lively discussion, most recently from our look at "Jesus, Mary Magdelene, and women." Going through the preparation and presentation each week has had an unexpected result, however. I have lamented the fact that many are reading this novel and saying "Yes, that's what I thought about the church all along!" The book deals with the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but the impact is felt along other denominational lines as well. I have also been reminded that apathy toward basic Christian doctrines is causing spiritual decay in our ranks. This has been going on for a long time and we are going to pay a price for it.
This is the 21st century. There have been many assaults on Christianity and the church, so the DaVinci Code isn't the first time. I'm not convinced that the book is "anti-church" or if that was the author's purpose. Some preachers have called it "heresy" or an "epistle from hell" and other less complementary descriptions (By the way, the church hasn't had a great report card throughout certain periods in history). I told our bunch I wasn't endorsing the book or movie version. What we're dealing with is the theological underpinnings of Brown's work, and if that makes us think more seriously about who we are, what we believe, and WHY, the effort will be worth it.
It's interesting to hear how other churches are handling (or not handling) the book. Of the four churches mentioned in the paper, ours and a Presbyterian church did some type of study on it while the Church of Christ and Episcopal church passed on the opportunity. The two that were doing nothing said things like they were too busy sharing the love of Christ or didn't want to give the Devil any attention other than rebuking him. To each his own, and it's not a test of fellowship to do a study of Dan Brown's book. But, our church is dealing with it to capitalize on a golden opportunity to discuss our beliefs and learn how others view the church.
If I had announced that we were having a doctrinal series on "the person and work of Christ'" or "The authority and inspiration of Scripture" there would not have been the response that I have had since starting the discussion on the DaVinci Code. I regret admitting that, but suspect that this would be true in a large majority of Baptist churches. Talking doctrine with many church members would be a yawner for sure, especially without a catered meal. Many Christians (at least Baptists) accept with the deity and humanity of Christ for the most part and don't need convincing about it. They could use a fresher course to have some ammo to discuss their beliefs with some degree of intelligence (After hearing some Baptist preachers and denominational leaders, you'd think having a little brain power is a bad thing. Besides, you can always say that those who disagree with you "just don't believe the Bible"--I digress). Anyway, Baptists are also "people of the book" and are passionate in their discussion about it. Unfortunately, too many take God's Word for granted because they've "heard all the stories." So, utilizing the DaVinci Code makes sense to demonstrate how faith intersects with real life. There are too many misconceptions about God, Jesus, and the Bible for the church not to respond in a positive way. As one of my theology professors said, "Wrong ideas about God are idolatrous." Bad doctrine messes people up.
We are in the middle of this study and will be finishing up in a few weeks. We've talked about issues raised by the Brown novel with a cup of coffee in one hand and the Bible in the other. The newspaper reporter seemed to suggest we were "focusing" on the DaVinci Code, but in reality we are talking about theological issues that surface in its reading. I have been encouraging by the lively discussion, most recently from our look at "Jesus, Mary Magdelene, and women." Going through the preparation and presentation each week has had an unexpected result, however. I have lamented the fact that many are reading this novel and saying "Yes, that's what I thought about the church all along!" The book deals with the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but the impact is felt along other denominational lines as well. I have also been reminded that apathy toward basic Christian doctrines is causing spiritual decay in our ranks. This has been going on for a long time and we are going to pay a price for it.
This is the 21st century. There have been many assaults on Christianity and the church, so the DaVinci Code isn't the first time. I'm not convinced that the book is "anti-church" or if that was the author's purpose. Some preachers have called it "heresy" or an "epistle from hell" and other less complementary descriptions (By the way, the church hasn't had a great report card throughout certain periods in history). I told our bunch I wasn't endorsing the book or movie version. What we're dealing with is the theological underpinnings of Brown's work, and if that makes us think more seriously about who we are, what we believe, and WHY, the effort will be worth it.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
CBF General Assembly in the Rearview Mirror
Well, it's official. I never really doubted how things stood, but it's good to have something in writing to clarify matters for folks inside and outside the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). Perhaps the most important business to occur during the Atlanta General Assembly pertained to the approval of a Preamble to the CBF Constitution. The Preamble reads:
As a fellowship of Baptist Christians and churches, we celebrate our faith in the One Triune God. We gladly declare our allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord and to His gospel as we seek to be the continuing presence of Christ in this world. Our passion is to obey the Great Commandment (Mt 22:34-40) and the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20) of our Lord in the power of the Holy Spirit, and to uphold Baptist principles of faith and practice as we partner with one another and other Christians.
This statement was approved with very little discussion in the business breakout session and without any debate in the open assembly. I'm very pleased about this addition to the Constitution and believe it will serve as a guiding principle in the CBF's business. As one attendee stated, "More people know the preamble of the US Constitution than they do the Constitution itself." This is an addition that CBF individuals and churches can proclaim when asked about CBF priorities.
The keynote speakers all gave challenging addresses. First, Moderator Joy Yee, a Chinese-American, talked about the importance of becoming inclusive in our service to the gospel with those of different races and nationalities. This is one issue that CBF is attempting to improve upon. Next year's moderator, Emmanuel McCall, is an African-American. It is good so see this diversity on the platform as well as in workshops and worship gatherings. Second, Trevor Hudson gave a stirring message on the theme "Have you got the ticket?" A South African Methodist, Hudson gave thanks for the privilege of speaking to a group of Baptists. He compared the CBF to a train headed for ministry to the poor and overlooked in the world. Hudson was also a leader in the AIDS Summit preceding the General Assembly. Finally, Coordinator Daniel Vestal reemphasized CBF's dedication to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of God's Word, Baptist principles, women in ministry, justice, missions, and ministry to those most neglected in the world. Vestal mentioned that after 15 years, CBF has grown in its mission, ministries, and members.
Lori and I attended several workshops between sessions and enjoyed lunches sponsored by the Baptist Center for Ethics and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJCRL). We sat by Joe and Carolyn Crumpler at the Ethics luncheon; Carolyn (known then as Weatherford) served as the national WMU Director for years before taking early retirement. It was good catching up with Joe and Audra Trull as well. Joe was Professor of Ethics at New Orleans Seminary when I was a student there and helped a great deal during my doctoral studies. He and Audra are special friends to Lori and me.
Dr. Walter (called "Buddy" by friends) Shurden gave the keynote speech at the BJCRL luncheon. Next to the approval of the CBF Preamble, his remarks were the most meaningful part of the week. Buddy talked about the danger of seeing the "Wall of Separation" between church and state collapsing and gave several examples of how this was happening today. He said several times "it could happen here" in relating to the fall of Germany to Hitler and how Germany was blessed with religious and cultural leaders at the time of their fall. No one then could have imagined what would happen. The church became filled with "German Christians" who were more passionate about the first word in the phrase than the latter. In a similar way, there are "American Christians" who are convinced that we live in a "Christian nation" and are working toward merging church and state into a theocracy. It's a dangerous thing when we depend upon the government to do the work of the church. The "separation of church and state" is a precious principle and must be upheld.
Sometimes folks ask how CBF is doing. I'm reminded of what Bo Prosser said to that question in 2004. He said, "About as well as any 13 year old I know." Well, CBF is only 15 years this year but has made significant strides. It's not perfect and has its critics. But, it is a home for Baptist individuals and churches who are seeking to be "the presence of Christ" through word and deed.
The CBF General Assembly meets in Washington D.C. next year. There will be some association with the American Baptist Convention who gathers there at the same time. The two groups will celebrate their commonalities with Baptist missions, ministry, and distinctives.
As a fellowship of Baptist Christians and churches, we celebrate our faith in the One Triune God. We gladly declare our allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord and to His gospel as we seek to be the continuing presence of Christ in this world. Our passion is to obey the Great Commandment (Mt 22:34-40) and the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20) of our Lord in the power of the Holy Spirit, and to uphold Baptist principles of faith and practice as we partner with one another and other Christians.
This statement was approved with very little discussion in the business breakout session and without any debate in the open assembly. I'm very pleased about this addition to the Constitution and believe it will serve as a guiding principle in the CBF's business. As one attendee stated, "More people know the preamble of the US Constitution than they do the Constitution itself." This is an addition that CBF individuals and churches can proclaim when asked about CBF priorities.
The keynote speakers all gave challenging addresses. First, Moderator Joy Yee, a Chinese-American, talked about the importance of becoming inclusive in our service to the gospel with those of different races and nationalities. This is one issue that CBF is attempting to improve upon. Next year's moderator, Emmanuel McCall, is an African-American. It is good so see this diversity on the platform as well as in workshops and worship gatherings. Second, Trevor Hudson gave a stirring message on the theme "Have you got the ticket?" A South African Methodist, Hudson gave thanks for the privilege of speaking to a group of Baptists. He compared the CBF to a train headed for ministry to the poor and overlooked in the world. Hudson was also a leader in the AIDS Summit preceding the General Assembly. Finally, Coordinator Daniel Vestal reemphasized CBF's dedication to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of God's Word, Baptist principles, women in ministry, justice, missions, and ministry to those most neglected in the world. Vestal mentioned that after 15 years, CBF has grown in its mission, ministries, and members.
Lori and I attended several workshops between sessions and enjoyed lunches sponsored by the Baptist Center for Ethics and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJCRL). We sat by Joe and Carolyn Crumpler at the Ethics luncheon; Carolyn (known then as Weatherford) served as the national WMU Director for years before taking early retirement. It was good catching up with Joe and Audra Trull as well. Joe was Professor of Ethics at New Orleans Seminary when I was a student there and helped a great deal during my doctoral studies. He and Audra are special friends to Lori and me.
Dr. Walter (called "Buddy" by friends) Shurden gave the keynote speech at the BJCRL luncheon. Next to the approval of the CBF Preamble, his remarks were the most meaningful part of the week. Buddy talked about the danger of seeing the "Wall of Separation" between church and state collapsing and gave several examples of how this was happening today. He said several times "it could happen here" in relating to the fall of Germany to Hitler and how Germany was blessed with religious and cultural leaders at the time of their fall. No one then could have imagined what would happen. The church became filled with "German Christians" who were more passionate about the first word in the phrase than the latter. In a similar way, there are "American Christians" who are convinced that we live in a "Christian nation" and are working toward merging church and state into a theocracy. It's a dangerous thing when we depend upon the government to do the work of the church. The "separation of church and state" is a precious principle and must be upheld.
Sometimes folks ask how CBF is doing. I'm reminded of what Bo Prosser said to that question in 2004. He said, "About as well as any 13 year old I know." Well, CBF is only 15 years this year but has made significant strides. It's not perfect and has its critics. But, it is a home for Baptist individuals and churches who are seeking to be "the presence of Christ" through word and deed.
The CBF General Assembly meets in Washington D.C. next year. There will be some association with the American Baptist Convention who gathers there at the same time. The two groups will celebrate their commonalities with Baptist missions, ministry, and distinctives.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Still Baptist after all these Years
The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship General Assembly begins this Tuesday in Atlanta. I'm looking forward to the events of week and praying for a good experience. Having Lori with me will add to the enjoyment of these next few days at the World Congress Center.
The last time I attended a CBF meeting in Atlanta it was to hear former President Jimmy Carter. There were about 8,000 people gathered the night he spoke. I remember being overwhelmed at the attendance and moved by the former President's remarks. Regardless of how you feel about him as a political figure, he has demonstrated a genuine concern for Baptist life and has been active in making the world a better place. Some have called him the best former president we've ever had. His comments on denominational life, in particular, struck a chord with me and I realized I had found a home with the CBF.
The CBF is not perfect by any means. One thing that I appreciate about the organization is its missions emphasis and appreciation for local church autonomy. This means that there are some churches out there that give financially to the CBF with whom I might differ theologically. This is confusing to non-CBFers and a source of criticism which tends to ascribe "guilt by association". To buy into this tactic is to miss the purpose of the Fellowship. The primary concern of the CBF is to be resource for Baptist Christians and churches to "be the presence of Christ" in the world through our words and actions. If the confession "Jesus Christ is Lord" has real meaning for you, then you'll find a home among CBFers.
It is a wonderful privilege to serve as pastor of a church that appreciates Baptist distinctives and celebrates our freedom in Christ. One lesson I've learned is that we were never "God's last and only hope" and bigness isn't all it's cracked up to be. I remember one of my seminary professors saying "the greater the good, the greater the danger" meaning we can succumb to the temptation of pride in our accomplishments if we're not careful. Our church has a good mix of SBC folks, CBFers, and some who don't know or care what the fuss is about. The vast majority of our people, however, are concerned about the SEC (Southeastern conference--I do live in Tennessee). We don't make these preferences a litmust test for fellowship or membership. It's quite a diverse and educated group, one that proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord, affirms the authority of God's Word, and is passionate about missions and caring for one another.
It is refreshing to find a larger body of people who believe these things as well. There is quite a lot of good outside the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message box. Anytime you meet with Baptists, there will be differences but hopefully we can agree that people need the Lord. The old adage "in essentials unity, non-essentials liberality, and in all things charity" resonates with me and other like-minded Baptists. I'm looking forward to rubbing shoulders with folks like that this next week at the General Assembly.
The last time I attended a CBF meeting in Atlanta it was to hear former President Jimmy Carter. There were about 8,000 people gathered the night he spoke. I remember being overwhelmed at the attendance and moved by the former President's remarks. Regardless of how you feel about him as a political figure, he has demonstrated a genuine concern for Baptist life and has been active in making the world a better place. Some have called him the best former president we've ever had. His comments on denominational life, in particular, struck a chord with me and I realized I had found a home with the CBF.
The CBF is not perfect by any means. One thing that I appreciate about the organization is its missions emphasis and appreciation for local church autonomy. This means that there are some churches out there that give financially to the CBF with whom I might differ theologically. This is confusing to non-CBFers and a source of criticism which tends to ascribe "guilt by association". To buy into this tactic is to miss the purpose of the Fellowship. The primary concern of the CBF is to be resource for Baptist Christians and churches to "be the presence of Christ" in the world through our words and actions. If the confession "Jesus Christ is Lord" has real meaning for you, then you'll find a home among CBFers.
It is a wonderful privilege to serve as pastor of a church that appreciates Baptist distinctives and celebrates our freedom in Christ. One lesson I've learned is that we were never "God's last and only hope" and bigness isn't all it's cracked up to be. I remember one of my seminary professors saying "the greater the good, the greater the danger" meaning we can succumb to the temptation of pride in our accomplishments if we're not careful. Our church has a good mix of SBC folks, CBFers, and some who don't know or care what the fuss is about. The vast majority of our people, however, are concerned about the SEC (Southeastern conference--I do live in Tennessee). We don't make these preferences a litmust test for fellowship or membership. It's quite a diverse and educated group, one that proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord, affirms the authority of God's Word, and is passionate about missions and caring for one another.
It is refreshing to find a larger body of people who believe these things as well. There is quite a lot of good outside the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message box. Anytime you meet with Baptists, there will be differences but hopefully we can agree that people need the Lord. The old adage "in essentials unity, non-essentials liberality, and in all things charity" resonates with me and other like-minded Baptists. I'm looking forward to rubbing shoulders with folks like that this next week at the General Assembly.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Check those Refrigerators!
The Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro produced some interesting news. The election of Dr. Frank Page as SBC President proved somewhat of an upset in that he was selected by rank and file Southern Baptists rather than handpicked by the current power brokers. Page appears to be a fundamentalist like his predecessors but doesn't want to be mean about it. It will be interesting to see what, if any, impact this selection will make.
Even more amazing is the fact that there are things left to argue about after all the "moderates" were exiled about 25 years ago. Out of the blue comes this resolution on alcohol. It would ensure that no trustee of a Baptist institution touches a drop of the stuff while serving in that capacity. I guess it's okay to drink as long as you're not aspiring to be a trustee of something in the SBC.
Now I'm not an advocate of using alcoholic beverages and will take a Diet Coke over a beer any day. Abstaining from the beverage is a good thing and you don't need the old Church Covenant to tell you that. My questions are "Why stop with the ban on drinking alcohol?" and "How can you enforce it?"
I guess the "refrigerator patrol" will be out in full force to check what is being chilled in the homes of trustees from now on. Perhaps the honor system would work. But, trust doesn't seem to work well in the SBC. What does it say that there has to be a resolution on this matter at all?
There are so many other vices to consider that I'm surprised they stopped with just one. I mean, tobacco has to be among those at the top of the list. I've buried more people who died of cancer than by consuming too much alcohol. Cancer is such a dreaded disease it would have been a logical choice. Of course, the convention was in North Carolina and that wouldn't have been popular on tobacco row.
How about obesity? Food is one subject that all Baptists know something about. Nothing wrong with eating and meeting. Honestly, can you think of an easier stipulation to enforce? All you have to do is look at somebody and say "you've tipped the scales too much big boy!" Plus, the consumption of alcohol and use of tobacco can be easily done in secret. You can do these vices in the privacy of your own home but overdo it on the sweets and you are in real trouble. You can put down a beer can somewhere but that pouch stays with you all the time. Of course, the obesity rule may have been unrealistic because it would have made finding eligible trustees even more difficult. You'd have to have a picture of them before voting them in and finding someone to verify the percentage of fat would have been a real chore.
There are biblical references to avoiding alcoholic beverages and specifically against drunkeness. Yet, Jesus turned water into wine (Jn 2:9) and the Apostle Paul advised Timothy to "use a little wine because of your stomach and frequent illnesses (I Tm 5:23). Folks who claim to know so much about the Bible ought to realize this. A better approach could have been to adopt Paul's principle that that our bodies are "the temple of the Holy Spirit" and each one should "glorify God with your body" (I Cor 6:19-20). This principle would have covered the whole range of behavior for trustees and other Southern Baptists alike. The way things are now, even Jesus and Paul wouldn't qualify for service in the SBC.
Even more amazing is the fact that there are things left to argue about after all the "moderates" were exiled about 25 years ago. Out of the blue comes this resolution on alcohol. It would ensure that no trustee of a Baptist institution touches a drop of the stuff while serving in that capacity. I guess it's okay to drink as long as you're not aspiring to be a trustee of something in the SBC.
Now I'm not an advocate of using alcoholic beverages and will take a Diet Coke over a beer any day. Abstaining from the beverage is a good thing and you don't need the old Church Covenant to tell you that. My questions are "Why stop with the ban on drinking alcohol?" and "How can you enforce it?"
I guess the "refrigerator patrol" will be out in full force to check what is being chilled in the homes of trustees from now on. Perhaps the honor system would work. But, trust doesn't seem to work well in the SBC. What does it say that there has to be a resolution on this matter at all?
There are so many other vices to consider that I'm surprised they stopped with just one. I mean, tobacco has to be among those at the top of the list. I've buried more people who died of cancer than by consuming too much alcohol. Cancer is such a dreaded disease it would have been a logical choice. Of course, the convention was in North Carolina and that wouldn't have been popular on tobacco row.
How about obesity? Food is one subject that all Baptists know something about. Nothing wrong with eating and meeting. Honestly, can you think of an easier stipulation to enforce? All you have to do is look at somebody and say "you've tipped the scales too much big boy!" Plus, the consumption of alcohol and use of tobacco can be easily done in secret. You can do these vices in the privacy of your own home but overdo it on the sweets and you are in real trouble. You can put down a beer can somewhere but that pouch stays with you all the time. Of course, the obesity rule may have been unrealistic because it would have made finding eligible trustees even more difficult. You'd have to have a picture of them before voting them in and finding someone to verify the percentage of fat would have been a real chore.
There are biblical references to avoiding alcoholic beverages and specifically against drunkeness. Yet, Jesus turned water into wine (Jn 2:9) and the Apostle Paul advised Timothy to "use a little wine because of your stomach and frequent illnesses (I Tm 5:23). Folks who claim to know so much about the Bible ought to realize this. A better approach could have been to adopt Paul's principle that that our bodies are "the temple of the Holy Spirit" and each one should "glorify God with your body" (I Cor 6:19-20). This principle would have covered the whole range of behavior for trustees and other Southern Baptists alike. The way things are now, even Jesus and Paul wouldn't qualify for service in the SBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
