Tim Guthrie, the owner of the original SBCToday blog, has decided to post a series on moving forward in the SBC by looking to the future of continuing “loyalty to God and His Word” in reaching the lost for Christ. Thanks to his generosity, he is allowing us post this series here. Welcome Tim!
Intro:
In this series, I will seek to share what one person believes are needs that the SBC must address in order to maintain it vitality in our world and it’s faithfulness and loyalty to God. In this series, it is the specifics of faithfulness and loyalty to God and His Word that will permeate throughout. For in these areas, we must capture His vision and His purpose. I do not nor will I pretend or think to believe that I have it all figured out. None of us do. However, I do believe that together we can discuss and sharpen each other in a way that can lead to seeing God move our ministries and convention in a positive light towards faithful obedience; thus His blessing being seen in all that we do.
We need not reform in areas of doctrine, but rather we need a rekindling of purpose and vision using our current minimal confession known as the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as the basis for such. This purpose and vision needs to understand the day and time in which we live and the weakening of basic doctrine in America first. It must envision a passion for not only world evangelism but also a passion beyond for reaching our own country with Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will discuss the need to rekindle a passion for bold preaching and teaching fo the Word of God. We will look at how methodology seeking has led to a de-emphasis on annointed Bible Preaching.
Ideas pertaining to approaches and “models of ministry” will be presented using some current changes being made in a few state convention along with a few associations. I believe that the SBC will need to be lean and innovative if are to reach the lost today and tomorrow. Priorities must be examined and some history will be applied in the making of suggestions towards accomplishing this goal.
Respect will be given to leaders and entity heads for this is not about personalities nor people in positions. As Christians, we are instructed very specifically how we are treat our leaders and we will do so in this series. It is my desire that we will rise above the rhetoric of the past two years in this area. We need to set the legacy for future generations in this regard. The discussions of the SBC need to also set the example for our many churches who may at times encounter difficulty.
New ideas pertaining to mass evangelism will be shared and hopefully discussed. The SBC lags behind other “denominations” in regard to using media and advertising effectively to reach America. This will be one of my favorite discussions as we proceed through this dialogue. I get excited thinking about all the opportunities we have as a convention in regard to creative outreach. Just maybe this section will stir us to think not only as a convention but locally as churches to do more in this area.
The series would not be complete without a good discussion of giving and the Cooperative Program. I have found it interesting that some tend to focus on percentage giving while ignoring the fact that we are setting records in total gifts. This trend will and in my opinion should be the thrust in our promotion of the greatest missionary sending plan known to man. It will be in this discussion that we will also get specific in the “breakdown” of the CP giving. Much needs to be addressed in this area. In fact, this may be the most spirited part of the whole dialogue.
I look forward to this discussion and pray that you will join with me in catching and spreading a vision for what as the SBC can do and be. I am just one man with no desires for office or fame. I have served in the past in many different levels and am not one to seek such service again. Rather, I do believe that we can come together and share with one another in a manner that will help each one us as we lead the ministries that God has entrusted to us and we rekindle the passion and vision for reaching this world with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It will be a fun ride! I look forward to this journey together.
Tim G,
I trust that you can be taken at face value in what you say you seek to do here. So, due to the fact you sponsored this ball and I trust you I would like to call a dance.
Would you agree that it would be a good thing for those of the left, right and anywhere in between to cease lying?
Also would you agree that it would be a good thing for any and all parties who know full well there are liars among us to stop covering for them hiding behind the concept of the “hierarchy of truth” (defined simply as: the end justifies the means) is applicable in all things and is permissible in order to “protect the kingdom” or kingdoms, what ever the case may be? (notice “k” in kingdom is in minor case)
cb
tim,
amen. excellent thoughts. and, i’d add that we need to quit focusing on numbers in the sbc anyway. it ought to be more about faithfulness to God and His Word. we need to let the Lord take care of the numbers. that’s His business.
david
David,
I agree with what you said.
The problem is that people tend to measure the “working of God” in their church with the amount of people that are baptized (and/or join).
It is my prayer that pastors would concentrate on mobilizing their congregations to share the gospel by educating them in the Word rather than encouraging them to bring the lost to church.
Our charge as Christians is to spread the Gospel and this is the model that is given to us in the New Testament.
Grace and Peace to you all…
ABClay
guys,
I agree but also disgree. :) Hows that for straight talk? I agree that numbers are not everything. However, numbers do indicate a great deal. If zero are being baptized, is the Gospel being shared? I do not harp on numbers, but I do recommend using them as part of a big picture in evaluating good vs. bad ministry.
brother david,
That is a breath of fresh air…. God’s sovereignty, call and order verses man’s ways.
Good word,
-Chris
Tim,
The problem has never been the baptizing, it has been the counting. There’s nothing at all wrong with baptizing. So we should not water it down by trying to attach numbers as its justifier. Why not just baptize those that repent and then preach the gospel again. This is not rocket science.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim G.
Why should we not concern ourselves in the least about numbers? Because it is not our Job.
We are to share the Gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation. It is not us, our clever speech, our persuasiveness, or our ability to extract emotion from people that brings them to Christ, it is only through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit that a person can be graced with saving faith.
If God has ordained that some that hear the gospel come to salvation (acts 13:48), then they will be drawn to Christ through the preaching of the word. The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing because the message of the cross can only be discerned spiritually.
I know that this sounds rather simplistic, but it is what, I believe, scripture clearly says.
It pains me that pastors take upon themselves the responsibility of salvation of the lost. What a burden to bear when this is not necessary. We cannot save anyone, all we can do is be obedient and share the gospel with all the love of Christ that we can muster.
Grace and Peace to you all…
ABClay
cb,
I am not sure I understand what it is you are talking about? Can you help me?
AB,
My position is and has always been just a simple focus on sharing as often, as much, as creative, as true as we can. I know there are some who may go overboard, but I also know many who do nothing. I simply say share the Gospel, lead people to share the Gospel, compel people, do whatever it takes to get people the opportunity to recieve Jesus.
Richard Owen Roberts, one of the greatest minds of our time on the subject of revival, says that we are the first generation of Baptists to believe that the numbers of baptisms we perform has anything to do with our success in evangelism. I remember hearing him a few years ago call it “a silly, stupid notion” to assume that how many people a church baptizes measures in any signficant way success in evangelism.
jason,
Again, I agree that we may over emphasis numbers, but numbers do reveal much. They are only part of the whole big picture.
Chris, CB and JasonK(whose wording I really liked): I agree and am so glad that you posted this.
If what you guys are saying, I would ask the question: “Why is it that Lifeway (Ed Stetzer) and many bloggers use Baptism numbers in discussion pertaining to church growth?”
I agree they do not tell the whole picture, but they do tell something. But this post is not about Baptisms and numbers, that is coming later.
Previous should have been: “If what you guys and gals are saying is true…”
Brother Tim G,
How in the world can you say that CP giving is something that “breakdown” reveals in giving? How can we count what we are doing in giving? If baptismal #’s don’t have anything to do with souls, how can $’s have anything to do with getting anything done?
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim G,
My point is that all parties need to lay down sinful, deconstructive practices and become truthful in dialogue.
I think we all know our theology is sound. Our problems seem
to arise in practice.
Of course, if anyone thinks our theology is not sound they need to say so without couching it in political baggage. Let us compare our positions to orthodox Christian doctrine and proper biblical teaching.
If we could have such a discussion without lying or protecting those who are I think your post is most certainly valuable. If we lie or side with or protect those who do we will be right back into a political cold war while the vultures perch up in the “balcony” waiting to take the spoils.
For instance; Vol said numbers were God’s business. As you know there are those who believe conservatives are just interested in “nickels and noses.” Yet, here is Vol (an easily identifiable hardcore conservative if one ever lived) seeming to say he is more interested in a person’s relationship to God than adding numbers to his annual report.
Is that what he means or is he saying something else?
This post series has the potential to reveal some things if we can all be honest and leave our daggers and belly guns at home long enough to listen to each other without being “locked and loaded” and palming a boot-knife under the table.
cb
Tim,
This is one of God’s Warnings that applies to the SBC.
Cb Scott Preached from John 10 and it was a great message.
Eze 34:1 The word of the LORD came to me:
Eze 34:2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?
Eze 34:3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep.
Eze 34:4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them.
Eze 34:5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts.
Eze 34:6 My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
Eze 34:7 “Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:
Eze 34:8 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep,
Eze 34:9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:
Eze 34:10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.
Eze 34:11 “For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.
Eze 34:12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.
For those of you who relly care about God’s Word says, Please read the Rest of this Chapter.
cb,
I agree with you. That is exactly why I begain this series. I goal is to move beyond the political rhetoric and challange us (including myself) in getting back to what God says is the main thing – reaching people with His Gospel while doing so within and true to our orthodoxy.
smithwe,
I do appreciate your words. I also do not feel nor believe that we have anyone “feeding” themselves in the SBC.
Tim G,
Vol may be eating B-B-Q right now so I will venture an answer on his behalf and ask another question.
Vol says; That is right. I do care more for the souls of people than I do for nickels and noses and my annual report.
Someone may respond; So what? Anyone who claims faith will say that.
I would respond to that person; OK, so you and Vol are seeing the souls of men as of greater importance than numbers.
Now, I will ask both of you a question. Do you believe that it is necessary to hold strongly to biblically and theologically sound doctrines of the faith in order to live a holy life pleasing to God and as an effective witness to the souls you care so much more about than mere nickels and noses?
cb
cd,
I myself do concur. Now where is the barbeque?
Tim,
The Fundamentalist Extreme
Most fundamentalists, as well as many who do not call themselves fundamentalists but evangelicals, will do apologetics only from the starting point of the authority of Scripture. We think this is a tactical error. There are three points to their tactics that seem questionable.
1. They think that it is necessary to begin by convincing you of the authority of Scripture because they think that natural human reason alone, apart from Scripture, is not strong enough or good enough to direct unbelievers to belief.
2. They think that therefore the only right order in apologetics is first to prove the authority of Scripture, and then to move on to other apologetic questions with this all-important weapon in hand.
3. They think that special standards must be used to understand and interpret Scripture since, unlike all other books, it is not just man’s words about God but God’s word about man.
But remember: for many years early Christian apologists and church fathers argued quite effectively for Christianity without even having the New Testament Scriptures as authoritatively defined, since the canon was not established until generations later. And down through the centuries many people have in fact been led to belief—at least belief in a Creator God and in the possibility of salvation—through rational arguments not based on Scripture. (Of course, saving faith, as distinct from intellectual belief, is not the work of reason alone.)
Also, it is very difficult to prove the authority of Scripture first to the unbeliever. It is much easier to prove something like the existence of God (chap. 3), or even the divinity of Christ (chap. 7), where arguments can be simple, short and clear in a way that the arguments for the authority of Scripture can never be. Traditional apologetics, Protestant as well as Catholic, has more often used the opposite order, coming to the authority of Scripture later.
Instead of:
1. Scripture is infallible,
2. Therefore Christ is infallible,
3. Therefore Christ is divine,
The more convincing order is:
1. Scripture is reliable as historical record, as data;
2. Christ’s claims to divinity are found in Scripture;
3. Then comes the argument for the truth of these claims (chap. 7).
You don’t need to prove scriptural infallibility first to confront someone with the claims of Christ.
The third difficulty is that the unbeliever will not accept the use of any special standards or assumptions or attitudes toward Scripture at the outset, since they clearly beg the question. You must first prove that Scripture deserves such special treatment as the Word of God, and you must prove this without presupposing it, without giving Scripture special treatment. Otherwise you argue in a circle, assuming what you need to prove.
smithwe,
I do believe your answers to the above two questions may be found in the next post to some degree. However, this series is not going to deal with much of a discussion about “how to” in apologetics and theology.
Tim G,
Maybe you intend to speak to this in the series, but let me ask before we go find Vol and the B-B-Q:
Due to the fact that some have testified that there are those who would say something similar to; “I like Jesus, I don’t like the church.”
Would you or anyone say we need to lessen our emphasis on an orthodox understanding of ecclesiology and become more open to ideas that might not be exactly orthodox to attract people to our church or gatherings? Or, should we seek to be biblical in our understanding and practice of ecclesiology even if it did cause some to continue to say they did not like our church?
Frankly, are things pertaining to Baptism such as candidate, mode, administrator and earthly authority important? Or, is Baptism of such a nature, due to not being essential to salvation, we can allow or disallow any candidate using any mode, by any assortment of possible administrators or adhering to strict rules relating to administrators, with or without any earthly authority be a part of our church and ministry?
Tim G, if you are going to address this later I can wait for an answer.
cb
Some of this will be covered. Yet, there will be a disctinction. The SBC is one thing in perspective. Each church individually is another. The series will deal with SBC issues and perspectives yet, I always say that any church is fully capable of doing and believing anyway she desires, but, that does not nor should it change the SBC. It is thus a church decision to participate or not. The next post will further expalin this to some degree.
how did yall know i ate bar b q tonite? are yall prophets? and, it was goooooood. i do want everyone to know though that i stopped one bite short of gluttony.
we are having an on mission celebration in our association this week. 36 out of the 44 churches in our association are participating. each church is having a different missionary speak at their church every service. we had some great services sunday, and we had a very interesting service tonite….after we all had barbeque and the trimmings. yum yum.
tomorrow nite, a lady who is a missionary to india will be sharing with our church about the work in india that her and her husband are doing. pray that the Lord will use these missionaries to stir my people to want to get out there around the area we live in and do missions right here….and maybe even go out on more volunteer mission trips.
and, yes, cb, i was saying exactly that….we should be more concerned about a persons relationship with God than we are about the baptist three “b’s”…baptisms, budgets, and behinds in the pews(attendance). our main concern should be that we’re being faithful to God and to His Word, and that we’re focused on people.
david
OK Vol,
You would probably be voted number one Poster Boy for hardcore conservatives in Blog Town on secret ballot, of course. So……………
When you say what you just did you sound no different than many you or I, for that matter, would call liberal or moderate.
So I ask you; Do you believe there is a need for protecting doctrinal purity in such things as ecclesiology and if so why?
cb,
i didnt know that caring about people’s souls instead of numbers sounded liberal….it just sounds christian. not caring about numbers is not a liberal nor a conservative thing. and yes, if we care about being faithful to God over numbers, then it would involve doctrinal purity. most certainly.
david
Tim and CB,
Ecclesiology is all about the Christian Church and here is one of the best examples of being a Witness for Jesus Christ.
http://www.christianindex.org/4296.article
Wayne
Wayne,
I am aware that some do judge people. I do not. I am strong in standing against the advancing of abortion and homosexuality. I have stood against the expansion of gambling etc. Yet in standing against, I do stand against people. Not everyone can do this, and I am sure I am not always as I should be but I do try with all I have.
This particular discussion will be held in a few more days in the series. You sure do like to jump the gun :)!
should have said “do NOT stand against people!. I stand against sin not people!
it is late – I need sleep and new fingers!
CB,
I believe that we can and must do both.
This is not an either/or proposition. Our primary concern is that God be glorified especially in the furtherance of the Gospel and seeing lost souls come to Christ as the only way, truth, and life.
We must rightly divide the word of truth to those whom God has entrusted to us as pastors. We must be faithful to pass on the truth of God’s word concerning the doctrine of the church, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of salvation, etc.
To win someone and then to not disciple them properly is neither complete evangelism, nor is it solid discipleship.
Sola Gratia!
Brother Wayne,
Thanks for the link.
I believe the only people who look down on those outside the church because they are sinners are people who are not aware of their sinful condition before God.
While I can appreciate what he is doing, I submit that he isn’t apologizing for Christians, he is apologizing for religious people who go to church on Sunday morning and pretend to be Christians.
Let me put it more clearly: until one becomes aware of just how pathetically depraved and condemned that they are without the blood of Christ, and how without the grace of God that granted them faith and repentance they would spend an eternity in hell, they CANNOT be saved. What need of a Savior is there if there is no sin that needs to be covered?
How can anyone who understands grace (being freely given, not out of compulsion because you said a prayer) actually do what he is apologizing for “Christians” doing? Perhaps Ephesians 2:8-9 should be read again in the context of Ephesians 2:1-7. Thank you God for saving a sinner like me.
Grace and Peace to you all…and may God grant that those outside the Body of Christ come to an understanding of their sinful condition and repent and come to know Christ.
ABClay
Tim G,
Sorry for “jumping the gun” with Brother Wayne.
ABClay
TimG,
Thanks for coming over to this SBC Today and providing us the great expectations of the forthcoming discussions. I look forward to what will be said here.
Sola Gratia!
david: I agree with you that numbers are less important than people’s relationship to God. Much more.
I would also ask(and maybe I’m jumping ahead here, so feel free to tell me Tim G.), what exactly is doctrinal purity?
Debbie,
Doctrine will be discussed in the next post but I can share that I believe that doctrinal purity is just as Scott described above. Doctrinal purity comes into play with first the correct pure Gospel – Jesus and Him alone and then in the teaching of the new Christian the Bible thus leading them to share their faith and continue the process. Pure doctrine is teaching the Bible as it is written absent what man says. Being clear and holding to the Lordship of Christ above human ideas.
Vol, Scott, Tim G,
Vol says souls are important above nickels and noses. Scott and Tim G seem to agree with him.
A question relating to the definition of doctrinal purity arises. A link to a pastor making apology for intolerance toward specific life-styles has been given as a “best example of being a witness for Jesus Christ.”
Tim G says doctrinal is, “Being clear and holding to the Lordship of Christ above human ideas.”
Scott says, “To win someone and then not to disciple them properly is neither complete evangelism, nor is it solid discipleship.”
If it is possible for a group of Baptist bloggers who were originally connected due to theo-political embattlements to keep away from their natural party alignments it may be possible to identify our real problems and our real needs. If that could happen maybe blogging could have more value than to set the stage for strategic moves for a few days every June.
cb
PS: My anti-spam word is “hope.”
That should have been: Tim G says, doctrinal “purity” is,
cb
Tim,
Sorry for jumping the Gun, blame it on old age.
ABClay,
You are right on in your comment, about not being true Christians.
CB,
I Say a BIG AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!
We need to be Christians first and then Baptist for teaching doctrine As always you are right on.
In His Name
Wayne
Wayne,
I am not always “right on.” I really am not.
I am far too war orientated to be right on. I have miles to go before I can be right on.
Frankly, I will not be “right on” until God calls me home and my sword and shield have been left behind to burn.
It will be guys you and others who will build bridges for peace in the Kingdom.
cb
joel osteen has big numbers and a big budget, but i would say that he’s not faithful to God nor to the Word of God.
mormons have growing numbers and budget, but they are not faithful to God, nor to His Word.
jw’s are seeing growing numbers and budget, but they are not faithful to God, nor to His Word.
there are many madison avenue techniques and ear tickling and compromising with the culture of the day that could result in numbers and bigger budgets…..but that is not success in God’s eyes.
in order for our churches and the sbc to be faithful to God and to His Word(real success), then it might mean that we decline in attendance and money. oh my, did volfan just say that????? yes, i did. there are many people out there who dont want to hear the true Word of God preached and taught in the power of the Holy Spirit. there are some people out there who dont like to hear the Bible taught just as it is. and, sometimes, you have to prune a tree before it grows and produces more fruit…better fruit.
david
cb,
My word on this comment was “peace” – what does that tell us?
I do think that much of what people think about others is warped by much of the way people think about others! :)
“I think we all know our theology is sound. Our problems seem to arise in practice.”
Practice betrays doctrinal beliefs.
Tim,
In answer to Debbie’s question as to what is pure doctrine you respond, “Pure doctrine is teaching the Bible as it is written absent what man says.” While I think I understand what you mean by that statement and would wholeheartedly concur with the sentiment behind it, all teaching of doctrine necessarily implies interpretation of the text. Unless our preaching is strictly the reading of the biblical text itself, any commentary we make on it in the form of preaching or teaching of necessity and by definition involves our interpretation of the text.
It is at this point that much of the misunderstanding and disagreements in the SBC have arisen in recent years. Proponents of the CR accuse their opponents and critics of “not believing the Bible” when what these critics are rejecting isn’t the biblical text itself but certain interpretations of it by others. Just appealing to the inerrancy of the text doesn’t resolve this issue either, for even an inerrant text must be interpreted.
Brother Gary,
I think you bring up an excellent point. “all teaching of doctrine necessarily implies interpretation of the text.”
Interpretive value is what makes for distinction. How the value is derived is a critical characteristic of doctrine that reflects the teaching of the text. All believers are held to the standard of “rightly dividing” the word of God. So doctrine is extremely important and essential for the maturing of the saints.
1 Timothy 4:14-16 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. (15) Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all. (16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
It is hard work to rightly divide God’s word. As Paul exhorts Timothy…. “pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching”. Paul makes an effort to focus and shine the light on the life of Timothy as being an important and visible instrument in the proclamation of the Gospel doctrine. We are to “be in them”, not just give lip service to them. The power of the church is revealed in this context. The people of God involved in the things of God in their homes and community of worship is where the practice of doctrine brings about what Paul says….”as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.”
The SBC has only and will only echo the strength of its communities of worship and their grasp on the doctrines of God. It will never be the other way around.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
Though we may be setting records in CP giving, figures that are available from the Executive Committee show that the percentage of increase in giving is not even keeping up with inflation. During the 90s the average yearly increase was 2.06% per year. In an economy that averages somewhere around 3% inflation the whole dollars may be going up, but what those dollars will buy/fund is going down.
Add to that the declining dollar in world markets and it is having a real negative impact on missionaries overseas. I recently visited Western Europe and it cost me $1.50 for 1 Euro (and when the Euro was introduced it was 1 for 1). Of course, I’m not saying the declining dollar is the fault of Southern Baptist churches. I’m only saying that the decline in percentages may not reflect a decline in real dollars, but when you factor in inflation there is still a negative trend in giving.