Evangelism:
This third post of the series is where I get really excited. How can we in the SBC move forward in sharing Jesus to a lost and dying world. If we can only realize that God has so blessed us, oh what we could do to further the sharing of the Gospel, and in a true since, help local churches accomplish more than they ever dreamed. Think about it for a moment. Turn on the television and watch for just a short time. You will find ads for Methodists, Mormons, and so on. The ads are done not by local churches but by national organizations. It is this visual that motivates the simple thought:
Why have we in the SBC not done the same?
With all our passion of words concerning evangelism, this type of activity and thinking should be our highest priority in my opinion. In fact, for our continued growth in efforts to reach the world, we must focus on reaching America with the same fervor and passion that we have applied in our foreign efforts. It is this type of intentional outreach that brings into reality a concept that is at the heart of this series.
The SBC needs a passionate vision of intentional mission, focused on the home front of America.
We are seeing the beginning of this type of thought in several Associations around the country. They are groups who have made the decision to adjust their structure to make possible “intentional culture reaching mission” instead of trying to maintain a structure that was built in another culture for that culture. It is time to take the message of Christ to our current culture without changing the message or compromising our doctrine. It is this opportunity that reveals our need for moving forward much more than using the term reform. The SBC is not in need of doctrinal reform. It is in need of “stepping out of the box in our methodology to take the Gospel to the world.”
This step will not come easy. This step will be embraced by many while also propelling the doubts and questions of “how?” by others. It is the opinion of this Pastor and Church Strategist that debating the how, and formulating the plan in this area, should be the cry of our hearts. The distractions of attempts to change our doctrine have failed and I thank God for that. We now have a golden opportunity to capture a vision for now and tomorrow of effective mission. Our Seminaries are educating better than ever. I have talked with students who long to see a passionate move towards this type of strategy. I hear men who have pastored for years asking this question. I see church members of all ages wondering if this type of thinking is possible.
It is! Today all around our country people are already into this mindset. So how can we proceed?
Just as any church must constantly evaluate it effectiveness and it’s priorities, we as a convention must do the same. It requires questions of stewardship. Are we being good stewards? Is our structure more important to God or is His mission? The steps to accomplish this forward move begin with keeping the main thing – the main thing! Reach people for Jesus! Thus instead of focusing on overturning the structure, we need to evaluate the structure and see what adjustments need to be made to bring this type of intentional mission to the forefront. As is common with any organization, structure tends to get entrenched. It is the nature of any organization. Evaluating with a priority of MISSION allows for the difficult steps to be developed and the energy of our money and people to be focused. It goes far beyond ads on television. It reaches out to effectively equipping our churches with relevant training and unified ministry opportunities compared to stale programs and repackaged ideas. We say in our staff meetings; “cookies and kool-aid don’t cut it, neither do pizza and coke!” Well, color and graphics don’t cut it either. We need a structure designed to reach people! We need a passion of stewardship that channels resources into creative and effective methods without watering down the Gospel. We have the creative minds. We have the resources. We have the doctrine. It’s time to use them. Talk about getting more people in the younger generations to buy into CP giving? This will wake them up!
The SBC developed under the idea that working together, we could better accomplish missions. I do believe that we are seeing that idea worked – and is working. So why not apply it here at home. When applied we will see the strengthening the resources for foreign missions by actually growing our churches here in the states. But wait. We will see God’s passion and commands followed thus allowing for His blessings to flow. May we move forward in getting out of the box of our structure thus creating a focus with avenues for WINNING PEOPLE TO JESUS!
It is time to move forward in our structure focused on reaching America for Jesus!
The following posts will deal with our specific structures, funding, and hurdles. Should be fun!
Brilliant Idea, Let’s use the television to spread the Gospel.
Let’s start out with a black screen and then a voice comes over and tells the audience that they have transgressed God’s Law and are sentenced to death and eternal damnation because of it.
Then the speaker will say something like, “What, you think you are a good person? Jesus says that if you are even angry with your brother you are a murder in the eyes of God.” We could throw in some scripture like “The wages of sin is death” or maybe, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. Then we could go to the book of James and tell them “that if you break even one law, you are guilty of breaking them all.”
Once we have presented the law to them, which I might add is perfect at convicting the heart, We could tell them that while God is love, He is also Just and Holy and because He is just and holy, He must punish sin.
Here’s where we bring in the Grace. Tell them that God sent Jesus, who lived a perfect sin free life and how God had, by His own plan and hand, crucified Jesus and punished the sins of all who would believe. Tell them that Jesus took that certificate of debt that belonged to those who will believe, and He nailed it to the cross so that the redemption of those is complete in Christ’s work on the cross.
Then say that this message is brought to you by the Southern Baptist Convention.
Now, this message will seem foolish to those who are perishing, but to those who will believe, it is God’s power unto salvation.
What an awesome Idea. Right On.
Grace and Peace to y’all….
ABClay
I forgot to add that it is my belief that anything that goes beyond this simple gospel presentation is a waste of money.
Grace and Peace to y’all again….
ABClay
ABClay:
I love it and wouldn’t change a thing. We might lose folks in a John Chapter 6 type of way but the ones who stayed sure would be true. Where do I send my check :)
The key is adjusting the mindset to this type of thinkning and mission – maybe more would “write the check”.
Tim G,
Can’t we just pass a resolution in Indy to adjust the mindset?
ABClay
OK, Tim G,
Let me see if I get it.
Are you saying:
1. No not compromise the gospel and principles of the faith, and….
2. Use methodologies that will confront this post-modern culture with the same gospel Jesus gave to us as is testified to in the inerrant Word of God?
cb
That should have been 1. “Do” not….
cb
CB,
I know I ain’t Tim, but if I may offer my opinion on how these work together:
The Television is the method, the Gospel is the Gospel.
I may just be too old fashioned.
Grace and peace to y’all….
ABClay
Let me suggest another method: Equip the saints to carry the Gospel into their homes, families, and workplaces.
Many have turned their churches into places of evangelism. While on the surface this seems logical, it is not.
Church is for the equipping, edification and admonishment of the saints. The Church equips believers so believers can live and share the Gospel where they are. Evangelism should be in the context of the lives of a local community of believers. Believers who can not only share, but care and help and love and finally disciple those who come to the faith.
A well equipped, vibrant body of believers will evangelize without technology, and programs and revival meetings. They will evangelize because it is part of who they are. I make my living with technology so I’m not against it, but when someone hears the Gospel it ought to come to their ears on the breath of the one sharing, not over the cable signal.
Yes, I know. We should use any and all ways to share the Gospel. Maybe. But resources are limited, and we should pour our efforts into good methods, not all methods.
Bill: Good thoughts and preaching is for the equipping and edificiation of the Saints. And we should use resources wisely. Here in St. Louis, there is a Lutheran congregation that has leased four or so billboards on the interstate. They say things like:
“I hate Jefferson Hills Church”
–Satan
I’m not sure how much billboards run per month but they’ve been all over the local news and quite a bit of discussion has been generated. Was it worth it? I think so.
If someone hears a God Honoring, Christ exalting message or Gospel presentation over the airwaves, they’re still accountable for the light they’ve been shown. Christian radio has been a spiritual lifesaver for me at the office and I truly thank God for inventions such as the I-pod where I can listen to sermons or music while working.
The Mormons put out their family friendly commericals, I would love to see a Law-Gospel commerical like ABClay described. The early church did so much with so little, we seem to do so little with so much.
Brother Bill,
Your being way to biblical with trying to teach the evangel to the Christians where they can actually communicate it, live it, work with it, and then come together to worship the God that has provided it. Come on now….
Television advertising will get the attention of most people for about 15 of the 30 seconds of opportunity, unless they are getting some popcorn or drinks. Television or similar avenues are strictly a matrix of cost associations.
I think your right though Tim, we should never sacrifice the real gospel…..the word will not return void. The go and make disciples approach is really effective.
Blessings,
Chris
AB,
Television is “a” method, but not the only method. It is probably not the best method. Yet, the SBC is far behind in its use as a method. The nuts and flakes have used it much better with much success at influencing people toward a life full of nothing.
Bill,
Basically I believe you are right. Yet, I do think there is a place for programs, technology and, yes, “revival” meetings to evangelize.
The principles of the faith will never change. The methods by which we share the faith can change without compromising the principles of the faith.
I do agree that to equip the saints to do the work of evangelism and missions is the biblical model of kingdom building. I think the methods enlisted by the saints is totally dependent on: giftedness, talents, capability, availability, willingness, commitment, resources, obedience and imagination.
cb
I’m a big fan of technology, but I fear it is too often used as a shotgun approach to evangelism. Impersonal. Remember the great commission is to make disciples, not converts. I think we’ve gotten that mixed up sometimes. Television can make converts (well, not really) but it can’t make disciples.
John: I’m not a good one to speak about billboards. I hate all that kind of stuff. Billboards, corny church signs, etc. In fact, I absolutely loathe all “Jesus junk” like t-shirts, bracelets, candy, toys, etc.
Bill,
The Great Commission involves both conversion and discipleship proportionally.
It is not either/or. It is both/and.
One without the other (conversion/discipleship) is not the Great Commission.
cb
Realize that this is not only about TV – it is about a mindset and structure perspective that may be preventing us from being creative and using all available means to share the Gospel.
cb, you were correct in your comment about the summary of the intent of the post in #6. This is were our energies need to be focused and yes I agree, discipleship is equally important. I just feel we are heavy on that in (and may not be doing it well) and real light on the Evangelism end.
CB,
We are commanded to preach the gospel and make disciples.
We play absolutely no part (thats zero) part in conversion.
I think this is where we get off course sometimes when we think that if we package Christ in an appealing fashion that somehow more people will respond with “true” saving faith.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
AB,
I used the term (convert/conversion) that Bill did.
I understand we do not save ourselves nor anyone else. We are to teach and preach the gospel that others might be converted. (experience conversion)
Do you believe that?
cb
AB,
I also want you to understand I have been off course in many things.
I have never been off course in the presentation of the gospel.
I have never packaged it in anything to make it appealing.
That is why I say over and over the principles of the faith never change and must not be compromised.
cb
cb,
That last one will preach and actually does preach. That is the mindset that we have to get out in the forefront from a convention perspective using all we can to “blast” to this culture gone nuts!
CB,
Please forgive me if I have misunderstood what you meant.
My point is simply that many today in the evangelical church believe that all that is involved in conversion is persuading one to exhibit some sort of belief within themselves, which is most often in the form of a “prayer” and a walk down an aisle. When this is done, God is now obligated to save you because you have “believed”.
While we all pay lip service to the notion that Salvation is by God alone, some of the methods that are utilized to “evangelize” betray this confession.
I believe that until we (as a body of believers) spread the gospel in a manner that is true to our confession that God alone is the author and perfector of our salvation, we will continue to see our pews filled with goats instead of sheep. Of course, the flip side of this is that our numbers will look really good.
Oh and I absolutely affirm everything that you just said in your last two posts (#18 and 19, with the exception of you being off course, for I don’t know you and I can share that sentiment as well)
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
AB,
Let me venture to say I can seek to disciple a person all I want and if he is not saved he will not be a disciple simply because he is no disciple.
In all reality discipleship is of God. In His sovereignty he has decreed to use us to convey His Word which makes disciples. God saves us. God sanctifies us. God will glorify us.
God saves, sanctifies, and glorifies whom He will for His glory. We share the gospel with all the world because it glorifies God. Our only purpose to be on this earth is to glorify God.
We do not even choose the why or ways in which we glorify God. He has already mandated those ways.
Our accountability is to obey the will of God as revealed in His written revelation to us which is called by all who know Him as the Word of God.
BTW, we call it the inerrant Word of God. I guess that is because it is.
cb
When God’s people are where they should be in their relationship to Him – evangelism will flow through that channel (the spiritual believer) as naturally as water down the Mississippi River. They (we?) will pursue lost souls with a passion for the glory of God that burns in our hearts – not just our heads. We will use every means at our disposal to get the “message about Christ,” (Rom. 10:17) before them so they may hear the Word, be quickened in their spirits and believe unto salvation.
That, to me, is much of the problem that we are facing today. We may complain about our culture, but the problem is with the church. Brother Tim, I don’t know that I would agree with the idea that our doctrine is as sound as we think it is. Oh, yes, we have the orthodoxy in our heads (for the most part) but we fail to allow it into our hearts. For example, if we truly believed that our child (classmate, friend, parent, co-worker, clerk … you may insert whatever relationship here) would go to hell without a personal relationship of grace with Jesus Christ, that would be motivation enough to use whatever means at our disposal to get the gospel before them. We pay lip service to the doctrine of eternal judgment – but many in our churches just don’t really believe that God would send anyone to hell. Because we really don’t believe it (in our hearts) we don’t bother telling people the whole truth. The SBC could spend billions on more programs – but until the soul in the pew (my apologies to those of you who sit on couches 8->) get the heart of the gospel themselves – nothing much will change other than that we will have a new, expensive program.
Having said that … I do agree with the idea of using those resources God has given the SBC to advanced the gospel here in the states. Radio and television are powerful tools that God can and does use to call people to Himself. The other side of that coin is that right now – Satan seem to be doing a better job. Also, what about using those “preacher boys” at the seminaries (along with those music boys, education … etc.) out in the highways and byways to help plant churches, lead revivals (yes I still firmly believe in using revivals), do door to door or street to street evangelism. Seems those endowments could be used for more than just new buildings.
Sorry I’ve written so much …
Grace,
Wes
Tim and utters,
Mar 9:50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”
I think IMHO until we clean house of these false representatives on our SBC Boards that are just setting for a free ride or the people setting in the pews that need to truly want to Know God, then we may be a Light unto the World and place the Baptist Name back on our Churches. This has to happen from the Top Down or over time from the Bottom Up.
If our Leaders are True to Jesus Christ it will be from the Top Down if not Preach, Preach, and Preach the True Gospel. I believe we need more Dr. Frank Page’s as the President of the SBC.
How many of you were at the conference at Les Puryear’s Church?
In His Name
Wayne
Wes,
I want to address the “preacher boys” at the seminary statement first.
Our seminaries do everything you have mentioned and more with “preacher boys.”
I know SEBTS, SWBTS and NOBTS does for a fact.
And I will bet you a ham and onion sandwich cooked by Merle at Local Cafe the others do also.
cb
CB,
Again, you are Right On, as usuall.
WesInTex,
AMEN AMEN AMEN,
You are Spot On.
In His Name
Wayne
Wes,
I agree with Tim G that our theology is sound. We have a problem/problems with the practice of our theology.
We also have a problem with the way some interpret our theology.
Try this and see how you like it:
A dead orthodoxy is still dead. A living orthodoxy is alive.
A living orthodoxy will do what you said; flow like the Mississippi with evangelistic rush due to having the passion for lost souls in our hearts.
Our grade on orthodoxy = A+
Our grade on practice and passion= D+ (Just passing)
cb
I’m with ABC on this one. Preach, disciple. Conversion is God’s job. In fact, I think the confusion is a big problem. Ever stood through a 20 minute invitation?
Brother Tim G.,
After reading through this string, it appears that for the most part everyone agrees for the most part (although some already are engaged) that the SBC should be more aggressive in its evangelism in America.
I was thinking to myself,….does the SBC need to try and bolster is reputation by running ads, or would it be really engaging in an effort to dispense the gospel. It seems to me if you are going to run some sort of TV ad, radio, or what ever else campaign, that there should be “resolution” or some “sort of direction” on how to get to the assistance. Since we are engaged in a “go tell” religion, the likelihood of some folks stumbling through the doors saying please show me my sin so I can be saved is probably not too realistic. So, as AB pointed out, a true gospel ad would be remarkable and repulsive, but if it were produced what resolution or direction would you give at the end of the add? Where would you ask these folks to go to get rescued….or would you just leave it out in the air for SBC’ers to follow-up on…..? I’m assuming the following posts will illuminate those questions.
Wes and cb also brings up a real problem for most churches, in that there are very, very few that can present the gospel…..most have no clue about what the gospel really is or the basic biblical truths like justification, sanctification, glorification, regeneration, etc. But there is hope because we are finding that when the members of the church are prepared and understand these basic things….they are effective evangelists. The solution is really right in front of us….it really does go directly back to making disciples.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother CB,
I re-read my post, and apologize. It does sound as if I am insinuating that our seminary folk aren’t involved in evangelism. I don’t believe that for a minute – and apologize for leaving that impression.
I do, however, believe that we could be doing more. During my academic career, from college all the way up, there were those who were waiting until graduation to get out into the trenches. I felt then (and still do) that they missed valuable educational experience with that mindset.
For example, currently one of our state conventions (here in Texas we got two of ‘em), is trying to put together Summer Revival Teams who will come onto a church field and work with children, youth and adults in hosting revivals, backyard Bible clubs, sport camps and such. They are trying to recruit from colleges and seminaries. They had a pretty good response from preachers – but have not (last time I checked) received one application for music. Much more could be done in these areas, I believe.
BTW, while I appreciate the offer … I’m not big on ham and onions, but where’s the Golden Corral?8->
Brother Wayne
Thanks for your word. However, I don’t know that I would agree with your assessment of our Trustees. Do we have some that shouldn’t be serving? Possibly but as I don’t know them that would not be a judgment I would be willing to make.
Grace,
Wes
Chris,
You asked: “Where would you ask these folks to go to get rescued”.
I would want God to rescue them right there in their lazy boy if the Gospel presentation is accurate.
I understand what you are asking, and there certainly should be something at the end of the message that says for further information, please visit a local southern baptist church. I hate to exclude our other sister denominations but since we have our orthodoxy right (as some have stipulated), they might as well come to us.
Grace and Peace to y’all….
ABClay
A couple of thoughts:
First, no one is along for a free ride that sits on our Trustees. They are not paid to serve as a Trustee.
Second, this goies beyond an ad on TV. It is a mindset of focus and providing tools for churches to reach this culture. To engage it vs. accept or conform to it.
Remember, the ad idea is just the spark of the fire that burns throughout.
Does our current structure and operations fit an aggressive approach to evangelism or does it fit only the maintaining of the structure?
How and Why?
Tim G.,
You have to forgive my ignorance, but you say things like “engage the culture”. I am not sure what you are saying. Is “preaching the gospel” not enough? Should we do more than what is commanded? Abraham thought that he would help God out and it didn’t work to well for him so why do we think we would get any better results?
ABClay
There’s just a hint of arrogance in the level of certainty expressed on here about our orthodoxy, don’t you think?
The ‘gospel’ presentation envisaged in the first comment is nowhere found in the Bible in that format and is nothing like the gospel preaching in Acts. In Old Testament terms you cannot have salvation without the blood; in New Testament terms you cannot have salvation without the resurrection.
About a C- for orthodoxy IMHO.
Maybe the world doesn’t need the Southern Baptists as much as we think they do . . .
Brother Alex,
Thank you for the correction. The resurrection is certainly necessary.
I appreciate your humbleness in pointing out that we are not as orthodox as we suppose. Perhaps you should be the one that writes the commercial.
Grace and peace to y’all….
ABClay
Brother AB,
Thanks for looking past my quick posting jargon. No doubt God saves as He wills, we should be faithful to preach the gospel and be a humble overseer of the flock. As Paul told Titus….
Titus 1:7-9 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, (8) but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, (9) holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Blessings,
Chris
abc,
We may be preaching yet to whom? When you look at numbers of all evangelicals, people in America are not going to church that much if at all.
We have to take the Gospel (engage) to them. We feed, help, etc. in times of crisis, but are we sharing the Gospel?
CB
I am pretty sure that I understand what you’re saying. There is certainly a difference between theology and practice – but I don’t think I could make as clear a distinction as you do. If it is truly our orthodoxy (firmly held beliefs, convictions, doctrines), then I believe these will be fleshed out in our daily lives. If we really believe hell is the just punishment for sinners; if we really believe that God has commanded us to proclaim the gospel – then I believe we will have a compulsion for the gospel which is evidenced in evangelism (2 Cor. 5:14-15, 20). As I was taught, what your really believes determines what you do.
Tim G,
You wrote: “Does our current structure and operations fit an aggressive approach to evangelism or does it fit only the maintaining of the structure?”
I think we are more into the maintaining mode. As Chris said earlier, however, there is hope for a change. I don’t want to see us looking to the Convention for a new program, but it would be nice to see the convention establishment (I’m not talking about people but agencies) promoting the churches of the SBC more. It may have only been a passing example in your commentary, but I do believe it would be beneficial to have tv, radio and print spots run with a byline leading to local SBC churches. Of course this is only one example of the structure changes that could possibly lead us to a more aggressive evangelism.
Alex,
You wrote: “There’s just a hint of arrogance in the level of certainty expressed on here about our orthodoxy, don’t you think?”
No, actually, I don’t see any hint of arrogance. I am Southern Baptist by conviction – confident in our orthodoxy. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be Southern Baptist. I don’t say that to be combative as I don’t have all of the answers myself. I just don’t waver on what I believe. If you take the Bible and show me my error – bless God and thank you. If not, please don’t mistake my confidence as arrogance.
The presentation of law to the proud and grace to the humble is clearly taught in the NT. Certainly the resurrection is central to the gospel message – no one here disputes that I’m sure. For myself, its omission in the post you site, I credited to an enthusiastic post. Certainly not to any lack of orthodoxy on AB’s part.
Grace,
Wes
Tim G.,
Jesus said, “Few there be who find it”.
Why should we expect the churches to be full? All I can do is be diligent (though I am not as I should be) about sharing the gospel. Noah preached for 120 years without God turning a single person. I think Carey preached for 7 years in India before God transformed any lives through his preaching.
I think that the most healthy thing that we as Southern Baptists can do to edify the church and honor God is to stop counting heads as a measure of success.
Our mission should be as Bill says in post #9. It pains me to see lifelong Christians who are hesitant to share their faith with an unbelieving neighbor or co-worker. Instead, they place this burden on the shoulder of the Pastor…they say, “come to church so you can hear the Gospel” when they themselves should be equipped to share the hope that is within them.
It is interesting that you said that about helping in the time of crisis. Our baptist association runs a food bank in our county. Perhaps we should sit these folk down and preach the pure gospel to them before we let them consume the resources that God has blessed us with (if we can get back to orthodoxy)?
Grace and Peace to you all…
ABClay
Wes,
Let me see if I can make myself less confusing. (I know I am often that way and I am sorry)
You said some students you know did not make an effort to be evangelistic because they are waiting on graduation to begin such. I remember many just like that.
Here is my point: All of our seminaries teach orthodox Christianity.
Therefore, unless a guy sleeps through seminary he has received orthodox theology.
Some put that theology to practice (live the life).
Some do not put their theology to practice (live the life).
BTW, it seems those who say they are waiting until after they graduate to be evangelistic are still waiting.
They have a dead orthodoxy, mostly because the sins of apathy and laziness dominate their lives.
There is a difference between dead orthodoxy and an orthodoxy that is lived out incarnationally which is alive and vibrant with anticipation of making the gospel known.
Does that make any sense to you, Wes?
Alex,
If we are lacking in our theological orthodoxy would you please be specific and direct me to the article of faith wherein we are at failure?
I would really like to know of that to which you speak.
cb
cb
My point was more about the self-congratulatory references than theological (your word) orthodoxy as such. Humility is as orthodox as anything else in Christianity.
However, refering back to the opening TV scenario the omission of the resurrection is unbiblical and unorthodox. You will not need me to tell you that without the resurrection our preaching is in vain.
I’m sure the writer believes it. So why was it missing? I submit because the writer has a formulaic idea of the gospel which is not orthodox but he thinks it is. I have met many of our people who think that the gospel is a formula rather than a Savior.
Brother Alex,
Okay, I give.
How do you share the Gospel?
Sure, with each person we must take a different approach as the conversion dictates, but there are certain truths that are revealed in scripture that cannot be ignored, such as:
1. God is Holy
2. Man is a sinner
3. Man is condemned because of sin by God
4. God sent Jesus (His Son)
5. Jesus lived perfect life
6. God had Jesus killed
7. Sin debt to God was paid by shedding of Blood of Jesus
8. Jesus rose again three days later and sits at the right hand of God.
9. Man can claim that payment of sin debt and become righteous before God if he only believes.
It is at this point where I always point out that believing isn’t ascending to a knowledge of a set of facts about Jesus, but making Him their treasure. Now I am sure, that you will find something missing here, but these are truths that the bible makes clear.
Paul asks, “how will they believe without hearing about him?” This clearly tells me that we are to tell people about Jesus, who he was, what he did, etc.
I exhort you to tell me what is not biblical about this presentation of the gospel? You say this is not orthodox, please….tell me what is wrong?
Grace and peace to y’all…
ABClay
p.s. I really appreciate these anti spam words
Alex,
Humility is a Christian virtue. Actually there are people who are not Christian who display humility.
In my case I have never displayed humility very much when a pagan or after receiving grace. That is to my shame.
The writer was in reference to the orthodox doctrines of the faith. He did not list all the articles of the faith. This was not a rehearsing of “The Fundamentals.”
I asked you to simply point out an article (articles) of the faith wherein our theology is not orthodox.
Can you do that? Do you understand what orthodoxy means?
I realize I am not very humble. I also realize we may be defining totally opposite of each other when we use the word “orthodox.”
If you do understand what the word orthodox means and you persist with this argument about what the writer did omit maybe you are not so very humble either.
Frankly, it is pretty easy to understand what he said and it has been greatly magnified in this comment thread.
cb
Brother Wes,
I think this goes to a point of agreement in your earlier post…..
While I was in Memphis a couple weeks back at an ETS conference at Mid-America where Wayne Grudem and Darrell Bock were keynotes speakers for a couple of days,…. I was asked by Dr. Wilkes to sit in and teach one of his church planting classes with about 14 students. One of the first questions I asked each of these young men was… “Is your goal once you have some training under your belt to land in a ministry position at a church or to begin planting churches?” Well, to my surprise, every one of these men were eager to plant churches and had dozens of questions on the how’s, why’s and where’s. So we spent an hour in class discussing a wide range of issues, and then that spilled into lunch and then some more time later struggling through what it takes to plant churches. It was a wonderful couple of days!
My point in bringing this up is that all of these guys were “in churches”, but were not really confident on what to do. The local churches where they were serving were not mission equipped for whatever reason. They probably sent money to the CP, and possibly believing that “was” their mission effort. They were looking to seminary to give the answers and not their local church. This is backward orthopraxy. I’m afraid this is a fairly common issue in the churches to think that doing the mission of the church is to give money to some organization. Gathering money is not the issue, but possibly “not training” our local church members to understand missions may be where we lack evangelistic fervor. Just some thoughts….
Blessings,
Chris
CB,
You know, this could be one of those classic cases of talking past one another. We agree that as a Convention our orthodoxy is sound, and that sound orthodoxy is taught in our seminaries.
I think where we are sliding past one another is the “living” vs. “dead” orthodoxy.
To me, a living orthodoxy is that which flows from a personal relationship with Jesus. It is not just head knowledge, but that which compels the believing heart in the love of Christ. It is as you put it “incarnational” because of a personal relationship with Christ. Such a living orthodoxy is fleshed out in its evangelistic pursuits (among others).
A dead orthodoxy is a head knowledge only. It is dead because there has been no quickening of the heart by the Holy Spirit. Oh, wow – that sounds harsh and I hope I don’t offend – but couldn’t this be the real problem?
I agree that the SBC is orthodox in its principles of faith and that these orthodox principles are being taught in our seminaries. But the difference is the heart into which that sound theology is sown.
Am I getting closer, brother?
Chris,
Ahhh, now here is a point that I think gets us back to Tim G’s intent – retooling the SBC structure for more productive evangelism.
Theological training (both head knowledge and practical application) begins in the church. The SBC is a tool of the church to reinforce the church’s mission of evangelism and missions. I was brought up in churches that taught church doctrine, histroy, missions, corporation and ethics. But these are not conducive to reaching large numbers of folks quickly. The more our structure focuses on growing numbers the more it promotes studies that tickle the ear (self-help; money managment and such).
When I went to college – I was hit right in the face with blatant liberalism. I recognized it as such because of the foundation I had in the church – but many didn’t have that foundation. Many more don’t today because somewhere we have gotten the idea that the church should leave the theological training to the seminaries (not everyone believes that I know). As a result, we have men studying for the ministry that are “waiting” to minister. They are on fire (praise God) and they are orthodox – but where have we missed the connection?
Sorry, I have got to stop writing these books! 8-) I want you guys to know how much I appreciate each of you.
Wes
Wes,
I think we are reasonably close here.
I will say that some who once “lived” out their orthodox faith may have grown cold and although, they still believe correctly they are living as one who would be dead.
My mind goes to the Book of James when I think about this.
Does that make sense?
cb
Tim,
While I generally agree with most of your direction I firmly believe that the present leadership in the SBC rejects and will continue to reject any kind of creative evangelism.
I give two examples. In the mid to late 80′s the CR said that the issue of inerrancy was ultimately about evangelism. The mantra was to go and reach the world for Christ. Rick Warren and Ed Young Jr. did just that. Today, both are looked upon as “watering down the gospel” or “not preaching the whole council.”
When young pastors hear the SBC say “go and reach the world” they actually hear “go reach the world our way.” Missouri Baptist Convention and Acts 29 comes to mind.
Rick
CB,
Yes, that make sense and I do appreciate your patience. James states very clearly that faith without works is dead … but let me ask you this (oh no, here he goes again). Is James implying that those who claim to have faith but have no incarnational works as evidence of that faith are actually dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) or is he saying that they are only cold to the things of God? Or, did I run past you again?
Grace,
Wes
To all,
Just wanted to share this link. Perhaps something simular to what we have been talking about with tv, radio and print spots.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27751
Grace,
Wes
Good Link Wes,
Now, perhaps we could run the short commercial from post #1 (once it is deemed proper in orthodoxy) and post the telephone number for Mrs. Zimmerman in Arkansas at the end of it.
I was not aware of this type of outreach by the NAMB. The either speaks to my ignorance, or their coverage.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
I think we have to be careful with the word “aggressive” when talking about evangelism. I think I understand what you are saying, but too often aggressive evangelism takes the form of high pressure coercive techniques.
Here’s an example and one reason I really don’t like revivals.
In a typical revival, you tell your pastor, whom you know, whom you trust (hopefully), to sit down. You turn your pulpit over to a stranger. IMO, first mistake.
Second, do we want revival or evangelism? They aren’t the same thing and don’t have the same audience.
Mainly Christians attend these events, and mainly the more faithful, but the speaker has visions of large crowds of the lost in the pews.
The preacher preaches his heart out, and now for the invitation. To a traveling evangelist, this is the big moment. So he issues the call for sinners to come to the altar and be saved. Of course so often few do, because most of the people there are already saved. The next inevitable step is the “are you sure that you’re sure” routine. The preacher will go through several attempts to try to get people to doubt their salvation, and get them to the front. Again, that usually meets with limited success. Finally, is the call for rededication. One way or another, there is a palpable urgency to get someone, anyone, to the front. It doesn’t matter if people were edified, taught, refreshed or convicted. The altar is the thing.
This is what can come to mind with the idea of aggressive evangelism. Trying to get someone to prayer a prayer the first time you witness to them is another. We have to be careful.
Good Post Bill.
We can thank Charles Grandison Finney, who’s doctrine was far from being orthodox, for that type of “scorched earth” evangelism.
ABClay
AB,
I thought it was a good story that highlighted some of what has been mentioned here. I was especially appreciative that there was a link to local SB churches. It could be that a lot of us are unaware of what our agencies are doing in this area. Communication anyone?!?!
Brother Bill,
Please allow me to repond to your post. As one who is reformed in his theology AND who spent seven years as a “vocational evangelist” traveling and holding revivals and crusades – I think you are painting with too broad of a brush in your statment. Are there abuses? Sure, and I have seen what you discribe take place. But I also know for a fact there are committed men of the gospel out there who are honorable in the preaching of the Word and who are a blessing to any congregation God sends them to. The gift of the Evangelist is a biblical gift for the church today (Eph. 4:11) just as it was in the first century.
I would rather be aggressive in my evangelism and confront people with the truth than to stand before God stained with the blood of those who I neglected because I was more concerned about methods. One of the greatest quotes on evangelism I have ever heard is from Spurgeon:
“If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.”
I, for one, in the spirit of men like Edwards and Whitfield, will go anywhere, any time to tell anyone the gospel of my Lord and Savior. As Southern Baptists dealing with evangelism we have many problems, but being too aggressive is not one of them.
Grace,
Wes
Wes,
Good points. Most of the evangelists I have dealt with are good honest men with a heart for the Gospel. I think that many however have bought into a Finney-esque methodology that is harmful. Aggressive, in the sense you mention, being willing to go anywhere to anyone with the message of the Gospel? Good.
Aggressive, with an almost pathological obsession to get “responses”. Bad.
My biggest fear is that the people we are getting “saved” aren’t saved. Getting people to respond to a high pressure, emotionally charged plea, is not that hard. Getting people to respond to the Gospel and enter into a lifelong pursuit of discipleship, is much more difficult and ultimately is God’s job.
I’m not for getting rid of the altar call, but I think the altar call is one of the biggest problems in our SBC methodology.
Means are as important as ends.
Brother Bill,
I am in agreement with you concerning Finney. He is the “godfather” of creative alter responses.
Alter calls are a fabrication of motivational speaking (the Finney methodology) and can even become the way sermons are fashioned, and some are even sincere…. Its difficult to imagine preparing a sermon that way.
We do not institute alter calls as such. We have extended the call to about “one hour” after our time of worship, where the entire congregation can respond to what they have learned and accepted as the truth.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I like it. When I get a chance to preach (I’m an elder, not a pastor) I give an invitation to come to Christ, not to come to the front. Trying to talk to someone about the most important things in life (salvation, church membership, etc) in 45 seconds while people are standing and music is playing is just a bad way to do it.
Our public profession of faith is our Baptism, not our altar walk.
Bros. Chris/Bill,
Do you see the alter call as somewhat “Romanesque” in that people have to go down front and speak (pray) with the pastor in order to be saved?
It can also be akin to a sacrament that leads leads to membership in a church. Similar to the Paedobaptists who give membership to infants when they are baptized, we often just allow church membership to anybody who comes forward and wants in.
Just my .02
Peace and Grace to y’all…
ABClay
ABClay: I’ve never thought of it as Romanesque as such, but it certainly has approached the level of a sacrament. More so, in fact, than the Lord’s Supper, which in many ways is a neglected ordinance in Baptist churches.
I don’t have a problem with people publicly presenting themselves for membership, but that ought to be after a thorough discussion with an elder, not a 30 second prayer during an invitation.
AB and Bill,
Being raised in the Baptist persuasion since about the age of ten, alter calls have always been the tradition. I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong with alter calls…but I do find it unfortunate that we have trained our churches to think the way they think when a call is given.
Having someone sweat out a decision after 15 verses of “Just As I Am” is very bizarre. I personally think the best time for “Just As I Am” is at the beginning of the service so Christians can begin thinking about this great salvation as a call to worship.
I personally think it is more profitable to explain the evangel and take time to display the gospel in all its detail and in all its glory! That beats having to look over at the pianist to loop another chorus of the invitation tune. It is tough to change the conditioning of the flock. I would think most congregations would be surprised to know when alter calls became popular. It wasn’t too long ago. I think I am way off topic…sorry Tim G.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I am laughing as I read your last line. I think that we aren’t even in left field anymore.
While these things do speak great volumes about our practical theology, I would be pleased if our brother Alex would come on and tell us how our doctrine is unorthodox.
ABClay
In reply to 60.
At the risk of sounding as arrogant as that of which I complain, I’ve been too busy in the Lord’s work for a blog-debate on orthodoxy. Please see my reply to cb above to get my meaning.
Fundamentally there seems to me to be no value in celebrating, “We are orthodox”. Except in its detail the BF&M is a standard Christian statement so by that measure we are orthodox together with countless other believers. And so we should be.
But are our churches and people as orthodox as the Statement? I think it not minor that you ‘forgot’ the resurrection in your TV broadcast scenario but labored the Law. But whatever. As a Pastor on the staff of a flagship SB conservative church I heard deacons describing black people in subhuman terms, met people in leadership on their fourth marriage after three divorces, visited members who had not attended the Lord’s Supper in decades but listened to it on the radio as they drove to the Mall on Sunday, heard people (two of whom currently lead in our Convention) plotting staff dismissals. All these people were inerrantist and born again (though I await Another’s verdict).
All this I deem unorthodox for followers of Jesus Christ. I care not what the Statement says when the lives shout something else. We will not be judged – read it in the Word, brother – we will NOT be judged on our doctrine.
That is why I reject our arrogance and request our humility as a family of churches.
Since no one else it jumping in I think we can play in left field a little longer.
I really do think this is pertinent. We know what the Gospel is. We know that we have to share it. What is left but methodology? And the altar call is, rightly or wrongly, part of SBC methodology.
I remember a mission trip to Mexico where we sat through an interminable altar call. The preacher simply was not going to let go until someone responded. At that point we have gone past our job (preaching the Gospel) and are trying to do God’s job (conversion).
Unfortunately I have seen this all too often.
The other problem I have with the altar call is that we are conditioning people to do things to be seen.
I want to reiterate that these are good people with good intentions. But good intentions don’t guarantee good methods.
AB, Bill and Chris (how ’bout that – ABC!)
Sorry, I’ve been out a while but I have been watching your discussion concerning alter calls and Finney-esque (thanks Bill) methodology. At the risk of Tim G sending me to the wood shed let me add that I agree with what you are saying – so long as we don’t paint all “aggressive methods” of evangelism in the with the same brush. When we give an alter call, generally those responding are those I have already been counseling with. When someone does come forward during the invitation that I have not already visited with – we ask the church to pray for them, as we will be meeting with them in more detail later.
Tim G did mention that we must engage the culture with our evangelism – as churches, associations and as Conventions. Bill, I think you addressed this in post #9. Evangelism – confronting culture – takes place in the work-a-day world where the people of God, nurtured and strengthened through the Word and Worship, carry the gospel to the work place, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, clothes closet, prison …. etc. But, those souls once confronted with the gospel, also need a place to continue in growth themselves. That’s why we bring them back to the church. This calls for a living orthodoxy on the part of believers – and church body, and association and convention.
The main thing about evangelism (proclaiming the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ) is just get out there and do it.
Grace (and Peace – my spam word!)
Wes
Wes,
No arguments.
Alex,
I did not “celebrate” anything. I don’t think that was done by anyone. There also was no arrogance on anyone’s part other than maybe you thinking you have discovered something others do not know.
The point of saying we are orthodox in our theology simply means Southern Baptist subscribe to the articles of an orthodox Christian theology as represented in the New Testament represented by the fundamentals of the faith.
You said we may not be orthodox. I asked you to point out the article (articles) of the faith wherein we are not orthodox.
You have not done that.
Rather you pointed out the failure of some Baptists. You used the poor character and conduct of members of a Baptist church you were or are involved.
What you have illustrated is the failure of many to “practice” the orthodox theology of which they subscribe.
Alex, that has been a problem with the church universal and local since shortly after Jesus ascended into Heaven. Paul, Peter and Jesus sent letters to churches confronting their failure to live (practice) the faith (orthodox Christianity).
The issue you bring up relating to the resurrection being “forgotten” is the building of a straw man argument.
The guy was posting a blog comment. He was not posting the entirety of the articles of the Christian faith.
In all reality, he subconsciously though all of the parties he was commenting to in this thread knew, lived and breathed the reality of the Resurrection.
To not do so is beyond not being orthodox. It would be to be a godless pagan or worse; a religious heretic who has never known the Christ in a salvic relationship at any time.
Alex, to subscribe to orthodox Christianity is one thing. To practice that orthodoxy is another.
cb
Brother Wes,
Good word my friend….
Blessings,
Chris
At the risk of brining us back to a thought original in Tim G’s post…
I was struck by Rick’s comment in #47. Once again the whining of cultural engagement which moves away from sound ecclesiology and a consistent hermeneutic concerning alcohol is belittled as ‘mockery’ to cultural engagement. (Not to mention I am new to the MBC and find it to be ‘spot on’ though concerning its actions regarding Acts 29 in the instance involving Journey)
I think that questions/circumstances just like the one causing so much debate here in Missouri speak to the heart of the issue which TimG addresses…bringing our solid doctrinal convictions, especially in the arena of evangelism, into the marketplace of ideas in which we live. Making the initial contact of the Gospel is what I see Tim speaking to here. We as Southern Baptist can (should…MUST) use all means possible (TV, Internet, radio, door-to-door, FRANgelism, FAITH teams, biblical discipleship, etc.) to introduce the saving grace of the Gospel message to a lost world, dead in trespasses and sins. Complete evangelism is more than ‘soul winning’ but can never be without the heart of sharing the Gospel (Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection) to see souls saved!
We must, however, never call darkness light or in anyway call the light darkness. We should be reaching those turning to the fellowship of the bottle by going to them in the bars to rescue them from darkness and bring them into the fellowship of God’s family…and never mistake one for the other.
I do not wish to side-track into a debate over MBC, etc. I just am wanting to pick up an idea TimG has caused me to consider. How can we ‘engage our world/culture’ with the Gospel and not compromise our doctrinal convictions essential to our faith?
SOLA GRATIA!
Scott,
Did you write your first sentence as you intended it? If so, will you with your superior wisdom tell us who and how we left the “original” substance of Tim G’s post?
That is, if you can trouble yourself with such simpletons as we who have been commenting the last couple of days here. :-)
cb
CB,
Sabanite does not necessarily mean simpleton…
:-D
To answer your question…yes. I was just taking cues from others within this thread who repeatedly were indicating their own fears that their discussion was drifting from the primary focus.
BTW, thanks for taking your attack dogs after Alex. That’s been fun to watch!
SOLA GRATIA!
Brother Scott,
What is “a consistent hermenuetic on alcohol”?
Blessings,
Chris
(my anti-spam word is “temperance”, does that count?)
Chris,
Yes, that counts.
At the risk of diverting thoughts here from Tim’s focus, I would simply reference Peter’s excellent series on Wisdom & Drinking Wine. I know that I fall outside the new trends on alcohol, but I believe that abstinence holds a solid, biblical and time-honored place in church history.
With that, I am not, Peter…
SOLA GRATIA!
Very nice…. (smiling)
I am enjoying Peter’s series….I hope he gets that back on the tracks soon.
Blessings
Chris
Brother Scott,
Are you willing to discipline (leading to a removal from fellowship) a member of your church for, let’s just say, having a beer on a Saturday afternoon?
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
ABC,
Are you willing to discipline (leading to a removal from fellowship) a member of your church for, let’s just say, lying about their age on a Sunday School enrollment form?
SOLA GRATIA!
Yes
Disciplining is not just the removal, it is the confronting of sin and the restoration of that believer.
I would absolutely do that, and I would hope that my brothers would do that to me as well.
Brother Scott,
Oh i forgot to mention.
Bearing false witness is clearly a sinful behavior.
Grace and Peace
ABClay
Brothers,
Yeah, that probably sounded horrible.
One would hope that if when a person is approached about lying on anything that they would confess and repent, especially if it is on something as silly as a SSSchool Enrollment Form.
The answer remains the same though, it MUST be confronted in the body of Christ.
Grace and Peace,
ABClay
AB,
How would you answer #73? Is lying just like having a beverage?
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I think that these are two distinct things. While I can certainly appreciate the humor that Scott brings with his pithy response, Lying is not the same as drinking. We can easily equate lying with drunkenness, but I believe that to say that drinking is a sinful behavior, you have to do a bit of eisigesis.
I do not drink, I have no desire to drink, yet I do not judge my brother who does drink. I would certainly want to point out the harmful effects of alcohol, but to judge him in a Matthew 18 sort of way? No. I believe that this falls under the Romans 14 liberty passage.
I have listened to some pastors rail against consumption, but a lot of them sound a whole lot like the KJV only crowd.
Just my .02 cents.
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
Brother AB,
I believe you have dealt with it biblically. Thanks for the response.
Blessings,
Chris
AB,
Well said.
Tim G,
Next post please, I think this “bar” is closing and the guys are now trying to figure out what they did and did not drink and if they had enough to get kicked out of a Sunday School class they all have been lying about attending.
:-)
cb
You shall recieve – I just sent it in. Got bogged down this weekend.
Tim,
I still have not seen anything that justifies your character assasination and slander against me and others who seek reform in the SBC. You called us all liberals in your introduction to this series. It is a ridiculous and slanderous charge.
I am not a liberal. I think a few SBC leaders have gotten too much power and have wielded that power in dangerous ways. I think we need to do away with any power cabal who might try to run things behind the scenes. I don’t think the personal opinions of seminary presidents of BoT chairman should control the denomination.
Yet, because I think some reforms are needed, you classify me as liberal. You question my love for the word of God and my desire to serve him.
Don’t say, “I didn’t mean you.” You made that accusation against ALL in the reform movement.
You either need to apologize for your statement and retract it, or defend it and prove how a desire to reform the SBC makes me liberal.
I grow weary of this “Reform is Liberal” chorus that you, Volfan and others have been singing.
Brother Dave,
What reform do you think is being labeled as “Liberal”? What are the top 3-5?
Blessings,
Chris
The problem is that Tim has clearly labeled the entire movement as simply smokescreen for the reentry of liberalism into the SBC.
He knows better. Several of us who support reform but are solid conservatives have interacted with him, yet he continues to make public statements that question the integrity and faith of all of us who want reform.
Dave,
I will not speak for TimG…BUT…
Change/Reform has been advocated here. Read Tim’s newest post. Corrections to get back on track are often necessary. Reform to completely switch tracks back to the previous one (aka ‘pre 1979′) are not healthy for our convention. Another point of confusion here is that a problem with administrative concerns (as you seem to indicate) masks the actual vendetta being carried out by the leadership of the reform ‘conversation.’
The problem further persists in the opening of doors which one may not intend. I would not be able to label (or describe you) since I do not know you or have not watched your ministry over the years. However, the de facto leader of the ‘reform’ crowd in the SBC blogland has garnered a following which contains a constituency which is admittedly liberal in its bent. That door swung wide will certainly swing to a wideness which causes once ardent conservative pastors to moderate and equivocate their convictions. If what has happened in this period of tumult in the life and ministry philosophy of even just one were to spread throughout our convention, we will once again be addressing issues with which the now liberal “mainline” denominations are being confronted.
I do not believe that Tim’s statement qualifies as a blanket identification of all those in the movement as bona fide liberals…but it sure places those in that camp as either acquiescent or advocative of inclusion of the aforementioned liberal contingency.
SOLA GRATIA!
That’s the point. I am bothered by a few in the reform movement who seem to be wanting to open the door to a return to moderate days. I don’t want that.
But Tim’s statement was clear. The whole movement, according to him, is an attempt to retore liberalism.
It is not true and he knows it. I could list several active bloggers, who interact with him repeatedly, who are not liberal and do not want to return to liberalism.
Tim spoke slanderously and dishonestly, and I have trouble reading or listening to anything he says until he retracts what he says.
He has lost credibility with me.
retracts “what he said” – not what he says.