Are You Hearing These Questions?

Some are saying that questions are being asked that are not being answered. The only questions that I have heard asked relate, not to change, but to control. It seems that these questions began back in 2005-06 at the call for change coming from a disgruntled International Mission Board (IMB) trustee. This call and the reaction of some who disagreed with the Conservative Resurgence, but were still in SBC churches, created a perfect storm as the 2006 SBC Convention approached in Greensboro, NC. It was at this convention that many found their voices and some found them so well they began heckling Dr. Vines as he spoke to an issue. Also, it was in this convention that the SBC debated alcohol and some that spoke of their outrage in various gatherings now seem to overlook the consternation they once had. It is within this context that questions of change first began.

I would like to go on record to say that I am not an ostrich who sticks his head in the sand while the world is being destroyed around him. I also am not one of the village people that comes running every time the little boy cries wolf. The time for change is past. The time for change is now. The time for change is in the future. With this change comes responsibility and accountability. I would like to address some of the responsibility and accountability associated with change by addressing some statements and a few questions.

Does the Cooperative Program unite us in relationship? It is the Cooperative Program (CP) that connects us through the state conventions. However, our relationship is not centered on the CP. Our relationship is centered on doctrine, not a common goal of where our money goes. During the Conservative Resurgence, Drs. Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley and a host of other SBC presidents were taken to task on their low percentages of giving. It was then that Dr. Rogers referred to the CP as a “sacred cow”. He was not denigrating the CP; he was merely lamenting how leaders of the moderates were using the CP as a litmus test. Dr. Rogers at that time responded, reminding us that doctrine is what drives missions, not money to place missionaries on the field.

Does accountability remain a strong part of CP giving? The trustees of the IMB, in the summer of 2005, were called to task about placing in writing guidelines that were being used in the interview process for new missionaries. The now-censured trustee that forced this move saw that the Board of Trustees agreed with their committee and he tried to derail the motion. When this did not work he went public with his loss in the hopes of creating such a ground swell that it would force the trustees to rescind the guidelines. The IMB trustees were charged with being Landmarkers, which was very interesting to say the least. The now-censured trustee used a bedrock Landmark tenet–the centrality of the local church’s autonomy–to argue against the guidelines. It seems this now-censured trustee desired to have local church autonomy trump the autonomy of the convention. The Cooperative Program survives because of the Baptist distinctive of the autonomy of the local church. However, local church autonomy does not trump convention autonomy. I do not give to the Cooperative Program out of gratitude, though I am grateful for the people who gave in order that my education was offset. I do not give to the Cooperative Program out of a sense that no one else does it better, though you would be hard pressed to find a better missions sending organization, disaster relief response unit, or a retirement system with the conglomerate of insurances. I do not give to the Cooperative Program out of a sense that it unites the churches in doctrine, as there are many churches that give to the Cooperative Program that do not hold to the same doctrine on issues as I. I give to the Cooperative Program because God’s Word instructs me in accountability, and to support that of which I am a part. If that percentage is 10%, 15%, or 3% makes no difference. One thing that confuses me is the various people that work for SBC entities and have the freedom to do outside speaking engagements, spend time writing books, and are free to work for other educational systems, and then tell me to lead my church to give in support of their entity. While I know their loyalty lies with Jesus Christ, I have one question. Do they not have any sense of loyalty to their employer to give an honest days work for an honest day of pay? As one that leads a church to give to the Cooperative Program, it is hard for me to understand how my giving to the Cooperative Program is needed if entity employees are free to take on full-time employment as interim teaching pastors, Senior Pastors, board members of other evangelical organizations, and give the time necessary to receive their pay and benefits derived from the CP giving of the local church.

It seems that “Relating to Culture” has now become the buzz phrase that is thrown out when someone questions the responsibility of the ungodly teaching of someone. We are told to keep quiet because the person is “relating to the culture” in which he finds himself. No one that I know of has ever criticized a pastor of another church for leading his church to engage the culture. I admit that some have criticized those who affiliate with brothers who differ from us on some serious doctrinal issues. It seems that sometimes I feel like Angie Harmon whenever I see something which I am not in agreement. I am either accused of being a Pharisee, or I am accused of calling someone a moderate. I do not know of anyone that wraps the Gospel in the United States flag. However, having a flag in the worship center does not mean that I am desiring to elevate the Unites States of America above reaching the lost. Also, if I allow voters guides to be passed out during election years it does not mean that I have sold my soul to an elephant. My hope is in the Gospel. I share it with my neighbors, the waitress, or waiter, (I always leave a 20% tip regardless of the service) and I share it with my family members that are lost. I venture out on short term mission trips and try to lead my church to take seriously the commission we have been given to take the Gospel to the nations. As I understand the Gospel, it transcends culture and it will divide. If I am going to take the Gospel to the nations, I must understand that I am expanding the Kingdom of God and the cultural gates of Hell will not stand against it. It is a war, and I am on the front lines and in the trenches. I am not sitting in an ivory tower reading demographics and telling everyone else what they should be doing, and why they are not doing it right. I am on the front lines doing it! I may not be seeing the results of others who are doing it. But, the results are not up to me, they are up to Him. So before I criticize someone for “not doing it” I need to remember that I serve a Sovereign Lord.

It seems that some are referencing questions that seem to be asked someplace as I have not been asked these questions. I do admit that I have never been a pastor of a church larger that 200 so I probably have not been in contact with as many as some have. I must live a sheltered life as I focus on feeding and leading the flock in the culture that God has called me in the area He placed me. However, I do desire to engage these questions as I believe they need engaging.

If Southern Baptist are so committed to the Word of God and the gospel, why are we so ineffective at living and preaching it? In the churches I have served, there is always this unnamed group that wants to change things. When pushed on identifying these people, one is usually told it is a confidential issue. However, to raise this question there must be a follow-up question before it can be answered. It seems that when a person’s lifestyle is called into question that is not in the SBC, those asking this question respond by saying; “he/she is engaging their culture.” Please, we need an answer: who are these in the SBC who are ineffective at living out the Word of God and preaching the Gospel? Once we get an answer to that question we can then deal with the issue. Or could it be that those not “living out the Word of God and Preaching it” are those that the questioners no longer agree with?

In the SBC, why are there so few great expositors? For me, I believe, this is an easy answer. I admit, on the surface, this is a question begging to be answered but the answer is very easy. In the 90′s the only seminary that pushed expository preaching was SEBTS. SBTS had not yet moved to that point but was moving in that direction. SEBTS took the lead in developing a preaching department that only taught the expository preaching method. There has only been one generation taught so far, thus, it seems that we should be seeing them soon.

In the SBC why is there so much redundancy in ministry from evangelism training to church planting to Sunday school training from the local church, association, state and national agencies? Is this good stewardship? It seems that this question is better answered by the entity heads than it is by the churches of the convention. It also is confusing that some who are asking these questions are those involved in creating redundancy in ministry.

Why do so many in the SBC seem intent on isolating and vilifying the 5 percent of secondary issues where we may disagree while not coming together for the sake of the gospel? If Believers baptism by immersion is in the 5% of a secondary issue, then we need not back up on demanding that when it comes to cooperating for the sake of planting churches then baptism by immersion is not a secondary issue.

Are we so theologically inept that we cannot even prioritize the eternal from the temporal, and our preferences from truth? Churches that are started by autonomous churches with their autonomous funds are completely free to partner with any group they desire. However, whenever CP funds are used to begin churches it is not theological ineptness to hold that church accountable to the BF&M 2k. The BF&M 2K is not a personal preference and as Southern Baptist we should never be “embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. ”

As Southern Baptist why do we still seem ignorant of the fact that we must engage lostness in the culture rather than in our buildings? As I said earlier, I agree with this question. However, it seems that it is a question that should be directed to the local church by the pastor of that church. There are many events and outreach strategies in which pastors desire to engage, but God has not broken down that wall in the church setting. Would it not be better to ask the question; “What can the entities of the SBC do to help pastors and churches to engage the lostness in the culture?” It seems the focus of our seminaries existence is to train ministers of the gospel, not to employ people. If we are training ministers of the gospel to go into a church and engage that culture first, then the end result will be engaging the lostness of the culture. Doesn’t it just seem plausible that we must first engage the culture in which God has placed us before we engage the culture of the world around us?

As Southern Baptists why will we not admit that many, not just a few, SBC churches make virtually no impact in their communities for the gospel, and many seem not to care? I do not think anyone has not admitted that. Just look at the baptism numbers from last year. Should we not be asking this question differently as well? Shouldn’t we ask; “Why are our churches more interested in adding members from other churches than we are adding members that are outside of the church?” Why would we ask such a question? Look at the “other additions” found in the Annual Church Profiles and compare them to the “additions by Baptism” numbers. I believe one will find that we have added more from other churches than we have through baptism.

Some would say that the 2006 convention awakened a sleeping giant. Dr. Adrian Rogers, who has been called to glory was awakened in the late 70′s and took the stand to see the convention turn. Drs. Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines, who were also awakened in the 1970′s, are still with us and have issued a call that we not proposition away our Baptist identity for the soup of evangelical ecumenism. We need to come together and learn from the past or we will be doomed to repeat it. When there was change in our convention it came in the form of a layman, an offspring of a denominational employee, and a pastor. These three came together and rallied the SBC messengers. If history is any indication, change will come when the people in the pew say, “Enough.” I do not see a giant in the SBC in the form of younger pastors by themselves. Why? Those that advocate the need to change will not go into the existing churches and expend the tears, sweat, and blood to see God move. They will not sacrifice in that setting in order to see God move. What our younger pastors seem to be more interested in is beginning a church with people that think like them and target only others that think like them. Most young pastors I know have no idea on how to bring a motion to the floor of the SBC. Even if everything were ripe for change it couldn’t be changed because the motion would be ruled out of order. We then hear these younger pastors say that God did not write Roberts Rules of Order.

Allow me to close by saying we all–young pastors, middle-aged pastors, old pastors, entity heads, entity employees, state conventions–must come together. When we come together we learn from each other how to navigate these waters for the glory of God, the sake of the gospel and for the doctrinal unity of the SBC!

Some say that we are at a tipping point. I must say that it is exciting to see those who have been noticeably absent from the SBC in the past change their schedule in order to be at the SBC in Louisville this summer. I urge all who read this to change their schedule and come to the SBC in Louisville this summer. I also urge everyone to change their schedule and come to Orlando in 2010, and Phoenix in 2011 and New Orleans in 2012 and wherever else the convention goes in the following years. For change to come in the SBC it must first begin with schedules.

I praise God for raising up a man like Johnny Hunt, who loved me as a younger pastor and led his church to invest in him pouring his life into younger ministers before it was cool. Remember, though that Brother Johnny began doing this because one before him poured himself in his life and suggested he begin Timothy/Barnabas. That one was Jimmy Draper, one of the old pastors. If we have reached a tipping point, I certainly pray that it isn’t the point where we tip over and spill our precious doctrinal cargo into the sea of relativistic pragmatic syncretism in order to reach people who want the gospel changed to fit their desires so we can say we are no longer in decline. Thus, we will make them two-fold children of Hell.