;)
Things I Would Like to See in the SBC
Posted by Les Puryear in Uncategorized
Things I would like to see implemented in the SBC in no particular order:
- More small church emphasis at all SBC entities and agencies.
- A worship film-making division that would produce worship videos.
- A small church pastor (less than 200 in average Sunday morning worship attendance) be elected as president of the SBC.
- More teaching of practical ministry techniques in seminary, i.e., how to baptize, how to conduct the Lord’s Supper, how to handle conflict in the church, etc.
- Broadman & Holman print a series of books about small church leadership.
- Passing of a Regenerate Membership resolution.
- Revise the method of electing trustees so that rather than voting “yes” or “no” on a nominating committee’s entire list, change it so anyone who wishes to run for the office of a trustee can do so by filing for election similar to the method currently used to elect Town Council representatives. Then the convention messengers can vote for trustees by marking their ballots for each name and the ones with the most votes win. This seems to me to be more democratic than the nominating committee process.
- Spiritual awakening.
- Less storytelling in sermons and more biblical exposition.
- True desire for holiness.
- Love for brothers and sisters in Christ who do not agree with each other on non-essential doctrines.
- More cooperation among local churches rather than being in competition with each other.
- 8,000 IMB missionaries on the field by 2012.
- Pastors live what they preach.
- Explosion of house church planting in the USA.
- Every church member regularly tithing.
- Reaching the lost who are within sight of our church steeples and then reaching the lost beyond that.
- Greater penetration of evangelicalism in the northeast and western parts of the USA.
- The WMU not moving away from the SBC and toward the CBF.
These are a few of the things I would like to see happen in the Southern Baptist Convention. What would you like to see?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Les,
These are a few of my favourite things
Steve
Les – Great things, pretty much. The Regenerate Membership resolution might tweak a few elbows, but I’m pretty well on board with even that as long as it doesn’t degenerate (ha ha, catch the pun) into a run of judgmentalism and elitism.
And…not to rehash recent posts too much, while I have nothing in particular to “shoot down” house churches, I don’t think they’re the “cureall” for American Christianity or the SBC either. I think the most important part of the whole list is…
Spiritual Awakening.
To add just one, I would like to see a MUCH bigger emphasis on unity in non-essentials. We’re way too divided, in my opinion.
Les,
A good list. There is only one that I would add:
That Jesus would be the hero of our members, our pastors, and our convention.
We scarcely mention his name, and our focus is on so many other things other than Jesus and the Gospel. If we get Jesus wrong, we get the Gospel wrong. If we get the Gospel wrong, we get nothing because it is the only thing that has any power for salvation.
Good list.
I would only add a phrase that is in our IMB South America region vision statement:
Every believer a full participant in the Great Commission.
If this were so, a lot of the list would take care of itself.
I was also curious about what you are getting at with you, A worship film-making division that would produce worship videos. What would that look like?
Les,
Good list! One question: why 200 as the line for small churches? I realize any number one picks is arbitrary, but I think of a 150-200 member church as a medium sized church.
Just curious.
Les,
I’m with you on the video suggestion.
Guy,
I think that Les is talking about short video clips for use in a worship settings. NAMB used to have that, and it was an excellent resource. It also highlighted missionaries and unique ministries … that sort of stuff. We used them during our offering times. But that whole section of NAMB got axed during all of the outsourcing capers and such, and we lost a very good and inexpensive resource.
I doubt that we will ever have anything like that, Les, because such a finite number of our churches would use it, or are even equipped to use it. There are so many excellent products available from private companies.
Good suggestion, though …
les,
i would want namb to produce commercials for tv and radio about Jesus and the sbc….like the mormons do. i think that this would help all of the churches across the usa to reach people. and, i dont mean to just provide commercials for churches to buy, but for them to make them and put them on tv and radio.
david
Good video is expensive. Bad video is a terrible testimony. The only way the independent companies survive is that they apparently have God’s blessing on them and they market across denominational boundaries to the contemporary church market that has money, I would guess.
Steve,
Was that song from Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music? That’s really bugging me now.
Bernard,
I agree with you on our division on the non-essentials. The first step to the unity you desire is that we agree on what is essential and what is non-essential. I don’t think we’ve done that yet.
Marc,
Excellent addition. Jesus should be our hero, not “celebrity pastors.”
Guy,
Another excellent addition. In regard to the worship video thing, check out sermonspice.com, and worshipmedia.com. They sell short (1 to 3 minutes) video which are for showing during worship. I use these every week in our early contemporary service.
Bowden,
You’re right in that we all have our own definitions. However, I am choosing less than 200 in worship attendance as my benchmark because this is the same benchmark I read in other small church author’s books such as Glenn Daman, Lyle Schaller, and others. Typically, most, maybe not all, but most churches who have less than 200 in worship attendance have single staff situations.
Guy,
You’re correct. The resource we used to use was known as “Essentials” and it was produced by NAMB (though I could be wrong about that).
David,
Another good suggestion.
Les
I agree with David, volfan007, about the North American Mission Board producing and airing radio and TV commercials about Jesus “from your Southern Baptist Friends” or “from your Southern Baptist Churches.” This has been done before; I’d love to see it more often.
This could also encourage a more positive public perception of the Southern Baptist Convention, its ministries, and its churches.
Sincerely,
David R. Brumbelow
This is a great list, Les. I would like to see a great emphasis in equipping all of our members in basic principles of Bible interpretation. It seems that at best we train our Sunday School teachers how to teach a pre-written SS lesson rather than how to read, interpret, and teach the scripture passage itself. I believe that enabling our people to read, study, and understand the scriptures for themselves will take care of much of the list. The scripture then becomes the authority, not the person teaching or preaching it.
Haven’t had time to read all the comments (lay person ya know
But I would encourage the SBC to become more pro-active in stating the fundamental differences with Rome, Salt Lake, Brooklyn, etc. Not in a haughty or arrogant way but in love saying: “This is where we disagree.” How many sermons do you hear on infused v imputed righteousness?
David B,
A more positive perception of the SBC would be a wonderful goal.
Kevin,
Hermeneutics is always a good training discipline to undertake with our teachers. I still use Thomas Lea’s “How To Study Your Bible.” What would you suggest?
John,
Actually we have exactly what you are looking for. Go to http://www.namb.net and search for “interfaith” and you’ll find some excellent irenic resources on differences between orthodox Christianity and other faiths.
Les
Tommy Lea’s work is still a fine one — a nice study course if a church is interested in such. I also like Fee and Stuart’s “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” — now in its third edition. It is one of the best overviews of how to interpret the different major biblical genres written for laypeople.
The basic principles of grammatical-historical Bible interpretation are pretty simple and boil down into four main principles — grammatical, historical, theological, and practical. I teach my own material in workshops but it’s not too complicated. It boils down to three basic questions to ask of every passage: (1) What did it mean to the biblical writer and audience? [grammatical and historical principles] (2) What does the passage mean (i.e. timeless theological truths)? [theological principle] (3) What does that timeless truth mean to me and my audience today? [practical application principle].
It’s not new stuff, just basic sound Bible inerpretation. Unfortunately, in many of our churches the only people who know these things are the pastors. Pastors need to start reclaiming their call “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12).
Great list!
I also really like the TV commercial idea. We have millions of dollars going through the SBC–why can’t we have a few commercials over a medium (TV) that virtually all Americans use??
I will ad that I felt like NOBTS did a pretty good job of teaching some of the pastoral stuff–we actually practiced baptizing, etc. That’s not to shoot down the other schools or imply that any seminary is doing it perfectly.
Just a curious thought… If the Baptist Faith and Message is really right, why do we want to teach people to study the Bible for themselves? Why can’t we just teach the BFM rigorously and tell SS students to read their quarterlies instead of the Bible?
NOTE – There is a great deal of socratic discombobulative sarcasm in the above statement, but I do want to kick out something… We talk about “studying the Bible and seeing what it says”, but just as soon as someone does so, it seems that the standard practice is to punch them into a discipleship program of some sort to make sure that they “interpret properly”. This appears to me to be much the same as saying “I know you THINK it means so and so, but it REALLY means so and so, because this is what our church teaches…” In other words, we almost seem to NOT want folks to study the Bible, but just to read it and then ask what they are supposed to believe about it.
Excuse the diversion. Couldn’t resist. Peter Lumpkins, Esq. has inspired me to great depths of socratic surreptitiousty.
Am I still welcome here?
Bernard,
Good discussion point. A common sense approach to interpreting any type of literature says that the writer meant to convey some sort of meaning, and the best approach is to determine the “authorial intent” by understanding the words, grammar, and context. Otherwise, you end out with what is called a “reader response” interpretation in which every reader will determine their own meaning of any text. Our faith is based upon what the biblical authors intended to convey, not on the whims of the individual interpreter (2 Pet 1:20).
I’ve been in many Bible studies where we read the passage and immediately the leader asks the group, “Now what do you think that means?” as if anyone’s response is as good as anyone else’s. It’s the teacher’s job first to help the class determine what the text means (i.e. authorial intent). Once that unchanging truth is established, then it is appropriate to ask the class, “Now what does this this timeless biblical truth mean to you personally? How does it apply to your life?” There is a HUGE difference in saying “This is what this passage MEANS” and “This is what this passage MEANS TO ME.”
The doctrine of the priesthood of the beliver does not mean that everyone’s interpretation is as good as everyone else’s (if so, then why waste the time to go to seminary?). That precious doctrine means that any believer of normal intelligence, using sound principles of biblical interpretation, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, can determine and understand the timeless message of a passage of scripture. The good news is that the basic literary principles for sound Bible interpretation are not complicated nor too difficult for a lay person to understand. Someone just needs to teach them.
Kevin – I understand fully. Don’t get me wrong – I’m only stirring this pot because we skirt Catholic doctrine with this a LOT. But I’m also diverting Les’ post, so I’ll cease and desist with this point – as Baptist Christians, we (me in particular) often don’t have a clue of how to answer those who challenge our “right” to stand against issues and morals based on “our interpretation of the Bible” since THEIR interpretation is rather different. We only know to say “well, the pastor at my church says…” and then we are laughed to scorn for not having the fortitude to have our OWN convicitions and support. What I’m really trying to say is that one thing the “SBC” really should focus on is doing less “telling the masses” what to believe and more training of why things are interpreted the way they are. The knowledge of a “high” few doesn’t hold water when I confront the homosexual on the street; he laughs because he considers me the ignorant proletariat of the Baptist bourgeousies (sp?) with no intelligence of my own.
If it takes 20 years of seminary to properly interpret John 3:16, we’ve got a problem.
For instance, I asked Rob Ayers a question yesterday as to why some things in the OT are so “widely” accepted as being “civil law”, while “we” consider others to be of critical importance. I’m sure HE understands and will answer when he can, but my point is that MANY of us have no idea of how to tell the difference. If we’re supposed to study the Bible for ourselves, why do we have to be told what to believe about so many things in order to prevent “heresy”? This is incredibly close to Catholicism, I’m sorry.
With that, I stop this rabbit trail. I’m sorry, Les. I have no idea why I went here…
“If it takes 20 years of seminary to properly interpret John 3:16, we’ve got a problem.”
Hey, how’d you get a copy of my transcript?
I have taught through Rick Warren’s book on how to study the Bible and liked it, but Howard Hendrick’s “Living By The Book” is really excellent and very accessible to anyone – seminary or not.
BTT – Les, I like your list a lot, though my enthusiasm for house churches is tempered by me pastoring one for a couple years, and I’d rather have 4,000 IMB missionaries who are training 12,000 natives.
Kevin P,
Thanks for the book suggestion. I’ll take a look at it.
Kevin,
Glad to hear that NOBTS teaches some practical stuff.
Bernard,
I’d be careful playing the “Peter Lumpkins” card here. Yes, you are welcome here and so is Peter.
David W,
I’d like to hear more of your experiences in pastoring a house church. I currently subscribe to your blog. Perhaps your experiences might be a good post?
Les
I’m clearly late again to the discussion, but would like to amen your post. All things that would be great to see in the SBC.
Les:
Knowing that the vast majority of SBC churches are small, it would seem wise for the denomination to emphasize the “small church” rather than pushing programs fitting mega-churches. A good step in this direction would electing a small church pastor as president.
We might pass a resolution on regenerate church membership, but I fear only pastors and professors will care about it. I’m not sure how much impact it will have on the average congregation/church member.
Don’t you think the love, holiness and spiritual awakening all go hand-in-hand? Perhaps when we do this, and cooperate rather than compete, we’ll make better inroads to the northeast/west.
I don’t see how a resolution on regenerate church membership can avoid two things – appearing pro-Calvinist and threatening local church autonomy. Who is or is not a member of a local church should entirely be subject to the membership of that local church body, and I believe the SBC would be far out of line to attempt to dictate that in any fashion.
Just my thoughts, not trying to be “ill”.
Cyle,
Thanks.
Dr. Galyon,
Yes sir, I agree with you that the deonomination should emphasize small churches more than they do. That’s why I am a small church advocate.
You may be correct about the impact of the regenerate membership resolution. At least we’ll be on record about it. If nothing else, it’s a start.
I also agree with your view about love, holiness and spiritual awakening all going hand-in-hand.
I truly enjoy your blog. Your insights are very perceptive.
Bernard,
A resolution is no threat to local church autonomy because it is not binding. It’s nothing more than a position which a majority of the messengers agree upon. Local churches can do as they please.
Les
Les – In that case, I think I would be really confused as to the real value. Sorry to be stupid.