;)
On the SBC
Posted by Bowden McElroy in Baptist Life
Three quotes I appreciate from men I admire.
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: “I would say for Southern Seminary and for the Southern Baptist Convention, don’t give a dollar that you don’t think is well deployed in ministry. And then hold us all accountable for what we do with those mission dollars.”
Daniel L. Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary: “If in studying what we need to do would involve shutting down Southeastern Seminary and indicating that Danny Akin do something else that would actually be an impetus and an aid to the Great Commission, then that’s fine. God doesn’t need Southeastern Seminary. God doesn’t need Southern Baptists.”
Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research: “I’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly. I’m not impressed with the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m not seeking to get my identity from it.”
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
[...] 2009 July 3 by Bitsy Griffin SBC Impact has quotes from all three of the gentlemen pictured (Mohler, Aiken and Stetzer), but it’s [...]
Bowden:
Market forces ultimately determine the market share that any of our SBC agencies have. Our polity of having “autonomous” churches interfacting with “autonomous” state conventions and “autonomous” agencies of the SBC is at once a “curse” due to the complexities of management and a “blessing” in that there is an inherent check and balance system in place for the agencies. If they don’t have competitive products/services they will loose market share and fade into the sunset.
I am really encouraged by the wisdom shown by the current crop of the leadership of the SBC agencies. They acknowledge that this whole thing is “bottom up” – not “top down”. They are willing to consider what — if anything — they must do to maintain/regain market share.
My own observation is that many/most/all of the agencies are making changes that are needed to meet the real-world competition. However, I don’t know if they are just treading water, or slowly expanding, or contracting.
I see many many positive signs. However, there have been some long term secular trends which are disturbing to me which seem “irreversible”. One of the most disturbing is the whole idea of children’s ministry materials coming out of a combination of what used to be the SS Board, Brotherhood Commission, WMU, etc.
Specifically, I’m talking about the old time Sunbeams, GAs, RAs, Training Union stuff, etc. All this stuff is “obsolete” now. Maybe it should be obsolete. Maybe those old models don’t fit anymore. Churches have voted with their checkbooks decades ago to not use these materials. My point is that I don’t think any SBC agency (or combination of agencies) have moved in to fill the void with viable replacements that fit the current context. Instead we have programs like AWANA.
There is noting wrong with this but it is not SBC. AWANA does not have any component such as the old SBC stuff which reinforces the work of what was the Foriegn Mission Board and/or Home Mission Board. I’m not longing to go back to the “good ole days” when every thing fit together in a neat programmatic matrix with interlocking pieces. What I’m saying is that today we don’t have the “good new days” where we have modern day equivalents of the stuff from the “good ole days”. We have for the most part replaced the old stuff which was obsolete with “nothing”.
No wonder we are seeing atomization in SBC life. No wonder there is so much a-la-carte selection taking place with SBC churches. I don’t know if any SBC re-org, such as is contemplated by the study comission coming out of Louisville, has any tools available in their toolbox to attack this problem or not.
The atomization that I mention regarding children’s literature is also happening with the sending of missionaries — both at home and abroad.
I personally think that the SBC going to be viable for a long time. However, I think that SBC agencies are going to have to acknowledge that they are “no longer competitive” in certain product categories and abandon them. To stay healthy they are going to have to adjust their product portfolio just like any other enterprize does.
The problem I see is that some of our agencies are slowly moving away from being “destinctively” Baptist. This is expecially true with Lifeway. To be brutially honest, I don’t know how much longer it is going to make sense for Lifeway to remain “managible” in the SBC stable. We see at the margin right now, people complaining about stuff Lifeway does — such as stocking certain books. Lifeway does not want to loose market share to other outlets of Christain literature such as CBD. CBD has a lower cost structure. There may be a point at which Southern Baptists just walk away from Lifeway due to the fact that the “guys in the pew” and/or individual churches are going to incrementally continue divert business to non-SBC providers leaving Lifeway more dependent that ever on the broader Evangelical community. This might reach a run-away state where it is not reversible. Stated succently it might not be possible for Lifeway to survive without being spun off from the SBC. The SBC might have no choice to sell Lifeway off.
My point with Lifeway is I believe it is increasingly between a rock and a hard place. In order to survive it needs to maintain market share in the entire Evangelical christian community. It can’t do this without making at least some hard core Southern Baptists mad. There are forces at work here that are 180 degrees out of phase.
Roger Simpson OKC
I agree with Bro. Stetzer, I get my idenity from God, through Jesus Christ. God knows me, even though men don’t. Since The SBC is now a hodge podge of beliefs, Calvinists, hyper Calvinists, and free willers,
I’m glad my idenity is in Christ.
”Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.”
When is audio/video going to be available from the B21 panel?
What exactly is Ed Stetzer saying in his quote? Please help me to understand it. Is he saying that he doesnt like the SBC? The ones who are paying his salary? The ones who are actually giving him a platform? the very ones who are supporting him?
Exactly what does he mean by this statement?
Now, my identity is in Christ….I’m a Christian…first and foremost. But, I’m also a Southern Baptist, because I believe that they stick closer to the Bible than any other group out there. They also have the best mission organization and activity than any other group out there. So, yes, I’m a Southern Baptist, and I’m proud of it.
Maybe if Ed Stetzer is not impressed with the SBC, then maybe it’s time for him to go elsewhere? Where he is impressed.
David
As I understand all three quotes, if I am reading them correctly, there is nothing about the SBC, in and of itself, that demands, if we are to be faithful to our Lord, its continuance.
The Church, however, is a different story…
Ephesians 1:22-23
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the CHURCH, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Ephesians 3:10-11
His intent was that now, through the CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 3:20-21
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the CHURCH and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Colossians 1:17-18
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the CHURCH; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
1 Timothy 3:15
If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The SBC is not the Church, though. It is a tool, a mechanism, in the hands of a certain group of churches (local expressions of the Church), in order to help these churches better fulfill their role in expressing the Church. Tools and mechanisms such as the SBC may come and go. But the Church will live on, until the day of Lord Jesus presents “her to himself as a radiant CHURCH, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:27).
As a result, as members of the Church, and as members of churches which seek to faithfully express the Church, we must continually evaluate the usefulness of tools or mechanisms such as the SBC and its affiliated entities. We are called to be faithful stewards.
I just got a message from Bowden which says:
“I’m on the road and when I arrive I will not have internet or cell phone coverage. Could you post a comment to that effect? Thanks.”
Certainly, none of us should derive our identity from anyone other than Christ, and nothing should drive our actions other than a desire to be obedient to His commands.
Nevertheless, I still think that Ed Stetzer’s quote is an unfortunate choice of words, and words that he might well choose differently upon further reflection. As an illustration of why they might be a bit incendiary, consider how one might receive the reciprocal sentiment: What if this year’s SBC Annual Meeting had adopted a resolution indicating that we’re not impressed with Ed Stetzer?
Bart and David W.:
I think the following quotes from the same article as the Stetzer quote in this post give a little better context:
As a pastor and church planter, however, Stetzer said, “I still believe” in the SBC.
“For me, I’m kind of at the place now where we’ve got to make some substantive changes,” he said. “The voices of division are becoming more shrill at the same time as we are coming together, but I really believe if we can come together over the next few years that in the process of doing so we’ll have a better allocation of where our finances go with more focus on local missions and church planting in the United States.”
Stetzer said he recognized that as a matter of stewardship younger pastors on the fence will not wait forever for the Southern Baptist Convention to adapt to changing times.
“I do not think now is the time for you to pull the resources out of the established system,” he advised. “Now is the time you can engage that system and to fix that system.”
Context always helps. Also a little grace in placing the best construction on a phrase or quote until proven otherwise. Impress and like do not mean the same thing.
David,
I read the whole article. I hope that my comment wasn’t taken as going any further than what it says. I still say, take the whole context of the article and transpose it as a statement that the SBC was making about Ed Stetzer: “We still believe in him, but he’s just got to change. We won’t wait forever, but we have hope that he’ll pull it together. We’re not impressed with Ed Stetzer.” Wouldn’t that be a very controversial thing for the SBC to say about Ed Stetzer?
And again, because of previous past bad experiences at other unnamed blog sites, I want to make it explicitly clear that I am NOT saying that the SBC SHOULD make such a statement, nor am I making such a statement for MYSELF. Rather, I am turning around Ed’s statement in order to give people an opportunity to try it on and see why it is not the kind of comment that I would repeat favorably.
I saw it when it first came out. I had no desire to blog about it then. I have no real desire to blog about it now. But the topic having arisen, I just wanted to play out this little exercise in understanding so that folks would have the opportunity perhaps to stand in someone else’s shoes and receive the statement in a different way.
I dont know about the rest of you, but it seems that we have some in the SBC who make only negative statements about the SBC. They quote stats and polls, and they have nothing good to say about the SBC. They are very negative, and they just want to to spank the Pastors and Church planters and missionaries at conferences and seeminars over the lack of “good stats” in “growth” figures, or finances, or whatever.
I, for one, am tired of being spanked.
David
Bart,
As Bill alludes to in Comment #10, I think that the proper interpretation of what Ed is saying hinges on one’s understanding of the term “impress” in this particular context.
As I understand it, he was saying something like “I am not beholden to the SBC; my life and existence does not depend on it; and I do not necessarily base what I do on a default continuance of it,” and not “I don’t think what the SBC is doing is anything to write home about; it really isn’t significant or valuable.”
But, alas, words are words, and we must each make of them what we must each make of them.
It is ironic to me that I am commenting on two different posts here at sbcIMPACT! at the same time, in one of them defending the ministry and stewardship of the SBC through the IMB, and in the other one defending the integrity of someone who is being interpreted (mistakenly, in my opinion) as denigrating the ministry of the SBC.
God likes us, in fact He loves us. Loves us so much that He gave his Son to die for us. He blesses us in uncounted ways. But I doubt He is impressed by us.
Bill,
We’re not talking about God. We’re talking about Ed Stetzer.
David
David: Does your statement of the obvious negate my point? Unimpressed doesn’t mean dislike.
Bill,
Most of the quotes I hear from Ed Stetzer, and from others that adore him, seem to be negative and downing the SBC. All I seem to hear from Lifeway’s stats and polls division seem to be negative things. And, it seems that what I hear from many conferences and seminars are negative, gloom and doom, despairing comments; and we(Pastors) get a spanking for not doing more so that we can “grow” and “baptise more” and “have better finances” and “reach the young crowd.”
I’m tired of the spankings.
We have faithful Pastors out here working thier fingers to the bone to preach and teach God’s Word, and minister to their people, and reach out to the lost, and do all the other things that a Pastor has to do. And then, because we’re not reaching more than the year before, or because we’re not baptising as many as the year before, or the finances have slipped 2.3% over the previous year, or average attendance has slightly slipped….then we all get a good spanking from the experts.
David
I simply see Ed Stetzer’s comment in the same vein as that of Dr. Akin. God doesn’t need the SBC, God isn’t impressed with the SBC. He doesn’t need any of us. That’s why we should be absolutely humbled and awed at the fact that He chooses to use us.
Also, when you take the entirety of what Dr. Stetzer has said over the years, it’s hard to deny that his priority first and foremost is making reproducing disciples. When you take what he said, whether you like the wording or not, in that context, I understand the need for the SBC to be a humble convention dependent on God’s grace. Whether you like the message or not, it’s an accurate one we should all consider.
Personally, I see all three of these quotes in the same spirit as the following two quotes from my father, Adrian Rogers:
“I’m willing to compromise about many things, but not the Word of God. So far as getting together is concerned, we don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention, as it is, does not have to survive. I don’t have to be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t have to be loved; I don’t even have to live. But I will not compromise the Word of God.”
“The Cooperative Program has become a sacred cow.”
As I interpret all of this together (the quotes from Mohler, Akin, & Stetzer, as well as those from my father), I gather the following:
There is a hierarchy of values in the kingdom of God.
1. Faithfulness to God Himself and submission to the authority of His Word.
2. A commitment to be the best stewards we possibly can of the resources He commends into our hands.
3. Loyalty to traditions and organizations.
We must strive to keep these values in their proper order.
David Rogers,
The way your father says it, and the way that you have restated it, I affirm. It is possible to say the right thing the wrong way.
Our predecessors poured heart and soul into the Southern Baptist Convention. They poured heart and soul into their local churches first, and many of them would rightfully agree with the priorities that you have outlined. But I think that we all must be on careful guard not to be ungrateful. Yet that tone seems to strike my ear on many occasions.
Our predecessors have not given us a perfect convention—no, not by any standard—but we are sinful and wrong if we are not able to see the very many good things in our convention. it is not triumphalism; it is gratitude.
I don’t wish to engage in any sort of a prolonged discussion here, because I don’t want this to become personal about Ed Stetzer, nor do I wish to show any disrespect to him. For his words to be subjected to a 100-comment string of scrutiny is not my desire.
But I do believe that this point is important.
And so, to try again, I change the “role reversal” slightly in another way. What you have said, David, about the SBC could rightfully be said about any of our individual churches. What if I serve at FBC Farmersville for thirty years, and then my successor makes a statement like this on his second week in the pulpit. How would I feel to hear what he says? How would those who love me and served with me feel about it?
What if Steve Gaines had uttered these precise words about Bellevue after being on the job for a week? I think you’d have to be a bit obtuse not to take it as a lack of gratitude for your father passing on to him a church in pretty good shape, although not perfect or indispensable to the Lord in any measure.
And at that, confident that I have either made my point or am incapable of making it, I retire from the thread.
I’m done with it, too, Bart. I agree with what Dr. Adrian Rogers said. I dont think it means the same thing that Ed Stetzer said. Also, I do not hate Ed Stetzer. I love him in the Lord. I hold no animosity towards him. I do not appreciate what he said, and I do not appreciate him being so negative towards the SBC…continually it seems.
David
Bart,
Thank God that, as best as I can tell, practically all of us, and quite possibly all of us, in this present discussion are agreed on value #1 as priority #1 in my hierarchy of values. And thanks, largely in part to the Conservative Resurgence, the same can be said in general throughout the SBC today.
Perhaps it would be helpful to include one more value, and to place them in this order:
1. Faithfulness to God Himself and submission to the authority of His Word.
2. A love for lost souls, and a desire to see the Great Commission fulfilled.
3. A commitment to be the best stewards we possibly can of the resources He commends into our hands.
4. Loyalty to traditions and organizations.
As I see it, the great majority in the SBC today would at least give lip service to this hierarchy of values. However, within that general consensus, it seems there are some who would place more emphasis on values #2 & #3, even, if necessary, at the expense of value #4, and others who, for whatever reason, are a bit more reluctant to sacrifice on value #4.
I imagine you would agree it is possible, in any Christian organization, for value #4 to compete with and even get in the way of an effective carrying out of values #2 & #3. Yet those who are bold enough to step up to the metaphorical microphone, and point this out, whenever it may be happening, run the risk of being branded as disloyal, just as my father was branded as disloyal by some when he said that some within the Convention seemed to be placing value #4 in front of value #1.
All this being said, value #4 is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And those who disregard value #4 just for the sake of being trendy or gaining a platform by pandering to a spirit of general discontent are not to be admired for doing so. However, those who point out the danger of placing value #4 above that of value #2 & #3, whenever such a danger really exists, are to be admired for their courage and leadership.
David,
Your last paragraph seems to summarize well any plain reading of the 3 quotes. Thank you.
David:
I agree totally with your four points.
The “problem” that I see is that in some cases it is not even possible to be loyal to traditions since the traditions that we could potentially be “loyal” to are gone.
Speaking of Lifeway: The landscape has changed things so much that the old business model couldn’t possibly exist even if we longed for it.
Take some examples from Lifeway’s book store/publications operation:
(1) The New American Commentary: this has been ongoing for at least 15 years. It is still not finished because of low demand. If the NAC was selling like hotcakes then I don’t think it would take very long for the volume on Revelation to come out. Lifeway could give some author a $80,000 advance, the author could take a sabbitical from his seminary post, and the volume would be there within a year. The problem is that sales are marginal so there is no economic model to drive this series to completion.
(2)In the the old days people went to the Bible book store to get books. Now they order them online at Amazon or CBD. Also, most classic books are in the public domain and available for free on CDs such as E-Sword. There is virtually no “retail” “trade book” sales of Christian books except for a few (maybe 20) popular authors. It is probably no accident that the only decent Lifeway stores are those next door to the seminaries. Both Golden Gate and Ft. Worth stores are way better stocked than the other stores. But unfortunately only six Lifeway stores can’t carry the frieght for the whole chain.
(3) AV stuff has changed dramatically away from “hard” stuff to soft media. We don’t have physical maps, flannelgraphs, etc much anymore. More and more we see video which is packaged on CDs. I went to the Lifeway store here in OKC on NW Expwy a few weeks ago to get a map of Paul’s Missionary journies. All they had was a few shopworn maps. No body wants this stuff anymore.
(4) A generation ago Lifeway and other Christian stores didn’t sell trinkets. Now proably 20% of the store is a Christian Gift shop.
(5)People now have software versions of Bible Helps. They don’t buy Holman Bible Atlases, Holman Bible Dictionaries, etc. much any more.
The idea of “institutional loyality” only goes so far because the stuff we might be loyal to is gone and it is not coming back. To the extent that Lifeway Stores are morphing into Christian-themed versions of Pier One Imports then I don’t think they belong under the SBC umbrella. We already have stores that do a better job at this namely the Mardel / Hobby Lobby operation here based in Oklahoma which is growing by leaps and bounds all over the Central USA. At the rate things are going I just don’t see the niche that the Lifeway stores are going to fill.
I’ve heard pastors complain how expensive Lifeway VBS material is. Although Lifeway does offer a generic version that can last over multiple years, Churches are asking for “refill kits” so they can use most of their stuff over again with just new “consummables” that they need each year. Churches want high production values AND they want to be able to use them multiple times. That way a church could cycle about three for four basic VBS themes for many years. I heard Thom Rainer himself defect this concern when it was raised from the floor in Louisville. I don’t think on a sustained basis the market is going to bear all the dedicated production cost for unique VBS material each and every year. I don’t things are too bright for Lifeway right now in the bookstore business, publishing business, or the retreat/conference ground business.
My prediction: (a) Glorieta and Ridgecrest will come back with the economy.
(b) The bookstores or publishing operations will ever really come back. They will continue to sink into the sand. They are based upon paradigms that are becoming increasingly obsolescent. Bookstores all over the USA are shutting down at an alarming pace. Walden and Dalton are skeletons of their former selves. Special bookstores such as Computer Literacy in Silicon Valley are long gone. I don’t see any different fundamentals at work which tells me that Lifeway is a special case that is going to give it long term staying power.
Bottom line: (a) Much of the traditional product lines that Lifeway has sold are obsolete. (b) Lifeway is only marginally attententive in modfying offerings to be cost effective in terms of how their their users percieve value.
If Lifeway issued stock I’d be selling it. It is going to take more than sourcing production to China to keep Lifeway viable.
Brothers,
For the record, I try hard not to be impressed with myself and I hope none of you are impressed with me!
In fact, the more I get to know myself, the less impressed I am with myself. The people who know me best will attest to my utterly astonishing inability to impress. Oh, sure, I talk a good game, but up close I’m quite unimpressing. That being true, my hope is that His glory would shine through me though I doubt I will be too impressing anytime soon. And that is my hope for the SBC as well. Sure, the SBC is quite ugly in some ways and has warts, but what is more glorious that God using the fragile vessels that compose it for His glory? And I would encourage us to not just pray for God to be glorified through the SBC, but through the Assembly of God, Presbyterians, Vineyard, Dutch Reformed, etc, etc.
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
It has not been often that I have agreed with FTME, but I must agree with his statement and the sentiment it promotes:
“I try hard not to be impressed with myself and I hope none of you are impressed with me!”
I think he has a great truth there for all who follow Jesus to consider.
cb
jeff, you know it is pastors like bart barber and Biff/volfan007 that don’t really understand making of decuples in Christ name Lord only. They suffer with too much pride(sbc) and it also is shameful that they attack true servants of the Lord.
wally
I have nothing to say. I just didn’t want Wally’s rant to be the last word of an interesting thread.
Dave,
“wally” seems to make cameo appearances here and there throughout blogtown, just to stir the pot. I’ve got a sneaking supsicion he’s an old sidekick of Villa Rica.
Wally,
Bart and I “attack” people?
Bart stands on the truth of God’s Word, and he discusses issues that are important to him. Wally, the only attacking I see usually comes from you.
David
I’ve never seen Worley attack anyone … except for a plate full of pig one time …
That mental image will stick with me a while. Way to go, Geoff.
Just think it would be nice to here Ed say something good about the SBC since our money seems to be good enough for him.
I said years ago that when LifeWay wanted to change their name it was because they wanted to change their game. I think I might have been right.
Notice that all the comments came from people who make a living off the SBC, in contrast to Dr. Rogers who earned an honest living (just slightly sarcastic).
Sure, the SBC should seek to do better, go farther, dig deeper and reach higher; but a good word would be nice every once in a while. I’m not ready to pile on the SBC just yet. Rumors of her demise have come and gone before. The argument “God doesn’t need this or that” is a red herring. It is what we call in debate a “hypothesis contrary to fact.” You lose points for this.
Fact is: God does need me — at least according to the plan of salvation He Himself has established. “How shall they hear without a preacher?” We cannot get around the fact that God has limited Himself to “need people” which He chooses to use according to His sovereign will. So, my contusion is this:
“God wants to use the SBC as much as He ever did.” Let’s love the SBC at least as much as He does.
Just for the record: none of the men quoted impress me that much.