An Open Letter to Johnny Hunt: The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force
Sorry I have been gone for awhile. A lightning strike on our church rendered two computers, a copier, a PhoneTree, an electric piano, and part of our projection system inoperable and useless. While we do have replacement cost on our insurance policy (PTL!) it has just taken awhile to get back to a semblance of normal. A couple of months back I purchased for the church one of those “book” backup hard drives and started the arduous task of backing up three computers once every two weeks. Thank you Lord for your wisdom!
On one of those posts before the catastrophe, I said that I would write an open letter to Johnny Hunt concerning the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. I have also placed it in the mail, but here it is. I believe the issues are important; otherwise I would not have placed it in this forum. The following is the letter:
To: Dr. Johnny Hunt, President of the Southern Baptist Convention
RE: The Great Commission Resurgence Task ForceDear Brother,
Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Thank you for serving as President of our Convention. Your enthusiasm, passion, and excitement are very contagious, as to your vision for the future for Southern Baptists as illustrated by the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. Thank you for your willingness to sacrifice your time and talents to minister and lead us our Convention during these challenging times.
I have often used your testimony as an illustration of how common believers can make a difference in the lives around them. Mr. Pridgen can be found behind the scenes anywhere we would happen to look. He is the symbol of the witness that ordinary Christians can bear for their Lord on any given day. The prayers of your wife Jan in those days give hope to many in my congregation as they endeavor to pray for that husband or wife who needs the Lord. If you would, pray for a man named Dale. Both his wife and I have been sharing with him his need for Christ. He has much potential as part of the Kingdom of God. Your personal story has provided us much encouragement. Thank you for your willingness to share it.
It is with some enthusiasm that I signed the on-line petition calling for the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. As with any document I find that there are some items I would have liked seen included, and items that I would have liked seen discarded. I would also have preferred that some items be re-written to reflect a better understanding of what the main purpose is all about (this is of course mainly about Article IX). I do understand that what was written was not Holy writ, and any man-made document needs to be read within the prism of human imperfection in the light of our common goals. I do believe that the effort is a good beginning, a starting point, to find a consensus among the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention in redefining a common vision for the time in which we live and our current and future mission fields. I am praying, as well as my church, that the task force will offer constructive, prayed through, and God honoring suggestions as to how our Convention can go forward to be a part of His Great Commission of teaching and making new disciples for His glory wherever we may Go.
I do have a concern that troubles me greatly with the appointments you made to the task force that I would like to share with you. In announcing your selections to the Convention, (and the later additions as shared to us by Baptist Press) you stated that the group in total represented a “diversity” of our cooperative. The individuals that you shared with us that day and later do represent many of the varied interests within Southern Baptist life which would include both men and two women, the state conventions, associational leadership, Southern Baptist entities, as well as the churches to include two ethnic congregations (of which one is a small church plant in inner city Atlanta). I will admit that this group of fine people do represent a certain level of diversity within both the churches and convention polity. As a person who is sensitive to such things I did notice a great and glaring omission with your selections to the task force. Not one individual you named is currently serving as a minister or layperson of a small established historical church – those who would primarily be representative of the cultural perspective of the small church, either urban or rural, within the vast majority of Southern Baptist life. Your task force selection(s) are pastors and individuals who (with the exception of one individual- the ethnic Pastor of the inner city church plant) worship and minister to the very large and affluent churches among our convention family (to whom you have refereed to in the past as “strategic churches”) and yet not one selection from the “mainstream” of Southern Baptist life – those established churches that have a primary average worship attendance of three hundred or less – can be found within your appointments. From my perspective then, the “diversity” you sought to bring to the work of the task force is lacking in the extreme, for it excludes from the discussion the unique views of close to ninety to ninety-five percent of the Convention’s churches. The vast majority of all Southern Baptist churches (around 75%) are those whose average worship attendance is less than one hundred souls per Sunday - and yet their representation on the task force is minumus as to be non-existent. The perspective then that some may justifiably have is that the task force is overwhelmingly stacked with the representatives of the large and mega-churches of our convention. To some, what this then will become will be just another exercise of the “Baptist aristocracy” and the “rule of the minority” lording it over against those of the majority who because of their lack of status have little ability, political acumen, and sway to throw away the manacles of the status-quo. Such an occurrence, in my opinion, would be disastrous in a time when we all need clarity, conviction, and unity of purpose.
I believe with conviction that there is no such thing as a “strategic church” in the sense that I believe you are stating it. Each church that Jesus has planted is “strategic” no matter if it draws ten people or ten thousand. Each of these churches of people form the Body for whom Jesus died, and of whom He planted by His will as He also adds to their number by His grace. He placed them in their communities by His sovereign command to serve Him where they are, albeit in the city or the country. Each of these is precious to our Lord, and each have a voice to speak to our common purpose and mission. To lessen their uniqueness or by accentuating the uniqueness of others by merely emphasizing “size” or “place” in comparison to one another by using the term “strategic” is demeaning for we each are strategic – not only for the purposes of our Lord and His kingdom, but for the purposes of our cooperative effort in working together within our Convention of churches. This is a truth that many of us in the mainstream of churches believe our more affluent and connected ‘strategic” sister churches have largely forgotten or ignored. What I perceive when I hear the term “strategic” from some is in direct contradiction to the warning given to us by the Apostle Paul when illustrating differences in the Body when he said through the inspiration of the Spirit that no part of that Body can say, “I have no need of you.” I see this spirit of forgetfulness and ignorance oftentimes in appointments of leadership made throughout Baptist life in both the national and state conventions. Sadly I see it glaringly so in your appointments to the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force.
I certainly can understand from your perspective that appointments should be given to people you know and trust; those who will get the job done. To try to familiarize oneself with the leadership of 40,000 plus churches is certainly impossible. You called upon those within your circle of trust within the scope of your experience to serve – leaders who have proven their worth in both the institutions and churches within Convention life. In some ways it could be said that it is the fault of many folks of our small churches that have given up and walked away from our cooperative effort together because of apathy, or even the attitude of “what’s the use.” The small churches of the Convention in the main have done a poor job in staying in contact and being “out front” with leadership in Convention life for it is true that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Small churches should not hold back their perspective or opinions concerning our cooperative effort, even in the face of the perception that they are being ignored or ridiculed. They should be doing everything they can to be willful and joyful participants within our cooperative efforts rather than letting others to carry the burden for them. On the other hand, what does it say when those in the circle of trust of elected leadership in our Convention continue to be the same people who predominantly represent the largest of the large of our Convention churches? Honestly brother, in all of your connections and travels as our Convention President and as a Pastor and Evangelist of renown and respect, do you not know of one layman or pastor of a established historical church of fifty souls who would be qualified and then could serve on the Task Force? Seventy-five? One hundred? Three hundred?
I do not desire to only whine or complain about the lack of participation of the small church in the Great Commission Task Force. It is easy to complain, and much more difficult to find solutions. As I have been told many times “put up or shut up.” So here is my attempt at producing a solution to the problem I have outlined above. I hereby propose this solution and would consider it an honor if you would humbly and prayerfully consider it.
1). Let’s Be Patient and Get it Right. We are at a crossroads of Southern Baptist life – we all should have an opportunity to be involved in the shape and focus of whatever comes besides just an affirming vote at a Convention meeting. We need to take the time and energy to get this task right – proposed solutions do not need to be brought this next year at Orlando. This can and should be a multi-year task force because we should…..
2) Expand the Current Task Force to represent ALL the Diversity of the Churches in the Convention. The current members of the task force are a good start, but an expansion of the task force is a must if the idea is to give everyone a voice at the table so it is not merely the perception that the elite of Baptist life are handing down solutions from on high. We have been historically a democratic people, believing that the “best” is no more better than the “worst” in a polity which we believe is Biblical. Another thing I noticed is the selections you made tend to represent a limited geographical region within our convention work, with only three churches west of the Mississippi river being represented. The historical conventions (in example) of Mississippi, Oklahoma and Missouri have no church representatives at all on the task force, while Texas has the late addition of an ethnic Pastor on staff of a mega-church in Dallas/Ft. Worth. EVERY facet of Southern Baptist life should be represented – the large church, the small church, the medium sized church, the ethnic church, the state conventions, the associations, SBC entities, pioneer areas, and all from a cross section of ALL the geographical regions that make up our convention, and each EQUALLY represented. A number of participants I am thinking of would be about three hundred people who would then represent the total diversity of the SBC. As the scripture says “…in the abundance of counselors, there is safety.” As a part of this solution, I would be willing to volunteer in serving for such a task – not because I know a lot, but because if I am unwilling to volunteer then I will continue to perpetuate a problem that I am complaining about.
Brother, there needs to be much more dialogue about some of the issues I have mentioned here to you, most notably the small-large church divide and further subcategories of urban/rural differences. If anything, I believe Convention leaders and aspiring leaders need to know about our churches – all of them – and our small churches need to know about our convention and it’s work. Over the last several years I have invited Convention leaders, both state and national, to come to my small rural church in Sedalia to share what they are doing in service for the churches. Many of them have been gracious and have come. It has been our great privilege to host several of our servant-leaders to be with us – and as such it would be an honor for me to extend to you that same invitation to join us at your convenience.
God bless your work as you serve the God we worship and adore, and the people in the mission field He has planted you to tender and expand. You have my prayers as well as the prayers of all concerned Christians and those in the Body of Christ called Southern Baptist; those who call upon the name of Jesus and at whose feet we will all fall in heaven and on earth.
Grace and Peace.
Your Servant,Rob Ayers, D.Min, MAMFC, MRE
Pastor, Camp Branch Baptist Church, Sedalia Missouri
Good thoughts, Rob. Is it too much to hope for that people like Johnny Hunt stop by Impact from time to time?
If not Dave, I sent him the letter by first class – now do Pastors read their mail?
Rob
Quick rabbit trail away from the subject. I didn’t know you were in Sedalia.
Do you know any Pratts or Trouts there in Sedalia? My grandfather, Eugene Pratt (evangelism director for Missouri Baptists when he died in 1965) and his family grew up there. One of his sisters married a Trout (a person, not a fish).
I’m afraid I don’t personally but I probably know someone that does. Marlin Brown, my DOM knows everybody by name, and so I will ask him about the Pratts and the Trouts.
Rob
Rob:
You said–”I do have a concern that troubles me greatly with the appointments you made to the task force that I would like to share with you. In announcing your selections to the Convention, (and the later additions as shared to us by Baptist Press) you stated that the group in total represented a “diversity” of our cooperative. The individuals that you shared with us that day and later do represent many of the varied interests within Southern Baptist life which would include both men and two women, the state conventions, associational leadership, Southern Baptist entities, as well as the churches to include two ethnic congregations (of which one is a small church plant in inner city Atlanta).”
Do you feel that the two women on the committee is a fair representation of women in the SBC as they only make up about 10% of the committee?
What I beleive Tom is that with any expansion of the Task force will come a greater diversity – and yes that will probably include more women. Women are the backbone of the small church as they are in pratically every church I know.
Rob
Rob:
What I do not understand is why only 1 woman was appointed initially and then 1 more was added. As you said–”Women are the backbone of the small church as they are in pratically every church I know.” Why then do not upwards of 50% of this committee consist of women?
I think you know the answer to that Tom – the majority of leadership in Southern Baptist Churches and institutions are male. While that may not be the answer you want to be true, it is that way nonetheless. Currently my quibble is that women are represented better on the task force than the small church is currently. Thus the purpose of the letter above.
Rob
Rob:
I agree with you point regarding representation on the task force of pastors / layman from small churches.
I don’t know what the likely result is going to be based upon the findings of the task force. The task force does not have any DIRECT control over individual churches, associations, or state conventions. It only has the ability to recommend changes to the way the agencies of the SBC operate — the IMB, NAMB, and the six seminaries.
I think it is a fair question to ask, “What would be the likely difference in terms of the recommendations coming out of the task force with more representation from small churches compared with the task force as presently constituted?”
Put this another way, Rob, if you were on the task force what would be the two or three biggest things you would push for that would likely not be on the agenda of mega-church pastors?
I’m trying to think of what would potentially be things that the task force might recommend that would be seen differently if the majority of the members on the task force were either mega-church pastors vs. smaller pastors and I really can’t come up with anything. Maybe that’s because I really don’t know what is likely to come out of the task force regardless of the makup of the people on it.
I think that if a certain segment of people in the SBC see certain things that should be done — and this includes small chruch pastors, mega-church pastors, DOMs, state execs, or whatever — then these groups should make known some of the things where they see where change is needed (or not needed).
The main thing I see is that there somehow needs to be more “buyin” to the CP by churches of all sizes. I think the SBC is in danger due to “death by 1000 cuts” because of churches bypassing the CP. If this trend keeps going then the IMB and the NAMB will slowly fade into the sunset — at least in their present form. If the CP continues to be marginalized then we could reach a tipping point where the SBC comes apart. We will then just have autonomous churches which sometimes cooperate with each other on an ad hoc-basis for particular projects.
Roger,
Thank you for your comments. The divide between the small and large church may be larger than you think. Off the top of my head I can think of several suggestions that I as a small church pastor would give that probably a mega-church pastor would be hesistant. One of those issues is CP giving. A vast majority of our small churches give sacrificially to the CP – that means they do not bypass the state conventions, yet forward dutifully to the work like we are encouraged to do. My church sacrificially forwards 12.5% to the Cooperative Program through the Missouri Baptist Convention. Also we give to associational missions, local missions, support church plants, and go on mission trips, pay staff salary, keep the lights on, the auditorium cool or warm as needed, and are debt free. Most mega-church pastors want to brag about how much they give and blow a gasget when they are reminded they are giving a paltry 2-3% of their reciepts to our cooperative effort. One of the things I would do on the task force is remind our brothers (and sisters) that this is a cooperative – and that if they want to lead one, they need to do it by example and cooperate with all the churches. This super secret “us only” meeting of mega-church pastors every year would be one of the things I would encourage them to abandon. Your warning about “sometimes cooperating” is appropriate here if there are not equal voices on that task force – voices that are proportional to our current mix of small/large churches.
As a small church Pastor I too see waste and bloatedness and duplicity of work among the various entities that are Southern Baptist. That is why I probably was not too concerned with Article IX as others were. In many ways our entities have lost sight of an important truth: the local church is God’s tool in the world for His use to bring Him glory, and they are not it; they exist to serve the churches to reach their potential and not for their own aggrandizement. I would encourage with my suggestions that the entities focus their work in listening to the voices of the churches – for Lifeway to be responsive to small church needs instead of profits; for the IMB and the NAMB to seek ways to “get into” the small church on their own initiative. I do not know if any of these are on the agenda of the mega’s – I don’t think all of them are – but if we want healthy dialogue in order to regain healthy respect, and thus start in making healthy churches I think all of these are in order – and I do not believe that it is a “cookie cutter” approach. I think the mega’s think that it is – they know how it has worked for them, and so they think it can work for everybody that way. That simply is not the case in my experience.
Rob
Rob:
Your points are well taken. I am a layman here in Oklahoma that is a member of a (smaller) “mega-church”. In my limited knowledge, I agree with you that “mega’s” are probably not “carrying their fair share” in terms of CP giving.
The quotient between total church receipts and giving to the CP should probably be “the same” across all churches in the SBC.
But this is not the case since many “megas” do their own thing in terms of missions. They directly spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on setting up various “church plants” in pioneer areas. For example, Johnny Hunt’s church in Woodstock GA spends quite a bit on church planting in Las Vegas NV. [I don't recall the exact amount but it is somewhere between $250K and $750K per year]. This is OK, but carried to its logical conclusion it is going to be the end of the SBC. In my opinion, the “only” reason for the SBC is the CP and support of missions through what is now the IMB and NAMB. [The seminaries are "important" but they are not the MAIN reason for the SBC in my opinion.]
Given the need to beef-up CP giving, especially with mega-churches, I really don’t know what tangible recommendations the task force can come up with. Put another way, lets say that everyone on the task was a small-church pastor like you. What tangible stuff would the task force actually recommend. What re-alignment with Lifeway, the seminaries, the NAMB, and/or the IMB would happen if the leadership of the SBC was “controlled” (not the best choice of words) by small church pastors?
I think that small church pastors need to articulate a laundry list of specific things. This would get the ball rolling so when the task force meets these ideas would be on the table.
Put another way, I think the next step is sending a letter to Dr. Hunt that says in effect, “as small pastors we would like more representation on the committee, but in any case here are the items we think are important: (a) xxxx, (b) yyyyy, and (c) zzzzz.” Otherwise it could be the case of: “you have not because you ask not”.
One pastor I know of who has championed “small churches” is Les Purrier (spelling could be wrong) in North Carolina.
Here is my list of stuff that small church pastors might ask for in order to get the ball rolling:
(a) We want some type of different pricing situation with Lifeway VBS material. For example, we want to be able to buy a “per student” license for “x” years and then pay a fee based on that. We are not asking the megas subsidize small church VBS material, but the playing field should be flat so small churches can have quality material.
(b) We want to have the exec committee implement the annual meeting so there are a dozen satellete venues at major cities all over the country so no matter where you are in the USA you are within 250 miles of a physical meeting site. There is ample technology available to do this. The costs would actually be less because in many cases large mega churches could host the event. For example, in DFW a large church could host the NTX site at a price that would be very reasonable. The total cost the the exec comittee would have to pay for 20 mini-conventions, each hosted at a regional mega church, would likely be less than the cost of hosting the Louisville, San Antonio, or Indianapolis meetings of recent years. This would be true even after the broadband connectivity charges were factored in to “wire up” all of the 20 sites.
(c) I can’t think of any more items. I can’t think of any plausible change to the IMB, NAMB, and/or seminaries that would necessarily address the “small church” situation.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Rob:
I agree with you that pastors from small churches should be on this committee and in a large number.
Rob I said to you–”What I do not understand is why only 1 woman was appointed initially and then 1 more was added. As you said–”Women are the backbone of the small church as they are in pratically every church I know.” Why then do not upwards of 50% of this committee consist of women?
Rob you said to me–”I think you know the answer to that Tom – the majority of leadership in Southern Baptist Churches and institutions are male. While that may not be the answer you want to be true, it is that way nonetheless.”
Are you saying that if all men were currently in leadership positions in the SBC that no women should be represented on this committee?
Tom,
I am saying nothing of the sort – and quite frankly you are a broken record. You visit the same topic everywhere on blogs with you egalitarian views, always wondering why the world (or at least a few Southern Baptists) don’t see it your way. The paradigm is what is: a majority of Southern Baptist, both men and women, have determined that their interpretation of Scripture would have men predominantly in the roles of leadership (I hope you are not surprise to find me in that number). Hence – the vast majority of leaders in Southern Baptist churches – Pastor, Deacons, Elders – are men. From this pool leadership is chosen within both elected and appointed positions. Even within a complimentarian interpretation there is room for women to be a part of all sorts of leadership and ministry roles within the church and her ministries – hence there are many women (notably fewer than men) who are also chosen and appointed positions of leadership within the church (and then in our convention work) – as they should be. Now you can continue to “beat your head against the pricks” by being condescending to those with a view other than yours – or you can allow others to have an opposing view within the liberty that God has given all of us, allowing Him to do the correction as needed to our limited and dark understanding.
Roger,
I don’t see how we can make everybody give “uniformly” – it is a notable idea, but with our belief in autonomy I don’t think it should occur through some directive or even a voted upon “suggestion.” I think instinctively most folks know when the churches are doing their best, or are waffling on CP giving. I don’t believe that the mega Pastors have forgiven the Convention yet about the repudiation of Ronnie Floyd from SBC President and his church’s abysmal percentage of less than a percent in gifts to the CP. I think it is instructive in that Dr. Floyd is now the chairman of the Task Force.
I do think that your suggestion about “lists” is an excellent idea. That has started me to thinking and producing some items. Perhaps others have some ideas they would like to share with us here in this forum.
Les Puryear and I are friends (at least I like to think I’m friendly) and I have helped him in his Small Church outreach.
Rob
Rob:
You said–”You visit the same topic everywhere on blogs with you egalitarian views.”
How many different blogs would that be? Number please–100, 90, hint less than 5.
I glad you only want to nit pick about the number of sites.
Move on, your not changing the topic here.
Have a good night.
Rob
Rob:
I think this whole arena of CP giving opens up several potential cleavage points in SBC life:
(a) As we both acknowledge, some larger churches don’t give much of a percentage of the offerings they receive from their congregation to the CP. I am NOT taking sides on this one way or another because many of those larger churches finance and support, by way of direct ministry involvement and staffing, very significant church planting efforts “on their own” — independent of CP giving. The problem (if it is a problem) it that this leads to the slow death of the CP if this trend continues. Whether the “slow death” — if in fact this is in the cards — of the SBC happens may or may not be good, I don’t know. To the extent that the SBC and its agencies are “bloated bureaucracies” then maybe some of the SBC apparatus should fade into the sunset to be replaced by evangelistic efforts whose control is more “grass roots” and localized. Maybe we will see over time a new cooperative model develop — especially in regard to what was part of the province of the NAMB. For example, maybe there will be more of an ad-hoc approach where one or more churches form “cooperative ventures” (not involving the CP) to start up some type of work in a “pioneer area” such as a large urban area where a Christian witness is needed. I think “ground zero” for such an effort would be, for example, in California in such places as San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and LA. If ten large megachurches would hone in on starting something cooperatively in selected LA zip codes it could be awsome! They could organically start churches there and setup house churches which might grow to churches with buildings etc. They might be able to replicate something like Saddleback did without taking advantage of the implicit Saddleback pre-requisite of requiring an area to launch the work with a very very high income demographic. It should be noted that many of the areas screaming for attention have demographic, cultural, and racial profiles radically “out of sync” with typical SBC congregations.
(b) The “diversion” of CP giving to state conventions is going to be a huge issue. I personally can’t “let go” of the need to finance such things as Children’s Homes and support other “social ministries” which the state conventions do. I’ve heard pastors say, “I’m not going to support all that state convention overhead because I believe our mandate is to plant chruches and we can do this better on our own”. In my opinion this view is giving short shrift to the other Biblical mandates beesides evangelism and church planting such as the mandate to “care for widows and orphans” [James 1:27 et. al.]
I believe issues surrounding my points (a) and (b) are likely to be two huge parameters which guide whatever the task force comes up with. I realize that (b) is, strictly speaking, a state convention issue, and that the task force is only able to directly influence SBC agencies. However, I still think that there is a much “tighter linkage” between the state conventions and the SBC than most want to acknowledge because of the way that all [or at least most] CP funds received by the executive committee filters through the states. Bottom line: whatever the task force does, or doesn’t do, is going to have a HUGE effect of all of the SBC, including the state conventions. This task force is going to determine the destiny of the state conventions whether the state conventions like it or not or realize it or not. That’s because, just to name one thing, the task force has some key levers at its disposal — such as how the NAMB interfaces with individual churches — which could short-circuit the state conventions.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Rob:
I ask the following about this Blog Topic–”An Open Letter to Johnny Hunt: The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force”
Why do you think so few have responded to this topic?
Please note what I said to you–”I agree with you that pastors from small churches should be on this committee and in a large number.”
Tom,
He’s telling you nicely you’re about to be ignored.
Rob,
We don’t need to expand the task force any more. Sure there are groups lacking proportional representation. I could name a few ways I wish the task force were more diverse. But at some point it starts getting silly. He’s already added several people. It sounds like we’d end up with a 50 or 60 member task force if you had you way!
Small church people were not named for some very simple and common-sense reasons. You can get as high-minded as you want about there being no church more ‘strategic’ than another, but you’re just flat out wrong and disconnected from reality.
Pastors and leaders of large churches have (as a generalization) proven track records of effectiveness, wisdom, good decision-making that are visible in ways no small church leader is going to have. Are there some great small church leaders out there somewhere? I’m sure there are. Whose research team is going to go out and find them? You want FBC Woodstock to fund the task force to find small church pastors with the kind of discernment, wisdom, and time to devote to something like this?
Maybe there’s a list somewhere none of us seem to know about…
As another practical matter, as a small church pastor, I don’t have time to do something like this! Give me a few secretaries, other pastors on staff, and sure, I’ll fly across the country several times over the next year to some (albeit important) meetings.
Come back to earth man. Reality is waiting for you. :)
Sorry for the double comment –
I would just like to point out that the motion approved by 95% of messengers called for the president to name the task force. That means we thought he had the ability to put together a group that could get the job done well – and I think he has.
Brent,
I will be nice. You are wrong. Very wrong.
1) I already said what a true population of the task force would mean – that would be “three hundred people” not 50 or 60 if I had my way. So read a little more precisely next time.
2)Generalizations will get you no where with me. If I have to throw the myriad of specifics of how the greatness and wisdom of some of our large church pastors have discredited the Body of Christ in the last five years, then I would really not be playing nice. That is not to say that small church pastors are any more saintly. I despise hero worship, however, for we all are “saved by grace through faith” and put our pants on like everybody else. And really, your argument here is way beyond the point.
The point here Brent is that Severn Baptist Church is a part of the cooperative of churches known as Southern Baptist. This church has a unique heritage, voice, and outlook as you well know. Besides identity and agreement on most specifics of the faith, in what way does Severn Baptist Church have any commonality with FBC Woodstock? And will those differences have any impact upon a task force that claims to be a groundswell that will change the direction of the SBC for the next generation? I say they will. And without the diversity of the small church represented on that task force, we will more than likely hear how the SBC will move forward in the image of our more larger kin. I’m sorry, Jesus died and rose again for the folks in my church as he did in yours as well as those in Woodstock.
Cooperatives, Brent, require “participation.” It is far time that our small churches get beyond the apathy of “woe is me” and start being joyful participants in our common work. It is time that if we are concerned about the entities of the SBC and their work toward the churches, that we lend a voice and a helping hand in that work – either we put up or shut up. It is time for our more affluent churches to stop placing roadblocks up in allowing more folks to participate. Meetings do not require us any longer to jet across the country at great expense. Conference calls, as well as Net meetings are available – this is the 21st Century, right? Position papers, discussions, debates, and the like can be held from points across the country, with possibly only one meeting required to be made in person. With some in our convention willing to put up money for $70,000 oil paintings, I don’t think that it would be asking too much for our Convention to see to it that all the participants could come and be a part of a task force meeting, don’t you?
3)Why are the larger churches and pastors more “visible” than others? This is a discussion point – I would like to see what you think and why you think it.
4)Ninety-five percent of the Convention messengers trusted that he would make appropriate and diverse choices. After the dissemination of his list, there are many who have questioned the efficacy of basically appointing his friends from the annual super secret mega-church conference. He has already felt some heat and appointed a few more to the task force. In my opinion,he has not gone far enough. If you believe that the small church does not deserve a voice, then you are entitled to your own opinion. But I pray to the Lord that your opinion is a very small minority.
5)These guys have thrust themselves into leadership of the Convention, and have said they want to represent all the churches. What that means is, they better start doing some research and finding out about the churches they represent. They jet all over the country, speaking in places and telling folks how to do their business. They maintain conferences in their churches and invite speakers and participants charging exorbitant fees for weekend “leadership conferences.” And in all that they do not know of any leaders from small churches who could help in the work of the task force? “To much is given, much is required.” Now Brent, THAT is reality, for “…man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”
You are probably a good guy Brent – someone I would not mind having a Diet Pepsi with (you drink of choice – I despise coffee and will not drink it.) Participants in a deliberative body must be willing to sacrifice in order for that body to function well. When the body is lead by a minority faction, then that body is dysfunctional, for it is being lead by human beings who even in the best of days are looking out for themselves. Now that is reality Brent. Your people and mine deserve better if we want to continue to cooperate with our family of Southern Baptists.
Rob
Rob:
I’m glad you chose to be nice to Brent Hobbs. Why must you get into attack mode when people do not see things from your perspective?
Brent if you are not careful, Rob might just ignore you.
I’m not in “attack mode” Tom – this venue does little in sharing true dispositions – however I am “passionate” – as you are.
I am not ignoring you Tom – thank you for your agreement and affirmation. I just do not agree with everything your selling, but that is okay. Okay?
Rob
Rob:
You said to me–”I’m not in “attack mode” Tom – this venue does little in sharing true dispositions – however I am “passionate” – as you are.
I am not ignoring you Tom – thank you for your agreement and affirmation. I just do not agree with everything your selling, but that is okay. Okay?
Rob”
I do not write very well–my question about “attack mode” is directed towards comment #20.
It looks to me like you are smacking Brent Hobbs down because he disagrees with you.
No Tom – just “passionate disagreement.”
I gave him the freedom to disagee with me, via passionatly with such comments as “high minded” – “Come back to earth man, reality is waiting for you :)” “At some point it starts getting silly..” – as if my ideas of expansion of the task force are silly indeed. So I disagreed right back – and was careful not to call him or his ideas “silly” – consider what I said an appeal to his better nature, and an attempt to dredge him out of his curent reality (ever so mildly of course) :-)
Rob
Les Puryear has written a wonderful piece on his blog concerning the subject of small church participation in the SBC. His article can be found at:
http://lesliepuryear.blogspot.com/2009/07/where-are-all-small-churches-on-sbc.html
Rob
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics