;)
GCRTF: Beware of Unbiblical Principles
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
If we were to revisit the earlier times in SBC life, we would find many of our woes retired with wisdom. Austin Crouch was no exception to a remarkable understanding of the cooperative effort of the Southern Baptist Convention. While leading the Executive Board he remarked…
“The Cooperative Program is scriptural,” he said. “The work supported by the Cooperative Program may be classified under three heads: missions, teaching, and benevolence …. The Cooperative Program is scriptural in its objectives and methods. The plan is, of course, through cooperative of individuals and churches. Paul gave a fine example of cooperative effort. He had urged the churches in different sections to make contributions for the poor at Jerusalem, and the method for raising this money was according to his instruction to the church in Corinth: ‘Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come’ (I Cor. 16:2). The appeal of Paul and the Cooperative Program is to individuals.” (SBCLife)
The cooperative program operated under certain principles that “individuals” contribute under the principles laid out by the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian and other churches. We, as well as they, would be encouraged by the Apostle to set aside, by our own power, in our own homes (par’ heautōi tithetō thēsaurizōn) some portion of our weeks “prospers” (hoti ean euodōtai ) for the furtherance of the commands of Christ. And the “called out ones” (ekklesia) would bring that “prosper” into the assembly on the first day of the week to entrust it to messengers setting out for Jerusalem. This activity reveals much for those interested in the obedience of the church. These Christians knew the value of the “prosper” and moved that wealth to individuals to sustain the fellowship of believers in the world. With that in mind,…we as Southern Baptists, some forty years for me personally, should remain biblical in our approach to giving and in our method of sending and using what the Lord has prospered us with; and collectively we should encourage these same principles cooperatively. Those principles were inbuilt in the earlier days of the SBC as the cooperative motive was hatched in the last century.
Are these same principles emerging from the GCRTF? In some ways I believe they are…yet there are a few items that must be abandoned, even now, if the recommendations for cooperation are to intentionally return to the biblical flow of apostolic principles.
In the beginning of the cooperative action for the SBC, it was the individuals forming the churches throughout the convention that understood their contributions would be equally divided between the national convention and the state convention….and this new collection method would be promoted as such by certain agencies. The states would effectively be the responsible collector to communicate and promote this in the field. Special offerings would still be maintained, and others were limited by either the state or the national convention. Even personal designations were maintained so that the seeking of special gifts from blessed individuals would continue to be encouraged and received. As is usual within the SBC….we always seem to have good ideas, or at least a whole lot of ideas of “how” to manage the money, and into which “stream” the money should flow. Could it be that today we have overcomplicated the funding efforts? Because it appears we are propping up, or even more than that…continuing to advance and promote a few unbiblical principles?
A Look at the Principles
Several principles emerge from the origination of the cooperative program. These principles have the “individuals” in view as they understand the needs and mission of the church. Throughout the history of the church, the individual is encouraged to recognize giving as a result of Christ’s change in their heart through the gospel,…. and because of this Spirit born passion, it was a privilege to uphold brothers and sisters in Christ. Is this our cooperative motive today? Do we recognize “moving” money toward the needs of our brothers and sisters around the world “as” disciples are being made…or do we simply move money into what we perceive as the “missional journey” steeped in clever advertising? In other words, will my dollar of cooperation be used where churches “are” planted or are “in the process” of coming together (constituting),…or will my dollar be used in a manner of “marketing” where I may “present the message” in such a way that something “may occur” in the field? One way is biblical, the other is cultural.
This “marketing concept” approach has been the dilemma facing the SBC during the past fifty years or longer as she strives to maintain denominational authority in the world by asserting a contemporary or culturally normative face. So she continues to look for better ways to build a bigger box. Maybe that “is” the problem? Maybe we don’t need to think of how to “market”, or “present” the gospel for the sake of a bigger or more attractive box. It is becoming more apparent as we move along this path of “marketeering” that we should stop and return to the “principle of giving” exhorted by the Apostles. The Apostolic model is poised to move cooperative giving toward the needs of the churches, not principally toward the need of the serving entities. We have made subtle changes of direction since the beginning of the CP, yet declining unprincipled changes none the less; when it should be that the churches in cooperation send messengers armed with gifts to meet the needs of the Jerusalem’s around the world. In other words, it is the local churches that send, and it is the local churches that receive according to need. The agencies (whatever they may be….NAMB, IMB or LifeWay, et.al.) should only be formed to serve that principle, not lead out in their own direction. A subtle shift to an “ambition of leading” has risen within the agencies,…and has gone well beyond the intentional goal of serving each individual church. This subtle change has contributed to the overall decline in the confidence toward SBC agencies where cooperative funds have been squandered in the pursuit of independent goals. We need an intentional shift in the other direction. This in no way trumpets the ridding of agencies,…but it does mean an intentional change where there is a distinct return to a clear biblical motive for giving where the churches lead, and the agencies serve.
“Presenting” May Diminish Preaching and Teaching
The men and women representing the SBC on the GCRTF are wonderful servants and are attempting to discover better ways to use the cooperative funds. This is not an easy task, and many will be skeptical of their actions. My aim is not to be skeptical or demeaning,…but to simply expose some obvious principles that may be lost in the effort to connect churches with churches as they lead out in the commission of our Lord. Let’s explore some slight differences driving the GCRTF recommendations when compared to the original cooperative effort.
Today the GCRTF calls for a “presentation” of the gospel, led by the North American Mission Board and International Mission Board, with LifeWay as a leading component. Is this in the same vein of activity as described by Couch wherein he led to form the effort as commanded by the Apostle Paul to the churches throughout Galatia and to those at Corinth? Well,….not really, since the effort published so far by the GCRTF is couched in “presentation”, where it more precisely should be clarified as “preaching and teaching”. “Presentation” is a tactical mistake that only reinforces the programmatic cultural mistakes of the previous fifty years within the SBC. Redirecting more funds to reconstruct agencies to lead the churches to “present” the gospel is not only principally unbiblical, it is at best only a façade moving toward the same failed performances of years gone by. “Presentation” is not a biblical goal.
Preaching and Teaching is the biblical mandate! A “presentation” is more in line with a well defined marketing scheme designed to form a sweet message for the culture. “Presentation” is simply a weak word to use as a replacement for the biblical encouragement of “preaching and teaching”. It would be wise for the GCRTF to rethink this “presentation” motif and draft a more powerful expression for the churches that articulates “preaching and teaching” as a cooperative stance. Words are important! And “Preaching and teaching” are excellent terms, breathed of God, that yield clear “commissional” motives. I would encourage the Task Force to strike the language of “presentation” and insert the biblical principle of “Preaching and Teaching”.
Churches, Not Agencies
One of the best paragraphs written so far by the GCRTF is on page ten of the February 22nd progress report, which is summed up very well in this one line… “The headquarters of our denomination is in each one of the 50,000 local churches and congregations in our convention.”
The only problem with this great lead in for the new denominational headquarters is that the theme of the remark did not translate very well into the “Components” of the recommendation. Certainly the churches should be encouraged to embrace the great commission and to remain faithful to the core values of scripture,…But realistically, I don’t think this is breaking any new ground. This should always remain a common theme to know the gospel and to preach and teach the gospel to the ends of the earth.
On the other hand,…The most assertive change, illustrated by Component #2, reveals the continued pursuit of intentionally empowering agencies for leading, not principally serving. So, realistically, the recommendation does not really change the agency’s role toward a more biblical service,…it, in fact, advances its opportunities to “clarify its role to lead and accomplish”. The recommendation simply proposes a shift in funding and places, not a shift in principle. More importantly, a shift to intentionally have the “churches lead”, where the agencies principally serve, ….may still entail decentralizing and streamlining of personnel and resources. Yet empowering the agency to lead with greater independence and greater funding will continue to exacerbate declines and the SBC will eventually take on yet another inventive form of a hierarchical denominational structure.
In Summary,……Southern Baptist’s should be careful to maintain the principle of individual churches leading, giving, and carrying out the commission of our Lord. The church profits from these biblical principles, where individuals, who then may form agencies, perpetuate these same principles as simply the slaves of Christ, directly and slavishly tied to the churches from where the gifts and cooperation originate and supply. Agencies are principally conduits to deliver the “prosper”, not ones to primarily absorb it or become independent with it …before the “prosper” arrives to meet the needs of those back at Jerusalem.
The agencies should never be “released” to separate goals beyond the work of the local churches. A catchy term like “Great Commission Resurgence” will only become a reality through the work and benevolence of individual churches. If the denominational headquarters is really in each one of the 50,000 churches of the SBC, then we will see an emphasis there, not elsewhere. The Kingdom is revealed in no other way, except through Christ and His church.
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Tony Cartledge the former editor of the Biblical Recorder weighed in yesterday with a blog and many links at http://www.tonycartledge.com; weighed in on this subject.
He also had a blog about the Church as family. Lot of times local Baptist churches are run by families who have their own agenda and baggage and not a lot of Christ work done in their world; just a furthrance of their resentments and social standing in many burgs and hamlets over time.
But your ideals are good here.
Will be interesting to see how it plays in Alabama where a lot of pushback toward the GRCT is coming from.
Brother Stephen,
Tony does make some good points…. along the same lines as I discuss here. Reshuffling of funds is not the solution to most anything …. and certainly is not a good idea for an already listing plan of action.
A return to the clear principles of giving and benevolence resurrects the mission passion in the hearts of the church. We do not necessarily need a great commission resurge through money rearrangement,…. moreover, we need hearts that obey Christ and are tuned to the principles of the church, and leaders that understand how to communicate the difference.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
You said:
“Presentation” is a tactical mistake that only reinforces the programmatic cultural mistakes of the previous fifty years within the SBC. Redirecting more funds to reconstruct agencies to lead the churches to “present” the gospel is not only principally unbiblical, it is at best only a façade moving toward the same failed performances of years gone by. “Presentation” is not a biblical goal.
You go on to recommend replacing “presentation” with preaching and teaching, a commendable clarification.
My question – Is “preaching and teaching” a biblical goal?
I would agree that it is a biblical mandate, but question whether it is a laudable “goal”. Isn’t it more of a method than a goal? Stephen references “family churches” where the power rests in the hands of an influential few. If they affirm preaching and teaching (especially when they hold the real reins of power while the preacher is a “hired hand”) have they succeeded in achieving the goal of preaching and teaching? Possibly. But is that what we really intend?
Or is the goal Ephesians 4:12?
You conclude:
Southern Baptist’s should be careful to maintain the principle of individual churches leading, giving, and carrying out the commission of our Lord. The church profits from these biblical principles, where individuals, who then may form agencies, perpetuate these same principles as simply the slaves of Christ, directly and slavishly tied to the churches from where the gifts and cooperation originate and supply. Agencies are principally conduits to deliver the “prosper”, not ones to primarily absorb it or become independent with it …before the “prosper” arrives to meet the needs of those back at Jerusalem.
This seems more in line with a “goal” while preaching and teaching is the method for promoting it, empowering it, energizing it, etc. But even this is still merely a means to an end. Local church autonomy and independence is a foundational position, but isn’t the goal to get the gospel from the people who have it to those who need it? And yes, this may go without saying, but by not saying it, doesn’t is risk getting lost in the squabble?
Steve,
You are right about Alabama Baptists. No matter what side of this issue an Alabama Baptist is on the GCR, the outcome will be interesting. Some form of response to the EC report from the GRCTF is beginning to take shape even now.
Brother Rick,
In the stream of thought I am trying to convey,…. the word “goal” is probably not the best word to communicate the thought, because I do not believe preaching and teaching to be a goal, but I do see preaching and teaching as a mandate, aim (sort of goal), or purpose. So yes, using a term like goal is a bit too ambiguous.
The problem I have with “presentation” is that it falls prey to the problems that we have seen for more than fifty years now….where the culture determines the mission strategy, not the scriptures. The deviation from preaching and teaching in our expression (presenting to) in the culture has been a subtle departure from the bedrock principles of the great commission (go therefore and do). After all, the commission is a failsafe plan.
Agencies were originally designed as conduits….so it was not necessarily a goal in the beginning. It has become a goal today because of the constant deviation.
The commission…. Matthew 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
It is the churches making disciples and baptizing, teaching them concerning the church and building up the church. Any mission endeavor must be nurtured and edified through the churches, not the agencies. If the agencies can perpetuate or move the process with the churches at a more effective rate, this is the spirit of the CP (being the facilitating conduit, not the lead) …. But the leading is incumbent within the body that is given the commission by another head (Christ), not the SBC. The SBC simply sticks to the principles.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Hope I am on subject here. I do not know about the GCRTF. My mind gravitated toward something along these lines, yet, may be something that should be done within the SBC system we support.
I worked for a company that had offices around the country. The company sold a manufactured product and the services that were required for the product. The management would have sales meetings in a different larger city every year. They used these sales meetings to present training and new information and promote products and services. This was done to get the sales force excited and goal oriented so that when they got back to their locations they would begin an intense sales program for their area of the country. This seems to be the same process with every company; however, this company added an extra step in their process that was just a little different. They added an extra day to the sales event, not for golf, but, for actually blitzing the town with every salesperson, including the management, with the new products and services. Without exception, they always generated enough in sales in that one day to pay for the meeting cost and then some.
My question is this: Why wouldn’t we in the SBC have our meetings and do the same thing? The same message of the Great Commission was fresh on the minds of the Apostles and that was their mission. I have to assume that they blitzed the town where the church was with the gospel. Maybe, the money was used for other things like the widows in the area and church planting, as well, or other churches in need as they traveled. Even though we do not have specific verses that say how all the money was spent, we do have the principles and commandments that would, in effect, have cost associated with them. From my viewpoint, as a layman, I only see those that are within the upper levels of our system “presenting” to those within the church leadership to do the work. That is too much like the business world and not what I see the Apostles doing when they arrived at a church they were writing to. If this is what we are doing, we have been failing all along. Worldly wisdom has its success, but it never lasts. We are seeing a decline in the SBC just like a business does after a period of time. Those who are in the SBC system should be active in the local areas they come to present “some new thing” for us to do.
One additional thought: I have heard several pastors’ state that the growth numbers many churches report are actually members from other churches moving their membership around. That tells me that we are a self absorbed people. If the larger churches would take on some of the dying churches and blitz their area with the gospel they “may” begin to grow and the pastors of those smaller churches “may” begin to revive. Those are chances we need to take. That gives our members both ministry and witnessing experience like the Apostles did. Sadly, we may not do it because we are in competition with other churches.
Bruce,
You make too much sense…..
You did hit the nerve of the issue when you said… “From my viewpoint, as a layman, I only see those that are within the upper levels of our system “presenting” to those within the church leadership to do the work. That is too much like the business world and not what I see the Apostles doing when they arrived at a church they were writing to. If this is what we are doing, we have been failing all along.” When agencies become the driver, this will always be the tendency.
Churches,…those 50,000 new denomination headquarters, need to preach and teach a different principle that what has been hoisted the previous fifty years. Missionaries should be running into the neighborhoods, instead of waiting on IMB or NAMB to figure out a way to fund their pursuit, as you have illustrated.
We must remember that “money” is not the problem in the SBC. We have gobs and gobs of money. We simply have abandoned the principles of how to use the money in a biblical and effective way for several generations now.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
In reading your post, the Baptist historian in me felt obligated to state just a couple of things by way of clarification. In referencing the principle of cooperative giving among Baptists, you state “Those principles were inbuilt in the earlier days of the SBC as the cooperative motive was hatched in the last century.” It is true that the Cooperative Program was birthed in the 20th Century, (1925 to be exact), but to refer to this as the earlier days of the SBC is a bit inaccurate. The SBC arose as I’m sure you well know in 1845 at the consultative convention in Augusta, Georgia. Thus, the convention had existed for 80 years before the Cooperative Program was established. While the initial constitution of the SBC did contemplate a more “convention-type” structure, referring as it did to eliciting and combining the work of the churches primarily for the task of missions, the fact is that the SBC pursued a more societal approach to funding in those early years. Each of the two missions boards, and later other beneficent agencies as they were formed, had agents who made direct appeals to individual churches for financial support. Such an approach limited efficiency and fostered competition among the agencies supported by the convention.
The advent of the Cooperative Program certainly was a major step forward in helping the SBC to adequately fund its initiatives and to be able to plan expenditures on the basis of anticipated receipts and a budget.
The problem the SBC faces today it seems to me in the midst of an increasingly post-denominational era is twofold. First, the agencies and entities beyond the level of the local church (associations, state conventions, and the SBC itself) seem to have forgotten their reason for being. That is, they have failed to recognize that they exist to serve the local church and not vice versa. Any bureaucracy over time tends to take on a life of its own, consuming available resources to fund and maintain its own existence. A part of that is inevitable of course, but a conscious effort must be made to address the problem or funding will continue to decrease.
Secondly, fewer and fewer churches and church leaders it appears are willing to blindly write a check to the SBC when faced with their own economic struggles. While the greatest generation and the boomers after them to a large extent still maintained a sense of denominational pride and identity, succeeding generations are far more concerned about knowing that the gifts they give are meeting a specific, tangible need. That’s why designated giving has become such an issue, even as evidenced in the preliminary report of the GCRTF. Folks want to see some bang for their buck, and some vague funding mechanism from the past century that purports to combine their offerings with those of other churches to fund missions and evangelism just doesn’t possess the glamour and appeal of a specific missions project in which the church can see firsthand results of their giving.
I don’t have a magic wand to wave to fix the problem, but I do sincerely believe that the institutional mindset of so many agencies and entities has to change. If they fail to recognize that their highest priority and reason for existing is to serve the churches that comprise their organization, their future will be shaky at best.
Brother Gary,
You are correct,…. it is interesting that the CP, when somewhat focused on a few years previous to 1925 was not the major issue at the convention in which it was implemented. It was simply a more practical means of collecting funds.
I don’t believe we must waive any magic wands. As churches become more interested in missions and look to other sister churches that need assistance,…. and stop all the elaborate building programs, they will realize how CP actually benefits the convention. Its a good thing that churches are having to look at budgets and ask the tough questions….(as if those questions didn’t exist previously.)
The mindset of the agencies is not the problem in my humble opinion. For instance, if we really wanted to reach into the major population centers in North America we have property that can be used today. There are multiple LifeWay’s in most major metro areas, that could use some downsizing in the “trinkits” section (which is about half the stores these days). It would be easy enough to mobalize NAMB in all those centers for the sake of all the local churches in those metro areas. Talk about a buzz of activity….instead of a few more points of presence as proposed in the recommendation…. we have more than a hundred places ready to be used rightly. You kill two birds with one stone. You get rid of the “idol making”, which takes up half the store…. and replace it with missionaries serving in the local metro churches, planting and edifying the churches throughout the area.
But you are right….the NAMB must be led by someone that is willing to serve the churches…understanding how not to lead outside of the churches.
Good comments,…thanks Gary
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
Hey, you are really hitting a raw nerve. What’s with calling for removing all the “idols and trinkets” from the Lifeway stores??!!
My wife and I have done favors for people and received “trinkets” in return. For example, we have a family across the street that is going through very significant illness right now. We have helped them in a number of ways, such as taking them to the airport so they can go to a special clinic in another state to receive very specialized treatment.
They always give us some item — such as a wall plaque with Biblical text, or a decorated cross, or a ceramic tile with a verse on it as a “thank you” gift. Next time they offer me something I’ll tell them, “Thanks but no thanks, I want the Nestle-Aland greek NT instead” so I can study the Greek text.
Seriously, Chris, the reason they have so many trinkets is because that stuff sells. Remember Lifeway doesn’t take a dime of CP money. It has to be self-supporting and those trinkets pay the bills.
Grandparents spend tons on money on sending stuff like Vegi-tales DVDs and sweatshirts to their grandkids. If they don’t get this stuff at Lifeway then they will “walk across the street” and go to Mardel’s instead.
We have had missionaries from the IMB that have given us various “trinkets” during their time when they return to the states. Personally, I think — within reason — trinkets are OK.
Brother Roger,
I guess I was a little tough on the “trinkets”.
But,I would gladly buy those things from Walmart or Dollar General just as well. LifeWay is Lifeway,…maybe it’s not even part of the SBC any longer since it is self sufficient. I’m fairly certain it is not a church. And since I have a lot of friends that work there,I am glad to see it keeping its head above water. Maybe LifeWay would be open to the idea of ministry and missions.
So since they are so successful, maybe they can put the trinkets in their online section and free up space for NAMB. I am actually serious about finding some space for the NAMB though….and all of that real estate is conveniently located in metro areas. You would think it might spur them to work with the churches and the state convention (if your state has one)much more effectively….if they are that close.
Blessings,
Chris
Oh,…btw Roger,…we have four stores within 40 miles and their theology sections are pretty much non-existent. Those helpful resources are not available unless you are in a seminary city, where students are forced to buy them.
There are a lot of self help books though….(without any Greek requirements).
-cj
Chris,
Great discussion! After reading 6, 7 and 8 I felt inclined to weigh in. As a layman in an SBC church and teacher of a young married class (20s and early 30s), I believe that the CP will need to find ways to reach this younger generation and it is not necessarily through large programs. It appears that this younger generation has trust issue. They want the facts, accountability, and hard examples. They are skeptical about giving unless they know how it is being appropriated correctly and as soon as they see misappropriation or hypocrisy they will either stop giving all together or find other means to give.
This example goes deeper than giving. Because of this trust issue I believe they are tired of being ‘told’ how to follow Christ and they are looking for the hard examples of how to follow. The feet on the street and the rubber on the road! Whether it is a presentation, preaching or teaching, I don’t think they are listening rather they are looking for the example from leadership, whether through mentoring or discipleship. Far too often this example is coming from the wrong places.
Christ’s leadership example was so powerful that it built up such burning desire in the hearts of the disciples that they finally had to blurt out, “Lord, teach us to pray”. Does the CP leadership, by example, create such a desire in us that we want to say “teach us to give”?
Thanks for the discussion!
From comment #10 about “trinkets”.
If we investigated past the trinkets into the books, music and how-to material we would find much of the same Simon of Acts 8:18. It’s not a small matter in today’s Christian market and should be discussed sometime.
Roger said: “Seriously, Chris, the reason they have so many trinkets is because that stuff sells. Remember Lifeway doesn’t take a dime of CP money. It has to be self-supporting and those trinkets pay the bills.
“Grandparents spend tons on money on sending stuff like Vegi-tales DVDs and sweatshirts to their grandkids. If they don’t get this stuff at Lifeway then they will “walk across the street” and go to Mardel’s instead.”
There are a lot of things that sell and a lot of things that make money. The reason Lifeway is what it is instead of what it could be is because it is ruled by the almighty dollar rather than the conscience. We have a word for providing what the masses are clamoring for and that word is “pandering.” Or, as a sometime Lifeway employee acquaintance of mine calls it, “pimping.” The ability to generate a positive cash flow is hardly a virtue in a society that sells lottery tickets, alcohol, cigarettes, and pornography.
I think you would agree that we have to draw the line somewhere between what we will and will not sell at a Christian book store. The dispute is on where we draw the line.
It used to be in the Baptist Bookstore days one could buy such things as Commentaries (a wide range of them), in-depth Bible studies, and modern reprints of historic Baptist and Puritan authors.
Out go the good books and in come the trinkets and cash.
My wife worked for over twenty years in the BSSB/Lifeway world. Believe me,…it has unfortunately and systematically become worse year after year. It comes down to leadership and principles, much as I have briefly outlined in the article.
If we intend to have LifeWay be one of the instrumental partners as the GCRTF recommendation portrays…..there will need to be substantial changes in LifeWay leadership, LifeWay Management, and LifeWay Strategy. If profit or stability at any cost is the primary motive for the current way of business…. it would better not to have the business at all. Because, for now it is a distraction….when at one time it was useful. The Apostles didn’t seem to be damaged by not having a LifeWay on the corner as well.
The question is though….can LifeWay be useful. I think it can…but not as it exists today. Many great employees, …but a most pitiful strategy for missions and ministry to the churches.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Steve,
You are correct sir,…. It is very apparent when leadership recognizes the profitability of biblical principles in serving the churches. The lip service that has been practiced for dozens of years within the convention is easily seen by the younger generation, but excuses can’t come from the churches. Lip service needs to be turned into intentional actions. At this point, I am not convinced that the current convention leadership is capable….but, I sincerely hope that they will prove me wrong….and I will pray for them.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
Setting aside the discussion of “trinkets” for a while I totally agree that local Christin bookstores, not just Lifeway, don’t have much in the way of “decent” books. Of course I’m an old guy so I’m not cool and my definition of what is “decent” is 180 degrees out of sync with real-world market demand.
I’m in Oklahoma City and I have to go to Ft. Worth to the bookstore at Southwestern Seminary to get certain books I want. Or alternatively, I order them online. Sources like Amazon and the Internet have radically gutted the “brick and morter” retail book outlets. Just look at what has happened to the national bookstore chains {Daltons, Waldens, etc). Lifeway is not immune to these market forces.
To set the record straight: Lifeway (formerly known as the Baptist Sunday School Board) is owned 100% by the Southern Baptist Convention. It does not take a dime of cooperative program money. It is entirely self supporting. It owns and operates the Lifeway stores and also publishes literature and teaching materials which are used by churches. I’m studying my lession right now from my Lifeway quarterly. The topic for Sunday is the Exodus.
If everyone was like me they would have books like “Analytical Key to the Old Testment” — volumes 1 to 4 by Owens. However, most people are not like me so Lifeway does not stock this kind of stuff. If they did it would just sit there and gather dust.
Chris, it is likely that research could confirm that there is land available in most major cities (at least in the South) for startup operations of new works. Established churches are moving to the suburbs. In some cases the land they vacate they “give” to the association. This has to be investigated on a case by case basis but at least in many large cities in the [former?] Bible Belt (which is where most Lifeway stores exist) new startups can acquire or lease land or a building or a storefront at fairly low cost. So I don’t think Lifeway would offer much “value added” by offering free floor space for some type of church facility.
I know from firsthand knowledge of certain churches whose membership slowly moved away to the suburbs over the last five decades. In those cases the church may buy property out in the burbs and “give away” (maybe not literally give away) their old land for use by some other ministry such as church plant that will serve a non-English language constituiency.
The above example does not apply to cities in the “North” such as San Francisco, New York, Boston, Chicago, where land prices are expensive and there are no old-time SBC churches that might potentiallly vacate their old city-core premisis.
Also, it does not apply to growing suburban locations where zoning restrictions, high cost of land, and other factors make physically building a new church very very difficult. You have the problems of building an ADA complient building. You have to have so many parking spaces on your site per each 100 square feet of your building.
However, in many Southern cities there is plenty of empty room in existing SBC church facilities — such as in Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Altanta, . . . We could probably double, triple or even quadruple attendance without having to do any brick and morter expansion. I know this is true here in Oklahoma City based upon first hand knowledge.
So the question is: do we need more churches or do we need fuller churches? I don’t think Lifeway figures in this equation much one way or another.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Want to have some fun? Go to http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/default.asp? and do an author search on John Owen.
Compare the number in stock versus the number on back order.
Repeat with John Bunyan, B.H. Carroll, Broadus, Pendleton, Graves, etc.
Sometimes it isn’t totally Lifeway. The principle that comes from 2 Timothy 4:3 has a broader impact in the Christian community who have itching ears. We seldom realize we have fallen away until it is too late. Most stores stock what is “popular” to scratch an itch in order to make a profit. At least half the blame should be on the consumer.
Roger,
I hear what your saying. I lived in a small town in Texas for about 24 years and it is certainly different than the city.
First of all, I agree with you….the problem is not buildings, where ever they may be located. The problem is always with the church (not the building). All I am saying about NAMB is that there is plenty of room all over North America to mobalize with very little cost. But again, that is not the problem. The problem is leadership. We simply have those leading the convention that are moving along the same initiatives of the past 30 years…..not much change at all.
If we return to biblical principles of mission work and CP giving to edify the churches, it appears that new leaders must be willing to steer the convention back to the biblical model. So far the GCRTF recommendations, if you read them for what they say…..the recommendations simply shuffle the money, with no change in principle. I sincerely hope that we see some changes that count as we move toward these next five conventions. It will take a while to return to the biblical mandate from where we are now.
Secondly, …. LifeWay has shaped its business to where it wants to be…. I rarely have any reason to go in the stores these days.
Lastly, there is a real need to plant churches in the inner cities. We are in the third year of one plant near Nashville, and have another couple constituting later this year and into 2011. So the cities, like anywhere else is a great place to preach and teach the gospel of God.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
I actually agree with you 99.99% regarding Lifeway. The only problem (and it really is a problem) is if Lifeway catered to you and me it couldn’t exist. It would literally go broke. Maybe that would be best, but I don’t think so.
But I know something about marketing and retail business trends in the whole media sector of our economy — including the ever shrinking retail brick and morter book [and I mean physical books with paper] business — and I’m telling you this whole business segment is going to be like selling buggy whips within 20 years. So Lifeway either has to sell “trinkets” or close its doors. The internet is killing Lifeway’s business model — rendering it obsolete. Even if Lifeway had the Analytical Key to the OT by Owens most people would still order it cheaper from Amazon. With trinkets, the nature of the business is that it is much more suited to “point of purchase” sales channels where people go into a store physically and buy something more or less on the spur of the moment because they want it/need it NOW to give to someone or as some type of “gift” for an event that honors someone AND they want to physically see it.
People might buy a $400 commentary set from CBD but they are not going to buy that $400 Thomas Kincade print off the web. They want to go into a physical store and see all of them and make a decision.
Maybe Lifeway can morph into someting other than a trinket store, but I admit I don’t know what it is? Do you?
Another thing that could happen is the the SBC could sell Lifeway. But to be brutally honest with you I don’t we could get more than a fire sale price for it. Also, we would loose editorial control for all of the literature that comes out of Nashville. My bottom line, and like Howard Cosell I’m “Telling it like it is”: the trinket business is paying the bills so we can have an automous publishing house.
Regarding the GCRTF’s interim recommendations: I agree, right now they are found wanting. If I had to vote today on the package they have — and I know right now it is an interim report and a work in progress so I don’t want to be unfair — I’d vote NO.
I guess I’m an eternal optimist but I think the work that the vision that the task force has is EXCELLENT, they just need to step up to the plate with recommendations that are feasible to implement and also are done with the consultation of various SBC stakeholders. Right now, this task force report is way way way too much TOP DOWN. For example, most of the state convention executives and state BoTs were totally blindsided.
I’m seriously planning on going to Orlando. By the time I get there I’m sincerely hoping and praying (against all odds) that the task force, while leaving their vision statement intact, revamps their document so that I can support it. I don’t want to vote no. I want to be able to support something we ALL AGREE is going to move us forward.
If I vote no who cares. However, it would be symptomic of the beginning of the end of the SBC. After all, if we don’t have cooperation up and down the line — national SBC, states, associations, local churches — then why do we even need the SBC or any of its various apparatus? Churches can just be like the Lone Ranger and do their own thing.
Good post. In a different direction than Lifeway discussions, this post and those of many others make the point that younger church members want to see that their giving makes a difference. That they want to see immediate results. So they don’t give so much to the CP as their elders.
Part of this is sometimes a lack of pastoral leadership and training.
Pastors need to lead in educating their members. If members don’t know the good things the Cooperative Program does, often the same pastor who has the above point of view does nothing to help educate said people.
In my church, short video clips are often shown at the beginning of the service. Visiting missionaries come. Retired missionaries speak.
Associational projects are promoted. Our association recently bought a feeding trailer for disaster relief. It came to a service.
The church provides a subscription to The Baptist Messenger (OK) to every member family.
After 30 years of reading the Messenger, I personally am opposed to any way that the GCR proposals impede state conventions.
I think that the Baptist General Convention of OK does a great job in assisting member churches. I approve of Oklahoma Baptist University, Falls Creek, retirement villages, children’s homes, crisis pregnancy centers, cowboy church and Indian reservation evangelists, disaster relief, financial aid to retired pastors, church planting in and out-of-state and around the world, etc.
Most of what I see in the recent report is a scolding of state conventions and local associations (by implication the churches that compose them) and a lot of unfunded mandates.
I don’t think the GCR proposal is the right one. But that doesn’t mean I am against the right changes. Unhappily, people that question the recent proposal are too often being accused of being unconcerned about missions and too selfish with their own turf.
Karen makes a strong statement and from my understanding the thinking is quite similar in Alabama.
I don’t speak for CB Scott, but from what he has said on this board, I think with me he shares the observation of the nature of the resistance to the Ronnie Floyd task force plan facing the SBC.
Karen sums up state convention resistance pretty well. In my experience there are a lot of local churches that support the Cooperative Program, support the missionaries, but have several deacons, maybe the minister’s wife where she is allowed to have her own opinion, used Smyth and Helwys literature in one class and Lifeway in another and there is an open mix of conviction on ordination of women and BFM 2000; but they have an unspoken agreement to let it ride for “harmony” of the church.
If you throw the soft allegiance to the Executive Committee of the SBC cause of some don’t ask don’t tell policy because it functions in some way; if you push them, then in that rope of SAnd, Nashville as a symbol of the national glue of the SBC will be the first to evaporate and they will stick by their state convention until the next round of controversy forces them to chose closer to home.
Another way of agreeing with the basic sentiment of Karen’s observation.
Sister Karen,
I think you are right…. That the young (and I would say the older as well) are ready for the leadership to demonstrate sound biblical principles. When that does occur,..those principles are easily known because the Spirit informs the church to the purpose and mission of the church. So the younger Christians will not be hesitant to cooperate and plant churches in North America and the rest and the World.
Education is a great deal of what perpetuates the CP. And that education should be steeped in the biblical principles where the church is the leading aspect of the mission, not an outside agency. Anytime an outside agency is seen as the lead then the churches are quickly and systematically removed from the purpose of the great commission. For the resurgence to occur…the church must be brought forward and the agencies must assume only a serving and secondary role at best. The agency certainly does not need additional funding….in fact, the funds, as demonstrated by the Apostles go to the churches for the most effective distribution. This will call into focus the work of the churches toward missions and bring responsibility back to the church to educate and to be involved. This will resurge ….because it is a biblical purpose for the church,…not the agency. That is why the GCRTF recommendations should be carefully considered,…since the proposal is recommending just the opposite.
Additionally, the church is tasked with “preaching and teaching” in the power of Christ for His church. Agencies are not commissioned as the church is….so we must be careful not to let agencies lead in the direction of “marketeering” (i.e. Presenting vs. Preaching and Teaching). If the churches of the SBC are to resurge,….it is through the education, preaching and teaching that you have brought forward. We must not abandon the church to the agency. This has been the stream of thought for close to 50 years in the convention….. that type of thinking must change.
Blessings,
Chris