;)
Putting the GC back into the GCR
Posted by Strider in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
I always liked the term infallible when talking about the Bible. Inerrancy is OK as far as it goes. I mean, defined by the Chicago statement I can sign it and say it is true. But when it comes to the Bible ‘true’ isn’t good enough. It kind of reminds me of James where he says the ‘demons in hell believe and tremble’. Yeah, demons know its’ true but what are you going to DO about it. Infallible has the sense of ‘if I do this it won’t fail me.’ I like that better when talking about the Bible. Yes, it is true and inerrant but more than that I can depend on it. I can rely on it. This in my estimation is where the Conservative Resurgence let us down. We all got together, declared the Bible true and then covered our faces in shame as one minister after another had an affair, stole money, and embarrassed us all. But we declared it to be true! Shouldn’t that have reaped some kind of God-honoring fruit. Of course it should, and of course, it did.
While the rest of the world was focused on the vitriolic banter of certain political characters and the moral failings of others, God’s Kingdom was moving forward in unprecedented ways. I love Jerry Rankin but when he talks I get sick to death of him using the word ‘unprecedented’. He uses it over and over to describe what has been happening around the world for the last twenty or so years. The problem is that it is in fact, unprecedented. Do you remember Bold Mission Thrust? We naively thought that if we set some goals to reach by the year 2000 that we would reach the world for Christ. Do you remember some of those goals- I am writing from memory here so I could be a little off- 5000 missionaries on the field by the year 2000. Missionaries reaching 125 countries, 10,000 yearly volunteers, and several other such goals were listed. With no fanfare or congratulatory speeches all of these goals were reached years ahead of schedule except the 5000 missionary level which we did not reach until a few years later. Today there is no inhabited country on this planet that we are not reaching with the Gospel in some way. Did you hear that? Not all countries are reached and certainly not all people groups within those countries are reached but we are reaching out to all of them.
We used to go to all the countries that were convenient to go to, then we went to the ones that were hard, and now we go to every country that the Lord is calling us to which just happens to be all of them. As we are getting there we are finding significant challenges. We are finding brutal spiritual warfare, horrific living conditions, and dangerous places. And what are we discovering once we get there? The Lord is at work. He is saving the lost and broken in every place where the Gospel is proclaimed. People are bound in the most unspeakable darkness and He is setting them free. From hardened atheist in Western Europe to black magic charlatans in Africa to fundamentalist Mullahs men and women around the world are coming to faith in Jesus Christ. So yes Jerry, it is unprecedented. Every place where the doors are shut He is opening them. Everywhere people are kicked out, others can get in some other way. Every barrier to the Gospel is coming down. There is persecution and hardship on every side but this only confirms that our enemy is on the run big time. Here in Gondor there were two known believers of Muslim background in 1990. Today there are over 3000. In many other places around Middle Earth the numbers are much more impressive but to me what is impressive is not the numbers but the faith. Men and women with no earthly hope what-so-ever are placing their lives in his hands and that is humbling to me. I remember four guys in a tuberculosis ward in a prison here in Gondor who had come to faith. One day they were talking together and they said, ‘We are going to die here and probably sooner than later. What can we do to disciple men here who are going to get out and further the Kingdom?’ They were all dead within a month and I have no idea whose lives they might have touched but I promise you they touched mine. God is moving in this world and He is filling men and women with great faith.
Are you a part of that? In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is His planet and we are all His people. But the vast majority of people today do not know Him, over one billion do not even know about Him. Most of you are familiar with Psalm 46:10 which says, “Be still, and know that I am God!” Actually, that isn’t what it says. That is what we learned in Sunday School but what it actually says is, “Be still, and know that I am God! I am exalted among the nations, I am exalted in the earth.” He will be exalted among all the nations of the earth. We know this because Revelation likewise describes the scene around the great throne and every nation, tribe, and tongue will be there. This is what He is about. He commanded us to go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel. We are a people on Mission with God. This is a core concept in our doctrine but I ask you again, are you a part of that? Is this what you are about? I became a Southern Baptist when I was baptized at age 12 in 1975. I believed the rhetoric about us. I believed that Southern Baptist were people of the Book and that we are missions-minded. During the Conservative Resurgence we lost that edge about us. The FMB became the IMB and Southern Baptist went out into the world in greater numbers than ever before. We have planted more churches and seen more people saved than ever before. But somehow this is not our identity anymore. In 1975 there was no doubt in my mind what it meant to be a Southern Baptist but I wonder what response you would get if you asked a 12 year old boy in your church today what Southern Baptists are?
We need a real GCR. We need to bring the Great Commission back to the center of our identity because it is the central identity of the one we follow. We need good doctrine but don’t tell me about it, show me. Do you believe that the Bible is true and only those who profess faith in Jesus Christ will have eternal life? Don’t tell me about it, show me. Maybe we wouldn’t be having conversations about women leaders if men got off the couch turned off the Nascar (or heaven forbid, Fox news) and actually led. And one last thing. If we allow fragmented trustee boards to define us they will. If we allow vitriolic dialogue to define us it will. If we allow any of the various controversies to define us they can and they will. Or, we could like Nehemiah declare that we are doing a great work and we can not come down. In 1975 the SBC could have been defined by its opposition to charismatics or its stance on end times. The Southern Baptists I knew told me that we were a people on mission and I still believe them. Who do you say we are? Does your life prove it?
We can no longer afford to do missions in our spare time with our spare resources. It is time to demonstrate what doctrine you believe. I know that this post sounds self-serving. “Please give more money, time, and resources because I could really use the help.” Anyone who knows me knows I am not self-serving. I have moved my family to one of the poorest countries in the world during a time of civil war. We have stayed through one crises after another and even after all the improvements this country has made I was counseling a new family the other day who were crying their eyes out over the brokenness of this place. I have no travel budget this year, our retirement has been cut, our medical has been cut, and several new teammates who are ready to be here now- and are much needed- have been delayed more than a year in coming. We desperately need new vehicles too, but I am not pleading for me. I am pleading for you. Be a people on mission! Get involved, support the offerings but more than that support teams on the international field and pray for them, give to them, love them, be a part of the work God has called them to. God is moving in this world and we are not the guy with one talent we are the guy with five and we had better be found faithfully using them all.
For those of you who thought we were going to have a substantive discussion about the GCR I do not apologize. For me, this is the substantive discussion. How the Convention will vote and on what it will vote on I am not sure but I am sure that what I have just written is the substance of what we ought to be talking about.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Strider,
Just what is the purpose of your missive? When I grew up, the 50′s mission was not a central part of what we did. All the SBC churches I knew had three missions offerings each year, but the organizations who responsibility it was to teach missions did little more than provide a kind of Christian Boy Scout/Girl Scout organization which in many instances actually became Boy Scout/Girl Scout troops in the 70′s and 80′s.
The Men’s organizations were consisted of a monthly fish fry which rotated throughout the association’s churches.
The Women’s group read about missionaries, and by the 70′s was enamored with the feminist rhetoric espoused by the national & state WMU leaders.
Very few knew, or had ever met a missionary. Home Missions was not considered a priority, the people could hardly fathom someone growing up in America without hearing about Christ. It was simply inconceivable where a Southern Baptist Church could be found every 2-3 miles in any direction.
Personal involvement in missions was not even considered a possibility for the great preponderance of Southern Baptists. They gave generously, but that was their duty and they were nothing if not faithful to their “duty.”
I say all this to say that I don’t believe there has ever been a time in Southern Baptist life where more people are involved in missions, more people care about missions, and more people are knowledgeable about missions then now. The difficulty for Southern Baptists is that the churches no longer walk lockstep with denominational leaders in the carrying out of the Great Commission. The autonomy and independence of the local church and association has been both a boon and curse to the work of Southern Baptists.
Millions of dollars which were once directed to co-operative efforts are not utilized in direct missions efforts at home and abroad.
I doubt that the collective work of Southern Baptists will ever again approach the zenith of the past. Transportation, communication, financial wherewithal, education, and personal preference all mitigate against that course.
I’m sorry, next to last paragraph should read “Millions of dollars which were once directed to co-operative efforts are NOW utilized in direct missions efforts at home and abroad.” rather than “… are not…”
Well, I clearly have communicated poorly and for that I apologize. The point is that as a group we have an identity and many have tried to define it for us. I agree that we are a people on mission today and I believe that is what we ought to be. We should celebrate this much more and truly have a GCR. To fail here is to throw away everything meaningful that we have fought for.
Mike:
You say:”The Women’s group read about missionaries, and by the 70’s was enamored with the feminist rhetoric espoused by the national & state WMU leaders.”
Do you have proof of this or are you just going to broadly put down all of these women by making such a broad statement?
Please study the history of the WMU and realize what they have done for the SBC since 1888 only to be rewarded by the SBC not wanting their leadership or services in the SBC because heaven forbid they were born women.
At times it feels as though many within the SBC would rather abandon the structures we have in place in favor of a more self-focused missions enterprise. I see rough roads ahead if we can’t pull together to either change these structures or to support them. A renewed emphasis on “autonomy” may be weakening the image of the interdependence of churches within our denomination.
Tom Parker,
Years of combatting their teachings. That is why they had problems in the SBC, not because they were women. Women have been doing heavy lifting in S B C churches forever. Every pastor I know appreciates the work of ladies in the church. However, like me most grew weary of the liberal feminist bilge spewing out of Birmingham.
What more proof do you need?
Here’s the problem we have with our restructuring and even refocusing of our resources. It is somewhat of a zero sum game.
Right now, we give 50 of national CP gifts to IMB and around 22/23 to both the seminaries and NAMB. The 5% left over covers everything else.
If we are going to put more into our missions, its going to have to come from our seminaries. Let’s see how Al and Paige and Danny like the GCR if the funding for it comes from their disbursements.
Somehow, though, I think that it all starts with our commitment to international missions. We need to make sure we take care of that and I suspect everything else will fall into place.
The Women’s group read about missionaries, and by the 70’s was enamored with the feminist rhetoric espoused by the national & state WMU leaders.
So, so true.
Mike:
What teachings?
Joe B:
You were not here in the 1970′s. You have no personal experience at all about the WMU and other Women orgamozations in the 1970′s. You only know what you want to believe.
The 93 video inquisition of WMU Delanna Obrien by IMB trustees was not a pretty sight.
I imagine Miller has never seen it; wondering if any of you have?
Strider:
I have been a southern Baptist since 1957. I was saved in an SBC church as a teenager. I meet my wife at that same SBC church and we were married in 1965. We had RA’, GA’s, Sunbeams, etc. There was quite a lot of “institutional awareness” of missions. However, we never actually knew any missionaries or saw them in person.
Now fast forward to today — the year 2010: There are at least a dozen people who are from our chruch who have served as missionaries for the IMB within the last five years that my wife and I know personally. So based upon my own anicedotal observation I wouldn’t say that there our knowledge of missions was greater in the 1950s when I was growing up.
Again, sorry for the poor communication. I will be yet clearer- perhaps. I am not one of those who pine for the good ole days. One professor of mine used to say that “the only good in the good ole days was a good liar.” Perhaps that is too strong but we all understand the sentiment I think. We have always had problems. But today we have an opportunity.
Today, God has placed us in a position that no one else is in. There are some great mission organizations out in the wide world doing wonderful work but no one is like us. We are unique in our global focus- which we have because of our theological understanding. We are unique in our ability to stategize and train and support short term and long term missionaries to go to the ends of the earth. Cooperation is hard. It involves relationship and our enemy fights our relationships tooth and nail. He does not want us to cooperate and quite frankly, that ought to be a good enough reason for us to do it.
I am not interested in how the percentages in giving change. Even in a financial crises Southern Baptist have enough money. America is the richest nation that has ever existed. I believe that God has made us who we are precisely so that we can accomplish His will. His will is that the nations be reached with the good news. His will will be accomplished (even if you are not a Calvinist). The question is will we be partners with Him or will we have our talents taken away and given to someone else to use. Now is the time of our decision. I am asking us to make our identity with Jesus and be a people on mission. I am asking us to sell everything for the pearl of great price. We can give much more. We can cooperate much better. We must be spiritually discerning in order to do this and must recognize that our enemy will throw up any number of reasons for us to break our relationships and go out on our own. In the words of that brilliant psychologist Bob Newhart, “Stop it!”
Strider,
I’m missionary to the core. I’m Southern Baptist to the bone. I sympathize with you. I’m not sure that I agree with you on your premise, which I take to mean that we should become more focused on reaching the uttermost, than on reaching Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.
I, too, lament the vast sums spent on building monuments to the organizational abilities of gifted men. I, too, cringe when I see the salaries and compensation paid to ministers on the basis of leading large congregations. I, too, sense God’s displeasure when a church leader boasts that the church he serves does not need the tithes and offerings because of the size of the endowment and investment returns.
I, too, wonder when spiritual leaders seem more concerned with the financial page than with the police blotter and obits.
However, the individual leadings of God with the churches of the SBC has brought such mission awareness and participation that few believe a central planner can adequately address world evangelism needs. The SBC is a top down organization with the church being at the apex and the “central planner” being at the bottom of the ladder. Just as local churches don’t want State Conventions setting their agendas, neither do they want Mission Boards dictating their participation in missions.
More is being given than ever before, however, it might not be through traditional venues. The churches will not be shamed nor derided into greater participation in the agenda of the central planners. Rather, they will participate to the extent they feel God’s leadership and will continue to exercise their religious freedom to participate personally in those ministries for which they feel a particular affinity.
Tonight I preached at a women’s prison where my wife and another lady hold weekly discipleship classes. Our church is small with well less than a $90,000.00 budget but we spend nearly $40,000.00 on local, associational, home, and foreign missions. Only about $12,000.00 of that goes to the co-operative program.
What we’re doing is as vital as that in “Gondor.” My daughter and son-in-law minister in the most restrictive nation in the Asian world, and I doubt those in “Gondor” feel any more frustration than they.
I think the thing which concerns me most is the idea that the “central planners” have greater understanding of how and where the monies given through the local assembly should be disseminated.
We remain “local,” “autonomous” assemblies of Believers. Preach to us, teach us, but accept that we, too, are preachers and teachers; some of whom have traveled extensively ourselves on business for The Master. We’ll listen and we’ll participate to the extent we sense His direction, but we’ll not be castigated for the choices we feel God leads us to make by those we commission to participate on our and His behalf.
Well, if I am being perceived as ‘castigating’ then I have lost already and our conversation is done. I already said that I didn’t care about the percentages. SB’s can pay for whatever they want to pay for and I am asking them to pay for the expansion of the Kingdom. It is a request- I am not trying to castigate.
But I would like to address the ‘central planners’ issue. If you are talking about denominational leadership then that is another debate and I don’t have much to say about that. If you are talking about the IMB then I want some qualifications about the phrase ‘central planners’. The purpose of the IMB is to facilitate Southern Baptists to do missions. I am a Southern Baptist. As a teenager I committed my life to overseas missions. As a pastor I prayed over a relief globe in my office everyday asking the Lord where He wanted me to go. I was clearly led to Gondor. In the December 1994 issue of the ‘Pastor’s Update’ produced by the then FMB they said that they could support someone going to Gondor. I called them and said I was their man. When my wife and I were appointed I had a lot of questions. I went to our head office and asked, ‘How do we get there? How do we get a visa? What kind of work should we do? How will we learn the language? How will we get money there? How will we find housing and support?’ The very wise man behind the desk said, ‘Strider, we are eager for you to go there, find out the answers to these questions and tell us what they are!’
I am a Southern Baptist and I am sent out by the call of God to be on mission with Him. I am responsible for finding His strategy to reach Gondor. The only central planner in my life is Jesus. The organization called IMB supports me and holds me accountable for having a plan but they expect me to look to God to find it. I know there are other stories out there but this is mine.
Mike R:
I’m going to assume you just threw out your comment without any evidence back in comment one.
Wow. I must not be reading the same post y’all are reading. I got the impression that Strider was calling us to focus on the nature and application of the Great Commission rather than bickering among ourselves.
In short order this thread left any discussion of the content of the Great Commission or rejoicing at what the SBC has accomplished in recent years or praise to the Lord for the vast spread of missionary influence even if it has not penetrated to the same depth as we have seen in the southern US. Instead, it is comprised largely of criticism and counter-criticism which I thought was just the opposite of what Strider was hoping to elicit.
Not sure how that happened.
I must be from a different planet or something.
I thought it was a good post. Can anyone fill me in on what Strider has said that is so egregiously wrong that this thread quickly devolved into the direction it has taken?
I’m still trying to figure out how a call to bring the Great Commission front and center yielded the response it did.
Strider,
I’m sorry if I’ve seemed harsh. I, too, have not communicated well. I do not mean to imply that you are castigating us. I speak of the continual stream of material emanating from the Baptist Building almost chastising us for not jumping on board every project they seem to concoct.
As to the Central Planners, Yes, I do speak of the IMB/NAMB/State Convention. I appreciate the genius of the interdependence of Southern Baptists. I appreciate what God has used us to accomplish. I, too, would love to see every church give at least 10% to missions. I try to be generous when I hear someone call it a tithe. The tithe is not something a greater pays to a lesser, but that’s a topic for another time.
Untold numbers of Southern Baptists are serving with other missions organizations because the IMB had a policy prohibiting the appointment of people to a particular area to which they felt a calling. The Central Planners operate upon a much more pragmatic basis then I would like to see. It is true that the “Ms” of Southern Baptist Life are more free to minister because they are assured of salary, insurance, retirement, ministry funds, and contingency support. I’m grateful for that. I’m thankful that I’ve been a small part of that work there in Gondor. However, when someone from our church or association or a sister association feels led to a place where no appointments are being made, then should I feel led to support that, I should be free to do so without recrimination.
Then comes the sticking point with me. If we don’t reach America, I believe we’re going to lose the freedom to utilize the resources of this great land to reach the world. Other nations have become so focus on the “heathens” in other lands, the “heathens” within their borders seized the mantle of leadership and so focused national efforts as to denude the once vital outreach of those peoples.
God continues to bring the world to us. I’m not one who favors the IMB becoming a super agency which works at home as well as abroad, but we do need to focus NAMB more toward reaching those people groups here and less on establishing inefficient, poorly funded, and inadequately staffed new works here in concert with the State Conventions. I’m no longer cognizant of the number of failures of new starts within the first 3-5 years, but I imagine it rivals what we had in the 70′s and 80′s where we lost about consistently between 40% & 50% of our new starts. If we are going to start them, make sure a vital NT church is involved, and willing to commit both human and fiscal resources to the matter. Let’s adequately staff those works with sufficient people to reach that community.
Alas, again I’ve wandered far afield. Please know, Dear Brother, that I have a deep and abiding fondness for those who leave the warmth of the family hearth to live, raise children, and serve Christ among those of an unfamiliar culture. I’m cognizant of the challenges you face, and I hope never to make you feel unappreciated. You are where I cannot be at this time in my life and I thank God that He continues to call out men and women into that field which is ever “white unto harvest.”
Tom,
I don’t know what evidence you want. I’ve told you that the material was slanted toward a liberal, feminist perspective. Time and again our ladies would go to retreats and return to tell me they had been encouraged to break down the glass barriers in the church as well as society.
Motherhood was de-emphasized. Wives submission to husbands was derided, and women from conservative churches felt they had to defend their beliefs at Southern Baptist retreats.
You’re not going to believe anything I say, because you seem a proponent of the leadership of that era. I learned many years ago, that only God can open blind eyes. My place is not to convince you. My place is to present my understanding of events and allow you to choose to believe what you will. If I could convince you of following my argument, another down the road would probable convince you of yet another path. You must examine what I have said, and decide what you will do with it.
You and Stephen are going about seeking any small matter to seize upon in some hope gaining a sympathetic ear and thereby giving you a platform to enunciate your profound distaste for those the preponderance of us chose for leadership during those unique days of Southern Baptist Life. You remind me of John R. Rice. He produced a great newspaper in the “Sword of the Lord,” with one exception: he was so loyal to J. Frank Norris that every issue was inundated anti-Southern Baptist rhetoric.
You have something of value to offer, but it is continually clouded by your loyalty to someone, or something, of the past who you perceive was harmed by the actions of the CR. My prayer is that God eventually give you peace in this matter.
Yeah, looking back on this thread I don’t know exactly where the train wreck started.
The way God is using Strider, and others, in various places all over the world is showing us by example how the Gospel is being spread to every corner of the world.
I’m speaking just for myself here. I have often contemplated what I can do. The prophet Isiah says, “He am I, send me?” I’ve been wondering for years how to personalize that idea for my own situation.
I don’t believe that God is telling me to “go” to some exotic place.
My wife has MS. We have a daughter, age 42, who functions like a child mentally due to brain damage at birth. We all have various situations in our lives which circumscribe the parameters within which we can operate.
Stider, I’m trying to figure out exactly what you are saying the “average guy in the pew” should be doing.
I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth but I believe you are saying that we are too tightfisted and not supporting the IMB. We are not giving the the Cooperative Program as we should. Even though we are in the middle of the worst financial situation that has happened in our whole lifetime we still have “a lot of wealth” compared to worldwide standards. However, I know people that are out of work, people that are loosing their houses to foreclosure, people that have severe illness that is literally distroying them to the point of bankrupcy — right here in Oklahoma City. They are members in my church. So it is kind of hard to square this with the idea that we are “wealthy”.
We have families with kids wasted on drugs. Wives whose husbands have dumped them. You name it — its going on. I guess the task is to put all of this stuff in a global perspective.
I have to admit that it is crazy that I spend over $20,000 just for medical stuff every year which probably ten times (or more) the median income in many countries. A few months ago I bought a “power lift” to go into our van so my wife can take her motorized chair with us when we go places, so she can get around once we get there. That thing was about $3,000. We dropped $20K to get a van so that we could have the proper vehicle that could accept this type of lift. It is crazy that people spend so much money on medical stuff — on our mortal bodies which are turning to dust anyway.
Rick,
My purpose is simply to call attention to the fact that while all monies are not funneled to the Co-operative program anymore, there are actually more folks involved in missions, and more funds being expended in that direction than ever before.
Of course, each of us considers his area of ministry as one of primary importance, but when I see a woman on the sub-continent carrying baskets of manure on her head, with it streaming down her face and body as she makes her way to the hovel in which she lives, and make patties of that manure on every flat surface in order to have fuel, I realize that there’s a class of people numbering in the hundreds of millions who need Christ. Then when I see that same woman come to understand that she has value and that with Christ she can overcome her caste and become a vital contributor to society, I realize that again that the greatest need of of the world is Christ.
I say that simply to communicate that where ever our hearts are focused is always going to seem the most desperate place.
Let us continue to support the co-operative program generously, while encouraging those who choose additional avenues of personal ministry.
The co-operative program is not what has held us together. Strider said it well, it is the theological imperative to reach the world for Christ in a co-operative manner which holds us together. Avenues of funding may come and go, but the theological imperative remains.
Mike R:
You said:”The Women’s group read about missionaries, and by the 70’s was enamored with the feminist rhetoric espoused by the national & state WMU leaders.”
You greatly minimize the Women’s groups and defame them by calling what they were saying as feminist rhetoric.
Sounds to me the similar refrain by those who supported the CR to rid it of the LIBERALS and there were very few. But it sounds so disturbing to use that word LIBERAL just as it is to use the word FEMINIST.
One of the strongest WMU chapters I know of has a pastor who is not only my friend, but a leader in his part of the state of the CR and BFM 2000. I heard Bailey Smith preach in his church several years ago.
So MikeR; how did all this WMU feminist rhetoric progaganda get past these CR women.
Parker has a strong point. The inerrancy mess was just one bit Rorchach test for any fundamentalist crusader who wanted to make his point; a tool for some cause that wasn’t much about Honoring the Truths of Scripture at all; but something else altogether.
As an aside, are you aware of the book the woman wrote about her Mother’s Sunday School class at Jerry Vines WEst Rome Baptist Church.
Author now teaches at Oregon State. Maybe you should read that if you are gonna talk with authority about the headset of women in your local baptist church; even what passes as CR churches.
Roger,
Strider’s plea is to Southern Baptists as a whole. There certainly are impoverished people within the church who have nothing to give and can only recieve at this time in their life. Those people ought not feel convicted by Strider’s words.
But there are many, myself included, who need to re-evalulate their spending habits. There are plenty of people in the church who have not been giving out of a grateful heart. My pastor’s goal is to give 20% of his income back to the church and he’s probably going to make it. It’s not the percentage that is important to him, but the sacrifice. Putting God first. I know other people in the church who’ve complained about various expenses–medical, mortgage, kids’ schooling, etc.–who have satellite TV, wi-fi, Wii, PS3, iPhone, iPad, etc.
Mike,
How do you resolve the competing interests?
First of all you agree that NAMB and IMB should not be merged into a single agency. How do you prevent competition for scarce resources while at the same time allowing local churches the autonomy to support what they want intact? At the same time, how do we know that every autonomous church is making the best decision possible about how they disperse their funds? And if they are not, how do we convince them to change?
At the same time we see the conflict within the agencies. Missionaries want to go where they feel led. Agencies want to send people where the need is greatest (I’m granting both sides the benefit of the doubt here that they are operating from pure motives). Let’s just say that I am less than convinced that someone feels led of the Lord to start a new work in Nashville or that NAMB would agree that Oklahoma City is one of the places experience our greatest need. What is the balance in such situations?
The same is true with foreign missions. I have former students all over the world. I have one student who was burdened for France and spent years there working in soccer and youth camps. He is now VP of European missions for the organization he is working for. Another student is in Estonia working in churches. He is working in tandem with a former colleague who left the teaching profession to establish a crisis pregnancy center there. In fact this former school teacher had moved his entire family and they are all working in Estonian missions in one capacity or another. How do we know which of these people are ministering in areas of greatest need and which are not?
And to be honest, I’m not sure this is the best question for us to be asking. Maybe a global strategy is the best way to go, but then again, maybe it is not. Clearly we’ve seen an explosion in our lifetime of both where we are spreading the message and how we are spreading the message. I grew up thinking that South America and Africa were about the only places missionary activity took place and about the only thing that counted as “real” missionary activity was establishing churches and maybe hospitals and clinics (but only if they were used to preach the gospel). I think we’ve come a long way from those days. And I think that is a good thing. But then, I’ve seen high-level Command and Control organizations tumble while “crowdsourcing” and “long tail” economics have driven projects in unanticipated ways.
However this shift in society and economics that started with eco-tourism has also resulted in mission-tourism under the guise of short-term missions and we have seen that form of mission work both abused and lauded. We have even discussed it here. But remember what it used to be like in the old days? No one even thought about doing STM, let alone abusing it. I think that we are seeing a transformation in how we think of missions, mostly for the better.
At the same time, we are also seeing a shift, however slightly, from “I’m from the US of A and here to save the day!” to a more humble stance of “I’m from America. What do you need?” One of our church’s supported missionaries returned from Ireland because he wanted to be a church planter and the team in Ireland is taking a back seat support role to Irish pastors and following their lead rather than starting the church themselves. He found out that we aren’t doing missions like his father used to and he didn’t want to be part of the new way of doing things. He likes being in the front seat, not the back.
My friend in Estonia is more of a “returning son” than a foreign American come to tell them how to do things since his grandparents fled the country during the communist takeover. I am seeing more and more (although not as much as I would like to) of indigenous peoples telling the Americans what needs to be done instead of the reverse as we have become accustomed to. Part of this may be related to world economics – many countries, including so-called third world countries, have better cell phone service than we have, for instance. I’m reminded of the steel industry in the US that had so much invested in their infrastructure that foreign mini-mills were able to undercut their business model. Looks like missions is experiencing the same sort of “technological” innovation from indigenous people willing to do things for themselves that we have never even considered. We are seeing that the American model is, in some cases, getting left in the dust. I have a school buddy from Nigeria who came to the US for education and is back in Nigeria ministering in the Nigerian way to his fellow countrymen. And I suspect he is being far more effective than any white missionary would have been. I was talking with an Americorps worker who had relocated from South Africa. He was telling me that when his term was over here in the US he was going back home to establish a clinic back home. He wasn’t asking for American dollars or even American helpers. He was getting American expertise and taking it back to create South African solutions that worked for the people he cared about.
With this level of dynamism, Mike, how do we best direct our efforts without burdensome central control? How do we simultaneously encourage more participation in mission while reducing ineffectual STM? How do we generate more resources while at the same time ensure that the bulk of those resources are directed into productive and worthwhile activity without restrictive and burdensome control mechanisms?
First let me say that as a follower of the owner of the cattle on a thousand hills I don’t believe in limited resources. We do not have limited resources only limited faith.
Second, I think a good discussion on missiology is long overdue with respect to planting churches in America. One of the problems we have with wasted funds and wasted time and effort is our desire to either pay someone else to do something without holding them accountable for what they are doing or getting hands on involved without doing our homework, praying, and seeking the Lord’s plan. Let me explain what I mean here. Someone has already mentioned the church planting failure rate in this thread. Why do church plants fail? 1) because God never intended them to succeed or 2)we fail to implement His plan. We have learned a lot about church planting in the IMB and every time I hear of a CP in America I don’t see any of the principles we have learned applied. We buy buildings and build huge organizations and then expect people in New Hampshire to fill our pews and play by our rules. It never works here and it never really works there, although there is the odd church plant that attracts lots of Southerners or Northerners who have spent a lot of time in the south and now feel at home in the foreign organization. Take the pastorate for instance. I interviewed for a church in Wyoming when I graduated from Seminary. It was between me and some guy from North Carolina and the big issue was who was more likely to stay. They never had a pastor last more than 6 months before as every time winter set in the southerner fled. The North Carolina guy got the job and was gone in six months. I went to West Virginia where I took over a church plant planted by another North Carolina guy (I stayed four years by the way). He built a big church building with volunteers from the south and tellingly only had communion when ordained guys from the south were there to help him give it out. I took over and had a lot to learn. My point is that we have learned a lot and one of the things we have learned is that if you want a church to thrive in Gondor you had better have Gondor leaders. No one should go pastor that church in Wyoming. Someone should go and train one of those guys to be pastor and let them get on with it. We have learned this overseas but closer to home we are still working with 100 year old missiology too often. There are good folks who know better but up until now they have not been listened to much.
Do you want to support an independent missionary? Fine, but take the time to discern if he is about the Lord’s work in an effective manner. Do you want to plant churches at home or abroad? Do so, you should do this but study, pray, discern, and learn what God is up to. If we mobilize our resources, disciple our people, and listen to the boss we will surely see our Lord glorified in wonderful ways.
I am afraid that this sounds condescending but nothing could be further from my thoughts. We are God’s people and we must be about His business and He is not mediocre. He is mighty to save and if we are obedient to Him we will see much more than we are seeing.
Stephen Fox:
I think Mike R just loves to throw stuff out and hope some of it sticks. A great tactict of CR supporters. None or very little evidence but a lot of broad brush strokes.
Rick,
That is my point exactly. We cannot “control” what seems to be a movement of God among the local churches. As Southern Baptist, we need to become better facilitators and better implementers of God’s plan.
Strider,
You are correct in your missive concerning how to do missions, however, I must disagree that one cannot go and pastor a church. Paul placed some from Antioch in pastoral leadership positions in other areas. The thing which makes it work is not where one is from, it is the attitude with which he approaches it. We must raise up spiritual indigenous leadership no matter who the pastor is.
Paul served at Ephesus for an extended time, but when he left there was leadership. We seem to think that leaders must wait to become totally mature. Just isn’t so. None of us are there yet, in spite of our image of ourselves.
Mike, with respect who from Antioch? Where one is from is imensely important in establishing a church that is not foreign to the culture. Timothy and Titus were sent to appoint elders, not to be the leaders themselves. It is about discipleship in the end. As long as a foreigner is in charge the message to the locals is that the Holy Spirit is not enough, ‘sit down and listen to ME’. It is crucial for the men of Gondor to be empowered by the us and to know that the Bible in one hand and the Spirit leading is enough for every challenge. I have come to believe it is just as crucial in Montana as it is in China.
Strider,
I’m in essential agreement with you. I know Timothy was not actually from Antioch, but Asia Minor, but I believe both he and Silas served in pastoral roles for a time.
But while anecdotal evidence is always unprovable, I know many who have served well as they have moved to new locations to invest their lives in that culture.
I’ll not argue with you the need to develop indigenous leadership, but we must also remain alert and aware of the progress they’re making. Paul was in continual contact with the churches he was instrumental in establishing, lest they wander off from theological orthodoxy. Now, I’m not saying Southern orthodoxy, or even American orthodoxy, I’m speaking of Biblical orthodoxy.
Strider,
You made this comment to Mike R.: “As long as a foreigner is in charge the message to the locals is that the Holy Spirit is not enough, ’sit down and listen to ME’.” The founding of the church at Antioch, however, doesn’t support that claim.
Scripture very clearly details that the church in Antioch was founded by foreigners, discipled by foreigners, and led by foreigners. And it’s pretty evident that their message clearly was NOT “the Holy Spirit is not enough, sit down and listen to me.” On the contrary, those foreigners must have taught the believers in Antioch to obey the Spirit because they did just that in sending out two of their beloved leaders for a mission tour.
I have no idea if that’s even relevant to your conversation with Mike, or how. Just making an observation.
Stuart,
If I understand 1st Century church history correctly the reason the church at Antioch had foreign leadership was because it was originally made up of foreigners, i.e. persecuted Jews who fled Jerusalem ahead of Saul of Tarsus. After his conversion, the churches of Damascus, Antioch, and elsewhere throughout Syria had rest. It was also during that time Peter had a trine vision to take the gospel to the Gentiles and following the conversion of Cornelius, Gentile evangelism began in earnest.
If we were to draw an analogy, it would be like the Chinese Christians here in Columbus who have church in the Chinese style but became burdened about the American community and began to evangelize their neighbors, inviting them in to share church in the Chinese style. Full disclosure: when I suggested to a Chinese coworker that I might be interested in visiting his church, he actually discouraged me from coming saying I wouldn’t enjoy it because it was in the Chinese style. I asked what he did differently and he couldn’t tell me because he had never been to an American service. He did tell me that the songs and the sermon were in Chinese, though, so I probably wouldn’t get much out of it.
Historically, the early church really had a problem relinquishing control of indigenous churches. They had a justified fear that if they allowed too many pagans to worship with them that their traditional worship styles would be corrupted and their identities would be lost. Radical elements within nascent Christianity, however, argued for a contextualized cultural expression of worship rather than requiring the rigid traditional forms. There was a big convocation over it and the more liberal elements held sway while the conservative, tradition-heavy elements were marginalized. After losing to the denominational leadership’s liberal stance, they tried infiltrating churches and leading the people in a conservative resurgence, but they were successfully opposed, for the most part, by the leadership of the apostles Paul and Peter and their followers.
Even among the liberals, however, there was a fair amount of mixed messaging going on. For instance, Paul rebuked Peter for waffling on his stand regarding indigenous forms of worship – when the traditionalists showed up, he bowed to tradition and reverted back to the “old style” of doing things and led a sizable contingent back into traditionalism. At the same time, while preaching a liberal form of more open worship, the apostle Paul still held to certain traditional elements like making sure Timothy was circumcised early on in his ministry so the traditionalists wouldn’t have an excuse to exclude him from their services and the ministry. Also, Paul fulfilled the vow of a Nazir at Cenchrea before heading to Jerusalem for the last recorded time.
Things in the first church weren’t nearly so cut and dried like we would like to believe them to be.
Rick, Nice inflammatory description of Acts 15- I like it.
Rick made a good point about Antioch being a church for foreigners but even if it wasn’t it was certainly alone. I chuckled a little about the comment above of Paul staying in ‘close contact’ with the churches he started. Yeah right, they were all on Facebook together. He was months and years away from them and he very occasionally wrote letters. No, the churches did not wander away from orthodoxy because the Spirit of God guided them, not Paul. Look, we have truckloads of experience with this. What is interesting to me is that while on the field only the Koreans are talking about pastoring the churches they plant (and many of them are changing their approach as well) back in the US we are still at square one. And the pastor issue is only one issue. If we refuse to learn good missiological principles found in the Word then we will continue to throw a lot of money, time, and energy down a rabbit hole and wonder why the Lord is not blessing.
Part of the difference between the way we “do” church planting in the states and elsewhere is those in the states primarily have claimed a calling to pastoral ministry, whereas those serving overseas have declared a calling to be “missionaries” or lower-case apostles.
In the past missionaries went out and planted churches that were largely reflective of the missionaries’ home culture. They were all leaning over the right side of the boat. Recognizing the dangers and fallacies of that approach and fearing the boat would capsize, we have tried to run to the left side of the boat. I fear we may capsize anyway if we ignore the universality of the Church by mandating fairly homogenous congregations (in culture, ethnicity, geographic origin, etc.) in the places we work.
Also, Rick, your description of the issues in the early church attempts to force too strong a parallel (virtually a 1:1) between the issues they faced and the ones we face within our denomination, though it does make you think.
Andrew,
Strider nailed it when he said it was inflammatory. It was not meant as a careful historical analysis, but rather as a self-aware satire, meant more for amusement and entertainment than serious scholarly treatment.
Think of it as the blog version of a black velvet painting of dogs playing poker – deliberate caricatures to make a not-so-subtle point.
Plus, I thought someone ought to throw Stephen a bone every now and then.
Strider,
You have given us another excellent post and offered much that is worthy of discussion. I have tried to stay away from commenting for two reasons. One is that I could do little more than agree with you. You insight on issues is excellent and you state it much better than I can. The second is that it would be difficult to comment without having to respond to Mike Rasberry’s stream of attacks on the WMU and others. I think that it is probably too late to worry about that however as Rick Presely pointed out reading Mike’s comments and trying to relate them to your subject makes you think you wonder if either you or Mike is on another planet.
I thought it was interesting that Mike responded to Tom Parker by making the following comparison.
“You remind me of John R. Rice. He produced a great newspaper in the “Sword of the Lord,” with one exception: he was so loyal to J. Frank Norris that every issue was inundated anti-Southern Baptist rhetoric.”
Mike accuses Tom of anti-Southern Baptist rhetoric even though Mike has stated among other things, the majority of our missionaries are not conservative theologically, many of our appointees have liberal leanings, our missionaries support the teaching of heresy in South Korea, the leaders of the BSSB were drunks, and now liberal feminist bilge is spewing out of Birmingham from national and state WMU leaders who espouse feminist rhetoric. I ask who spewed anti-Southern Baptist rhetoric, Mike or Tom?
We have to be careful not to oppose Mike’s statements or ask for accountability. If we do, SBC Impact contributors will accuse us of being unfair and untruthful, vitriolic, slanderous, angry and bitter. If we question the truthfulness of his accusations, we are told it is only his opinion or perspective and we shouldn’t think our opinions are incontrovertible and objective truth.
I think I now understand where Mike developed his warped view of the SBC. He states, “When I grew up, in the 50’s mission was not a central part of what we did.” I also grew up in the 50s and missions was a central part of what my church, association, state convention and the SBC did. I am sorry his church was not missions minded. He states of those he associated with, “very few knew, or had ever met a missionary.” I was in a medium size church. There were very few years we didn’t have at least one FMB missionary in our church. In addition, I attended RA camp and state youth camp where there was always at least one FMB missionary sharing about missions. If he did not know or ever meet a missionary, it was the fault of his church or pastor. Missionaries were there and anxious to meet him and his church. He further states, “Personal involvement in missions was not even considered a possibility for the great preponderance of Southern Baptists.” Our medium size church has had 5 former members serve for many years as career FMB/IMB missionaries. We have had numerous others involved in missions in a variety of ways. It was always presented to us that missions was a possibility and a calling.
I now have some sympathy for Mike since I know his background. I am thankful that was not my experience. It is too bad Mike did not have the opportunity to be in a church where the Bible was preached and missions was emphasized. The amazing thing is that after such a dysfunctional background he is still able to always be fair and truthful with his comments. He is never vitriolic or slanderous. There is no trace of anger or bitterness in his comments. We know this is so because if he were an SBC Impact contributor would be quick to point it out.
Rick,
I have no idea how everything you wrote in #32 relates to my comment. So I’ll assume that most of it doesn’t.
I’m certain you have a good idea of church history. But Scripture is pretty clear that “some of those” who were scattered after the martyrdom of Stephen, upon arriving at Antioch “preached the Lord Jesus” to “Hellenists”, and upon hearing, many [of those Hellenists?]believed and “a great number who believed turned to the Lord.” Perhaps it’s an inference, but I’ve always understood that to indicate that the foreigners evangelized the residents of Antioch, may of whom believed, thus growing the church there.
But my point in bringing up Antioch was not to argue for foreign control of local churches, paternalism, colonialism, or any strategy that might in any way contradict the holy trinity of APEPT, house church, and CPM. My point was that while LOGICALLY it may make sense to raise up local leaders as soon as possible, since who better to reach a Gondorian than another Gondorian, and while MISSIOLOGICALLY it may be imperative to use indigenous strategies since many (most?) of the remaining UPGs in the world live in indigenuos communities, SCRIPTURALLY one paints with too broad of a brush in making statements like, “As long as a foreigner is in charge the message to the locals is that the Holy Spirit is not enough, ’sit down and listen to ME’.” That sounds great and will garner plenty of “amens”, but it’s just way to broad and overly general to be of any real value. It’s unfortunate when good points and ideas get lost or missed because they stand along side hyperbolic overstatements. That was my only reason for mentioning Antioch to strider.
Stuart,
Note the contrast in verses 19 and 20. The Jews from Jerusalem formed cloistered synagogues that preached and practiced separation from the heathen. They only evangelized other Jews. It was the Cypriot and African Christians that evangelized the Hellenes. Now, whether these Hellenes were actual Greeks or (more likely) cultural Greeks, it is important to note that they were able to more closely identify with the more cosmopolitan Christians than the Jewish Christians. This distinction was so pronounced that among the Messiah-worshipers, those who thrived among the heathen at Antioch adopted Greek nomenclature, calling themselves Christians rather than employing a Hebrew or Aramaic term.
Point being – the more culturally similar to the indigenous population the proselytizers were, the more success they enjoyed. I believe that was the point Strider was making with his hyperbolic warning that dependence on foreign leadership will supplant dependence on the Holy Spirit.
In support of Strider, this is very likely to be true of Western Christians who find native expressions of Christianity not only disturbing and a little odd, but even accuse them of heterodoxy or apostasy. Rather than trust the Holy Spirit to preserve the church, they depend on external structures to do the preserving work.
The irony of all this is the facile unawareness of the degree to which Western Christianity has been shaped by culture and how some of the things we consider “biblical” are really cultural motifs that have been adopted. Just one example: The use of fermented wine in the Lord’s Supper is a vanishing tradition in many Baptist churches. This is purely a cultural phenomenon and is not related to any Bible teaching whatsoever. It used to be that all churches served wine in the Lord’s Supper. However, in our culture, so much baggage has been attached to alcohol that we no longer use it in services.
There are probably many more beliefs and practices that we consider to be “biblical” when really they are accumulated traditions. We are simply not made aware of them because we don’t have much contact with other cultures or other cultural expressions of Christianity.
Ron, I hope you feel better now. I did write a long comment on the WMU issue and then deleted it. I am very happy that the comment stream has focused on missiology which I love to talk about. It has been much more profitable than arguing about who was more liberal than whom.
Oh, and I often speak in hyperbole as I have been accused of here, then I think better of it and realize that I meant every word. Our job is to make disciples of Jesus. Anything hindering that should go especially foreign pastors. How is that for hyperbole?
Rick,
Are you suggesting that the early church didn’t use grape juice and oyster crackers!?!?! What are you suggesting here!?!?!
Clearly, it was matzoh in the Jerusalem church.
It wasn’t until Antioch that they started using pita bread.
Seriously, though, I have heard Baptist preachers argue, using John MacArthur to back them up, that the early church used non-alcoholic “oinos” in the Lord’s Supper. For that matter, Jesus turned the water into non-intoxicating wine in John 4.
But don’t ever try to accuse them of not believing the Bible or conducting eisegesis based on post-Prohibition American culture….
Rick,
I’m quite aware of the distinction. If you’ll read my post again, you’ll see that I made no reference to the Jews who were preaching only to other Jews but to the “some of them” who preached to the Gentiles.
You wrote, “Point being – the more culturally similar to the indigenous population the proselytizers were, the more success they enjoyed.” I get that. I never stated otherwise. Obviously they were more culturally similar than the Jews. But they were still foreigners, and Strider’s comment was that “As long as foreigners are in charge…”
“I believe that was the point Strider was making with his hyperbolic warning that dependence on foreign leadership will supplant dependence on the Holy Spirit.” I, too think that was his point. And I tend to agree with him. But I’m not going to ignore that the church in Antioch, under foreign leadership, was taught to obey the Holy Spirit. I may have a harder time harmonizing that example (which strider duly notes appears to be an exception) with my philosophy of missions, but I won’t just pretend it’s not there or that it says something else.
I don’t need the lessons about culture and proximity and homogeneity and all that. Thanks anyway. But if I DID need convincing, I wouldn’t be convinced by hyperbole. The people who usually identify with overstatement are the people who already agree. (Think of all the “amens” at pastor’s conferences.)
Strider,
I do trust that you’ve gleaned from my interactions with Rick (which he apparently hasn’t), that I didn’t offer Antioch’s foreign leaders as a “gotcha” or as a Scripture text that contradicts your overall argument. I offered it for your consideration as an example of ONE scriptural example that softens the hyperbole of statements like, “As long as a foreigner is in charge the message to the locals is that the Holy Spirit is not enough, ’sit down and listen to ME’.”
Well, strider, your comment posted while I was writing.
I prefer to wrestle with a text that makes me examine my convictions and knocks the edges off my hyperbole. I find that it often leads to an even sharper argument.
But enjoy your hyperbole, brother, and the hearty “amens” from those who already agree with you. And then when someone else fails to be convinced of your premise because it was overshadowed by obvious overstatement, you can talk down to them for not getting it.
Strider, you said, “I often speak in hyperbole as I have been accused of here, then I think better of it and realize that I meant every word. Our job is to make disciples of Jesus. Anything hindering that should go especially foreign pastors. How is that for hyperbole?”
Your comment comes across pretty strong, especially your last sentence. I’m not so naive as to think that you can grab any ten Christians from around the world, put them in a room, and get them to operate as a church with a complete disregard for culture. But I think you’re dismissing the power of the cross to break down the cultural bariers that exist between Christians by making your statement. You have strong feelings about foreign pastors, but are we not all foreigners in Christ? There is a sense in which we are neither Jews nor Greeks, and Paul did not consider himself to be a Jew or a Greek in 1 Cor. 9.
If you dislike colonialism or ethnocentrism, I can “amen” that, but making such a strong statement only promotes xenocentrism, that is, people should only fellowship and be discipled by those of their own cultural group. Multiethnic churches cannot exist under such a principle, nor can outsiders be welcomed into the fellowship.
So, Stuart, can I understand you to mean that had Jesus not used hyperbole in the Sermon on the Mount when talking about lust and anger that he would have been able to make an even sharper argument? I guess he was just accumulating accolades from those who already agreed with him.
Strider,
Your “foreign pastors must go…” attitude indicates something I can’t put my finger on, but am bothered by. The modern missionary movement began with men who invested their lives in foreign cultures to win them.
I think you allow too little credit to the supernatural intervention of The Holy Spirit in matters, and base too much on a pragmatic missiology philosophy.
Remember, I believe whole-heartedly in raising up leaders, but you seem more attached to a philosophy of doing, that the reason for doing.
Rick, Perhaps I should have been clearer that I have been referring to strider’s use of hyperbole in this thread and not to all hyperbole in general. I would have figured that was assumed, but maybe I expected to much. I still maintain that in many (see, I won’t say “all” or even “most” as that would be overstatement and weaken my argument) instances, hyperbole serves primarily to build ethos between the speaker (or writer) and audience, even if as an unintended consequence.
If you would like to put strider’s use of hyperbole up there with Jesus’ then that’s your prerogative.
And yes, I realize I spoke generally in the paragraph where I referenced pastors conferences. I repent of that.
Stuart, now you have me intrigued. I would have thought that hyperbole was an appeal to pathos, not ethos. How is it that you feel hyperbole serves to build ethos between the speaker and his audience? Personally I don’t see how hyperbole fosters trust and credibility. When I employ it, I usually intend to arouse feelings of one sort or another. I would be interested to see why you think rhetorical hyperbole belongs more to ethos than pathos.
Strider,
When I was talking about SBC Impact contributors, I was not referring to you even though I realize you are a contributor. Others, however, have been quick to defend Mike while attacking anyone who questions his comments.
I am glad you have for the most part been able to keep the comments on missiology. That is why I like your posts. In a future post I will try to make a contribution.
I just want to 2nd Ron on this matter. Mike gets a pass too often. I don’t know if its the Mississippi thing, but he rarely backs his opinion with any substance, credential or reason; just preference often mirroring an education of rote memory; rarely shows insight from thinking about anything outside his province.
Actually, it’s moderates who get WAY more of a pass than they should. They know how to regurgitate their hatred for anything conservative and their love of ecumenical ideas but are, if you’ll pardon the expression, “so open minded their brains leak out”.
That’s what happens when someone has no doctrinal conviction. Jesus called it building your house on sand in Matthew 7.
Let me see, now. This is a discussion group where individuals share their beliefs, experiences, and conclusions.
However, the only conclusions which are acceptable are those whose template is carefully woven so as to appear to appeal to those who oppose everything the SBC had done over the last thirty years.
Our conclusions should reflect the highly creative reasonings of a handful who continually reference the most liberal fringe of Southern Baptist Life, all the while demeaning those whose leadership the vast preponderance of Southern Baptists have trusted for years.
Why my name was invoked by Ron in #50, I have no idea. Of course, I fully expected Stephen Fox to jump in when he thought he had found someone to agree.
These guys sound like MSNBC commentators who can’t quite understand why so many people don’t fall into line and acknowledge the superior intellectual acumen they possess. Guys, “Get over it.”
I disagree with Strider on some comments, but for the most part I agree. We’ve had give and take, but there is no animus. With about three or four of you, the animus is palpable. I have no problem with you having your positions and espousing them. My problem is when you assume that elitist attitude which treats any disagreement as unworthy of consideration and attempt to emasculate the opponent by a plethora of links and posts reeking of sanctimonious ambiguity.
Joe, how could the moderates get a free pass as long as you are around?
Well, this comment stream went from missiology to a discussion of my use of hyperbole. Sorry for that. I could tell you that I will stop but honestly, in person I am worse. I always use hyperbole. I think its funny and I just can’t help myself. But I am sorry that it has become the topic of discussion. My bad.
So, to address the real issues: It is a good missiological principle to raise up local leadership. Reason for hyperbole: We are forever finding a reason to shortcut this principle. As Westerners we believe in the old axiom if you want something done right you’ve got to do it yourself. I know that many great saints have gone out over the centuries and started churches and led them themselves, and God blessed it. He blesses us when He wants to accomplish something and not necessarily because we did the right thing. What we have learned over the years is that we can start a church with local leadership much quicker and much more often than we do. My point all along is that the IMB does this and we almost never do this at home. I am afraid that last statement is not hyperbole. Does anyone know of a Church plant in the US where the church planter started up a group and then immediately trained local leadership and got out of the way? There must be an example somewhere but I don’t know about it. When it comes to the GCR and our use of resources missiology and the wise spending of money is important. We know more than we implement and I think that is foolish. I think that has been my point.
Thanks for the good discussion everyone.
Where is Ben Cole when we need him?
Some kind of internship in DC or something, right?
Ben and I were in the same building in Jan 08 I think, but I left about three hours before President Clinton got there.
I did hear John Grisham, however, a Mississippian who saw much the same thing Razzberry saw–see the quip in the movie No Country for Old Men–and came to different conclusion than our MRazz.
Got a good thread going this morning at bl.com referencing some of the Sweet Time in Jesus I am having here with you fellas at The Impact.
It’s early; more later.
Mike,
You must have a short memory. The reason I invoked your name in #50 is your past statements that the majority of our missionaries are not conservative theologically, the former leaders of the BSSB were a bunch of drunks, our missionaries in South Korea were promoting heresy and many other vitriolic, slanderous attacks on the SBC. We can now add your statement that state and national WMU leaders are liberal, feminist. My point was that even though David Miller tries to speak against vitriol and slander when I pointed out how ridiculous your statements were David comes on and accuses me of misrepresenting your statements and being unfair and untruthful. He never criticizes any statement you make no matter how preposterous or how full of vitriol. I use the word vitriol because that seems to be one of his favorite words.
Many are beginning to think that SBC Impact is a place where people can unload vitriol and slander against theologically conservative Southern Baptists such as our missionaries or anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship the leaders of the CR and you will be protected and supported with no need to be accountable for your words.
Ron,
You seem to make things sound different than I wrote them. I did NOT say the majority of our SBC Missionaries ARE not conservative. I said most of those during the pre CR days WERE either liberal or liberal leaning.
Part of the problem is that “liberal” in Southern Baptist Life is far different than “liberal” in the classical sense. You and I both know that.
It seems to me there is more “bashing of CR leadership” than of anything else. The large majority of responses defending CR leadership has come because they were first demeaned by anti-CR rhetoric.
The large majority of responses defending CR leadership has come because they were first demeaned by anti-CR rhetoric.
I can of course only speak for myself, but I know as long as guys like Ron and Stevie-boy are busy running down the CR and its supporters I’m going to continue with my character assasination of moderate christians unabated. I mean, since they don’t love God’s word and have no integrity whatsoever there is plenty to mock in their character anyway.
You want folks to stop running down folks like Dilday, Gushee, and the rest of their putrid theological ilk?? You drop your slanderous accusations and accept the fact that you lost and we’ll talk.
Jerry Falwell was a proud fundamentalist. Mainstream Baptist Conservatives in the 70′s were not of a Falwell stripe.
How do you explain, Mike Razz, the inordinate number of CR leaders, Vines as prototype, who became trustees of Liberty U.
Was Frank Norris the ideal Baptist “Conservative” you wanted the CR leadership to take the SBC toward; or Falwell and James Dobson.
I think the SBC leadership has more in common with Dobson and the late Falwell, than they have in common with the Mainstreet Baptist Center of the 60′s and 70′s.
Your Baptist “Spectruma” seems a little warped to me.
On that I think Ron West and I agree.
I would say Martin Accad of the Baptist Seminary in Beirut is a grand product of Mainstream Conservative Baptist Scholarship embraced by the Alabama Baptist Convention, Tom Corts, Samford, and the whole state bureaucracy. I was there. Heard his address and sat for lunch in 2004.
Alabama calls itself a “Conservative” State Convention. Gary Farley a DOM right across the state line is in Good Standing.
Again, your Spectrum it appears to me is warped and Ron West is on to something.
It seems to me there is more “bashing of CR leadership” than of anything else. -Mike
I’m going to continue with my character assasination of moderate christians- Joe
Shall we call down fire from heaven?- The disciples
Lord help us to love one another and you more and more- Strider’s prayer everyday. Lord, Send a GCR and let it begin with me.
Yes. The leaders of the CR did have more in common with Falwell than with the denominational leadership of the 60′s & 70′s. So did most of the members of Southern Baptist churches. That is witnessed by the number of Southern Baptist patents who sent their children to Liberty University. The students were always about 70% Southern Baptists.
J. Frank Norris was a horse of a different color. I doubt you really knew much about him, but his petty jealousy of Dr. Truett is what drove the anti- Southern Baptist movement during the 40′s, 50′s & 60′s. Ironic now that during the second generation of the Ramsey Family leading Norris’ church FBC, Ft. Worth, that church joined the SBC and Tarrant Baptist Assoc.
Norris never a hero for Southern Baptists.
Mike: I concede we may be straining at gnats here, but I am convinced there are more children of churches who support the Cooperative Program that go to higher education other than Liberty.
I know there are a lot that go there; and as an aside I found the book by the fellow from Brown U last year about Liberty to be pretty charming.
That said, the point is CR leadership had an inordinate affinity for Liberty. I don’t think the rest of your assertion has much weight; but it interesting conjecture.
Nancy Ammerman had an interesting point about affinity groups being more an indicator of where rank and file; members in the pew fell along lines of the BAptist spectrum than any understanding and or conscious decision to go along with the CR.
It is soft allegiance across the board; doctrinal conviction doesn’t have much to do with pulses in the pew on any given Sunday; mostly a function of Passion when the SBC annual meeting convenes.
Outside that and a few folks like you and me; maybe 7 percent of the numbers aggregate of the whole kitnkabooble from Falwelliteand Mohlerite SBCers to CBF, Alliance and beyond have any knowledgable ideological solidarity with their various groupings.
CBF and to the left would have more convictional solidarity than the masses in the SBC.
Not a great paraphrase of Nancy’s findings, but in the ballpark.
Mike said:
That is witnessed by the number of Southern Baptist patents who sent their children to Liberty University. The students were always about 70% Southern Baptists.
Stephen said:
I am convinced there are more children of churches who support the Cooperative Program that go to higher education other than Liberty.
Mike is arguing that Liberty, an IFB school, was comprised largely of disaffected SBC students who could not in good conscience go to a SBC school. This is not evidence that the SBC at the time was largely conservative because it does not point out what percentage of college-bound SBCs went to Liberty (and other conservative schools). Liberty could have been filled with the children of a vocal minority since it wasn’t a very big school back then compared to Baylor and Wake Forest.
Stephen is arguing that SBCs sent their kids to more places than Liberty as if that means they went to liberal institutions rather than conservative ones. He would have been better served to point to the number of SBC students who attended SBC schools vs. IFB schools or other conservative institutions.
Neither argument provides evidence in support of the composition of the convention, nor do they rebut each other since they are arguing from two different places about two different things. Mike is addressing the relative percentage of SBC students attending a conservative IFB college. Stephen is discussing higher ed among the population of SBCs. Both of you need better arguments. It would be really nice if they were supported by statistics, but for purposes of this discussion you may continue with unfounded assertions and anecdotes.
Rick:
I give it to you; you trump both Razz and Myself on this one; but I am convinced in the larger ballpark, Nancy Ammerman trumps you with her findings about affinity groups within Baptist life.
That said, I am impressed by your response; and will be amazed if given your affection for film, you do as well with a review of The White Ribbon with Specific analogies and allusions to a fundamentalist, more precisely Mohlerite or Canerite mindset within the SBC if in fact you do see any.
About to get lost in my own thicket here. Will look forward to seeing your review of the White Ribbon when it comes out on DVD in June.
In case I wasn’t clear, that was a backhanded compliment; a poor attempt in that direction.
And thanks for helping MikeRazz out of his fog; and for adding some clarity to my ruminations
Rick,
You misunderstand the purpose of my post about the number of students at Liberty.
I simply intended to show that Jerry Falwell was not a pariah for Southern Baptists. Untold millions watched him on Sunday Morning before Church, and a very large number made the financial and logistical sacrifices necessary to send their children to Liberty.
Yes, I do believe the majority of Southern Baptists were much closer to Falwell theologically and socially than to the Allens, Parks, and other pre-CR leaders.
BTW Rick,
I appreciate your “willingness” to ALLOW us to proceed.
Mike,
Even if that is what you intended to show, the case you present is weak at best. You would be better served to report Nielsen ratings of The Old Time Gospel Hour. As I pointed out, a tiny vocal, militant minority of SBCs could have comprised the source of SBC students at Liberty. Even today, at a record enrollment level, LU only has about 12,000 students on campus and even if 75% of them were SBC that would only be 9,000 students. And that’s today. I’m guessing there were a lot more SBC youth on college campuses than 9K, even back in the 70′s and 80′s. By comparison, how many are out there running Baptist Student Unions all across the country?
You are probably right that more Southern Baptists were akin to Jerry Falwell than Allens or Parks. However, the evidence you use doesn’t support that. I think you would be better served to list the number of SBC households that had their televisions tuned to the Lynchburg based broadcasts on Sunday Morning. I know in Lexington, KY in the late 70′s to early 80′s it was a LOT of them.
On the other hand, I don’t recall too many liberal Baptist churches with TV ministries. So that argument may be moot as well.
CBF and to the left would have more convictional solidarity than the masses in the SBC.
Yeah, but convictions which have no scriptural support and in fact are roundly condemned by scripture aren’t exactly something to brag about.
Rick and MikeRasberry:
Rick, If you lived closer I would share Ammerman’s Collection Southern Baptists Observed with you. I wish you would find a good library and read Ellen Rosenberg and Helen Lee Turner’s efforts there.
In the meantime this should help edify Rasberry:
http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/bulletin/2008/august.htm#Weatherspoon
Man, Can we go back to complaining about my use of hyperbole? Look guys, the CR was ugly. Everyone knows that. Those for it should weep that it was necessary and those against it should weep that our leaders were so crass and manipulative. I was. As a pastor in the early nineties I was kind and gracious and loving and trusting in God until something happened that was important to me. And then I cajoled and manipulated and pouted until I got my way. I HATE that about myself and I hate that about all of our leadership who did that. It was mean, prideful, and showing supreme distrust in the Holy Spirit to guide us. We usurped God’s own authority and made ourselves judge and jury of our brethren- liberals, moderates, conservatives, and fundamentalists did this. We need to allow God to sit on His throne in our hearts, lives, and churches again. What He is about is getting the Gospel to the ends of the earth- starting from your living room. When we have a convention where we do more crying over our brokenness than yelling about the other guy I will know that Southern Baptists are willing to be God’s own people.
Strider,
I apologize for my contribution to taking this post off track from your excellent topic.
Mike Rasberry,
You seem to forget what you write. You did most certainly say the majority of SBC missionaries were not conservative. In David Miller’s post on inerrancy in #103 the last paragraph, you made the following statement about our missionaries.
“That is not to say that there were not conservatives there, but most were moderate to liberal theologically, not just in methods, during the late 1950’s to late 1970’s.”
In my world most means the majority. If most are moderate to liberal theologically that means they are not conservative theologically. Either way you say it, “most are moderate to liberal theologically” or “the majority are not conservative theologically” it means the same thing. In either case, it is not true.
Mike, it is nice to say that now I can find something we agree on. J. Frank Norris was a horse of a different color and was not a hero for Southern Baptists. His attacks on Truett were disgusting but resemble in many ways the attacks by CR leaders on leaders of the SBC during their power take over. The ironic thing is that the spirit of J. Frank Norris lived on most closely in Truett’s successor W. A. Criswell and also in Jerry Falwell.
It is also interesting that so many CR leaders are on the board of Falwell’s school Liberty University that was saved from bankruptcy only by Falwell going on his knees to his good friend Sun Myung Moon and begging for money. Moon of course says that Jesus Christ was a failure and Moon is the true messiah. Desire for money makes strange bedfellows.
Sandy, a church staffer SBC in the Houston area has this articulate insight in a post this morning in the SBC Forum of Baptistlife.com in a discussion about some “vitriol” aimed at Wade Burleson from the SBCToday Blog:
Re: Tim Rogers and SBC Today
by Sandy » Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:46 am
There’s a difference between unity and conformity that seems to trouble those who have enough connections to think of themselves as insiders when it comes to SBC leadership. Wade Burleson was certainly part of the unity, when it came to theological and spiritual matters in the denomination. But he, and others, who have spoken up out of their own convictions against things they saw as inconsitent with that unity of purpose, they became enemies, rabble-rousers, and “liberals,” and no longer part of the inner circle.
As the churches collectively age, slip behind the growth curve in terms of their ability to do evangelistic outreach in the culture at large, and the statistics have inevitably slipped as well, the leadership core seems compelled to shoot itself in the foot by thinking that if they just “do the right thing” in their own mind, and come up with the right programs and advice to push from the denominational level, it will have some kind of an impact. In their mind, conformity is the necessary ingredient to revive and restore the SBC.
Wade, as a result of what happened to him as an IMB trustee, has become a sort of whistle-blower in other areas, hence the Ergun Caner issue, though Wade was not the only one who exposed the problem and the evidence presented has turned out to be accurate. I think the SBC leadership needs to take a long look at how this kind of thing, among others, is perceived among the “grass roots” for the answers as to why CP giving is falling faster than attendance, and why messenger participation at the convention has reached lows not seen since World War II.Sandy