Jim Elliff is again pointing out one of our biggest problems in the SBC. Over 60% of our baptized members are unaccounted for on Sunday mornings. In other words, we boast 16 million members in our convention, but can only find 6 million. Is it bad ecclesiology? Yes. Is it faulty evangelism? Yep. Is it really filling our membership rolls with unregenerate men, women, boys and girls? Without a doubt. I can’t help but think our current President’s campaign to get 1 million baptized in a year will only make our problem worse. Maybe we should call it One Million More Wet and Wandering. Hmmm. I might make a bumper sticker. Anyway, check out Elliff’s article in BP. It stings, is true, and should motivate more dialogue which will hopefully lead to change.
Wet and Wandering
Previous post: The Mission of God
Next post: Who Said This?
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
elliff is a stud!!! he says things that i can only say in the shower. anyway, i completely understand what he’s saying. i church planted with the SBC in NY in 1997 and it was a constant battle over baptisms and numbers. couldn’t take anymore and seminary president (SBC seminary) told me to run; run real fast. lord bless you joe as you serve him.
Yeah, Elliff’s stuff is always good. Glad to see that you’re still planting/pastoring, even if not in the SBC. Our church was a plant through NAMB and our local association. Those reports are no fun, and often miss the point. But NAMB and others were very supportive of a church plant very different from everything else around here.
Looks like the BP article is a serious condensation of the full article on his website. Printed out some of the articles there and hope to introduce some of the concepts here, and that should prove interesting to say the least!
Before I continue(I haven’t even started), I must admit I’ve never been a Jim Elliff fan. I know he says more than this, but will the SBC suddenly be healthy if we purged our rolls of non-attenders? The altar calls of today are shadows of the manipulation of yesteryears. I think Finney would be appalled at the timid altar calls of today.As far as altar calls not being in the bible neither are church membership rolls. I also think that the “Arminian” revivals of the 19th century had more impact on morality and social justice efforts than the “first great awakening”. As far as numbers go, I think there is a bit of an obsession. i’m not sure what to think of it but W.A. Criswell points out that they did count converts on Pentecost. I think there were 3,000. Luke noted the numbers because they were large. I know it sounds like I’m defending the status quo(maybe I am), but I think Elliff’s diagnosis is off a bit. Sorry to vent Joe. These are old feelings being rekindled by this article. I know you will probably disagree with me, but you won’t mock me or call a dirty pelagian or something like that. Thanks for the listening ear
I feel better already.
Even though the numbers themselves most likely do not reflect the true health of a church they should at least reflect the average number of attendees. Otherwise, what is the point?
I have never been comfortable when people claim they “won” some number of souls. The term sounds so man-centered.
John Mark,
I wouldn’t call you a dirty Pelagian. You seem pretty clean to me.
His point is the discrepency in numbers reflects a problem (who would disagree with that?). The problem is most likely that our professing converts are not continuing in the church (faith?). I have to agree. Cleaning the rolls wont make us healthy, but it at least can begin to keep us honest. Health will come with good doctrine and practice on both the personal and congregational levels.
Counting numbers isn’t necessarilly bad, but obsession with them is.
What “Arminian” revivals are you referring to? Many of the revivials in the 19th century were carried on via reformed churches/pastors. One of my interests is reading primary source material and first person accounts of these events. I also think the social changes you are referring to are more dramatically seen in the 19th centuries because those revivals often took place in the larger metropolitian areas, versus the colonies during the G.A.
I agree that it would be more honest. No disagreement there. What I think is sometimes overstated is the threat of these non-attenders to the church. Somehow people who are never there are a threat to the purity of the church.? Didn’t Finney integrate his seminary/college? Were any reformed evangelists active in the abolition movement?(that’s a genuine ? not an accusation) Were the reformed involved in the camp meetings? What do you think of those who say The First Great Awakening is a fiction?
I’m more likely to defend someone that Ellif attacks than to agree with him. I think he fails to recognize the distance between this day and the bible days. I don’t really accept the sufficiency of scripture=map of how church is to be governed and run to the letter framework. (maybe I’ll put something about that on my blog)
JM,
Of course many Reformed churches and preachers were involved in the abolition of slavery. Just off the top of my head how about Samuel Sewall who wrote one of the early tracts against slavery, or John Newton?
I assume the camp-meetings you mention are of the second Great Awakening? Yes reformed pastors were instrumental in both the first GA and the second. One example from the second GA, a contemporary of Finney, would be Asahel Nettleton.
I have read some of those who argue against the traditional view of the GA, and found them lacking. That’s a whole seperate post. But I still have one volume in my library from this view by Frank Lambert. I’ve read it, and have major problems with it.
You keep alluding to Finney, a man whose systematic theology is heretical in my reading (denying substituionary atonement, justification by faith alone, original sin, etc), and I am curious as to him being a point of reference for you.
All of this aside, Elliff’s point is seems to be that we need to do a better job assessing people’s spiritual condition, counting converts, and operating as churches. You seem predisposed to disagree with him. I have no problem disagreeing with good men (Mohler, Elliff, etc.) or agreeing with men I have major problems with (McLaren, Hauerwas, etc.) when warranted. I just think it helps to stay on topic when trying to do so.
It’s not because I hate Ellif that I disagree with everything he says. It is the theological slant of everything he says. If he said church membership and rolls are a human invention that enables us to practice the biblical pattern of church discipline, therefore our rolls should contain only true members; then I would say you’re right. But he tries to set his vision as THE biblical model. Then he says other people are UNbiblical. Just admit that you are listening to scripture, tradition, and reason and I’ll be ok with it.
JM,
You said, “If he said church membership and rolls are a human invention that enables us to practice the biblical pattern of church discipline, therefore our rolls should contain only true members; then I would say you’re right.” I have had several conversations with Elliff and know his theology. This is precisely what he would say.
I tend to lump Elliff and Whitney into one, but I don’t think Whitney would agree with my statement. http://www.spiritualdisciplines.org/whyjoin.html
He tries to justify church membership and rolls according to the NT. Maybe Elliff is more nuanced than Whitney and I need to reevaluate.
I’ll try to stay on subject more. Elliff said “Such discipline for non-attendance is clearly found in the history of Baptists—but more importantly, in the Bible.” I’m open to be shown where, but I don’t recall anyone in the bible being disciplined for non-attendance. The discipline of the NT seems to be disassociation, a non-attender has disassociated himself.
Elliff also said “The dangerous practice of receiving new members immediately after they walk the aisle must finally be abandoned.” Pre-baptism counsel is not evident from the NT. Repent and be baptized. I also think the parable of the sower must be kept in mind. More seed fails than produces lasting fruit.
If discipline, Lord’s Supper, and involvement with the church are means of grace for growth of a believer, wouldn’t it make more sense to bring people into membership upon confession, so that they can be subject to the regular ministry of the church. Delay of acceptance into membership (if membership is that important) seems to be self defeating in promoting maturity.
Consistent, prolonged absence from God’s gathered people would qualify as forsaking the assembly. In such cases, after pastoral/leadership care and investigation is worked out without a response from the wandering member, discipline could be carried out in the form of membership suspension (or suspension of privelages) or termination.
The problem with your second point is that we have been doing the very thing you may be suggesting. People confess Jesus (at some level) and are baptized in our churches very quickly. But we never see them again. This is the fruit of a larger problem whose root is buried in the soil of bad doctrine.
What should we do? Jim makes some good suggestions in the article you quoted, though more could be said.