This past year has been rough in the SBC. There has been a lot of ugliness from varying sects within the convention and the collapse of the whole cooperative effort has been looming large in the minds of many. I went to the Baptist Identity Conference to hear from those I respect who remain optimistic about the future of our convention. Some of them spoke from from the stage, and others sat with Steve and I around the convention tables and in local restaurants. I came away from that gathering with some thoughts (few of which originated in my own mind) about staying in the SBC and seeing change.
1. Staying and going.
We have to recognize that staying in the SBC is not the only good option. Some people will choose to leave the SBC and work with other groups and that’s okay. The SBC is not the only way a church can cooperate with other churches, reach their communities and glorify God. A friend expressed it to me this way: “When someone asks me, ‘Why should I stay in the SBC?’ I tell them, ‘Maybe you shouldn’t.’” He does ultimately encourage them to stay connected and involved, but his point is that leaving is an option that a faithful Christian or church can take. This is important because so many place denominational commitment on par with faithfulness to Jesus Christ.
2. Change is in the wind.
One of the reasons we can encourage people to stay in the SBC, is because change is coming. Things will come to a head soon and force the issue of needed reformation. Things cannot continue as they are because there are too many younger men coming up in the SBC who completely trust in the Scripture to form their opinions about church, culture and cooperation. They are seeing many of the problems clearly, and even if solutions do not readily abound at this moment, answers are developing. Spend some time with students from our seminaries and colleges and see what I mean. They may not be as “traditional” as their parents, but it is often the case that they are even more radically committed to the principle of sola scriptura than those who have gone before them. When things come to a head some things in the convention may fall apart. When this happens reform will depend on the presence of gospel-centered, scripturally driven churches to support and strengthen what remains. This is a good reason to stay.
3. Evangelical cooperation.
Hope for our convention is dependent on dismantling denominational triumphalism. For a long time – from the beginning? – the SBC has behaved as if it is the best work of God in the world and does not need to work with other Christian bodies. Thankfully some in our leadership are now addressing this problem. To be more effective we must not only hold hands with other evangelical networks, we must learn from them.
4. Cooperation, conviction and independence
While I believe it is important to cooperate with one another for the cause of Jesus Christ, it is also critical that our individual churches are strong enough to do what they are convinced Scripture calls them to do without fear of what others in the convention may say. We must depend on God and his word enough, while remaining independent of our convention enough to do what God calls us to do with boldness. As I wrote earlier, we must be willing to lose credibility with some in order to be faithful to God and fruitful in our work. The threat of not being a trustee, or holding a position on some committee must not hold more weight than the faithful and radical practice of being the people of God.
5. Voice and risk.
If there is a future for our convention I believe it will come as our established leadership speaks out against the divisive and unbiblical rhetoric splashing all over our baptist papers and blogs. “We must choose our battles wisely” has become an excuse in many cases to say nothing when a controversy arises. All too often our brightest thinkers and practitioners are saying little and wind up leaving others standing alone; others who need the support of our leadership. Many pastors and professors are afraid that their credibility, or even their jobs, would be in jeopardy were they to speak out on certain issues. Others say that they represent too many other people, and therefore cannot afford to speak out on an issue that is bigger than their voice. But this is exactly the problem. It is precisely because I represent others at my church that I must speak the truth. It is because one is the president, or dean, or professor of an institution that he must address current issues from a biblical perspective and correct error. It’s something called influence and example. We do not have enough men like Tom Ascol and Ed Stetzer, who are willing to speak the truth in love, and stand on the word of God alone while working for the good of our convention. Men like this who are willing to address the current issues in our convention without politicking take a great risk, but are more likely to to bring about change because of it.
I do have hope for the future of the SBC, but only as we see these things lived out in greater measure.
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.
{ 11 comments }
“Some people will choose to leave the SBC and work with other groups and that’s okay”… yes start a new church founded on the bible alone! That’s an idea no one has had before
Seriously, when is leaving/cleaving ok? At what point do you say, “I know that the church should be One as Christ prayed but we must leave to form a more perfect fellowship/church.” ?
Was it OK for those in Israel during the time of faithless kings and prophets to say–”Goodbye, we are starting our own group who follows and worships God correctly.” ?
Peace out,
Matt
I think it’s personal. For me – it would be when the convention loses the gospel, becomes too narrow with the parameters of fellowship, or gets in the way of our church following God’s calling. For those paying attention: we aren’t far from any of these. But the CP allows our church to plug into international missions, good and affordable seminaries, and disaster relief – that’s good stuff. And it allows for a healthy variety of baptist churches who agree on the essential to work together – so far. I fear this could change.
Though I have heard that some had bad experiences with our missions agencies (planting a church for example), my experience was positive. In my case I told NAMB that the church I plant would be Reformed in theology, have a plurality of elders, engage the culture redemptively, etc. and I never found resistance. They were always supportive.
Joe:
You’re a bit more optimistic than me. I think we’ve probably reached a point of no return in our factions, which may not be such a bad thing, in the end.
You may be right, but I hope not. I do believe that unity around the gospel and mission is possible and worth working for.
Joe,
Great . . . and sobering words. When I read this, my mind immediately when to something Os Guinness wrote in a chapter entitled “The Price of Faithfulness” in Prophetic Untimeliness. He said:
If we define all that we are before our great Caller and live our lives before one audience–the Audience of One–then we cannot define or decide our own achievements and our own success. It is not for us to say what we have accomplished. It is not for us to pronounce ourselves successful. It is not for us to spell out what our legacy has been. Indeed, it is not even for us to know. Only the Caller can say. Only the Last Day will tell. Only the final “Well done” will show what we have really done” (93).
When I think of Athanasius against popular Arianism . . .
When I think of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms . . .
When I think about the Puritans on that dark day of The Great Ejection . . .
I think of men who put their reputation on the line, subjected all other loyalties, and ultimately staked their lives to the truths which had held their consciences captive.
Guiness concludes his chapter, saying,
God knew the times in which he called us to live, and he alone knows the outcome of our times as he knows the outcome of our lives and our work. Our “failures” may be his success. Our “setbacks” may prove his turning points. Our “disasters” may turn out to be his triumphs. What matters for us is that his gifts are our calling (94).
I wonder, just wonder if the Lord tarries, if generations to come will look back and say,
“When I think about Southern Baptists at the turn of the 21st century . . .”
Concerning your second point, “Change is in the wind.” Just don’t underestimate the power and influence of the “old” SBCers. Complete upheaval may happen, but the “SBC” might stay just as it is in the end minus a truckload of “younger” pastors.
Obvisouly things may not change. That’s kind of the point here; that I believe change can come, not that it will. That it needs to come, and am hopeful for it.
I would also say that many of the seasoned leaders in our convention are hopeful for change as well. I find many “older” leaders share my concerns and hopes.
Good words Joe. Of course we all know that things could fall apart, that things may not go well. I though agree with you in seeing real hopefulness for the future in the SBC.
Thanks Ray. Your words of encouragement were invaluable at the Baptist ID Conference.
I grew up in an SBC church, graduated an SBC seminary in 2005, and set out to plant a church. The SBC has had no involvement in this process. Change has “been in the wind” for a while, meanwhile the lack of “cooperation” between churches has been our greatest hurdle. So we started the church on our own and have since gotten connected to another network that is surpassing any expectation of cooperation.
So I ask myself, “What practical reason do I have to associate my church with the SBC? How would this benefit my congregation?” At what point do I cease hanging on for dear life, abandon ship, and start over?
Joe,
As a layman who was once on a church staff as minister of students, I have an idea. I’ve been trying to think how this would work. I think that the laity may know more or at least different information about the congregates in some cases than the leadership.
Right now we are going through several parts of the BFM2K in SS. This weekend I an teaching section XVII. Religious Liberty. In the last class I taught I touched on some of the current SBC issues and I will do so again. What I have discovered even more so than I suspected is just how theologically ignorant many people are. I don’t say that to demean anyone, but as an honest observation. So you imagine the big eyes when I mentioned missionaries, PPL and Jerry Rankin’s position and his being disqualified.
My point, the laity who give to the CP don’t know what’s going on out here. They need to be informed. They should be informed. And if they become informed and things go further towards the way Moran wants then so be it. At least the SBC would have been moved by the people themselves.
Make sense?
Mark
Comments on this entry are closed.