I claim to be a fairly disconnected Southern Baptist when it comes to things on the national level. I’ve been to two national conventions and one IMB-sponsored overseas trip. I’m also a graduate of an SBC Seminary and in college I utilized some of the pamphlets put out by the old Christian Life Commission. I guess that makes me marginally connected. The one thing that strengthens the ties of that connection is that I give, every month, to all of the various causes of the Southern Baptist Convention. Truth be told I don’t regret any of those things that have connected me to the Southern Baptist Convention and I’m not prepared to change my giving habits. In addition I feel an historical connection to so much of the SBC’s past. So maybe disconnected is the wrong word.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a budding Baptist Identity guy (for the one or two who might even know what that means). But by my actions I’m invested, and so I do have some kind of interest. In truth I can also say that I want Southern Baptists to be effective. I want us to be models for what it means to follow Christ and be His church. We have resources eclipsed only by the Roman Catholics in both numbers and money. There are things we do really well. [See there, I said it and I didn’t even add a |cough, cough!| ] No, I don’t keep up with what’s going on in the SBC like I used to and the other truth is that I’m not generally hopeful about our prospects for the future. We are seeing the signs of decline in so many areas and when I stick my finger in the air I don’t feel the wind direction changing much. It’s not that it can’t happen. Our prevailing northerly winds will soon shift to southerly winds here in Oklahoma as Spring arrives. But the SBC is a big ship, like aircraft carrier sized, and big ships are difficult to turn. Ecclesiological ships are often stubbornly driven by the inertia of their traditions. Inertia suggests that a significant force is going to have to come into play for a turn to begin.

But the GCRTF was appointed to serve as just that kind of force for the Southern Baptist Convention.

The initial report was given last week and you can find numerous places on the internet giving analyses of one sort or another. I’m too lazy to link to them. What many are wondering is, “What will the details look like?” The devil is always in the details, you know.

Today Al Mohler gave some details regarding the proposed NAMB reorganization. He writes that “Southern Baptists must make the adjustments that will focus our work in order to make maximum impact on [North America].” What adjustments does he believe we need? We need to replace the old Cooperative Agreements between NAMB and the state conventions with a new approach. If you don’t know what “Cooperative Agreements” are, don’t worry. Hardly anyone does. (Until I read Mohler’s article I didn’t. I have no idea what the Cooperative Agreement is between NAMB and the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and I serve on the BGCO Board of Directors. Honestly, until I read Mohler’s article I didn’t know there was such a thing. Ya’ learn something new every day).

So, to say they need to be replaced sort-of leaves me thinking, “so what?” If I don’t know what they are how can I know if the proposal is good or bad? I assume this task force has the best interest of the SBC in mind. At the same time I know that there is only a “token” representation from the non-mega-church demographic of our convention and that Mohler is, for all intents and purposes, a life-long denominational employee. I say that to say that I imagine the people serving on the task force view denominational life and church life in considerably different terms than I do as the pastor of a rather typical local Southern Baptist church.

However, Mohler is pretty clear regarding what should replace the old Cooperative Agreements and I can only say that whatever failures there may be with the Cooperative Agreements the proposed solution appears to be far worse than the current problem. For historical purposes it is probably important to note that the NAMB has been perfecting one colossal disaster after another for quite some time now and it has resulted in the firing of the two most recent Presidents of that entity. Confidence in NAMB does not run high except among those who have not paid much attention for the last decade or so. Confidence in NAMB is obviously not high among the members of the GCRTF. It is, perhaps, the biggest structural “problem” for our denomination to solve. Everyone knew there would be a significant recommendation about NAMB in the GCRTF report.

Rather than take Mohler’s suggestions point-by-point I just want to make one rather general, but I think quite significant, observation. The recommendations regarding NAMB most definitely have the SBC acting like a denomination, not a convention of churches. The reason I was taught that the SBC is a convention of churches is because Baptists have long held that the local church is the center of church life. Whatever denominational entities there are exist only in service to the local church. Denominational entities do not exist to do the work of the local church, but to assist the local church in her work. This is a Baptist principle that is as old as Baptists themselves and was so firmly believed by many early Southern Baptists that it led some to oppose denominational entities altogether as an intrusion into the work the Scriptures only give to the local church. Yes, even the Foreign Missions Board was opposed by some on these grounds. That’s not to say they were right in doing so, but it does illustrate how strongly Baptists have believed in the work of the local church from the very beginning.

And that’s what is totally absent from this proposal. The local church. The local church is not called upon to plant new churches. NAMB will do that. Local churches in New York will not determine how best to plant a new church or evangelize New Yorkers. Someone at NAMB will. Strategies will not be locally based but will be organizationally based out of the offices of Alpharetta, Georgia. It is not the local church that needs to be liberated to do its work, it is NAMB that needs to be liberated to create a comprehensive plan for new works in North America.

We may contend that we are a “convention of churches,” but this proposal is nothing more than full-fledged denominationalism. If implemented, would it work? I don’t know. I just know that Southern Baptist’s strength has historically resided in the local church and I know that this proposal moves us away from our strength. I also agree with the many voices who say that if the Southern Baptist Convention is going to have a true Great Commission Resurgence it will have to come firmly at the level of the local church. This proposal has nothing to do with the local church and by extension, I believe, will have little if any positive impact on a Great Commission Resurgence among us.

Individuals are no different.

I was recently told that it is hard to believe that one who causes a problem could also be the one to solve it. How perceptive that is.

The truth of the matter is that it is very seldom the one who causes a problem who solves it. Forgiveness almost always comes not when the offender does something but when the offended does something. That is the gospel. I am the offender (and so are you). We’ve offended God. Repeatedly. Unashamedly. Consistently. Yet it wasn’t God (the offended) who came to me (the offender) and demanded that I fix it. Truth is he knew I couldn’t fix it. Instead the offended one reached out to the offender and fixed the problem himself. Through forgiveness. That’s the beauty of forgiveness.

Now, God tells us to go and do likewise. My obligation toward the one who has offended me is not to require him to fix the situation. My obligation now, as the offended, is to offer forgiveness and reconciliation to the offender. This is what God has done for me. This is what God calls me to do for others.

If I fail, or refuse, then I’m pretty sure I’m not going to like the consequences. It doesn’t simply mean that I’m a Christian who isn’t willing or able to do what I should. Jesus said that I will be forgiven (or not forgiven) on the basis that I offer forgiveness. Jesus told a lengthy parable about that in Matthew 18:21-35 where he concludes, “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” I forgive because I want to be forgiven. But apparently Jesus tells me I can’t have it both ways – refusing forgiveness toward another while receiving forgiveness from God. If I can’t give forgiveness then I can’t have forgiveness. Don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t make that up. I’m just passing along what Jesus told us. It is one of those uncomfortable truths. Uncomfortable because forgiveness is hard. Uncomfortable because forgiveness is necessary.

May God grant us all the grace to do the hard, but necessary thing.

Stand By Me from Mike Yates on Vimeo.

According to estimates by the Alban Institute in Washington, D.C., at least 17 percent of clergy suffer from stress or burnout.

 

“The Charlotte Observer” reported about 1,400 ministers a year call a toll-free hot line of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which counsels ministers through its LeaderCare program.

 

LeaderCare estimates that nearly 100 SBC pastors leave their ministry every month.

 

Sunscape Ministries of Colorado, which serves clergy in crises, reported that in all denominations nationwide, 1,600 ministers per month are terminated or forced to resign their pulpit.

 

Statistics provided by The Fuller Institute, George Barna, and Pastoral Care Inc.:

 

50% of Pastors have considered leaving the ministry in the last months.

 

80% of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.

 

85% of pastors said their greatest problem is they are sick and tired of dealing with problem people, such as disgruntled elders, deacons, worship leaders, worship teams, board members, and associate pastors.

 

90% said the hardest thing about ministry is dealing with uncooperative people.

 

1 out of every 10 ministers will actually retire as a minister in some form.

Rather than editorialize on those numbers I’ll just leave them out there for you to make of them what you wish.

First, I want to point you to this update from J.D. Greear.  J.D. is a pastor in North Carolina who has been asked to serve on our national convention’s Great Commission Resurgence Task Force.  This is a task force that was appointed by Southern Baptist Convention President Johnny Hunt to examine how the SBC can be more effective in our obedience to the Great Commission.  Baptisms in the denomination are down, giving to our International Missions Board is down.  How can we reverse those trends?  This task force has been asked to meet and make recommendations.  J.D. has written a good piece on his own blog giving his perspective as a young pastor in the convention.  J.D. writes:

One of the keys for a Great Commission Resurgence, I believe, is for the Southern Baptist Convention to restore the initiative in ministry to the local church. The local church is the primary institution of the New Testament. Jesus established it right after giving the great commission (Acts 2:42–47), intending for it to be His vehicle in accomplishing that commission.

Parachurch ministries (and, denominations and networks) exist to facilitate the ministry of the local church. Denominations are not biblical institutions. That is not to say they are unbiblical institutions… denominational networks are simply functional tools that churches can use to accomplish the mission given to them (as, after all, Christians have historically found they can accomplish more cooperating together than they can acting independently).

Good parachurch ministries FACILITATE the ministry of the church. BAD parachurch takes ministry from a local church and does it for her. Bad parachurch says, “Give us money and people and we’ll do ministry for you.”

All true and all needful if the church has any hope of increasing in effectiveness in the days ahead.

I also want to point you to a new blog that I’m participating in with some friends in ministry.  Actually I’m just the satire guy.  But the overall focus will be to discuss how the church can be more missional.  We’ve begun by asking the question: “If we were the GCR Task Force how would we approach our assigned task?”  We don’t presume to have all the answers, but as committed Southern Baptist pastors we’re thinking out loud about how we would approach the task.  Check it out and leave your feedback.

Second, I want to make a request.  It is for my son’s football coach Bill.  I’m not sure how old he is, though he has a son in the third grade and I’m going to guess he’s a little younger than I am.  He’s going to the cardiologist tomorrow because he’s been having some chest pains.  Would you pray for him?  I don’t know him very well yet, but he’s a good coach with a good philosophy (”We’re not going to yell at the kids, we’re not going to belittle them and their grades are going to count out here, even though they don’t have to.”)

I think there are two sources of competition for Jesus being the center in the modern American church. One of those sources of competition shouldn’t be competition at all because it actually points back to Jesus everywhere. The other source of competition is killing the church while we sit by and sing My Jesus I Love Thee.

The first source of competition that has been used to edge Jesus from the center is the Apostle Paul. Now, that probably sounds strange because Paul constantly points to Jesus. Paul argues ferociously that he is nothing, but Christ is all and is in all. Move Jesus to the edge and Paul would have a fit. Who is Paul? Who is Peter? Who is Apollos? Servants. But Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Nevertheless, there are some in the church who live and die with Paul.  Don’t get me wrong.  We don’t want to do without Paul.  It isn’t Paul or the Gospels, Paul or John, Paul or Peter.  It’s Paul and the Gospels, and John and Peter and the rest.  But any theology that discounts the Gospels, whether it discounts them out of a theological bias or for some other purpose, misses the foundational message of the very Subject of the New Testament.  Just because Jesus only used the word “church” twice hardly means that he is either irrelevant for or marginal to the church.  But Paul has been so emphasized in the modern church that Alan Frost and Michael Hirsch have felt the need to show us how to reJesus both the church and our own lives.  So we need to make sure that Paul doesn’t become theological competition to Jesus. [Incidentally, in terms of sheer volume - number of words - Luke is the greatest contributor to the New Testament, not Paul.]

The second source of competition is a more practical one, but most often a more subtle and at the same time nefarious one.  You.  Me.  The self.  Many in the modern church violate the First Commandment as a way of life.  Just not with wood carvings or hewn stones.  We deify ourselves.  Not in a formal way.  We don’t get a prayer rug and bow down and pray to ourselves or anything silly like that.  We simply give more preference to ourselves than we do to Jesus.  He tells us to love one another and we go on dispising our brothers and sisters anyway.  He tells us to seek reconciliation by talking to one another and instead we spend all our time talking about one another - even refusing to talk to one another.  He tells us to make disciples of all nations and we find more reasons to stay home.  At church last night one of our ladies told me that her daughter’s new pastor was facing heavy criticism at his church.  When they brought him in a few years ago they asked him to help them make needed changes.  So when he dimmed the lights in the worship service so that people would focus more on what was being said than looking around and being distracted by other things the people jumpped all over him.  We justify these kinds of actions in a hundred different ways, but in the end it’s all the same - we give preference to ourselves over Jesus.

Christianity is inherently Jesus-centered.  It gives preference to him in all things - theology and behavior in particular.  When it doesn’t then it becomes something other than Christianity.  It becomes Paulianity (in more ways than one).  When the church recognizes Jesus in his rightful place she thrives.  When it doesn’t….well….you end up with what so many churches have right now.

Many of us do.

Therapy is usually a bunch of talking. I’ve never submitted myself to formal therapy with a professional, but I’ve seen the caricatures on TV. Patient lies on couch and talks. Doctor mumbles profundities like, “Mmmm hmmm,” and “I see,” and “how does that make you feel?” And then, of course, “That will be $75. See you next week.” So it seems that it’s mainly an avenue for people to get stuff off their chest. Verbalize their thoughts and feelings.

Why pay $75 when you can do the same thing with a blog for free?

There are some who don’t get blogging. They generally don’t get e-mail or Facebook or Twitter or amazon.com or how to use a remote either. I’m pretty sure my dad’s one of those people. I mean, I’ve had a blog for over six years and I doubt he’s ever read a single post. And that’s ok. [Hi, mom!]

But I need this therapy. I need to talk. I need to express myself. I’ve been in a self-imposed lock-down mode for nearly a year now, with an exception here and there. I think this is my eighth post this year (in eight months) not counting video links. I’m going to try to improve that to one a week. Then I’ll go from there. My vocation, no, my calling, is to communicate.

Stay tuned.

As I look at 2000 years of church history one thing I note is that the church has regularly been called back from a place of compromise, apathy and lethargy to a place of greater faithfulness and vibrancy.

The “Desert Fathers” were a group of (mainly) men in the first few centuries of the Christian church who watched as professing Christians began to increasingly compromise with the world around them. At times it was doctrinal compromise, but more often it was moral compromise. Now, for these folk “moral” compromise wasn’t what we in our day tend to think of. It wasn’t that professing Christians were practicing full-on orgies or even the occasional “indiscretion.” It was that too many of them gave in to the greed and affluence of their day. Believing that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God these Desert Fathers abandoned all of their worldly possessions and moved out of that world and into the deserts. Literally. They generally took the clothes on their backs and a tablet on which to write and little else. No razors. No combs. No toothbrushes. No wardrobe. No cell phones. No iPods. No sentimental photo albums. Just themselves. It was a protest against the avarice of so many church people in their day. Yes, they were radicals. But this one thing is for sure: they did not give in to the greed and covetousness of their day and they lived lives that honored Jesus. They were even reluctantly evangelistic. I say reluctantly because many of them didn’t much care for contact with other humans, but they just couldn’t keep the curiosity-seekers from coming out to them asking them about the hope that was in them.

Nearly all of the church’s monastic orders grew out of reform movements. The Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the Augustinians, the Cistercians. These groups developed over the course of centuries responding in their days to the corruption and sin in the church around them.  They were often like the Desert Fathers except that they didn’t move to the desert and settled for a “simple life” rather than an entirely separate life. But in each case the concern that brought them into being was corruption in the Christianity of their day. Like the Desert Fathers they were often protesting avarice. In other cases they saw the church full of pride, nepotism, and simony.  They saw priests, bishops and popes who  shamelessly and publicly fathered children in violation of their vows.  By the time of the Protestant Reformation many people wondered out loud if the highest church officials were even Christians.

While a good number of historical reform movements in the church sought to bring the church back to faithful doctrine as many sought to bring the church back to faithful living.  Some were a combination of the two.

The church in every age faces its own challenges to its measure of faithfulness.  There are a number of movements even in our own day that seek to find an authentic faith combined with an authentic life.  It is why some turn to the emergent movement or others similar to it.  It is because people in our day continue to look around at the prevailing Christian church and see greed, an infatuation with money and the things money can buy, with covetousness, with rampant conflict - anger, bitterness, the works of the flesh, and other characteristics that seem very far from the sort of life Jesus lived and calls us to imitate.

Reform movements have almost always been unpopular with the “established” church.  We don’t like our traditions threatened.  But many can’t help but ask the questions.  I mean, seriously, looking at the lives of many who populate the church today I think there are a lot of people who are walking away saying, “If that is what your Christianity looks like then I don’t want any part of your Christianity.”  For those who cannot give up on the church as Christ’s bride many simply conclude that they would prefer a Christianity that looks like Jesus even if people on the internet think they are heretics rather than one that is firmly rooted in long traditions but that looks very little like Jesus in day-to-day life.

I suspect that as long as the church remains in the world there will be reform movements calling her to greater faithfulness.  I’d have to agree with the Protestant Reformers who believed that that was a good thing.  Not perfect.  But good.  Semper Reformanda.  Always Reforming.