Moderator: William Thornton
William Thornton wrote:Sandy, check the map on this link: http://www.namb.net/Ezellnambblog.aspx?id=8590121186&blogid=8590116761
You notice that NM is a top tier state by this ratio, AZ middle tier.
NM is actually stronger by that measurement than I would have thought. The deal was, as if anyone is surprised, some states got special treatment and some were ignored. So, you have an arrangement that puts dozens of NAMB funded positions in some low population states and zero in some high population states.
Big Daddy Weaver wrote:The "consensus accord" is a waste of time. Maybe it serves to calm the storm for a brief moment. But long-term, it's not really a solution.
The major argument put forth by these "Traditional Southern Baptists" is that - playing off of Bill Leonard's Grand Compromise thesis - there's been an unspoken agreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The agreement is essentially that Calvinists know their place and don't step out of line.
Well, Calvinism is on the rise, Calvinist leaders are increasingly influential and hold prestigious positions in the denomination. And now, these traditionalists are ticked off and complaining.
I sympathize with the Calvinists because these "Traditionalists" are really coming across as arrogant youknowwhats
All that said, isn't this just fundamentalism at its finest? Doctrinal purity is the cornerstone of fundamentalism. A public fight is how that purity is secured and defended. For the most part, these "Traditionalists" represent the Old Guard. They are the ones who instigated the "Conservative Resurgence." Now, their 40-55 year-old sons with their many myths and romanticized view of the 1980s are stepping up to do battle and defend the power and control that their elders secured.
Just further proof that - for these leaders - the past was about power and control and the present must be about maintaining power and control (although they are a little late to the scene here).
To a certain extent, this debate is a distraction. Fighting over Calvinism is just an excuse to fight, IMO. That's fundamentalism.
William Thornton wrote:Timothy, I'm going to email NAMB and tell them that we already have an ex-Baptist missionary to the Methodists in Iowa.
Gene Scarborough wrote:I suspect that if SBC churches stopped fussing and fighting so much, the attendance would grow right where they are!
What is the point in starting another church which has Baptist on its sign?
Gene Scarborough wrote:
Tim---I think you are describing the "glorified social club" type of church environment. When people start focusing so much on welcoming "their kind of people" it precludes church growth pretty fast. People quickly note whether their participation is really appreciated or not. I have pastored such churches and it is almot impossible to see church growth with that kind of attitude = but we have always done it that way.
Tim Bonney wrote:William Thornton wrote:Timothy, I'm going to email NAMB and tell them that we already have an ex-Baptist missionary to the Methodists in Iowa.
LOL, funny William. It reminds me of the story of Adonirum Judson (not that I'm in any way on Judson's level) who on the way to Burma converted from Congregationalist to Baptist. Baptists laud him as a hero. I wonder how the Congregationalists felt who had sent him out in the first place. We don't ever talk about that.
But back to NAMB. Doesn't the strategy seem off? I mean is the mission of the SBC simply to create more SBC churches or is it to reach people for Jesus Christ? Why plant a church in a highly churched area when there are many unchurched areas of the country? Why not plant based on areas with really low church participation rather than areas where church attendance already high, it just isn't SBC church attendance?
I realize that every state has plenty of people who don't go to church. So you could plant a church anywhere and possibly reach unchurch people. but We are talking about prioritizing church planting. According to this:
http://www.religionfacts.com/religion_s ... _state.htm
Iowa is a priority state yet its percentage of church attendance (46%) is the same as Missouri (46%) which isn't a priority because there are a lot more SBC church per capita in Missouri than in Iowa. Nebraska is listed as a second tier priority yet Nebraska has the 7th highest percentage of church attendance in the US at 53% It ties with North Carolina (53%). But North Carolina isn't a priority either.
See what I mean. This sounds more like McDonalds putting a restaurant right next to Burger King to compete for the franchise rather than prioritizing based on greatest need for churches.
The articles says "Red states—those with the highest need (emphasis mine) —are any with ratios higher than 1-to-20,000. That includes all of Canada, virtually all of the Northeast and some states in the Midwest and West."
I really question if every state needs a high percentage of a certain brand of church to reach people for Christ or if it is just the SBCs need that is really being talked about here.
I question it even more after hearing the stats that 90% of growing churches are growing by transfer growth. BTW, that stat which was quoted at my Annual Conference was from Lifeway, your denominations agency and not mine.
If all the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. are going to do is transfer members back and forth the faith in the US is doomed to keep shrinking. Do we each of us want to fight over a larger piece of a shrinking pie or do we want the pie to be bigger?
Sandy wrote: So I'm thinking you can set a congregation down just about anywhere and find an immediate need.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest