SBC Calvinism New Statement

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby William Thornton » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:08 pm

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.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12050
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Sandy's analysis

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:15 pm

Sandy, add to your reading on NE SBC UMC Bishop Willimon's book The Bishop on his stay in Bama. He is trying to jump a shark similar to yours.

In regard BDW and TBonney's slant on these matters, the Pressler and Patterson SBC has too much in common with the tribalism Diarmaid McCulloch discusses few years post the Nicene Creed in his magisterial Christianity. And again Giberson and Stephens for me are spot on about tribalism in the parallel universe of Bryant Wright's brand of SBC, if Shorter is example of its inadequacies and I am convinced Wright for all his charisma as a latter day Daddy Ed Young can't avoid it forever.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9147
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Gene Scarborough » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:23 pm

As we think of numbers and influence, I am thinking of Jesus' comparison of his true followers with leven. He pointed out how a small amount allows the entire loaf to rise.

Jesus was not leading a mega group with grand facilities and a steady location. He was an itenerate wanderer with 12 basic followers and others who came out of curiosity over a new rabbi with a different message.

When Christ and culture interact, too often culture turns the Sunday gatherings into a social hour not taking too seriously those not coming and feeling not welcome for lack of proper clothes and vehicles.

In a small SC town whre I pastored was a story of the owner of an auto dealership who was in the Baptist Church. He was experiencing a decline in business and called everyone in on Monday. He asked for a show of hands of how many were in church Sunday. He then said he expected everybody to be in some church the next Sunday and everyone to join somewhere within the month.

It was good for business!!!
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:30 pm

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.


That is a bizarre way to set mission priorities. "Population per capita per SBC Congregation" ?? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to target "unchurched population to SBC congregation" ? Sure Iowa is one of those red states on Ezell's map with just a few SBC congregations. But there are thousands of Methodists, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics in Iowa. Church attendance in Iowa by population is 15th in the nation. But, because we don't have as many SBC churches by population we'd be a target for "pioneer mission work?"

Sorry folks but that sounds like promoting the franchise rather than promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ where it is most needed. How about going to where there are few churches rather than just few SBC churches?
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby David Flick » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:44 pm

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.

Great comment, Aaron...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby William Thornton » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:32 am

Timothy, I'm going to email NAMB and tell them that we already have an ex-Baptist missionary to the Methodists in Iowa.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12050
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:35 am

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. :wink:

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?
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:07 am

Oh, I just noticed this one. Puerto Rico is listed as a priority (in red) yet it has a 52% attendance figure tying with Georgia and Tennessee. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_c ... attendance The attendance just isn't Southern Baptist. So it has to be a priority. :brick:
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Gene Scarborough » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:58 am

I suspect that if SBC churches stopped fussing and fighting so much, the attendance would grow right where they are!

I am in a rather strange part of NC where the Church of Christ is as plenteous as Baptists are elsewhere. The reason is that they have a school at Elizabeth City and this is where a lot of graduates are available to pastor. The closest Baptist churches of our kind are in Washington (16 miles) and Belhaven (18 miles). I had someone comment to me the we should start one in Bath.

Now here is the reality: It is a small town. It has the oldest Episcopal church in the state / large Church of Christ (pastored by a SEBTS grad) / UMC / new charismatic non-denominational / another non-denominational charismatic. That seems to be enough churches with enough variety to meet needs here.

What is the point in starting another church which has Baptist on its sign?
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:13 am

Ed; Gene when you write "The closest Baptist churches of our kind are in Washington (16 miles) and Belhaven (18 miles)."

It seems to imply that there are Baptist of another kind in the town of Bath, if so what kind are they and what are Baptist of your kind?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:33 am

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 I would agree that fighting impedes growth. But I think it has to be more than that. It is a big enough barrier when a young person walks in a church and only sees gray hair. But if that young person also discovers that she/he isn't allowed to be involved in the decision making process of the church (even after joining and getting involved) and that the church is stuck in its way of thinking and won't move forward, a younger Christian will just drop out rather than fight it.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Gene Scarborough » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:14 am

Ed---I am speaking of SBC/CBF educated clergy regular type Baptists. The only other Baptists down this way are a few Primative Baptist churches. I have a comfort zone and want to be edified when I go to church. I failed to mention the FBC of New Bern which is on TV with their formal service each Sunday. That is my worship each week.

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.

My first pastorate with 2 small children was so frustrating to my wife. We had a great youth group, but the nursery was not even heated and she was "expected" to be there Sunday nights. My poor wife just sat alone with our children who would rather be at their home. You could tell there would be trouble is we bucked the system and said, "When other young families come, we will too."
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:23 am

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.


I don't think all of those churches are trying to be "glorified social clubs" I think they are just stuck in the current way of doing things and don't realize that it doesn't work any more because it works for the people who are already there.

As one pastor said to me, "If the 1950s ever come back my church is ready!"
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Gene Scarborough » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:29 am

Our contemporary ancestors, indeed LIVE!!!! :oops:
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:38 am

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. :wink:

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?


My observation of this is anecdotal. I grew up in Arizona, which is not an area where Southern Baptists meshed with the culture, but is a place where their mission efforts moved them from one church and a handful of transplanted Southerners in 1925 to being the state's third largest religious group today, though Arizona is one of the least "churched" states in the country, and Southern Baptists are at about 500 churches and 140,000 members there. But what I found there is pretty much what I've observed here in Pennsylvania as well. The "other" churches seem to be more than content to sit and wait for people to come through the door rather than go out and work the field. There are large areas of the Phoenix metro area where literally tens of thousands of homes have been built and occupied in the last decade or so, but no churches for miles. Here and there, a Catholic church or a Mormon wardhouse springs up, but other than the Southern Baptists and Conservative Baptists, it doesn't appear anyone else is really putting in an effort. The state convention, along with NAMB, bought dozens of ten acre plots in areas where subdivisions had been mapped out but were still open desert back in the 70's and 80's and churches have been planted in some of those.

Likewise, here in the Pittsburgh area, in the city itself, churches of any kind except Catholic are few and far between, and even the Catholic churches are mostly empty shells. There's probably not one Catholic in 50 here that is involved in their parish, and they're certainly not going after people. The Protestant churches in the city neighborhoods are small groups of grayheads, or they've disbanded or moved to the burbs. Some of the Southern Baptist church plants here have discovered that a lot of people who are Catholic because they were sprinkled as an infant are responsive to the gospel and to the church. There are some booming new works here, especially ethnic and language works among Hispanics, Russians and Ukrainians. Even out here in the burbs, the booming congregations are non-denominational or Charismatic. We live in a suburban township north of the city with a population of over 30,000, that is way "underchurched."

But even in the South, the numbers aren't all that impressive. At a NAMB conference several years ago, the speaker took his own suburban Atlanta neighborhood, surveyed about 150 of the houses in the subdivision, and discovered that only a dozen families who lived there attended church anywhere. So I'm thinking you can set a congregation down just about anywhere and find an immediate need.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8802
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby johnfariss » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:50 am

Tim,

That strategy is not new with the SBC or what is now NAMB. My best friend from seminary took a position as a church planter with them, I think when it was still the Home Mission Board. Since he was from Maryland and his wife from Pennsylvania, they sent him to some little town in western Pennsylvania where he was told, "there is no evangelical witness." He got there and found not only a Catholic church but plenty of ABC, Methodist, Presbyterian, Brethren, and various other churchs, maybe some Menonites too. The population was heavily churched--just not churched with SBC churches, so they considered it to have "no evangelical witness." After a few months of butting his head against various walls, he resigned; and since he had been "unsuccessful" at starting a Southern Baptist church there, had he not resigned, he thinks they would have terminated him. After all, it's all about numbers--isn't it?

John
johnfariss
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:58 pm

Ed: John some of our folk in the Baptist Fellowship of the Northeast have had similar experience. And of course BFNE includes Pennsylvania and NY in addition to the New England states that is why the NE stands for Northeast rather than New England.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Gene Scarborough » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:05 pm

John & Ed---

You are reflecting exactly what I saw as I participated in the 80's in the Partnership Evangelism trip to Binghamton, NY.

The area was hardly what I would call "unchurched." Plus, we were viewed as a cult rather than a regular religious group!
Gene Scarborough
Gene Scarborough
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Bath, NC

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:23 pm

Sandy wrote: So I'm thinking you can set a congregation down just about anywhere and find an immediate need.


I agree Sandy. I think you can do that. Given that 53% attendance is considered high that leaves 47% not going anywhere even in North Carolina. What surprised me was the way NAMB is setting the priority. It isn't a priority based on the area with the least church attendance, you'd think the most potential for growth. It is setting priorities where there are the least SBC churches no matter how many other churches are in that area. It seem less than optimal.

I also agree with you that many churches of all stripes aren't doing their best at outreach. I'd say that is true for all established churches including established SBC churches. New churches almost always grow faster.

As to the SBC starting new churches way up north, good luck, it won't be easy! If the SBC does, don't send southern transplant pastors to do it! Find some yankees who speak the lingo and will fit in because southern culture isn't viewed as positively up here as it is in the heart of SBC land. If Iowans aren't telling jokes about Minnesotans they are telling jokes about Missourians believing that Missouri is deep in hillbilly country and that Jed Clampet comes from not much further south than St. Louis. (That's painful for a cosmopolitan Missouri native like me! :wink: )

The only Baptist church I know of in Cedar Falls is Baptist General Conference (originally swedish Baptists) and they don't have Baptist in their name. You have to dig several layers into their web page to even find out they are Baptists. This just isn't any easy place to plant anything that has "Southern" as the first word in its title.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5940
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: SBC Calvinism New Statement

Postby William Thornton » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:49 pm

I'm thinking some of you guys need to start a new topic. It might receive more attention.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12050
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Previous

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest