There’s Much to be Thankful For…

…and at the same time, remembering that there are a lot of people in my own city, state, and nation, as well as around the world, who are suffering. 

We have several families within our own church body who are unemployed, and several more whose jobs are ending in December.  After being somewhat insulated from the effects of the economic downturn, Texas is now experiencing increasing job loss and a number of people coming to the end of their unemployment benefits without a job in sight.  Having a job is something to be thankful for, and being able to help someone who doesn’t is an opportunity to be thankful for.

I spoke yesterday with a member of our church who lost his wife a year ago, and is now battling cancer himself.  He was in good spirits, happy to be home from a week long stay in the hospital, and looking forward to the holidays.  As always, he was concerned about what was going on at the church.  His energy level is low but his mind is focused on the well being of other people. 

Today, my wife and I are going to do our traditional thing at Thanksgiving.  Since before we were married, we’ve made the dinner buffet at the Galvez Hotel in Galveston our Thanksgiving table.  Living at some distance from family, as we do, we’re usually somewhere else on Thanksgiving, and so, in those years when we are hear, we’ve gone back to the place which was the scene of what was our first genuine date, by definition.  For the past two years, since Hurricane Ike devastated Galveston, it has taken on new meaning.  Two people for dinner isn’t much of a contribution, but it is combined with everyone else who shows up, quite a crowd on that particular day.

We have much to be thankful for.

The Church’s Neon Signs

In June of 2008, my wife and I were on our way to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Indianapolis.  We flew in and out of Chicago, since the air fares were better, it accomodated our schedule and we had a nice evening planned that included an overnight stay and a dinner of deep dish pizza.  The flight was delayed, and by the time we arrived in Chicago, it was well past dark.  Neon signs are part of the Chicago landscape, and businesses use them to attract attention from the throngs of people on the crowded sidewalks.  One sign that really drew my attention was in the shape of a cross, with the words “Jesus Saves” blazing across the middle.  In the middle of a busy block, this sign proclaimed the gospel in a nutshell to everyone that came by all night long. 

There are times when I have wondered whether our church has some kind of neon sign out front, either attracting people, or sending some other message.  I used the analogy in a recent Bible study to demonstrate the fact that, as a church, we do send messages to the community and they are sometimes caught, and acted upon, in the same way that a flashing neon sign might attract people to a business.  With that in mind, here are some of the neon signs we need to have out front.

1.  Mercy Triumphs Over Judgment

Isn’t that a message we want to communicate?  James 2:12-13 gives a pretty good explanation of the importance of the church communicating this concept.  Mercy comes through Jesus Christ, and that is the basic gospel message we preach.  Unfortunately, sometimes it gets lost in everything else we try to do, and our actions, as well as our words, do not always convey this message. 

2.  Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Everything else is negotiable.

Many times, this verse (Hebrews 13:8, without the second sentence!) is taken completely out of context to justify keeping some kind of program or method used by the church, something with which people are comfortable and familiar, when it probably needs to be evaluated for effectiveness and chucked out the door.  Jesus, indeed, is the same, and remains so.  But it is not a good thing to equate what we believe about Jesus with the way we do ministry.  Much of what we do in the church is culturally based, not scripturally based.  And while that does not reduce its effectiveness, sometimes time and culture do.  Our message must be presented in a way that people can understand, and will be able to follow without having to interpret the cultural trappings in which it is enclosed.

3.  No perfect people allowed inside. 

In Romans 7, the Apostle Paul confesses his own struggle with sin, and the difficulties that are faced when we try to reconcile our faith in Jesus, and what we know we need to do to live a life that is pleasing to him, and the struggle we have with the flesh and the pull that it has over our lives.  “I do not understand what I do,” says Paul, “For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do.”  The word reveals sin to us, and the Spirit brings conviction, but the flesh keeps trying to do its own thing.  And it’s not “the devil made me do it,” either.  It is a conscious choice that causes us great grief.  The message that the church needs to send is that everyone in community with each other should be transparent, so that we know we are all in the same spot.  Not only does misery love company, but in community with other Christians, overcoming the flesh seems to be less of a chore. 

4.  Everyone welcome. 

Ah, if only that were true.  We put it on all of our publicity, almost as if it is some kind of cliche.  But the fact of the matter is that not everyone is welcomed, or feels welcome, in the church.  In fact, if the truth were known, a lot of people are made to feel uncomfortable by a church environment that often is more of a reflection of our cultural biases than it is an open, welcoming community.

Colossians 3:11 points out some of the barriers that Christ came to eliminate, and for which bringing down was an ideal for the church.  We’ve excused bad behavior in this area by insisting that people like to be “with their own kind” when what we really mean is that we’re not comfortable with people who are not like us.  The Christian faith is a maturing process, something that we become over time, though redemption in Christ happens instantly.  But the fact of the matter is that we need to be as accepting of people who are among those that Paul calls “the weaker brothers” as much as we need to be accepting of people who have different cultural and racial backgrounds.  We are united in Christ, and no one should ever feel that there is a barrier between them and the doorway to the church. 

It’s time to turn on the neon signs.

Mercy Triumphs Over Judgment

“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.  Mercy triumphs over judgment.”  James 2:12-13

At some point, long ago, probably in Sunday School or VBS, I memorized that verse in the King James Version.  It’s a little easier to memorize, and to understand, in the modern English, but no easier to actually carry out. 

The context of these two verses comes from the words of James prior to making this statement, when he gives instruction to his readers about showing favoritism in the church, primarily toward those who give the appearance of having material wealth.  James quotes one of the ten commandments that Jesus also quoted in explaining this concept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Considering what Jesus said on the subject about the identity of “neighbor,” this passage becomes especially convicting with the reminder that if you break one of the commandments, you’ve broken them all.  This one in particular, while it might look relatively easy to obey on the surface, is actually one of the most difficult, especially when it requires the quality of mercy. 

“The quality of mercy,” says Shakespeare, ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest.” 

My favorite college football team (if you don’t like sports analogies, stop reading here), the Arizona Wildcats, have had some notable moments in their history, but they also seem to have more than their fair share of hard luck moments.  The Wildcats joined the Pac-10 conference in 1978, and now have the distinction of being the only football team in the conference never to have played in the Rose Bowl.  They’ve had several chances, but they’ve all turned the other way, usually the result of some quirky, out of the ordinary play that made the difference in the one game they needed to win.

Saturday, with the Wildcats poised to win a game that would have greatly increased the likelihood of their chances at a Rose Bowl berth, another one of those quirky plays occurred.  The Wildcats were in position to either score a touchdown, or put their kicker in place to kick a field goal that would have given them a one point win over the California Golden Bears.  The quarterback, Nick Foles, who has been the talent and one of the driving forces behind the six wins the Wildcats have put together this season, went back to throw.  The ball was tipped by a defender and came right back to Foles, who instinctively caught it, and then passed it to an open receiver down the field.  There’s just one problem with that.  It’s against the rules.  Foles knew it, but in the heat of a high pressure game, with his offense moving down the field to what appeared to be the game winning score, in less than ideal weather conditions, in the opponent’s home stadium, he acted on instinct.  Who can blame him for that?  But the referee still threw the flag, and the end result was that the Golden Bears won the game. 

That’s not a perfect analogy to illustrate this scripture passage, but I can think of a lot of times when I became needy of mercy because I acted on impulse, rather than following through with what I had previously committed to the Lord to do.  That’s not an excuse, because after making the commitment, I can’t plead ignorance of the rules, but the action still takes place. 

The point James is making has to do with the reception people receive from the church.  He’s encouraging us not to show any kind of favoritism.  The reception that everyone receives should be equal, and there are enough events that have taken place in our lives to remind us of our own need for mercy, that we should not judge someone based on their appearance.  Rather, the church should be a place where those who have received mercy should seek to help those who come in looking like they need it the most.  As I told a Sunday School class one time, its a spiritual neon sign that should be in front of the church flashing “everyone welcome” and “mercy this way.”  Once they’re inside, we can all let the Lord work on our rough edges together.

The Wildcats still have a shot at the Rose Bowl.  It won’t be an easy road, but they control their own destiny, they have three games left, and if they can win them all, they’re in.  They’ve got another chance. 

So do we.

Switching Conventions Part 3: Personal Implications

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.  Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time.  After that, have nothing to do with him.  You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self condemned.”  Titus 3:9-11

Before anyone has a chance to think otherwise, that’s a passage that I use to measure myself, and by which I judge myself, not anyone else. 

As I mentioned in the previous article, when we moved to Houston, I wasn’t particularly interested in finding a church, but my wife pushed that search, and we chose a church that was as different from the one we left in Kentucky as we could find.  It was a moderate Baptist church, but it was also a great place to heal from the bitterness that I was feeling, partly because there were a number of people attending there who had been through similar experiences and were in a similar situation, including some who had attended and graduated from seminary before making a career change and getting additional education. 

It was difficult to detect doctrinal and theological differences, especially on the local church level, and in the class and various groups where we landed.  There was a lot of sympathy for what we had been through, and a lot of understanding displayed of the situation as it existed, but in the sermons and Bible lessons, nothing surfaced that was anything close to what I expected.  Perhaps the biggest difference was the attitude exhibited about the role of women in ministry and service.  The church had women deacons, but that was more the result of their view of the diaconate as a servant body rather than one with any kind of governing authority.  It appeared to be sympathetic to the idea that women could be “ordained” ministers, but the only women on the church staff, right up to the time that we moved on, served in age group capacities.  Though it wouldn’t be couched in the same terms, I would have to say that a clear majority of the membership of that particular church believed in a practical, technical definition of inerrancy.

Old habits die hard, and so, after a short while, I participated in some of the extra-church activities related to the congregation’s denominational connections, primarily CBF general assemblies.  I volunteered to help during the Houston meeting, and attended several other gatherings.  I couldn’t participate in BGCT meetings at that time because of being employed in a Monday-Friday job, though I did attend the evangelism conference. 

But through those connections, and a genuine interest on my part to learn the “moderate” side of Baptist life, and express that part of my faith that desired some kind of denominational identity, I did discover some differences, and some similarities, between moderate Baptists and “fundamentalist” Baptists.  The events which shaped the decisions I’ve made over the last five or six years are too lengthy to discuss, but the outcome is both obvious and fairly simple. 

In terms of doctrine and theology, the most notable difference I observed is not so much in the language that is used to describe the Bible, but in the practical interpretation and application of it.  Conservatives and fundamentalists speak of “inerrancy” and “infallibility,” while moderates prefer terms like “sacred text” and “sacred stories.”  And I would argue that there are many self-described moderate Baptists who, in their interpretation and application of scripture, do not differ from conservatives or fundamentalists.  But there are some who do.  The most notable difference is the approach to the context.  Conservatives and fundamentalists interpret the scripture in its historical context, from a literal perspective, as it was received by the original audience, and apply it from that perspective.  Many moderates interpret the scripture in its historical context, but accept the influences of history and church tradition, as well as the current cultural perspective, and weight the application based on how it has been affected by those elements.  For example, because cultural roles for men and women have changed, the scripture can no longer accurately speak to their roles in either the family or the church.  Therefore, scripture which speaks about women being “submissive” to their husbands can be ignored, or re-interpreted.  And that’s precisely where I part company with some moderate Baptists.

There are also differences between the two groups in the way they handle people and issues within their denominational structures.  Both place a very high value on what I call the “Baptist pedigree,” that informal status accorded to some people in service because of who they are,, who they know, or how much money they flaunt.  On either side of the aisle, there is a complicated, informal structure of personal kingdoms which are constantly in conflict as they bump into each other and jockey for position.  Fundamentalists and conservatives prefer the sudden kick in the teeth, punch in the mouth approach to dealing with what they don’t like, or with those who “get out of line.”  Moderates are more polite, and they will smile while complimenting you to your face while they are inserting the knife in your back, twisting it, and then pulling it out as subtly as possible, but with the intent of creating the most pain and damage in the process.  I’ve now been on the receiving end of both of those approaches, from people of both persuasions.  What I have learned from it is that people will let you down, but God never will.

I’ve also learned that things are not always as they might appear.  The tolerance and acceptance of almost every other kind of Biblical interpretation or faith expression that is part of the image projected by most groups of moderate Baptists does not extend to those of the fundamentalist persuasion.  For me, that nullifies their whole image of tolerance and diversity.  The misconceptions and perceptions that they pass along about conservatives and fundamentalists are misleading and inaccurate, and fall in the same category of the things they accuse fundamentalists of being and doing. 

Another blogger, commenting about the fact that I would no longer be presenting motions to amend the bylaws at the BGCT meeting this year, stated that I would probably be more comfortable doctrinally in the SBTC.  I didn’t fail to notice the tone of both the article, or that particular statement.  As far as it goes, it is correct.  The tone, implying that when someone accepts what we have come to call a conservative approach to the Bible and its interpretation, they are no longer credible, from some ivory tower academic perspective, is as wrong as it could be.  I haven’t been travelling in a circle, I’ve just discovered that I grew right on top of my roots.

All I want to do now is serve God’s kingdom through his church, and live up to the expectations of the scripture verse I quoted at the beginning of this article.

Switching Conventions Part 2: Personal Implications

“Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.”  Psalm 146:3, NIV

The very first Baptist convention meeting I remember attending was the annual meeting of the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention in 1978.  It was meeting in the auditorium of the First Southern Baptist Church of Phoenix, right next door to Grand Canyon University, where I was a student.  The Wednesday evening session of the convention had been held at North Phoenix Baptist Church’s new 5,000 seat auditorium to accomodate the expected crowd for the 50th anniversary celebration of the convention.  No business was discussed, as the entire evening was built around the celebration.  The college students were not only invited to attend, but transportation was provided to get them there.  Dr. W.A. Criswell delivered the annual sermon. 

The next day, Bible professors managed to get permission for students to skip their regular classes and attend the closing session of the convention in order to hear Dr. Criswell speak again.  That was the first time I experienced the business end of a convention as motions made the first day of the convention were discussed and voted on.  I don’t really remember the motions, but I do recall there was a lot of discussion, and, unlike church business meetings, there was a lot of dissent and disagreement.  In class the next day, Dr. J.P. Dane, a  professor who came to the university with years of pastoral experience, explained the importance of the state convention and its entities, and why potential pastors, church staff and missionaries should be interested in what was done there, in spite of the fact that it may appear mundane or boring. 

That more or less stuck with me, and as a result, within a couple of weeks of graduation, I found myself serving as a youth pastor near Houston, and as a messenger to the 1979 SBC.  The pastor under whose leadership I served had started an independent Baptist church in the Dallas area which he pastored for 25 years.  He left it when it would not relocate under his direction, and while earning his doctorate at Southwestern, served on the staff at First Baptist Dallas.  I had an interesting perspective on the ‘79 SBC meeting. 

I didn’t encounter “the controversy” again until I was a student at Southwestern Seminary in 1987.  By that time, I had more or less developed the opinion that it was all more about who ran the show than it was about theological differences.  From the influence of many fellow students, I developed a determination to “stay above the fray” when departing the campus into the ministry world, and believed that was possible.  During my last semester there, the first stormy trustee meeting occurred when rumors began to fly about the impending firing of Dr. Russell Dilday.  The end result of the meeting was a mutual agreement on the part of both parties which appeared to extinguish the flames, and which served to convince me that, perhaps, the great controversy was over, and we would all just get along together. 

It was while I was a still a student that I served part-time in a church where I got a brief taste of what it was like to cross someone who held the reins of power in a local church, and to learn, unfortunately, what everyone who serves vocationally in a church eventually discovers.  I learned that having an opinion, even one you think is soundly based in scripture, can be a problem if it doesn’t line up with self-appointed church royalty, and that if the pastor has been there a while, and has his own set of difficulties to worry about, he’s not going to support you.  It was a conservative church, one where, at least doctrinally and theologically, I felt comfortable.  However, when you go through a rough resignation process, and a church leader tells you you’re one of those “seminary liberals,” it has an effect. 

It was not until I served my second church after graduating from Southwestern that I really took things to heart and began to investigate exactly what it meant to be a moderate Baptist.  I had been at a conservative church in a small town in Missouri where events from the SBC might as well have been taking place on the moon.  Moving to a larger congregation in a larger town in Kentucky seemed to be the right thing to do at the time.  Still relatively new at the process of working with a search committee, I didn’t ask all the right questions, and stepped into a hornet’s nest.  It was a church with two layers of entrenched leadership, some of which had come from a split in a nearby independent Baptist church, and for me, it was a revelation.  I learned that church members can be mean spirited, controlling, bitter, angry, full of hate for each other, manipulative, and claim to follow the Bible on one hand, while basically ignoring it to do as they pleased on the other.  The pastor, having served there for about four years with all of that going on, was burned out, and had more or less gone into his office and closed the door, vowing not to rock the boat until he could get his youngest daughter through high school without having to move her.  I stayed about two and a half years before events began to unfold that convinced my wife and I we needed to skedaddle. 

Leaving, or being dismissed from, a church with no place to go is an experience that has a deep impact.  Those who have experienced it know what I am talking about.  I was blessed to have a job, though it meant a large cut in pay, having to spend savings on moving expenses, and leaving what I felt I was called by God to do.  When we arrived in Houston, I wasn’t really interested in being part of a church, but my wife insisted, so I insisted that we find one that was as much an opposite of the one we left as we could find.  We landed in a moderate Baptist church that had already worked through its issues with the SBC and had come out on the other side apparently unscathed and moving ahead. 

Bitterness is difficult to deal with, and I was bitter.  I had trusted people who claimed to follow scripture, and believe in it as literally as possible, and they had demonstrated a contempt for that belief by their own actions.  They were totally blind to what they were doing.  Basically, while claiming that they followed scripture, they followed their own experience, and then found scripture, taken out of context, to support it.  They were always right in their own mind, and had a set of inflamatory names to call anyone who disagreed with them.  They were, by definition, the fundamentalists.

More later.

Switching Conventions Part 1: The Church’s Decision

The comments left on posts related to our church’s recent decision to switch affiliation from the Baptist General Convention of Texas to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, as well as a few emails to me personally, have prompted me to make this particular post.  Denominational loyalty runs deep among Southern Baptists, down to the associational level.  Most church members couldn’t explain the cooperative relationship between churches and denominational entities and conventions, but many of them would speak up at the thought of making a change. 

The “Conservative Resurgence” in the SBC, in spite of the depth and intensity of the various controversies surrounding it, has produced very little movement among Southern Baptist churches across the denominational spectrum, in spite of what appeared to be close to a 50-50 split among messengers attending the stormy convention meetings during its first 10 years, from 1979 into the late 1980’s.  However, when the “moderates” began considering some kind of separation, or at least, development of denominational structures they could control, which would express their particular theological perspective, few churches followed along.  Formation of both the Alliance of Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as alternative, moderate-controlled groups attracted few churches.  The Alliance numbers about 100 affiliates, represents those churches furthest to the left of center in Baptist life, but includes some ABC-USA congregations as well.  It  consists of churches which, with few exceptions, have completely severed ties with the SBC.  Among the 1,700 or so churches which provide financial assistance through CBF, “partner churches” as they are called, only about 100 have completely severed ties with the SBC, the rest providing a level of support to the Cooperative Program, in most cases, to a greater extent than they do to CBF. 

On the other hand, in the two state conventions whose leadership resisted conservative control of the SBC and attempted to assert their independence, a significant number of churches have switched over to newly formed, conservative state convention bodies.  In Virginia, over 500 churches left the moderate controlled BGAV to form the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia (SBCV), about a third of the total, and churches continue to switch their affiliation on a regular basis.  In Texas, over 2,000 Baptist churches once affiliated with the BGCT have switched, again, over a third of the total.  Each one is a story in and of itself.  This is ours.

The church’s relationship with the various levels of denominational cooperation has ebbed and flowed throughout its history depending on the direction its leadership has gone.  During the first forty years of its history, as the church grew numerically because of the growth of the surrounding neighborhood, most of those who came here were familiar with the Southern Baptist identity, and supported the church’s relationship with all levels related to that.  As the first generation of families began to age, the kids moved away, and the congregation declined and aged, that identity became even stronger.  The first pastor to serve during a period of numerical decline that began thirty years ago was an SBC loyalist who eventually retired from a position as an editor in the literature publishing division of Lifeway.  The second pastor to serve during that period did not have strong denominational leanings, and attempted to build a more independent approach to ministry.  Many of those who joined the church, either by baptism or through transfer, during the past seventeen years have come from non-Baptist backgrounds, and there has not been a strong effort to educate them in denominational loyalty. 

The issue of state convention affiliation didn’t really touch this church until it became pastorless in June of 2008.  As various candidates were interviewed by the search team, a growing realization developed that the church would have to make some kind of a decision regarding the direction it would go or it might find the process of calling a pastor to be somewhat more difficult than anticipated.  The result was the appointment of a committee to study the issue from all sides of it, including the background of the 1979 Conservative Resurgence, and make a decision based on a consensus of the members of the church. 

The issue that came to the surface at the very beginning, and remained there through the entire process was the relationship of the state convention to the Southern Baptist Convention.  Our church has close, personal connections to individuals who are directly involved with the International Mission Board, including a family serving with them in East Asia, and a family training to be appointed to South America.  In addition to that, there are relationships to individuals who work directly with the North American Mission Board.  Several years ago, when the BGCT began cutting the percentage of Cooperative Program funding it forwarded to SBC causes, this church opted to designate 66% of its CP giving to the SBC, and last year, we increased that to 75%.  The fact that the SBTC sees itself as a supporter of, and full partner with the SBC carried a lot of weight with our congregation.  The position taken by the BGCT was seen not only as a means of expressing disapproval of the SBC’s choice of leadership, but the partnership that was developed with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the development of “stand alone” ministry and missions programs within the BGCT itself were both seen as being in competition with the SBC for the missions support of Texas Baptists. 

The doctrinal and theological differences between the church and the BGCT were noted, and the church does very clearly lean heavily in the direction of the BFM 2000.  Reading some of the language from articles in the Baptist Standard, some of the committee members came away with the perception that the BGCT’s leadership is actually hostile to the BFM 2000, from both a denominational-political and doctrinal perspective.  This church, and the committee that was selected to make this particular decision, would hold to the principle that scripture is not evaluated or interpreted based on one’s experience, but that experience is to be evaluated and interpreted by scripture.  Ultimately, with that perspective, comparing the way the BGCT sees the 1963 BFM and the SBTC sees the 2000 BFM, the church opted for cooperation with the latter, disagreeing with some of the “doctrinal loopholes” that have been used to justify positions out of step with Baptist theology via the 1963 BFM.  The committee examined some of those historic disagreements and their interpretation.  The decision to uniquely align with the SBTC was a unanimous one as a result.

The American Church as a Consumer of Goods

“Be self controlled and alert.   Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.”  I Peter 5:8-9

The circular file in my office is, perhaps, the object in the room which gets the most use.  Actually, my trash can is rectangular rather than circular, but every day the mailman brings a pile of envelopes, booklets, magazines and brochures, most of which go to the recycle bin in a matter of minutes after their arrival.  Through this medium, along with the fax machine, email, and the telephone, come endless sales pitches and advertisements.  Just today, I’ve thrown away two dozen postcards, brochures and booklets advertising all kinds of things, including a coffee service, a phone system for lease, appeals for donations to the underprivileged overseas, three different Bible study packages, a Bible study curriculum, advertising novelties (key chains, pens, carabiners with the church name and address imprinted), two Bible colleges, sound equipment and pew Bibles.  All of these things are “guaranteed to enhance your ministry and outreach.”

Yeah, right.  Do we really need all this “stuff”?

We’ve become convinced that we can’t do business without a host of consumer goods designed exclusively for church use, including the latest books by the hottest, most popular authors, complete with video and Bible study kit.  Sales calls and advertisements come to my desk several times a day with information on the latest, hottest new video series so you can “get the jump” on the other churches in your area which haven’t been fortunate enough to purchase and promote them.  And if you haven’t noticed, much of what is produced exclusively for churches is more expensive in terms of retail price than goods produced and sold on the open market. 

American Christian churches grew to a peak membership and participation in the late 1950’s.  Millions of people were involved, and so were billions of dollars that came in through collection plates.  It did not take long, in the consumer society in which we live, for business to realize that a potential market for goods and services existed inside groups of people with common interests and values, and with treasuries stuffed with cash.  Marketing developed which was designed to convince churches that they needed the goods and services that were being produced for their use, from choir robes and quarterlies to Lord’s Supper cups and pictorial church directories.  We can attend seminars where popular speakers make a planned, programmed presentation for a fee, accompanied by CD’s, books, and t-shirts.  Popular preachers put their name on study Bibles containing their own notes and comments, to direct your thinking. 

Do we really need all of this stuff to be the church God has called us to be?  Or is it more because we feel a sense of competition with other churches and ministries that we feel we need to have everything we think is necessary?  And another probing question, is it actually a hindrance to our work, and is it causing us to weaken and decline? 

Budget time has come around again, and for the second year, we are looking for ways to become better stewards of our financial resources.  We have been fortunate in that, through a pastorless period and an economic downturn, we have not seen a major reduction in our income.  We have also been fortunate that, in some areas, our costs have been reduced, so we have not needed the required budget amount to come out ahead when it comes to cash flow versus expenses.  But we still want to be good stewards, and beyond that, we want to make sure that our values are developed around spiritual principles, and not as a result of material prosperity.

I used to think that my parents, raised in the austerity of rural West Virginia during the depression, were far to restrictive when it came to the material possessions they allowed me to have, and the money they allowed me to spend.  Though they would have sacrificed everything they owned to make sure that my sister and I had our basic needs met, they lived by the principle that material possessions worth having were worth working for, and made us earn, in some way, most of the things we owned.  They also, through that process, taught us to appreciate and value those things, and to take care of them so that they would last, and could be enjoyed for a long time.  We learned to be satisfied with very little, and developed a lifestyle in which very little is required for us to experience a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction.  At the time, I thought it was ridiculous and restrictive, but I have learned, over time, to appreciate the way they handled money and things, and I have also discovered that other values developed as a result of having been through that experience. 

When I was growing up in a small, Southern Baptist church in Arizona that didn’t have much in the way of material possessions, or membership, one of our older members was a grand lady from Mississippi named Hattie Miller.  Our church auditorium was a small room that would hold about 100 folding chairs with a tile floor, cinder block walls, and not much in the way of decoration.  We were fortunate to have a piano, no organ, and an evaporative cooler rather than an air conditioning unit.  Mrs. Miller’s daughter attended another, larger, more prosperous church in Tucson when she went.  One of our pastors once asked her why she did not accompany her mother to church.  She replied, “Because my mother could worship in a pig stye.” 

I hope I could.

Bylaw, Constitutional Amendment Recommendations Cancelled

Ken Coffee made a point in a comment on the previous post regarding our church’s switch of affiliation from BGCT to SBTC related to the bylaw and constitutional amendment changes I was proposing to move at the convention in Houston in a couple of weeks.  Though our church will be considered a cooperating BGCT church through December 31, and would be eligible for messengers to the convention, it will not elect or send messengers to the 2009 BGCT annual meeting.  As a result, I would not consider it proper to make motions affecting the future of the BGCT.

There is no “group” involved in this, at least, not to my knowledge.  I’ve had many supportive emails, notes and comments, and volunteers to bring a second to the motions, and I appreciate that.  Those individuals have already been notified that I will not be bringing the motions.  If someone else wants to carry that banner, and feels that some kind of limitations are necessary to broaden the leadership tent, and expand the input from the BGCT’s churches, they are welcome to copy the amendments I proposed, which are published elsewhere on this blog, or come up with their own proposals. 

Thanks to everyone who was an encouragement to me in this effort.  The message was read and heard in Dallas, and that’s not bad when you are working with email, text messaging, a blog and some phone calls.  I did make a little bit of an investment in postage, too, but from the response I received, it is encouraging to know that one person can make a difference, and that not everything we do in Baptist life has to be politically driven.

A Seamless Transition: Affiliating with the SBTC

With relatively little fanfare, and no discussion, our church seamlessly switched affiliation last night from the Baptist General Convention of Texas to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.  The discussion took place at a town hall meeting held the previous Sunday, following about two months of study and the work of a team that was put in place last August.  Many questions were asked, and answered, and concerns were addressed.  The team was prepared with several different approaches, had there been anyone who had a reasonable objection to a complete switch.  There was none, and as a result of the vote, the church will pursue unique affiliation with the SBTC.

There has been a lot of talk among Baptists in Texas about “tactics” used by the SBTC to get churches to switch their affiliation, and about “lies” told about the BGCT.  I can say with certainty that was not the case here.  We’ve been visited in the past year by individuals representing both conventions, and when it came down to the actual presentations made to the church, the team that had been given that assignment was responsible for gathering the information and presenting it to the church.  We were aware of several other churches in our association which had made similar decisions in recent months, and our decision basically followed the same pattern. 

Ultimately, there were two issues which led to the decision.  One involved acceptance of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, though that was not the main reason.  The second involved the direction of the BGCT as it relates to the Southern Baptist Convention.  This church has never approved of the reduction in the share of Cooperative Program money going from the BGCT to the SBC, and has been particularly concerned with both the IMB’s portion, and what goes to theological education.  It has also not been able to come to a point where it shared in the BGCT leadership’s vision of operating its own entities related to mission-sending, theological education and literature publication.  Over the years, a number of our church families have had students at BGCT-related educational entities, and some of them have reported things taught in classrooms that were not consistent either with their own personal convictions, developed as they were raised in the church, or with those of the church. 

The politics of the past few decades has also had an effect on the church’s perception of its convention relationships.  Many Houston area churches already feel a sense of separation, and sometimes of deliberate exclusion, from convention-related events, or even informal gatherings, perceiving that the leadership is very oriented toward, and sensitive to the needs of a Dallas-Metroplex oriented constituency.  The bulk of Houston-area appointees to committees and boards are from CBF-affiliated churches, and there is a strong perception here that the BGCT has picked out a small group of “prominent” congregations from which all of the region’s leaders are selected.  Likewise, there is the perception that the group which has controlled BGCT leadership has sometimes chosen leaders who, rather than being willing to work with all constituencies in the state convention, have been deliberately antagonistic toward those who prefer to keep close ties with the SBC.  A good percentage of our church leadership was very well aware of Valleygate, which certainly did not help improve the image of the previous BGCT administration.

I’m sure there are some other factors involved.  In recent years, as the church has transitioned to attempt to minister in a highly diverse inner city neighborhood that has seen major turnover in home ownership, massive re-development, and soaring property values because of its historic appeal and proximity to downtown, many of those in the church who are under 50 and who have joined here in the last decade have come either from one of the more conservative megachurches, or via the baptistry, and are still in the early stages of discipleship.  We have a group of members who left a mainline Protestant church over “liberal” theology and practices, and several families who came from a nearby moderate Baptist church when it affiliated with CBF.  So there is some political influence. 

For me, personally, it is not something I would have anticipated supporting as recently as five years ago.  However, though it may seem like it has been a long journey from where I was to where I am now, to me it feels somewhat like a return home after having been on a long, long trip. 

I wish the BGCT well.  Denominational organizations, including both Texas Baptist conventions, the SBC, and virtually all others, are facing some challenges related to a paradigm shift we call “post-denominationalism.”  Churches are facing it, too.  I suspect the future will look far different than what we see now, or than what we might even be able to imagine. 

 

The Beginning of a New Season

Last week I was in Chicago for a couple of conferences, and was able to enjoy the brilliance and beauty of the early Autumn.  The Chicago area was just a little bit south of the area where the fall colors are now at their peak, but visits to friends who live nearby, in South Bend, Indiana and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, allowed me to cross the line into areas where the colors were at their peak.  Driving to South Bend on Wednesday, I detoured a bit north, on I-94 via Benton Harbor and Kalamazoo, Michigan, just to enjoy the drive.  Wisconsin, north of Milwaukee, was just as beautiful.  There was a definite chill in the air, too, more than a mere reminder that it was late October in the North, the kind of scenery and weather change that tells you you’re ready for the change.  We don’t get that in Texas.

There is another change that will be coming, a “new season” for myself and for the members of our church.  We’ve been made aware, through a lengthy pastor search process, of the need to settle some issues that were not even on the table the last time we called a pastor, more than 17 years ago.  On Wednesday night, the congregation will vote on affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, not as a comprehensive doctrinal statement for the church, but as a basis for our cooperation with other churches in missions and ministry through our Baptist convention relationships.  We will also vote on a recommendation to affiliate with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.

Though I can’t predict the outcome, and there is still a possibility that the church will remain affiliated with the BGCT, the recommendation to uniquely align with the SBTC will very likely pass without opposition.  The team which is making this recommendation is prepared to amend their motion to include a dual affiliation if there is a segment of the congregation that desires it, but we have conducted a “town hall” meeting in which the rationale and the proposal was presented and discussed before a majority of the active members, and there was no opposition expressed there.  I am certain the affirmation of the BFM 2000 will pass as well. 

If the church decides on a unique affiliation with the SBTC, then obviously I will not make a motion at the 2009 BGCT meeting to amend its constitution and bylaws.  If we should choose a dual affiliation, I will be there, and I will move the changes.  Dual affiliation is not looked upon with favor by the BGCT anyway, though BGCT leaders have repeatedly stated that other affiliations of their churches are not their concern.  I would have to say, at this point, that these motions will very likely not be made at the convention, at least, not by me.

Though we are changing affiliations, we are still in familiar territory.  Several of our neighboring churches are in the process of making similar decisions, several have already done so.  Our church has always been strongly supportive of the Southern Baptist Convention, and will remain so, as well as the Union Baptist Association.  We have had a close relationship with Houston Baptist University, and that will continue as well. 

Convention affiliation has little to do with the ministry at hand in the community where our church exists.  We still need to sharpen our focus, change our attitude and the way we do some things, and be a church that makes disciples and builds community for them in the church.