Posted by: nathanfinn | April 25, 2008

Does the SBC Have a Future?

With much online fanfare, Ed Stetzer has published a study by LifeWay Research that shows that the SBC is in numeric decline. Many of us knew that this study was in the works. I suspect most engaged Southern Baptists already knew what’s happening in the SBC, even if there were no study to substantiate it. The various factions in the SBC blogosphere have responded pretty much like I expected them to respond. Some will claim that the SBC is already hopelessly lost and all but suggest we should all move on (or at least get rid of Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, or whomever they hate this week). Others will attempt to discredit the study by ignoring the facts and continuing to delude themselves into thinking that the SBC is fundamentally healthy. Don’t buy either approach. We are unhealthy and declining. Rapidly. But there’s still hope.

Some have wondered if perhaps our numeric decline is related to a recovery of regenerate church membership. At the risk of being rude, I have to keep from laughing out loud at the suggestion. Our numbers would really decline if we were honest about our statistics! But at least we could talk about our churches and baptisms without breaking the ninth commandment, even if it meant admitting that Southern Baptists are not “THE LARGEST PROTESTANT DENOMINATION IN AMERICA” (insert collective strut here). As I have been saying for four years, don’t buy the statistics that claim we baptize 350,000 people a year. Those stats are bloated because of toddler baptisms, “rebaptisms” of tender-conscienced souls who are casualties of a tacky revivalism, and the immersion of new church members who have come to our churches from other types of churches that do not share our baptismal convictions. If we annually baptize 75,000 lost people over the age of 12 who are not already attending our churches’ activities, I would be shocked. We are far less evangelistic than you think we are, but too proud (and pragmatic) to admit it.

Others have questioned whether we are really losing so many younger SBC pastors and other leaders. I have heard this question raised in several forums. I suppose it depends upon one’s perspective. It is within the realm of possibility that in some places in our Southern Baptist Zion there are scads of 20 and 30-somethings who are fired up about the SBC and are committed to ministering in a convention context. It’s possible. But I sure don’t know many. It’s all I can do to convince my friends and students that the SBC is not a waste of their time and money. Most of these folks like our mission boards. They also tend to like one or more of our seminaries. But they cannot stand the flavor of the convention, so they leave for other groups. Some folks say “good riddance.” I grieve. Some will complain that students especially are benefitting from CP funds only so they can snub the convention after they graduate, surely a worthy complaint. Unfortunately, the folks who complain the loudest seem to be the same guys who are unwilling to ask why so many students feel compelled to do what they do.

Some have suggested that Southern Baptists have not lost the gospel. Normally what they mean is that their church has not lost the gospel, which may or may not be true. I suspect that most of our pastors really believe the gospel. Unfortunately, many of them don’t preach it. Sometimes they actually preach sub-Christian sermons that are really just baptized versions of moralism, New Age spirituality, or especially self-help platitudes. I have heard gospel-less sermons in chapel services at all of our seminaries, either live or online. I have heard gospel-less sermons at our pastor’s conferences and evangelism conferences, either live or through other media. I have heard gospel-less sermons in our churches. And yes, I have heard many of them at the SBC annual meeting itself. Maybe these men are just taking it for granted that their audiences already understand the gospel and so they don’t have to articulate it. Maybe. But I know this much: a sermon that does not include the gospel is not a Christian sermon, no matter who preaches it. Some will object that they must be preaching the gospel because their church is growing. And that’s what scares me the most. If you are one of those guys out there who think Southern Baptists as a rule are cool on the gospel (and I know you’re out there because you gripe at me every time I raise this issue), you will likely make lots of friends in the SBC for defending our gospel street cred. But you will also be complicit in our decline.

Moderates were right about at least one thing: they predicted conservative Southern Baptists would be so used to fighting after the 1980s that they would turn on each other after all the moderates are gone. What I actually think is going on is that we are creating “new” moderates by attacking, often in the most un-Christlike and intellectually dishonest ways, those who disagree with us. It happens to complimentarians who do not agree with everything CBMW says. It happens to Calvinists who dare to rock the boat by talking about doctrinal issues that are not ecclesiologically motivated. It happens to “continuationist” Southern Baptists who accept the ongoing validity of the spiritual gifts. It happens to Southern Baptists who break from the party line (but not the majority line, I daresay) on issues like the terms of communion and the validity of some alien immerisons. It happens to conservative Southern Baptists who break with the convention’s very public love affair with the Religious Right by suggesting there may be more “social” issues to engage than just abortion and the homosexual agenda. And it for sure happens to Southern Baptists who do not buy the tortured exegesis that argues that drinking alcohol is inherently sinful. And before you accuse me of being one of those crypto-moderates who really hates the SBC, let me say loud and clear I am a very conservative complimentarian, I am an ecclesiologically minded Calvinist, I am not a “continuationist,” I believe in closed communion and reject alien immerison, I am a political conservative, even a religio-political conservative, and I would be a teetotaler even if I had no affiliation whatsoever with a Southern Baptist institution. I just don’t think you have to agree with me to be a “good” Southern Baptist. I don’t even think you have to agree with me to be a Southern Baptist “leader,” whatever that means.

So does the SBC have a future. It depends upon what you mean by “future.” I suspect the name will be used by some Baptists until Christ comes back. I also think the people called Southern Baptists will always have denominational entities that they financially support. So in one sense, I remain confident that Southern Baptists are here to stay. But if by “future” one means a vital existence in God’s economy, I have my doubts. Collectively, I fear we are too insular, too sectarian, too pugnacious, too “Southern,” too reactionary, too pragmatic, and for sure too proud to have any real future. I hope I’m wrong. I pray that I am not the very things I accuse the convention of embodying, though I suspect I am at times. I hope the SBC does have a future, mostly because we had a great–though imperfect–past. I love who we were. I struggle with who we are. I am very fearful of who we will become. But I know that God does not need us and that His purposes will go forward even if we are left behind. Perhaps if enough of us admitted that–publicly–in a resolution–that included the word “repentance”–and was more than words–God may still have much good for us yet.

To try and end this unplanned blog post on a positive note, I want to tell you about an exciting book being published next month by B&H. David Dockery has written Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal, which will be available for the very low price of $9.99 because LifeWay thinks you should read this book. It has garnered endorsements from many of the men whom I consider to be the wisest among us. I hope you will read Dockery’s book. I hope you will not give up on the SBC or, even worse, attempt to conform the SBC to your own image. I hope you will pray for every person who is in a position of influence in the SBC. I hope you will pray that we recover the gospel and quit acting like we can do missions, cooperate together, engage the culture, educate future pastors, or have a healthy ecclesiology without it. Our hope is not in the Cooperative Program. Our hope is not in Calvinism. Our hope is not in Landmarkism. Our hope is not in inerrancy. Our hope is not in better statistics. Our hope is not in a program. Our hope is not in convincing all those young guys to stick around. Our hope  is in the good news of all that God has done through Jesus Christ to bring redemption the world that He so loved. I just pray that Southern Baptists will continue to be relevant in that world.

 

 

Tags: ,

Responses

Nathan:

You, my brother, have nailed it. When I read this kind of analysis coming from one of our “young leaders” I am greatly encouraged. Thanks for your boldness to speak so plainly on these issues. Your words reflect a heart that loves the people and churches known as Southern Baptist. If recent history is any indication, you can expect to be misunderstood and to have your words twisted and misconstrued by those who think any kind of criticism is disloyalty. Ignore them. We need this kind of prophetic wisdom more now than ever.

Thanks.

Nathan,

As usual, you are spot on. Good job.

Les

Nathan,

What they said.

Well spoken.

Wow, that made me feel depressed.

As a young student and pastor, I think you have nailed it. There are those of us who do want to see the SBC strong and healthy. Many of us want to be able to come together with those who disagree on some issues and share the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of us young people want to see integrity in our convention. We want to be the largest denomination, but we want it to reflect actual numbers as people are won to Christ. Thanks for the post. We need to pray for our convention.

I’m not sure it should have a future, Nathan. And I’ll add that I love what the SBC has done in the past. But now, not so much. Our corporate presence has become a detriment to our local churches. We have a bad reputation among people outside the camp who don’t care about the Cooperative program, or seminaries, or know who Paige Patterson and Al Mohler are. That strikes at the heart of our prime directive. Maybe we’d be better off without an SBC.

KMart gave way to Walmart. Sure they are still out there, but aren’t they pitiful? I fear that’s what’s ahead for the SBC.

Thanks Nathan for you wise reflections. Not every one wants to drink the Koolaid of “business as usual.” I suspect that the growing unrest among us is eveidence that our Father is indeed working in the heart of the SBC.

I had to link to your post. This is where I have been for a number of years,wanting us to be strong and hurting over our weaknesses. Hopefully, now that our generation is coming into leadership, we can convince ourselves to stay around long enough to see that fruition.

On the Int’l. field, many of the legacy folks have basically been told they were doing it all wrong in the old days, but those who were able to handle that graciously have been used by God in amazing ways in our New Directions. I hope we will see those same positives without the negatives through the coming transition in the national convention and entities.

I too am worried about the state of the SBC. I am a small church pastor graduating in May with my MDiv from SBTS and am more an more disillusioned aby the lack of desired change amongst the established elder leadership of the convention. I still hold out hope in my heart though, because I believe a generation of gospel-centered, doctrinally-oriented, people-loving pastors who are committed to the ongoing reform of the convention can change things. However, just like the conservative resurgence took time, so will ongoing reform. Furthermore, I have often said to my brother students it took the SBC churches a long time to get where they are, after years of gospel-light teaching/preaching. It will take another generation to reverse the trend. Are we willing to be the generation of pastors who die in churches across the denomination changing the tide for the generation to come?

You hit the very center of the bullseye. I’m thankful for your boldness in speaking the truth in love…keep on for His glory.

Eloquently spoken.

Your analysis resonated with some of my own misgivings with the SBC, its direction, its [lack of] theology, and its club/church membership criteria/selection/process.

Thank you for your boldness.

Brother Nathan,

Thank you for being willing to share the truth. I share your concern and your hope for the SBC. I could not agree more with your insights about the true figures of Southern Baptist baptisms. We need to be honest with ourselves. Let us pray that we bring our evangelism to a fevered pitch, trust the Gospel, preach it, and plead with God to move among us. May we die to the thought of numeric success, and find our joy in faithfulness!

Ditto.

[...] Nathan Finn tackles that question. [...]

[...] Does the SBC Have a Future [...]

Excellent work, Nathan.

Nathan,

It has to be about the Gospel, but unfortunately its not. I knew this was the case when just hours after returning from T4G I hear comments like “reformed snobs in Louisville” or “Together For The Calvinists”. You and I and the other 4,998 folks who were there know that this conference had very little to do with Calvinism (was it mentioned more than a couple of times the whole week?) and more to do with the preservation and propagation of the “Gospel we have received”. What we experienced in Louisville should serve as a model of what could be if Southern Baptists who differ on non-essentials could recapture their first love of Christ and the Gospel. I am hopeful but not holding my breath. I think the SBC will continue but not as we know it today. It can’t and honestly is that what we want? Is that what the Lord wants?

[...] Nathan Finn writes, I hope you will pray that we recover the gospel and quit acting like we can do missions, cooperate [...]

[...] was said in Nathan’s timely and insightful post commenting on the newly released data revealing a decline in SBC [...]

Sobering, very sobering.
Would that ALL SBC pastors and leaders read this essay.
Thank you, Mr. Finn. You might just get nominated for something yet!

Bring Back the Cross

Now there is an idea. Heath said, “You might just get nominated for something yet!”

Nathan, you have been the only person that has actually articulated an understanding of the issues facing the SBC. If someone were to come forward and nominate you for SBC President I believe I could support that. (But, I’m not going anywhere near Indy this summer! LOL)

[...] getting into why I am a Southern Baptist or analyzing lots of potential problems (others will do a great job of that), here is what I see. The tragedy is that we are officially now losing the war for souls. [...]

Great stuff. I was referred here by reading Ascol’s post.

You mentioned the preaching of a Christ-less gospel, moralism, et. al.

I think an even more subtle but traditional SBC error is adding to the gospel by preaching a sermon that does not mention the death, burial or resurrection of Christ, nor repentance or faith alone in Christ; but then includes a tacked-on X-step process for “inviting Jesus into your heart,” as if we are saved via superstitious mantras and formulas, rather than through hearing the proclamation of Christ and His work for us, followed by a call to repent and hope in Him alone.

Nathan, it was good to see you in Louisville. This is a great post. As one who “left the camp” (though my own shift honestly had more to do with what I went to than what I left), I hope that your kind of vision and leadership rises to the top and that the SBC recovers a faithful, humble passion for the Gospel. We’re all on the same team here.

Outstanding comments and quite insightful analysis, Nathan! Thank you for speaking the truth with humility.

Nathan,

I don’t think I agree with everything here, but this was excellent and very well written.

I didn’t know the guy I had all those talks with would one day become SBC President :)

By the way, I hope to catch you on campus sometime in the future–there is someone I know looking at Southeastern and wants me to go with him to visit the campus.

Take care brother

Benji

Dr. Finn,

Interesting post.

There is so much I want to say, but I’d rather say it in person. One thing I want to ask you, and give you plenty of time to think about it, is, What is the major benefit of having such diversity in the SBC?

We have a growing number of Calvinists, non-Calvinists, closet Arminians/Wesleyans, cessasionists, charismatics, dispensationalists, covenantalists, amills, pre-mills, post-mills, supralapsarians, infralapsarians, sublapsarians, the list goes on for days: all under one umbrella, the SBC.

Is there any wonder why there is so much strife? When people drive by the average so-and-so Baptist church, what message will they get inside? Calvinism? Arminianism? Semi-Pelagianism? Pre-trib? Amill? Tongue talkers? Cessasionists? We can’t just turn a blind eye and say that our various theological perspectives have no bearing whatsoever on the gospel.

Dazed & Confused,

Billy

Nathan,
Right on and preach on. There are good things in the SBC worth keeping and worth affiliating with, despite some of the negatives that go with being Southern Baptist.

However, I do think we are going through a time of pruning in accordance with John 15:2. Pruning is painful, and in the process of pruning you must cut off some of the live branches along with the dead to achieve the result of bearing more fruit. We are in the hands of the Vinedresser who is pruning us according to His desire to accomplish His purpose. In fact, for us to bear more fruit we MUST be pruned. Let us rejoice that the Father is pruning us, and not leaving us to our own devices, and I dare say that this pruning is the answer to the prayers that many have prayed regarding the spiritual strength, theological vitality, ecclesiological vigor, and unity of heart.

We do have some things we do need to pay attention to during this time of “sober” news. We have healthy seminaries that are producing well prepared men, missions giving is up, new churches are up, people are actually talking about the issues we are facing, there is the old but fresh breeze of the doctrines of grace blowing through us, and many are taking their head out of the Southern Baptist sand to see that we need to be connected to what is going on evangelical scene in America; and want to be involved in it and influence it.

Finally, I left the SBC for three years in the nineties to help plant a church in another denomination. I came back to the SBC in the late nineties to help plant an SBC church, and last year the Lord led me to plant and pastor another church. We are going to be meeting in two weeks to and I am going to lead our new group to affiliate with the SBC, because after surveying the landscape, I believe it is the best option…not because I am hung up on being SBC, but because I believe that the Lord still has His hand on the SBC.

So let’s rejoice that the Lord is not ignoring us, but pruning us, disciplining us, and attending to our prayers.

Morris Brooks

[...] Nathan Finn nails it regarding the future of the SBC. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 7:01 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]

[...] Nathan Finn nails it regarding the future of the SBC. [...]

I, too, pastor a small baptist church. I think that this post is dead on, and I fear that is to our shame. This is clear, to the point, and will cause much trouble ( or be ignored).

I am not in seminary (but am open to God’s leading and providing on that, for sure), and I was not aware that I was a “reformed snob”. I really enjoyed t4g 08.

I will say that as a jr. high History teacher, I can spot angst and silliness a mile away.

[...] that can keep me up at night…especially in Missouri, where things are pretty messy right now. Nathan Finn has some insightful analysis regarding what’s coming down the line for the [...]

Good comments, as usual. Unfortunately, I don’t know what the answer is to stopping, or even slowing down, the decline. Let me give you a few observations on some of the issues that you mentioned.

1. Losing Young Pastors - I’ll admit that the temptation to leave the SBC can be strong - especially when there many new churches and church plants without SBC ties that are reaching genuine lost people, making a difference in their community and at the same time dropping the pose and being “real.”

2. The Fakeness - Many young pastors (those 35 and under) in my observation puke at the fakeness, politics, and red tape of our fathers’ generation - those very men who fought the inerrancy battle. We reject them and the urge to leave the convention beckons even stronger.

3. Motivation - What is our motivation as young leaders? To be cool? To reach lost people? To swap sheep? To have the most technically advanced church in our area?

4. We can do it better - Any person who is a leader will always think, albeit sometimes sinfully, that they can do ‘it’ better then those that God has placed in certain positions. The fact is that the men leading the SBC (in whatever capacity you would like to define that as) have been placed there and are God’s “annointed.” Perhaps young pastors should be like David and instead of killing Saul, God’s anointed, in his tent, grab a spear a jug of water and be on our merry way supporting our fathers and waiting for God to “exalt the humble.”

The convention needs to be reformed for sure. I pray that there will be enough young men with patience, wisdom, and discernment around to be here when our fathers pass the baton.

I am new to the SBC. As a matter of fact, my church plant is the first Baptist church of any kind I have ever been at. Up here in the Pacific Northwest, things are a bit more laid back, but still some of the things you mention in your post are a problem for a lot of young church planters.

The way I sum up your post is this, the SBC is having trouble because they have started to add things to the Gospel. Ironically, I am starting a new series this Sunday on Galatians. Paul’s big deal was that the Judiazers wanted to add works to the Gospel of grace… you cannot fellowship unless you are circumcised. Sounds familiar to the SBC… you cannot fellowship unless you “______.”

Where that takes the SBC… history may be the best indicator.

I appreciate your candor, and am encouraged as well by many of the supportive comments. I say that coming from a committed CBF perspective. With that disclosure, I hope that my expression of support will not damage your credibility in the eyes of your SBC brethren.

Honest souls on both sides of the Baptist aisle must realize that none of us will have all of the answers until we have gone on to our reward. Whatever position(s) we take on the issues you reference, we must all strive to keep the Gospel first and foremost. If we can do that, the rest will fall into place.

[...] Nathan Finn asks the tough question: Does the SBC Have a Future? and has a spot-on answer. Ed Stetzer (one of our best missiologists) asks, Is this the end of the [...]

[...] this data, but since I am a Southern Baptist it does make for good conversation.  Dr. Finn has this great post about it.  If you aren’t a Southern Baptist it probably won’t be interesting, if you [...]

Nathan,

As always, you are an excellent and honest writer and blogger.

I will add this, however. As long as people still have to say something like this, from your post:

“let me say loud and clear I am a very conservative complimentarian, I am an ecclesiologically minded Calvinist, I am not a ‘continuationist,’ I believe in closed communion and reject alien immerison, I am a political conservative, even a religio-political conservative, and I would be a teetotaler even if I had no affiliation whatsoever with a Southern Baptist institution.”

There will continue to be decline. If we have to make such statements for people to continue to listen to us or for people not to begin immediately to argue against us, then we are focusing on the wrong things. Our eyes aren’t fixed on Jesus, they are fixed on man.

Wouldn’t you agree??

Nathan,

You hit on some very important points, saying so clearly what some of us have a hard time communicating properly. Very good and timely article.

But I do have one objection; not simply because I disagree, but because you seem to contradict yourself:


“Our hope is not in Calvinism…Our hope is in the good news of all that God has done through Jesus Christ to bring redemption the world that He so loved.”

You say our hope is not in Calvinism but in the good news? You yourself, if I’m not mistaken, are a Calvinist –So how exactly would you define the ‘good news’? Maybe according to your Calvinistic presuppositions?

I would also guess that those commenting above who agree with you are mostly Calvinistic. How would they define the ‘good news’? In fact, I’d be curious to see if anyone who is not a theological Calvinist agrees with the gist of your article. Why? Because it seems to me that people in the SBC who are not Calvinists know exactly what you mean when you talk about the ‘good news’ of Jesus Christ. They know exactly what the younger generation, Founders movement, and a majority of other dissenters are actually pushing for, and it makes them furious that we won’t just come out and say it.

We’re either being dishonest, or we haven’t thought through our Calvinism enough to know how widely it colors our interpretation of scripture.

We claim we can recover without pressing Calvinism as an essential, and yet we turn around and cry ‘woe is us’ when symptoms of arminianism rise to the surface; and we turn around and call for a recovery of the very theological position which we deny is essential.

At least the Arminians are upfront about what they oppose.

“Our hope is not in Calvinism” but it is in “the good news of all that God has done”? That, my friend, is a clear contradiction because of your Calvinistic presuppositions, and refusing to acknowledge this is one main reason there is so much dissension in the SBC. You cannot define ‘good news’ without your monergism sticking out like a sore thumb, and people know that, and we’d be much better off being upfront with our intentions. It would gain us much more respect in the eyes of those who disagree with us…

Great post. It was great meeting you at T4G. I just wanted to add a comment about the attitude of the SBC. I was a Methodist until I was 21. But from the time I was 17 or so until I finally got immersed when I was 21, my beliefs lined up with the BFM 2000 almost 100%, while I totally disagreed with most of the UMC’s theological positions. I had little or no contact with the SBC until I started dating my wife in 11th grade, other than that that crazy Disney boycott. What I’m trying to get out is that I didn’t join the SBC because of the atmosphere; I joined it because of the theology and the emphasis on expository preaching at my church in college. As I’ve become more familiar with the SBC through college and seminary, I find that it is really the theology that keeps me in the SBC. Your comment about the flavor of the SBC hit the nail on the head, and I am finding more and more young SBC men and women who would say the same thing. I think this is the reason we are losing so many young pastors. If our attitude as a denomination continues to be “too insular, too sectarian, too pugnacious, too “Southern,” too reactionary, too pragmatic, and for sure too proud”, then we will continue to lose young men and women who desire to be theologically sound but also humble and gracious at the same time.

Nathan White,

I hesitate to even respond: please do not view my response as an invitation to dialog about this any further than your initial comment and this response. Calvinism is not the gospel. As a Calvinist, I believe it is a superior way to “package” the gospel than Arminianism. But I also believe that Arminians believe the gospel. There is no contradiction there. I am not being disengenuous. I have nothing to hide. I think you misunderstand the intentions of many SBC Calvinists, at least the ones I know. And it is comments like yours that make me understand why my non-Calvinist friends are so often offended by the attitude of some Calvinists as much as our doctrine. I’m going to chalk up your comment to the immaturity of one who has relatively recently embraced new theological convictions. I pray your attitude will soften in the coming years and that you can learn to hold and contend for your beliefs without being a jerk.

NAF

Does the SBC have a future? I hope that all protestant denominations will come to the realization that dividing the body of Christ, His Church, into thousands of splinter groups and factions is not the will of God (John 17).

Hopefully the protestant reformation has finally started to reach the end of it’s life after 500 years.

I pray that that day would come soon. Jesus prayed that His Church would be One as We are One…That they may know that Maybe all you seminarians and preachers should start working and praying for re-unification in the body of Christ.

When is the last time your Church congregation prayed for reunification and understanding on why Christians are so divided?

Have you really entered the dialog to understand what the other side is saying? Have you read some things that your side says about the other side and now you have it all figured out?

Thank God for the internet! We now have easy access to enter a conversation on what divides Catholic and Protestants.

Don’t be afraid to enter the discussion.

God bless,

Russ

May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Nathan,

“In fact, I’d be curious to see if anyone who is not a theological Calvinist agrees with the gist of your article.”

That would be me. I am not a classic, reformed 5-pointer but the Calvinistic resurgence has helped and will help the convention in many ways. Of course, I believe that there will be some who claim to be Calvinists that will hurt, can hurt, and have hurt, the convention.

That post was directed to Nathan White while including Nathan Finn….

Russ,

Most Protestants that I know, including Southern Baptists, believe that Rome is a false church (though many of us would concede that their are many Roman Catholics who are believers, in spite of their church’s teaching). So the short answer is that no, I do not pray for “reunification.” Instead, I pray that the light of the gospel would shine into the RCC and that millions upon millions of Catholics would be converted, leave Rome, and join with other groups which, though imperfect, preach the gospel, seek to follow Scripture, and believe that unity should never come at the expense of biblical authority.

Thanks very much to the 95% of you who have made kind, thoughtful, encouraging comments. I should have said that sooner.

NAF

Russ,

As a former RC that has witnessed this personally, the unity of the RCC is a facade. All over the world you have nearly entire cultures that wear the name RC but continue to hold to pagan beliefs and practices. I recently traveled into Mexico to the region of the Taramuhara Indians. They are Catholics who worship the sun (as the Son) and Mother Moon (Mary) as the mother of the sun. Yet when your late Pope traveled to that region they were embraced as true brothers. This is the cost of the unity you speak of; satanic pagan worship accepted as true Christianity.

This is happening even in the US in many forms. My brother recently told me that a Priest in his town of Appleton, WI stood up in the pulpit and said that they (that archdiocese?) no longer accept pergutory based on what they see in scripture. He firmly said “If you die in Christ, you are immediately with Him. There is no other option.” This should be rebellion in the eyes of Rome. However, with one Priest handling three parishes, it’s not likely they will discipline anyone. Has the Lord of the Harvest failed to raise up laborors?

I am genuinely interested in knowing what you think of my observation of the common use of the caveat, like the one you use, in writing, conversation, and blogging?

Nathan,

Great illustration of the kind of analysis and call for considering the deeper issues among us we need to be hearing.

May your tribe increase.

Bryan,

I have a different view of the “caveat” than you do. I see it not as a concession to the ruling class, if you will, but as an effort at full disclosure. I really just want to be clear where I am coming from so that there is no confusion whatsoever. I want people to know that I have strong opinions on all of these issues, but I don’t think you have to agree with them (though I will seek to persuade you!).

I think I would also disagree with your dichotomy between having eyes fixed on either Jesus or men. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am hopeful that full disclosure will give what I write more credibility with more people, even if lots of folks disagree with me. And I think that type of approach honors Christ.

All that said, let me agree with you on one crucial point: it would be nice to live in a house where some of the cousins weren’t always trying to trip each other when they suspect the Father isn’t looking . . .

NAF

Nathan, excellent work in your responses. Indeed, many non-reformed often think the ‘Gospel’ we preach is Calvinism. Some may actually present it that way, but that is just a loud call for all of us to be better at proclaiming the Gospel and educating in theology.

Also, I appreciate you being upfront about your stances on eschatology, ecclesiology, etc. It’s good for us to know where we stand and be bale to discuss things in a decent, logical manner.

Thanks, Nathan… I was askign your thoughts, not for agreement. That is why I asked the question.

My only response would be to say that I think you misunderstand what I’m saying or why I say it. I don’t see making caveats as a concession to anyone; I see it more as something that has to be said in order to make it okay for people to listen to everything else you say. And, because that is often the problem, where people label people or want to know immediately what school they went to, what they think about X, Y, or Z, what church they go to, etc., so that they can then judge and categorize them - I am saying that as long as we have a convention that requires such caveats over such issues we will struggle. We seem to be more focused on labels, judgments, and uniform beliefs on minor issues.

As for my dichotomy I understand disagreement, I suppose, especially because I simply said Jesus or man and I see now how you read that. I think I should have said “man or the doctrines of man” to try to get my full meaning expresssed. You may still not agree, but I don’t see how things many of the “doctrines” you enumerated as believing reveal more of Christ. And such caveats that I see around the internet often include issues that are either extrabiblical or, at best, disputed matters, and therefore tend to distract from a focus on Christ. Perhaps not always by the author, but it can do so for the readers and debaters. That is what I meant by that statement.

Thanks for responding. I do appreciate it. I think you are a reasonable and thoughtful person and I always carefully consider what you write. Please feel free to respond to this as well.

I really think your words reflect what I’m raising when you say:

“And before you accuse me of being one of those crypto-moderates who really hates the SBC, let me say loud and clear ….”

Especially given the fact the post had little to do with any of those issues - they appear to be cited to meet the litmus approval test of certain readers.

Bryan,

Thanks for the helpful clarification. Let me further clarify (full-disclosure and all): I have to make the caveats so certain readers will listen to what I say. We are polarized, and the first thing that happens when that occurs is people who do not want to identify with “sides” get thwacked. In the interest of being heard by all and thwacked by none, I make caveats. I want to communicate clearly exactly what I believe and that I do not think it necessary to agree with what I believe and meet any denominational litmus tests, either real or perceived.

BTW, the pilgrimmage of brothers like you (and Alex above) away from our ranks demonstrates that we are losing good folks. I know that your reasons are related more to your views of denominationalism in general rather than the SBC itself, but whatever your reasons, you are yet another “younger Southern Baptist” that has opted to go another route. I wonder how many more will do so before the SBC snaps out of it.

Thanks.

NAF

for the record, I am not a calvinist, but agree with the git of your post. I think what you wrote goes beyond theological systems (at least I did not read that into your intent).

I’m not a Calvinist by any stretch, but I love and appreciate John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Tom Ascol, Tim Keller, Les Puryear, and Nathan as brothers in Christ. I’m not worried about a “Calvinist takeover” of the SBC. Yes we disagree on some theological issues. Yes, methodology is all over the board. But we love Jesus, His church, and want to spread the gospel. You do NOT have to be my twin to be my brother.

I’m deeply concerned though about all those millions around us who don’t know Jesus and who view the church and in particular the SBC as a band of squabbling, judgmental people in the pocket of the Republican party and as a result - walk away from us when we so desperately want them to come near.

Just met with a local hardcore Presbyterian church about doing ministry together in Valparaiso. It’s going to happen. God will be glorified as people come to know Him. Now if I can get the FBC down the street engaged. :)

Thanks again Nathan.

Oh, and I am not Armenian either.

Nathan White,

I deleted your second comment because I thought it was out-of-line. However, in my initial response to your second comment, I was quite harsh, which was out-of-line on my part. So here’s the deal: though I still think your second comment was out-of-line, I regret deleting it: you are entitled to your opinion and free to express it as you wish. And I’m sorry for my angry response to your second comment. You may not have seen it, but somebody did during the ten minutes it was up, and it was not a Christ-like response. I’m sorry for it. If you wish to re-post your second comment, you may do so and I will not delete it.

NAF

I have been a member of ( and attended ) several SBC churches for over 30 years. They have all been arminian, revivalistic and elderly! There are younger people, yes. But I was noticing in my own church this morning how unbalanced the ages are. If all the women aged 65 plus stopped showing up our numbers would decrease 30 to 40 percent. Naturally, those people are going to stop showing up eventually. The future of the SBC in numerical terms is bleak.
The younger people I know in these churches are always at least vaguely dissatisfied. There is a yearning for something more than the practical messages that are the standard fare for the majority of the sermons they will hear from an SBC pulpit. They want to be taught something substantial. I realize I am generalizing. But if the pastor of a church is not training his flock in the great doctrines of the faith he is no shepherd. A person can attend an SBC church for decades and know almost nothing about the essentials of the faith. I’ve met these people.
If the Convention has future as more than a chapter in a religious history textbook it will have to encourage it’s current an future pastors to fulfill their roles as shepherds and feed the flock. That means the pastors have to know the subject matter. Here’s an idea. No one can be ordained until they have memorized the 1689 LBC.

Just a thought.

Bro. Finn -

Another bullseye! You clarify what I believe is at the root of our denomination’s struggle.

One thought struck me over and over as I read the ACP report. As the various participant groups of the Conservative Resurgence begin to fragment from each other, we are seeing I believe the ideology core group of the CR - rationalistic moralistic fundamentalism. All other “stripes” of the CR (reformed, continualist, etc.) were essentially willing co-belligerents on the single issue of inerrancy rather than colaborers with a common foundation. The sobering reality here is that rationalism/pragmatism is not merely a symptom that can be treating with better seminary education or more biblically-faithful church programs or nuanced “simple church” approaches (although these are all good things). Rather, rationalism is the disease itself. And like a cancerous tumor that cannot be treated pharmaceutically, it must be removed surgically.

Now this comment might be taken as schismatic. But I am not thinking schismatically here. We’ve had enough schisms within the SBC to know that, like a Hollywood divorce, simple dividing and going our separate ways does nothing to solve the problems within ourselves. The moderates who departed from our beloved convention during the 80s and 90s have not changed one iota from their higher critical and social gospel oriented theology as a result of their dismissal. But even more disturbingly, the CR leadership has become no more adept at identifying the numerous forms of more subtle liberalism which have crept their way into our denomination since that time. Neither side of the innerrancy controversy benefited from that schism and attention was further diverted from the Gospel message.

Conferences like Building Bridges and the upcoming “John 3:16 Conference” are appropriate and useful for a season (some more useful than others). However, their usefulness will not last. We’ve got to move beyond simply stating our respective polemics for our views. We must begin engaging people on a deeper level, penetrating through all the intellectual “strutting” to their deepest presuppositions. We’ve got to start dealing with those whose thinking is rooted in pragmatism in a way that demonstrates our faith that the Holy Spirit can change their hearts as well as minds.

If such a change of hearts is to occur, I believe it probably not happen within the CR generation’s lifetime, but with the next generation of denominational leaders.

Blessings,
Lucas Defalco

OK, here is another non-Calvinist who would affirm what Nathan says. And I would also add that there are times in the past I have agreed with him on various issues and times I have disagreed; but throughout, I have found him to be a person of integrity. If he says he has no hidden agenda or meaning to his words, I take him to mean just that.

I am by no means a “young leader” or pastor. I am 55, but I think I still have some life left in me. I have served in the pastorate for about 22 years now. I really wish I could say that I love the SBC, but I cannot. I love Jesus and I love His church, I even loved my seminary, but our denomination? I owe it, for my education and nurturing, but I do not feel the emotion that many profess. Not having been raised in the church, I lacked the love affair that many had with this our collective identity, and all the bickering, battles, and name-calling that have went on almost since I became a Christian and a Southern Baptist have taken their toll on me. I wonder: should we love the SBC? Perhaps Nathan’s newest post crystalized my thoughts here. I realize this is rambling, and my appologies, but I just needed to be able to express this.

John Fariss

And before you accuse me of being one of those crypto-moderates who really hates the SBC, let me say loud and clear I am a very conservative complimentarian, I am an ecclesiologically minded Calvinist, I am not a “continuationist,” I believe in closed communion and reject alien immerison, I am a political conservative, even a religio-political conservative, and I would be a teetotaler even if I had no affiliation whatsoever with a Southern Baptist institution.

The fact you perceived this disclaimer was needed tells me a lot about the SBC’s problems and future. (Or lack of same.) It has the tone of loudly reciting a Party Line to prevent the Thought Police from dragging you away for Thoughtcrime/Heresy.

Especially when you also feel the need to specify your orthodox credentials as a “political conservative” and “a teetotaler”. SBC’s Culture War/The Battle of the Booze continues…

Nathan,

Wow, I can be number 65 . I enjoyed our phone conversation this afternoon. I’m going to approach this from a different angle: I worry about Baptist future because of the faulty view of most of Southern Baptist concerning the work of God in Salvation but I also worry greatly about the doctrine of the church with our forty and below calvinists in the SBC. I think we as calvinists have become hypocrites blasting the arminians in the SBC but we have trampled upon Baptistic church doctrine.

I think the words Baptistic Calvinist are a dying breed in our under forty men because of the truths we must face concerning the Puritans and some of our silent SBC Calvinist men on the doctrine of the church concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and what is a gospel church. The famous cry I hear is ” This is not the battle we need to fight now ” has become a sickening sound to my ear. I guess we have forgot that after a person is converted by God then he is to be discipled and cared for by a visible church so if we are not right in our theology on the visible church then it does matter. The day so called Baptist Men who call themselves Calvinist would battle me over that Baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. This is Baptist 101 but where do these forty and below calvinist get this thinking: Puritans and modern Presbyterian men. When I was challenged because I was asked if I would serve the Lord’s Supper to RC Sproul or Lig Duncan and my answer was No because they are not baptized and therefore….. you thought that I was the worst human being ever. These are some of our Calvinistic Baptist Bloggers. So, do I feel good about the future of the SBC my answer is no from two sides: No, to the arminian/general Baptist guys and No to the Calvinistic Baptist of the SBC because they are embracing open communion and I think they are heading down a trail that they might be suprised just how far they will go in embracing Presbyterian church doctrine. You watch because it is already present.

Scott,

I am working on a post that addresses the issue you (and others) have raised. Thanks for the comment and the conversation earlier.

NAF

Nathan,

I do look forward to reading what you have to say. This blog is touching on church doctrine that alot of guys don’t want to touch because it will force them to have to come to the realization that it is not just about getting the five points right.

Also, our younger Calvinist Baptist brothers are watching some of our Calvinistic Baptist Leaders not touch these things because they have heard that Baptism, gospel church, and Lord’s Supper are not priority one doctrines like justification. I do care that a person understands how we are justified more than ” Local church communion only” however, in the great comission Jesus states Baptism and teaching them to observe all things that I Have commanded so we have to be careful as Pastors, Bloggers, Seminary presidents making statements like ” 1st tier doctrines, 2nd tier doctrines”. Who ever gave any of us the authority to say ” We don’t need to battle this church doctrine stuff out right now”.

I was asked a very interesting question recently from one of our SBC seminary deans that I could not honestly answer and defend because though we differ on the work of God in salvation but he nailed some of our hides on this ” RL Dabney and JH Thornwell both have said who are presbyterian theologians ” If we ( Presbyterians) are not baptized then we are not in the visible church. Sources: Lectures in Systematic Theology lecture 64 pp 774-775(Dabney) ” No baptism means no church”, The Collected Writings of J. H. Thornwell Vol 3 pp 277-413 Banner of Truth Edition . The older Presbyterians saw the serious issue of this.

While I love Sproul and Duncan as brothers I’m afraid some of our guys are turning a blind eye to these men on the serious issues of letting in uncoverted children into membership of Christ church and giving them unscriptural baptism because of wrong subject, mode, (and my view) administrator because if they are not visible churches then they have no authority to baptize and serve uncoverted children the Lord’s Supper. Go ahead and yell ” You landmarker”. I highly doubt some of our guys are willing to say what many of our older Baptist saints have said about the issues of church doctrine because it will raise many questions for them about present day ministry with the Padeobaptist. Baptistic Calvinism is not as strong as we think !!! Let me give one last example: One Baptist Calvinist Church served the Lord’s Supper knowing that they were serving it to an unbaptized man but the reason they gave was : ” The Elders got together and made this decesion”. Sorry no Plurality of Elders has the right to go against clear scriptural teaching on this . This is one of our major distinctives !!! I will wait to see what you post on your new blog topic. Thanks Nathan !

[...] Finn Wonders If The SBC Has A Future Posted on April 28, 2008 by Tom I had heard about this post written by Nathan Finn last week but I waited to read it. Truthfully, I was not sure if I wanted to [...]

[...] Does the SBC Have a Future? « The Fullness of Time [...]

Does the SBC have a future? Not if it is like the SBC my friend attends and I only use this as an example. He and his wife are twenty-somethings with their first child. They have been attending this SBC church for better than a year but have never joined. They wanted to have their baby dedicated but were told they would not be able to participate in the dedications being planned because they had never joined (and been baptized there), ie, “we need these statistics.” Of course the church accepts their monetary contributions. Now what does this say to young parents when we put statistics ahead of outreach? Perhaps the SBC is but a reflection of the local church and not the other way around.

[...] Nathan Finn, wonders if the SBC has a future after reading Ed Stitzer’s accurate assessment of the SBC’s growth chart which demonstrates that the SBC has reached its peak and is on the decline.  Most of the comments to these two blogs have to do with what the SBC needs to do as a corporate body and I’m sure that there are steps that need to be taken to revive and center the SBC.  However my argument is that the SBC is only as strong as the local SBC church.  Whatever is going on globally with the SBC the real rubber meets the road that stops at the local church’s door.  And I offer the following as only a small slice of life at a SBC church where my friend and his wife attend. [...]

Nathan,

Excellent job - very well thout out and laid out. I am guilty of some of what you said for sure. I have planted or been apart of three church plants - all SBC. I am currently working and planning a new one and have decided it will not be SBC. It was a hard decision for a guy that was born and raised SBC - but as another SBC Pastor told me “you are not leaving the convention, they left you”.

That is truly how I feel. I mean from having a local Missions Director that is anti-calvinistic and against bilical polity. It is just not wotrth the issues when there are plenty of other biblical Assoc’s that will “HELP” me. Church planting is tough enough.

Thanks for your thoughts and analysis.

Nathan,

Just a thought and would love your opinion even if I don’t agree with it. Let me say some things first to explain my question. I personally have every Puritan set of books that is out on the market. I do and have read the Puritans and I don’t think it is evil if a Baptist reads them however, some may think I feel that way but for the record I do not. I see younger Calvinist Baptist guys regularly talk about the Puritans and I think they should be read. Also, I know Dr. Nettles has written alot on our Baptist guys and I’m thankful for that but it seems you don’t see guys in the younger Calvinist Baptist circles talking as much about Gill, Keach, Booth, Dagg, Mell, Boyce, Brine, Mercer, and I could list many more. Though I love Gill and Brine I do not agree with everything they taught but these are the men I mostly read. I hear younger guys regularly talking about Berkhof, Reymond, Sproul, Duncan, Dabney, Hodge, and other Padeobaptist.

I have noticed that nine marks ministries constantly promotes Padeobaptist men which can’t be denied because the facts are clearly seen by the eye. With 9 Marks being so popular(I do appreciate 99% of what they do and I like Mark Dever) but do you feel that the younger Baptist Calvinist are seeing this ministry constantly recommending these guys more than the Baptist Calvinist ??? They see at Together For The Gospel all the Padeobaptist book people and do you think that speaks to them ?? Did the Founders have a booth ? If not why not ?I feel we have got to get our younger guys to reading the Baptist Calvinist men more and more because it will help us more down the road . So when the John 3:16 conference comes we will be able to say better ” Look at our older brothers in what they say rather than look at what the Puritans and Princeton theologians said”. Am I making any sense on this to you??? What say you ?? BTW, this is why I love your blog because you are teaching us Baptist our history and our men which only helps me in my talks with the average Southern Baptist.

Scott,

I will discuss my perspective on some of the issues you are raising in a future post–hopefully in the next couple of weeks. Thanks for your questions.

NAF

[...] declines can be found here, here and here. Good conversations around this issue can be found here, here, and [...]

Nathan,
I have recently expereinced the sad reality of what you speak. Despite my best efforts to convince my sister and her soon-to-be husnband of the merits of SBC seminaries and the IMB, they have decided to attend Columbia International University for seminary training. They also stated flatly that they would never consider going to the mission field with the IMB, though the mission field is where they fell God calling them. My sister and her fiance are deeply devoted to Christ, deeply evangelical, and are graduating from UNION UNIVERSITY this month. I asked what caused them to be so seriously opposed to considering ministry within the SBC. Their basic answer was that the parade of SBC pastors coming through Union’s chapel had cured them of ever wanting to enter SBC church life. This is in spite of them both highly praising Union as a Christian college.

This is a very serious issue. Young people who seek the deep things of Christ and who care about the integrity of the gospel, are for whatever reason not finding what they seek within SBC churches.

May the Lord refine His church.

I agree with Nathan on the Southern dominance of the SBC. If the SBC is to continue to grow, it will have to flow out of the southeast, into other regions of the nation. This means evangelism could easily become converting others to Southern Christianity, instead of just Christ. This would probably fail and cause many Southern Baptists to lose hope. But if the SBC is content to reign in its “Southern Zion” and continue to equate Southern culture with Christianity, and vice versa, then she will be relegated to live out her days of decline in the South and become as antiquated as Gone With the Wind.

[...] to the Southern Baptist Convention, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary prof, Nathan Finn, recently asked: So does the SBC have a future? It depends upon what you mean by “future.” I suspect the name [...]

What they said!
Best analysis I have read.

Nathan,
Thanks for this. I for one (you know me, the eternal optimist) believe there is a future. But it will be more positive if we come to grips with the fundamental institutionalism, cronyism (cronyism whether liberal or conservative is not so hot), and atmosphere of suspicion. When I think of the denomination on the meta level I get discouraged. But when I spend time with a student about to head to a new church plant (like today) or with a graduate in a vibrant church near Cleveland (like yesterday), I remain excited and hopeful. The SBC is a convention of local churches. The more we focus there, the more of a future we will have. Those of us, myself included, who have at least some modicum of influence as gatekeepers must use our influence to help younger leaders who truly love Christ, His Word, and the Gospel to have a voice.
I also believe we must, we simply must, become serious about decentralizing and localizing. I cannot agree that the era of denominationalism is over. But I am quite sure it will change for any to survive long term.
Last year I spoke in a state convention where it was announced that 90 percent of senior pastors were over 40. That also happens to be a convention in serious turmoil. Can there be a correlation?
We have so many heroes, men of God much my senior, who have left us a great legacy in many ways. But I have told my own children as they move into adulthood that they will see more and more ways I was fallible, and it will not mean I was an awful father because in a few ways I was wrong. Same with the convention. A generation before me so many were taught that priorities are God first, ministry second, and if you take care of your ministry God will take care of your family. That has not worked out so well from where I stand in class daily. That philosophy was wrong. I would rather follow the model of my president Danny Akin who loves his family and has four young men of God as sons. I would say his ministry has not suffered by putting his family in a good place. So it is with the philosophy that one’s theology and methodology are so intertwined that to change methods (like the song we sing on Sunday) is tantamount to changing one’s theology. I for one am weary of that conversation. Conservative in theology, certainly, creative in methodology, just as much. I would even argue that a healthy theology requires changes. Truth never changes, but it ought to be changing us.
Sorry to ramble but you always get me thinking. Dangerous thing that.

Nathan,

This absolutely needed to be said, and you said it so well! I could not agree with you more. One of the items that drives me most crazy about the SBC as a whole is the overt prideful conceitedness that so many of us exude. This attitude was something that I could readily see as I grew up in another denomination. Having now been within the fold of the SBC for 6 years (joining because of theology), this pridefulness continues to be something that hinders our work in the world, but more tragically, drags the name of our Savior through the mud. I pray that the SBC will begin to shift and address many of the issues you mentioned here. Great post, and keep up the good work!

Nathan,
I too was led to your article by links from Founders. Thank you for your intelligent and insightful comments. As a pastor, I will continue to lift-up our denominational leadership and hope for a “revival” (read into that repentance and brokenness) to break-out throughout our SBC churches! The gospel is too sweet and our Lord too beautiful to play second fiddle to humanist pop psychololgy or personal agendas in our churches!

Thank you again…..and I’m adding you to my prayer list as one I know God will continue to use in His Kingdom work!

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories