Recent days have seen the increasing warning that pastors under 40 are abandoning the SBC for a movement that is more relevant. Large church pastors on the cutting edge are paraded before the followers of SBC goings-on for the purpose of demonstrating “how it ought to be done.” Falling baptismal rates, shrinking churches, and graying heads are cited as supporting evidence of the tragic direction of the once mighty ship of the SBC. Having instilled fear into the heart of the young, the barely 40 pleads with the nearly 40 to come out and “be ye separate” lest the ship sink from a lack of interest. Our participation in the Great Commission is beckoned at every turn, as well it should be. However, according to some, the call is not simply to DO the Great Commission; rather, it is to do the Great Commission “like us.” The newly created box is to do things out of the box.
This is not to say that we are not encapsulated within our own time and culture. However, we must be careful not to act as if the Great Commission is prone to failure. When we participate in the command of Christ to make disciples by teaching and baptizing, we can be sure that the Commission will accomplish its intention. In other words, the power of salvation resides in the Word of God properly taught, preached, and obeyed. Therefore, as an under 40 pastor, and at times a victim of others misunderstandings, monikers, and misrepresentations by barely 40 pastors, I offer a series of posts from one under 40 pastor for your consideration. In not necessarily any order of importance, I offer the first of seven reflections of an under 40 pastor.
1. Theological Integrity.
I was raised during the age of “if it feels good, do it” or “if it works, it must be good.” Now, the slogans of Wall Street and the quips of psychology often plague the methodological approach of our churches. We have rightly lamented the “front door-back door” problem. However, these slogans and quips should be reserved for Corporate America. Too often in church life, we examine the pragmatic success, seek the approval of the polls, and then search for the prohibitions of Scripture. We must regain the notion that the word of God is more than boundaries that should not be crossed, but they are directives that should be followed. By doing so, we will maintain our theological integrity.
The most unpragmatic doctrine of today is Ecclesiology. Supposing we could solve the debates of Soteriology, will it really matter if we fail to address Ecclesiology? As a man who has been twice dunked but once baptized, I fear that if we lose this precious doctrine, we will lose our identity, not as Baptists, but as obedient disciples; those who name Christ as Lord. The commission of our Lord is to make disciples, which includes a proper practice of baptism. We must obey ALL the commands of Christ, which involves the proper practice of ecclesiastical observances, even though they may bring disagreement with other ecclesiastical traditions.
Our coherence of the problems we face today is reflected in the solution that we offer to rectify the problem. If we fail to find the solution, it is because we have misunderstood the problem. Baptismal rates are not the problem; rather they are the reflection of the problem. I cannot help but find the irony of appealing to baptisms as the end-all of success, while simultaneously wanting to undo our doctrine of baptism. Perhaps we are too concerned with waxing the fruit when we need to be deepening the root. In other words, will the solutions offered today cause our roots to grow deeper as Christ-followers, or will they simply make us more appealing to those who gather around to observe what is being produced? Is our interest to develop followers of Christ, or observers of worship? Followers of Christ are interested in what He teaches. Observers of worship pursue “what works for me” and what “feels good today.”
If we seek unity at the expense of a biblical ecclesiology we will lose our integrity as people who have throughout our brief history championed theology. It is our particular theology that invited our being named Baptists. Fundamentally, the methodological problems we face today pale in comparison to the problems that we will face tomorrow if we lose our integrity. The command to honor the Commission is not a command to prioritize His commands according to pragmatic successes; rather, it is a command to obey all that we have been commanded by our Lord, lest He ask of us, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). To claim Christ as Lord and then prioritize His commands is to have a lack of integrity in our theology. We should passionately pursue Soteriology, but in doing so, let us not sacrifice Ecclesiology on the altar of pragmatics. If we sacrifice Ecclesiology, we need not fear the death of our churches, for we will have killed them.
15 comments:
John,
"Ditto" from another under 40 SBC pastor.
We MUST maintain a solid, biblical foundation for our lives and ministries.
We CAN cooperate with other conservative, evangelical (in the true definition of that word) ecclesiastical traditions without having to 'become' those traditions ourselves!
I hope you plan on speaking to the issue of cooperation verses acquiescence as it relates to our churches and the SBC. We need to know that there are limits to both cooperation and there is no need to acquiesce to acceptance of things like infant baptism for our churches to be 'relevant' or 'healthy.'
OK, I'll stop trying to write that post myself... :-)
Sola Gratia!
...We need to know that there are limits to cooperation as well as no need to acquiesce...
Now that sentence makes more better sense
;-)
SG!
As one who is over 40, I object that you do not see that your words are just as applicable to us!
;)
Scott,
I will be covering a host of topics. I am sure that discussion will be included somewhere.
Dr. Yarnell,
You're over 40? Who would have guessed? :)
I absolutely agree with maintaining theological integrity. Once we compromise our reliance on scripture, we compromise not only our denomination, but our faith as a whole. However, in my own ministry I have seen far more evidence of SBC churches that are more committed to being "baptist" than they are to being faithful Christians.
I do not say this to be trite or cute. I see it as an observation from an under 40 pastor who has spent the majority of his time as a pastor around 70+ senior citizens who cannot seem to figure out why young adults don't want to sing Lilly of the Valley every Sunday.
It is out of this experience that I have noticed that what many of our churches want to return to a 1950's moral ethic for our society, whether or not people are actually being saved and baptized as Biblical followers of Christ. There seems to be a greater commitment to preserving a long dead culture than in fulfilling our Biblical Mandate to engage our present culture and make disciples.
It is out of this dilemma that I have questioned the validity of most SBC churches. I do not have any real qualms with Baptist doctrine, but I do with the way many Baptist Churches have become Holy Huddles that refuse to fulfill their mission.
When a young pastor, like myself, repeatedly runs into the same tired arguments defending a long dead culture, we often decide that maybe our efforts are better spent in a church that is willing to let go of methods that stopped working 20 years ago. We, I, only have one life to give to ministry and we want to do our best to make it count.
Roger,
Thank you for your thoughts. I certainly agree with much of what you have to say. The generation of the past has certainly made many mistakes. The "worship wars" have led to the demise of far too many churches. There has been, at times, an overemphasis of a moral ethic that has sadly been divorced from the regenerating activity of the Spirit of God. There has been a failure in many churches of bygone years to make disciples due to an inward focused ministry. These things are true.
However, are you willing to say that our generation is without our own failures? Leadership does not spend its time lamenting the failures of the past, rather, it learns from those failures, as well as their successes, and leads toward the future. My fear is that, having seen the failures of the past, we will think the past to be a failure. That is a notion that I am not quite comfortable with (as a matter of fact, it will be the focus of one of my seven reflections).
We, as the "under 40 leaders" must discern the dangers of the future and seek to correct those before they become our failures. In other words, hindsight is 20/20, I am appealing to my brethren to use some foresight and see the dangerous waters that we might find ourselves in if we don't return to weighing some things with a spiritual discernment. Otherwise, the problems we create for our generation will far outweigh the problems of the past. Humility demands that we see we don't have it all figured out either.
I prefer to avoid the failures of the past, celebrate their victories with them, and use both to chart the future. When the notion of "being Baptist" becomes a bad thing, it seems we have lost our ability to discern the real problems. If one agrees with Baptist doctrine as being Biblical (as do I), yet problems remain, it is not that being a Baptist has created our problems; rather it is that being a 'bad' Baptist has created our problems. I am advocating a return to Baptist doctrine, not because Baptists have always done right, but because the ideal Baptist is a biblical Christian.
In other words, once the diagnosis has been properly discerned, the question becomes one of treatment. Diagnosis discovers the problem, but treatment solves the problem. We should be as careful with the treatment as we are the diagnosis.
John,
I am not saying our generation is without fault. I am also NOT saying that past victories should be forgotten. Let me see if I can explain it a little differently this time.
Traditionalism is absolutely choking many SBC churches to death. As these churches decline, a certain kind of panic sets in that new members are now necessary so they will hire a new "YOUNG" pastor to reach a younger generation so the church can move forward into the future. They stand up and affirm how important the next generation of believers are to the church, pat the new pastor on the back and tell him to "go get 'em". This is where a very unpleasant reality for the young pastor introduces itself. He alone has the responsibility to convince unbelievers not only to come to church, but to accept and embrace an outdated, ineffective, self-centered way of doing things in the church. Now, the pastor is in an impossible place. He wants the reach people, but he finds that his hands have been completely tied because the church doesn't really want to grow, they just want to be excited about their church again, which happened when they called their new "young" pastor. As time goes by, the pastor finds that the church fights him on literally everything he wants to do so that eventually, he asks, "Why did you hire me?"
If our churches are to grow, then they have to be willing to allow a new generation of ministers to learn and grow. If they are not allowed to "spread their wings" so to speak, but are stifled by a commitment to 1950s thinking then their gifts and talents will be wasted.
Of course, this means mistakes will be made. But I don't personally know any better way to grow than learning from mistakes.
I do not claim to have significant answers for church growth, but I have already learned a great deal about church death. Most of our Southern Baptist Churches must change or die. Unfortunately, most would rather die, which is exactly what we are seeing today. Young leaders can't change this mindset and we are already tired of trying. This is why so many young leaders are leaving the SBC and starting Non-Denom churches. They simply cannot stand being forcefed traditions that are choking the life out of everyone they touch.
Roger,
Again, I both hear and sympathize with your concern. I too have faced situations that have been based on traditions instead of Scripture, and will probably do so again. However, the issue has to do with leadership. Followers allow frustration to guide them. Leaders are guided by vision. If we abandon the generation that has gone before, can we really call ourselves leaders? If the SBC has problems, and it does (as does any other denomination and non-denomination) then it requires leaders to see them through those problems. My question is simple: if all of the self-professed young leaders are truly leaders, then why are they leaving? For that reason, I do not buy into the argument that our leaders are leaving. Leaders don't leave, they lead, in spite of frustration. Blessings, my friend.
Brother John,
You said:
Leaders don't leave, they lead, in spite of frustration.
Could it be that these "leaders" do not see themselves as Southern Baptist so much as they see themselves as followers of Christ. Thus, when they encounter so much duplicity from others saying, "Be biblical and reach the next generation" as well as "We are not willing to give up our traditions," they see their calling to God's Kingdom much more so than to a particular denomination?
In other words, if they lead outside of the SBC - even planting baptistic churches - perhaps they are leaders in the Kingdom, just not leaders in the SBC?
Or, to put it yet another way, maybe they are willing to lead those who are willing to follow... and the duplicitous folks are not willing to follow the Holy Scriptures because of their traditions?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
PS - Long day, apologies for my difficulties in articulating the question(s) above.
FTME,
I agree:
1). That we should be Christian before being SBC, and nowhere articulated anything to the contrary.
2). We should be guided by Scripture, and not tradition.
I am not sure where I advocated anything differently.
Oh, but please be careful about labeling others as "duplicitous." Without a heavy burden of proof, that seems to be a judgment of character that is neither prudent nor biblical.
Brother John,
I was not under the impression you place Baptist above Christian. Rather, my questions were in response to the statement that leaders should not leave the SBC, but should remain instead. If their commitment is to Jesus and His Kingdom (as revealed in Holy Scripture), AND SBC churches (as a whole) are hung up on extra-biblical tradition (I'm not saying they are), then your statement clearly does not apply.
So, the question is whether or not SBC churches as a whole are hung up on extra-biblical tradition to the point that they are not really willing to be all things to all people in order to "reach the next generation?"
If this is the case, and they are "hiring" young pastors in order to "reach the next generation," they most certainly are duplicitous. Again, I am not saying this is the case, but am asking whether or not it is. It seems this is what Brother Roger is driving at as well.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
FTME,
As of yet, I see no evidence that the larger part of the SBC is demonstrating duplicity by being hung-up on extra-biblical traditions, though I am sure that instances could be found of such. However, that does not indicate that the larger portion of SBC is doing such.
If it were to occur, I would still encourage people to stay and lead the SBC out of such nonsense. The only way that I would encourage someone to leave would be if there is blatant disregard for the gospel in the sense of irrecoverable heresy.
Could you link or give the names of the newspapers that regularly offer to buy the first round of drinks? I may live in a small town but I have not seen nor heard of any of this. Thanks in advance.
Post a Comment