12 Witnesses

Dwight McKissic’s sermon at SWBTS that has been the tipping point of so much is now online. Dwight has posted it on his blog and you can read it for yourself here:

In the beginning…

Dwight McKissic has officially entered the blogosphere. You can find his blog and a welcome post (with comment section) here:

www.dwightmckissic.wordpress.com

Tammy Reed Ledbetter has just released an article through Baptist Press that raises quite a few concerns. The article, entitled, “Theology dean comments on SWBTS prayer language stance,” raises several concerns in my mind.

1. Let me just get this out there and out of the way… When a writer refers to Private Prayer Language, they can do just that. They do not need to add descriptors within the name. When you write, “Private Prayer Language,” every Baptist I know will understand immediately what you are talking about - even if they are oblivious to the current discussion within the SBC.

Therefore, adding the words “neo-Pentecostal/charismatic” in front of the term is not only unnecessary, it is intentionally pejorative. BP seems to have made purposeful strides in reporting in a neutral fashion recently. Unfortunately, this appears to be a step backwards in the process. BP articles on this topic this week have repeatedly used this type of description in simple reference to PPL.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s move on to the meat of the article…

2. The process of weeding out anyone who believes in or practices PPL has, according to Dean Allen, been going on for years at SWBTS. “Prospective faculty members have been quizzed on the subject for years,” Allen said. Also, the article includes this:

“During the entire Hemphill time, as a board member, if a person articulated to me that they had charismatic leanings and inclusive of that was a private prayer language, it would be very unlikely I would have been supportive of faculty status.” However, a faculty member who privately discloses a sympathetic view toward the practice of a private prayer language won’t be hauled into the dean’s office, Allen said.

The implication here is that this type of exclusion is nothing new. If so, I am disturbed. Just because a problem (exclusion of certain ideas beyond the Governing theological document for SWBTS - the BFM) has been in place for several years, does not mean it is not a problem. This exclusion is a problem. Period.

3. As was argued on this blog last weekend, the concept of Academic Freedom is far from a reality in our Seminaries.

“As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of Southwestern Seminary. Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including ‘private prayer language.’ Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.””

There is no other way to interpret this other than if you publicly endorse any other belief than a belief that the Bible never allows for an “ecstatic utterance” you are unemployable at SWBTS. In fact, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, I believe that there is no such thing as a “Grandfather Clause,” either written or unspoken. In other words, it is certainly not written and I am sure that it is not an unspoken understanding. That means that if you are already employed as a professor at the Seminary and you publicly advocate convictions concerning PPL that are non-cessationist, then the SWBTS is now duty bound, by the action of its President and Trustees, to fire you.

This quote seems to be a reassurance that there will be no witch hunt:

Southwestern President Paige Patterson agreed. “As long as it remains private, it’s not problematic to me because I don’t know,” Patterson said. “If it does become known to some people, but is not a matter that is advocated or advertised and the reputation of the school is not harmed thereby, then it’s not a problem.”

This allows the President, however, to define what is problematic and what is not. That is a slippery slope, to be sure. Aside from that, now we have a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at SWBTS, only with us, it is PPL. I don’t know anybody who thinks that this policy has worked well within the military.

Basically, that policy says: “We don’t like or believe in what you are doing. In fact, we are keeping the laws against this behavior on the books and if we find out, we will prosecute you. However, if you are good at keeping it a secret so that we don’t have to openly accept or reject you, we will let you stay. Just make it convenient for us so that we don’t have to deal with you and we will leave you alone.”

Let me hasten to say that the military had this foisted on them by President Clinton and an agenda that promoted the homosexual lifestyle. This is a policy not of their choosing. Why anyone would willingly impose such a double minded regulation on oneself?

Finally, let me reiterate this: Academic Freedom is anything but alive and well when it comes to this issue. It surely puts the conversation on this blog last weekend in a new light.

4. Student reaction:

Nor should the statement pose a problem for any SWBTS students, he added. “We have lots of students who aren’t Southern Baptists and some are charismatic. We do not expect our students to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Under no conditions would any such student be unwelcome here,” Allen said.

This has yet to be seen. I daresay, however, that the student reaction may be more negative than they realize. Of course, everyone is speculating here, me included. However, I am sure that if you are not a cessationist, especially if you are a REAL charismatic, and attending SWBTS (or considering it) then knowing that SWBTS’ official position, and the only position tolerated by its professors, is that what you believe is FALSE DOCTRINE would certainly not be seen as “welcoming.” I know that it will certainly affect the referral process as pastors and other men influential on young preachers help them make their decisions concerning their academic future.

5. “On the other side of the coin, we can be careful in whom we do hire. We will not hire anyone knowingly who affirms that which the vast majority of Southern Baptists disavow.”” - Dr. Allen

Well, that’s not healthy. So we are going to let the majority opinion of pop-theology in the “Christian Culture” of the Southern Baptist Convention dictate what the scholars of our convention do and do not teach? I can’t think of anything less ideal - or less true. This is an appeal to what the SWBTS administration perceives to be the majority of the SBC. If the majority is behind you, then you can just outvote the minority, so this is seen as a trump card.

I am afraid, though, that they are mistaken. I am not arguing that anywhere near a majority of Southern Baptists practice a PPL, nor would they even necessarily believe it is Biblical, but I don’t think the majority are ready to throw out everyone who does. Of course, if certain people keep falsely reframing the issue as “neo-pentecostal/charismatic” then the majority may soon be on their side. The way that is framed, they might as well be called “snake handling wackos.”

If it is an academic issue, as they claim, then let it be so. Argue from Scripture and be done. It is foolish and dangerous to start calling on the majority opinion to be the sanctioning authority for what is taught by scholars at the Seminary. How is it that I can see the danger in this and they can’t? It certainly puts a squelch on “Academic Freedom.” Do all of our professors believe in a dispensational eschatology? Pre-tribulation rapture? Are any post-trib or amillenialists? If so, the argument above would say that they must be asked to leave if they publicly espouse these beliefs.

This is not an exhaustive list, but these things stand out to me as I read the article in question. Maybe other things stand out to you, or you disagree. Well, now’s your chance. What do you think?

[edit: The links below are now fixed]

The Trustees at SWBTS have just approved Dr. Paige Patterson’s letter to them, which you can find at Ben Cole’s blog. This has created a monumental shift in the fabric of the Southern Baptist Convention. Be sure, also, to read the response by Dwight McKissic. He was the lone dissenting vote when the letter was approved.

There are so many things going on in Dr. Patterson’s letter, such as some very unkind words describing Dwight McKissic, glossing of enrollment numbers, failure to mention the Fund Fiasco … All of these have become side issues, though, compared to the main issue of the letter.

Dr. Patterson has taken the “Private Prayer Language” issue from an isolated concern of one entity within the convention and turned it into the new battle for the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Convention. By staking out this issue and calling such attention to it, we no longer have an anomaly at the IMB, but a systemic divide over the openness and ability to cooperate among conservative inerrantists that now make up the Southern Baptist Convention.

Do you think that I am mistaken in my estimation? Observe NAMB. The policy that they have governing this issue was in place well before the one at the IMB. Have they elevated it to such levels of controversy? No. Should it have been dealt with before now? Surely, but the actions of Dr. Patterson now demand that the SBC deal with this issue. Will we allow cooperation with those who practice or even affirm the practice of PPL as Biblical, or will we exclude everyone who does not openly reject any view other than the cessationist view?

Three of our entities now have the issue decided against the existence or cooperation of PPL affirming (not practicing, mind you) people or organizations within the SBC. This oversteps the BFM and reveals the issue to be, as I said before, systemic.

Dr. Patterson has done more to guarantee that the SBC address this issue definitively than anything Dwight McKissic could have done. McKissic’s letter to Frank Page and the Executive Committee opened a small line of dialogue on the issue. I doubt that the BFM would have been amended, and I am personally not for it. The more you define, the less you can cooperate and this is not an issue for alienation of cooperating brothers and sisters. Defining it, even defining it openly, will restrict us somehow. Nevertheless, we must now address it. He has made this a “New Hill On Which To Die.”

I was and am willing to fight for the authority of God’s Word. I am an inerrantist and no doubt about it. This particular interpretation of God’s Word is not something for which I am willing to fight.

Rather, I am willing to fight against it. I am not against cessationism, mind you. I affirm the right of any Christian and any Southern Baptist to believe in the cessationist viewpoint and express a desire to cooperate with them in reaching the lost world with the Gospel. If this is the new Hill, so be it. I can’t live with an SBC that is that narrow. If we lose this, I do believe that the SBC will fall away into an irrelevant, homogenous and pharisaical entity crying for the world to act and believe as they do, with the life changing and revolutionary Gospel as an afterthought.

This is a bitter day. I do not look forward to this. I approach this conflict with a broken heart, but a firm resolve.

Please check out the details of the move by SWBTS leadership to take funds from the oversight of the Baptist Foundation of Texas and put it under the control of a management team and keep the money more “in house.” You can find a full detail of the potential move on Marty Duren’s blog, SBC Outpost. Be sure to read through the comment string as much more information is revealed there.

This post will not recite the news found there, but will offer a few observations.

First, let me say that it is well within the purview of the SWBTS Board of Trustees to make this move. It is neither illegal nor unethical. They have every right, and the responsibility, to do what they think is best for the institution. The SBC has affirmed them to their positions and that is that.

Many questions are swirling around the move that are, as yet, unanswered. It is a vastly complex issue, as you will hear from me again in just a moment. I give you my unfettered opinion … for what it’s worth.

Is it wise to do this? Possibly. It may be that TIFF can create a greater yield on the investment. If that is the reason, then the move may be best thing. The problem is that the whole issue is of far greater complexity than a simple return on the investment.

Is it a vindictive move? Some speculate that this is an attempt to dislodge $90 Million in assets from the Baptist Foundation of Texas, which is affiliated with the BGCT and not the SBT. Why would that matter? Because the SBT is the “Conservative” state convention in Texas. Is that all? No. The BGCT has shut out all of the SBC Seminaries from exhibiting a booth at their state convention for the last several years. In other words, the BGCT is actively seeking to funnel its young ministry students toward education options that are, if nothing else, not the Big 6 and certainly not SWBTS.

The chain of events goes back through the Resurgence and finds its most pivotal point in the firing of Dr. Russell Dilday. I was there. After Dr. Dilday was fired, several alternatives for Texas Baptists opened up in the way of higher education. Texas now has its own Seminary at Baylor’s Campus in Waco, Truett Seminary. All of this is to say, it has been a long road, but the BGCT and the former Flagship of Baptist Education, SWBTS, have come to a place of now long held grudges. Is this worth $90 Million? I hope not.

Is this a control issue? Can the Seminary, and its leadership, now have more flexibility in the access of these funds? Much of this in yet unanswered, but I suspect not. It doesn’t really matter, though. If there were inappropriate or possibly unethical maneuvering of these funds, we would surely post it on the Internet and the world would know by sunset.

Are there conflicts of interest? There may be a few. Find these listed in Marty’s article and the subsequent comment string. Also, feel free to inform or opine on this in the comment section.

What is the big picture?

For me, the movement of monies away from a non-profit organization that is built to facilitate ministry, ON BOTH ENDS, to put it in the hands of a for-profit organization that will be receiving a huge commission on the management of the fund is mind boggling. Let me clarify the statement that the Baptist Foundation of Texas facilitates ministry on both ends. The Foundation facilitates ministry at the Seminary by providing a return on the investment. The Seminary uses the interest from the $90 Mill, which is a LOT of money, and thereby furthers its goals. The Foundation facilitates ministry elsewhere by using that money to make loans to churches that help them build, renovate or whatever else they are seeking to do. Ministry on both ends of the equation.

Compile the loss of one half of that ministry facilitation with the TIFF funds that invest in alcohol, tobacco and gaming. The consideration is that we will do less ministry and will now support these three lifestyle issues (typically condemned by the SBC, Resolution 5 being one obvious example this year) by investing in what has been called “sin stocks” by the Resurgence leadership since the late 70’s.

This is the point that I just can’t swallow. Sacrifice ministry for financial gain on the backs of heartbreaking lifestyle choices within our culture. Anything else that is involved has become minutiae to me. Call me “old fashioned,” but I would rather not make money by selling people tobacco, or investing in the “house” that takes money from folks on games that are set up for them to lose. I don’t want to make money selling alcohol, either. I jsut don’t want any part of it. I know that people have a choice to be doing these things and our presence will not likely change it. It just seems like usury to me, and I don’t want to be in it.

Forgive me if I don’t want my alma mater to get into it, either.

Okay. Those are my thoughts for the moment. What are yours?

Let me just ask this question:

When someone posts a comment on a blog, who is responsible for those words?

If there is a name attached, but no profile, is the blog owner responsible?

If it is absolutely anonymous, is the blog owner responsible?

Is the blog owner ever responsible?

If so, to whom is he/she responsible?

What if the blog is owned by a Trustee? A pastor? A denominational servant? A seminary professor?

To whom are they responsible?

What if they allow libelous remarks to stand after the person libeled asks them to remove them?

The Christian is under a Scriptural mandate not to sue another Christian. I had a professor once who said he felt that someone who had slandered him within our denomination had proved themselves not to be his brother, and open to a lawsuit. When put that way, the offending brother curbed his tongue.

Do you buy that?

If not, what recourse is there?

I was sent a link to this article in the Biblical Recorder: Little bloggers, big force.

This is another interesting perspective from a traditional journalist.

I am curious as he notes those who are prominent in SBC blogging. I agree with most, though I find many, curiously, absent. When I looked at the blog aggregators mentioned, the second one never loaded, but the first one had many notable absences as well I also found several blogs that I consider less influential than many, but were listed. I saw one blog that has been shelved completely.

The most read blog not mentioned, by my estimation, is the Founders Ministry Blog, by Dr. Tom Ascol. I base this on the the number of those who subscribe to this blog on “Bloglines” compared to all the others - including Wade Burleson and Marty Duren. Other bloggers not mentioned, but should be noted, would have to include Tim Sweatman, Kevin Bussey, Dorcas Hawker, CB Scott, David Rogers, Bart Barber, Brad Reynolds, the Arkansas Razorbaptist(s), Morris Chapman (hello!), Micah Fries, Paul Littleton and Wes Kenney. Of course, this is self advancing, and therefore is somewhat distasteful, but I am not on the list either.

My list is not comprehensive, by any means, nor does it list people who are in homogeneous agreement with my viewpoint. The fact is that these people are influencing the discussion in the SBC blogosphere.

Now consider this portion of the article listed above describing SEBTS President Danny Akin and his recent interaction concerning blogs and bloggers.

Blogs are not universally popular, however. During a plenary session of the trustees at Southeastern Seminary, seminary president Daniel Akin was asked by a trustee to share his opinion about blogging. Akin, who posts many of his writings online, though not in the form of an interactive blog, said blogs are both a blessing and a curse, “a 21st century outlet for extreme narcissism.”

Blogs require no accountability, Akin said, allowing people “to make scurrilous, false, untrue accusations against men that I believe are men of God.”

Akin said he didn’t know anyone who had been attacked more than former SEBTS president Paige Patterson. “Some people have personal agendas,” he said, and do things that “are shaming the body of Christ.”

“Even if they have legitimate concerns,” Akin said, verbally underscoring the “if,” they are not expressing them “in ways that are consistent with the Bible.”

“I don?t [sic] really give a rip what most bloggers think,” he said. “Most of them are little men with little ideas and little agendas.”

Many Baptist leaders, no doubt, share Akin’s opinion of the blogosphere. That does not, however, change the fact that bloggers, for good or ill, are a growing force to be reckoned with, one that will help shape the future course of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I think it is interesting that Dr. Akin would say that some bloggers are shaming the body of Christ and then say that most bloggers are “little men with little ideas and little agendas.” That statement is somewhat inconsistent with the Bible itself. Interesting, too, that he has a professor on staff, Dr. Brad Reynolds, who is very active in the conversation right now. I am quite sure that Dr. Akin is supportive of Dr. Reynolds’ activity - we’ve certainly never seen an effort to “correct” Dr. Reynolds in this arena and I am absolutely certain that Dr. Akin is aware that he is doing it. I digress. My point is to comprehend Dr. Akin’s perception of us. See from whence it comes. Understand that it exists and that it is a reality with which we must deal.

If you are not in the Baptist Blogosphere, you don’t much understand it or understand who is actively influencing the discussion. This applies to journalists, blog aggregator managers, and Seminary presidents.

I don’t know that we are going to be able to change the perception easily. I know that it will never be exactly what we want it to be, as we do not all agree on what the Baptist Blogosphere should be in the first place. I do know that we are going to have to act like Christians while we do it.

I leave you with this quote from Dr. Tom Ascol this morning. He was addressing a particular issue, but I find this applies to so much more:

…So much that takes place in our churches and institutions today simply is not Christian. It may be religious. It may be ritualistic. It may be traditional. But too often it simply is not Christian.

This loss of Christianity among the “Christian” community is what makes the line separating the world and the church so blurred. The church looks, thinks and acts increasingly like the world in many ways, often intentionally so. Consequently, we are seeing the demise of “Christian ethics” all around us. This explains why on so many moral issues the conduct of Christians and non-Christians is indistinguishable. When biblical Christianity has been trampled underfoot or lost altogether, those within the Christian community feel no qualms of conscious acting like mere worldlings.

This should cut us all to the heart.

In the last three years, blogging has become a cultural phenomenon. Not only within SBC culture, but within the various patches of our American quilt. I saw a California Democratic Congresswoman thanking a group of bloggers after they had gotten involved and helped her toward an important victory. She was ecstatic.

It has been said numerous times that blogging is a form of media and is morally neutral. It is what you do with it that counts. Over the next few years I think that there will be a general acceptance of bloggers and blogging as we adjust to the new climate. As always, there will be exceptions, but they are just that.

Baptist Press writer, David Roach, has produced an article dealing with the medium and I think he has some very valid points. The one with which I am most struck is the call to responsible journalism by bloggers.

I remember when Marty Duren posted the ruling that bloggers were covered under our Constitution’s protections of the press. I thought to myself that I had some freedoms, but also a great deal of responsibility to go along with the voice I was gaining through my blog. I have had to deal with protecting anonymous sources and the need to be absolutely accurate in what I write. I have been embarrassed to have to edit my words and own a mistake on occasion. I am mortified when that occurs.

What still amazes me, especially within the realm of Southern Baptist life, is the anonymous bomb. Mostly, anonymity is something with which we must deal in the blogosphere. It is what it is. I can not stomach, though, when people anonymously assault the character of others. I have removed such comments from my blog whether or not I agreed with someone’s position. Mostly, the comments I remove come from people who agree with me and find some “freedom” in their words that they would not have if they were standing in front of their church, if you will. I suppose they perceive me to be sympathetic to their convictions and assume that they can “get away with it.” Not so. Not here.

It is this kind of thing that has, among more established journalism venues, earned blogging the reputation of “internet graffiti.” I suppose that is better than the reputation of “internet porn,” that was floated by one uninformed IMB Trustee this year.

I do not hesitate to use strong words nor will I withhold the support of them in others. Don’t think that my resolve has been weakened in speaking the truth. It has not.

My concern here is that everyone own their words and that we write things of which we will not be ashamed later. I know some anonymous commentors that should be ashamed of what they are writing as they abuse the character of others. I have a personal boycott of blogs that allow this to go on. I just don’t read or engage them. I think it is beneath all of us and it disqualifies the blogger who hosts such things from participating in the conversation.

As the venue of blogging becomes more and more accepted, I see the anonymous bomb as the thing that is weighing us down. It will be hard for us to change our reputation if we fail to address this issue.

In the meantime, I found this t-shirt that I am considering: bloggers are people, too.

Maybe if we all wear this to the Convention next year…

The building of personal fiefdoms within ministry is something that has become a burden to me. As with all leader types, I am tempted to siphon off a little of God’s glory for myself from time to time. It is easy to do in ministry. We build our numbers and compare them to the other (little “k”) kingdoms down the road. As a Southern Baptist, I am tempted to compare myself to other denominations around town - the Lutheran church next door, for example. In Tulsa, it is easy to eschew such comparisons, because around here, the biggest churches are the “name it, claim it” charismatic churches that are on every street corner.

When you are getting beat, it is easy to dis the game.

I can discount those folks for “easy believism” and then just compare my church other Southern Baptist churches. Compared to many, we are bigger and are growing. Compared to others, we have a long way to go. It’s a mixed bag.

What drives us to build personal empires within God’s kingdom?

1. A failure to realize that, though we pastor a church, it does not belong to us.

2. A failure to realize that the success of a church is not dependent on its pastor. I think that a pastor alone cannot carry a church, but he can kill it. The truth is, a servant pastor and a missional congregation that is empowered and directed by God is wildly successful. It’s a team thing - and God is the head.

3. A warped need for personal recognition. This exists in all of us to some degree. It is part of our sin nature. When it is out of control, things around us and under our influence begin to bend to this need. When that happens, a personal sin within leadership becomes an albatross around the neck of the church. What if a church is growing because the pastor is driven by this need? Does that “success” justify the process? That’s a new thought, but one at the core of this issue. It leads us to point number…

4. A misunderstanding of success. Success is not baptisms, attendance, budgets or buildings. Success is faithfully discipling the saved and leading them, corporately and individually, to proclaim the fullness of the Gospel to our entire world. Note, please, that I didn’t say that the acceptance of the Gospel by the lost was a success. Whether or not they accept God’s offer of salvation is not, never has been, nor ever will be, dependent on us. It is between them and God.

Think through that for a second. You might be tempted to discount that thought as an excuse to sit around enjoying each other and not really seek converts. If you believe that, then you also condemn Adoniram Judson, among others. He labored in Burma for years as a faithful witness, translating Scripture, suffering imprisonment, the loss of children and wives to death and ultimately dying of the illness that plagued him for most of his life there. There was a mere handful of converts during his lifetime. Yet, if you go to Burma today, you will find a Christian community. If you ask one of those Christians for their Bible, you will find a note in the front saying that these words were translated by Adoniram Judson. Ask him how important that man is to their Christian history and their relationship to God in this day. What will your hear? It won’t be that he was a failure.

The definition of success is not the number of converts, but whether or not we are faithful witnesses.

When we build personal kingdoms, we may share the Gospel, but we do so in such a way as to look at those with whom we share with an eye for what we might gain from them, not what we might give to them.

No wonder the culture outside the church is offended by the church. We are full of fiefdoms.

No wonder the Missional mind of giving your life in service to others resonates in the current generation.

Fiefdoms are about gaining for self. If others get something out of it, it is an accident. Jesus’ Kingdom is about following His example of giving everything away.

For all of these various thoughts and more, I have tried to check my ego where I can. I do not have my name on the church sign, or anywhere else in the church. I do not have my name on the church’s letterhead. These things are not laudable, though. Make note. They are attempts for me to curb that thing inside that desperately wants self recognition. It wants the biggest and the best. I pray it never wins, but I confess that sometimes it does.

Last week I wrote that we were going to be reporting accurate numbers as a part of our Annual Church Profile. As a follow up, I thought I would let you know what we actually did.

Our “Membership Roll” was at 1,597 people and we have pulled out of that number folks who no longer live in our area, and folks who have not attended in more than a year. Before you think that we have been too harsh, I assure you, that we were very gracious in attempting to give people the benefit of the doubt. We also culled our Sunday School Enrollment.

We have not trashed anyone’s information, but have saved it and are going to encourage Sunday School classes to contact these people. If they are attending another church, great. If they are not, then we want to encourage them to rejoin our fellowship or another fellowship that will minister to them. If we can’t find them, then we can’t.

Here are the numbers:

Membership - reported previously … 1,597; really … 255.

Sunday School Enrollment - prior to cull … 435; now … 286.

I noticed a few things about these numbers.

1) We now run 90% of our reported membership in worship attendance Sunday Morning. Several times in the last few months we were over 100% in attendance.

2) Everyone in church can easily see where the strengths and weaknesses in Sunday School really are now that we are looking at accurate numbers.

3) We have some enrolled in Bible Study who are not yet members of the church - and because we examined these numbers, we have realized it and identified them as people to whom we need to pursue in ministry.

4) Our church does not have age graded Sunday School beyond the Children’s Ministry, yet the ACP asks for age graded numbers. We ran a filter on our church management software to get the exact numbers per age group. Two things strike me about this. First, we need to know our demographics to see how we are relating to different age groups within our culture. This is a broad level evaluation. We know this is just a broad evaluation because of the second observation, made by our church pianist, who is a Sunday School teacher. As people, we don’t group by age unless our structure makes us do it. We group by common interests, which is usually the age of our children. Some start out early with kids and some start later. Whatever age the kids are, those parents, though different ages themselves, tend to group together if you let them. We let them.

5) We were reporting a number more than 6 times who we actually were. I feel good about reporting an accurate number. Moreover, everyone involved is able to sort through actual numbers for really helpful information. I hope that more and more churches will report increasingly accurate reflection of themselves. If everyone else in the SBC is like we were, then the SBC is nothing like it says it is.

I am sure that the problem of accurate reporting is not just an SBC issue. If the truth be told, I am confident that we really are the largest Protestant denomination - by far. If all the others are going to pad their numbers, though, and we don’t, it is an apples and oranges comparison. As a result, the SBC and its member churches feel compelled to judge and be judged by the same scales, and tend toward inaccurate numbers.

My real question is: “Why are we so worried about such a comparison?”

Does it matter if we call ourselves the “Largest Protestant Denomination?” Would it hurt so bad if someone else claimed the title? Why?

Obviously, it doesn’t really concern me. This is the “Triumphalism” of which I repented in Memphis. If others are doing well, then I rejoice. If our sister Baptist Church down the street reaches 400 souls this year and explodes in growth and ministry, I rejoice. If the Lutheran church next door does so, I still rejoice. I am not Lutheran, but I am a Christian. Christ and His Kingdom first, personal kingdoms last. Right? Wrong. Personal kingdoms not at all.

It seems that we are more concerned with fiefdoms (or little “k” kingdoms) rather than the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of which, a post on fiefdoms next.