Author: art rogers
The Organic Revolution, Pt. 3
Friday, March 16th, 2007 @ 5:00 am
It has been some time since my last installment of this series. As a result, some may not remember what we were talking about when last we spoke. If you would like to review, you may click on these links:
There is a difference in politics and influence. For me and for the purposes of this series of posts, at least, politics is about maneuvering people to gain personal benefit and influence is the standing for what is right, regardless of the personal cost. So, we are considering opposites, here.
In essence, my use of the word “politics” rotates around a selfish motive and manipulative action. Politics lend themselves to an “ends justifies the means” world view that is completely foreign to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “Influence,” however, seeks to lead according convictions - preferably convictions based on God’s Word, held as Inerrant and Sufficient. Influence is not sought, but given to one when others see their lives, hear their words and are changed by the stature of their character.
A generation of Missional minded leaders are growing up. They are growing up in our churches. They are Southern Baptists for many reasons, but for most of them, it is because they were raised in the SBC. And they love it. I grew up in the SBC. I love it.
As with any group of people, some are politicians and some are influential. Some are observing. Some are leaving.
Stop. Don’t check out on me here. This post is not about the people who are leaving because they are fed up. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is about those who are staying. I just can’t ignore that one of the options many are taking is to leave. But we are done talking about them.
Those that stay do so for many reasons. Many are tied to the SBC for less than noble reasons and many are tied for the noblest of reasons. Discerning the heart is the purview of the Holy Spirit, and I make no attempts here to do so. Those that do, stumble badly and reveal the deficiencies of their own character more often than anything else.
Among those that are staying, however, there are many who are rising up to be a generation of amazing minds and incredibly forward thinkers.
From my observations, much of this generation eschews the politics of the convention - that is, the manipulative, dirty stuff. I actually know a few who are inside the Convention structure at the state and national level. Mostly, I hear form them that they struggle through meetings because of the politics there, but these meetings are important to them. These folks are willing to go, even when maneuvering gets them down. Why? They want to win the world, and they have this crazy idea that the SBC might help make that happen.
The truth is that while some may be leaving, there is a rich resource of future leadership that is staying. Look at Bob Roberts, Jr., for example. He is the author of Glocalization, his most recent contribution to us. He is Southern Baptist. While not the “up and coming” generation, Roberts has proven to be visionary. Not just that, Roberts is reproducing that vision by taking in those who are interested in training with him to then sending them out to become church planters.
Now, if it is true that not all who eschew politics are leaving, but a generation of forward thinkers are staying in the SBC, then only one thing stands in the way of this group being the defining influence on the SBC in the years to come.
How many are there? Are they a growing group, or the exception to the rule?
When I was in Seminary, a professor told our class that we were in the beginning stages of a paradigm shift from “common sense rationalism” to something as yet undefined. The way that we think, process information, our core values are changing.
When I put the questions above alongside the truth of our paradigm shift, it occurs to me. This must be a growing group. The environment of our learning is changing, never to return. The generations to follow will not be the same, because the world is not the same. To struggle to keep the SBC “the same” or force it to change seems silly to me, all of a sudden. Of course we won’t be the same. It’s not possible.
Look at where we are right now. Most younger leaders grew up in the SBC of the Resurgence. The number of those who now question the direction of the SBC is huge - compared to similar groups of years gone by. What changed? We are conservatives from conservative churches, aren’t we? The thing that changed is the way we process information. What we hold as our core values.
To wrap up this thought, it seems to me, that the future of the SBC is that we will become a more missional denomination, but not because someone wins a “war.” Pardon the military metaphor. We are going to change because young Southern Baptists are going to be different, think differently and do church differently. It is inevitable. Moreover, as years go by, they will grow in number and influence. It can’t be stopped.
This change is not the scheming of a political machine. It is natural. It is organic - not unnaturally shaped by artificial ingredients. It comes from the root of who we really are - or are going to be.
This is not to say that the theological diversity will disappear, nor is it to say that none among us will desire to manipulate the system. There are always those who desire such things - and, as a reminder, I am nt pointing toward one “side.” There are people like this in every group or sub-group.
It is to say, though, that change is coming. It will not need to be organized or politicized. It is organic.
I have hope for our future.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Posts with related content
Blogging, Church, General Christian, Missional, SBC
March 16th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Great points, Art. How many Southern Baptists are like Bob Roberts, or Rick Warren, or Erwin MacManus? Alot more than you think. Remember Ed Stetzer’s proposal to Jimmy Draper concerning a speaker for the Young Leader’s meeting? He said that they needed to bring in a pastor in his 40’s or 50’s who was well respected by younger and older leaders and was innovative. Draper asked who and Stetzer said, “exactly.” Well, why aren’t these guys respected by the Resurgence leaders? I’d travel to hear everyone of them.
Maybe it has nothing to do with age. Maybe there is a large number of Southern Baptists in the convention (Jay Wolf of First Baptist in Montgomery comes to mind) who are in their 40’s and 50’s who are doing amazing things, but the leadership cabal has not invited them to the table either. Maybe it has far more to do with who is in or out instead of what people’s age, mindset, or ministry models are.
The more I think of it, there are lots of older pastors who are not invited to the dance who have stuck around and been loyal. Why is that?
March 16th, 2007 at 8:22 am
art,
i am 45 yrs old. i am all for missional churches to reach different kinds of people….as long as we stay true to the Word of God. i have to admit that some of the missional/emerging church movement concerns me. it seems to be moving away from sound teaching, or even away from the bible all together. but, i know that many in this movement are solid as well. i am all for the solid ones.
another concern i have about missional churches, and maybe you and the others in here can help me with it, is that of not having all ages in a church. you know, like if you are reaching only people below the age of 40, then your church has no senior adults to glean wisdom from, and for your childen to look to as a grandparent type situation. you know what i’m talking about? where the older person talks to them…gives them candy…listens to the children talk….etc. and, you miss out on the opportunities to minister to older christians in the church. our younger ones do a lot of ministry to the older ones. and, it seems to me that a missional church would miss that. it is a blessing.
i was just wondering if you and the others could shed light on this aspect of this.
david
March 16th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Dear Brother Art,
Thanks for sharing an optimistic outlook. I’m trying to have the same, but it’s hard!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Art-
While the list of people used to exemplify missional is impressive (Roberts, McManus, Warren), it also must be noticed that they are not involved in the SBC structures; in many ways they are “bigger” than the SBC. I’m not sure that they are the ones to hold as examples of why the convention can and will continue and change. They have had to detach from the convention to exact that change.
My 2 cents.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Art,
I’m going to agree with Marty here. They are bigger than the convention and will not get involved in it. They actually are part of the “problem” if you want to call it that, though I would not do that. They are my inspiration. They are so visionary that people are following their lead and partnering with those outside the convention or creating their own networks to get things done, to see their people utilized efficiently, and the be participatory in missions, not just sending money.
volfan,
Bob Roberts is 49. The median age of his church is 28. While I agree that it would be good to have a broad range of ages, I don’t necessarily agree that having older people in the congregation is necessary. The older generation needs to empower, fund, enable, support, release and participate in new wineskine that is missional ministry. If they want to do that, then bring them on. If they want to be stroked (and I don’t mean that badly or negatively specifically in regards to that generation, I’ve had church members under 40 that felt they needed to be stroked. Loved, yes, but babysitting, no.) I’m not interested. I talk often with my 70 yr old admin (who’s not in our church) about how she can continue in doing ministry. And she is…she’s helping us start an outreach bible study to her age group which will be the basis for a new active adult church plant. That’s the kind of active adults I LOVE!!!!
Also, within the SBC, I truly don’t believe that you have anything to worry about with missional/emerging ministry. Everyone believes in the sufficiency of scripture. Not everyone will agree with you (or me or anyone else for that matter) on a interpretation, but everyone I know in the sbc will agree on the sufficiency of scripture, which is what we were taught and told was important. If that is now not enough, then the sbc is going to loose a large contingent of folks. There are no moderates or liberals in the SBC (ok, maybe not 0, but statistically insignifigant). What will be important is the for people who disagree to work with each other and serve together in convention. Heck they ought to teach with each other at the seminaries, serve on boards together, and preach together at meetings. That will be the marker of a healthy denomination.
Now Emergent, which is a different cat altogether, could be cause for concern. Emergent (capital E) and emerging (little e) are different.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
David, you wrote, “While I agree that it would be good to have a broad range of ages, I don’t necessarily agree that having older people in the congregation is necessary.” I can’t point to a scripture that says you have to have older people, but I can point to dozens that say you are to respect them. Does a 75 year old women who can barely get out of the house because of her incontinence and fear of being run over in traffic have a place in your church? Does she need to, “empower, fund, enable, support, release and participate in new wineskin that is missional ministry.”, or is ministry to her the kind of true religion that is defined by James? I’m not trying to pick a fight, and I’m not trying to judge you, but it sound pretty crass. By the way, 60% of my church is under the age of 19, 80% under 40. So, I’m not an old guy in a traditional church.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Cyle,
i am not crass in this regard. to the contrary i love and respect active adults. i have a few in our church. i wouldn’t be starting an active adult church if i didn’t. i wouldn’t have tried to add a separate service just for active adults if i didn’t have a love and respect for them. That would have completely changed the makeup of our church had we done so, but i was willing to add the extra work load to try to reach that age group AND to give our people a source of wisdom. if a person’s disabled, has physical needs, needs a place to be ministered to, we (and i) would love all over them. and we’ve done it. But, it’s the body’s job to do ministry, not just the pastor’s. I’ve been in waayy to many churches where if the pastor didn’t visit 3 times/month, you weren’t doing the job of a pastor. If u knew all that our 50 person church was trying to do, if u saw what drove me, you wouldn’t question my heart. Ask Art, he’s seen my resume. I might that i didn’t communicate it that well, but please don’t think I don’t have a heart for them.
However, as my admin assistant will tell u, there’s a lot of ministry left in that age group, and they need to learn that God’s not through w/them.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Sorry if that last post had typos. I got snowed in in Nasville cuz Baltimore was getting sleet/snow and all I have is my smart phone.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Guys,
Missional examples are replete. The “big names” are anomalies. They are the exception, not the rule.
David W., (and David P and Cyle),
It is a misnomer to think that Missional means “targeting young people.” There are some church growth strategists that say that certain groups should be targeted. I think Barna is where I heard this first, but I honestly don’t remember.
I have an older congregation, we we are moving toward being missional. They are more than happy with that direction, but we have to learn to think in a new way.
Missional is about moving from a “hired gun” mentality (where the congregation tells the staff what to do and how to do it - and their part is to pay for it to get done; missions consists of a couple of habitual projects at the most, but pretty much giving to the special offerings is “missions”) to a mentality where everyone takes the great commission personally. You may recall an early sermon to which I referred on this blog, where I had the congregation repeat the words in unison, “this is my commission.”
By the way, we have more than one “grandpa” who passes out candy to kids.
Sorry it took so long to get back to everyone. I have been out today.
Art
March 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
art,
would you not agree though that many missional churches do target only certain age groups? whether that be young people or middle aged or cowboys or the bill gaither crowd? thats what i was talking about. if you target only certain people….especially age groups….then i think we miss out on much of the ministry that churches are supposed to be doing as seen in the nt. where would the older women be who should teach the younger women? where would the widows to minister to, if you only had young people? etc.
art and david p., i agree totally with what yall are saying about the whole church needs to be on mission, and not look to the pastor as the hired gun. amen! halelujah! how do you teach this to a settled, traditional church?
david
March 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I didn’t know I was missional until I read the definitions. Not to be a self-righteous jerk, but I just thought I was being Biblical. I think pastors and staff are to blame for the current state of affairs in churches, not the churches. Granted, we like to hire people to do our dirty work, but ministry is not dirty work. It’s really fun. The biggest problem I’ve seen in my own ministry with “giving away” ministry is that we keep trying to take it back. It’s a control issue. We have to get over the need to be needed. If we do, by some miracle, work ourselves out of a job, we must trust God to take care of us.
March 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
David W.,
No, I don’t agree. The targeting of a slice of culture is a part of the church growth theory that has its roots in the late seventies and first flourished in the eighties. You have associated two things that are not necessarily the same thing.
You should read Missional Leader. It would help you understand what Missional is and answer your question at the same time.
March 17th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
art,
thanks.
david
March 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
David,
I was on my way out the door and meant to write more, but felt rushed.
Missional is just another way of saying “On Mission,” a phrase that many previous generations still use - and is the name of a certain missions publication.
Everybody sharing Christ with whomever God puts in their path. I would say that the attitude is also a little more organic than days gone by.
It used to be that we would memorize a formula, use a tract in conjunction with that formula or on it’s own, and give somebody a rough sketch and 20 mins (at the best) to make an eternal decision. The “Missional” thought process, as I understand and practice it, is to start a conversation and let it flow naturally. It will come out that we are Christians and we will be able to be just as open about our faith, but it will be a natural part of a conversation instead of dominating a conversation with a “sales pitch.”
I have had two such conversations this week. I took both of those conversations to the Cross. One person accepted the Lord, one did not, but both heard the Gospel - just not pre-packaged.
As far as convincing a church that is set up in the “hired gun” mindset that they must get off their hind ends… Start in Ephesians 4 and define what everyone’s roles are. Pastors build up the body, the body does the work of the ministry. Be sure to emphasize that you are also a part of the body, and that you don’t expect them to do anything that you aren’t doing.
Second, work this idea into your sermons at every turn. Not that you preach this idea as the central theme of every sermon, but that you reinforce how this concept applies to every aspect of the body and its work.
Finally, after prayer and preaching, when the leadership of the Holy Spirit convicts you of it, you begin to slowly change one thing at a time to reflect this concept.
It is a slow thing that will take years - especially if your church is steeped in the other mindset.
The faster you change things, the more friction you will create. You will need an atmosphere of High Trust/Low Fear, where your congregation knows you love them and wouldn’t do anything that would hurt them, but are seeking to help them be who they need to be.
If you don’t have that and can’t get it, you should probably move on. You aren’t the man they need and the church that is willing to follow you on this journey is out there. It took me a long time to find the church God had for me, but here I am. I wanted to be at a church that was willing for a long time. In His time, God made it happen.
I pray for my previous church. They loved me and I loved them, but they weren’t ready to go where I was heading, so I needed to move. I think that in my moving on, as well as many other circumstances, they may be closer. Maybe not, but I can’t be responsible for where they go, now. I have to focus on where I am and where my church is going.
Of course, I would add that the process of my convictions took place for most of a decade, bringing me to a head. I remember hearing about some fadish Sunday School formulas early in my ministry and led my team to make the switch. The problem was I wasn’t sold on it other than to hear it was working elsewhere. I didn’t understand why it was working or how it might fit our situation. I didn’t completely understand it all, so making the switch was a failure. I couldn’t convince anyone that we actually needed a change, because I didn’t understand it all myself.
This time, I was chomping at the bit to be and do church in a way that I thought was Biblically sound and essential to the health of any church. My passion and understanding were huge, and that communicated to my new church.
Combined with patience (not changing everything quickly) this has created a good level of excitement about new things and yet avoided feelings that things are “out of control” and that “no one knows what is happening.” That is a lesson I learned the hard way.
My recommendation to you is to read Missional Leader and see if it strikes a chord with you. If it does, read some more, dialog with others who are also working toward this mindset and start the journey.
Remember - “Culture chaser” is something some people do in the name of Christ, but that is not Missional. A Missional mind engages culture with the Bible and the Gospel. That’s all. It does not water down the Gospel to make it more inviting to a lost world that doesn’t want to hear tough things.
I assure you, in the two conversations I had this week, I could have talked around the issues all day long. I went straight to the heart of the matter, saying that the first thing they needed to get straight is their relationship with God. Nothing else would work right unless they did.
How’s that for a longer answer?
March 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
art,
that was a great answer. thanks again.
david
March 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Great answer, Art. I really enjoyed reading about your journey. You should consider making that a post of your own. I’d love to hear how other folks came to their present perspective as well. Very encouraging.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Art, if you don’t mind saying, how long have you been in your current church?
March 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I think we are becoming more missional. Our theme this year is “Invest and Invite” 7 for 07. It has been exciting to see visitors and them tell me that they were invited by our members. It is extremely contagious!
March 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Kevin Bussey writes:
I think we are becoming more missional. Our theme this year is “Invest and Invite” 7 for 07. It has been exciting to see visitors and them tell me that they were invited by our members. It is extremely contagious!
Great idea! We are using the slogan “50 more for heaven in 2007.”