Something crossed my mind the other day and I just couldn’t let it go. In a discussion over a year ago on Missional Cooperation, a Seminary Student included this thought in a comment left on my blog:

“by giving to the cp, they are already giving to ‘their mission dollars to missions they themselves are doing.’”

Apr 10th, 2007 at 8:03 am

I really could not forget that statement and the mindset it represents. Finally, I would just like to put it to be by saying a hearty:

“NUH UHHHH!”

Participation in the Cooperative Program is not doing missions. It is paying someone else to do missions. I’m not saying supporting missionaries that live in a context of lost people is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I think we should be giving much more to the field.

However, sending money is not the same as personal engagement. We need to be a church that is engaging people in Tulsa, North America and around the world, as described in Acts 1:8. Us. Our church.

The CP has done amazing things, but one of the negative consequences is that our people have become convinced that they do not need to actually get up and do something but by sending some money to the CP, they’ve done missions. and. that. is. a. lie.

Did that get your attention?

This post is not specifically about the SBC or even the local church trying to hold on to the 1950′s, but it could be. Actually, this post is about… the US Post Office.

The Washington Post has revealed that the Post Office is doing its best, despite laws that prevent it from lobbying, to thwart legislation in several states that would create a “Do Not Mail” list, similar to the “Do Not Call” list(s) that prevent unsolicited sales calls at your home. It’s like a spam filter for your “snail mail” inbox: the mailbox at your house.

What’s the problem? The Post Office has revealed that “standard mail” – or junk mail – has become its life blood. It needs junk mail to survive.

The Post’s story also reveals that environmental groups are not in favor of decreasing junk mail. Why? They are junk mailers.

So let’s review:

1. Culture no longer operates in the same way it used to because technology has changed the way people think and communicate.
2. Institution still wants to exist, and fights to keep doing what it has been doing, despite the fact that those it was created to serve no longer need it or want it to do that anymore.
3. Some people claim to want the betterment of mankind, but stick to an institution that works against their cause because they perceive they need it to exist themselves. Yet if they would progress in their communication style, they could be internally consistent, which would help those they are reaching toward to not think them disconnected and hypocritical.

[edit]

I forgot to add point four: Thrash about for life as it may, the institution will survive for a while, but will ultimately be something else. Either it will adapt itself to its context, or it will diminish.

[/edit]

Thoughts?

This is not primarily about the BGCO annual meeting, but I am following up on some stuff from there.

I have been seemingly driven to a point of amazing clarity about the reality of our world and the ability of us – Christians, Baptists, any other number of smaller collectives – to reach that world.

When I went to observe New Bethany Baptist Church in Buford, GA (Pastor, Marty Duren), one of the unique things being done there was that the staff was studying a book together and they discussed it after the calendar portion of staff meeting. The book they were reading was “UnChristian” by David Kinnaman and the Barna Research Group. A couple of weeks ago, Marty called me and told me to drop what I was reading, pick up that book and read chapter 4. That was eye opening.

Some amazing things were revealed to me. Primarily, though, that the things we often do as “evangelism” are actually counter productive. Check this quote from a section of myths and realities (pg. 71).

Myth: Anything that brings people to Christ is worth doing.

Reality: When you are talking dollars, there is no price too high for a soul. But the problem isn’t just cost. In our research with some of the leading “mass evangelism” efforts, we found that often these measures create three to ten times as much negative response as positive. [emphasis Kinnaman] In other words, imagine your church is considering mailing Bibles or videos or other Christian materials to homes in your community. Our research shows that the “collateral damage” of doing so – those whose impressions of your church and of Christianity would be more negative as a result – is significantly greater than the positive impact on those who will respond to these efforts. Moreover, such mass evangelism efforts are most effective with marginally churched adults, while outsiders are usually the ones who respond most negatively.

In other words, our effectiveness is with people who are already church members, but who don’t attend. So we can get them to switch to our church and not attend there. Brilliant. On the other hand, the backlash among lost people means that the things we often do in the name of evangelism actually serves to distance the lost further from the Gospel.

Hmmmm.

Then, I went to the BGCO and heard something about us declining. I have received confirmation from Randy Adams – prompt and very helpful – of the decline of Southern Baptists. Here is a quote from an article that was published in the Baptist Messenger (OK’s Baptist Paper):

In 1980, baptisms recorded by Oklahoma Baptist churches totaled 24,803. In 2005, that total had decreased to 15,916, a decline of 36 percent. When examined in five year increments, one discovers that the decline has been quite consistent over the 25 years, with largest drop occurring between 1980 and 1985. Even more telling is the fact that Oklahoma’s population has increased by 17 percent over the same period, a total of 522,594 people. Thus, the decline in baptisms is approximately 50 percent when population growth is considered. That means that we are baptizing half as many people today, as a percent of the population, than we did twenty-five years ago.

The numbers are even more telling when examined by age-group. The decline is steepest in the 18-29 age grouping, dropping from 6,226 baptisms in 1980 to 2,184 in 2005, a sickening 65 percent decline. Next is the 9-11 age-grouping, where baptisms have dropped from 4,687 to 2,798 for a 40 percent decline. In the 12-17 age-group the decline is 7,014 baptisms to 4,282 for a 39 percent decline. Among the 30-59 age-group the decline begins to flatten out at 12 percent, from 3,792 to 3,322. The only areas of increase in baptisms are those under six years of age, with a seven percent increase to 148 baptisms, and those over age 60, with a 13 percent increase, totaling 676 baptisms.

Upon hearing this, the fire that was being kindled in my mind about our ability (or lack thereof) to reach the lost had begun to be fueled. On top of that, I was directed by some church members to an article in the Tulsa World, Southern Baptists: New Law Won’t Change Ministry, about a resolution I was proud to support. The resolution was basically that we would put the Kingdom first when ministering to the lost – regardless of their situation. This is in response to HB 1804, which is designed to combat those who employ or aid illegal immigrants. The problem is that churches that “minister” to illegals could potentially be prosecuted for doing so – or that is the concern, anyway. The gist of the resolution is that we support the government, but ministry is our command in the Kingdom and the Kingdom (and the people to whom we are sent) are our first priority.

The interesting thing about the story is that it gives a bullet list of other resolutions at the end of a very positive piece and readers who are now allowed to comment take the opportunity to absolutely trash Southern Baptists, until one or two step in and mention the Disaster Relief work that Souther Baptists do. Check ‘em out. It’s eye opening.

As a result, I prepared my Sermon for this week: All Things to All People. Obviously, it is about giving up our rights to spread the message in a way that is comfortable to us. We are, in fact, compelled by Scripture to spread the message in a way that is effective at the sacrifice of our comfort.

At the end of the evening on Saturday, I was finishing up my power point when I went to check on my wife, working on a Grad School project. She was watching a You Tube video and it was, to be blunt, challenging to the core.

I want the video to be the last thing in the post so let me write my conclusion first. The world, our culture, is running away from us at light speed. It isn’t coming back. If we don’t drop every hint of baggage right now and sprint toward the future, we will be irrelevant before we know it. It is hard to recognize this reality, because life is still a lot like it was 50 years ago – lights, indoor plumbing, cars, phones – or even twenty years ago – microwave ovens, home computers, etc.

Anyway, we must recognize that we are rapidly changing. We can’t row a boat in an airplane age. In fact, we need to recognize that water, in this analogy, no longer exists, and boats only cause us to look insane to those around us. Don’t believe me?

Watch this:

This weekend, IMB Board of Trustees Chairman Tom Hatley was quoted in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying something quite new concerning the ongoing conflict with embattled Trustee, Wade Burleson. I had to purchase the article from the newspaper online, for $1.95. If you would like to do so, you may at www.ardemgaz.com under the archives. The article was published on the 25th of February and is entitled, “Southern Baptist board tries new tack.”

Simply put, Tom Hatley, for the first time since this entire conflict arose, said that the problem was not the blog but was Wade’s handling of himself in his relationships with other trustees. Specifically the article says, “He described it generally as Burleson’s ‘behavior toward his fellow trustees… just a general approach to his relationships on the board.’” When pressed for specific issues, he, as has been the case since this conflict became public in January, fails to give us anything that would lend even a shred of credibility to the accusations. Instead, “Hatley declined to specify what the conflict with Burleson is. ‘We’re not going to do mudslinging in public,’ he said. ‘It’s not biblical.’”

EXCUSE ME?!?! Of course it is not Biblical, but the motion to remove Wade Burleson from the BOT has been the epitome of mud slinging and I refer you to my article, A Clumsy Retreat. Moreover, by claiming that Wade has had issues with other Board Members – a new claim – and by not providing a scrap of evidence to that end, Tom Hatley has done nothing but sling mud publicly with this new statement, all the while claiming there would be none.

I would also like to add that Rick Thompson counters the charge that Wade has had problems relating to other board members. He posts a denial of such as an eyewitness on his blog, The Road We Travel. Rick is a fellow trustee and pastor of the Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City (or “the city” if you’re from OK, like my lovely wife).

Mr. Hatley says there are two models for handling conflict within the Board. “One is the biblical model in Matthew 18, in which Jesus says someone who feels wronged should speak personally with the one who wronged him. ‘And that was exercised,’ by Hatley himself and other trustees, he said.”

It may be that several trustees went to Wade, but it is a matter of record that Wade was not allowed to speak to the issue of the policies in question when they came to a vote. To speak to them outside of the business session would have violated policy against caucusing and, though others may have no problem caucusing, Wade has not done this. He was also, and more critically, denied any opportunity to address the motion for his removal, even though he had no idea that it was forth coming. This denies that the Biblical model was followed, because no one came to him, prior to the vote, with the information that they were at the point of breaking fellowship in an attempt to make it right. If you deny someone the right to come to you, you are not being Biblical.

The second model of handling conflict, according to Mr. Hatley, is to go to the convention, which is what Wade was doing after being denied his right to speak as a trustee. It is what the Board is seeking to get out of after coming to the realization that the convention might very well take them to task, should the subject come up.

Penultimately, I quote this particular exchange:

“The fact that Burleson has written about the board and the policies on his Web log was not a factor in the original motion to ask for his removal. ‘We’re not against his blogging or anybody else’s communication in public,’ Hatley said. Burleson isn’t so sure. ‘I’ve got a good relationship with the board,’ he said Tuesday. ‘The issue is the blog, bottom line. To allege it’s something else is totally misleading.’”

I have said in my post, The Hidden Issue, that I believe there to be an undercurrent of censorship running through the Board of Trustees. As proof of my thoughts, I refer again to the new policy that all stories released by the IMB concerning its trustees must now be approved by the chairman or his designee. Moreover, I submit that this entire issue with Wade has been about censoring his public dissent: by blog or other means, but specifically the blog. The words, “slander” and “gossip” were read into to record at the January meeting when Wade was accused and those words pointed directly to the blog. The revised wording that Tom Hatley released to the press, “broken trust” and “resistance to accountability” also point directly at the blog and Wade’s refusal to quit informing the SBC of the Board’s dangerous directions. Additionally, this statement is contrary to the repeated requests posed to Wade by “trustee leadership” to quit blogging. Wade refers to this on his blog and asked the readers for their input on February 12, in his post, A Fair Minded Request.

Finally, I am happy to have Tom Hatley on record stating that he is against limiting public dissent; either Wade’s or anyone else’s. I assure you that the meetings in Tampa the third week in March will be closely watched for any action that would run counter to this public statement. If the board moves to limit public dissent in even the slightest way, I predict an outcry the likes of which they have never seen. I know that the last month has been bewildering for them. They will be more bewildered than ever if they follow the path of censorship that they have trod thus far.