Showing posts with label Regenerate Church Membership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regenerate Church Membership. Show all posts

Monday, December 06, 2010

The Danger of an Unconverted Minister

Introduction: This morning I had the privilege of reading The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry by Gilbert Tennant. Though Tennant was dealing with a different situation than I shall describe below, as I read this 250+ year old sermon, my thoughts immediately turned to those pastors in our own day who are eager to proclaim "peace, peace" when there is no peace (Ezek. 13:10).

For years, I wondered why so few pastors clearly teach and preach the Bible and fail to contend earnestly for the faith in their own churches and religious organizations (Jude 3). Its as if most of them simply don't care about doctrinal apostasy and sin in their own congregations. They have no problem conveniently looking the other way when things that are immediately spiritually damaging to their own congregations are running rampant. Many also appear to be more concerned about their own well being than the spiritual well being of their own congregations. They seem to be afraid to preach the truth for fear that they will empty out their church buildings, lose all material support, and lose favor with their denominational peers. They seem to be so shackled tight to their desire to have the praise, favor, and acclaim of men, that they cannot imagine doing or preaching anything that is true that would possibly offend a large majority of their congregation or those in their religious associations. Indeed, "the fear of man is a snare" (Pro. 29:25 HCSB).

A Major Problem: Unconverted Pastors

After interacting with many evangelical pastors through the years, I have come to the conclusion that many of them are simply unconverted. They have a fear of man rather than a fear of God (Matt. 10:28). I was speaking with a pastor-friend this past Sunday morning and he told me story after story about pastors, preachers, and Bible teachers he knew of who were living double lives of adultery, homosexuality, and other grievous sins when all the while getting up and preaching twice every Lord's Day. When these men were confronted, all of them denied any wrongdoing and one even said, "You people have no right to judge me." Its important to note that I am not talking about men who are pastors of churches associated with apostate mainline, liberal denominations, but churches that pride themselves in being in theologically conservative. When "pastors" respond to sin this way, they are showing that they possess a perverted mind that is destitute of the grace of God.

Unconverted Pastors = Grade-A Myth Makers


So many professing Christians are concerned that gospel preaching and direct, clear, Bible teaching will drive people away instead of reaching them. This was evident in my outreach at UNCG last week and it has been evident in the responses that I have received from professing Christians who have objected to our regularly preaching the gospel outside of a local abortion clinic. I have often asked them, "Since you think the message is driving people away, what do you think I should say to get these people to think about the judgment that awaits them should they fail to repent?" They usually say something like, "Just tell them that God really loves them and that they need to give their lives to Him." I then ask the following: (1) "Why do they need to give their lives to Him?" and (2) "Where in the pages of the New Testament do you find Jesus or the Apostles telling people that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives?" At this point the person usually tries to shift the conversation away from what the Bible says about the gospel being the God-ordained means by which He saves the lost to something like "We live in a different time and culture; people today aren't going to listen to you if you're always harping on about God's wrath, God's hatred of sin, and the only way of salvation being through Christ." When the conversation comes to this point, they are telling me that either they simply don't understand the message of the New Testament, or, they do, yet they think that we need to apologize for God being so harsh and exclusivistic. The way that we typically "apologize" for God is by purposefully avoiding telling people what the Bible says about sin, righteousness, and judgment and pandering to society's standards of holiness (i.e., political correctness) rather than God's. As I've said many times before, evangelical churches are confusing Biblical meekness with political correctness and removing the offense of the cross in the process. Hirelings that do this will not only attract a huge following, but they will also become grade A "myth-makers". As I noted last week. remember what Paul says in 2 Tim. 2:2-5,
Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
Many modern congregations are filled with preachers that tell the people what they want to hear instead of what they really need to hear. This isn't just a problem in theologically liberal, mainline denominations. Conservative churches have produced scads of false converts through their altar call invitational system and by simply watering down the precious apostolic deposit and mixing it with pop-psychology. Then, when the false convert is produced and starts showing signs of going back to the mire, the hireling comforts them in their sin and gives them false assurance. Congratulations hireling, you just made your proselyte twice as much a son of Hell as yourself! (Matt. 23:15)

Wherever the pastors are spiritually determines to a large extent where the parishioners are spiritually. If he is hungry for truth, they will be too since hungry people attract more hungry people. If he loves myths, they will too, since myth-makers attract myth-mongerers. Either way, it's a like a fly to the ointment. Which type of ointment do you want to be? The one that burns upon initial contact yet heals forever, or the kind that goes on warm and smooth but seeps fatal poison into the skin until you finally croak and are cast into a devil's Hell? Sadly, many so-called "evangelicals" are swimming in an ocean of mythology, evangellyfish mythology.

Please understand that I'm not advocating hateful, nasty, and mean-spirited behavior from angry pastors. Quite the contrary, I want men to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) and warn people of their peril with tears in their eyes if necessary. I want pastors to seek the salvation of their people and their communities for the blessing of those people to the glory of God. I want to see pastors who pour over the Scriptures night and day mining out the gems of the Biblical text from the original languages so as to equip their people to do the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-12).

IN CONCLUSION, may God grant us thousands of young preachers that are willing to go homeless and be mistreated for the sake of the truth. May they love their people and patiently preach Biblical grace rather than worldly rubbish and may their hearts be set aflame by the Spirit's power rather than the endless myths that come from the idol factories of men's minds.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Actus Formalis Defectionis Ab Ecclesia Baptista

Continuing our series on integrity in church membership in Baptist churches...

I found this post quite interesting. Why? I'm glad you asked! Because the first few paragraphs could easily be reworded to read:

According to the 2007 Southern Baptist statistics, there are 16. 4 million Southern Baptists in the United States.

... however, this is likely an inflated number due to the way that Nashville determines membership statistics. The numbers do not adequately account for members who are double-counted, die or just drift off into who-knows-what. If you were baptized Southern Baptist, then you are most likely still on the list; and I've met many ex-Southern Baptists in the evangelical world.

I'm one of that number that has likely been considered merely lapsed or inactive. But it has irked me for years that I didn't have a means to formally separate myself from Nashville. As it turns out, as of last year there is now a procedure in place for removing oneself from membership in the Southern Baptist Convention. While this procedure essentially results in the defector being regarded as "apostate" rather than an "ex-Southern Baptist," it is the most forceful way to formally declare one's voluntary separation from Nashville.

- Just one more way the SBC these days resembles Rome at times. I'd add that this isn't an SBC problem. The independent Baptists can be just as bad - and don't get me started on the way the Hylesite churches count numbers. Baptists talk a lot about Baptist tradition these days. May we correct this problem and leave a big honkin' HUGE post-it note on the frig for our children and children's children that this is something they should not repeat themselves.

HT: James White

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Those Were the Days: The SBC on Church Membership & the Lord's Day

Cue Archie and Edith at the Piano...

1915 — Resolution on the Lord’s Day

RESOLVED, That it is the sense of this Convention that no messenger to this body should depart from its session on the Lord’s day, set apart by the Christian conscience of the centuries, the law of our country and the Word of God as a day of rest and religious worship.

1916 — Resolution on Church Membership

RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention most urgently request all the pastors or clerks of Baptist churches within the bounds of this Convention to promptly notify the pastors or clerks of sister churches in any city, town, village or country place where such sister churches may be located of the removal of any of their members to said location, that these members may be reached at once and their activities held for the denomination.

Commentary:

Who knew that in 2007, the Convention's Resolution's Committee would think such resolutions infringed on local church autonomy? Silly 20th century Baptists! Think about that...

HT: Ben Cole & SBC Outpost

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Church cancels Sunday services to watch Evan Almighty.

And, yes, it's in their newsletter, to which Tim Ellsworth links.

And we wonder why we're having a problem with the concept of "regenerate church membership" in the SBC and, in fact, across all Baptist groups at present!

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Steve Camp and Jim Eliff On Regenerate Church Membership

Due to a change in my ministry and blogging related email address, I missed this when Brother Steve sent this to me. I apologize for not linking to it sooner.

See here.

To make up for my failure to link to him, let me first say, "Thank you" to Steve for joining the conversation. Second, let me also say that, to our Presbyterian and other non-Baptist(ic) readers, this series on regenerate church membership is not meant as a jab at your views. I think that, when all is said and done, if nothing else, you would hope and pray that every person in your assembly would be regenerate anyway. We are particularly concerned here about Baptists, who traditionally hold to this as "the" key Baptist principle in ecclesiology and have, in our age, so terribly fallen down on it and must recover it.

In that spirit, and to, perhaps atone, as it were, for not linking earlier, I'll just post the whole shebang of Jim Eliff's article here too, because it's a true classic that bears being brought out in the open for a fresh reading from time to time. I don't know if Brother Jim reads the blogs, but if he'd like to write some more articles on this, I'd be happy to post them here for him as guest.

May I also suggest that perhaps Brother Steve, with his music and ministry connections, could see if he and Brother Jim and perhaps some other interested parties could put together, how shall we put it, an old fashioned Baptist "preacher conference" here and there this year to keep this issue alive.

Southern Baptists...
An Unregenerate Denomination

by Jim Elliff

"How are you doing?"
"Pretty well, under the circumstances."
"What are the circumstances?"
"Well, I have a very effective arm. It moves with quite a bit of animation. But then I have my bad leg."
"What's wrong with it?"
"I guess it's paralyzed. At least it doesn't do much except twitch once a week or so. But that's nothing compared with the rest of me."
"What's the problem?
"From all appearances, the rest is dead. At least it stinks and bits of flesh are always falling off. I keep it well covered. About all that's left beyond that is my mouth, which fortunately works just fine. How about you?"

Like the unfortunate person above, the Southern Baptist Convention has a name that it is alive, but is in fact, mostly dead (Rev. 3:1). Regardless of the wonderful advances in our commitment to the Bible, the recovery of our seminaries, etc., a closer look reveals a denomination that is more like a corpse than a fit athlete. In an unusual way, our understanding of this awful reality provides the most exciting prospects for the future—if we will act decisively.

The Facts
Although the Southern Baptists claim 16,287,494 members, on average only 6,024,289 people (guests and non-member children included), a number equal to only 37% of the membership number, show up for their church's primary worship meeting (usually Sunday morning). This is according to the Strategic Information and Planning department of the Sunday School Board (2004 statistics). If your church is anything like normal, and is not brand new, your statistics are probably similar. In other words, if you have 200 in attendance on Sunday morning, you likely have 500-600 or even more on your roll. Many churches have an even worse record.

Discerning who among us is regenerate is not an exact science, but a closer look at these numbers will at least alert us to the fact that most Southern Baptists must certainly be dead spiritually. That is so, unless, of course, you claim that there is no difference between a believer and a non-believer.

In the average church you can cut the 37% Sunday morning attendance by about two-thirds or more when counting those interested in a Sunday evening service, or other gatherings held in addition to the principal meeting of the church. In 1996, the last time the SBC kept these statistics, the number of Sunday evening attenders was equal to only 12.3% of the membership (in churches that had an evening meeting). One might ask what makes us claim that the rest are Christians, if they involve themselves with God's people only on such a minimal, surface level? How are they any different from the people who attend the liberal church down the street—the "church" where the gospel is not even preached?

And remember that the numbers of those attending include many non-member children and guests, often making up a third of the congregation's main meeting attendance. When all factors are considered, these figures suggest that nearly 90% of Southern Baptist church members appear to be little different from the "cultural Christians" who populate other mainline denominations.

To make matters worse, we tell a lot more people that they are true Christians (because they prayed a prayer sincerely) than we can convince to be baptized. Our largest pizza supper may bring in a hundred new "converts," but we will likely get only a few of those on the roll. After that, the percentages that I have been mentioning kick in. In other words, if you compare all who we say have become Christians through our evangelistic efforts, to those who actually show signs of being regenerate, we should be red-faced. In the Assembly of God's 1990s "Decade of Harvest," out of the 3.5 million supposedly converted, they showed a net gain of only 5 new attenders for every 100 recorded professions. When one considers all of our supposed converts, including those who refuse to follow Christ in baptism and who never join our churches, our numbers are much the same. Doesn't anybody see that there is a serious problem here?

Let me illustrate in rounded figures by looking at some of the churches where I have preached as a guest speaker. Each could be any Baptist church in any city. In one church, with 7,000 on the active roll, there were only 2000 in attendance on Sunday morning, and a mere 600-700 on Sunday evening. When you account for those attenders who are not members of this flagship church (i.e. guests and non-member children), you have about 1500 actual members coming in the morning and 500 or so in the evening. Where are the 5,500 members who are missing on Sunday mornings? Where are the 6,500 who are missing in the evening?

Another church had 2,100 on the roll, with 725 coming on Sunday morning. Remove guests and non-member children and the figure drops to 600 or less. Only about a third of that number came out on Sunday evening, representing less than 10% of the membership. Yet another church had 310 on the roll with only 100 who attended on Sunday morning. Only 30-35, or approximately 10%, came to the evening worship service.

These are all considered fine churches. All have an extremely competent level of leadership and vision. Some shut-ins and those who are sick, out of town, or in the military, certainly affect the figures a little. But those who are justifiably absent are not enough to alter the bleakness of the picture, especially when we remember that these numbers represent people who have been baptized and have publicly declared their allegiance to God and the Body of Christ. Even if you generously grant that the 37% are all true believers (an estimation that most pastors would say is way off the mark), one still has a church membership that is more dead than alive. If we are honest, we might have to ask ourselves, "Do Southern Baptists believe in a regenerate membership?"

Missing Christians are No Christians
What do these facts and figures, as general as they are, suggest?

First, they reveal that most of the people on our rolls give little evidence that they love the brethren—a clear sign of being unregenerate (1 Jn. 3:14). It is impossible to believe that anything like real familial affection exists in the hearts of people who do not come at all, or who only nominally check in on Sunday morning as a cultural exercise. Love is the greatest mark of a genuine believer (1 Jn.3:14-19). Attendance alone does not guarantee that anyone is an authentic believer, but "forsaking the assembling," is a serious sign of the unregenerate heart. The phrase: "They went out from us, because they were never of us" (1 Jn. 2:19) may have doctrinal overtones, but it nonetheless represents many on our membership rolls.

Second, these numbers suggest that most of those who do not attend (or who only come when it is convenient), are more interested in themselves than God. To put it in Paul's words, they are "fleshly-minded" and not "spiritually-minded" (Rom. 8: 5-9). The atmosphere that most pleases them is that of the world and not God. They can stand as much of God as makes them feel better about themselves, and they find a certain carnal security in "belonging" to a local church. But beyond that, they will politely resist getting involved. They use the church, but are not really a part of it. For some, the extent of what they can take is an Easter service now and then; for others it is an occasional sterile (and somewhat Pharisaical) trip to church on appropriate Sunday mornings as fits into their schedule. But their apathy towards regular and faithful church attendance betrays their true affections. The fact is, you do what you love to do.

Third, the numbers indicate that some people have joined other denominations and our churches have not kept up with their movements—a sign of inadequate pastoral oversight and the built-in deficiencies of the "inactive membership" concept. I'm quite certain Paul never dreamed of "inactive membership." Embarrassingly, some left on the rolls are dead—physically! It goes without saying that a dead person is about as inactive as one could be! But others, though presumably alive physically, have disappeared without a trace. I believe it was our beloved Dr. Roy Fish of SWBTS who said, "Even the FBI could not find some of them." Yet, if we want to claim them as members, we are responsible to keep up with them.

All of these people have "prayed the prayer" and "walked the aisle." All have been told that they are Christians. But for most, old things have not really passed away, and new things have not come. Most are not new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). In too many cases, obvious signs of an unregenerate heart can be found, such as bitterness, long-term adultery, fornication, greed, divisiveness, covetousness, etc. These are "professing believers" that the Bible says are deceived. "Do not be deceived" the Bible warns us concerning such people (see 1 Cor.6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; 6: 7-8; Eph. 5:5-6; Titus 1:16; 1 Jn. 3:4-10; etc.).

Jesus indicated that there is a good soil that is receptive to the gospel seed so as to produce a fruit-bearing plant, but that the "rocky ground" believer only appears to be saved. The latter shows immediate joy, but soon withers away (Mt. 13:6, 21). This temporary kind of faith (which is not saving faith, see 1 Cor.15:1-2) is rampant among Southern Baptists. In The Baptist Faith and Message we say we believe that saving faith is persistent to the end. We say we believe in the preservation and perseverance of the saints (once saved, always persevering). In other words, if a person's faith does not persevere, then what he possessed was something other than saving faith.

In John 2:23-25 Jesus was the center-piece for what turned out to be a mass evangelism experience in which a large number of people "believed" in Him. Yet He did not entrust Himself to even one of them because "he knew their hearts." Is it possible that we have taken in millions of such "unrepenting believers" whose hearts have not been changed? I say that we have. Our denomination, as much as we may love it, is on the main, unregenerate. Even if you double, triple, or quadruple my assessment of how many are true believers, we still have a gigantic problem. It is naive to believe otherwise.

There are those who would say that such people are "carnal Christians" and don't deserve to be thought of as unregenerate. It is true that the Corinthian believers (about whom this phrase was used; see 1 Cor. 3:1-3) acted "like mere men" in their party spirit. Christians can commit any sin short of that which is unpardonable.

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people "carnal" Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived" (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

Is Follow-up the Problem?
A great mistake is made by blaming the problem on poor follow-up. In many churches there is every intention and effort given to follow-up, yet still the poor numbers persist. One church followed up "by the book," seeking to disciple people who had been told they were new converts during the crusade of an internationally-known evangelist. The report of the pastor in charge was that none of them wanted to talk about how to grow as a Christian. He said, "In fact, they ran from us!" I have known some churches to go to extreme efforts to disciple new believers. We must do this. Yet, like the others, they generally have marginal success. They have learned to accept the fact that people who profess to have become Christians often have to be talked into going further, and that many, if not most, simply will not bother. Authentic new believers can always be followed up, however, because they have the Spirit by which they cry, "Abba Father" (Rom. 8:15). They have been given love for the brethren, and essential love for the beauty and authority of the Word of God. But you cannot follow-up on a spiritually dead person. Being dead, he has no interest in growth.

It was the preaching of regeneration, with an explanation of its discernible marks, that was the heart of the Great Awakening. J. C. Ryle, in writing of the eighteenth century revival preachers, said that they never for a moment believed that there was any true conversion if it was not accompanied by increasing personal holiness. Such content was the staple of the greatest of awakening preaching throughout the history of revival. Only such a powerful cannon blast of truth could rock the bed of those asleep in Zion.

Facing the Dilemma
What must be done? I suggest five responses:

1. We must preach and teach on the subject of the unregenerate church member. Every author in the New Testament writes of the nature of deception. Some books give major consideration to the subject. Jesus Himself spoke profusely about true and false conversion, giving significant attention to the fruit found in true believers (Jn. 10:26-27; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 25:1-13, etc.). If this sort of teaching creates doubt in people, you should not be alarmed, nor should you back away from it. Given the unregenerate state of so many professing Christians, their doubts may be fully warranted. In any case, as one friend told me, "Doubts never sent anyone to hell, but deception always does." Most will work through their doubts, if they are regenerate and if we continue to preach the whole truth. Contrary to popular opinion, all doubts are not of the devil. Speak truthfully the whole counsel of God. You cannot "unsave" true believers.

It is true that there may be some who are overly scrupulous and overwhelmed by such examination. But most who will be affected are those who are too self-confident, having based their assurance on such shaky platforms as their response to an invitation, praying a perfectly worded "sinner's prayer," or getting baptized. If they are unregenerate, they may take offense and leave. But if they are truly regenerate, patient teaching and care will help them to overcome their doubts and gain biblical assurance. Such preaching may even result in true conversion for some who are deceived. And don't forget that the overconfident ones are not the only ones at risk. Quiet, sensitive, insecure people can be deceived also.

2. We must address the issue of persistent sin among our members, including their sinful failure to attend the stated meetings of the church. This must be done by reestablishing the forgotten practice of church discipline. Each church should adopt guidelines that state just what will happen when a member falls into sin, including the sin of non-attendance or very nominal attendance. Such discipline for non-attendance is clearly found in the history of Baptists—but more importantly, in the Bible.

Everyone in the church, including new members, should be made familiar with the biblical steps of church discipline. Jesus said that a person who was lovingly, but firmly, disciplined by the church, and yet failed to repent, should be thought of as "a heathen and a tax collector" (see Mt. 18:15-17). Though David committed atrocious sins, he was a repenter at heart (see 2 Sam.12:13; Psalm 51). Every Christian is a life-long repenter and church discipline brings this out. (See "Restoring Those Who Fall," in Our Church on Solid Ground: Documents That Preserve the Integrity and Unity of the Church, www.CCWonline.org)

Leaders must get into the homes of all our erring church members, seeking either to bring them to Christ, or to reluctantly release them to the world which they love more than Christ. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to keep non-believers on the rolls. As a side benefit from church discipline for the SBC, remember that when we reduce our membership to what it actually is, we will be amazed at the statistical improvements in the ratio of members per baptism and members to attenders. Of course, statistics are not worth dying for, but obedience to God's Word is.

We are never to aggressively pluck the supposed tares from the wheat as if we had absolute knowledge (Mt. 13:24-30; 36-43). We might be mistaken. However, loving church discipline is a careful process by which the obvious sinner in essence removes himself by his resistance to correction. The church is made up of repenting saints, not rebelling sinners (see 1 Cor. 5). The slight improvement in the disparity between membership and attendance in the last couple of years is likely due, in major part, to some churches beginning to practice church discipline—a matter of obedience that thankfully is regaining credence among us. Some have removed hundreds from their rolls in this process, and regained some also.

3. We should be more careful on the front end of church membership. In my estimation, the public altar call (a modern invention) often reaps people prematurely. Others will disagree or can perhaps make significant improvements on the traditional "invitation system." We have used this method in our evangelism because of our genuine zeal to see the lost converted. But in our zeal, we have often overlooked the fact that many who do what our method calls for (i.e. respond to our invitation) may not be converted.

Though sacrosanct to Baptists, careful study should be done related to the historical use of the invitation system evangelistically. For eighteen hundred years the church did not use such a method. It was not until its principle originator, Charles Finney, a true pelagian in his theology, promoted his "new measures." Earlier preachers were content to let true conviction play a greater part in conversion. They needed no props for the gospel—no persuasive techniques to prompt people to make a "decision." Instead of relying on a method, their confidence was in the preached Word and the Holy Spirit. Baptist giant, C. H. Spurgeon, for instance, saw thousands converted without the use of an "altar call." His message was his invitation. We should always offer a verbal invitation in our gospel preaching, meaning we must invite people to repent and believe. But there is no real benefit, while there is much potential harm, in our inviting them to the front of the church and then assuring them that their short walk or tearful response proves their conversion.

We don't need better methods to get people down to the front. What we need is more biblical content and more unction in our preaching. You cannot beat sinners away from Christ when God is bringing them in (see Jn. 6:37, 44-45). When as many as 70-90% of "converts" are giving little, if any, evidence of being saved after their first weeks or months of emotional excitement, questions should be asked, both about our understanding of the gospel and about our methods. Forget the fact, if you must, that there is no clear biblical precedent for the altar call. Even considering the matter pragmatically ought to make us quit. Though prevalent in our churches for decades, it has not helped us. (See "Closing with Christ," www.CCWonline.org/closing.html)

The dangerous practice of receiving new members immediately after they walk the aisle must finally be abandoned. Also, more careful counsel should be taken with those entering in as members from other churches. And add to this a need for much deeper thinking concerning childhood conversion. An alarming percentage of childhood professions wash out later in the teen and college years. For unconverted yet baptized church kids, the more independence they are granted, the more they live out their true nature. (See "Childhood Conversion," www.CCWonline.org/cconv.html)

4. We must stop giving immediate verbal assurance to people who make professions of faith or who respond to our invitations. It is the Holy Spirit's job to give assurance. We are to give thebasis upon which assurance can be had, not the assurance itself. Study 1 John in this respect. What things were written so that they might know they have eternal life? (1 Jn. 5:13). Answer: The tests given in the book. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16).

5. We must restore sound doctrine. Revival, I am finding as I study its history, is largely about the recovery of the true gospel. The three great doctrines which have so often shown up in true revival are: 1) God's sovereignty in salvation, 2) justification by grace through faith alone, and 3) regeneration with discernible fruit. Revival is God showing up, but the blessing of the presence of God is directly affected by our beliefs. God most often comes in the context of these and other great doctrines, preached penetratingly and faithfully, and with the unction of the Holy Spirit.

As an illustration of our doctrinal reductionism, repentance is often forgotten completely in gospel presentations, or else it is minimized to mean nothing more than "admitting that you are a sinner." Also, "Inviting Christ into your heart," a phrase never found in the Bible (study the context of Jn.1:12 and Rev. 3:20, the verses used for this), has taken the place of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine of God's judgment is rarely preached with any carefulness. And comprehensive studies of the meaning of the cross are seldom heard. Merely looking over the titles of the sermons which awakening preachers preached in the past would surprise most modern pastors.

Be Healthy or Be Ashamed
Which army would you rather have? Gideon's first army or his last? No church, and no denomination, should call itself healthy unless more people attend than are on the roll. This is a standard kept by most of the world, and was kept by our great-grandparents in Baptist churches as well. We would be closer to the revival we desire if we would admit our failure, humbly hang our heads, and seek to rectify this awful hindrance to God's blessing. When we boast of how big we are, we are bragging about our shame.

In the Philadelphia Baptist Association Minutes, our first association, our initial American statistical record shows that five times as many people attended the association's churches as were on their rolls. Greg Wills in Democratic Religion in the South (Oxford University Press, 1997, p.14) reports that three times the number on the rolls attended Baptist churches, then located mostly along the eastern seaboard when surveyed in 1791 by John Ashlund. In 1835, the Christian Index of Georgia recorded that "not less than twice the number" of members were in attendance.

Today, in rough numbers, it takes 300 people on our rolls to have 100 attenders. In the 1790s, it took only 33. Or, to put it in larger figures, it now takes nearly 3000 people, supposedly won to Christ and baptized, to result in a church attendance of 1000. Then, it took only 333. Our potency has diminished to such an extent that we must "win" and "baptize" over 2,000 more people to get to the same 1000 to attend.

Apparently, being orthodox in terms of inerrancy and infallibility is not enough, though without these doctrines we have no foundation for true evangelism. A lot has to be done, and a lot undone. And, sadly, we have been actively transporting this mainly American problem overseas for many years.

To conclude, I suggest two remedial steps for the convention as a whole, in addition to what was suggested for the churches:
1. We might reverse some of our proclivity to continue as normal if we introduced our preachers more accurately in our evangelism meetings and convention settings. Try using this introduction: "Here is Brother ______, pastor of a church of 10,000 members, 6400 of whom do not bother to come on a given Sunday morning, and 8600 of whom do not come on Sunday evening. He is here to tell us about how to have a healthy, evangelistic church."

It might be better to ask a man to speak who shepherds 100 members, all of whom attend with regularity and all of whom show signs of regeneration—a man who, in the last year, has baptized 5 people who stick—rather than a pastor of 10,000 members, 7000 of whom do not come—a man who has baptized 1000 in the past year, 700 of whom cannot be found. The smaller, but more consistent numbers of the first pastor reveal a far more effective ministry and thus a far better example for other churches. (Please understand that I don't like this talk about "numbers," but this is the main way we evaluate people and churches as Baptists. I am sure God is not really impressed with any of our statistics.)

2. We should establish a study group to explore our presently deplorable situation and to track its history. This group should also seek to re-examine the biblical mandate to have a regenerate church. Then this study group should report back with a strategy to help us out of the dilemma. They should be painfully honest. I am hopeful that individual churches will act without this prompting, but this would be an added stimulus to getting us to our fighting weight as a denomination. Some church leaders will not act without this sort of backing since independent action would be a departure from the status quo.

Our only alternative is to carry on in the old way—the way that produces 70-90% fallout. By continuing on as we are, we will gradually blur, and eventually obscure altogether, any distinction between the professing and the authentic Christian. In the end, we will look like every other mainline, liberal denomination. We are only one-third to one-tenth alive now. If we want to avoid complete deadness, we must take dramatic measures immediately. Like cotton candy, our apparent size does not add up to much.

Our forebears, especially those who died for the biblical concept of a regenerate church, would hardly recognize our compromised condition. It will admittedly take us down a notch or two, in the estimation of the rest of professing Christianity, when millions are removed from our rolls. But humility and a new reality might be the starting place for God's greatest blessings on us yet!

The next time someone asks how your church and your denomination are doing, tell the truth. Tell them that we have a new confidence in the inerrant Bible. Tell them that we have seminaries that promote orthodoxy, and new evangelistic fervor among the true believers. Tell them we have a lot to be excited about. But also tell them that when considered as a whole, most Southern Baptists need raising from the dead.


(Jim Elliff is president of Christian Communicators Worldwide. More articles by Jim may be found at www.CCWonline.org.)

Revised edition, Copyright © Jim Elliff 2005 Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc. 201 Main, Parkville, MO 64152 USA Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in exact form including copyright Other uses require written permission. Write for additional materials.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Working Together Toward Integrity in Membership

As you all know, Tom Ascol's resolution on integrity in church membership failed to pass the SBC for the second year in a a row. My posts on this are archived, and you can find them if you wish to read them.

Here, I'd like to, hopefully, start a conversation about this issue to bring together some of the various bloggers in the SBC who otherwise disagree on other items. This issue has gained momentum in the past year from various persons and groups in the Convention, persons of different theological and political convictions, who realize that there is a serious problem in the SBC.

I would point out that, in terms of ecclesiology, believer's baptism is predicated on the concept of a regenerate church membership. Religious liberty, that is, the view that the first table of the Law cannot and should not be legislated (viz. a state church), for Baptists, is predicated on the concept of a regenerate church membership, for there can be no state church if the church is to be composed of only regenerate souls who are their voluntarily. The priesthood of (the) believer(s), whichever term you prefer, is meaningless without "the believer" part! Since it puts us in community as "a nation/kingdom of priests" it too depends on the concept of a regenerate church membership. Ironically "local church autonomy" is also meaningless without this, for a church can be "autonomous" and be apostate, one can be true to "tradition" without tradition being true! One could go on about "historic Baptist distinctives," so I will quickly summarize by stating that it should be obvious that *above all others* a regenerate church membership stands as *the* key Baptist distinctive. In other words, none of our other distinctives have any real substance without this one. What is the use of an autonomous local church if the members are apostate? What is the use of "religious liberty" if they people don't believe in the first table of the Law sitting in the pew? Why talk about a priesthood, when there are no priests!?

This is not a Calvinist issue. This is not an Arminian issue. This is not a "fundamentalist v. moderate" issue. This is not a "Burleson/Cole 'coalition v. Barberite 'coalition'" issue. This is a gospel issue. This is an honesty issue too. Tom Ascol is right on this. We all know it, and the goal should not be "let's talk about it to pass a resolution," since resolutions are not binding. The goal should be to bring about some real change in the churches so a resolution does not even need to be passed. Heavens! Before joining the church of which I am now a member, I was in a church with 900 members, 600 enrolled in Sunday School, and 300 in church every Sunday faithfully. Without this, we are doomed as a denomination, Calvinist and nonCalvinist, moderate and conservative, fundamentalist and evangelical, cessationist and continuationist, Southern Baptist and Independent alike.

Ergo, I am personally going to commit to spend a goodly amount of time to post on this issue in the upcoming year. I will probably start with some classic works, probably from John L. Dagg. I'd like to call on bloggers like Frank Turk and Steve Camp. I like to call on Dr. Bart Barber. I like to call on Les Puryear. Let's see Brother Wade take time off from SBC politics every so often and talk about this.

I wonder what Brother David, "Volfan07" has to say about this? I'd like to hear Ben Cole's thoughts on this too. Let's hear from Dorcas Hawker and Debbie Kaufman too. Let's hear from Art Rogers and even Marty Duren, from Chadwick Ivester, Dwight McKissic, and Micah Fries, David Hewitt and David Rogers. The blogging seminary students have lots to say, I'm sure. One could list more.

Let's hear from the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists. Let's hear from continuationists and cessationists, from "Burlesonites" and "Barbarites," young and old, male and female.

Let the articles be from the heart and the mind. Let them be expositional of Scripture. Let them survey Baptist history and tradition. Let us talk about what our churches have done or can do. There is quite a range in the way you can approach the topic. One does not have to write a sermon or a theological tome to participate in this discussion. Just post your thoughts, and where you argue from Scripture, just be sure you're on target and don't abuse the text.

Let us not forget Baptists who aren't in the SBC too, for the independent churches surely have this same problem, so let's hear from Dustin Segers and Sterling VanDerwerker. Let's hear from Phil Johnson too. I'd like to hear the young folks too, so let's call Evan May out of hiding. Let us argue among ourselves on other issues, but let us draw together on this one. Surely, we can make a difference, and maybe we can learn to get along. Call it an exercise in visible unity. Want to join in? Then please, leave a note below in the combox.

I'm not asking you to devote all of your time to it. I'm asking you to commit to address this topic periodically at your discretion, and if you repeat what has already been said, "so what!" Repetition is good for the soul. Just make a note on your calendar. Call it an appointment.

To start the conversation, I'd like to make some suggestions for the next year. Feel free to add your own.

I suggest the following:

a. All Baptist bloggers supporting this measure should spend the next year discussing this subject on the blogs periodically. Again, this is not a Calvinist-Arminian issue, and there is widespread agreement between us regarding this. We have been adversaries in some ways, but we have a real opportunity here to unite over this. We should take advantage of it. This will effectively keep it in the public eye too, and it will demonstrate unity around a common goal, which is something greatly needed.

b. We should write our state papers lamenting the failure of this resolution for a second year in a row.

c. We should petition Dr. Ascol and Dr. Akin to include a speaker/workshop on regenerate church membership / integrity in membership at Ridgecrest if at all possible. This originated in the Calvinist camp (yours truly is the one who actually first suggested the resolution and Tom ran with it) so it is logical to begin doing this at Ridgecrest. The goal here is to start a grass roots campaign.

d. Apropos c, we should also collate as much written information, blog articles, seminar notes, presentations, online articles, etc. and make an info packet for distribution @ Ridgecrest. I have already volunteered to man the table or booth to hawk the material there. It would help if a non-Calvinist would help in that regard, again, showing unity at the conference. I would gladly form a posse to go room to room to sit and talk with each person about this material if necessary. If somebody would fly me to Glorietta and put me up for another conference, I’d do it there too! I feel that strongly about this.

e. That same material should be put into .pdf format and posted on the internet for anybody to download and read and distribute. Packets should also be sent to the appropriate state agencies if possible with a letter urging them to get with the DOM’s on this to get it to the churches to educate their people, esp. next year’s messengers. They could have a speaker like Brother Voddie do the state evangelism/pastor conference circuit, including the SBC conference in Indiana itself, and preach on this too. If he came to NC in Feb., where this is usually held at my home church in Winston-Salem or a sister chruch in Charlotte, I would distribute material there too!

The ultimate goal is NOT to just pass the resolution in Indianapolis. The goal is to get the churches to act on it! The letter should be signed by many persons from many parties, including, but not limited to: Dr. Ascol, Dr. Akin, Dr. Yarnell, and whomever else of note from as many of the diverse “parties” as possible.

f. Dr. Yarnell wants it to address believer's baptism. Perhaps between now and Indianapolis that could be explained with more clarity and incorporated.

g. Somebody should also do the legwork and get ACP stats from “flagship” churches from each state. We’re told these are our examples to follow, and often the Pastor’s Conferences/Bailey Smith Conferences/State Evangelism Conferences crowd pat each other on the backs for jobs well done that aren’t well done. I think we need to name the churches and show their ACP stats. Dare I say, the disparities will be shameful, but if that’s what it takes to jolt people to attention sobeit. This isn’t to attack those churches, rather it’s to point out that this is not an imaginary problem, and it is systemic.

h. Let us also see the ACP statistics from those churches that are doing well in this. Let's give credit where credit is due, and, for those that recently implemented a program to address this issue, let's find out all the "how's, why's, when's, how-long's," etc's from them. Folks know there's a problem, but do they have a clue what to do in order to address it? Some of us, like Art Rogers have done this. He can help. Our church is a new work, and we have deliberately kept up with this. I'm sure Brother Dustin and Brother Sterling would be willing to talk to us about it.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership - Strike 2!

June 13, 2007, San Antonio, TX, for the second year in a row, the resolution on integrity in church membership was relegated to File 13 by the SBC Resolutions Committee.

Tom Ascol reports:

Every number has a story. That has been a recurring theme of the Southern Baptist Convention this year in San Antonio. We have heard speaker after speaker as well as numerous video presentations make this point. Some of them have been very moving stories of individuals and people groups who have either recently been reached by the Gospel or stand in need of being reached.

This morning, the Resolution Committee and messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention took actions that confirmed that theme--every number has a story. Sadly, the numbers involved tell a sad, sad story.

The Resolutions Committee refused to submit my resolution on integrity in church membership to the convention for vote. As promised, I brought a motion to overrule that decision. It takes a 2/3 majority to overrule that committee. President Page gave me an opportunity to read my resolution on the floor of convention. The debate was for the most part healthy and appropriately spirited. It was very respectful.

My appeal for allowing the convention to consider this resolution was that we had just passed a resolution calling for corporate repentance and "every number has a story." I read the statistics again from our Annual Church Profiles. I emphasized the fact even in the most generous analysis only 37% of our members even care enough to attend a worship gathering once a week. I have addressed the shame of this statistic repeatedly and will not belabor the point again here.

The chairman of the Resolutions Committee, Gerald Harris, responded to my appeal by saying that the committee thought it inappropriate to bring my resolution before the body because they feared it would infringe on the auntomy of local churches. We should not try to tell churches what to do, he said. Well, anyone who read my resolution and the resolutions that were passed this year and other years will recognize that this argument holds no water. However, it is a tremendous advance over last year's response from the chairman that, if churches took my resolution seriously we would lose our most promising prospects for evangelism!

The convention failed to overturn the committee and therefore my resolution never formally came before them for a vote. Several people--of various theological persuasions--came up to me afterwards to express appreciation for the attempt and dismay over the failure of the committee and convention to allow the resolution to be considered. While I am disappointed by these events and, quite honestly, surprised, I am in no way despondent! Think about it, for two years in a row a resolution calling for integrity in church membership has been read on the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention. We have discussed these matters. What the discussion has exposed is just how spiritually sick we are. While I don't like the fact that we are spiritually ill, I rejoice that this is being made increasingly apparent. Until we admit we have a problem, we will never seek to address it. In other words, until we see our sin, we will never repent of our sin.

I am encouraged because this conversation will continue for another year and, as promised, I will, by God's grace, be in Indianapolis next year to submit the same resolution. The passing of my resolution is not the goal. The goal is the recovery of the Gospel and reformation of local churches. If the events surrounding the efforts to get this resolution before the SBC can contribute to that by shining the light on how desperately sick we are, then praise God!

1. Did the resolution passed just before not affect local church autonomy?

2. How do resolutions, which are actually nonbinding anyway, an infringement on local church autonomy? Notice that this isn't the excuse given last year.

3. What makes this particularly distressing is the fact that this subject gained positive momentum this past year.

4. I submit it will take the bloggers (again) to pick this up and discuss it with some frequency. It will also take some grass roots work by supporters in their state conventions and associations. I will even distribute literature on this subject at Ridgecrest in November if it will help!

5. I further submit the average person in the pew doesn't understand the issues, because most are poorly taught anyway. That's why 4 is important.

6. I also submit that the SBC still things bigger is better and healthier. I think the time has come to do some tallying from the ACP's for our "flagship" churches, the ones held out as models to emulate, the ones the Pastor's Conference crowd often represents, patting each other on the back in the process. Let's see how they stack up. Will it take shaming the SBC to get their attention? I pray not. This one should be a no-brainer, so what's the problem?

Monday, November 13, 2006

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Bill Harrell, Chairman of the SBC’s X Comm stated that two problems in the SBC were worship styles and Calvinism. Bill Curtis Chairman of Trustees of NAMB has some exceptionally good words about cooperation in the SBC that everybody would do well to heed.

I’d like to point out a few things. Mr. Harrell stated that Five Point Calvinism ignores and radically interprets the Bible. Not only did he not substantiate that statement, he is, by defintion, stating that the first presidents and theologians of the SBC were radically reinterpreting and ignoring the Bible. This would include at least, one, Dr. James Boyce, who served a total of 8 years as SBC President, and another, RBC Howell, who served three terms, including one by acclamation. What’s more all the churches that formed the SBC in the 1845 Charter were from churches that affirmed the Philadelphia Confession. In short if it wasn’t for Calvinism, the SBC that Mr. Harrell loves and serves would not exist. Mr. Harrell needs a lesson in Baptist history and theology. Will somebody please send him Dr. Boyce’s book? Until Nov. 30, it’s only $12.50 plus shipping. Surely, he would do well to read it.

I’d also like to point out the problems that Brother Bill Curtis names in the SBC at present. These are, in contrast to Bill Harrell’s observations, of much greater concern:

• SBC baptisms are at their lowest levels in 12 years;

• 73 percent of SBC churches are plateaued or declining;

• 11,740 SBC churches reported zero or one baptism in 2005;

• 55 percent of SBC churches baptized no youth between the ages of 12-17 in 2004;

• From 1991-2004, the number of unchurched adults in America increased from 39 million to 79 million;

• Every county in North America is at least 50 percent unchurched (statistics available from NAMB).

Amen, Brother Bill Curtis! This hits the nail on the head! This did not happen because of differences in worship styles, and it did not happen because of Calvinism, since, according to Lifeway, only 10 percent of SBC pastors identify as “five point Calvinists.” No, this problem goes far, far deeper, and is much more extensive than Mr. Harrell’s, dare I say, superficial analysis.

In fact, I’d like to remind you all of these ACP statistics from the church belonging to our last SBC President:

2001

3506 members
203 baptisms
253 other additions
2200 primary worship attendance

2002

3812 members
296 baptisms
190 other additions
2100 primary worship

2003
4011 members
209 baptisms
137 other additions
2031 primary worship attendance

2004

4163 members
237 baptisms
204 other additions
1874 primary worship

It went from a counted Sunday morning worship attendance of 2200 in 2001 to 1874 in 2004. If my math is correct, that is a 15% decline.

Granted, they have baptized 945 people during that 4 year period and they have added 784 people by other means. But the church membership only grew by 657. It took 1729 new members for the church to grow by 657 members.

In addition those 1729 new members resulted in 326 fewer worshipers! This was the state of the church of the man that asked us to “baptize a million.” I am reminded of the old nursery rhyme, “Here’s the church; there’s the steeple/Open it up; where’s the people?” This same SBC President also took time to blast Calvinism in his church newsletter.

No, Calvinism is not responsible for these problems in the SBC, and if a good dose of evangelistic Calvinism (or even Amyraldianism), church discipline and order, and solid Biblical and deep expository preaching from the pulpit and teaching in the classroom is what it takes to fix these problems, then I submit that Bill Harrell needs to open his arms wide and learn to cooperate with the Calvinists in the SBC just like Bill Curtis suggests. What’s more, if the anti-Calvinists would stop with the monologues, they might do well to consider that they would do well to allow healthy, reasoned debate and discussion about these issues, because it will have the effect of driving more people to the Bible and away from PDL and The Prayer of Jabez and into more serious Bible study, theology books, and our own Baptist history. One more time: These problems did not arise because of worship styles between the churches or the reassertion of Calvinism in the SBC. This did not happen while folks on our side of that particular theological aisle were in charge. In fact, I submit that it is largely the legacy of the other side’s approach which is filling the churches with unregenerate, baptized persons. Let’s not forget, we were told at this past year’s SBC that the truants on our rolls were, “Some of our best prospects for evangelism.” This is the legacy of unbridled revivalism and theological eclecticism on the one hand and, on the other, the toleration of theological latitudinarianism. Mix with a dose of denominational politics, and this is what you get.