114921774631809807

A difference of opinion

I’ve been contemplating, as I’m sure many of you have, the upcoming annual meeting of the SBC. I’ve heard many people speak about their reasons for going and one that I’ve heard often is that they desire to go because of the opportunity to network, to hear good preaching, to worship together, etc. Now, please don’t misconstrue this for some pagan mentality, but I tend to disagree with those opinions. It’s not that I dislike those things, or that I don’t want those things. I dislike, however, the attitude that seems to desire to overlook the “business” portion of the annual meeting in favor of more “spiritual” experiences. I even heard, after last year’s meeting, that it was very refreshing but would be more so if they would replace the business sessions with worship services. Now I’m in favor of worship, but this sort of attitude is a part of, I believe, the move to reduce our opportunity to engage the process. What’s most difficult about this move is that it’s hard to criticize. I almost guarantee that someone will criticize this post because they assume that I’m not being “spiritual” enough. Again, it’s not that I oppose the spiritual portions, but the convention is intended to be a business meeting. It has become a worship rally with a limited amount of business opportunities. This cuts down on the time allowed for actual business, and allows a tightly controlled leadership group to continue to manipulate the process by not allowing for a variety of opinions to actually reach the floor of the convention.

For instance, if you consult the website for this year’s annual meeting you’ll notice that (by my count) they give a total of 125 minutes for business across the 2 days. When you add in that almost an hour of that time is given to the election of officers, that only leaves about 1.5 hours for business total over the two days. That may not seem too bad to you, but when compared with the music/preaching portion of the meeting that takes up 340 minutes of the meeting (of which, by the way, prayer and baptism time is not included, if so it would stretch out another hour or so), it’s really not much of a business meeting, is it?

In closing, let me restate that I love worship, I love networking, and I value all of those times at the convention. I’m not trying to remove them from the schedule, but that’s not why I go. I’m going to participate in the business of the SBC. I’m going in order to make a difference. I hope that you are too.

114921774631809807

A difference of opinion

I’ve been contemplating, as I’m sure many of you have, the upcoming annual meeting of the SBC. I’ve heard many people speak about their reasons for going and one that I’ve heard often is that they desire to go because of the opportunity to network, to hear good preaching, to worship together, etc. Now, please don’t misconstrue this for some pagan mentality, but I tend to disagree with those opinions. It’s not that I dislike those things, or that I don’t want those things. I dislike, however, the attitude that seems to desire to overlook the “business” portion of the annual meeting in favor of more “spiritual” experiences. I even heard, after last year’s meeting, that it was very refreshing but would be more so if they would replace the business sessions with worship services. Now I’m in favor of worship, but this sort of attitude is a part of, I believe, the move to reduce our opportunity to engage the process. What’s most difficult about this move is that it’s hard to criticize. I almost guarantee that someone will criticize this post because they assume that I’m not being “spiritual” enough. Again, it’s not that I oppose the spiritual portions, but the convention is intended to be a business meeting. It has become a worship rally with a limited amount of business opportunities. This cuts down on the time allowed for actual business, and allows a tightly controlled leadership group to continue to manipulate the process by not allowing for a variety of opinions to actually reach the floor of the convention.

For instance, if you consult the website for this year’s annual meeting you’ll notice that (by my count) they give a total of 125 minutes for business across the 2 days. When you add in that almost an hour of that time is given to the election of officers, that only leaves about 1.5 hours for business total over the two days. That may not seem too bad to you, but when compared with the music/preaching portion of the meeting that takes up 340 minutes of the meeting (of which, by the way, prayer and baptism time is not included, if so it would stretch out another hour or so), it’s really not much of a business meeting, is it?

In closing, let me restate that I love worship, I love networking, and I value all of those times at the convention. I’m not trying to remove them from the schedule, but that’s not why I go. I’m going to participate in the business of the SBC. I’m going in order to make a difference. I hope that you are too.

114921171486636906

Pointing to excellence

Sometimes I think that all I do on this blog is point people to other blogs. I’ve decided that if others can say it better than there’s no need for me to rehash it, unless I have something new to say.

That being said I want to point you to a few particularly good articles.

1. Wade’s decision regarding IMB Trustee accountability.

2. Baptist Press’ version of Wade’s decision regarding the IMB Trustee’s and accountability. (I particularly love John Floyd’s “no comment.”)

3. Ben Cole’s treatment of why he will not vote for Ronnie Floyd.

114921171486636906

Pointing to excellence

Sometimes I think that all I do on this blog is point people to other blogs. I’ve decided that if others can say it better than there’s no need for me to rehash it, unless I have something new to say.

That being said I want to point you to a few particularly good articles.

1. Wade’s decision regarding IMB Trustee accountability.

2. Baptist Press’ version of Wade’s decision regarding the IMB Trustee’s and accountability. (I particularly love John Floyd’s “no comment.”)

3. Ben Cole’s treatment of why he will not vote for Ronnie Floyd.

114919948386145306

Calling all travelers

I am very excited about getting the chance to meet each of you in a week or so in Greensboro. I’ll be staying, along with my buddy John Stickley, in High Point at the Fairfield Suites. We will will also be spending (thanks to United changing our flight) 4-5 hours in O’Hare on Sunday night, waiting for our connection to Greensboro. So, if you happen to be flying through O’Hare on Sunday night, let me know and we’ll get together during the layover. If you are interested in getting together at some point during the convention let me know either by commenting here, or emailing me micah[at]friesville[dot]com. We’ll work something out.

114919948386145306

Calling all travelers

I am very excited about getting the chance to meet each of you in a week or so in Greensboro. I’ll be staying, along with my buddy John Stickley, in High Point at the Fairfield Suites. We will will also be spending (thanks to United changing our flight) 4-5 hours in O’Hare on Sunday night, waiting for our connection to Greensboro. So, if you happen to be flying through O’Hare on Sunday night, let me know and we’ll get together during the layover. If you are interested in getting together at some point during the convention let me know either by commenting here, or emailing me micah[at]friesville[dot]com. We’ll work something out.

114917305721664950

It won’t change much…

That’s my perception, anyway, of Bobby Welch’s call for church’s to hold two revivals per year. According to Welch, if churches were to do so, “it would change everything…” This, to me, is another example in the gap concerning the methodology of many within our convention. I think we are, far too often, holding firm in our belief that a revival is a tremendous method of evangelical success. I think much of our misunderstanding comes from a failed understanding of “revival success.” I have no desire to see more “professions of faith.” I desire to see disciples. People who not only claim to follow Christ, but who live like it as well.

Welch’s own church is a study in this in that over the past 10 years they have baptized almost 4,000 people and only seen an increase in Sunday morning attendance of 25 people. Lest you think that I’m simply trying to undermine Welch’s church, please understand that this is something that I’m dealing with in my own church as well. In my time that I’ve been at our church, we’ve increased our baptisms every year. We’ve also seen growth in attendance yet we’ve seen probably 65% of those we’ve baptized fail to be consistent in their faith just one year down the road.

I’ve posted in the past about my concerns in regard to effective evangelism. I’m becoming more and more passionate about our need to create authentic disciples and not simply converts. So, in in response to Welch’s statement that revivals are the answer I say no, they are not. I’m afraid we’ve misunderstood evangelism almost entirely and we need to reconsider who and what we are called to do. We need to understand that numbers should not be the driving factor and that changed lives, authentic disciples, should be. I asked this once before but I’ll pose the question again in hopes that it causes many to think, what does authentic, effective evangelism look like?

114917305721664950

It won’t change much…

That’s my perception, anyway, of Bobby Welch’s call for church’s to hold two revivals per year. According to Welch, if churches were to do so, “it would change everything…” This, to me, is another example in the gap concerning the methodology of many within our convention. I think we are, far too often, holding firm in our belief that a revival is a tremendous method of evangelical success. I think much of our misunderstanding comes from a failed understanding of “revival success.” I have no desire to see more “professions of faith.” I desire to see disciples. People who not only claim to follow Christ, but who live like it as well.

Welch’s own church is a study in this in that over the past 10 years they have baptized almost 4,000 people and only seen an increase in Sunday morning attendance of 25 people. Lest you think that I’m simply trying to undermine Welch’s church, please understand that this is something that I’m dealing with in my own church as well. In my time that I’ve been at our church, we’ve increased our baptisms every year. We’ve also seen growth in attendance yet we’ve seen probably 65% of those we’ve baptized fail to be consistent in their faith just one year down the road.

I’ve posted in the past about my concerns in regard to effective evangelism. I’m becoming more and more passionate about our need to create authentic disciples and not simply converts. So, in in response to Welch’s statement that revivals are the answer I say no, they are not. I’m afraid we’ve misunderstood evangelism almost entirely and we need to reconsider who and what we are called to do. We need to understand that numbers should not be the driving factor and that changed lives, authentic disciples, should be. I asked this once before but I’ll pose the question again in hopes that it causes many to think, what does authentic, effective evangelism look like?