As a “harvested” Christian (reached as an adult, not raised in church), I remain in a small minority. Most churches have less than 3% of their membership that fit that category. A great many things contribute to the inward focus of the typical American church of any denomination. Even those describing themselves as evangelistic long ago defaulted to “raising” Christians. That view will ensure Frank Page’s prediction last May that by 2030, that the number of SBC churches will shrink from the current 44,000 to only about 20,000.

Planting churches is a fine thing, but much less than “the” answer. Squandering half the existing bodies is inexcusable.

Here’s a thought:

1. INREACH – Can we reach the 50% or so of our members that are unregenerate, without “rooting out” those tares? Actually, some churches are having great success in doing so. There is at least one very effective practice that costs nothing and is appropriate for any size church.

2. FOUNDATIONAL DISCIPLESHIP – Is it possible to teach an entire congregation the essentials of historic Christianity? Certainly. Write them down and post/study/teach them.

3. REAL CORPORATE EVANGELISM – Is it possible to ensure that every lost church visitor hear a complete presentation of GOD’S plan of salvation, directly from His Word?…..and simultaneaously ensure that every member is equipped and prepared to share that at a moment’s notice? YEP.

One thing is for sure. If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, we will keep getting what we have been getting. E-mail me an address and I will send you a copy of a book being distributed to the SBC pastors of 16 states (to date), by their state convention. Kentucky is not on board yet, hence you haven’t received one.

Frank Fears
frankfears@everestkc.net

Being a cradle Southern Baptist now 48 years of age and still possessed of an apparently congenitally permanent SBC loyalty, I realize that my ability to comprehend how the SBC is viewed by outsiders is certaily impaired. This impairment also weakens my ability to explain to young theologically conservative leaders who have a passion for evangelism and church-planting why they should consider doing their work wihin a Southern Baptist context. That’s where people like Ed Stetzer and Matt Chandler give me hope for the SBC. Each of these men chose as adult ministers to join the SBC. I can’t help it. It gives me hope.

Have you read any of Clay Shirky’s writings? He is a secular blogger focusing on the the impact of communication technology on our culture. While he is writing on a different topic from yours, there are some powerful parallels when you apply his thinking to the issues of the church (lower ‘c’) that you explore. If you are interested, here is a link to an article on his blog that explores the desperate cry to ’save’ print media. His critique could be applied to the parallel desperate cry of many to save the ‘c’hurch as it has been known for the past generations (death by nostalgia??)

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/

In any case, thanks for the time you obviously take in your insightful commentary. Grace and peace!

Ethan

I am a preacher at a school where most of the students are not Christians. I said that 90% of my messages contain a clear evangelisitic invitation. (Not altar call) I don’t preach to Christians that aren’t there and it’s not a church. When I am at a church, I preach primarily to Christians.

Evangelism is a quality of God and the Gospel. A Christian cannot talk about Jesus and the Gospel without evangelistic implications.

I’m not sure what you meant by 90% evangelism, but I needed to clear that up. My ministry is evangelistic by commission.

ms

Balance is the key. Evangelism, missions, prayer, doctrine, fellowship, discipleship. I do not think 90% evangelism is the key? People then see that we want them to join our club, rather than know Christ through the Word and Spirit.

Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.

In church planting, it should go without saying that a church initiated plant should have a high level of investment, a continuing relationship and a covenantal status with a church for X amount of time. (5 years for example.)

If a church starts a work and starves or deserts it, they have done a very bad thing.

And the same with networks. Church plants need to be loved. They need infusions of people, resources and support.

I see some significant differences between church planting and missionary support. But that’s another day.

peace

ms

I was overseas with precisely the type of mission that requires the missionary to raise his/her own support, despite the fact that it was a “denominational” mission. My experience was of months of furlough spent on the road, of times of separation from the family so that our children could have a stable school during our furlough while I raised the money, and of an inability to either really relax or to do the type of studying that a missionary needs to do during a furlough in order to be ready for his/her next term.

My other experience is of times spent watching our budget overseas as churches and individuals dropped out because they had had a “budget shortfall” or because they had not counted the cost of three to four years of support. And, the hidden secret, of watching churches and individuals drop out during our first term because we were not doing enough exciting things. Mind you, the first term of a long-term missionary is often a learning term, when they go to language school, then are seconded to a senior missionary in order to learn their paces. But, there is little understanding of that or patience with that in local churches. However, there is an understanding of that and patience with that in a more national program, such as the SBC foreign mission program.

By our third term, I was field director for southern Peru in our mission. During that time, I was riding a mule into indigenous areas of Peru. A school was started as well as an orphanage. Churches were planted in new untouched areas. (I was directly responsible for that.) And the money poured in. But, I never forgot the first two terms, when our life was hardscrabble and at the mercy of inconsistent local churches and donors. No, I would have loved to have been supported by a national program.

As a result, I have few good things to say about that type of mission support. I am very much in favor of programs such as the SBC Cooperative program in foreign missions precisely because it interposes a layer between the missionary and the local church and keeps the missionary from the “tender mercies” of a local church that has little understanding of what it really takes to be and what is really needed by a foreign missionary.

So, do I have a harsh view of local churches “bypassing the middle man?” Yes. That middle man of a national program–among the SBC missionaries I met–was the buffer that prevented missionary mistreatment.

The issue is not hierarchical in the least, nor was I trying to speak from a hierarchical viewpoint. Rather, I was speaking from the viewpoint of the missionary who was at the mercy of the local church, a mercy which was not too merciful.

>“If a Southern Baptist church wants to initiate their own work in partnership with other churches and bypass the middle man, isn’t that a good thing?” No, it really is not a good thing.

You won’t be surprised that I disagree with this statement, but I am surprised you didn’t at least say “may not be as good a thing as it first appears.”

Or at least note that a Southern Baptist church or group of churches would be virtue of that very fact approach this matter differently from hierarchical churches.

How a church or group of churches approach church planting certainly ought to be evaluated on what they do, not simply ruled bad on principle because they are doing it differently.

I’m puzzled.

peace

ms