"We believe that you cannot have too many churches."

One of the less cogent statements I have heard denominational workers make is this:

"We believe that you cannot have too many churches."

This was the statement of a church planter catalyst, leader or some other iteration of denominational worker whose job it was to assist in planting churches. I do not recall if the individual was a state convention employee or a North American Mission Board employee. He was probably a hybrid of the two.

The context was in planting churches in and around one of the great southern metroplexes, Atlanta, the heart of the Bible Belt, the locale of dozens of megachurches, the place where it seems as if there is a Baptist church on every street corner, at every crossroads, and several in every jerkwater town.

Credit must be given for excessive exuberance in doing his job and an allowance must be made for his understanding that how well he did his job, how well he earned his paycheck, depended on the simple bottom line of how many churches he could say that he had a hand in starting.

The statement is several years old. I presume that the philosophy he espoused is not the current one adhered to by our entities. I hope that is the case.

I chastise myself for allowing such a categorical statement as "...you cannot have too many churches" to go unchallenged. I confess to not thinking every thought that I should think when it should be thought.

The brother could have properly contextualized the statement and made it truthful and valid and thereby establishing himself as the kind of sagacious denominational servant we are blessed to have. To do so would have been simple. He could have added appropriate qualifications so that it was understood that among a population of several million there would always be a need for new churches to reach and serve various ethnic groups and other population segments for which there was no existing congregation well positioned to do so.

I suspect that he had heard one of the denominational superstars make the assertion and merely repeated it.

We can certainly have too many churches and probably do. Autonomy has its downside.

My small town and country community has three Baptist churches within two blocks of each other. Two are SBC, one is independent. Another seven Baptist churches are within three miles. There are in addition several Baptist churches whose makeup is primarily African American, several other mainline denominational churches, several non-denominational churches.

Nonetheless, a new Baptist church plant finds the area fertile and presumes another is needed. Did I mention that the area is not growing and that there are no groups of Syrian, Sudanese, or other refugees are being relocated here which are in need of a church.

I was asked recently why Baptists didn't restrict new churches to certain distances from existing churches. Aha, local church autonomy is the culprit.

To my knowledge, the local association, the Georgia Baptist Convention, and NAMB are not attempting to further saturate the locality with shiny new SBC churches. Good for them. To NAMB's credit they have established parameters, ratios of churches to population, that they use in funding church plants. This is an imperfect but emminently sensible approach.

So, while the young, energetic, goateed Reverend with a vision of having his very own church works his church planting magic and tries to snatch away enough folks from existing churches to have a regular paycheck, we have people groups all over the globe with hundreds of millions of folks who have little or no Gospel witness at all. If successful he will be lionized and emulated.

I wonder how God looks at all this?

Record low attendance? Not here.

Southern Baptists are all about numbers, ad nauseum, ad absurdum, and often to our harm. Admit it, pastor, when numbers are declining in your church, you feel bad, you feel inadequate, you feel unfulfilled, you feel unsuccessful.

So, when there is an SBC event with low attendance, it is usually followed by grave handwringing sessions, laments about the decline of our grand denomination, and a surfeit of analysis and expert opinions.

This past June the SBC met in annual session in one of our major southern states, Texas, in one of the cities where we have shining megastars, Houston, and the attendance in June was pathetic, just over 5,000. At the meeting a VP was elected with just a few hundred votes, nowhere near a quorum of 25% of registrants.

The laments commenced.

How about something that is good news? Stellar numbers? How about something that has caught the enthusiasm and support of significant numbers of SBCers, particularly younger ones?

The North American Mission Board's Send North America conference met in Texas this week, Dallas metroplex rather than Houson, and the attendance was almost as large as the SBC annual meeting. Baptist Press reported  attendance of over 4,200.

NAMB President Kevin Ezell said he was "ecstatic about the turnout" for the event. "Not only the energy and electricity among the participants, but the passion and heart of pastors and planters -- it all exceeds our expectations. The ethnic diversity is fantastic. Obviously this confirms the launch of a new day. It is a new day and a new NAMB."
Most important, Ezell said, were the partnerships and commitments that were made at the conference.
"We've had more than 500 participants say they want to take the next steps in church planting. And more and more churches are stepping up to say they will partner with our planters. So the ongoing impact of these two days will really be the measure of success," Ezell said.

Of course, the goal is not to have large meetings but to share the Gospel, see people in North America saved, and plant churches. The critical metrics for all this aren't beginning to register just yet but one cannot help but be optimistic about the interest of Southern Baptists in the effort.

This is the same NAMB that was our most dysfunctional entity just a few years ago and the same Kevin Ezell who was welcomed with skepticism and criticism when he became the new NAMB CEO.

I lack both the calling and the skill set to be a church planter but I have worked with many. They all complained about meager support from NAMB and from Southern Baptists. I don't hear as much of that as I did earlier. I get the feeling that planters have greater support both denominaitonally and from established churches and pastors.

We should all be glad to see it.

Are church splits a thing of the past?

I am forced to vote 'yes' they are a thing of the past...but...

Only because we have a new nomenclature for them

Unfriendly Church Starts

I'm not sure what is going on in our denomination but somehow, some way, Plodder did not get the memo on this. Apparently word is out that we no longer have church "splits."

Nosirree. When a group of jut-jawed, disgruntled church members grab a pastor or staff member in the middle of a church squabble and go down the street to start their own church, by gum, we shall speak hereafter and forevermore of this action as an "unfriendly church start."

There. That prickly little problem is fixed. No more splits.

I suppose I lead a sheltered life in the Southern Baptist hinterlands, since the first time I ran across the phrase "unfriendly church start" was last week on Thom Ranier's blog, Four Thoughts on Unfriendly Church Starts.

When I read the headline, my thinking was, "Hmmm, good topic. A church start in an unfriendly area, perhaps amongst the Mormons or Hasidim. I'd like to know more." Instead Ranier was giving advice on the old fashioned, thoroughly Southern Baptist methodology of starting many of our new churches through ugly and angry splits out of existing churches.

Church planting strategists used to enjoy using this line at minister's conferences and evangelism rallys: "You guys know that a sizable proportion of our church starts are actually splits?"

No, I didn't know way back when I first heard that stated. Now I do, although I have not seen anyone toss out actual numbers lately. Such would be rather embarrassing. I certainly hope it is not true today.

Regardless, consider that we clever Southern Baptists have solved yet another thorny ecclesiastical problem with the old Baptists, tried-and-true fix-all tool: Just rename the doggone thing and plow blithely ahead with kingdom work. To wit:

Southern Baptist Convention  :  Great Commission Baptists

Calvinism  :  Doctrines of Grace

Traditionalists  :  Traditionalists (need a bit more work on this one)

Think of it. If we all got on board there would be no more Calvinists in the SBC just doctrines of gracers. Ah, silly dreamer, the Calvinists are already trying this and it ain't working.

Perhaps we could instead buckle down, pray fervently, talk to each other, listen to each other, put a halt to the expectorating contests, and actually fix the problem.

Come to think of it, that would work on the local church and on the denominational level.

Why not try it?

NAMB, State Conventions back on the same page

The big news back in February coming out of the Fellowship of State Executive Directors annual meeting was the naming of a state executives' special committee, "A Study Committee on Implementation of NAMB Initiatives with State Conventions."

The concern was over how the North American Mission Board was redirecting its budget to reflect new priorities. The changes at NAMB meant that some state conventions were to get less money and sacred cows were mooing mightily all across the SBC landscape; hence, this highly visible study committee, sort of a shot across NAMB's bow.

The study committee thereupon went into the deep freeze, since not a syllable has been heard about it since...until now.

Sensibly, the state convention leaders have decided to go along and get along with NAMB. Baptist Press reports this today in their story,

State, NAMB leaders to move forward 'in unity'.

All that was said publicly on this is in the quote below:

On September 13, 2012, state executive directors met with North American Mission Board president Kevin Ezell. David Hankins, executive director of the Louisiana Baptist Convention and chairman of the special study committee, presented a report that was enthusiastically received by the Execs. The result is that the Conventions and the North American Mission Board have determined to move forward together in unity to impact the lostness of North America.

"'It is our desire that all of us can join ranks around the task of evangelizing and congregationalizing North America,' said Hankins. 'Southern Baptists can have confidence in our united effort.'

"Ezell added, 'We are excited to be moving forward together in unity for the sake of the kingdom.'"

There was some kind of internal report. Guess we will never see that. Regardless, this is good news, although one might be curious as to the process and discussion.

State convention leaders may have been given pause by one or more of the following factors:

• Kevin Ezell, NAMB's leader, has NAMB doing quite well in the eyes of many SBCers and had made efforts to mollify some of the state exec's complaints.
• No less than retired IMB president Jerry Rankin labeled NAMB's kickback funding for state conventions, the trigger for the study committee, as "entitlements," hardly helpful to the states in shaping SBC opinion.
• While NAMB received criticism for some of their changes, it's tough to argue against NAMB's putting a laser focus on church planting.
• Early high profile critics of  NAMB's changes did not gain much traction in the SBC. 
• It  has been tough to argue against NAMB's policy redirecting mission money from heavily churched states like Arkansas and putting it in less churched areas. 
• The Annie Armstrong offering was up over one million dollars this year, indicating SBC support of the new NAMB.
• NAMB's signature Grand Program, Send North America, is off to a promising start with thousands of SBCers and SBC churches on board.

Slice this any way you want. It is good news for Southern Baptists to stop complaining and lock arms in reaching the lost in North America.

NAMB's contra-status quo church planting conference

The SBC increased the total number of churches by exactly 37 in 2011, that's 37 net new churches or less than one per state convention. Pathetic.

OK, NAMB, you are our main entity in this area. Do something about that.

What NAMB is doing in regards to church planting is their Send North America initiative and it looks to me like this has made NAMB the center of gravity in the SBC for church planting. The Send North America Conference 2012 of yesterday and Monday is prime evidence of that. 

The conference was near me at Johnny Hunt's megachurch in Woodstock, GA and I was privileged to attend. 

The idea is that the SBC needs to plant thousands of churches just to keep apace with population growth and shifts.

At the moment the SBC is an imperceptibly moving slug in church planting and that at a time when we need to be a racehorse. Send North America is NAMB's grand initiative that aims to change this. Good for them.

While I wasn't the oldest person at the conference, the energy for church planting rightfully resides in sub-baby boomers. Nothing wrong with youth and energy even if they seem to have an almost religious objection to tucking in a flapping shirt tail. No problemo...just an observation.

J. D. Greear, Jimmy Scroggins, and David Platt all talk very fast to an old codger like me but I like what they say. I missed Platt's appearance but Greear and Scroggins, if I listen fast enough, are saying the things I like to hear.

If you move beyond our usual way of planting SBC churches, an extisting church has a split and a splinter group starts a new church nearby, SBC church planting is a mysterious thing, a patchwork quilt of support from churches, associations, and state conventions.

I still don't understand exactly how NAMB is going to plant all these churches. It's complicated. Maybe I didn't listen fast enough.


NAMB seems to be saying that they will devote their considerable resources to helping a church and a church planter do what they feel called to do with an emphasis on major cities and places where the extisting church/population ratios show greater needs.

This strategy has meant redirecting NAMB's kickback funding for many state conventions. While some have hotly objected, I'm persuaded by the justification for the change.

Fact is, the status quo hasn't been working too good for Southern Baptists and NAMB, thankfully and finally, is at the forefront of changing the status quo.

I'm all for it.
 

Death by a thousand cuts

The grand old ship SBC, if not doing just fine, is in no danger of sinking. Pronouncements of our being a dying denomination are more melodrama than truth.

And, as serious as the Calvinist/Traditionalist discussions may be, I don't see catastrophic failure in our future as a result. There is nothing plaguing us that is as serious as the Moderate/Conservative conflict of the 1980s and 1990s.

If we are to die, my conjecture would be that we will die the death of a thousand cuts - innumerable, endless pinpricks, slices, and cuts all over the body SBC until we are bled dry of common goals and cooperation for the things that we are here for - starting churches, seeing folks saved, and doing the work of Christ here and around the world.

I hope the day never comes.

Consider the example of the North American Mission Board, just one of the areas of criticism and conflict in the SBC.

NAMB knows spectacular meltdowns, having had a couple in the last decade. Now, they are stable, have solid leadership, and in my view is moving in the right direction. They are now in the process of launching a major church planting initiative.

We're the largest non-Catholic religious group in the United States, right?

You bet.

We have almost 16 million adherents, over 45 thousand churches, a powerhouse for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, right? Right on the first two, but hold on a sec on the third.


I have noted before that our grand denomination added less than a single new church, net, on average per state convention in 2011. Pathetic. 

So, NAMB aims to change this by planting thousands and thousands of new congregations in places where there is a dearth of SBC churches now. Some may say that we are beyond the day when we can have success in top-down, grand denominational plans and programs.

Perhaps, but would we feel better if NAMB was doing nothing, just rocking along spreading our $115 million or so around in legacy jobs and pet projects?

Not me.

A man from Mars would review NAMB's recent history and say, "I bet Southern Baptists are pleased about how things are going."

Instead, NAMB is pricked and nicked on all sides for this or that minor issue. Would that more SBCers were from Mars.

While spectacular meltdowns are more riveting, death by a thousand cuts is death nonetheless.

Have SBCers lost the will to fight?

Fight each other, that is.

Maybe.

I hope so.

It would be a good thing.

I have no stomach for another Conservative Resurgence-style of SBC conflict where partisan candidates aim to move the convention away from some demonized SBC subgroup, not that I impute that to any of the candidates for office this year, but the jizz I was getting was that there were rumblings of such things.

No thanks.

If the convention by their actions this week said the same thing we are all better off.

We have a black president, a moving story, and one that might move the convention away from the rumblings of controversy. I'm all for it.

That there are always some Southern Baptists who aren't happy unless they are in conflict with some segment of their Christian brethren is still a reality among us but I hope not to the degree that it dominates the Southern Baptist landscape.

We increased the number of SBC churches by a total of 37 last year, a pathetic average of less than one per state convention. NAMB is launching the Send North America initiative which has a chance of doing better if we care enough to get behind it.

The International Mission Board still has a daunting task made much more delicate as a result of the realities of world events and attitudes. They could use all of our help.

The best thing coming out of New Orleans besides I-10 might be an enhanced sense of optimism about things SBC.

SBC: One net new church per state convention.

37/42

I enjoy the statistics that are released prior to our annual meeting each year even though there isn't much for any self-respecting Southern Baptist to brag about, and if we can't brag, we tend to pout.

We're pouting.

Thirty-seven is the net increase in SBC churches in the period 2010-2011. There were 45,727 SBC churches reported in 2010. There are 45,764 reported for 2011.

Forty-two is how many state conventions there are in the SBC.

So...actually...the largest non-catholic denomination in the United States increased their number of churches at a rate of about one per state convention.

How about that?

The Obama administration, if presented with similar stark statistics would be hard pressed to find any positive spin for it and they are masters at it.

Let's be accurate here:

• Net new churches, .88 per state convention
• One net new church per 431,840 members
• One net new church per 31.7 Baptist associations

But consider this. Our North American Mission Board reports an unexpected increase in church plants for 2011. That figure is 990, almost a thousand church plants.

I am unsure if NAMB's plants are also reported on the Annual Church Profile as new churches, some or most may not be constituted, but if we are starting almost a thousand churches and show only the tiniest net increase, there must be a lot of congregations that went defunct, folded up, merged or got lost.  

In the last six months have preached and worshiped in some churches that are very small but I am unaware of any that disbanded in my area. Maybe there is a rash of church closures in other states. I don't know.

I am aware that NAMB has taken steps to stop the reporting of phantom church plants (explanation of which may be found in this article). Hard numbers are always better than SBC-style 'soft' numbers, even if we have to postpone our annual bragging session.

I'm thinking that we can do better than this if we can avoid a Calvinist/Traditionalist meltdown.

NAMB thinks we can do a lot better than this; hence, the Send North America initiative that is aiming at an additional 5,000 churches by 2022.

I like the concept. That's why we are here.

Less than one net new church per state convention. Ruminate on that for awhile.

Game changer on sex abuse liability in the SBC?

A church planter who received support and training from the Florida Baptist Convention (FBC) was convicted of sexually abusing a thirteen year old boy in one of the autonomous churches he planted. The man is in prison for his crime and a jury has just found not just the church involved but also the FBC to be liable for damages he caused.

Is this jury decision that jumps beyond the autonomous church to both the local association and state convention a game changer in sex abuse liability for Southern Baptist entities?

I don't know the answer but the case is perhaps the single most significant development on clergy sex abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Here's a link to a news report of the case: Florida Baptist Convention found liable for former pastor who abused Eustis boy

The sex abuser was a pastor who planted two churches in the area with financial support from the Florida Baptist Convention and the Lake County Baptist Association.

Some of the facts of the case (from the news report):

Before Myers started his church work in Florida, the convention ran a background search on him, including a search of criminal cases, motor-vehicle violations and a credit check, according to testimony. However, none of the convention officials had checked his references or called the prior churches, according to testimony.

 [Lawyer for the FBC] argued that the convention is more of a support group for the affiliated Baptist churches and that Baptist churches are run independently. The convention doesn't maintain any kind of authority over churches, he argued.

"We had no right to control anything he did," [lawyer for the FBC] said to the jurors. "We didn't hire him. We didn't fire him. We didn't control him."

 However, the argument of the lawyer for the plaintiff proved to be persuasive to the jury:

[the sex abuser, Myers] came to Florida as a "church planter," and that the convention had a more direct role over him. Baptist churches may be independently run, but it wasn't a church committee that brought Myers to town, he argued to the jury.
Instead, Myers received his funding and training directly from the convention, was in contact with the convention's mission division and was included in church directories and Baptist publications as being affiliated, Weil argued.

"He wasn't a rogue. He wasn't on his own," Weil told jurors. "He was part of an affiliated church."

The Florida Baptist Convention did background checks on the man and found that he had no arrests or convictions. What the jury saw as negligent on the part of the state convention was their failure to check previous places of service where there was there was controversy over his behavior with young boys. 


If a Baptist pastor or staff member receives financial support, is included in denominational directories, is a recipient of training, and/or other types of support does this make the state convention or association liable for the independent actions of that pastor or staff member even though they do not employ or supervise him?

It does in this Florida case, so far.

If the verdict stands it could be expensive for the Florida Baptist Convention and catastrophic for the  Association. The latter could be easily bankrupted and the FBC with substantial assets could be hit hard.

The issue of how Baptists handle clergy is problematic. A man like the felon in this case may move from association to association, state to state, with impunity. That's not good for any of us. I don't know what the best solution to this is, but if the FBC has to pay damages in this case, the incentive should be sufficient for any SBC entity to ratchet up their level of scrutiny for all whom they fund and train.

A legitimate question out of this is whether or not state conventions and other Baptist entities are able to provide sufficient scrutiny for all the non-employees who may receive some funding and for all those who are involved in some level of training but who work in local churches.

For example, will the North American Mission Board, which is launching a major church planting effort as I write, one that will involve training and support for perhaps thousands of church planters, have to retool their vetting process? The same NAMB church planting initiative will employ a principle of not utilizing any planter or planting a church that is not related to a current SBC congregation. Does this relationship expose all those churches to liability even though they will not supervise the planter?

Will any of these SBC entities be able to thread the needle and support these people but without acquiring liability for their independent actions?

Serious questions. The answers should be formulated on the basis of what policy and procedures are best for protecting children and for keeping abusers out of our congregations. 

The solution proposed by some child protection advocates is a national, SBC funded, independent, objective review board to research abuse allegations. Even with that in place, this abuser would probably have not have had any record on such a board. No one can require churches to report unproven accusations. My thinking is that the vast majority of SBC churches are unlikely to send a report of local church gossip about a minister to any national board.

The holy grail for church sex abuse litigation among Baptist or other traditions where there is local church autonomy is to get liability moved up from the abuser's local church to one of the higher Baptist bodies.

As it stands now, this case has accomplished this. 

Is it a game changer?

I don't know but you can be sure every state convention, along with the Executive Committee, and SBC entities are looking at it closely.

So, how long do we have to wait for denominational executives and lawyers to address this with the greater SBC public?

Not long, I hope.

NAMB trustees adopt church planting network guidelines

Our North American Mission Board has endured considerable criticism for supporting church plants that also have a relationship with some church planting network. We are regularly treated to considerable, breathless, blogging acrimony alleging all manner of things about NAMB and other church planting networks.

No matter that there have been few concrete examples offered of such things. But then facts usually don't slow down bloggers from displaying a good dose of denominational indignation. NAMB has consistently stated that they only plant churches that conform to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. No one I know has pointed to a single church that does not so conform.

Understanding the scrutiny of such things, NAMB trustees adopted some guidelines for their church plants and other networks.

NAMB's document is below:

                                       NAMB / Network Guidelines

The North American Mission Board encourages church plants to partner with their association, state convention, NAMB and the IMB. NAMB also affirms that some churches engage with other networks for mission and evangelism purposes in accordance with article 14 “Cooperation” of the Baptist Faith and Message.

NAMB does not affirm or partner with individual networks, but partners with Baptist Faith and Message affirming churches and planters.

In order to be good stewards of Southern Baptist resources and remain focused on our mission, the following guidelines must be upheld in order for a church plant to receive benefits from the Send North America church planting strategy. Church planting is a family activity, and we want to partner with those whose plans and commitments include
a commitment to the SBC family.

As such, we require that churches we support:

1. AFFIRM their doctrine, polity and practices are compatible with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
 
2. PARTICIPATE as an SBC church, and have their denominational commitment reflected in their documents, web page, and shared with the congregation.
 
3. COMPLETE and remain faithful to all the Send North America strategy requirements and policies.
 
4. GIVE faithfully the agreed percentage through the Cooperative Program.
 
5. COMMIT to serve as a faithful SBC partner beyond receiving support in order to partner with the future strategy of Send North America in planting additional churches.

Everyone happy now?

Acts 29: Behind every tree and under every rock

I made the comment to a denominational staffer a few days ago that I could scarcely turn on my computer without Acts 29 popping up. Hardly any Southern Baptist Convention discussion goes any length without someone raising the specter of the dreaded Acts 29 Network.

Part of my retirement regimen is visiting churches, so I thought I might exhibit some steely resolve and take my silver pate to an Acts 29 church around here. There are several in the Atlanta area and one that is a short drive from me.

When I asked about the closest Acts 29 to me, I was informed that it had a Presbyterian affiliation and I already have a favorite Presbyterian church I have attended, so I have dropped the thought of trying to attend an Acts 29 church for now. I'm not sure they permit old dudes to attend, anyway.

But considering doing so reminded me that although I have heard and read innumerable SBCers complain about Acts 29 as if it is the source of many of the SBC woes, I don't know that I have ever heard a critic who has ever visited one of these churches, these ubiquitous and nefarious things that some say are the bane of our beloved denomination.


Acts 29's website mentions all of the grand sum of 400 churches in the US. There are thirteen listed as being in Georgia, three in Alabama, four in SC, and eleven in NC. Hardly a vast number.

Maybe we ought to look into Acts 29 and learn how such a small network of churches has such outsized influence in our denomination of over 45,000 churches.

Why all this complaining about Acts 29?

Aha, I'm told, there's that Acts 29/North American Mission Board connection.


There is?

Last year it was noted that a church listed on the Acts 29 website was a NAMB-supported church plant.

Really?

Yep.

And?

Curious, I asked and NAMB said that they only plant churches that conform to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. Come to think of it, no one that I know of has pointed to a single NAMB plant that does not so conform.

Maybe SBCers ought to stop looking behind every tree and under every rock for Acts 29 churches and focus on the real problems in the SBC - seriously declining Cooperative Program giving and declining baptisms.

But then it is one of our favorite sports and such fun to find things to demonize.

Really, another, new, non-church church in my county?

My fair county has a population of about 70,000. It has several cities, the largest is about 15,000. It is mostly rural, blue collar, and ex-urban. It is decidedly un-avant guarde, traditional, uncool.

There are plenty of churches in my county. If I turn left out of my driveway on Sunday, withing three miles (I live in the country) I have three Baptist churches to choose from without making a turn. The church from which I retired back in November was, still is, in a wonderful town of 7,700 or so great folks with a few grouches. Within walking distance of my old red brick, steepled church is: an independent non-denominational church, United Methodist, Church of Christ, and two independent Baptist churches. A short drive gets you to the Presbyterian church, yet another Baptist church, a black Baptist church, yet another independent Baptist church.

We're churched around here.

But, as one North American Mission Board church planter type declared a few years ago at an associational meeting, "You can't have too many churches."

Sure you can.

My SBC church planting colleagues used to appear at associational meetings to share their vision of a "new work" a "radically different" type of church that the county needed, a church that would appeal to folks that we middle-aged, out of touch yahoos could never reach.

Maybe so. I could never quite get past their proposed church planting budget of $300,000 or so which included what they said would be "average" pay for the senior pastor. The figure was above that of most of the pastors of the association. Well...whaddoiknow anyway about 21st century church planting?

I'm looking at slick mailouts for "a new exciting church" in my county. Launch date this coming Sunday. I'm free. I'm curious. But I will probably not make it.

The church name doesn't reveal anything. I'll give you a hint - it's not Calvary, Emmanuel, or Corinth. Think "Lifeway" (already one with that name in my county) or "FreshTouch" or "DynaLife."

There is no denominational affiliation, although the education of the 'lead' pastor is at a low-key pentecostal institution. I emailed him, a young, non-goateed twentysomething and asked about that. He kindly replied and offered a network affiliation. Nope, not Acts29. I surmise that the network formula is being followed. The marketing is for a "Grand Opening Worship Experience." 

The statement of belief completely orthodox although heavily slicked up. I'm wondering what the Apostle's Creed or New Hampshire Baptist Confession would sound like all slicked up. Instead of "Declaration of Faith" you'd have "Here's Where We're At"?

I hope that I have achieved old codger status while still retaining some grace and I try not to be an irascible curmudgeon more than a few hours a week. This is one of those hours.

I'm not sure where this sort of thing will be fifty years from now. Will churches have to be cool to survive? I don't know. 

I'm for anyone who preaches Jesus and I wish them well and I take it that I'm not the target group for this church anyway. I'm just wondering at what point marketing stops being a tool and becomes a liability.

    

Feel better about NAMB?

Our North American Mission Board has been the closest thing to a completely dysfunctional agency that Southern Baptists have ever had. Well, let's go ahead and say that NAMB has absolutely been dysfunctional for most of the 21st century. Informed SBCers, even those who love to argue anything and everything, will likely not argue that point.

Along came the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force and report and, more than any other SBC entity, NAMB was singled out for change. Soon thereafter NAMB trustees plucked Kevin Ezell, megachurch pastor whose disengagement with NAMB and non-support of the same was easily the most notable and puzzling part of his resume, to be the CEO of the dysfunctional half of our two mission boards.

After little over one year, Ezell has successfully made just about every constituency in SBC life mad at him for the changes he has made at NAMB - except of course those who have an interest, passion, and skills in the area of church planting.

Good for him.

Someone in the SBC ought to be mad about the way things have been going at NAMB. Even NAMB trustees expected us to just move on from one debacle to the next and keep on giving our money.

Very quickly, Ezell cut NAMB HQ staff drastically, saving millions. He found NAMB staffers flying all around the country to do events and cut the travel budget by half, saving more millions.

NAMB has re-engineered the complicated system of kickbacks to state conventions whereby churches give to Annie Armstrong and Cooperative Program, which money travels to state conventions, then the Executive Committee in Nashville, then to NAMB in Alpharetta, GA, then back to state conventions. The change was intended to put less money in low priority areas and ministries and more in church planting. Made perfect sense to me.

NAMB funded missionaries who fulfilled various jobs like ministry at ski resorts have been either eliminated or reassigned to focus on church planting.

I like the changes.

Baptist Press quotes Ezell as saying recently that,

In 2009, NAMB spent 28 percent of its budget on church planting. In 2011, we are spending 37 percent and, in 2012, we will spend at least 42 percent of our budget on church planting," Ezell said. "So we are progressing rapidly toward our minimal goal of 50 percent."

Amen.

I like the direction of NAMB these days.

Some people don't. I like the focus on church planting. Some people may like NAMB doing a thousand things and making tens of thousands of people happy they get a slice of NAMB's budget. I don't think that concept was working well for us and am glad it is changing.

I feel better about giving to the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions.

Some don't like the new NAMB. My working hypothesis is that if you look closely behind what is not liked about the new NAMB, you will find a funding cut. There is no better way to make an SBCer scream than to cut his funding stream.

The jury is still out as far as results go but I feel better about NAMB.

How about you?

The New NAMB: Plant churches or 'Good bye!'

Like the new North American Mission Board of not, it is substantially different in significant ways.

Last year’s NAMB news was about emptying their Alpharetta, GA headquarters of considerable numbers of personnel to free up money for the job of church planting.

This year’s NAMB news may be in the sharper focus on church planting of personnel outside HQ. Back in June, Baptist Press reported (a reprint of a Christian Index story) on NAMB head Kevin Ezell’s plant to make job assignment changes for the considerable number of associational missionaries that NAMB funds:

About 250 directors of missions fully funded by NAMB will have their ministry assignments changed to "church planter catalyst." Ezell said the areas of the nation where most of them serve -- in heavily unchurched new work areas -- are where new churches are needed the most.

Use for an example of that assignment change what NAMB is doing with the Baptist Convention of New York. The Christian Index reported last week that the BCNY has seven associational missionaries who are fully or partly funded by NAMB. These people have been reassigned as church planting catalysts who have a goal of starting four churches per year in their associations.

In the past six years (2004-2010) the number of churches reported by the BCNY has increased by a total of thirty. If goals are met there will be about that many started in 2012 alone. That’s progress, and pressure.

Two things that might be said here. First, one of the problems identified by Ezell and the new NAMB was described as “soft” numbers in NAMB’s reporting of new congregations. One supposes that these new churches in New York will not be “soft” just to meet the goals. Second, what is to be done if goals are unmet?

Concerning the latter, here is what BP reported in June:

In most cases missionaries serving in director of missions positions will be allowed a year of transition, beginning in January 2012, to see if the new job description is a good fit. If not, they can retire or decide to find other ministry opportunities.

NAMB to AMs: 'You've got one year.'

I wouldn’t want the pressure, unless I was called to the task and confident in the Lord working to get churches started in the BCNY.

Well, a focus on church planting was the intent of the Great Commission Resurgence report. It was what Kevin Ezell said he would do. Here's the reality on the ground in the BCNY. Presumably, NAMB intends to do the same for the other 243 associational missionaries that they fund.

Want a pressure cooker job? There might be some available soon.

The Gloom and Doom Convention in Phoenix

Half of Arizona is on fire, a fitting backdrop to the SBC's annual meeting in that state, which Plodder deems the "Gloom and Doom" convention.

The SBC reports the previous year's statistics just prior to its annual meeting each year, held in June. I suppose that in the past statistics gave us figure fueled Baptists extra bragging rights. Not last year. Not this year. Possibly not in the forseeable future.

Baptisms down 17k, continuing a general trend decades long. Membership down. Worship attendance down. Giving down. Lottie Moon down.

"Lack of passion" sayeth our Fearless Executive Committee Leader, Frank Page. "I told ya so" sayeth Associated Baptist Press which reminds those who follow our triumphs and travails that the Conservative Resurgence was supposed to increase everything.

Look for extra church-bashing, clergy-bashing, general fume and fuss preaching, lecturing, flogging, flaying, and cajoling in Phoenix this week, all under the guise of extra unction.

Expect a gaggle of the brethren to remind us that it takes a gazillion Baptists to generate one baptism. Anticipate finger pointing at the calvinists who don't believe that anyone is ever saved sufficiently to be baptized, at the traditionalists who are hindering the advance of the kingdom of God by (gasp!) singing old hymns instead of spiffy new dittys. See if the Baptist Identity group gets slammed for being too narrow, the egalitarians for being too broad, the sub-calvinists for doctrinal deficiencies, the megachurches for sucking the life out of thousands of smaller churches, the smaller churches for lacking vision and passion.

Naturally, expect pastors to be blamed for everything.

If you get most of your SBC news from the vast number of bloggers, you have good reason to be depressed. We've got bloggers pronouncing the death of the SBC as we know it, the fracturing of the convention, and about everything else that might get a look.

It's not an excuse but the SBC reflects the general trend among mainline denominations, just later and slower. Baptisms will likely continue to trend downward with spurts where they bump up. Per capita giving will continue to decline, with years of dollar increases when the economy improves. The numbers of churches, up this year by more than 700, will increase.

How about a little optimism here?

We have new leaders at our two chief entities, International and North American Mission Boards. We have a new XComm leader. Everyone in SBC life is being forced to look hard at things, mainly because money is short. I think the eventual outcome will be positive, but that doesn't preach as well as negative stuff.

But I have to be honest. SBCers do gloom and doom well.