The recent news by Baptist Press that the SBC has experienced a decline in baptisms has caused many people to worry or become concerned about the future of the SBC. According to the BP article, the total baptisms is the lowest since 1987. Thom Rainer said, “Total membership showed a slight decline. Baptisms have now declined for three consecutive years and for seven of the last eight years, and are at their lowest level since 1987. Indeed, the total baptisms are among the lowest reported since 1970. We are a denomination that, for the most part, has lost its evangelistic passion.” Although Rainer called the report “disheartening” and other people are reporting this as a reason to worry, should we really worry about the SBC and our mission efforts? Below are several points regarding this decline.
1. Reason to Worry #1 = If we as a Convention have become more comfortable supporting the Cooperative Program as opposed to doing evangelism ourselves, that is a reason to worry. The CP should never serve as a means of fulfilling the Great Commission personally. Yes, we should support it in order to further our mission efforts, but putting money in the offering plate should never take the place of personal goals of sharing the gospel in our communities. There are churches in our nation that support the CP but never baptize one single person all year. If that becomes the trend of our SBC churches, we have a real reason to worry.
2. Reason to Worry #2 = If our 1.3 billion that was given in mission offerings is being used up at the State and National level for administrative reasons and not put to good use in the field, that is a reason to worry. When people put money in the offering plate, they expect it to be put to use printing Bibles, tracts, and paying the salaries of missionaries. Unfortunately, each State Convention often uses a percentage of that money for administrative tasks such as salaries of those who work in our State Convention offices. If more money is being spent on administrative costs as opposed to doing mission work, that would be a reason to worry.
3. Reason to Worry #3 = If the SBC saw an increase of 473 churches and 1 new local association but total SBC membership decreased by a total of .24% – shouldn’t we see this as a concern? In 2007 we saw a deduction of 39,326 members of the SBC, but we actually increased in total number of churches. If this indicates that these new churches are not growing or that older plateauing churches are decreasing at a faster rate than new churches are growing, that should be a reason to worry. Often times we in the SBC hear much about church planting, but it seems that we hear precious little about church revitalization efforts. Many churches out in rural America need money and people to reach their communities for Christ. What would happen if we partnered to increase these smaller churches and saw them take a step toward complete revitalization?
4. Reason to Celebrate? = In recent days many SBC churches have put new member policies in place that prevent people from walking down the aisle and joining the church at that very moment on a mere statement of their faith. These policies often require the people to counsel with the pastor of the church or complete a new member’s class prior to becoming a member. These classes usually go through basic doctrinal issues including an overview of the gospel prior to the people joining the local assembly. If this trend has caused a lower baptism rate among SBC churches, that should be a reason to celebrate. Why? Because the classes have prevented unbelievers from becoming members through baptism. In many instances when people walk down the aisle during the invitation and say that they want to be saved, they are told what to pray and then presented before the church as a candidate for membership until they can be baptized. In most cases the person is baptized within a week, and they are added to the church roles. If these new measures of purity have prevented people from entering the baptismal pool who did not accept the true gospel of Christ, that is a reason to celebrate rather than worry!
May God cause us as a Convention to use our money, time, and other resources for the glory of God as we seek to see lives changed with the gospel of Jesus Christ in years to come.
Rev. Josh Buice
Related Posts
70 Responses to “SBC Decline – Should We Worry?”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Baptist Buzz & Baptist Fizzle: Blogging About The 2007 ACP Results | SBC Voices - [...] Josh Buice tells us Why We Should We Worry About The SBC Decline [...]
Loading ...
Of course I believe in the absolute truth of God’s Word, His Sacrifice, Jesus’ Gift of redemption, and the truth of eternity in either Heaven or Hell. These are truths that can’t be argued, can’t be denied.
My point is this: our “lens” is affected by our experiences and life choices and expectations and desires and values…our “lens” is also affected by our commitment to Christ, in a positive way. When we seek Christ, our lens becomes clearer and truth, I believe, is much easier to see. But, each of us has a clouded lens, and to deny that is heresy, in my opinion! God’s Truth is not cloudy, but we, as humans, are all fallible! We are all filthy and incapable of comprehending the full and awesome Truth of Christ. For anyone to think or claim that he/she is an authority on Truth or to be fully aware of the truth is ridiculous.
How you or I see things DOES affect how we process what we read, see, and how we regurgitate it as well.
No one on THIS board knows exactly what any author in the Bible intended, and no one on THIS board can TELL me what the Bible “means.” I seek God and I find Him daily. He is My God, My Savior and what that means to me may be different than what that means to someone else. But thankfully God is a God that does speak to all of us–past our culture, race, ideas and notions.
SBC Decline–Should We Worry?
The answer is, the only time to worry is when the Message of God is not being shared.
I’m not worried one bit about preserving the SBC–I’m worried about preserving and sharing the Loving Message we have been entrusted with! That’s it!
Christine,
You said: “By the way, Is your problem that I am bringing to light some of the ridiculous things being tried by your Convention or that I am a “lady?”
What are you talking about? I told you honestly I would like to know what information or what part of the convention is doing this. I’m not after you, I would like to know the story. I personally have some concerns, as I said, about our missions boards. I was unaware this issue had spread to our convention asking church’s to leave. Actually, except for not seating messengers, I was not sure HOW a church could be removed from the SBC.
I was interested in what you were saying. Before I repeat what has happened at your church, I would like to know the facts. Fair question: How do you know what you’re sharing with me. I appreciate the links.
You said, “I also have not gone on an “all out attack.”
It certainly feels like an attack when someone asks how you know what you know and you begin saying they are “rude” “offensive” “and “loveless.” And then you imply that I have a problem with you because you’re a woman. All I did was ask how you know the information you’re passing on. Why does that make you so angry? How does that bring up your womanhood?
Rest easy, Christine, no one is out to get you from this corner. I was interested in what you were saying and wanted more information. And I’m very glad you are a woman. I read this to my wife and she also is glad you’re a woman. We can take a vote at church and possibly pass a resolution expressing our church’s pleasure in you’re being a woman. Maybe we can go to the convention floor and get a resolution…
Christine,
I read both articles. One is about missionaries and tongues. The ohter is about the charasmatic movement in the SBC. Your pastor is mentioned in the second, and quoted. Neither article speaks of church’s being removed from the SBC as a result of their stand on tongues.
Christine,
Where did you hear/see that your church was being asked to leave? If it was just that your pastor told your congregation of that info, I will buy it. The articles listed do address tongues and charismatic churches, and I’m wondering if the request/effort to remove your church is “official” or is it that someone spoke directly to your pastor about this, and he just shared it with his congregation?
I think the whole issue of “womanhood” came up when you, David, said something like a “lady on the internet.” As I’ve said before, intent and tone is hard to hear over the internet, but I can see how Christine could take it as offensive or rude. Again, a PERFECT illustration of authorial intent being misinterpreted!!!
David-
I realize that our church is specifically not mentioned in these articles. That is why I mentioned that these were related articles giving background information about the movement within the SBC. I am in the process of getting the specific information about my church in a format that I am able to post here.
The author is the sole determiner of the meaning of a text, nothing more and nothing less. E.D. Hirsch, the great literary theorist states,
“When critics deliberately banished the original author, they themselves usurped his place, and this led unerringly to some of our present-day theoretical confusions. Where before there had been but one author, there now arose a multiplicity of them, each carrying as much authority as the next. To banish the original author as the determiner of meaning was to reject the only compelling normative principle that could lend validity to an interpretation.”
When Scripture is the text and the reader banishes the author, then each critic becomes his own authority. This is the danger of a multiplicity of meanings. There is but one meaning in every text, but there may be multiple applications of that one meaning.
Walter Kaiser point out this fact: “It never ceases to amaze me how those interpreters who wish to fight the theory that meaning is singlefold and always a return to author’s own meaning demand that all who read their own papers and books do so with the understanding that their meaning is singlefold and must be understood literally. But though we have granted this privilege to them, they then wish us to resume interpreting all other texts as they advocate—with this new polyvalence theory of meanings!”
There is but one meaning in a text.
Nothing more; nothing less,
Chipley McQueen Thornton
When you hear the phrase “Gift of healing” what do you think? Do you think of someone who has the ability or “gift” to heal others? Most would agree with that meaning, but I heard someone the other day speak about how she received the “Gift of healing” meaning, she was healed, and that was a gift from God, her Father. Many phrases can have multiple meanings, and most of the time, we determine what a phrase means to US by our circumstances at the time.
There is but one meaning, but there are many different applications for Scripture. Of course the author’s intent should be preserved, but how can you or anyone else effectively and precisely dissect what the author truly meant, unless you yourself can ask the author for clarification.
Another example: the passage of Scripture that addresses snake handling. There are some who take that to mean literal snake handling, and do so in worship. When I read that verse, I don’t receive the same message as they do! Who is wrong? We both read the same verse, we both will react differently to that verse! Who is wrong? (This is not rhetorical, I’d love an answer!)
When you and I daily seek Christ and have Him as our focus, I believe that He will reveal Himself more fully to us, and He will reveal His Word in a clarified manner as well.
There is not “but one meaning in a text.” There is no one text in all of history that has one blanket meaning that ALL can agree upon. The Constitution is read by many different people to have many different meanings. Works of literary art have many different meanings to different readers. DON’T discredit the person reading it–he/she will always have the tendency to “interpret” it with their own idea added. I’m not saying this is okay, but I am ACKNOWLEDGING that it happens!
Many of you on this site do this, as do I! When it comes to verses regarding “tongues” in the Bible, you will read it with the preconceived idea/notion/revelation that it is all “gibberish” in today’s church and has no place. However, when I read it, I realize that it is a gift, a gift that God gives because He never said He’d stop giving it…but we are both reading the same verse, right? We are coming away with different meanings, right? Because we read and judge the verse or apply the verse based on our previous experiences or ideas or convictions.
Chipley McQueen Thornton and Rev Josh,
What version of the Bible do you use?
Mae,
Just because you desire to use / apply a verse in a different way than someone else does not mean the verse has multiple meanings. It means that one person is right and one is wrong. The goal of preaching and reading the Bible is to determine what the verse actually means – not based on experience, social reasons, or any other exterior factor. The way to determine this is through exegesis. That will involve defining the words in the original language, looking at the words used elsewhere in the author’s writings, and looking at the use elsewhere in the Word of God. The definitions of the words reveal the intent and meaning when it is coupled with the context of the passage.
Based on this — what would you say Paul means by 1 Corinthians 13:8?
Regarding what Bible translation I use — it varies. I read and memorize verses from the KJV, I preach from the KJV, and I study from various translation such as the KJV, NASB, and ESV.
Rev. Josh Buice
1 Corinthians 13:8 is not one to be looked at on it’s own…the 9th verse answers the question you were asking.
When the perfect comes (which has not come yet), the imperfect will disappear. The point of this passage is that LOVE endures beyond every worldly or earthly characteristic we may display.
Based on 1 Cor 13:8, if you believe that “prophecies will cease” and “tongues will be silent,” do you also say that “where there is knowledge, it will pass away”? If you think that prophecy and tongues will be done away with based on this verse, tell me what you do with the phrase about knowledge…FOR WE KNOW IN PART AND WE PROPHECY IN PART…WHEN PERFECTION COMES THE IMPERFECT ISAPPEARS…what is imperfect? Partial Prophecy! What will disappear when the perfect comes? Partial Prophecy!
Rev Josh,
You said:
“That will involve defining the words in the original language, looking at the words used elsewhere in the author’s writings, and looking at the use else where in the Word of God. The definitions of the words reveal the intent and meaning when it is coupled with the context of the passage.”
I am surprised you would mainly use the KJV, based on your above statement.
Also, I realize that it is not “okay” to add one’s own meaning to a text or any author’s work, but it does happen–that is why there are so many differing ideas on pretty much any topic you could name here…and my point is, when you are studying Scriptures, you may very well be doing the exact same thing! How do you know that you are not adding your own tilt or spin on anything you read? Authorial intent is real, and it should be sought, but how do you know that you have it right and others have it wrong???
I use the Greek New Testament (USB) and the Hebrew Bible when interpreting texts of Scripture. I determined long ago that, to most accurately decipher an author’s intended meaning, then I must understand something of the language in which he wrote. Therefore, I devoted much time and study to learning Greek and Hebrew, and I recognize that my continued education in those languages must continue throughout the duration of my life.
I read all English versions available to me during devotion and personal study/reflections, but I normally teach/preach from the KJV because most people are familiar with it–and some people believe only it. I shall never wish to cause them to stumble.
From One Wretch to Others,
Chipley McQueen Thornton
Mae,
Regarding 1 Cor. 13:8 – I will allow my response in our discussion on the Miraculous Gifts stand. You can see it there if you would like to see my response.
I agree, it is a tough task indeed, but a most necessary task. We must spend time in the text doing the hard work rather than simply depending on what someone else said about the text. That is often the error.
Regarding tongues, for instance, it begins by defining terms. Once you do this, the gibberish of today is obviously not biblical! Other factors play in when you compare Acts to 1 Corinthians. But that involves context.
Each text has only one single meaning!
Rev. Josh Buice
Parables do not have a singular meaning…
Chipley McQueen Thornton,
As for using the KJV because they only believe that version, would you correct someone on that or let that belief stand?
Rev Josh,
What do you do with the phrase about knowledge in the above verse?
On the KJV, I would let them know my position.
Mae,
Parables have one meaning that is connected to the intent of the author / speaker. What does Christ desire His people to understand with His story? That is where you will see the meaning!
Regarding my position on the miraculous gifts — see my response there.
Christine,
Are you sure it is the SBC that is removing your church and not your state convention? The SBC rarely removes church’s except in the case where they are embracing immoral behavior. This requires that the church’s missions giving be rejected (so they are not a “Cooperating Church”) and their “messangrs” are not seated at the convention. Is this what happened at your church?
State conventions and local associations are seperate from the national convention and more routinely remove church’s.
Chipley McQueen Thornton,
What church do you pastor or attend? Or are you a traveling evangelist?
Although I am not a scholar by any means I do know one thing – Truth is truth weather we accept it or not, wheather we believe it or not.. God gave some the gift of teaching and preaching His Word. I hope and pray you continue to use those gifts, Chip! Others of us are prayer warriors, like me!
In Christ,
Angela R. Marshall