The Gospel Coalition

One of the stories from this year’s Southern Baptist Convention was the low turn-out of messengers. Truth be told, I am much more concerned with the recent report of our declining membership and number of baptisms than I am the dwindling number of messengers showing up for a yearly business meeting. Still, I’d like to venture a few guesses about why the turn-out was so low.

1. Houston is hot.

Not hot as in “awesome city!,” but hot as in humid. All kidding aside… No one ever points to weather when addressing Southern Baptist attendance, especially since we’ll go in significant numbers to muggy New Orleans when we’re electing a president or to stifling Orlando when debating a structural change (thank goodness for our expired boycott of Disneyworld!). Seriously, though, several times this year I asked pastors if they were going to the Convention, only to receive this response: I’d rather be anywhere than Houston in mid-June.

2. The trade-off isn’t powerful enough to devote significant time and finances.

Now to the more serious reasons… I think this is the key to the declining attendance of Southern Baptist Convention over the years.

A generation ago, many pastors tacked a vacation alongside the Convention proceedings. The Convention provided an excellent excuse to get away, get refreshed, enjoy time with family, and escape the doldrums of summer. Nowadays, fewer pastors see the SBC as particularly refreshing. The pastor’s conference is nice, but business meetings bring up the specter of political rancor, and that’s what a lot of pastors are trying to avoid during the quiet days of summer.

Simply put, it costs a lot of time and effort to go to the SBC, and unless a pastor sees spiritual value in being there, he is likely to decline going. He is also less likely to send others from his church, which leads to a further decline in messenger numbers.

What’s more, a pastor is likely to funnel their travel and training budget to other conferences they consider especially life-giving. In all likelihood, there were more Southern Baptist pastors at Catalyst than messengers at the SBC this year. Next year, there could be more Southern Baptists at Together for the Gospel than at the Convention in June. Pastors are carefully considering what conferences are most beneficial and then making their plans according.

3. Things are going smoothly, which makes people feel their presence is unnecessary.

While some messengers stay away because of the possibility of a rancorous business meeting, other messengers stay away because things are so peaceful. Sure, we’ve had an ongoing discussions about Calvinism and the Cooperative Program and church planting. But none of these debates have led to divisive resolutions or polarizing elections.

There are several types of Southern Baptists (David Dockery lists seven), but the camps are not neatly defined into voting blocs (thankfully). Plenty of pastors consider it a good sign when their monthly or quarterly business meetings are poorly attended. It’s a sign things are well. Perhaps many pastors view the Convention this way, especially when we’re not electing a president.

4. The things we are most passionate about are not the things the annual meeting tends to platform.

On Monday of this year’s Convention, 3500 people attended the North American Mission Board’s “Send North America” luncheon on church planting. This is a staggering figure when you consider the fact that only 5000 messengers attended the Convention. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that there were more messengers together for this lunch than for any of the actual business meeting proceedings.

What does this tell us? Southern Baptists are hungry for a meeting that casts vision and rallies our people around a great cause (and a free lunch!). They’re not necessarily there, first and foremost, to vote on resolutions.

Ronnie Floyd compares and contrasts the SBC with the Walmart Convention to make a point about the power of a story to unite and embolden people:

We should continually be evaluating how we conduct our time together annually, in order to more effectively communicate our story as the Southern Baptist Convention. We have a great story to tell and my desire is for all generations to know that story.

5. Younger guys underestimate the power of institutions.

My first visit to a Southern Baptist Convention was in San Antonio in 2007. I remember my initial shock at the small number of young people present. In 2013, the picture is different. More messengers dress casually than before, and there are more young pastors present than before.

But overall, the pastors of my generation have to be convinced of the relevance of participating in denominational life. It’s much more attractive to branch out into nimble networks or associations that have a certain “cool factor.” Unfortunately, this emphasis is short-sighted.

Here’s J. D. Greear reflecting on the need for institutions:

Recently I read Tim Keller’s Center Church, in which he discusses the interplay between movements and institutions. He points out something that is easy to ignore, that both need each other. It’s easy to see how institutions without movements quickly die (and, by “movement,” I mean that sense of shared excitement, led by charismatic leaders with a compelling vision) quickly die. What we often forget, however, is that movements without institutions lack both staying power and the teeth to accomplish their agenda.

So yes, it is easier for us to be involved in a movement without the messiness of institutions, but it is not nearly as effective.

Conclusion

What do you think? Why are fewer pastors inclined to attend the Convention? What can we learn from other denominations or conferences? Is there still value in a denominational meeting?

Kindle Deal of the Day:

• The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 1. $0.99.
• The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3. $0.99.

Stylish Academic Writing – Kevin Vanhoozer as a great example:

With so much bad academic writing, we cry, “Paragraphs, paragraphs everywhere, and not a word to read.” Yet much academic writing is refreshing and worth savoring. Take Kevin Vanhoozer…

Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness:

Troubled Minds should prove to be an excellent resource for pastors and lay leaders who minister to the mentally ill. Likewise, it will encourage and inform anyone in the church who wants to be more mindful of and sensitive to those suffering from what are known, colloquially, as the “no casserole” illnesses (because no one thinks to visit or bring a meal).

Eric Geiger – How to Respond When People Aren’t Responding:

Church leaders have often asked me how to handle a staff or a congregation that is not exactly eager to follow pastoral leadership. How do we respond when people are not responding to our leadership?

Why Emailing Gives You a (False) Sense of Progress:

Why do we fritter away our days responding to email, and then kick ourselves for not working on our most important creative projects? It turns out that there are actually some pretty good reasons. Number one among them is that responding to email gives us a sense of progress.

As expected, the House of Representatives voted today to ban abortions after 22 weeks (the point when a fetus can feel pain). The Senate will probably ignore this bill, and the president will definitely veto it. But the symbolic power of the House kicking against the goads of Roe v. Wade is certainly newsworthy, which is why media outlets are devoting attention to the bill.

Unfortunately, in reading the news stories, one gets the impression that most journalists are rolling their eyes at Republicans for even attempting such a laughable, backwards piece of legislation.

Take a look at The New York Times headline: “In Partisan Vote, House Acts to Limit Abortions.” The title is true, of course, but one wonders why the headline is framed in a way that focuses on partisanship and restriction, rather than compassion and protection. I doubt we’d ever see a title that says, “In Partisan Vote, House Acts to Impose Gun Control.”

The second sentence of the article implies that the House vote can be chalked up to partisan politics:

The measure, which would ban abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy based on the medically disputed theory that fetuses are capable of feeling pain, passed in a 228 to 196 vote that broke down mostly along party lines.

It’s puzzling why journalists revert to the “abortion is a partisan political issue” when reporting on these kinds of restrictions. And note the “medically disputed” line which casts doubt on the basis of the bill. Who is medically disputing the theory that fetuses at 22 weeks don’t feel the pain of having their limbs torn apart and heads crushed in utero? Is there a heated debate in the medical community on this issue?

The brief New York Times article ends better than it begins. After showing how Democrats see this issue as another part of the “war on women,” a Republican woman is quoted:

“I’m not waging a war on anyone… Regardless of your personal beliefs, I would hope that stopping atrocities against little babies is something we can all agree to put an end to.”

CBS News focuses primarily on the political implications of the bill, as if the symbolic nature of the vote means Republicans are just throwing a bone to social conservatives and are not in any way motivated by compassion for unborn children who face a violent demise in the womb. The first three paragraphs emphasize how the action goes against consultants who are urging Republicans to back away from social issues. The rest of the piece brings up the “rape” exceptions and how this conversation derailed Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock last year.

The subtext: Haven’t these Republicans learned their lesson? Why do they keep coming back to this?

My answer: Perhaps it’s not stupidity and stubbornness, but courage that leads representatives to engage one of the most important human rights issues of our day.

USA Today’s coverage leaves aside the question of fetal pain altogether. Kermit Gosnell gets a mention (and kudos to USA Today for actually reporting on that trial!), but in this article, the reasoning for a 20-week abortion ban (the unborn can feel pain) is nowhere to be found. Instead, the first sentence tells us up front this is all about limiting a woman’s right to choose.

The Republican-led House of Representatives approved a far-reaching bill to ban a woman’s ability to seek an abortion after 20 weeks on a mostly party-line 228-196 vote Tuesday.

Then, in case you’re concerned about women’s freedom, the follow-up:

It stands no chance of becoming law under the Obama administration.

Whew! At least we’ve got Obama as Plan B.

The rest of USA Today’s coverage quotes generously from people on both sides of the issue, but the reporter is quick to explain away Marsha Blackburn’s involvement with the bill (she was put forward as a female face to help with the PR).

As a side note, I wonder what the vast numbers of pro-life women must feel when they find out they’re part of a “war on women.”

• Was Alice Paul (the original architect of the Equal Rights Amendment) part of the war on women when she described abortion as the “ultimate exploitation of women?”
• What about Susan B. Anthony? Or Elizabeth Cady Stanton?
• What about the women who lead pregnancy support centers across the country, run pro-life organizations (Charmaine Yoest), or use their platforms to lobby for life (Patricia Heaton)?

The end of the USA Today article points to research showing that only 1.3% of abortions in 2009 occurred after 20 weeks. That’s comforting. Only 15,600 fetuses felt the pain of dismemberment that year. “Nothing to see here… move along.”

Forgive my frustration, folks. I usually leave it to GetReligion to do the media analysis on biased reporting. But I decided tonight to meet the collective “eye-rolling” by shaking my head.

For me, one of the highlights of this year’s Southern Baptist Convention meeting was participating in a Gospel Project-sponsored panel discussion on Christ-centered preaching and teaching.

Ed Stetzer, Eric Hankins, Jonathan Akin, and I were joined by more than 300 pastors and church leaders for a breakfast meeting devoted to discussing the New Testament’s use of the Old, the appropriate ways of leading people to Christ from Old Testament stories, and the difficulties and dangers of applying this hermeneutic in irresponsible ways.

The audio from the panel discussion is now available. (The microphones are not all of equal setting, so you may have to adjust the volume on your speakers a little.) I hope it is beneficial to those of you who seek to preach and teach the Scriptures faithfully each week.

Christ-Centered Teaching and Preaching – Panel Discussion, SBC 13

Also of interest, Ed Stetzer is hosting an ongoing blog discussion on Christ-centered preaching with Daniel Block, David Murray, Bryan Chapell, and Walt Kaiser. The first installment is now available.

Kindle Deal of the Day: Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton (with a new foreword from Matthew Lee Anderson). FREE.

As we read through the literature in Christianity’s past, we learn that we are in better company with our beliefs than we might think. Through his enchanting book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton reminds us of the paradoxes of our faith and the joy that comes when we explore them.

FaceBook Users Under 13:

74% of parents are concerned about their child’s safety, even though they allow their under 13 year old on.

Check out J. D. Greear’s reflections on the SBC this year:

It is easier for us to be involved in a movement without the messiness of institutions, but it is not nearly as effective.

Seth Godin – The Thermostat and the Frying Pan:

Social media is a marathon, a gradual process in which you build a reputation. The best time to start was a while ago. The second best time to start is today. But turning it up to 11 isn’t going to get you there faster.

Andre Yee – Feeling Unappreciated at Work?

Are you feeling discouraged today because no one sees or appreciates what you do at work? These words from the apostle Paul would suggest that you are wrong — Christ your master does see, and from “the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward.”

A limited number of advance reader copies of Clear Winter Nights have been circulating around the country, and there are some blog reviews popping up here and there. Already, I’m beginning to see how different the feedback / review process is going to be this time around, particularly when compared to the non-fiction books I’ve published up until now.

I don’t plan on linking to all the reviews that come out, but I thought it might be interesting to show how people respond to a book doing both theology and story. Here are some of the early reviews and how they differ from non-fiction.

1. Fiction reviewers respond to the emotional resonance of the characters, not just the persuasiveness of their conversations.  

With non-fiction books, reviewers focus on the presentation and the persuasiveness of the main ideas. With Clear Winter Nights, readers wind up talking about the characters, not just their ideas.

Take Johann Vanderbijl’s review, for example. He focuses on his connection with the grandfather in the story:

No work of fiction has ever touched me this deeply.  I often had to stop to think, meditate, pray, and search my own heart.  Then this:  “In those quiet moments, when the stillness of the house set in and the winter evening sent a chill through everything, Gil cried out to God, asking for strength and wisdom.  From his heart poured his own regrets, his failures as a father, his decisions that had caused unintended pain.”  At this point, I had to put the book down.

Later on, he does mention the apologetic purpose of the story, but almost as a footnote:

This review is very personal because that is the impact the book had on me as I read it… At the same time, this very true to life book serves as an apologetic to those who share Chris’ hurts, anger, doubts, and fears.

For Johann, the characters are the book. The conversations are secondary. Perhaps that’s why in Patricia Janes’ review, her negative reaction to one character made it harder to appreciate the rest of the book. She describes one of the characters as naive and clingy and then writes:

I really dislike how the author equates Chris’ uncertainty about marriage with his uncertainty about faith. This artificial dilemma is ridiculous and I found it unsettling that the author equates these two things as on the same level.

Actually, the purpose of the Chris/Ashley dilemma is to demonstrate that conversion, rededication, and our journey of faith happen in community amidst a nexus of relationships. We are never in a vacuum dealing with the claims of Christ on our own, but are always interacting with and reflecting on how these decisions are impacted by and will further influence our friendships. In the rest of her review, Patricia found aspects to be commended (caution – Spoiler Alerts in the review!), but it’s clear that her disapproval of the main character’s relationship choices colored the rest of the book for her.

This kind of reaction to character is new for me. It makes reading the reviews exciting. I keep wondering, What will people think about Chris? How will they respond to Gil? It’s not the conversations that make the characters, but the characters that make the conversations.

2. Regular readers of non-fiction recognize the apologetic value of teaching theology through story.

Virginia Garrett’s review focuses on how the story provides food for thought for Christians and non-Christians (and provides a photo of the one of the pages!). She writes:

[This book] spoke to so many issues people have today. Many of the very issues people claim to have with Christianity are dealt with and answered in this book. If you or someone you know, Christian or not, are questioning beliefs, this would be a great book to read.

Michael Kelley also reviewed the book. He doesn’t give too much away, so you don’t have to worry about spoilers. Michael gets the “theology in story” part, and why it matters to be up front about the purpose.

I remember several years ago when The Shack came out and there was a good deal of controversy in trying to diagnose what the author was or was not trying to say in its pages. One of the defenses of the book was that it was a story, and therefore could not be treated as a strict commentary on life and God. The problem with that approach is that everything, whether we recognize it or not, is really about theology at its core. Every interaction, every response, every question at its core level reveals what we do or do not believe to be true about God. What Trevin has done here is simply dispense with the pleasantries and say, from the outset, that he is teaching through this story.

Along the same lines, Kyle McDanell sees the value in teaching through story:

Instead of confusing the faith, like The Shack, or tearing it down, like in A New Kind of Christian, Wax articulates it and builds it up. Wax acknowledges the real and present threats facing the church and uses Chris as the voice for them. But instead of ignoring or belittling them, he has Gil confront them all the while articulating why the gospel is more freeing.

3. Regular readers of theology understand the difficulty of crossing literary genres.

My friend and colleague, Matt Capps, admits he’s not much of a fiction reader, but he has a keen understanding of how difficult it is, as an author, to try a different genre. He writes:

Offering a work of fiction to the public puts an author in new territory beyond a change of literary genre. In non-fiction a writer has the privilege of shoring up his or her arguments with evidence, his or her points with the thoughts of other thinkers. Fiction pushes an author into a much more vulnerable position. Trevin has not only personally crafted this entire story, but also intimately created each character, and shaped their thoughts and actions. A fiction novel is a work of art. And because it is a work of art the writer becomes susceptible to criticism on many levels. In my opinion this makes Clear Winter Nights Trevin’s most personal venture yet.

Exactly. The personal attachment to this book is stronger than anything else I’ve written, and yet I’ve found I’m less defensive about this book and more interested in how people respond to the characters.

Kindle Deal of the Day:

• John Wesley’s Teachings, Volume 1: God and Providence by Thomas Oden. $3.79.
• John Wesley’s Teachings, Volume 2: Christ and Salvation by Thomas Oden. $3.99.
• John Wesley’s Teachings, Volume 3: Pastoral Theology by Thomas Oden. $3.79.

NYC Ad Campaign – Kids Ruin Your Life:

The city’s Human Resources Administration (HRA) launched the campaign in March to warn teenagers about the burdens of being a young parent. But the posters displayed city-wide send a larger message to all residents: Children ruin your life.

Will Mancini – 5 Ways that Plug-n-Playing Another Church’s Ministry Model Will Cost You Ministry Progress:

If you utilize a model that you don’t develop, the enthusiasm behind it is often less. The passion is derivative and a generation removed from the model itself.

Christianity Today – Want to Change the World? Sponsor a Child:

“This is … amazing,” was all I could mumble. We tried slicing the data different ways, but each showed significant educational improvements. You could beat this data senseless, and it was incapable of showing anything other than extremely large and statistically significant impacts on educational outcomes for sponsored children.

A Pro-Abortion Reversal of Roe?

Pro-lifers continually pray for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. And with many on both sides of the abortion divide now agreeing that the decision is badly flawed, that could happen one day. But what if the overturn comes from the other direction?

May God the Father,
and the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ,
build us up in faith and truth and love,
and grant us our portion among the saints
with all those who believe on our Lord Jesus Christ.
We pray for all saints,
for kings and rulers,
for the enemies of the cross of Christ,
and for ourselves we pray that our fruit may abound
and we may be made perfect in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

- Polycarp

E. Y. Mullins:

On the one hand, man is held to be in bondage to sin and in need of a divine redemptive power working within to emancipate him. On the other, it is held that no such bondage exists. All man needs is education.

With one group, something new is needed by sinful men; with the other, merely a recognition of one’s likeness to God is sufficient.

With one group a power from without, with the other an unfolding from within is required.

With one group, man accepts a saving grace to which by reason of sin he can make no just claim. With the other, he merely claims what is already his own.

With one group, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, and our Lord and Savior. With the other, he is the son of Joseph and Mary and an inspiring example of filial devotion to God.

With one group, conversion as the result of evangelistic preaching is one of the permanent aims of Christianity. With the other, education and training, or ethical culture, are the only needs.

With one group is a great missionary passion based on the conviction that the world needs a saving Christ. With the other, altruism in the form of schools, hospitals and social reorganization is the chief need.

With the evangelical group, there is no denial of the ethical and social needs and results. Indeed they are held to be implicit in the whole Christian movement. The causes carry the effects in themselves at every stage. But the effects are impossible without the causes. The radical group insist much upon the ethical and social effects, but sever them from the causes, as those are conceived by the evangelical group.

- from  Christianity at the Crossroads (1924)

“Don’t try to fix it. I just need you to listen.” Every man has heard these words. And they are the law of the land. No matter what. Hilarious!