Movements are what they are, of that we can be sure.  Some are good, some are bad, some are forgettable, but in the long run, movements change things.   Key leaders in our convention have spoken about the need to transition from institution to movement.  They say that only in the movement will we find the needed power to live out the gospel of Jesus well. Movements are what they are—nothing more, nothing less.  They are not manufactured, not real ones anyway, and they have a sustaining power that enables those in the vanguard and the wake to do mighty things.  In another day we talked about movements regularly; we called them revivals.  A revival in its most basic sense is the movement of God to stir the heart of the believer and those outside of Christ to repentance and gospel renewal.  Though we see bright spots of gospel ministry in our convention of churches, overall we are a group in decline.  How did we get here?  We planned to get here.  No?  Take a moment and think it through.  Nothing in the world or the kingdom of God is static.  We are called to live active, missional and engaged for Christ.  We planned to get here, and we need to own that.  We need to realize that even the lack of a plan is a plan, and the lack of an intention is an intention deeply held demanding that we continue what we do writ large.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point.  Read more…

The major problem with our churches, as Paul stated in his previous post, is the (potential) unhealthiness of the churches. If this is true, there is a maxim you can count on: unhealthy churches, left unchecked, produce unhealthy pastors and ministers. People who grow up in unhealthy churches will carry that unhealthiness to other churches as they serve on staffs, pastor churches or serve in other capacities. Also, unhealthy pastors make unhealthy seminary professors and presidents. Unhealthy professors and seminaries make unhealthy pastors who then make unhealthy churches. Dysfunction breeds dysfunction. It is a horrid cycle. How can we change that?

Change theological education
Seminaries claim that their role is to train people for ministry. They train people to do: teach, preach, evangelize, education, counsel, parse verbs and uncover systematize theology. These are not unimportant. We should consider Christology and Pneumatology. However, Jesus trained people to BE: followers, disciples through relationship. One is functional and pragmatic. The other is ontological. Since you can only act out of who you are (the ontological), which one do you think is more important?

• Seminaries teach knowledge. Jesus modeled a relationship with God and others.
• Seminaries impart information. Jesus mentored.
• Seminaries embraced an enlightenment-based modernity that transitioned teaching from investment and mentoring to imparting knowledge. Jesus did theology in relationship or theology in mentorship rather than theology in lecture.

Seminaries need to focus more on spiritual formation within theological education. More emphasis needs to be placed on helping those that come through their $5 million seminary entrances become whole and healthy Christians than simply imparting systematic theology. Those students from unhealthy churches need mentors to walk along side them and speak into their lives, to invest time and energy with them and help them see areas that are lacking in wholeness. Unfortunately, we assign that to a class or two and expect them to get it.

The church has adopted a seminary-like format. The church has educational systems not formation systems. We lecture. We impart knowledge. And we call that discipleship. The church needs mentors, not lecturers. The church need coaches, not teachers. The church needs relational disciples, not professors.

The church is not as much functional as it is ontological. It is a community of faith. It is the bride of Christ. It is the body of Christ. It can only do out of who it is. But we expect the church to do, and in doing become. We have our doing and our being backwards. Even the language of the GCR is frame through doing language, not a being. The GCR is framed a something to be done. The failure of even the language is that we cannot do apart from being formed by God. We cannot love others with a white-hot passion without loving God with that same passion.

Change the scorecard for success
I have been writing on ministry success since 2008. I wrote a whole series of posts about. I have written an ebook about it. Success isn’t about the numbers. It’s about 3 things: obedience, investment and reproduction. Unfortunately, the SBC measures success in numbers, specifically attendance, money, and baptisms. This is a false measurement of success. Let me demonstrate.

One of the recent presidents of the Pastor’s Conference pastors a church that, when this man was nominated, was hailed as a great evangelistic church. The previous ten years they had averages 140 baptisms per year. In those same ten years, their attendance grew from 700-1100. Does anyone see a problem with that? This church, over a ten year period, baptized 1400 people but their attendance only grew by 400. Where are the other 1000? Maybe they started 5 churches out of that growth. Maybe they counted baptisms from their multi-cultural church partners. Maybe this is a huge transient area and all those people moved. But if those maybe’s aren’t true, this church is not a success. In fact, it is a failing. Yet that is who we celebrate. And who and what we celebrate gets repeated. What we celebrate gets emulated.

If we want to be successful pastors in the SBC we have to pastor large churches. That is what is celebrated. That is what is modeled. No wonder we have pastors hopping around and moving up the ladder, hoping to find that one church where they be celebrated as successful. Why? Because we have unhealthy pastors seeking an unhealthy standard of success.

Success comes as a result of being formed by the Spirit into the imago christi, the human we were created to be. That means success is found through obedience, investment (mentoring), and reproduction. That’s success – being formed by the Spirit, leading to obedience. We then invest in others and see the imago christi reproduced in others through our obedient investment and partnership with the Spirit. It has nothing to do with numbers.

If we want to bring change to the local church we need to celebrate obedient, Spirit-formed people who are investing in others. And we need our theological education to help people become, so they can do. Otherwise, the church will continue to be weak and unhealthy.

…and our greatest (potential) strength.

When I look at the local church I’m both aghast and amazed. Reading about the church through the last 2000 years I’m aghast at some of the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived lo these many years. Shoot, reading the New Testament I’m aghast at the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived. Even our heroes, like the belching, flatulating curmudgeon Martin Luther, will make one scratch one’s head. It truly is a wonder that the church has made it this far. But made it she has.

She’s made it not because of her resiliency. Not because of her determination. Not because of her moral purity. Not because of her shining example. She’s made it because of whose she is. God is simply doggedly determined to have a people, however imperfect we may continue to be. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

However, as Scripture and history demonstrates time and time again God often leaves his people (or at least some/most of them) to their own devices when they choose to go their own way. Read more…

Ryan Hutchinson describes the role inflation plays in theological education supported by the Cooperative Program. Despite an increase in CP receipts inflation has affected the “purchasing power” of those dollars thereby affecting our seminaries.

In a day where technological advancements could make theological education more accessible, we find our seminaries takings steps to make their campuses more accessible, read “attractive,” with a new entrance at Southern Seminary at a reported cost of $5,000,000. And, if we are not beautifying the campus with a new chapel or dressing up Pecan Manor, we are acquiring fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is not that these two investments are reckless. The question begging to be asked is just when cuts are being made and dollars are scarce, what about doing theological education? It is a bit like major insurance companies resisting health care reform then announcing ahead of the vote they will increase premiums by as much as 30%.

Hutchinson believes we need more money for theological education. The SBC Outpost reported in the past how a number of the seminary presidents were pushing for an offering akin to Lottie and Annie. Perhaps if some of our seminaries took a more aggressive approach to a new kind of theological education they would find more support for this idea from churches and not have to lobby the Executive Committee.

Donors like their names attached to large projects. How may we help them attach their dollars to students desiring theological education? That may be a good place for Hutchinson to put his energy.

And what seminary is he writing from?

We need health care reform. The problem is we do not need health care reform earned with sweetheart deals that have nothing to do with said reform but more to do with garnering votes. Some of my friends chide Christians for being against health care reform. And, there are some who may well think the system is fine just as it is. It is not. On the other hand in an attempt to get “something done” we may end up with a poor “ship” to borrow from Godin’s new book Linchpin. In other words in Godin’s description of leadership and projects, the thrashing seems to be coming too late. Should have begun much earlier. The result will be a poor product. Now the problem at this point is that we begin to panic and think we should do nothing until we are sure of something. That gets us no-where either.

In the spirit of interesting analogies, Missioscapes contributor and former SBC Outpost contributor, considers the parallels of the health care debate and the current GCR Task Force Preliminary Report and its implications.

March 18, 2010

Similarities Between Health Care Reform and the #GCR of Southern Baptists

It is really pitiful when a person has to come out of retirement to say things that must be said, but I now speak the truth in love as one should always do:

Needless.

Baseless.

Pointless.

Vacuous.

Void.

Unhelpful.

Bottom-feeding.

Inane.

Imbecilic.

Moronic.

Incomprehensible.

Nonsensical.

Mythical.

Useless.

Idiotic.

Unintelligent.

Self-aggrandizing.

Ego-stroking.

Unloving.

Unnecessary.

Thoughtless.

Worthless.

Small.

These are the most charitable terms I can find to describe the writings of Peter Lumpkins.