Has the SBC outlived it's usefullness

[John of Japan]

And this is one small reason I am no longer part of an independent Baptist Church. Souls being saved is never a trivial matter and it is always missions. Sad.

If you think I said that souls being saved is a trivial matter you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented me. Winning souls is absolutely extremely important. I think it is so important that I wrote books in two languages on the subject. (And that is not bragging, it is a simple statement of fact to illustrate my point, like Paul saying he had preached the Gospel fully "unto Illyricum" in Rom. 15:19. I do not say whether my books were well-written or a help to anyone. That's up to the Lord.)

Since this conversation has ceased its usefulness and descended to personal accusation, I'm done here. I think I'll go back to reading the autobiography of W. A. Criswell, loaned me by an IFB evangelist. Criswell certainly had a burden for missions.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

And this is one small reason I am no longer part of an independent Baptist Church. Souls being saved is never a trivial matter and it is always missions. Sad.

And I find it sad that the independent Baptist churches of your experience left you with the opinion that they might consider soulwinning to be trivial. Such churches are falling short of the Great Commission, which directs every believer to be witnessing for the Gospel. I've attended IFB churches (or "Bible churches" that were thoroughly IFB in doctrine and practice) for the past 35 years, and never detected a hint that being used by God in seeing souls saved was anything but central, never trivial.

However, the above post seems to infer that one who defines missions in a more narrow fashion also considers Gospel witnessing to be trivial. It's not either/or.

 

[John of Japan]

Well (sheepishly) I'm back for another post. I just read a statement by Criswell in answer to reporters asking him about social action. Criswell said, "You cannot divorce morality and ethics from evangelism and missions" (Standing on the Promises, by W. A. Criswell, p. 217). In the context, this shows that Criswell, though having a real heart for social action, did not equate missions with charity.

Criswell in his time went on missions trips to various countries, including Japan and the jungles of South America--where the missionary plane he was riding in went down to an emergency landing on a small river, where he met Christian tribes people who were formerly headhunters.

Interestingly enough, there is a four page account (including a photo) early in the book (p. 38-41) where Criswell tells of meeting my grandfather (John R. Rice) as a boy of 12, and answering the call to preach. Criswell told Rice that he wanted to be a preacher, and that he too was going to attend Baylor U. and get a big Baylor belt buckle like John R. Rice!

 

[Darrell C]

And this is one small reason I am no longer part of an independent Baptist Church. Souls being saved is never a trivial matter and it is always missions. Sad.

While I would agree with you that missions work does not demand travel to foreign countries, I would disagree with you concerning Independent Baptist Churches. Our fellowship has missionaries to Montana and Washington DC. So not sure why you would present all Independent Baptist Churches as having some kind of similar approach or outlook on missions.

That's why we can use the word...independent, lol.


God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

While I would agree with you that missions work does not demand travel to foreign countries, I would disagree with you concerning Independent Baptist Churches. Our fellowship has missionaries to Montana and Washington DC. So not sure why you would present all Independent Baptist Churches as having some kind of similar approach or outlook on missions.

That's why we can use the word...independent, lol.


God bless.

We call that home missions, and I include it under the rubric of "missions" as long as it is a church planting effort. Orphanages, schools and charity work? Not missions. Most independent Baptists would agree with this.

 

[Darrell C]

We call that home missions, and I include it under the rubric of "missions" as long as it is a church planting effort. Orphanages, schools and charity work? Not missions. Most independent Baptists would agree with this.

Hello John, you said...

To say that doing charity, even with witnessing, is doing missions is to me to trivialize the great work that cross-cultural missionaries, including SBC missionaries, do around the world to establish the Lord's work through winning souls and organizing them into churches.

I can't agree with that. You are giving cross-cultural Missions a greater importance and doing what you object against, which is trivializing that which is not trivial. Is that the kind of exhortation you would like those involved in such efforts to hear from you? This is more likely to generate a "What's the use" mentality, rather than supporting those who do what does not gain glory, but is considered menial in relation to "real missions work."

I can't agree with you on that.

It's definitely great that we are sending out Missionaries to foreign fields, and no doubt there are challenges that may not be faced by those here at home, but Missions cover quite a bit of ground in my book. I see no less honor in the person standing in a soup line feeding the homeless here at hoome than one who has gone abroad. The consistent element is the Gospel of Christ.

That is "The Mission."

All believers have a responsibility for missions work, and those involved do not have to be foreigners.

My point was specific to what I disagreed with revmithchell on, which is a disdain for Independent Baptists based on his understanding of them.

And to be honest, squabbling over who has the best Missions program is a bit trivial, if you ask me.


God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

Hello John, you said...

I can't agree with that. You are giving cross-cultural Missions a greater importance and doing what you object against, which is trivializing that which is not trivial. Is that the kind of exhortation you would like those involved in such efforts to hear from you? This is more likely to generate a "What's the use" mentality, rather than supporting those who do what does not gain glory, but is considered menial in relation to "real missions work."

I can't agree with you on that.

For anyone who has read what I wrote here to think I am trivializing soul winning is to turn things backwards. To review, what I said (or tried to say) is that by saying that everything, including charity and local church ministry is the same as cross-cultural missions, you trivialize true cross-cultural missions.

My friend who has just gone to Africa as a missionary lives in a 3rd world village far from stores, has to trek through the jungle just to get there; has to eat the local cuisine and can never go to McD's or any other restaurant unless he treks for a full day out of the jungle; has to live a self-built house with very few of the conveniences we have; and many other sacrifices. Not only that, there are diseases there for which America does not even have vaccines. THAT kind of Christ-like living is what I'm saying is trivialized by such statements as made here on this thread.

I refuse to believe that the American believer who "sacrifices" to go out an hour once a week to invite people to church or serve in a soup line or gets sworn at for witnessing on the job is in the same category as my friend in Africa. I've been to his country and seen him there, though I did not trek to the village where he is church-planting. (I'm too old.) Even where I stayed was far less convenient that almost anywhere in the US.

It's definitely great that we are sending out Missionaries to foreign fields, and no doubt there are challenges that may not be faced by those here at home, but Missions cover quite a bit of ground in my book. I see no less honor in the person standing in a soup line feeding the homeless here at hoome than one who has gone abroad. The consistent element is the Gospel of Christ.

That is "The Mission."

First of all, feeding the homeless, however right that is, is not "The Mission." Modern evangelicalism has failed in that it equates anything and everything social as part of "mission" (without the traditional "s" at the end). "The Mission" is obeying the Great Commission, giving the Gospel to the world. The Great Commission says nothing about social action.

I could give you the history of this state of affairs. (I'm preparing to teach a course on the history of missions.) It began in the '40s in evangelicalism but earlier in liberalism ("The Christ of the Indian Road," etc.). It came to a head with the 1975 book Christian Mission, by John R. W. Stott, and the Lausanne Covenant. Until these events Christians were committed to "missions" as the worldwide presentation of the Gospel, with social action being important but secondary.

All believers have a responsibility for missions work, and those involved do not have to be foreigners.

My point was specific to what I disagreed with revmithchell on, which is a disdain for Independent Baptists based on his understanding of them.

And to be honest, squabbling over who has the best Missions program is a bit trivial, if you ask me.

It's not trivial to me and never will be. I teach missions.

 

[Darrell C]

For anyone who has read what I wrote here to think I am trivializing soul winning is to turn things backwards.

First, let me make it abundantly clear that your efforts, or the efforts of any Foreign Missionary have never been an element of my address of what I disagree with you on. So don't take it personal, and do not think you or they are in any way being trivialized.

What I am addressing is your own trivialization of the efforts of those who are not Foreign Missionaries, but domestic, and yor minimizing efforts such as "standing in a soup line."

But we'll get to that shortly.

Secondly, you are merging "soul winning" with mission work, and at the same time...separating the two. That's rather remarkable, John. In my post I was specific to Missionaries that went to Montana and DC. However, since you have broached the issue, I feel it necessary to address your view of the significant difference between being a foreign missionary and domestic missions of any kind.

To review, what I said (or tried to say) is that by saying that everything, including charity and local church ministry is the same as cross-cultural missions, you trivialize true cross-cultural missions.

Only you brought that up. What was addressed was an implication that Foreign Missions are the only missions in view, and then you go on to trivialize mission work that doesn't meet your opinion of what Missions Work is.

It seems you deem foreign missionaries to be worthy of more honor than those who stand in a soup line.

How does that compare with Christ's judgment?


Matthew 25:35-36

King James Version (KJV)

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.


But these Saints were not carrying out "The Mission," right?

Secondly, in regards to Foreign Missions, let's see the pattern established by Christ:


Acts 1:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Seems to me that The Mission began on home soil.

No point in glorifying Foreign Missions if home is going to Hell in a hand-basket.

My friend who has just gone to Africa as a missionary lives in a 3rd world village far from stores, has to trek through the jungle just to get there; has to eat the local cuisine and can never go to McD's or any other restaurant unless he treks for a full day out of the jungle; has to live a self-built house with very few of the conveniences we have; and many other sacrifices. Not only that, there are diseases there for which America does not even have vaccines. THAT kind of Christ-like living is what I'm saying is trivialized by such statements as made here on this thread.

So not being able to get a Big Mac is...sacrifice? lol

Eating "local cuisine" is a sacrifice?

Possibly contracting a disease?

Living in a self-constructed house?

That's the kind of "Christ-like living" your impressed with in your friends' service?

John, do you realize that you have not mentioned the Preaching of the Gospel...at all?

That is the Mission.

I refuse to believe that the American believer who "sacrifices" to go out an hour once a week to invite people to church or serve in a soup line or gets sworn at for witnessing on the job is in the same category as my friend in Africa.

Can you not see your disdain of such feeble sacrifice? The glorification of your friend...rather than Christ?

I've been to his country and seen him there, though I did not trek to the village where he is church-planting. (I'm too old.)

So not even you are to be compared with your friend. Because if He wants some Chicken Nuggets the poor soul has to walk a day for them. Here, if a local Micky Dees doesn't have nuggets, we have the convenience of picking up the phone and dialing 911.



John, do you see my point yet?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Even where I stayed was far less convenient that almost anywhere in the US

So your service is far better than those who simply stand in a soup line for an hour.

Where do you stay now? And is it still a test of having the ability for missions work if one can eat horrible tasting food?

First of all, feeding the homeless, however right that is, is not "The Mission."

In point of fact...it is.

When Christ judges those who are Christians...He doesn't say 'When I was in a foreign land...you came unto me."

James also points to evidence of true faith in supplying the need of those who need food and clothing.

Secondly, usually those efforts are combined with the conveyance of the Gospel to those helped.

A local effort in my area targets the homeless, and has a program which supplies food, clothing, work, and shelter, but requires that they attend the services.

So this organization is not to be held in honor on a level with the guy in a foreign land that has to eat unfamiliar food?

Do you see my point yet, John?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Modern evangelicalism has failed in that it equates anything and everything social as part of "mission" (without the traditional "s" at the end).

Sorry, but disagree with that too. You are generalizing just as revmitchell did.

You are both still...wrong.



You trivialize domestic efforts, show respect of persons, and in my view...miss the underlying intent of The Mission.

While I honor our Foreign Missionaries, I honor our domestic Missionaries as well.

Do you, John, have the courage to go into a New York Ghetto and minister to those who might just as easily kill you for the watch on your wrist? The five dollar bill in your pocket?

One problem with the modern mindset of The Mission, and Missionary Work today is the concept that unless one goes into foreign lands...they're not really missionaries.

That is why the Church is failing.

And it is the exact opposite of the grandeur you impose in Foreign Missions.

"The Mission" is obeying the Great Commission, giving the Gospel to the world.

And where did they start?

Where do we start?

That kind of mentality is why most "believers" do not feel compelled to carry out the Great Commission, because that is the job of the Missionary. That is the Pastor's Job. And maybe sometimes the loudmouth in the group who does actually go around witnessing to people and passing out tracts and Bibles.

But that is not the job of the average member, right?

"The World" isn't secluded to a foreign Country, John.

I can send you some local pictures of the World.

The Great Commission says nothing about social action.

Neither has anyone in this thread. It's a false argument.

Just because ice cream and coffee socials are popular today doesn't mean that everyone thinks this is how the Great Commission is carried out.

But since we are on the topic of social interaction, how can one possibly witness apart from it? And what exactly is your Scriptural Basis that those who minister in their own Country...aren't carrying out The Mission? That we can trivialize the feeding of the poor?


Continued...

 

[John of Japan]

Darrell, you've misunderstood my position, accused me of "trivializing" something I have not, put words in my mouth, etc., etc.

And once again you are writing far more than I want to take time to answer. If I go down this road with you, the entire thread (about the SBC) is down the drain. So I'll just bow out now and leave you to mis-characterize my position some more. (For example, I never said "social interaction," but "social action," a far different thing.)

If you want to interact more on this and know more about my thinking, go to my thread, "Following Christ is Extreme."

Have a good one.

 

[Darrell C]

I could give you the history of this state of affairs.

So could any number of people give another history with their personal bias.

(I'm preparing to teach a course on the history of missions.)

Great. If you want to place a section in there about domestic Missions and the fact that they are vital and being trivialized by a mindset that creates a concept that only Foreign Missions are legitimate and that those who stand in soup lines aren't really missionaries, and you would like to understand this better, let me know.

It began in the '40s in evangelicalism but earlier in liberalism ("The Christ of the Indian Road," etc.). It came to a head with the 1975 book Christian Mission, by John R. W. Stott, and the Lausanne Covenant.

Be glad to help you look at Missionary efforts that are actual efforts rather than the opinions of men in books and lessons.

It might just surprise you how dangerous and demanding Domestic Missions can be.

Until these events Christians were committed to "missions" as the worldwide presentation of the Gospel, with social action being important but secondary.

We're still committed, John. My own fellowship independently sponsors a little over forty missionary families around the world, including two here in the US. The lack of Independent Baptist Churches, and the Church in general in Montana is astounding.

If you drive through my area, you will find numerous "faiths" which are themselves missionary targets.

It's not trivial to me and never will be. I teach missions.

But your teaching of what "Missions" are seems rather biased, and demeaning of every believer's responsibility to be a Missionary, carrying out the Great Commission.

I don't share your view that Foreign Missions are to be placed on a pedestal over Domestic Missions, nor that the efforts of those standing in soup lines are trivial in comparison, or the fallacious generalization that these efforts are not really carrying out the Great Commission.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, you've misunderstood my position, accused me of "trivializing" something I have not, put words in my mouth, etc., etc.

False arguments.

Here is you trivializing the efforts of Domestic Missionaries:

I refuse to believe that the American believer who "sacrifices" to go out an hour once a week to invite people to church or serve in a soup line or gets sworn at for witnessing on the job is in the same category as my friend in Africa.

Orphanages, schools and charity work? Not missions.

And I quoted you word for word, so your words, not mine.

And once again you are writing far more than I want to take time to answer. If I go down this road with you, the entire thread (about the SBC) is down the drain. So I'll just bow out now and leave you to mis-characterize my position some more

No reason why two erroneous positions (yours and revmitchel's) cannot be addressed in relation to whether the SBC is still a viable organization.

It is his statement (a generalization of Independent Baptists and an implied superiority) and yours that led us down this rabbit trail.

So bow out, John, that's your right. All I ask is that you actually read my response and give it some thought. We have had a similar discussion before, in case you don't remember, in regards to Forum Missions. You expressed the same mentality then, Forum Missions is not really a Missionary Effort.

I disagree. It is a field where one does not have to go to a foreign land physically to fulfill the Great Commission. It is an opportunity to preach the Gospel for the layman, and for those who do not have the opportunity to relocate to a foreign country (i.e., someone who feels they have been called after getting married and having kids, the retired who regret not going into Foreign Missions, et cetera, the scenarios are limitless).

It seems that with you Foreign Missionaries are the only true missionaries, and to be given more honor than those who carry out not just the Great Commission but a commission that includes that which is commanded of believers by Christ and the Apostles. Yet domestic issues seem pretty important to Christ, Paul, and James, and at no time have I ever run across anything in Scripture that trivializes "social interaction." Is this not a basic principle of the Law? Do we really have to go abroad to be considered Christlike, and to love our neighbor?

. (For example, I never said "social interaction," but "social action," a far different thing.)

No, John, it is not. Not unless one seeks a specific definition for it that is convenient to their worldview.

If you want to interact more on this and know more about my thinking, go to my thread, "Following Christ is Extreme."

So I need to follow John of Japan around if I want to socially interact? Sorry, not the type of social action I engage in.

Have a good one.

And you, my friend, be blessed in your efforts. No-one trivializes what you do, or what your friends do. However, what I will do is question the respect of persons so evident in your statements.


God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

One problem in this conversation is for many of us the SBC has never been of any thing more than tangential use. That is we have very tenuous contact with the SBC.

• Our churches were not planted by the Convention.
• Our churches have never been members of the Convention.
• Our leadership has not been educated in SBC schools and seminaries.

You get the idea.

 

[rlvaughn]

As I ponder the developments over the past 2 decades, and the growth in divisiveness within the convention, I wonder if the SBC has outlived its purpose? Has the bureaucracy within the convention become a weight that prevents it from fulfilling the Great Commission? Can each body of believers at the local or state level do a better job? I would appreciate the board members thoughts.

Brother Morgan, I assume in asking whether the SBC has outlived its purpose in the body of your text, and whether it has outlived its usefulness in your title that you intend basically the same thing. In answering, though, I will divide these two.

The purpose of the SBC, according to the preamble of its Constitution is "for the purpose of carrying into effect the benevolent intention of our constituents by organizing a plan for eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the denomination for the propagation of the gospel..." To an extent, I believe the purpose of the SBC has always been off, especially in the sense of "directing the energies of the denomination." The directing should come from the churches up, and not from the convention down. In actual practice it probably works some of both ways.

The usefulness of the Convention, on the other hand, suffers from the problem of all large organizations. First is the growth and weight of the bureaucracy itself. And second is how most organizations grow beyond their purpose of helping to the purpose of self-preservation.

As far as whether each body of believers at the local and state level can do a better job, I would not attempt to answer. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. I would pose the question rather to what appears to be more scriptural. Rather than building a denominational, institutional or para-church organization, Jesus called believers together in local assemblies. The work should emanate from there.

 

[Darrell C]

One problem in this conversation is for many of us the SBC has never been of any thing more than tangential use. That is we have very tenuous contact with the SBC.

• Our churches were not planted by the Convention.
• Our churches have never been members of the Convention.
• Our leadership has not been educated in SBC schools and seminaries.

You get the idea.

Wouldn't it really be as simple as examining whether the SBC is contributing to the efforts of the Kingdom? Whether it is "useful" to individual fellowships, even SBC fellowships which still have an underlying autonomy, doesn't nullify what is accomplished.

So if it disappeared today, would that benefit the cause of Christ or hurt it?


God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

If you're talking about the SBC of 2016, yes it has it's benefits even tangential. However, there are those of us who remember the pre-resurgence SBC. So, it's going to take some time.

Wouldn't it really be as simple as examining whether the SBC is contributing to the efforts of the Kingdom? Whether it is "useful" to individual fellowships, even SBC fellowships which still have an underlying autonomy, doesn't nullify what is accomplished.

So if it disappeared today, would that benefit the cause of Christ or hurt it?


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree with the Squire. Although I attend a Southern Baptist church (by default - there are no independent baptist churches in this area that are not out in left field over KJVOism, Hylesism, etc.) I still have no real use for the Convention.

And I too well remember the fall of the SBC in the 1950s and 1960s, and the liberalism which dominated the Convention well into the 1990s. I greatly applaud the conservative resurgence in the SBC, but it was the way the Convention is organized and governed that caused the liberal inroads in the first place.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And keep in mind the "conservative resurgence" in the Northern Baptist Convention lasted from the mid-20s though the late 40s. Regretfully, it was not successful.

I agree with the Squire. Although I attend a Southern Baptist church (by default - there are no independent baptist churches in this area that are not out in left field over KJVOism, Hylesism, etc.) I still have no real use for the Convention.

And I too well remember the fall of the SBC in the 1950s and 1960s, and the liberalism which dominated the Convention well into the 1990s. I greatly applaud the conservative resurgence in the SBC, but it was the way the Convention is organized and governed that caused the liberal inroads in the first place.

 

[Jerome]

There was this guy from Georgia trying to run for SBC President this year, pledging to shut down ERLC, NAMB, etc. He'd set up a GoFundMe for travel expenses. Guess he never got to Saint Louis.