reaping what we've sown?

As a church we participate in the convention by giving the Cooperative Program only. It is all that we intend to do.

Not too many years ago a couple of guys at the state and associational level decided to make an end run at our church by going after several senior leaders. We didn't respond but simply withdrew from any meetings and involvement at those levels. They persisted and soon we were being chastised in sermons by guys with too much free time on their hands. The big deal was over our worship style, preaching style (not substance), and the way we intentionally involve ourselves in the community we serve.

We affirm the BFM2000 and all of our pastoral level staff affirm conservative, biblical doctrines. We are not reformed. We believe in a progress model of church style.

The SBC is going to start seeing some pretty lean years. Lots of the guys I went to seminary with are second generation pastors after the resurgence. We've seen our leaders fired for no good reason, we've seen great professors dismissed for no good reason, we've seen agencies take significant steps to be involved less in the things that traditionally defined Baptists and more defined Republicans. So lots of us are happy to send and support missions and seminaries but we don't want to be involved in the silly stuff that doesn't mean anything.

The network model of church associations will likely predominate in this century. I think that is a good thing. We need strong networks that plant churches and grow God's Kingdom.

Its no small truth that you can accomplish more for God's Kingdom by planting 5 new churches than spending time trying to revitalize 50 declining ones. We still need to encourage and support our established churches but the future is in new church starts. That vision isn't shared by a lot of people in the convention leadership.

I'm thankful that the SBC is profoundly grounded in affirming the truthfulness and authority of the Scriptures. I worry about biblio-idolatry. The SBC is the best model for missions work I can think of. When we do international missions right we blow it out of the park.

The next twenty years are going to be significant for the SBC. If the convention continues to go the way that some desire and push back to the model of last century it will slowly decline. If it pushed forward and carries through the vigor of the packed seminary classes and turns out passionate pastors worried more about souls than style than it will see a great wave of revival. I hope and pray for the latter.

 

My feelings and thoughts are pretty much in line with those of the first two posters. I am a semi-retired, conservative, CP supporting pastor. Since I am no longer pastoring a church, I do not attend the meetings on any level, except to occasionally go the a senior adult rally held in our local association.

I see the reorganization of NAMB as an effort to keep younger pastors "in the camp." The Convention hierarchy saw them drifting from the traditional SBC model of church leadership and CP support. I applaud this new wave of young leaders. They are leading their churches to have an impact in their communities and around the world. It doesn't bother them to not be loyal to the CP. They recognize the CP as one means to an end, not the only means. Again, I applaud them.

State convention leaders are biting their fingernails waiting to hear how NAMB's restructuring will impact the funding of their conventions. Budgets are becoming more lean. This is a good thing. In many cases, state conventions have become "fat" with personnel, aka, "state missionaries" who simply travel the state conducting meetings that few people are interested in attending.

It is going to be interesting to observe the path of the SBC over the next few years. I hope the Lord allows me to live to see a better day for our Convention.