I don't typically blog about SBC-specific issues here on this blog. I save that for my posts at BetweenTheTimes.com. The reasoning for that is quite simple-- I have a broad array of readers and reading what can sometimes be tireless denominational arguing does not serve those readers.

However, this is a blog about research. And today at LifeWay Research we've released new data on the perception of Southern Baptists (and a bunch of other groups) in America. I thought it was worthy of your time regardless of your denominational affiliation.

On to the research (you can find the full article here):

The majority of Americans have a favorable impression of Southern Baptists...However, 40 percent of respondents have an unfavorable view of the denomination, more than a third strongly assume an SBC church is not for them, and the negativity is higher among the unchurched.

Respondents were shown the names of five “denominations or faith groups” and asked to “indicate if your impression is very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or you are not familiar enough to form an opinion.” The study indicates 62 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Methodists compared to 59 percent for Catholics, 53 percent for Southern Baptists, 37 percent for Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), and 28 percent for Muslims.

The study sought to determine how the name might impact the interest or connection with a congregation. When asked their level of agreement with the statement, “When I see (fill in denominational affiliation) in the name of a church, I assume it is not for me,” 35 percent “strongly agree” a Southern Baptist church is not for them – higher than for Catholics (33 percent), Baptists (29 percent), Methodists (26 percent), and community or nondenominational churches (20 percent).

Significantly more respondents disagree with this statement for community or nondenominational churches, indicating they are considered as a possible fit compared to other Christian faith groups included in the survey – 58 percent compared to Baptists, 44 percent; Catholics, 43 percent; Methodists, 42 percent; and Southern Baptists, 38 percent.

Respondents were also asked: “If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church was Southern Baptist impact your decision positively, negatively or have no impact?” Forty-four percent of Americans indicate that knowing a church is Southern Baptist would negatively impact their decision to visit or join the church, 36 percent say it would have no impact and 10 percent say it would positively impact their decision.

-----------

This data should really not come as a surprise. It's been widely reported that denominational numbers are in decline while non-denominational churches are a growing category in America. So what does this specific data tell us?

1. A lot of unchurched people assume certain denominations are not for them.
2. Most of the unchurched don't have strong opinions or awareness of denominations – especially in heavily unchurched areas like the west and northeast.

 Here are some charts that tell the story.  Feel free to share them on your blog and opine as you desire. Yes, that includes you Methodists!

My guess is that many people will see the research and it will be a bit of a Rorschach Test—people will see in it what they want to see.  My hope is that people will consider how best to respond to this research rather than simply restate the view they already have. 

Real issues are at work here and they need to be approached with grace and wisdom. I hope all involved desire to ask what is, and what is not, a stumbling block-- that should be the real question. That was the question stated and debated when the issue first was mentioned.  And all of us should be committed to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks so that only the "stumbling block of the cross remains."  The issue is complicated, but one question remains paramount-- is the SBC name a stumbling block to those whom SBC churches seek to reach?  My guess is that people will debate that over the next few weeks and our hope is that this data will bring more light than heat to that conversation. 

The comment rules are in place. Click here to read them.

In addition, if you are planning to comment, please be aware that people outside of our denominational family are reading, and your comment needs to make sense to them. By the way, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and others, your comments are always welcome too.  I'd love your feedback and interaction.

So, if you post a comment that says something like "Draper needs to consult with the IMB, and then clear it with the EC before sharing with the WMU," your comment will not be posted. Explain what you mean (i.e., don't use acronyms) so that all can understand.

Our hope is that those considering the SBC name change possibility will find this helpful as they review it in their meeting today.

Suddenly, name changes are in the news-- everywhere. Name changes are a big deal and I have been thinking about how to weigh in on the Campus Crusade controversy. So, I wrote this post a week ago to reflect on the Campus Crusade name change. Since many people are now discussing a potential name change for Southern Baptists, I have also posted about that at the Between the Times blog, where I blog about denomination-specific issues, on that issue. Yet, this blog is about Cru and Campus Crusade.

In July, the organization formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ, founded over half a century ago by Bill Bright, announced the changing of its name to "Cru." And, in less time than it takes a seraph to say "holy, holy, holy" the condemnation began. Some accused the leaders of kowtowing to political correctness while others saw it as part of a continuing trend to remove Christ from the public discourse.

How exactly a thoroughly evangelistic, solidly biblical organization removes Christ from public discourse is well beyond my powers of reason, but this was exactly the interpretation that came from none other than Fox News. With the headline "Prominent Christian ministry drops 'Christ'" and in an interview with Cru's U.S. Vice-president (Steve Sellar); Fox made the charge that the decision was specifically about dropping Christ from the name.

It really is frustrating that so many wholeheartedly buy into the media when it supports their preconceptions and that so many seem unable or unwilling to think for themselves on the issues. It may be accurate that Fox is more conservative than CNN or MSNBC, but they, too, fall into the trap of producing entertainment and calling it news. In other times they try to make a story when none exists.

The reality is that Cru has an entire page of its website dedicated to the decision process there revealing, among other things, that more than 1,600 names had been considered and that the old name "Campus Crusade for Christ" no longer represented their mission since they were larger than a campus ministry. It was also enlightening-- and heartening-- to see them considering the negative effects the name had in Muslim countries. From the Cru website:

Our name presented obstacles to our mission. The word "campus" does not adequately represent all our ministries in the United States and confuses our constituency as well as potential partners. The word "crusade"-while common and acceptable in 1951 when we were founded-now carries negative associations. It acts as a barrier to the very people that we want to connect with. It's also a hindrance to many Christians who would like to partner with us but find the word Crusade offensive.

Our surveys show that, in the U.S., twenty percent of the people willing to consider the gospel are less interested in talking with us after they hear the name. We are changing the name for the sake of more effective ministry.

When your name is a hindrance to your mission you have three options: Change the mission, change the name, or suffer the consequences. I'm glad they chose to change the organization's name, as the other two choices were certainly less than optimal for the Kingdom.

Another bandwagon hanger-on was the now ex-Fox News personality, Glenn Beck. Apparently with little research being done, or with that little research being ignored, Beck launched into a foundationless tirade against the name change that would make...well...Glenn Beck proud. He said, at the beginning of his mocking rant, "They decided Christ might be offensive." The problem here is this: Beck's challenge is demonstrably false. Both the website and the interview with Steve Sellars make it plain that the name change was not to deny anything, but rather to increase the impact of their ministry. Why do so many evangelicals believe someone like Glenn Beck rather than the trusted leadership of Campus Crusade?

Even more out of touch were some of the comments on Beck's website. After wading through that garbage for a few minutes one might get the idea that Cru had been taken over by a group of atheists who were steering it away from Bright's original vision for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus. In fact, as Sellars and Vonette Bright (Bill's widow) both point out; Bill Bright himself had been promoting the idea of a name change for decades. It is true that Christians can be suspicious because of institutions and organizations that experience theological drift: the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA, now "The Y"), Harvard and Yale universities come to mind. However, regardless of how finely tuned a person considers their own news radar to be, Christians do not need to be like blue whales indiscriminately swallowing all the plankton around them. Gullibility is not a fruit of the Spirit. Just because it is on Fox News doesn't mean it's true and just because Glenn Beck says it does not make it worth repeating. We must use a biblical filter of truth and error, of foolishness and wisdom. This is far too often lacking. Perhaps those who claim the name of Christ should trust their brothers and sisters who also claim the name of Christ. I think we're on the same team, after all.

So ill-aimed were the criticisms leveled at Cru that John Piper felt obliged to weigh in:

Glenn Beck ridiculed the change as he wadded up the report and threw it away. His entire focus was to attack the wimpy people who avoid using the name Christ for fear of giving offense. The problem with Beck is that he cared nothing about dealing with the real problems created by the name "Campus Crusade for Christ."

The problem was not "Christ." The problem was the limiting word "campus" (when CCC ministers to millions that have nothing to do with any "campus") and "crusade" (which for millions of people has one main connotation: Medieval crusades against Muslims). Beck's approach is not responsible journalism but careless hype for the religious right.

This is not to say that Cru didn't make a mistake by failing to anticipate such a negative response-- I think they did. Ultimately, though, the names of organizations matter less than their fidelity. I was amused at people who expressed disapproval, emphatically stating the need for "Christ" to remain in the name, likening the change to being ashamed of Christ. I guess the Wesley Center, Reformed University Fellowship, InterVarsity, The Navigators and Baptist Campus Ministries have been denying Jesus for a long, long time.

Thankfully, a broad representation of Christian leaders rose up in defense of Cru's leadership. For what it is worth, I think Cru is a great name, because it describes a great organization filled with people who seek to make the name of Christ more widely known.

Feel free to weigh in and discuss in the comments below (be sure to review the comment policy). If you would like to talk about the potential name change for the Southern Baptist Convention, please join the conversation at my Between the Times post.

You may have seen my story in the recent issue of Christianity Today asking the question "Are Denominations Dead?"

In the article I say:

I have been privileged to speak at dozens of national denominational meetings over the past two years. I constantly hear from leaders that they are struggling with lower denominational loyalty among their churches and a path that is unclear at best. I work in a denomination-- the SBC-- that is at times dysfunctional and unwise (like me). I grow weary of denominational foolishness and its drama. The idea of working independently is tempting at times.

Given all that, call me a cautious believer in the idea that we can do more for the kingdom of God by doing it together with people of common conviction--which usually means in a denomination--than by doing it alone.

One of the funny elements in my video interview with Pastor Chen included a reference to a Bluegrass concert (he calls it Greengrass in the video).

Phil Johnson (of Grace to You and John MacArthur fame) made a comment about it. Phil and I have traded tweets twice, both in regards to contextualization, so he is enthusiastic about the subject. ;-) Anyway, Phil tweeted:

OK, Ed Stetzer seems excited by this, but but I don't get how bluegrass helps contextualize the gospel for Taiwan: http://bit.ly/25TivB

I don't remember being excited or saying it "helps contextualize the gospel," but Phil and I like to tweet about contextualization, so I responded:

@Phil_Johnson_ LOL. I was a bit surprised, but he said it was a great outreach. Bluegrass in Taiwan-- who knew? ;-)

Well, here is the rest of the story.

People in Taiwan have no context for bluegrass music (there's not a term in Mandarin for bluegrass), but they love music and American culture. So, it led to an interesting outreach event.

A team of "young missional Calvinists" (thought Phil would like that) from Southern Seminary has been sent to Taiwan for five months to proclaim the Gospel alongside career missionaries. In America, they are known as "The Long Run Players" here their Chinese name translates as "Mighty River Music Group."

Sarah Morrison, Matt Shirley, Cameron Beckerdite, Paul Martin, and Jeff Gayhart are learning Mandarin, engaging the Taiwanese culture, meeting people, building relationships, and sharing the Gospel--all through the use of guitar, banjo, fiddle, mandolin, and upright bass. Jeff says, "People always asked us before we came, 'Do they like bluegrass in Taiwan?' I would say, 'Not yet.'"

The ultimate goal is to make something much greater than bluegrass music fans; they want to lead people to Christ and make disciples. So, not really contextualization, but a neat opportunity for connection. (Though a bit surprising to me!)

Now, in regards to contextualization, you won't want to miss my next post. It will deal with contextualization and ancestor worship-- and it will be fascinating.

Occasionally, I list things of interest inside my denomination that may be helpful to readers of this blog. I will continue to do that (as I am today), but I will be moving my denomination-specific blogging to a new blog. My blog has become a place to discuss mission, culture, and research. So, I have decided that, with a few exceptions, I will move my denominational content to Between the Times.

A few weeks ago, Richard Harris and I sent out an email indicating that the North American Mission Board (NAMB) task force, of which I was a co-facilitator, had been disbanded with the resignation of NAMB's president. We mentioned in the email that we would be releasing the "list" we made at that meeting since it had been reported in the news.

I think the list might be helpful to people both inside and outside of my denomination. But, before we get to the "list," let me tell you a little about the group. Here is a picture of the meeting. If you follow on Twitter, you have already seen this pic.

The group had a mix of people:
• Four state execs (staff leader of the state convention from where they came-- the closest is Terry Robertson, from NY, up close and on the right)

• The president of the Woman's Missionary Union, Kaye Miller (way back on the left side)

• Seminary professors (you can see Chuck Lawless from SBTS on the right and Gus Suarez from MWBTS with a big smile and also on the right)

• Directors of missions (George Dean is in a stylish green on the left, you can't miss it)

• Several pastors and church leaders from diverse contexts, races, and church sizes (you can see Charles Roesel, who always wears a suit, on the near left-- the other pastors were suit-less!)

And, yes, that is my Mac in the front, right next to former co-facilitator Steve Reid. My Mac is (predictably) open to Twitter, which is where I originally posted this picture.

Let me say how thankful I am that these men and women took the time to come to Atlanta and talk about North America. Why?

Well, I believe that my denomination is at a crucial point: will we recapture the evangelistic passion and missional impulse we have seen in the past? As I have written about over the past several years, if the 50-year membership change trend continues, we will enter a protracted period of decline.

The task NAMB has been given is both big and essential: if our churches are not effective here, none of the other agencies (including the IMB) will have much of a future.

Initially, the members of the group were asked, "What are the big issues we need to address?"

We talked for over an hour about the things that needed to be studied and discussed. As we talked, Rich Carnie wrote them all on a big whiteboard. We wanted to narrow them down to a group of issues we might be able to address.

Here is an actual picture of the board (sorry about the erased section on the top left, but you can still see it all). I snapped a quick picture just as they were erasing it.

Here is the list in text form:
1- Understanding/engaging ethnics

2- Church planting/effectiveness (methodology)

3- Discipleship - fill church with more robust passionate disciples

4- Urbanization/cities

5- Next generation issues

6- See and engage NA as a mission field 

7- NAMB funding issues

8- Partnerships

9- How we do church

10- Prayer/spiritual awakening
 


Tammi Ledbetter, who was part of the committee and also an excellent journalist, sent me the list. Thanks, Tammi.

Note: Although they are in a numbered list, they are not in order of priority. We just put numbers on the list to focus in on ten.

We discussed how to release these items after I mentioned to the members of the task force that we would be doing so. We considered a release from NAMB, but it seemed odd to release something from a dissolved task force. So, after talking it over with the NAMB communications team, we agreed for me to blog about it here.

Tammi suggested, and NAMB communications agreed, that I should try to explain what a few of these mean since they are not self-evident. Keep in mind that these are my descriptions, not those of the entire group, though I think they are reflective of such. But, I just don't feel authorized to speak for a group of people that no longer exists. (Well, the individuals still exist, just not in group form--you know what I mean.) The list is in the picture; my descriptions are my own.

I think that numbers 1-5 seem self-evident, so I'll keep my explanations to the latter five.

6. See and engage NA as a mission field 

Number 6 specifically addresses the issue of the need to think and live in mission-focused ways in North America. There was some discussion about the word mission/missional. Mine and Tammi's notes both say "mission," but what was on the board was "missional." Either way, the point was we need to help our churches see and engage our immediate contexts like we do the rest of the world-- like a mission field. The mission is now "from everywhere and to everywhere."

Now, let me make a personal comment: I think it is encouraging to see the shift in thinking about North America as a mission field. Ten years ago, this was considered controversial. Some of the voices talking about "thinking missiologically" and talking "missional" today were actually opposed to the idea a decade earlier. I'm glad that this idea has now become mainstream, but I will be "gladder" when the idea becomes a mainstream practice.


7. NAMB funding issues

Number 7 addressed issues of funding. The main question here seemed to be: are we directing NAMB funds to the appropriate locations for the best strategy?

We specifically discussed NAMB and the "Cooperative Agreements." Though most of you have never heard of these, it is these agreements that are the basis for the partnerships NAMB has with state conventions. NAMB only works in and through these "Cooperative Agreements." (More info about that in the next point.)


8. Partnerships

Number 8 addressed how partnership works. Why? Well, here is something most people in the denomination do not know: NAMB has the convention assignment for planting churches but does not plant churches. Ever. Anywhere.

Most church planters NAMB helps don't receive checks from NAMB, but NAMB helps out with their paychecks through funds sent to state conventions and to sponsoring churches. More assistance comes from NAMB for outreach and other planting startup costs. And NAMB funds pay church planter strategist missionaries who help multiple church planters in an area. Training, research and other resources are also made available to church planters through NAMB. But it's all done through partnerships that sometimes mask NAMB's involvement by the time money and resources reach the front lines. 

It's an approach that values local churches and local state conventions. You cannot talk about church planting and NAMB without talking about partnerships.

9. How we do church
Number 9 addressed the issue of HOW we do church. There seemed to be several issues at work here as I listened.

First, there was the ecclesiology question: what is a biblical church in our confessional understanding?

Second, there was the missiological question: what is the best way to plant churches that leads to a church planting movement?

Again, a personal comment. NAMB addressed the ecclesiology question years ago and has a statement on ecclesiology. Richard Harris, who is acting interim president at NAMB right now, commissioned the project.

My friend Stan Norman wrote the statement. I had the privilege of being the "editor" and argued with Stan on many occasions (something for which Stan thanked me in his ecclesiology book, so I felt good about our arguments!). I think by always asking, "what is biblical?," not just our tradition, helped shape the document.

10. Prayer/spiritual awakening
Although this was last on the list, it was not last in priority. The group was passionate about the fact that what we really needed was God's people praying for (and receiving) a fresh outpouring.

Conclusion

I emailed the (former) task force about releasing this list and how we might share it with others. I also forwarded the list to Ronnie Floyd, chair of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. I let him know that these were the issues we considered important as we move toward the future.

Again, thanks to the members of this task force. Although we only had one meeting, I believe that our time was not wasted--this can help inform conversations about the future and even some of the research we are doing at present.

Here is the video from my discussion with Mike Harland about worship, relevance, and reverence. Thanks to the folks at LifeWayWorship.com for inviting me.

Reverence vs Relevance from LifeWay Productions on Vimeo.

Feel free to interact in the comments and give us your thoughts.

Yesterday, I posted the video from my training in Oklahoma. I neglected to add the outline and notes, so I am posting them here. You can see the video here and the notes are below.

At the One Day web page, you can find those outlines, with "blanks" if you want to use them as training notes. Bob Mayfield tells me that 16 of the 273 churches have done their "One Day," but they have already trained over 2000 leaders. I am encouraged!

Missional Leadership

1) Reconsideration of Leadership

a) From superman to everyone
b) From church to kingdom
c) From me to we
d) From personal power to people empowerment

2) Rejection of Clergification

a) From three tiers to one mission
b) From "called to the ministry" to "called to ministry"
c) From "called to missions" to "sent on mission"
d) From exceptional to ordinary
e) From "priests" to a "priesthood of believers" codependence

3) Renewed focus on mission

a) From "full service" to "simple mission"
b) From "pay, pray, and get out of the way" to "join God on His mission"
c) From decisionism to disciple making
d) From "mission statement" to "Jesus mission"
Luke 4
Luke 19:10

4) Realignment of priorities

a) God is a missionary god
b) I personally join Him on mission - modeling
c) I lead others to join Him on mission - leadership
d) I equip others - multiplication

I hope that is helpful. Be sure to watch the video to get the context.

In May, I put together three videos with my friends from the Oklahoma convention on the topic of missional communities. The convention is using these videos as part of a training strategy for small group leaders. It's called the "One Day Initiative." For most churches, the health of small groups determines the health of the church as a whole.

Here is the video the churches are using for this initiative:

Missional Small Communities from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.

So far 273 churches in Oklahoma signed on. Bob Mayfield developed Oklahoma's plan to de-centralize the training process for small group leaders and put missional leadership materials directly into the hands of the local church. They believe that a church can equip more of its members locally than by taking them to big events that are long distances away. Bob sent me some comments they are already receiving, even though the initiative is less than a week old. Here's one example:

The general session began with hearing Ed Stetzer on video sharing about Missional Leadership. It really fired-up our people in attendance and for some I believe it was a life-changing message... Ed brought a fresh perspective about what a class could be and our folks loved it. The support materials that you (Bob) and your team put together are great, and we needed the breakout times after the video to digest what we heard and explore the materials. Scott Badgett, Associate Pastor at Chisholm Heights Church in Mustang, OK

Badgett also noted that they typically take about 6 people to an annual regional training event, but had 93 attend the One Day seminar in their church. Check here for some blogs that have been made about One Day.

That BGCO has made all three of the One Day videos available at their cost on a two disc DVD set (which also includes 3 music videos and 4 promo videos) for only $10.00. You can order them at www.bgco.org/oneday.

The B21 panel, presented by Baptist 21 and hosted by Sojourn Community Church went down during the Southern Baptist Convention last month. I am probably the last person to post it on his blog (considering the thousands of video views), but I need to in case you are the only person who has not yet watched it.

The panel examined reasons for young pastors to involve themselves with the Southern Baptist Convention, the place for seminaries in training up the next generation, dual involvement with the SBC and Acts 29, and more provocative topics. You can watch it in two parts below.

Of course, I was live-twittering the event, as you will see on the video. The picture I took is here.

This week, the pastor search committee of my church announced that they have a candidate. Assuming that goes ahead, I will be finishing up as "interim Teaching Pastor" there in early August. It is a great church and I will miss delivering my messages there. But, I am, after all, an "interim" and eventually that comes to an end.

Here are some pics of the church from a recent blog post (see that post here).

So, that leaves me one message before the new pastor comes "in view of a call."

I should probably explain what "in view of a call" means. It is a common expression in low church evangelical circles where churches vote on the man who may serve as their pastor. For some of you, this will make you a little nervous. You want some elders to make that appointment-- after all, they know better.

Well, let me explain how it works in low church evangelicalism.

First, before the church really starts looking for a pastor they establish a Pastor Search Committee. (At this church it is called a "Pastor Selection Committee," a term that makes it a little confusing since they don't actually "select" but rather "nominate.") The Pastor Search Committee is elected by the church and does the hard work of finding a pastoral candidate whose gifts and personality will best serve the body.

Second, the PSC starts working by consulting other leaders and pastors, listening to on-line messages, listening to the church family through surveys and listening sessions, visiting churches, and contacting potential pastors. In a church like ours (with about 8000 members) that takes a while. For example, the PSC had over 50 listening sessions with church members.

Third, the PSC prays a lot and seeks to discern whom to ask to be considered. Once they are in agreement they approach that person.

Fourth, that person, after much prayer and examining the church, eventually agrees to be nominated by the PSC to the church (which happened this week).

Fifth, If the church votes "yes," the pastor then comes "in view of a call." In other words, they come to preach with the intent ("in view of") being called as the pastor.

But, for you non-congregationalists out there (who need Bibles, grin), the church actually votes to call the pastor. After the vote (which usually has to be 75%) the candidate is then informed of the results and agrees to come (or not). Then, the nominee is no longer a nominee and informs his church that he is leaving to pastor another church.

Then, the interim packs up his books and gets out of the way. ;-)

That will leave me with three or four messages after he accepts that call but before he comes and starts as pastor. I need time to pack up those books, after all. ;-)

So, my question for you is this: what should I preach on for this Sunday and then for the next several? Any suggestions? I can work through a text or share a series of texts, but I am very open to suggestions and believe that in many counselors there is wisdom.

First, what should I speak on NEXT week, July 5-- the week before he comes in view of a call. (I am out on July 12th and my friend and co-author Philip Nation is speaking that day.)

Second, what should I preach on after (and assuming) the church calls and he accepts on July 19th. The congregation votes that evening and, assuming the vote is positive, he is then to start his transition and i will bring several more messages. So, what can I preach on pointing to the new pastor.

Jump into the comments and share your thoughts.

Since my denominational annual meeting just ended, I thought I would stay up late and share what has happened the last few days. Or, perhaps more accurately, share my experiences along the way.

Let me say it was a good convention and I left encouraged. Here is a day-by-day report.

Last night, I presented data to the state convention newspaper editors of my denomination. (Over 1 million people subscribe to these papers across my denomination.) These editors are great people working hard to communicate truth in an often tumultuous denominational environment.

Thanks to some good work of our team, we put together this data and released it to them last night. LifeWay released the data this morning from our LifeWay news people. You can find the charts here.

Here is the story:

Well, this "Saturday is for Seminars" includes my SBC predictions. It's all going down June 23-24 and is sure to be a crazy party!

I'm hoping. ;-)

My friends over at the SBC Executive Committee are releasing a new resource and you can have a copy! The resources are based on a message series I did at my church earlier this year. I hope they can help you and your church people be better financial stewards with God's money.

If you are a church that loves the Word and wants to help people deal with their finances, they will send you a free copy (a gift from us to the Body of Christ). Go to the It's a New Day website and click on "contact us" to request one. (Please order only one per church, preferably from the pastor or someone who helps the church with stewardship issues.)

The SBC declined again this year in both membership and baptisms. You can read the news story here. There is some encouraging news about missions giving, but the membership and baptism declines are disturbing.

All one has to do is to look at the age of the messengers, the 50 year trend, and the current state of the convention to see things are not going well. The Conservative Resurgence restored and focused us on essential beliefs but did not deliver a Great Commission passion.

The churches of the Southern Baptist Convention have been home to me for all of my adult life. Southern Baptists are my spiritual family. I love our family. But our family is not feeling well today.

Today, LifeWay released the 2008 statistics from the Annual Church Profile. The ACP is our way of measuring how SBC churches are doing in a collective sense. We are a people who like to measure-- everything from baptisms to the collective value of congregational property. For good or bad, we have always been a people of numbers.

But today we are facing a set of numbers to which we are not accustomed. Last year, I said we "peaked" in our membership. This year, I believe that our tipping point continues to tip. Unless things change, we are about to enter a time when we grow accustomed to decline and think back to the good ol' days of growth.

On April 28, 2008, I posted a graph of our membership numbers beginning in 1950 on my blog and said, "our year-to-year growth has been in a constant trended decline, not for one year, but for decades--this is not a one year blip, this is a 50 year trend."

In that reference, I was speaking of the 2007 numbers with a "statistical warning" for us to heed. Today, I bid you an uneasy welcome to continued and ongoing trend of membership decline. Any hope for a "blip" has been crushed by reality. With fewer baptisms and a declining membership, the trends point to several years of decline in our future, save for God's intervention on our behalf.

We are a denomination in decline, at least in our membership and definitely in our evangelism and baptisms. The most rational decision now is to acknowledge its reality so we might deal with its consequences and discover solutions for our churches.

But, as we are Baptists, my fear is the proverbial witch hunt that will try to find who or what is to blame. Will straw men be erected; will new battle lines will be drawn?

I hope not. There are bigger issues and we need to face some facts: we face a culture turning its back toward us, a declining and aging membership, and young leaders who are choosing other partnerships.

Last year, some leaders tried to ignore the facts and buried their heads a bit deeper in the sand. Some skeptics of the ACP data from last year said it was simply a figment of someone's imagination. Well... that figment is looking more and more like our future.

Do these facts reflect upon our culture, churches, pastors, members, or the denomination? My check mark will have to be on "all of the above." And it reflects on me and my failures as well.

Is the culture getting worse? Sure it is. But we should be the ones giving a reason for our hope rather than hoping for a reason.

Do we have chronically dysfunctional churches in our denomination? Sure, but everyone has the one crazy uncle that comes to the family reunion.

Are pastors shirking their responsibilities? Some, but I generally believe in the trustworthiness of those in vocational ministry. They get beat up by plenty of others and I will not join the pile on.

Is it a lazy membership that is the root of the decline? The multitude who act more like spectators at a show than ambassadors of the kingdom certainly share the blame. But I genuinely love those in my own congregation and hope for the best in all believers.

So what do we do? There will be lots of answers provided in the coming days. And, it will be worth your and my time to listen and learn from others.

And, of course (and on cue), some will call for Southern Baptists to turn leftward theologically as the solution to our decline. And, I will wonder out loud-- does anyone read statistics? As I have written before, a left turn does not stem decline, it accelerates it.

So what do we do?

We cannot simply mandate how churches, pastors, and believers live. Our theological convictions of the priesthood of all believers and local autonomy of the church lead us to allow each church to heed God's will on their own. But on a denominational level, I believe we need to heed the words sounding from numerous places in the convention for a Great Commission Resurgence.

Our situation would be much worse if we did not have the Conservative Resurgence, but a Conservative Resurgence without a Great Commission Resurgence is an exercise in belief without action.

I believe this must be our wake-up call. Again. If not, there will be plenty more days like this in the coming years.

Last year, I quoted from Christ's message to the church at Sardis in Revelation 3:

I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you."

We have been lulled into evangelistic complacency and missional inaction. We fought and won a battle over the Bible but are now struggling live it out through cooperation, collaborative missions, and personal evangelism. As Chuck Kelley has explained, Southern Baptists have become the new Methodists (no offense to my Methodist readers, please).

I am grieved, but I also see opportunity if we can ignore the responses that are soon to follow explaining how it is all going fine and we just don't need to worry. Those in charge know what to do to fix it. Instead, I think we need to see this as the bad news it is but also an opportunity to change.

It is an opportunity for discovering a regenerate church membership living on mission.
It is an open door to pray for God's reviving of the church.
It is the motivation for a Great Commission Resurgence for all Christians, in the hearts of pastors, through a church planting renaissance, and in our denominational structure.

But change does not come easy for us. For that matter, it does not come easy for me. To illustrate and conclude, let me tell you something funny about myself-- I have oddly-shaped feet. They are too wide in the middle to wear normal shoes. So, years ago I found a brand of shoe that fits and it is all I wear. Because they are hard to find and replace, I will literally wear out the soles of my shoes before buying new ones. My clue is normally a cold puddle of water accidentally stepped in. But the sting of the freezing water rushing over my toes usually motivates me to buy new shoes. Finding new shoes is a pain. It costs me time and resources. And I don't like those pains in my life. I don't like the pain of change.

Here is the principle: People do not change until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change. And, neither do denominations...

So let me ask you a simple question: Are we hurting enough to make the changes we need?

If you are interested, here is the post I wrote a year ago. Neither my opinion (or the situation) has changed much.

Let me encourage you to answer a question in the comments below: What is the needed change and do you have hope that change is coming?

Sometimes I feel that I live in two worlds.

First, there is the SBC world. It is big, powerful, and tribal. SBC world is so big that you can live your life in that world and never know there is a broader Christian community. In that world, almost every pastor would know who Junior Hill is, but I am guessing many of my non-SBC readers do not.

Second, there is the broader Christian world. And, there are some movements in that world that impact the SBC world. More on that in a moment.

This week is a mix for me and it prompted this blog post.

Some bloggers have already responded to The Tennessan article on SBC decline that I mentioned yesterday, including:

Michael Spencer (Internet Monk)

SBC Impact

Pat Hood (cited in the article)

I will add more if I see them. Feel free to link yours or suggest others below.

The Tennessean has another article about the SBC today, their second major focus this month. It has some interesting interviews and analysis.

The reporter, Bob Smietana, gathered quite an array of quotes and contacts so it is some good reading.

I found the section on "stifling innovation" to be fascinating:

The conservative resurgence also had an unintended consequence, said Roger Finke, a sociologist of religion at Penn State University. Finke said growing religious groups often share two characteristics. They have a set core of beliefs as a denomination but allow innovative practices in their local congregations.

Finke believes that the conservative resurgence stifled innovation.

"They preserved a more conservative theology," he said, "but they ended up placing controls on local congregations."

Here is what I wrote and spoke about the SBC a couple of years ago:

The first step in organizational decline is that you lose your creative people, who decide to go on to more entrepreneurial settings. We have already lost most of this number. In fact, we have actively pushed many of them out by teaching and preaching against them in many SBC contexts and venues. The next step in decline is that the most competent among us begin to leave...

We've already told a whole generation of 'Purpose-Driven' pastors that they're not really needed or wanted in today's SBC [that would be my generation]. Are we intent on communicating this same message to the next generation?...

When Jimmy Draper was planning the first national 'young leaders' meeting, he asked me for suggested speakers. I told him what we needed most was a nationally-known pastor who had credibility with young pastors and who was also still clearly connected with the denomination. His voice went up with excitement: "Exactly! Who?" With sadness I replied, 'That's my point.'

There were some insightful stats as well:

In 1978, just before the start of the resurgence, there was one baptism for every 36 members of the convention. By 2007, that ratio was one baptism to every 47 members.

"We are baptizing fewer of our own children, and fewer unchurched people," LifeWay's Rainer said.

More than 9,000 congregations, or almost a quarter of all Southern Baptist churches, reported no baptisms in 2007. And, in that year, only 8.3 percent of the churches were responsible for 49.8 percent of the convention's baptisms.

And this is particularly pointed:

In 1971, there were 1,434,892 children ages 6 to 11 in Southern Baptist Sunday schools. By 2007, the last year for which statistics are available, that number had dropped by about 455,000 to 979,429. At the same time, the U.S. population grew by 46 percent.

There are mentions of my friends Pat Hood, pastor of LifePoint Church and Rick White of The People's Church, two local contemporary SBC churches.

Feel free to weigh in with your opinion...

Here is my editorial in today's Tennessean, the Nashville paper. They asked me to write on the topic, "How to Stem the Decline of the SBC."

There are three editorials and some reader's letters: one from the editors from the paper, one from me, and one from Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics and Ethics Daily. Finally, there are reader's opinions.

The first editorial from The Tennessean editors mainly focused on the North American Mission Board and the Global Plan for Sharing, drawing from an earlier piece they wrote on the subject.

The second was from Robert Parham. Robert is a good (and prolific) writer and would be one of the more vocal critics of the conservative shift of the SBC. He stays true to form here and I am sure he will provoke many responses. Obviously, we would disagree on some important issues. Most obvious in this context: I would be a supporter of the conservative shift while he (as you can tell from the article) was not. (We call it the "conservative resurgence" and Robert would refer to it as a "fundamentalist takeover.")

Mine was third and I drew on an earlier blog post here and this post explains the trend. Here is mine in its entirety:

Stemming SBC Membership Decline

LifeWay Research recently reported that the SBC had declined in membership. The SBC growth rate has been slowing for decades but last year was the first year of decline in a long while--but trends say that more will follow.

The SBC I care about is in decline. Yes, it's part demographics (i.e. we're historically rural and such regions are in numeric decline) and ultimately changes have to be made at a local church level. But, many believe there are issues the convention can acknowledge and address to help turn around the decline. Denying the facts won't help, nor will a theological left turn, but there are things that need to change to reverse the decline.

When the news came out, some in the SBC stuck their heads a bit deeper in sand saying, "We're doing just fine, thank you!" They believe trying harder without change is best. Besides, they say, the SBC is not shrinking as fast as liberal denominations--which seems to me like bragging that our sunset is brighter than theirs.

On the other hand, some "finger waggers" will propose that the answer is to move leftward theologically. Yet, regardless of one's theological views (and that is important), no evidence exists to support that a leftward shift will grow a denomination--generally, the more liberal a denomination is, the faster it is declining.

Yet, a growing number of us believe that change is needed in the SBC. Let me suggest a few of those needed changes.

First and most importantly, the SBC must refocus on the gospel. The convention has become big, bureaucratic, and distracted by so many things--from politics to boycotts to programs. In the process, we have, at times, lost the focus on what was once the main thing: being, doing, and telling the good news locally and globally. We must return to our "first love" (Rev. 2:4), Jesus, and then show and share his message. We need gospel change.

Second, the SBC must address the continued loss of leaders. Ongoing denominational conflict has hastened the depopulation of young leaders. Furthermore, ethnic leadership remains mostly absent after decades of ethnic change in America.

Yet, such change will require an openness to other approaches to church and ministry from different cultures and generations. Openness will be difficult since preaching against other ways of doing church still gets the "big amen" at the SBC meeting-- even though the "Amen Corner" is getting older and smaller every year. If we share a common theology, we need to hold out a chair and ask new generations and ethnicities to sit at the table of leadership. We need leadership change.

Finally, infighting must not define the SBC. It is public knowledge that Baptists do not always settle their differences amicably at the convention or local church level. If "Baptist" and "bad-tempered" are synonyms to the average American, the trend toward decline will only accelerate. We need a heart change.

Can the tide be stemmed? Yes. Will it? Realistically, the "odds" are against it. But, I am one who believes that if we obey God's leading, He can continue to use even an imperfect people like Southern Baptists.

Interestingly, The Tennessean editors changed my title from "How to Stem the SBC Decline" to "SBC needs right kind of change." I prefer the original title much more than their new one and hope that change does not confuse readers with the multiple meanings assigned to the word "right."

Being the guy who writes the conservative evangelical position in the secular paper is always interesting (particularly in 500 words!). But, I hope I held up a commitment to biblical theology while calling for change in the denomination. You decide.

I've been writing a bit about the value of cooperation lately, including an entry on about denominations. I believe in cooperation and want to encourage it on many levels. As I have said before, I think we can accomplish more together than we can apart.

The Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention is a great case in point. The CP is a means of Southern Baptist churches pooling their monetary resources to continue the mission of the church including different kinds of international and North American church planting, theological education, mercy ministries and more. Whereas one church can only do so much in any one of these areas, together SBC churches accomplish great things in all of them.

Lifeway Research conducted a survey of pastors to examine Southern Baptist "churches' thoughts, feelings, and perceptions about the Cooperative Program."

Here are some of the interesting finds:

The description chosen by the most pastors (44 percent) was "mostly positive" stating, "We believe the CP perhaps could be improved in some ways, but is doing a very good job at present of supporting worldwide missions."

The second largest group of pastors (36 percent) describes the Cooperative Program as "overwhelmingly positive," stating, "we believe the CP is not only satisfactory, but is essential to the continued existence of the SBC, and the fulfillment of its mission of worldwide evangelism."

Thirteen percent of pastors have a "mixed" view agreeing that the CP "could be improved in many ways." The remaining responses were spread across "mostly negative" (2 percent) and "overwhelmingly negative" (1 percent). Three percent of pastors describe their church as "unaware" of the Cooperative Program.

When most Southern Baptists think about the CP they think: missions and church planting. Though the CP funds many different ministries, these are widely considered to be the most critical work of the Convention.

Pastors feel strongly that the most important objectives of the CP are to send and support missionaries (83 percent) and to provide resources to plant churches (74 percent) in North America and around the world.

As I explained in the story, "Since many churches equate 'missions' with the Cooperative Program, we should not be surprised that 'missionaries' are at the top of the agenda for pastors."

While most SBC pastors have a high view of the CP, most also believe there is room for improvement. 65 percent of the pastors surveyed "strongly agree it is important for SBC entities supported by the Cooperative Program to use the contributions efficiently, only half that number (34 percent) strongly agree efficiency is present today."

Again I explained, "Although the vast majority have a positive view of the Cooperative Program and a majority believe the funds are used efficiently, it is important to note that there is noticeable drop between those who 'strongly agree' that it is important the Cooperative Program "be" efficient and those who "strongly agree" it actually "is" efficient."

The CP is a strong example of cooperation that most of our pastors value. There is also a number that would like to see improvement in the efficiency of the CP and the precise way monies are allocated, "more than two-thirds of pastors strongly agree that the CP currently 'supports SBC entities, ministries, and missions that my church values.'"

I have already received many comments about the research. That is good, but I would like to ask you to share them here, publicly. I will encourage some denominational leaders to read your thoughts. So, let me here from you.

What do you think about the research, the Cooperative Program, and how we can make cooperation more effective?