SBC

What’s in a Name? Thoughts and Reflections on the SBC Name Change Discussion

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

What is in a name? A great deal I would argue. Parents spend a great deal of time selecting just the right name for the newborn. A name that would be a blessing and sense of encouragement rather than a burden later in life. Businesses go to great lengths to make sure the name of a company reflect their purpose and passion. Auto makers assign names to their companies and brands to ensure they are interesting and appealing. As a society, we assign names to buildings, roads, bridges, ball fields, and wings of hospitals to communicate and celebrate the accomplishments, successes, and heroism of those who have made meaningful contributions in life. Names are important. Names matter.

I pastor a Southern Baptist church. This means our church has made a choice to affiliate and cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. Although we are first an Evangelical Christian church, our choice to affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention is found in the values, commitment to cooperation, and theological stance that the SBC is known for. In September of 2011, Dr. Bryant Wright, president of the Southern Baptist Convention appointed a presidential task force to study the prospect of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. A name which has been in place for 166 years. A final report, along with any recommendations would be made to messengers at the 2012 SBC Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Two reasons form his rationale.

“First, the convention’s name is so regional,”  “With our focus on church planting, it is challenging in many parts of the country to lead churches to want to be part of a convention with such a regional name. Second, a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century.”

Much speculation, discussion, and debate surrounded this upcoming announcement. Feelings were strong on both sides. In February of 2012, the task made its interim report to the SBC Executive Committee. A February 21st Baptist Press article says in part,

“The task force appointed to study a possible name change of the Southern Baptist Convention is recommending the convention maintain its legal name but adopt an informal, non-legal name for those who want to use it: “Great Commission Baptists. The recommendation would mean that the legal name of the convention would remain “Southern Baptist Convention” and could be used by any church which wishes to use it. But other SBC churches could call themselves “Great Commission Baptists” if they wish. Draper said the new term would be a “descriptor.” Dr. Jimmy Draper, Chairman of the presidential task force said, ‘We believe that the equity that we have in the name Southern Baptist Convention is valuable.’ ‘It is a strong name that identifies who we are in theology, morality and ethics, compassion, ministry and mission in the world. It is a name that is recognized globally in these areas. We also recognize the need that some may have to use a name that is not associated with a national region as indicated by the word ‘Southern.’ We want to do everything we can to encourage those who do feel a name change would be beneficial without recommending a legal name change for the convention. We believe we have found a way to do that.’  The goal from the beginning, Draper said, ‘was to consider the removal of any barrier to the effective proclamation of the Gospel and reaching people for Christ.’”

This issue of name change has come before us in years past. Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention heard similar motions entertaining the possibility of a name change in 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990, 1998, and 2004. Each time messengers decided to leave the name of the Southern Baptist Convention as is. I want to share my thoughts here on this issue. I am not in favor of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe it has served us well all these years and that it will continue to identify us as champions of biblical conservatism in the decades to come. At present, the Southern Baptist Convention has something that is very valuable: name recognition. When you hear the name “Southern Baptist Convention”, you know what you are getting. The same is true when you hear the names Harley Davidson®, Apple ®, Coke®, and Starbucks ®. I want to share with you the three reasons why I believe the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is worth retaining.

1. The Southern Baptist Convention has led the way in caring for the physical needs of those introduced to disaster, both here and abroad. When it comes to ministering to those who have been affected by tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis, no one does it like Southern Baptists. Often the first on the scene with feeding units, showers, and chaplains, Southern Baptist Disaster Relief, and Baptist Global Response (the disaster relief arm of the International Mission Board) are on site to meet the physical needs of people with the desire to meet the spiritual needs. Relief and compassion are synonymous with Southern Baptists. This kind of “equity” if you will, can’t afford to be lost through a name change.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention has led the way in the defense of biblical truth and religious liberty. Whether or not everyone agrees with the stance the Southern Baptists takes on doctrinal matters, at least they know where we stand and that we will remain consistent. In the late 70’s and early 80’s, Southern Baptists took a stand against the liberalism that was infiltrating our seminaries. Southern Baptists took a stand for the inerrancy of sufficiency of the scriptures. We are still reaping the benefits today. We owe a tremendous debt, one we can’t repay, to Southern Baptist statesmen such as W.A. Criswell, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Ed Young, Tom Elliff, George Truett, R.G. Lee, and many others. Southern Baptists have been a consistent voice “crying in the wilderness” of mainstream media against the laws and practices that seek to curtail the freedoms to practice our religion. We owe a debt as well to the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. I am fearful that a name change would call into question the integrity of all that has been accomplished in our 166 years.

3. The Southern Baptist Convention has led the way in pushing back the darkness through intentional missions efforts. Again, synonymous with Southern Baptists is missions and well-trained, well-prepared, and well-equipped missionaries. Some of our North American missionaries have expressed concern that the name “Southern Baptist” is a hindrance to the church-planting efforts in certain parts of North America. That concern is the genesis for the Dr Wright’s decision to study the name change again. Although there may be some merit to this concern, overall I believe the integrity and track-record of the Southern Baptist Convention will serve us well in future church-planting movements.

What is in a name? A great deal. We have in the Southern Baptist Convention a name that has served us well, is trusted, and respected. Although the committee studying the name change does not recommend a formal change, they do offer an alternative. Dr. Draper writes, “other SBC churches could call themselves ‘Great Commission Baptists’  if they wish. This new term would be, in Dr. Draper’s words a ‘descriptor’. From where I stand, this ‘descriptor’ will be more confusing. I understand the desire to draw attention to our efforts in fulfilling the Great Commission. In light of the past Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations, this has become more of a focus than ever before. But, it is possible for Independent Baptists to be committed to the Great Commission. It is possible for American Baptists to be committed to the Great Commission. For one, I will stick with the Southern Baptist Convention. It is that name that identifies us as a people of doctrine, a people of conviction, and a people of missions. I agree wholeheartedly with the with the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee Report of 1999 where they gave their rationale for not changing the name of the Convention. They wrote,

“The name Southern Baptist Convention” and term “SBC” have become brand names meaning more than just the sum of their parts. The Southern Baptist Convention no longer denotes a region as much as it does a position. It has come to mean missionary zeal, staunch Bible defense, moral rectitude, adherence to faith, and dependence upon the Lord.”

Annie Armstrong Easter Offering; A Missions Offering That Goes To Missions

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Spring brings many things. Some wanted and some unwanted. This time of the year we see the blooming of flowers, warmer weather, and baseball. Spring also brings pollen and a time change. I look forward to spring because we have the opportunity and privilege to participate in the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American missionaries. Our Southern Baptist missionaries serving in North America are supported by the gifts that Southern Baptist churches give through the AAEO. I’m very proud to serve in a denomination where the work of our missionaries on both home and foreign soil continues uninterrupted. Think about this for a moment. Our missionaries don’t have to leave the field to travel back to their home churches, or set up speaking engagements, in order to raise the funding for the work they have been called by God to do. Through the cooperative efforts and gifts of all Southern Baptist churches to this missions offering, the fields are not vacated and the message of Jesus Christ remains present and consistent. I think this is truly amazing.

As a pastor, I am comforted by the idea that I can stand before the people that I lead and with confidence assure them that every penny that is given to the AAEO in the name of missions actually goes to mission work in North America. From the North American Missions Board’s website, “When people give to the offering, 100 percent of their gift will be transformed into missionary salaries and ministry supplies. Those missionaries and supplies will help others hear the message of Christ and respond in faith to His offer of salvation. Time and again our missionaries relate how the offering is their lifeblood. They know that behind each penny given, there is a Southern Baptist who believes in what they do and are affirming the need to equip them to share the gospel with those who need a Savior.” This is critical to the local congregation. The people of God who pray and give sacrificially to this effort, and other missions efforts, deserve this kind of confidence. The confidence of knowing that missions gifts are used solely for mission work accomplishes at least two things.

 First, the local congregation can give, with a sense of peace, and what may already be limited funds, knowing their gifts can positively affect the need presented to them.

 Second, when funds are used for the stated purpose, a greater sense of trust is established between the local congregation and the leadership who encourage them to give.

We are participating in the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering this year. I believe in it. I believe in the work of our North American missionaries. We are fortunate to have a missionary on staff with us in our local Baptist association. We are able to see the some of the results of the gifts given to the AAEO in our local communities through his ministry with us. Our goal this year is $2500. Will we make it? I don’t know. What I do know is this. Whether we raise $2500, $250, or $25 matters less than the knowledge that every dime given goes to actual missions work across North America. To me, that is satisfying.

The Problem With The Associational VBS “Expo” Model

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

VBS training is in full swing. State conventions are training associational leadership, and associational leadership are in turn preparing to train church leaders to have evangelistic and life-changing Vacation Bible School’s. These times of training take on different looks. One of primary ones is the clinic on the associational level where, traditionally, the local church is trained on how to lead the individual age groups and rotation sites.  Recently I learned that a few of the associations across our state are employing an “expo” style of VBS clinic. What this means is that the association will set up a display of some or all of the other publishers, in addition to Lifeway, who offer Vacation Bible School material. Some of those publishers include Group, Gospel Light, Standard, Regular Baptist Press, Concordia, and Cokesbury. Once the seven or eight options are presented, churches from the association “shop around” for the curriculum that best fits their need. In my opinion, this process of selecting a Vacation Bible School is flawed on several levels.

Now let me say up front, as a disclaimer, that I don’t believe that Lifeway is perfect. It would be unwise for me to say or to infer that. I believe that Lifeway is the best of all the rest. I personally have areas that I struggle with within the area of publication choices. Some of my children’s Sunday School teachers have some valid concerns with teaching material that I hope to see addressed one day in the future. I have pastor friends of mine who struggle with the cost of curriculum that is passed on to the churches. I have been involved in the teaching of VBS leaders at the state level for many years for two state conventions. I have intentionally studied other publishers VBS materials. In years past, I have used publishers other than Lifeway for our church’s VBS. I feel confident and qualified to say here, and hereafter, that Lifeway VBS is the best of all the rest. I don’t expect everyone to agree, and that it fine. I’m OK with that.

I want share why I think the “expo” style of clinic for the association is flawed. The reasons I believe this style of clinic is flawed are the same reasons I feel Lifeway VBS is the best one for our churches. Two come to mind.

1. The Issue of Doctrinally Integrity

Lifeway’s VBS is doctrinally sound. Churches that choose to use Lifeway curriculum won’t have to worry about the biblical content. There is a confidence in knowing that the material is written through the lense of the Baptist Faith and Message. The flaw of the “expo” model is that the DOM or some representative of the association would have to make sure that each of the publishers they were allowing to be modeled was doctrinally sound. Someone has to ask a question like “Does this curriculum present Jesus Christ as the sole means of salvation?” Someone has to ask a question like “Does this curriculum present the Bible as the perfect word of God?” Someone has to ask a question like this one “Does this curriculum acknowledge that man is lost and in need of a Savior?” In an associational “expo” clinic, that someone should be the DOM.

2. The Linking of  Southern Baptist Missionaries

In addition to being doctrinally sound, Lifeway VBS draws attentions to the work of our Southern Baptist missionaries. With the inclusion of a Missions rotation, students have the opportunity to study real life missions and missionaries from around the world and understand how Cooperative Program monies work. I believe this is invaluable for our children and adults as well. In the “expo” clinic model, this is absent. I cannot for the life of me understand why a Southern Baptist association would choose to model for its churches a VBS that does not highlight what our Southern Baptist missionaries are doing.

Some may say that it is “just” Vacation Bible School, it is no big deal. I don’t buy that. Some would say just pick the best looking theme that the kids would like. That should never be basis for a decision. Some would say that cost should be the deciding factor. I don’t believe that should even be the deciding factor. VBS has the potential to affect and change the lives of children, adults, and churches. I believe that within the ministry of VBS our future teachers, pastors, missionaries, and lay leaders will be called out. This is the reason why that as a pastor I am so passionate about VBS . It is also the reason why I believe it should not be treated so lightly and as carelessly as it seems to be treated at times.

My Response to the Open Letter by the Alabama Baptist Conference of Directors of Missions

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Below is my response to the recent open letter issued by the Alabama Baptist Conference of Directors of Missions dated November 15, 2010 to the Southern Baptist Convention calling for a slowdown of the Great Commission Resurgence. Their letter can be read in its entirety here.

I would like to begin by saying that in the grand scheme of all things Southern Baptist, I am merely one pastor. I am merely one pastor among thousands across the SBC who day in and day out engage our people in the reality that we have been given a mission and that mission involves people. My love for Christ and a burden for the lost motivate me as a pastor to stand before God’s people and proclaim the only certain cure for darkness is light. I am certain that is your motivation as well. I would be amiss if I did not thank you for your service to the kingdom of God. I want you to know that I appreciate all that you do in a position that I can only assume is challenging at best. Your leadership and guidance on behalf of Alabama Baptists has no doubt been selfless and beneficial.

Your open letter dated November 15, 2010 was a letter to pastors. It was a letter to the local church leader. It was a letter to the local congregation. It was a letter to a denomination of churches that had spent a considerable amount of time (nearly a year) considering a request to evaluate themselves. It was a letter to me as a 38 year old Southern Baptist pastor. Therefore, I would like to respond.

I was in the convention hall in Orlando this past June when the GCRTF recommendations were presented, debated, amended, and accepted by a great majority of the messengers. I, for one, studied both the preliminary and final reports. When asked by Dr. Floyd to do so, I committed to be a prayer partner throughout the entire process. After the year-long build up, after all the articles had been written, after all the interviews had been given, after the almost hour of discussion, and after the final vote, it was clear to me that the messengers present that day sensed a need for change in order for Southern Baptists to have any hope of putting a dent in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. I left Orlando hopeful, optimistic, and more excited than ever about the future of the SBC.

To the best of my ability, I would like to reply to a few of your statements that I feel are especially troubling. As I read the reasoning behind your letter and the letter itself, there were certain words and phrases that I found not only surprising, but discouraging. The phrases, “pull the plug”, “backed into a corner”, “when the GCR comes to pass”, “causes division”, “knows the devastation GCR will have”, “superseded”, and “dismantled” collectively send a message of fear.

First, Tom Stacey, Salem Baptist Association Director of Missions said he “knows the devastation the GCR will have”. I don’t know how this is possible. I believe that any “perceived knowledge” as to how these recommendations will affect any agency in the future is speculation at best. The recommendations that passed in Orlando are just that, recommendations. The adoption of the report of the GCRTF did not change anything, realign anything, create anything, dismantle anything, or decrease any funding on the spot. These recommendations were referred to the respective entities (Executive Committee, NAMB, etc) for study. These were non-binding and no one fully knows what will happen or what the respective agencies and entities will do. It will not be until June of 2011 in Phoenix that we know how the entities respond to the recommendations.

Second, Steve Loggins, president of the Alabama Baptist Conference of Director of Associational Missions said “we all want to see the Gospel go to the ends of the earth, but we can’t abandon what we have here. It doesn’t have to be an either/or, but a both/and.” In all fairness, your letter does not come to the defense of the nations. Two of the recommendations of the GCRTF deal with NAMB having a greater emphasis on church planting in under-served areas of North America. They also ask the IMB to help NAMB with identified people groups located within in North America. I believe the thrust of the recommendations address your concerns: pioneer areas where there are people, but a lack of churches to serve them. You speak of a “both/and”, but one recommendation dealt with the IMB receiving an additional one percent and this was absent from your letter. Instead, you addressed the areas that would affect you and only defended the funding of those areas.

Thirdly, you stated in your letter, “in our understanding, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force and documents proceeding from the task force essentially have: superseded the Cooperative Program, Southern Baptists main funding for working together.” There were no new funding mechanisms put forward by the GCRTF. The GCRTF did not offer one channel of funding in exchange for another. You mentioned the “documents proceeding from the task force”. On page number nine of the pamphlet entitled Penetrating the Lostness; Embracing a Vision for a Great Commission Resurgence Among Southern Baptists, under Component number three, the following is written, “We reaffirm the definition of the Cooperative Program adopted by action of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. We honor and affirm the Cooperative Program as the most effective and efficient means of channeling the sacrificial support of our churches through undesignated giving which funds both the state conventions and the work of the Southern Baptist Convention. We call upon the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to increase the percentage of their Cooperative Program giving.” Although the GCRTF put forth a category of giving entitled Great Commission Giving in order to recognize all categories of missions giving, the Cooperative Program appears to have remained center stage for cooperative funding. In Orlando, the GCRTF embraced an amendment to their own report that added language of further support and recognition of the Cooperative Program as the main avenue of cooperative missions giving. The wording of the amendment and the willingness of the task force to listen to the messengers should put to rest your fears of the “dismantling” of the Cooperative Program. If nothing else, their spirit of cooperation should at least give you an inclination that their motives as pure.

Lastly, Stacey said again, “We’re praying [NAMB President] Kevin Ezell will start understanding more and more that these entities and agencies will do some studies before they pull the plug on whatever they are going to pull the plug on. We’re backed into a corner and we are trying to be as gentlemanly as we can.” Who backed you into a corner? Why is there a need to be so defensive? As leaders, we should always evaluate how our ministries are being carried out in order to determine if there if there is a better way to utilize personnel, resources, time, and the Cooperative Program monies that sacrificially flow from the pews of the local congregation. As leaders, evaluation and introspection should not frighten us. At its base level, the GCRTF has asked us all to do that very thing. In all fairness to Dr. Ezell, he has just begun his duties at NAMB. He has stepped into a difficult position. He has been given recommendations from the messengers of the SBC that call for a serious look at how NAMB does business. Please give him some time to understand his office and duties before any assumptions are made. You mention that you hope some studies are done before the plug is pulled on “whatever they are going to pull the plug on.” I would like to remind you that you are a part of “they”. What I mean by that is this. Any final action will be made by messengers who come from the local Baptist church.  The recommendations that were passed in June are the studies you hope that will be done. The GCRTF gave some detail to each entity as to what to “study” to better carry out the Great Commission.

I would like to ask two things of you as an association of directors of missions and as influencers of Baptists nationwide.

First, please let the process work before you make any drastic decisions. I believe that asking for a slow-down on a renewed passion and desire for the fulfillment of the Great Commission is counter-productive and not our place. How dare we ask such a thing?

Second, please keep in mind the nearly six billion lost people throughout the nations when drawing territorial lines. Turf wars are not God-honoring and never advance the gospel. We must never become fixated on our areas so as to miss what God is doing elsewhere.  

Many challenges lay ahead of us as Southern Baptists. We are challenged to put the welfare and future of the nations first. We are challenged to seek the kingdom of God first. We are challenged to seek unity first.  There are going to be issues and positions that we don’t agree on. It is impossible to believe that everyone will always agree on everything.  Although we don’t agree, we have to remember that we serve the same Lord and it will be our ability and willingness to bridge our differences that will determine how long we travel in separate directions hoping to reach the same destination.

Are We There Yet? Part #2

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

“Getting there”. In yesterday’s post, I began looking at the question that is being asked of all Southern Baptists during this Christmas season as we study about, pray for, and give to our missionaries through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. The question is “Are We There Yet?” The “there” is the lost world. The “there” is the culmination of our witness so that everyone has heard the name and gospel of Jesus Christ. Along the way, questions must be answered. The status quo has to be challenged. Priorities must be re-shuffled. Today, I want to offer two questions that surely will have to be dealt with before we can get “there”.

Question #1: Are we there yet in our willingness to place the funding of our missionaries as a top priority?

Our Southern Baptist missionaries are on the front-line in the battle over spiritual darkness and are funded solely by monies contributed through the Cooperative Program. This enables our missionaries to remain on the field engaged in training leaders, planting churches, building relationships with local people groups, and other gospel-proclaiming endeavors. The flip side of the issue is this. If churches decrease their giving, then less money will reach the mission field overall. If state conventions decide to keep for themselves larger and larger percentages of the CP dollar, then less money will reach the mission field.

It is a reality that ministry requires money. It is just the simple truth. Reaching the lost, and the nations for that matter, requires the individual believer, the individual church, the individual association, and the individual state conventions to give selflessly, in whatever manner is available to them in order for Christ to be proclaimed. Budgets reflect priority. It does not take an economist to tell that financially our county has been hurting for a few years, and continues today. I am also a firm believer that financial challenges further reveal priority.  When faced with financial challenges, churches can decide to either make missions and ministry a priority or play it safe and look within. At Port Royal Baptist Church, we have recently made decisions to further invest in what is fruitful and decrease what is not seen as fruitful. Associations, when faced with financial challenges, can either choose to cut ministries and play it safe or aggressively speak for the nations on behalf of the fellowship of churches. State conventions, when faced with financial challenges, can either decide that missions work beyond the state lines is as equally important and worthy of equal funding, or can allow the lobbying of the state agencies and entities to drown out the call for needed funding from overseas.

What makes me question whether or not the willingness is there or not comes from what I have seen over the past several months across the SBC. This willingness can be seen in several state conventions have voted to move their CP division to a 50/50 split, meaning the state retains 50% of funds sent to them from the churches and forwards the other 50% to the SBC. This is encouraging and exciting thing to see happen. It is at the very least a recognition that more funding is needed beyond the state in order keep already appointed missionaries where they are and fund the ones who are standing by. As I had mentioned in a earlier post, our state convention is South Carolina during it’s annual meeting voted to keep any excess funds beyond what is required to meet the operating budget within the state and divide the excess between the seven state entities, agencies, and schools. Do difficult financial times in our country give us a free pass on reaching the nations with the gospel? Absolutely not. Until we as Southern Baptists possess a willingness to make missionary funding a priority, “there” will remain just beyond our reach.

Question #2: Are we there yet in our realization that “business as usual” is no longer acceptable in our efforts to reach the lost?

 I believe this was the genesis for the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. Going back to the original motion in 2009, there has been a realization across the SBC that on present course we are, at best, treading water in our efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. This passion and desire to get our practice right as it relates to the Great Commission is real. It is just as real as the passion and desire was to get our theology right during the Conservative Resurgence of the mid-late 1980’s. From time to time it takes something to rattle us and wake us up from our slumber. I believe GCRTF has put before us as Southern Baptists the picture of lostness and legitimate recommendations that would enable us to fulfill the Great Commission. These recommendations, if implemented by the various agencies, will change the face of our denominational structure and how we do “business”. I was encouraged to read what Dr. Kevin Ezell, President of the North American Mission Board, said recently at a missionary appointment service. Dr. Ezell said “As we go through changes, absolutely every change we make and every reduction we make is to put more missionaries in the field.”

 It is very easy to get settled into routines, schedules, ministries, programs, and structures; and as a result, place our trust in them. Any changes to the present structure will be questioned and difficult. Territorial spats are already occurring and changes have only been proposed. Recently, a group of directors of missions from Alabama wrote an open letter to the SBC encouraging a slow down on the Great Commission Resurgence. I’ll be writing a response to that letter in the near future. How do you hope to slow down a renewed desire and passion to fulfill the Great Commission? Better yet, how dare you ask such a thing? I sat in the convention hall of the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Orlando this past June, it was clear that Southern Baptists were saying “business as usual” is no longer acceptable. It is a willingness to let go of “business as usual” and set aside turf wars and territorialism that will determine our ability to get “there”.

Are We There Yet? Part #1

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Are we there yet? This is a question that every parent with a child who has been on a road trip has been asked before. At least once. Usually in repetition. It is a question that assumes a destination. It is a question that assumes there is an ending point. For the child in the back seat, it is a question that assumes there will be a point in time when the journey will be over and they can get out of the car. Business leaders ask this question of their employees on the progress of assigned tasks. For the employee, it is a question that assumes the employer is looking for the finished product. Ultimately, it is a question of a completed task.

 “Are We There Yet?” is also the theme for the 2010 Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Of all the themes in recent history, I believe this one is the most personal and urgent. The question that is asked is pointed. The question that is asked is honest. The question that is asked is demands an answer. The question that is asked requires examination on our parts. The question that is asked cannot be avoided. The question that is asked should cause us as Southern Baptists to evaluate our priorities.

As we consider this question, we have to determine where “there” is. After all, if we don’t know where “there” is, how will we know if get there? Our “there” is wrapped up in the commission Christ gave to His disciples prior to His ascension that has come to be known as the Great Commission. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.” In Mark 16:15, we find Jesus’ words again “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” For Southern Baptists, and evangelical Christianity as a whole, the “there” is reaching the lost world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the latest figures available from the International Mission Board, the numbers are both staggering and sobering. There are 3,724 people groups that are not engaged at all with the gospel. People groups refer to groups of individuals, families, or clans that share a common language and ethnic identity. Scott Holste, Director of the IMB Global Research Department says, more specifically, “a people group is the largest group through which the gospel can flow without encountering a significant barrier of understanding or acceptance.” There are 6,426 unreached people groups (those with less that 2% of people who profess to have a personal relationship with Christ). There are 1.7 billion people worldwide that have little or no access to the gospel. 89% of the North African and Middle Eastern people groups are unreached.

So, “Are We There Yet?” Not by a long a long shot. There is work left to do. There are choices to make. In part two of this post, I will examine some questions in which in our answers will determine how quickly we get “there”.  

 

My Reflections on the 2010 South Carolina Baptist Convention Annual Meeting

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

I attended our South Carolina Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Columbia last week with a good pastor friend of mine. I enjoy annual meetings such as these. I have always made an attempt to attend these meetings and involve myself in the business of the state convention of which the church that I pastor is a contributing member. These annual meetings are times of fellowship, encouraging worship, challenging messages, reports from the agencies and entities owned by the state, and times for various business items to be handled.

As I look back on Columbia this year, I do so with mixed emotion. On one hand it was an enjoyable positive experience. I had the opportunity to represent my church as a messenger and participate in the voting process. Opportunities presented themselves for me to meet new people and form new relationships. Being new to the SCBC, this was important. I was personally encouraged by the messages I heard during the annual meeting and the pastor’s conference. Mike Stone, Ed Stetzer, James Merritt, and Ken Whitten and others personally touched my heart. I had been previously asked and was elected to serve on of the convention committees over the next three years. I am looking forward to this opportunity. I was also encouraged by a motion from the floor that called for the convention president to create a South Carolina Great Commission Resurgence Task Force whose purpose is to respond to the recommendations contained in the SBC GCR Task Force that were adopted back in June and bring their report to the messengers in Columbia next year. Anytime we can begin seriously focusing on how to better accomplish the Great Commission it is a positive step. Outgoing president Dr. Fred Stone has named this 35 person task force. You can read their names here.

On the other hand, it was a puzzling experience. To be honest, I don’t know any other way to say it than that. I was left scratching my head at times in disbelief. To put it plainly, there was a spirit of fear present during the meeting this year. As the budget was being discussed, this spirit of fear is something that could be felt. It is hard to explain, but can be characterized by statements like these, “let’s wait and see”, “what will happen if?” “we just don’t know”, “let’s make sure first”, and “how do we know what will happen?” To me, two motions demonstrate this.

First, under the 2010 SCBC operating budget, 40.44% of receipts are forwarded to the SBC. The proposed 2011 budget calls for 41% to be forwarded to the SBC. A motion was made to amend the proposed budget to freeze the SBC contribution at 40.44%. The argument was put forth that there was no way of knowing what kind of changes may be recommended or what revenue may look like. So, we should just wait before changing our percentage giving to the SBC. Unsaid was that while we wait, the nations wait. Thankfully this amendment failed.

Second, a motion was made that all receipts in excess of the 2011 budget be kept in state and divided among the seven state institutions, agencies, and schools. Again, the argument was put forth that the funding was desperately needed in the state due to the work that was going on here. I don’t doubt there is good work happening across the state of South Carolina. To ask that any extra, above and beyond what is necessary, be retained in the state and divided among the agencies who already, by percentage, receive budgeted funds is a mistake and a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to send this surplus to the mission’s agencies whose sole source of funding comes from the gifts of the churches. Again, the nations will have to wait.

In my opinion, the upcoming year is going to be a crucial one for our state. As the task force meets to being their discussion over the recommendation the SBC has adopted and plan for the effects as the state level, a great deal is at stake. We could see a call for major changes or no changes at all. Will our state convention continue on the path of retaining large portions of the CP dollars from the member churches? Will there be a shift to move toward an even distribution of CP monies? I don’t know. I am praying for the latter. I don’t know how many more years we are Southern Baptists can absorb the number of missionaries having to leave the field due to lack of funding. I don’t know how long we can absorb the shrinking number of missionaries while the number of those without Jesus Christ continues to rise.  I do know one thing. I left Columbia convicted because I did not stand and voice my opinion and feelings on these crucial matters. That will be the last time that I walk away wishing I had said something.

 

Let’s Be Fair About This

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

The season of state convention annual meetings is upon us. Our annual meeting in South Carolina is scheduled for November 16th-17th in Columbia. All across the SBC, states are gathering for times of worship, encouragement, inspiration, and difficult decisions during business sessions. Many of the state conventions are in the beginning phases of making adjustments after the passing of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations this past June during the SBC annual meeting in Orlando. The task force asked for SBC churches to shine the light upon how we as Southern Baptists can do better in fulfilling the Great Commission. So, state conventions, wrestling with struggling economies and fulfilling the desire of its messengers, are beginning to adjust their budgets accordingly.

Part of the budget decisions facing many state conventions is not just whether or not to increase or decrease their budget based on projected income from the member churches over last year. Another decision that states face is what to do with their percentages as it related to the Cooperative Program. The bare-bones question is this: “How much do we keep in state and how much do we forward to SBC causes?” Messengers from member churches make this decision. Historically, the percentage goal for allocation of CP dollars has been 50/50. At the beginning, Southern Baptists saw this as the ideal. In 1934, the SBC approved a distribution of receipts which called for “50% for Southwide (SBC) purposes and 50% for statewide purposes” 1

The 50/50 goal has not yet been embraced consistently across the SBC. Since that time, states have taken on their own buildings, agencies, schools, staff, and ministries. As a result, the distribution percentages have slowly but steadily shifted in favor of the state conventions. Since 1930, the division of CP funds between state conventions and the SBC has averaged 63.55% to the state and 36.45% to SBC causes.

Each state is autonomous. They can set their own budgets, choose which ministries to pursue, what and how much staff to employ, and decide what percentage of CP fund to retain. Currently, our South Carolina Baptist Convention retains 59.6% and forwards 40.4% to the SBC. Messengers to the SCBC annual meeting this year will see a proposal of (59% retain and 41% forward). I believe that our state convention is retaining too much of the CP dollar. Over the past years, and especially now with states being called upon to put more CP dollars to work on the mission field outside North America, the thought and necessity of a 50/50 split is being heard again. The state conventions of Kentucky, Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee will be at least considering  recommendations to move toward a 50/50 division of CP funds.

I am in favor of such an allocation. To my knowledge there has been no mention if South Carolina Baptists will hear a proposal to move toward a 50/50 split. I hope we do. I hope the messengers get a chance to speak to such a recommendation in the future. Here is why I feel this way. Even if our messengers approve a 59/41 split, proportionally it seems out of balance. Here in North America, the barriers to the advancement of the gospel are fewer. Think about it for a moment. Physically reaching the lost across North America is easier. Days of difficult travel to reach people groups do not exist in North America. Technology has made a variety of delivery methods available. It has also made communication between workers quicker and more efficient. Networks of church planters and those who provide resources and training to them are already in place. For the most part, the language barrier is not as great a battle here as it is in other parts of the world.

The barriers to the advancement of the gospel are greater overseas. Travel to and from remote cities and villages s difficult, time-consuming, and potentially hazardous. Limited technology in many parts of the world makes it more difficult for missionaries to communicate with each other and with those whom they serve. In turn, this limits the ways in which the gospel can be delivered. We have the luxury here in North America to be able to use social networking (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc), video, unnumbered styles and varieties of gospel tracts, different Bible versions, and advertising to get the gospel message out. At times, our missionaries are the only “professional” in a particular area. I worked on several work and witness teams with an IMB missionary who was responsible for the Miskito people group. His area of responsibility covered the coastal and inland sections of both Honduras and Nicaragua. Contrast this with North America where we seemingly have churches on every corner with pastors and planters having each other to give encouragement, support, and resources in order to better reach people.  The language barrier hinders any kind of work. Although our missionaries spend time in language school before arriving on their field, it still takes time to effectively communicate the gospel, especially when some of our words don’t even exist in native tongue.

 Despite the contrast, we are sending more money and resources to North America, and more especially our state, and less to the foreign mission field. If we have clearly been given a mandate to reach all the nations with the gospel, and I believe that we have, then our funding should reflect the priority. Lostness is lostness, here and abroad. Should we not be funding our missions efforts equally? I believe there are a number of our state convention agencies that have the ability to gain funding outside of the CP channel. I firmly believe that the missions agencies of the SBC whose sole support is CP monies should have what they need in order to active in pushing back darkness around the world.

Would our state convention in South Carolina have to make adjustments in order to get to a 50/50 split in Cooperative Program giving? Without a doubt. Would a 50/50 split challenge the state convention and its leadership to make hard decisions and sharpen their focus on the lost beyond state lines? Absolutely. Would this be the right thing to do? I believe so.

 

1 – SBC Annual 1934 (pp. 38-49)

The Baptist Association : Part #3: Future

/ Steven Ruff / 3 Comments

Over the past two posts, I have attempted to make the purpose of the Baptist association a little more clear. I also wanted to show that the association has some challenges facing it that will keep it from accomplishing its’ intended purpose. When you mix together the purpose of and the challenges facing the association, you are left with one question, “What is the future of the association?” “Does the association even have a future?” Depending upon whom you ask, the answer to this question is both varied and consistent, positive and negative, hopeful and hopeless. For example, Monty Hale, Director of Association and Pastoral Ministries for the South Carolina Baptist Convention said, “The association will be the face of Southern Baptists in the future. Most church leaders relate to the association to accomplish their God-given task of reaching the world for Christ.” Dr. Jimmy Draper, former president of Lifeway Christian Resources made the following statement, “In our obsession with what is new in world of church growth, let us not forget that all traditions are not bad and all of the past cannot be jettisoned. It is our tradition that builds our communities. The bedrock of that tradition in Baptist life is the local association.” Pastor Kyle Waddell of Pine Level Baptist Church in Early Branch, South Carolina says, “If I could sum my view up in one word it would be bleak. I personally have served in churches from three different associations in our state and have never seen the total effects come from any association in the capacity it was created to produce. I believe as do many in leadership in the SBC convention that the local association has outlived its usefulness in its present state and that if it were to close its doors many of our churches would never know.”  Dr. Jerry Nash, Director of Missions for the Harmony Baptist Association in Trenton, Florida writes, “With cooperative Southern Baptist pastors and effective leadership, the future of the Association is very bright.  It ultimately is at the local level that working relationships are built and trustworthiness is established.  As the SBC and state convention leaders and entities acknowledge and affirm the local Association we will be stronger as Southern Baptists.  It is just my opinion, but I believe to ignore or bypass the local Association will ultimately lead to the decline of Southern Baptists.”

I want to begin by saying that I believe the local Baptist association can have a future. I hold out hope that it is a bright future. I don’t believe it is automatic. It is my belief that the association’s future will look different than it does in the present. It appears to me that a great majority of associations still operate, at least in some manner, to the way they did fifty to sixty years ago. In the 1950’s and 1960’s the Baptist association served as a conduit for denominational programs from the SBC (Nashville) to the local church. For the most part the association still has the same programs (Brotherhood, WMU, Youth, Sunday School, Discipleship Training, Evangelism, Music, etc.) The strain comes when local churches either no longer utilize established programs or develop new ministries while the association continues with the traditional ministry structure. I believe relevancy is the Achilles heel of the Baptist association. Bobby Gilstrap, Director of Missions for the Huron and Southeastern Associations in Michigan wrote, “In the past, the associations and its leadership had predominately focused on two things: (1) How to get more churches involved in associational ministries and meetings, and (2) How to increase the giving of the churches to the association. As a result, there was a clear problem of relevance to our churches. The pastor’s frustration was they found no relevance in the association and our ability to provide for them as they struggled to fulfill their mission and calling. This brought me to a reality check. Our associations could not be the same as in the past or even the present. Our organization had to reinvent itself to be relevant and effective. We first realized that the association is not a church. That seems obvious, but many associations have been trying to do things that the church should be doing. That means, that the Associational Director of Missions is not the pastor and the association is not the church. The association should be a resourcing organization. In other words, the role of the association is to assist and resource the God-given vision of the churches.”

There are some who say that the association should not do ministry for the church. Others will say that this is not a problem. I believe it is in this discussion that the relevancy issue comes to light. Again, Dr. Nash writes, “As with the local church, there is a strong correlation between the strength of the ministry and missions program and the vision and leadership of the leader.  There is disagreement about whether it should be churches or Associations who do missions and ministry.  I challenge those who say Associations shouldn’t start churches or have ministries.  In the world in which I live, I do not have a single church which would be able to fund our Pregnancy Center. But together we have a vibrant ministry.” These are the issues that will shape the future of the Baptist association.

The future of the association is going to be shaped, at least in some part, by the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations that were approved by SBC messengers this past June. Mike Day, Direcctor of Missions for the Mid-South Baptist Asssociation in Memphis, Tennessee has an interesting opinion as to how these recommendations will shape the future of the association. He wrote, “Most associations I know of, large or small, struggle with “activity overload.” Our efforts to be all things to all churches often result in us becoming less than what we are supposed to be. We design programs, events, and ministries that often position us as a substitute for the church. As we affirm the GCR Recommendations, particularly the core values set forth in Recommendation #2, we are affirming the centrality and primacy of the local church and its Great Commission assignment for penetrating lostness and taking the gospel to the nations. An association’s acceptance of this principle puts us in position to affirm that the Great Commission was given to the church and not to a denomination. It provides us opportunity to focus on the “organism” that is the church rather than the organizations of a denomination. Our association will be strengthened as we sharpen our focus and concentrate upon what we can do to help the churches accomplish the Great Commission, rather than what the churches can do to help us accomplish our objectives.”

For the Baptist association to have a viable and fruitful future, the local church will have to be the focal point. The future of the Baptist association will depend upon the success of the local churches. As I see it, the church does not exist for the benefit of the Baptist association. If there were no association, the church would still exist. The association exists for the benefit of the local church. If there were no church, there would be no association. I believe that Dr. John McInnis, former Sunday School Consultant for the Florida Baptist Convention, said it right, “The association will be viable and effective to the extent that it understands and operates its mission to help churches accomplish their individual missions – one church at a time.”

The SBC in Orlando

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Messengers from SBC churches will be headed south to Orlando for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention on June 15th-16th. I have been able to attend several of these meetings and really enjoy them. However, I have missed the last three (San Antonio, Indianapolis, and Louisville). One highlight of the trip is the Pastors Conference on the front end of the meeting. This conference is a great opportunity to sit, relax, and decompress while listening to some of the nation’s greatest preaching and teaching. Pastors rarely have the opportunity to sit and be “preached to”. This conference allows for a recharging and re-energizing. The theme for this year’s conference is “Greater Things”. You can view the schedule of speakers here. In my opinion, this is the best line-up of speakers in recent memory.

The annual meeting itself is a mixture of business, music, and preaching. The business sessions include the election of officers, offering of resolutions, agency and entity reports, and miscellaneous business items. There is really no way to know what the messengers will be voting on. Motions can be offered on most anything, and usually are. This year, there is one item of business the messengers know they will be voting on. The recommendations from the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force will be presented for approval.

This year is an election year. Messengers will electing a new president. As of today, there are four candidates in the race. Recently all four candidates were asked a series of questions about their candidacy covering subjects such as SBC vision, future challenges, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, and the Cooperative Program. Here is a brief description of the four.

1. Dr. Bryant Wright:  Dr. Wright is the Senior Pastor of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in  Marietta, GA. You can read his interview here.

2. Dr. Jimmy Jackson: Dr. Jackson is the Senior Pastor of Whitesburg Baptist Church in Huntsville, AL and the president of the Alabama Baptist State Convention. You can read his interview here.

3. Dr. Ted Traylor: Traylor is the Senior Pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL and is a former president of the Florida Baptist Convention. You can read his interview here.

4. Dr. Leo Endel:  Endel is the Executive Director of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention and a former president of the Baptist Convention of Iowa. You can read his interview here.  

As of today, I am planning to vote for Ted Traylor. I was a Florida Baptist for eleven years. Dr. Traylor gave solid leadership to the state convention and I believe he will lead well at the SBC level.  This year’s meeting  will be eventful and meaningful. It is also a meeting that will set the course of our convention for years to come.