Page cautiously optimistic about SBC, predicts shortage of traditional pastors

I am so grateful for Dr. Page and his spirit...

 

So I suppose traditional pastors are those who accept the Baptist Faith and message? That used to be a guideline for churches and church members who believed in the Priesthood of Believers and Soul Freedom. Now the SBC has a catechism just like the Roman Catholics.

 

Don't really know what you are intending to communicate. As an SBC pastor, my only criteria for cooperation are the guidelines, doctrines, and principles, outlined in the BFM 2000.

At the Baptist Identity conference, the consistent message of ALL the speakers was that the criteria for cooperation should be the BFM... not methods, styles, or ministry focus (ie Purpose driven, missional, traditional, etc).

Everybody needs to take a deep breath, count to ten and remember that traditions do not determine cooperation and never should, only the clear doctrines that define us as Baptists.

Blessings

 

That is a liberal church.

 

Many who voted for Dr. Page did so simly to disrupt the good ol boy metality in the SBC. However, many have come to regret the vote. Dead churches arent dead because they are fundemental.They are dead because they quit worshipping God. The SBC is swinging liberal. Specifically toward the ungodly EC. As a result it wil lose many members.

 

That's probably true. (And I think it was a good thing.)

I haven't heard anything of the sort, but I probably don't travel in the same circles as you. Is there any particular reason cited for "regretting the vote"?

True. Although fundamentalism (like liberalism) can kill a live church.

That's rather simplistic, but your main point has some merit.

But the more accurate reason that churches are dead is that Christians aren't living their faith because they haven't been taught how to live their faith. Within the last 100-150 years, mainstream "conservatives" and "liberals" have both reduced the gospel of the Kingdom of God ("How to live the good life, now and through eternity") to a theory of atonement ("How to get to heaven"). This shift reduces Jesus to merely being a sacrificial Lamb and ignores the main thrust of His message and teaching that we can enter into His life and be transformed citizens of the Kingdom of God.

Unless, to you, the word "liberal" simply means "bad", I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The SBC is not, as has never been, "liberal" in any sense of the word. I believe the current good-ole'-boy leadership (as mustered by Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler and their disciples) has misled the majority of churches of the SBC with their takeover movement, but the pastors and the people of the SBC are generally good, faithful, well-meaning Christians. Over the years I have preached in a number of SBC churches, from legalistically fundamental to full-blown moderate congregations with women serving as deacons and on the church staff, and have always been treated warmly and graciously. But nearly every time I find myself in the company of the big-time power brokers of the SBC, I get attacked or treated like dirt. If they can't love their brother, who they can see, how can they claim to love the God that they can't see?

I have no idea who the "EC" is... Can you enlighten me?

 

Who? Where? When?

 

gb,

If it is all as bad as you say, and I don't think it is, our seminaries are woefully training our pastors.
Sure, some churches are toxic, but many reflect the leadership and training of their pastors.

I've gotten the point that you don't approve of trophy animals and libraries. That he should spend his personal funds on bicycles for pastors in other countries. He does not answer to you and me for his stewardship of his salary. I imagine you and I could buy a couple of bicycles, too.

But as a general concept, I do agree with you that trustees should scrutinize expenditures more closely than it seems they have sometimes done.

Re: what happened with the Mormons in your pastorate. It wouldn't happen here. Recently we had a film from the North American Mission Board on what Mormons believe and how to witness to them. Just finished two sessions in church on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

You and I see the SBC in two completely different ways. I guess personal experiences really do shape us. I am all for disciple-making. However, I suspect that how you personally measure that is strongly along the lines of your individual spiritual gifts and what God has called you to. Disciple-making can be fleshed out in a variety of ways that I am not too sure that you would recognize. I hope that you can affirm others in their callings and spiritual gifts from God.

 

I think this reflects part of the problem....our seminaries should not be held responsible for training pastors....have you been to a seminary lately? Churches should be discipling and mentoring people into leadership positions and roles in the church. The seminaries have attempted, and are expected to take responsibility that Pastors should do....and that is to multiply. Seminary is not a bad idea if you're looking to learn, and get a Bible education....but preparing to be a leader in the church by locking yourself up in a library for papers??? I have to admit....some of the PhD students look like they haven't seen sunlight in a decade. But if you have a leader in your church who invests in you to also lead.....there's a way to prepare a Pastor. Sounds familiar right? I think Paul did that.

 

You nailed it my dear brother...

Seminaries have never been and never should be a "training ground" for pastors. That is unless you desire an academically driven individual that may be able to "preach" wonderful sermons... and not much more. Pastors ought to be equipped at seminaries so that they are doctrinally sound and trained in how to be constant learners, but real pastoring occurs not in the pulpit 35 to 45 minutes a week, but for the rest of the in the week, living in the lives of others. It is the life of a shepherd.

Blessings,

 

Your experience is common. Unless you had some particular political value, you were simply not going to receive help from any one within the Baptist agency structure.

Of course, you could have just started a blog about it.

 

No. The point of having trustees not intimately involved with the organization is to ensure that the organization will keep trust with the owners/funders of the organization.

It is increasingly clear that the trustees, in many cases, are appearing to owe an allegiance to the organization's leadership structure rather than to the messengers and the churches.

The deeper that this perception takes hold, the lesser the support for the CP will be.

 

It's really interesting to me that Dr. Page is one of the first SBC Presidents to talk about this issue (specifically the looming lack of traditional pastors) even though our seminary profs and recent seminary graduates have known for the past 10 years that this crisis is coming.

Being a recent graduate from an SBC seminary these are the numbers of my fellow graduates:
50% missions and church planting (non-traditional roles)
20% Traditional Pastor ministry
10% Student ministry
5% Academics
5% Music Ministry
5% Educational ministry
5% Other

The reality of the situation is most of the people going into mission and/or church planting that I know said they aren't going back to the traditional churches they grew up in because they don't want to put up with the junk. They don't want to, honestly, waste their time fighting pointless battles over worship style, color of carpets, pews vs. chairs, preaching styles, etc. when we can be moving our churches towards doing and being the Gospel with a fresh outlook.

Dr. Page said that too many churches in the SBC are "one generational" which is HUGE. While I would agree that we must have mulitgenerational churches, but that we also must understand that 3 points and poem and the Baptist Hymnal are not the only way to do church. We have two major divides right now in many SBC churches:
1. the older established generation that refuses to give over the church
2. the younger fresher generation that is pushing for transformation

Our convention does nothing to help this out. Most of the curriculum and teaching from the convention is to work with traditional churches, even though in this century we must have radically nontraditional ministries. Our seminaries are imparting last century training to our up and coming pastors and not adequately equipping them to do ministry in this century.

The reality is the role of the "senior pastor" (I prefer senior elder) in the church of this century will less and less a pulpiteer and more an empowerer and equipper. Yet our seminaries are still telling young pastors in training that the ultimate role in the local NT is an outdated (imho) 19th century model of the senior pastorate. If we are going to see massive Kingdom work done in this century for these generations it must be innovative, authentic, renewable, and biblical.

This is our basic fact: in twenty years most every singular generational churches that populate much of the SBC will be gone. Not a good thing, not a bad thing, just a thing. The ministry of this century must be different and nontraditional to reach nontraditional people.

I don't think it is a "looming crisis" beyond that there will be a shortage of an outdated model of pastors. Rather I believe this is God's movement from one terrifically used model into another. Birth pangs are always painful.