It appears to be a cause for celebration in some circles that the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration now has 3,374 signatories.
That is out of how many Southern Baptist church members?
And how many of those signatories are students at Southeastern Seminary or members of Woodstock Baptist Church?
And how many of those 3,374 will actually be delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting? (I'm sorry. Messengers. I've been told there is a difference.)
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Southern Baptists and their GCRD
It has been almost a year since I posted but there just hasn’t been anything that piqued my interest. Until now, anyway.
I have been reading about the Southern Baptists’ Great Commission Resurgence Declaration (GCRD) in Baptist Press and on the blogs. While I agree wholeheartedly about the need for Southern Baptists to rediscover a passion for Christ’s mission in the world, there were some things about the GCRD conversation that struck me as being a little off.
So some friends and I have been talking and we have come up with a few questions that we would like to have answers to, if we were going to be delegates to the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting in Louisville, Kentucky (which we are not).
The GCRD asserts the SBC has a problem with growing bureaucracy. Just saying so, however, does not make it so. What is the evidence for the assertion? Can anyone provide numbers that demonstrate inappropriate growth in Southern Baptist agency staffing?
And if it turns out there has been significant growth in staffing, how does a person tell the difference between bureaucratic enlargement and growth necessitated by ministry advancement? Is all growth in staffing by definition an enlargement of bureaucracy?
As long as we are at it, let’s also talk about church staffs. When would the growth of a church's staff count as bureaucratic enlargement? Are the issues of misplaced mission priorities illustrated at least as well by how churches spend money on themselves? What does a church that keeps 98% of its dollars at home have to say to a state denominational office that keeps 55%?
Which is the bigger problem for the enlargement of Christ’s Kingdom: the percentage of dollars kept by the local church and not sent on to mission causes, or the percentage kept by a state denominational office for state missions?
Among the leaders at the local church level who are calling for the denomination to make better use of the people's offerings, do we have examples of pastors with misplaced priorities? Are large building and salary budgets a good mission use of money given by the congregation?
GCRD leaders have complained that critics have zeroed in on their Point #9 (which criticizes the growth of denominational bureaucracy and calls for reorganization at all levels to “streamline”), but other than #9, which elements of the GCRD would anyone actually disagree with? Is it irrelevant that the GCRD's most practical call for specific change is focused on denominational structures, not the local church?
If the GCRD really is directed at the churches, not the denomination, what exactly is the challenge it poses to the churches? In what way do they need to change?
Is there any point in the GCRD that a church member would say does not already characterize their church?
If we believe these points already describe our church, how does affirming them ignite a “Great Commission Resurgence” (GCR)? Did the “Conservative Resurgence” happen because everyone in the SBC affirmed a high view of Scripture? Did the Protestant Reformation happen because Martin Luther posted 95 Points of Agreement on the church door?
When a church readily affirms the elements of the GCRD but does not live them out in practice, what do you do next to spark a GCR?
We also were put off by the original tone of the GCRD as put out first by Dr. Danny Akin and then by Rev. Johnny Hunt. The language was sharply critical of denominational agencies without offering any documentation for the assertion about bureaucracy. We have addressed that above.
We were even more concerned, however, by the tone Rev. Hunt struck in his subsequent media interviews. It seemed to us that it was arrogant for him to lecture denominational leaders about speaking down to pastors and churches. He declared that “the church is king” and said that when churches speak to the denomination, they speak as kings to princes. The point is that denominational leaders should listen and cooperate, not presume to give directions.
That is all well and good. In Southern Baptist polity, churches are indeed king. But someone may need to point out to Rev. Hunt that the SBC therefore has more than 40,000 kings, not one, two, or twenty. It also ought to be noted that it is therefore the churches that are king, not the pastors. A pastor may not appreciate a denominational leader speaking down to him, and that's understandable. But does the fact that the church is king justify a pastor speaking down to a denominational leader?
Some of the SBC’s leaders have asserted that if a GCR is going to happen, it will require the partnership of all people at all levels of the denomination. How can a spirit of partnership prevail if a pastor speaks to convention leaders the way a king would speak to princes?
We also are curious about another polity issue. Southern Baptists say they are not connectional. That means no level of denominational organization has authority over any church or over other levels of organization. The churches directly control each of the levels of organization with which they choose to relate.
That being said, on what basis would a national SBC task force presume even to discuss -- much less make recommendations about -- Southern Baptist reorganization at state and local levels? If the churches are king, would not they take up those discussions themselves in the appropriate venues? Is it not a little ironic that a local church leader who diminishes the role of national agencies would then call for a national task force to tell state and local leaders how to reorganize their affairs?
I doubt any of the big shots who run the big churches and big agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention have any interest in what nobodies have to say. But it seems to us nobodies that a group of people who claim they want to spark renewed passion for the Great Commission are going about it more like a bunch of religious bureaucrats than a band of passionate followers of Jesus Christ.
I have been reading about the Southern Baptists’ Great Commission Resurgence Declaration (GCRD) in Baptist Press and on the blogs. While I agree wholeheartedly about the need for Southern Baptists to rediscover a passion for Christ’s mission in the world, there were some things about the GCRD conversation that struck me as being a little off.
So some friends and I have been talking and we have come up with a few questions that we would like to have answers to, if we were going to be delegates to the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting in Louisville, Kentucky (which we are not).
The GCRD asserts the SBC has a problem with growing bureaucracy. Just saying so, however, does not make it so. What is the evidence for the assertion? Can anyone provide numbers that demonstrate inappropriate growth in Southern Baptist agency staffing?
And if it turns out there has been significant growth in staffing, how does a person tell the difference between bureaucratic enlargement and growth necessitated by ministry advancement? Is all growth in staffing by definition an enlargement of bureaucracy?
As long as we are at it, let’s also talk about church staffs. When would the growth of a church's staff count as bureaucratic enlargement? Are the issues of misplaced mission priorities illustrated at least as well by how churches spend money on themselves? What does a church that keeps 98% of its dollars at home have to say to a state denominational office that keeps 55%?
Which is the bigger problem for the enlargement of Christ’s Kingdom: the percentage of dollars kept by the local church and not sent on to mission causes, or the percentage kept by a state denominational office for state missions?
Among the leaders at the local church level who are calling for the denomination to make better use of the people's offerings, do we have examples of pastors with misplaced priorities? Are large building and salary budgets a good mission use of money given by the congregation?
GCRD leaders have complained that critics have zeroed in on their Point #9 (which criticizes the growth of denominational bureaucracy and calls for reorganization at all levels to “streamline”), but other than #9, which elements of the GCRD would anyone actually disagree with? Is it irrelevant that the GCRD's most practical call for specific change is focused on denominational structures, not the local church?
If the GCRD really is directed at the churches, not the denomination, what exactly is the challenge it poses to the churches? In what way do they need to change?
Is there any point in the GCRD that a church member would say does not already characterize their church?
If we believe these points already describe our church, how does affirming them ignite a “Great Commission Resurgence” (GCR)? Did the “Conservative Resurgence” happen because everyone in the SBC affirmed a high view of Scripture? Did the Protestant Reformation happen because Martin Luther posted 95 Points of Agreement on the church door?
When a church readily affirms the elements of the GCRD but does not live them out in practice, what do you do next to spark a GCR?
We also were put off by the original tone of the GCRD as put out first by Dr. Danny Akin and then by Rev. Johnny Hunt. The language was sharply critical of denominational agencies without offering any documentation for the assertion about bureaucracy. We have addressed that above.
We were even more concerned, however, by the tone Rev. Hunt struck in his subsequent media interviews. It seemed to us that it was arrogant for him to lecture denominational leaders about speaking down to pastors and churches. He declared that “the church is king” and said that when churches speak to the denomination, they speak as kings to princes. The point is that denominational leaders should listen and cooperate, not presume to give directions.
That is all well and good. In Southern Baptist polity, churches are indeed king. But someone may need to point out to Rev. Hunt that the SBC therefore has more than 40,000 kings, not one, two, or twenty. It also ought to be noted that it is therefore the churches that are king, not the pastors. A pastor may not appreciate a denominational leader speaking down to him, and that's understandable. But does the fact that the church is king justify a pastor speaking down to a denominational leader?
Some of the SBC’s leaders have asserted that if a GCR is going to happen, it will require the partnership of all people at all levels of the denomination. How can a spirit of partnership prevail if a pastor speaks to convention leaders the way a king would speak to princes?
We also are curious about another polity issue. Southern Baptists say they are not connectional. That means no level of denominational organization has authority over any church or over other levels of organization. The churches directly control each of the levels of organization with which they choose to relate.
That being said, on what basis would a national SBC task force presume even to discuss -- much less make recommendations about -- Southern Baptist reorganization at state and local levels? If the churches are king, would not they take up those discussions themselves in the appropriate venues? Is it not a little ironic that a local church leader who diminishes the role of national agencies would then call for a national task force to tell state and local leaders how to reorganize their affairs?
I doubt any of the big shots who run the big churches and big agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention have any interest in what nobodies have to say. But it seems to us nobodies that a group of people who claim they want to spark renewed passion for the Great Commission are going about it more like a bunch of religious bureaucrats than a band of passionate followers of Jesus Christ.
Monday, August 4, 2008
A note from Richard Abanes
Richard Abanes was kind enough to leave a comment responding to my post on Ken Silva and the CRN. I felt it was substantive enough that it needed to be brought up to the top level of the blog:
Greetings,
I appreciate your thoughts and perspective. This Open Letter to Steve Camp article outlines my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva's ISP. It also covers various issues relating to the "Ken Silva vs. Richard Abanes" controversy, including:
1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed (1 Cor. 6 and Matt. 18),
2. the actual contents of my email to Silva's ISP,
3. observations about the current state of the church,
4. an indictment of today's so-called Online Discernment Ministries, and
5. documentation of Ken Silva’s violation of federal copyright/privacy laws, and other issues.
My open letter should answer most questions being asked in cyberspace about this issue. The article herein linked is my final official word on the issue -- although I continue to make short comments on blogs. I believe that those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.
Proverbs 18:13 reads: "He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame."
Proverbs 18:17 tells us: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."
Richard Abanes
Pop Culture Mix
And Reverend Ken Silva was kind enough to respond with a correction. I mistakenly said the Christian Research Network site was taken down when it was in fact the Apprising Ministries site.
Same difference. These guys have a network of blogs that cross-post material and then they comment on each other's posts to make it look like there's fire when actually it's only smoke. Lots of smoke. With a slightly sulfurous odor.
But, hey, that's only my opinion.
Greetings,
I appreciate your thoughts and perspective. This Open Letter to Steve Camp article outlines my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva's ISP. It also covers various issues relating to the "Ken Silva vs. Richard Abanes" controversy, including:
1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed (1 Cor. 6 and Matt. 18),
2. the actual contents of my email to Silva's ISP,
3. observations about the current state of the church,
4. an indictment of today's so-called Online Discernment Ministries, and
5. documentation of Ken Silva’s violation of federal copyright/privacy laws, and other issues.
My open letter should answer most questions being asked in cyberspace about this issue. The article herein linked is my final official word on the issue -- although I continue to make short comments on blogs. I believe that those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.
Proverbs 18:13 reads: "He who answers before listening—that is his folly and his shame."
Proverbs 18:17 tells us: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."
Richard Abanes
Pop Culture Mix
And Reverend Ken Silva was kind enough to respond with a correction. I mistakenly said the Christian Research Network site was taken down when it was in fact the Apprising Ministries site.
Same difference. These guys have a network of blogs that cross-post material and then they comment on each other's posts to make it look like there's fire when actually it's only smoke. Lots of smoke. With a slightly sulfurous odor.
But, hey, that's only my opinion.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Personal opinion about Ken Silva and the CRN
Everything that follows is merely personal opinion. No representation is made that the material below is anything more than opinion. I fully believe every word of it is true, but it’s nothing more than commentary that expert legalists will tell you is protected by the First Amendment. You’ll have to check out the links below and determine for yourself whether my opinion, that said legalists are the hypocritical spawn of Satan, matches the opinion you form for yourself.
I was excited to receive a Christian Newswire press release last week that said the stupid Christian Research Network Apprising Ministries site had been pulled down by its ISP because Christian author Richard Abanes had complained about the content of the site.
But my excitement was short-lived. It took me several days to get around to trying to visit the site and by that time it was back up. I would have gotten so much pleasure in getting an Internet Explorer message that the site could not be found.
Oh, well.
Christian Newswire is pretty much a joke. They’ll send out anything submitted by anyone who has a hundred bucks to spare. A few respectable folks use it, but most of the pap they send out is nonsense cooked up by people like “Pastor Ken Silva,” or in this case “Pastor Dustin Segers,” who apparently co-leads a Calvinist hotel church in Greensboro, NC. (http://sfofgso.org/)
In classic Christian Research Nutwork style, the Reverend Segers bases his case on a frightening prospect, in this case the specter of censorship.
Under the headline Blog Shut Down by 'Christian' Apologist's Threat, Segers writes: “How safe are our blogs? That question was raised again when on the evening of July 26, 2008, a popular religious blog was shut down by an Internet service provider. A complaint filed by Christian author and apologist, Richard Abanes, claiming that one article on the religious opinion site, Apprising.org, had slandered him, caused the web host, IPower, to send its publisher, Ken Silva, a 48-hour warning to remove the offending piece or be taken down. In that the piece was not believed to be slander at all, but rather religious and theological opinion, he refused to be forced into censoring his site by Richard Abanes. The site went down.”
No details. No explanation of what Silva’s offending words were? Nothing about Abanes’ complaint? Why the quotes around the word Christian? Are aspersions being cast on the authenticity of Abanes’ faith? And what threat?
Legalists like those at the Nutwork assume people will take them at their word. They are arrogantly estimate their own insight superior to everyone else’s. They treat the rest of us like simpletons who do not deserve explanation - and would not understand it if it was offered.
Segers goes on to say: “There are serious implications here for all bloggers, regardless of what sort of blog they publish. Anyone who has a complaint about your views can claim that you have engaged in slander and the ISP Terms of Service usually allow for the companies to remove your website if you don't take the material in question down. The First Amendment means nothing in these cases. ISP's cannot and will not explore the claims of slander and simply notify bloggers to remove whatever is causing the problem.”
ISPs cannot explore the claims? Will not explore the claims? Why not? Who says? What evidence is there to support those allegations? Perhaps what actually happened was the ISP looked at the page Mr. Abanes was complaining about and decided he was telling the truth. A court wouldn't have to look five minutes at the hogwash on the Nutwork to see that it all is "a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy inside a slander." I love that phrase.
The legalists are described perfectly by 1 Timothy 6:4b-5a: “Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don’t tell the truth.” (NLT)
The post linked above goes on to say legalists “‘don’t tell the truth’ -- that strikes to the heart of the legalists’ apostasy. ... They use half-truth, misrepresentation, innuendo, name-calling, fear of conspiracy, and guilt by association to mislead trusting souls and make them twice as fit for hell as they are. (Matthew 23:15)”
You couldn’t be more spot on about the legalists’ hypocrisy. But the blog's author is mistaken about one thing. Slander is verbally communicated; only when it's published is it libel. The Holy Reverend Ken Silva did not slander Mr. Abanes. If Ken Silva published something illegal on his site, he libeled Mr. Abanes.
For a blog post to be considered libel, it would have to be proven that the blogger made the false charge with malicious intent and knew full well the statement was false. Personal opinion is protected under the First Amendment.
It’s hilarious to see Ken Silva standing in First Amendment solidarity with pornographers like Larry Flynt and liberals like the New York Times, using the Constitution to cover their naked arrogance and their lust for control over others.
Ken Silva tries to make a name for himself by unfairly criticizing successful Christian leaders. Once in a while he throws in a criticism of a real heretic to make the rest of his nonsense more plausible. Perhaps more of the people he unfairly criticizes will now follow Mr. Abanes' righteous example and drive that shriveled spirit into the cyber-darkness where he belongs.
At least, that's my opinion.
If you have the stomach for it, you can read the Christian Research Nutwork posts that mention Mr. Abanes by clicking here. Mr. Abanes' blog is here.
I was excited to receive a Christian Newswire press release last week that said the stupid Christian Research Network Apprising Ministries site had been pulled down by its ISP because Christian author Richard Abanes had complained about the content of the site.
But my excitement was short-lived. It took me several days to get around to trying to visit the site and by that time it was back up. I would have gotten so much pleasure in getting an Internet Explorer message that the site could not be found.
Oh, well.
Christian Newswire is pretty much a joke. They’ll send out anything submitted by anyone who has a hundred bucks to spare. A few respectable folks use it, but most of the pap they send out is nonsense cooked up by people like “Pastor Ken Silva,” or in this case “Pastor Dustin Segers,” who apparently co-leads a Calvinist hotel church in Greensboro, NC. (http://sfofgso.org/)
In classic Christian Research Nutwork style, the Reverend Segers bases his case on a frightening prospect, in this case the specter of censorship.
Under the headline Blog Shut Down by 'Christian' Apologist's Threat, Segers writes: “How safe are our blogs? That question was raised again when on the evening of July 26, 2008, a popular religious blog was shut down by an Internet service provider. A complaint filed by Christian author and apologist, Richard Abanes, claiming that one article on the religious opinion site, Apprising.org, had slandered him, caused the web host, IPower, to send its publisher, Ken Silva, a 48-hour warning to remove the offending piece or be taken down. In that the piece was not believed to be slander at all, but rather religious and theological opinion, he refused to be forced into censoring his site by Richard Abanes. The site went down.”
No details. No explanation of what Silva’s offending words were? Nothing about Abanes’ complaint? Why the quotes around the word Christian? Are aspersions being cast on the authenticity of Abanes’ faith? And what threat?
Legalists like those at the Nutwork assume people will take them at their word. They are arrogantly estimate their own insight superior to everyone else’s. They treat the rest of us like simpletons who do not deserve explanation - and would not understand it if it was offered.
Segers goes on to say: “There are serious implications here for all bloggers, regardless of what sort of blog they publish. Anyone who has a complaint about your views can claim that you have engaged in slander and the ISP Terms of Service usually allow for the companies to remove your website if you don't take the material in question down. The First Amendment means nothing in these cases. ISP's cannot and will not explore the claims of slander and simply notify bloggers to remove whatever is causing the problem.”
ISPs cannot explore the claims? Will not explore the claims? Why not? Who says? What evidence is there to support those allegations? Perhaps what actually happened was the ISP looked at the page Mr. Abanes was complaining about and decided he was telling the truth. A court wouldn't have to look five minutes at the hogwash on the Nutwork to see that it all is "a falsehood wrapped in a fallacy inside a slander." I love that phrase.
The legalists are described perfectly by 1 Timothy 6:4b-5a: “Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions. These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don’t tell the truth.” (NLT)
The post linked above goes on to say legalists “‘don’t tell the truth’ -- that strikes to the heart of the legalists’ apostasy. ... They use half-truth, misrepresentation, innuendo, name-calling, fear of conspiracy, and guilt by association to mislead trusting souls and make them twice as fit for hell as they are. (Matthew 23:15)”
You couldn’t be more spot on about the legalists’ hypocrisy. But the blog's author is mistaken about one thing. Slander is verbally communicated; only when it's published is it libel. The Holy Reverend Ken Silva did not slander Mr. Abanes. If Ken Silva published something illegal on his site, he libeled Mr. Abanes.
For a blog post to be considered libel, it would have to be proven that the blogger made the false charge with malicious intent and knew full well the statement was false. Personal opinion is protected under the First Amendment.
It’s hilarious to see Ken Silva standing in First Amendment solidarity with pornographers like Larry Flynt and liberals like the New York Times, using the Constitution to cover their naked arrogance and their lust for control over others.
Ken Silva tries to make a name for himself by unfairly criticizing successful Christian leaders. Once in a while he throws in a criticism of a real heretic to make the rest of his nonsense more plausible. Perhaps more of the people he unfairly criticizes will now follow Mr. Abanes' righteous example and drive that shriveled spirit into the cyber-darkness where he belongs.
At least, that's my opinion.
If you have the stomach for it, you can read the Christian Research Nutwork posts that mention Mr. Abanes by clicking here. Mr. Abanes' blog is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)