The question is ... does anybody really care? Many of the most influential churches in America don't seem to operate denominationally. Perhaps that's a subject for another posting. In any case, there's a new SBC leader.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately - in the context of another denomination but equally applicable.
The greatest moments in the history of the church over the centuries almost never have come from official leadership, but from individuals and groups that God works through, changing points of view from the grassroots up.
Denominational leaders are important, but their effectiveness is usually a matter of spotting the next important movement and getting the organization on board as much as possible. (Usually kicking and screaming as they go!)
Blessings!
Rob
Definitely. I really think that if you have a fruitful ministry going on in your local church, you're taking on new challenges, and reaching people for Christ ... you're going to look at the denominational stuff as a major distraction. Basically, a tiny bit of return for a lot of effort.There seems to be a real disconnect between the leadership of denominations and the real "front lines" work. Almost like the administrators are running all the action and calling the shots instead of the apostles, church planters, etc. I'm not an expert in church leadership, though. Just an observation.
For all if it's downfalls - there is still no better mission sending agency out there than the Southern Baptist Mission Board. The SBC was founded for missions - not for the local scene.
From its birth in 1845 the SBC has sought to have its primary influence overseas, doing missions. And, it has done remarkably well at that.
Mark MItchell
The analysis might be a little hasty. Intown in Atlanta is PCA. So is Tim Keller's church in Manhattan. The SBC also has a couple of well known churches too. For example, Erwin McManus is in the SBC.
I guess it depends on what you mean by influential. I suspect that if you mean size, there are some Baptist churches that will certainly rival the size of non-denominational megachurches. Also, denominations sometimes bill themselves as non-denominational. Take, for instance, the Calvary Chapels. They have a confessional statement, an "archbishop" in Chuck Smith, brand identity in name and style, disciplinary structures - the whole "shootin' match".
Also, the idea of denominations being a hindrance to ministry may also be a hasty analysis. I've talked to a lot of non-denoms who, in the midst of disciplinary issues, would LOVE to be in a godly denomination.
I fully agree that MANY, even most folk in denominational leadership (accorss the denominational spectrum) have the right heart and intentions and I feel that the ones I've personally known are doing great jobs.
But I just don't think that the renewal and revival that the church needs and which is coming will come out of denominational administrators or church administrations in general. Historically, that's just not been the case.
I didn't mean to paint too broadly with a brush, and only sharing from my perspective. Also, I didn't mean to suggest the influential churches were strictly non-demoninationally, only that they didn't appear to emphasize denominations. I'm at Saddleback, and we're definitely SBC, although we don't emphasize it.
I guess a little background would be helpful. I grew up in small-town SBC churches in the South. My dad was/is the pastor. I also served with the International Mission Board in Asia for 3+ years. And I've been on staff with Saddleback for 3+ years. So, I've pretty much seen both extremes of churches (small and large), and also had great experience with the IMB.
So here's my overall perspective. In which 3 places did I hear the most about the SBC convention, politics, & seminary politics? Definitely small-town church. The church attended the conventions and my dad was active in both the state and national level. We always heard about the latest controversies, and even now, at the State level, they're dealing with financial mismanagement. At the IMB level, it was centered around the politics of the seminarys, whether the board would ever stop the witch hunt for missionaries with "incorrect" doctrine, and how the funding was going from Lottie Moon every year. At Saddleback, what do I hear about the SBC? Um ... let me see ... ZILCH. I've never heard Rick talk about anything related to SBC except when he attended a conference because he was speaking, and he wanted to share about Saddleback's mission strategy.
Now, the other question, is ... Which location is running the most effective ministry? That would be Saddleback, no question about it. (Saddleback's not perfect, by any stretch. But if the IMB were as effective at reaching their target groups as Saddleback is at reaching Southern California residents, the multi-cultural choir would be singing and Jesus would be back. The distinction between how the IMB operated versus how Saddleback operates is quite an interesting study and a whole other discussion).
So, from my perspective, the place I've been with the most effective ministry operated with the least emphasis on denominational politics. As a staff member, I rarely hear about it and as a church member we almost never hear about it. (About the only time I hear about SBC politics now is from my dad. And it's almost always bad).
That's all I was saying. Just an observation. I love the dialog, and appreciate hearing the other perspectives. Sorry if I caused offense by painting with broad strokes. Blessings!
Joe, you may be hearing "zilch" from Rick now that Saddleback has become a self-sustained island. But, it was much different 2 plus decades ago when Southern Baptists help launch Saddleback with no idea it would become a mega-church. Also, Rick had no problem with Southern Baptists when he accepted numerous preaching opportunities at youth events while growing up with friends of denominational officials. Your post could give the impression that Rick Warren has somehow "disowned" Southern Baptists. From everything I've heard him say, including a sermon at Southwestern just a few years ago, Rick still considers himself a Southern Baptist in good standing. It is usually true (as Rick and I were taught in college and seminary) that as a church gets bigger approaching the mega-church status they may have less direct interaction with the denomination. The average congregation in Southern Baptist life is 65 or less (pretty much true of all evangelical congregations, probably). Most people are unaware that "Southern Baptist" actually has at least four separate applications -- none of which have any direct connection or authority over the other. Those applications are: the church level, association level, state convention level, and national level. A local church has the right to participate at all or at none of the other levels. Each church sets its own agenda and follows it's own leadership. So, the common idea of denomination does not apply neatly to Southern Baptists.
Your comment makes me want to ask a question: are all the denominations going through the same kind of decay as our SBC? What's the future of denom's? Are new ones forming, doing the same tasks, but not calling themselves denominations?
Ray, I think the "meltdown" you see in the SBC is no different than you see in American Christianity in general. My reading leads me to believe that "nobody" is moving in to fill the gap left by Western Christianity. The population continues to surpass the growth of the church in the West (unlike other major nations which are experiencing revival).
Fortunately, there are always "remnant churches" in every area even when there is a decline in Christianity in general.
My suspicion is that America and the American church are in for some really tough times in spite of the mushy optimism of some TV preachers.
For true believers we are about to live out that great literary line, "It was the best of times and the worst of times."
As far as I know, Rick definitely considers himself a Southern Baptist in good standing. He certainly isn't disowning the Southern Baptists, and I don't mean to suggest that.
I understand many see the phenomenon as ... As a mega-church gets bigger it needs/uses denominational resources less and less.
However, I would argue that ...
1) Saddleback has been different in how it relates to the SBC denomination both today, as a mega-church and also in its formative years.2) That difference has contributed to its success.
Look at it from the change/maintainer perspective. Seminaries and denominations are by definition going to tend to maintainers of the "status quo" versus agents of change. When new methods arise, they're going to conflict with established methods, and therefore the purveyors of established methods. Only 20 or 30 years after the validity of some new method has been established will it then be slowly disseminated into the establishment (as the earlier writer said, usually by kicking-and-screaming).
Just as one example, there was an attempt (not sure of the year) to exclude all churches from the California Baptist Association that didn't have the word "Baptist" in the church name. It was apparently targeted at Saddleback, and ultimately failed due to some behind-the-scenes arm twisting (according to the version of the story I heard).
In my time at the International Mission Board, I can tell you (at least in my region) they're not open to new methods of evangelism/discipleship. They believe the have the "correct" methods, and (if you want to be a good IMB'r) you better be using them or you're going to get in trouble with your leaders.
Nevermind that these "correct" methods change every couple of years. If you're going to do something new and innovative, you either need to do it on the side (and not talk about it too much to your supervisors) or simply not work with the I.M.B. (I know the SBC does not have as much control over local churches as the IMB over its personnel, but I'm just making the point, that if you do new things, you're going to have opposition.)
So basically, Rick's been an innovator as far back as I can tell. Innovation gets you into trouble with the establishment. Saddleback's been an innovative church as far back as I can tell. They've had outside help, but also points of conflict with the establishment. Their innovation has contributed to their success.
It's a misreading to explain away Saddleback's methods as applying to only mega-churches and therefore not applicable to the average SBC church.
I'm not quite ready to give up on denominations yet, although I imagine they'll need to operate differently in the future.
In my denom (UMC), where I've been for 10 years (having come from a conservative holiness Pentecostal tradition), I've seen some positive developments, in terms of missional focus, focusing on "making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world" (with the last 6 words having just been added 2 months at General Conference).
It's interesting, too, that while churches like Ginghamsburg and especially Granger have downplayed their connection to the denom, more recently Church of the Resurrection has done well even as a church which is unabashedly United Methodist. Adam Hamilton, COR's founding/lead pastor will have a big impact on the denom, I believe (probably due, in part, to his embracing of the denom).
For example, Adam has just written about his 6-7 plan to impact the entire church in the USA. I'm excited about that. Also, up to 50 pastors from my conference are going to COR's Leadership Institute in October, at the invitation of our DSes. I am especially excited about that. Watch my blog (williswired.com) for my detailed reflection of the event.
Anyway, all that to say that I'm hopeful for my denomination, and that I hope to play a role in its revitalization.
My Blog: williswired.com
Randy,
I too have both hope and optimism for the denomination, but (as in the cases you mentioned) I think that it will be churches and individuals in the denom that innovate (like Wesley did) and bring us all along with them.
I've been contemplating your post yesterday. For all my adult life I've served primarily within the SBC (except for a couple of years as an AG while in the Navy). I appreciate your optimism and pray that you are correct in the trends toward healthier denominations. However, I don't share that optimism. When you consider that American Christianity has remained flat at best while the population has exploded, the problem seems much more dire and acute than one might suspect at a quick glance.
Missiologists have estimated that the decadal growth rate in the Book of Acts was something like 800 %. I'm not sure how to verify that number, but the growth was "explosive" to say the least. It will take that kind of "explosive" change in denominations across the board to affect significant change in the moral climate of America. I don't see that kind of change happening in even the most aggressive denominations in America.
Sadly, I seem to be coming to the conclusion that denominationalism is, and has always been, more of a hindrance than a help in the Kingdom of God. I'm not sure where that leaves me. Joe's observation at the start of this post was: "most influential churches in America don't seem to operate denominationally." I'd like to see us explore that in another post, perhaps.
Beloved, I think it is neccesary to understand our true mission and calling as leaders in Gods church. Anything, and I mean anything, that takes away from the Glory of God is a sin. It is a perversion of how the Creator intended it to be. When we stop weeping at the feet of Christ for the unchurched and dechurched in our communities and around the world, and instead become deeply involved in discussions and arguements about a denomination or convention, we lose site of the furious longing of Jesus for the lost and destitute. While we bicker and discuss the problems of this convention or that denomination, Jesus is finding someone else that will truly focus on Him and His purpose. As for me, i am no better, i get caught up in all this as well. From this point forward however; i will not allow the rocks to cry out instead of me! My full focus is on the purpose and will of Christ Jesus.