One resolution recently passed at the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis which caused a firestorm of words both positive and negative. The final resolution as passed is printed below. What are your thoughts on this resolution? Do you agree with the resolution? If not, what do you not agree with? How might churches go about fulfilling the intention of the resolution? Are there inherent dangers in carrying out this resolution on a local church level? What climate is present in the church today that prepared the soil of the SBC to approve this resolution? Resolutions similar to this one in the past have been soundly defeated. However, this one was overwhelmingly approved. Do you feel that this resolution accurately reflects the state of many Christians and churches? I would love to hear your thoughts on these issues.
ON REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND CHURCH MEMBER RESTORATION
June 2008
WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and
WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and
WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and
WHEREAS, The 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).
Indianapolis, IN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This resolution may have a good intention, but I feel, as you say, “the devil is in the details”.
I remember my Dad telling me of a man who is presently attending Hebron but in his youth was a member of another church in Livingston Parish. He attended church regularly until he started college. I am unclear as to whether he quit going to church altogether during his college years or whether he went to other churches or another church, but he did not continue to go to the church where he was a member.
It was during this time that his church decided to do just as this resolution recommends. The church did not or could not contact him and so removed him from the roll.
When he did return to the church after college, he was informed he was no longer a member. He then could not even join another church by letter. He was “unelected” so to speak.
It is true we are not doing the ministry we should as a church body. We fail to disciple new members and keep in touch with members who are not attending regularly. There may even be room for some good old church discipline if all else fails.
I feel certain, however, that of the five resolved statements, only the fourth, which has the phrase “reduction in the number of members”, will be implemented by churches wanting to follow the resolution.
The Southern Baptist Convention was once the fastest growing and largest protestant denomination in America. It was that because it was mission minded, zealously evangelistic, and did not neglect the spiritual growth of its people. Practicing church discipline was not on the radar scope.
The religious elite of Jesus’ day were “above” being His followers. Only prostitutes, publicans, and sinners did that. Nothing unclean could be considered on their roll either. I am afraid the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is not content any longer with being the bride of Christ. It wants to be his dad.
This resolution may have a good intention, but I feel, as you say, “the devil is in the details”.
I remember my Dad telling me of a man who is presently attending Hebron but in his youth was a member of another church in Livingston Parish. He attended church regularly until he started college. I am unclear as to whether he quit going to church altogether during his college years or whether he went to other churches or another church, but he did not continue to go to the church where he was a member.
It was during this time that his church decided to do just as this resolution recommends. The church did not or could not contact him and so removed him from the roll.
When he did return to the church after college, he was informed he was no longer a member. He then could not even join another church by letter. He was “unelected” so to speak.
It is true we are not doing the ministry we should as a church body. We fail to disciple new members and keep in touch with members who are not attending regularly. There may even be room for some good old church discipline if all else fails.
I feel certain, however, that of the five resolved statements, only the fourth, which has the phrase “reduction in the number of members”, will be implemented by churches wanting to follow the resolution.
The Southern Baptist Convention was once the fastest growing and largest protestant denomination in America. It was that because it was mission minded, zealously evangelistic, and did not neglect the spiritual growth of its people. Practicing church discipline was not on the radar scope.
The religious elite of Jesus’ day were “above” being His followers. Only prostitutes, publicans, and sinners did that. Nothing unclean could be considered on their roll either. I am afraid the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is not content any longer with being the bride of Christ. It wants to be his dad.
My thoughts of the resolution:
This issue of “who we are” as a church is a huge issue of late. I think Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message is correct. These issues are here because of the large number among us who profess to be the church, have undergone baptism and partake of the Lords Supper, but in their heart are not children of God. Some of these may even sincerely think they are in, but are mistaken. You’ve talked much about postmodernism – all roads lead to heaven. Well, the church is full of those with this belief.
I’ve heard it said that we are too busy trying to make a sell, get the profession or baptism and not focusing on God. How are we to determine a man’s heart? By their works? Less her confessions of faith in self, Oprah does wonderful things in this world. Could we tell that she is not one of us without that confession? She is one example of those among us. I agree that the fact that only 6,148,868 of 16,266,920 professed members attend regularly is a clear indication of complacency and delusion, but how can we determine who is a child of God? We have all had times in our life where we were complacent and not in line with God. If caught in that moment when we are not working or living as a child of Christ, should we be excommunicated / expunged from the roles? I think not.
Our job is to “Glorify” our father and we’ve been commissioned by him to go tell. The role book is in God’s hands. I do not think the Pharisees, Crusaders, and Fundamentalists of the past did anything in the way of “Glorifying God”. I for one do not want to be included among their ranks.
1 - I do not agree with this resolution as read.
2 – The danger is focus on a role book. There is a huge danger in becoming the most despicable to our Lord. – Pharisees / Fundamentalists
3 – I do agree that our church roles are ridiculous, but it is not as much a reflection on those among us, but on us. Effort should be taken to insure they are as accurate as possible. If we have dead people on the role, they should be removed. If we know of those that have attended other churches we should try to contact them and remove them from our role if it is their wish. If we find some that are living in sin, we should contact them and help them back on the right path. We need more focus on discipleship.
4 – The Climate is 2-fold. A) Complacency, B) Focus on Election while neglecting God’s Grace
5 - This resolution does point to a serious problem, but does not identify the source of the problem. The problem is with us, not those among us. The chosen in him are not fulfilling their commission to go.
Rambling Thoughts on . . .
Resolution 6. On Regenerate Church Membership and Church Member Restoration
This resolution was passed at the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis.
The thoughts shared in this article (along with all of my thoughts on this blog) are mine alone and may not represent the views of the members of my congregation. This is the beauty of being Baptists. We can think and pray through issues and we may come up with different perspective and responses. The following response represents some of rambling thoughts on the resolution in no particular order.
Several thoughts come to my mind in reference to the Scriptures used to support the practice of church discipline. It seems that the context of Matthew 18:15-35 and Galatians 6:1 has more to do with how the individual believer should respond to various situations with other believers. For example, if someone has offended or wronged us, we have the responsibility to broach the subject with the person in an attempt to rectify the problem. Only after repeated attempts at reconciliation does “the church” become involved. The question remains, is the person who I am seeking to be reconciled with a regenerate person? According to the biblical texts, the answer is yes. But the way the resolution reads, especially in the context of the statements regarding regenerate church membership, the answer seems to be no. Logically, this resolution could give me an easy and spiritually-sounding justification to write the person off that I am having a problem with. I can simply chock up my futile attempts to reconcile by blaming the other person; thus, casting them off as “unregenerate.” But what if I am the obstacle to reconciliation? Does that place me in the unregenerate corner? The emphasis in the resolution seems to imply that the person who is exercising the discipline is standing in the position of infallibility while assuming that the “other” person is always in a state of some gross public sin. But in the Matthew passage, church discipline does not seem to be what Jesus had in mind; rather, the emphasis is upon Christians dealing honestly and sincerely with conflicts that may arise between believers.
In the Galatians passage mature believers have the responsibility to assist fellow Christians who are “overtaken in any trespass.” The emphasis in this passage is on demonstrating Christian love and restoration, not church discipline. Even though living in sinful defeat should never be the Christian norm, the reality is, Christians do fall into sin. This passage strongly warns against having any spirit of contempt or pride toward those who have fallen, “lest you also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). To my fellow Christians who feel that they are above succumbing to sin, I say “if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Gal. 6:3). So what does this passage have to do with maintaining a regenerate church membership roll? People with the wrong motives could use this resolution to dictate what a regenerate church member looks and acts like in order to exclude the “less-then-perfect” among us.
At the heart of this resolution is a two-fold problem. First, I think among some Southern Baptists today there is a failure to appreciate the work of God’s grace in the lives of His people. People who understand grace recognize that legalistic methods will never produce what the Spirit desires. Even with the right motives, implementing the steps of what this resolution spells out on a local church level will be difficult and most likely painful. Second, I think this resolution is an attempt by some in the fundamentalist/reformed camp of the SBC who would like to see Southern Baptists reign in what they see as a “loose orthodoxy” that has watered down the integrity of the Lord’s church. Granted, we as Southern Baptists have done a shoddy job of teaching doctrine, but the answer is not to go to the other extreme by applying a standard of rigid orthodoxy for church membership that even the Bible does not prescribe. Obviously, everyone wants the church roll to reflect the Lamb’s roll, but by what standard do you determine who’s in and who’s out? We are still saved by grace through faith; furthermore, Christians are works in progress. This resolution seems to be another step toward a rigid creedalism – something Southern Baptists have been steadily marching towards in recent years. I wouldn’t be surprised if this resolution in some form or fashion found its way into a future revision of The Baptist Faith and Message. The resolution seems to be more focused on “discipline” and “accountability” rather than on reconciliation and love.
Some Concluding Thoughts
1. As Southern Baptists we should probably spend less time emphasizing our numbers and statistics. Unfortunately, a competitive environment exists (which has been created and promoted by our very own denomination) among the churches. In this environment, denominational acclaim and fame is based on the number of people dunked regardless of their spiritual state. Maybe we should start keeping statistics on how many people are growing in Christ-likeness, or how many people have been prayed over, or how God’s grace has been at work in the life of the church. I know that there is value in keeping some form of church records. However, many of the statistics reported on annual church letters borders on spiritualized guessing, reporting half-truths, and hoped-for attendance statistics.
2. As churches, we do need to do a better job of explaining the nature of salvation. It’s not just about emotionally persuading people to join the church. Our task is to help them understand what it means to be a full-fledged follower of Jesus.
3. Following up with Christians who have fallen by the wayside is definitely something that is lacking in most churches. The problem though is twofold: First, some people in the church will write you off if you fall into sin. The saying that “Christians are the only army that shoots its wounded,” is well-established. No doubt, this is why the Lord said that only “spiritual” persons should try to restore a fallen brother or sister. Second, very few in the church sees it as their responsibility to restore a fallen brother or sister. Of course most members feel that this is the pastor’s job. Obviously, there’s no way the average pastor of the average church could restore all the fallen ones, especially since we are being told that 2/3 of Southern Baptists fall into that category! Ideally, every church member should belong to a small group within the body of believers. Active or not, everyone should be on someone’s ministry list (this is not a Sunday School roll). Small groups that are intentional about keeping in touch with people discover a world of ministry opportunities. Consequently, these are the groups in the church that are healthy and see less people leaving out the back door.
4. We need to be cautious about discarding people from our church rolls. Obviously, you should drop those who have entered their heavenly home. There may be some value in keeping the deceased on the church roll. After all, in Louisiana the dearly departed sometimes can be counted on in a tight vote. Other people on our church roles are actively attending other churches. People in this category should be encouraged to officially unite at some level with the fellowship that they are attending and supporting. If there is no mechanism for joining the church that they are active in, the person could at the minimum verbally tell their home church that they are attending elsewhere. Other people are simply not attending anywhere regularly. They should receive encouragement by the church but not removed from the roll. Some of these people may be going through a divorce, have lost jobs, are “overtaken” in a sin, or just apathetic or lazy. Regardless, they probably really need the church body to be involved in their life and if they will let us, we should. Undoubtedly, some of these people will be restored to some kind of meaningful level of involvement with the church at some point in the future. However, if we tell them they are being removed from the role, we in effect are telling them, “don’t ever bother coming back,” not a very encouraging message but one I’m sure that they will remember long afterward.
5. As far as accurate reporting of statistics, nothing precludes an autonomous church from having various levels of membership on a church role. The designations “Resident” and “Non-resident” have lost their helpfulness in today’s church and should probably be discarded from our vocabulary. How about simply reporting to the denomination as active members the people who are truly active. Of course, what determines an active member is up for interpretation and would have to be well-thought out. We would probably want a fairly generous view of what constitutes an active member. Take my mother for example who belongs to a large Baptist church in central Florida. She is widowed, retired, in good health, and serves the Lord in a wonderful variety of ways. Because she’s often traveling and/or helping family members or others, she might not be at her church for long stretches of time.
People who are on our church roll but who have no affiliation with the church could simply be placed on an inactive role. So from my perspective, to simplify matters you have either “active” or “inactive” members. In this way, you are reporting figures that are more in line with reality rather than fantasy and no one is being removed from the roll.
Post a Comment