In my honest opinion we are looking more and more like the fundamentalist baptists. Im afraid when we had the resurgence we adopted the ways of the legalistic, and have forgotten the Spirit of the Law we follow. I temporarily was in that camp during my spiritual growth, and recognize its pitfalls and ways.

SO Many not only will not see or acknowledge that we are dying, but still continue to ignore the causes of this disease. ONE of which i would like to submit for your consideration,

I made a motion at the Nashville Convention a few years back to see how the waters were on this issue, and the responses from the 7 SBC entities were very revealing, Some time in about 1992 shortly after the resurgence started , the SBC powers that be, determined that Single Adult issues and Married Issues were one in the same issues, AND MERGED THE TWO TOGETHER . THEIR NEEDS ARE NOT THE SAME FOLKS,,,,,and where we had one of the largest and effective singles ministries in any denomination, we now have NOTHING,

We in essence have practiced respect of persons and decided to “NOT CARE” about single adult in our membership, WELL that number in the ADULT general population is OVER 50% now, EXCEPTION: We might do some ministry to the never marrieds in college, but after that ministry is non existent for the most part in SBC Churches. around 25% plus are singles who are divorced , single parents or widows, This is the segment we ignore the most.

HINT: Barna says single parent children are taking notice of our actions and policies towards their parents when the get older.

I noticed your baptism stats, and have followed them for some time on my own, WHATS MISSING, *** Single ADULTS *** HOW CAN we honestly ignore 50 PERCENT of the adult population for some 20 Years now and expect GROWTH ,,,ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY OF THE ADULT POPULATION.

Just the math here is sooooo blatant and obvious, How can we have respect for less that 50 Percent of the population and disrespect for the other 51 Percent and sometimes even contempt for about 25 Percent of the whole complete adult population (Divorced and Single Parents)

In closing, this attitude i see in the SBC reminds me of the Pharisees who held the attitude that : Publicans , Tax Collectors, Harlots, Non Jews, Sadducees. Scribes, Sinners, Barbarians, ETC. ETC. ETC. and all of the “OTHER” lots of “GROUPS” as unworthy of their attention and “Looked Down” upon them. As it was written about them in the scriptures repeatedly.

~ they proclaimed to Jesus in effect ” we have no need of your instructions or help, “we know who our father is” ,,,

We as the SBC are following in their footsteps in so many ways and are truly the Blind leading the Blind.
How long can we continue and survive as a Denomination. ???

My apologies for the Length, My passion over runs me

Gene

I want to echo Mark Conard’s appreciation for your effort on these discussions! Kudos! also Kudo’s on the leaders in denial post. I’d comment there, but the string is already long enough!

Your hard work is helping me understand the proposals much better and for that I am very appreciative!

Blessings! Keep up the good work!

Wesley H.

Your brother in the Lord,
Mark Conard

What can we do as a denom? I think we will get what we reward and what we reward is what is important to the SBC. Continue to reward churches and pastors simply based on giving to CP, you get some pastors and leaders bending over backwards to give more to the CP. That is not bad but it is not priority either.

If you want churches to engage and take on UPG’s then that needs to be accentuated. Both giving and going are important. But focusing on only one, giving, keeps perpetuating the idea that what is really important is to give and let the IMB do missions on our behalf

I know Dr R and know that is not his view, He has led the way for churches to engage the work. Thanks Dr R. But his view is not the predominant view in SBC life.

Another “What Can the COnvention do?” Do not place the IMB report on Tuesday or Wednesday night at 9:00 PM. Everyone is dead tired and gone. Make it front and center !

Bob Cleveland and others: There is no question that the foundational issue is obedience on the part of authentic Christians in spiritual vital churches. We are off base in two regards: Jesus commanded us to “make disciples” but we are seeking to “win the lost” and not doing a very good job of it. He also told us to proclaim “the gospel of the kingdom” but we proclaim the gospel of salvation. Result: perhaps saved but not submitted to the Lordship of Christ in which He reigns in one’s life.

However, we can’t wait until we get that right and excuse misplaced priorities and an inefficient structures.

Raise the questions! What is it that the churches want from the denomination?

Well done!

I certainly can’t speak for all the churches, but above all, I believe that we need a convention-wide structure that does not inhibit the missional activity of the local church, but that encourages it and enables it. I have heard some folks ask the following question: “Why are [in-general] Southern Baptists small-government when it comes to politics, but big-government when it comes to the SBC?”

Its a great question! The premise behind the small government mindset is that centralized control inhibits personal freedom. Could we say that centralized institutional ministries inhibit local church autonomy?

Now, as SBC churches, we have agreed to cooperate in “one sacred effort”. This is great! Because though we affirm that churches should be self-governing, we also affirm the unity of the body of Christ. Even so, we cannot only cooperate in Nashville, Richmond, Atlanta, etc, but amongst ourselves. The GCR must go beyond the convention level, beyond the state convention level, to the local association and ultimately to the local church level–and all the while encouraging cooperation!

So, as we re-center our conventional structure, and rightly so, the question we should have of the GCR report is whether or not the local church is being enabled to serve or being restricted to serve? We must laud the language of the report that affirms the primacy of the local church. Still, we must also consider whether, unintentionally, the various components don’t contradict such affirmations.

Do I have any answers? No, I’m only one person. But I want a convention that enables!