Being a 24 year old Southern Baptist I can see why many people in my generation don't really care that much about our denomination. Most of it comes from a sense that many of the battles that the SBC are fighting are pretty much over and won (the fight against those darn liberals), and the appearance of caring more for the "party line" than the poor and beaten down in this world who need Jesus.

I am not saying that this is actually what is in the minds of the leadership of the SBC, but it is what younger people perceive to be the case. And unfortunately perception is reality.

Ed,
In 2000 at the Orlando convention when Merritt was elected Prez. he stated he wanted to increase the number of younger pastors involved in the "process." I sent a letter with 20 - 30 names of SBC pastors and staff members with strong conservative beliefs that I asked to be considered for service. As of today none of those guys have ever been asked to serve in any capacity to my knowlwedge. The research doesn't surprise me at all.

I think that this is a HUGE discussion as I personally have not attended 2 out of the past 4 years (one of which i did attend because it was in my home state).

I feel that the meeting (and the Pastor's conference) are low on application and heavy on information. I find it hard to justify utilizing the funds of the church to go to a meeting in which I personally bring little back. I find it to be a better investment, good stewardship, to use that same money to attend a conference (or conferences) that challenge me, keep me sharp and help me to better accomplish the ministry of the local church.

I do, however, stand firmly with the SBC - I believe in what we do, I know that we are "better together", I'm down with the mission - I just don't feel that I have to attend a meeting halfway across the country to do so. I wonder if the way that we convene might dramatically change in the future?

I am much older than Micah but share his sentiments concerning the perceived irrelevance of denominational life, which is especially distressing since I am “in�? denominational life.

It seems that many in SBC leadership throughout the different entities recognize the “cause for serious concern�? but are either unwilling (because of fear or loss of control) or unable (because of bureaucracy) to do operate differently. This may sound harsh but I have heard this same tune for at least 10 years now and nothing is really different. In fact according to the research it has only gotten worse, to the point that for many we have moved too far down the road to turn back. As Rainer states, young leaders want to see tangible reasons for engaging in denominational efforts, but the sad reality is that there are few that are compelling.

Akin’s comments that “we need to give them . . . reason why they should commit themselves to what we are doing�? illustrates part of the problem. Maybe he didn’t mean for it to take the tone of “we�? verses “them.�? But maybe “we�? need to join what “they�? are doing instead of the other way around.

Ed, thank you for all your work.

Mr. Rainer writes that "We really can do more together than we can do apart. How I pray younger generations can get that." but I get the feeling that that's not the issue. I think many in that younger category are indeed firmly convinced that we can do more together than apart. I think the issue is rather, in Mr. Rainer's own words, that "they want to see tangible reasons for engaging in the denomination's effort."

I recognize that the actions of various state conventions don't necessarily speak to the mindset of the convention as a whole, but...

I think if you were TRYING to drive younger leaders away from the SBC, you'd have trouble coming up with a better game plan that what's happened over the last few years.

The problem with moving either rightward or leftward that the move is never done. To feel continued "momentum" and relevancy, the rightward or leftward tack must be maintained, and right now, in the SBC, it seems like that rightward tack has taken on a self-destructive feel...

Just my 2¢...

I don't know if I still qualify as a young leader in the SBC (32). But, assuming a wide and gracious definition for what constitutes a "young leader", I feel that I might be able to offer some perspective.

I have been a Nehemiah church planter, SBC seminary grad, and am a current SBC seminary student. I pastored 3 churches, have planted two churches, all of which are very denominationally loyal SBC churches.

That being said, for me (I dare not speak for others), the issue is that our denomination seems to be living with its head in the sand. Not only are they not on the front lines, but they don't desire to be on the front lines of lostness in our nation and world. I grew up and went through college fighting for every ounce of faith in Christ that I claimed. The world that I (and most other young leaders) grew up in, and continue to live and minister to, is antagonistic to the Gospel. It is a different world that we must minister to different ways. Frankly, I sincerely believe that this is one reason why young leaders can't keep a pastorate. We go to churches that are living in blissful ignorance about the lostness in their own communities and in an effort to make them effective, introduce changes (too quickly) that send them into shock.

So... many of us are simply deciding to plant our own, and some choose affiliation, and some do not.

Convention attendance trends may or may not intersect with Kingdom work trends. I've done 17 years of work as a pastor now, brought missions as lifestyle into each church I've served, taught SBC doctrine and sent out other pastors and laypeople. But I've never been to an SBC convention and don't want to go.

Yeah, the silliness and infighting drive me crazy, but that's not why I don't attend conventions. It's because they waste my time and money.

I'm not sure if I qualify for the "young leader" aspect (my church youth think I'm old at 29 and I'm certainly no real leader of anything other than my family), but I will give my thoughts on the issues at hand.

I went to my first convention in SA this past year. It was a two-edged sword. God used the conferences to further reveal His plan to my wife and I, as a result we are leaving all and following Him to seminary this fall. But I also witnessed back-biting, silly resolution recommendations and in general the type of attitudes that has caused my generation to drift away.

I enjoyed my time at the convention, but I can understand why many don't go and why they are hesitant to enlist in denominational issues. They see the negatives as too high. Much on the same level as the Barna statistics show in the new book unChristian, I think to an even larger extent SBC'ers are viewed negatively by the younger generation. It's hard to engage someone with the Gospel when you have to spend the first hour of a conversation explaining that you don't match all their stereotypes (rightly or wrongly assumed) about the SBC.

If young leaders can simply plant churches and make their communities better, while joining up with other like-minded churches for the things that need a bigger presence, that's probably what they will do. It appears to be less stress and more reward. I don't know if that's the right way to do it or not (probably more of a case by case issue), but as of now it's a lot more appealing than trying to work where you're attacked by your own.

Lots of good input here.

I should probably put my cards on the table and say that I believe the SBC is a valuable tool for the Kingdom.

I think of the IMB and all the global mission work-- we can only do that because we do it togther.

The SBC can be even more effective if we get back to our focus: cooperating for the gospel.

The fact is that it will take some hard choices to make the needed changes... but more and more people see that and are starting to be speak up.

I thought I'd weigh in here as a female who was educated in an SBC seminary and a self-described "recovering" Southern Baptist because so far neither of those voices have been represented. I left the denomination first, because there seems to be a very determined clinging to irrelevance, and second, because as as woman I'm not permitted to act on what I feel I'm called to do. I have to axe to grind here - there are plenty of places where I can exercise my gifts, so I just choose to go there.

In my opinion, there are a few reasons for the decline of the younger leadership. I feel like the embracing of diversity in leadership has not echoed that of other denomination or even the business world. Again - choosing to interpret scripture in such a way that excludes women from pastoral roles is entirely within your rights, but you have to acknowledge its contribution to your atrition. But even within the all-male leadership, it is predominantly white male leadership and that does not accurately depict your constituency, the same way that having all of your leadership come from the same generation does not.

Second, you are set up with a loose confederacy model. You are only accomplishing more "together" when it's convenient. That's bound to have an effect over the long haul. I'm currently serving in a mainline church and there is a lot of support without much interference and that seems like a better system. I remember being in seminary and having a Lifeway official be very proud of a new crisis hotline for pastors, but when I asked what was being done to prevent crisis for pastors, there was no answer.

Third, there is a significant emphasis put on being right rather than being in dialogue in relationships. There is no (public) humble acknowledgement that you are people of our time, white, American men in the 21st century interpreting scripture in light of your cultural biases and through the lens of 20th century fundamentalism, and that with the Holy Spirit's help you are doing the best you can. It's merely "we are right and the rest of you are wrong." Not the best opener, I'd wager.

Again - I have no bone to pick and nothing to gain or lose from this conversation, just offering my thoughts as sort of an "exit interview." The SBC has done some great things internationally, and I hope they can recover from this time of decline and continue to bring relief to those who are suffering.

Ed,

I agree with you 100% that the SBC is and can continue to be a valuable tool for the kingdom. I also agree that the IMB is one of the best organizations at taking the Gospel to the nations (my wife and I are planning on going overseas with the IMB.)

My concern is that we haven't seen those same sorts of things in the US. Neither the cooperation, nor the focus on the Gospel appear to be as strong in the States as we see in our effort to reach overseas. Could it be that this is the reason that young people aren't coming in droves to cooperate with us? Like others have said it isn't that we don't want to cooperate, we just want to cooperate with those that are getting the job done. Sadly we are not in many ways.

Lets be honest and say first of all that the convention meeting is very boring to a younger leader. I mean they are going to conferences like Catalyst, C3, & Resergence. Can you even compare them to the SBC meeting?

Lets just be honest in saying that I think if you researched it you would find similar stats for young leaders who grew up in SBC church life are now pastoring churches that are not SBC. (Non-Denominational.)

I personally think that the reason most church planters and young leaders in general have left the SBC is simply because of the Name "Baptist". Lets just be honest and say that that name carries with it many negative connotations to a lost world. Almost all unchurched people in that age group know when they hear the name baptist is homosexual hating, male dominating, mickey mouse boycotting group of people. The reason most young people abandon that is because they do not want that stigma anywhere near them. If the SBC is to bridge the gap they are gonna have to approach young leaders with a fresh new vision of what they are about. Changing the name of the organization would be the first step.
I mean think about it how many young church planters and pastors do you know using the name "baptist" in the selection of the church name. Many young leaders love the IMB because of what it stands FOR, however many have reservations for the SBC because of what it has stood AGAINST. It's all about people coming know Christ (IMB) not political stands(SBC).

Ed, I do so appreciate your work, and the work of those seeking to move forward. But I think you can see within the comment stream that we have a lot of SBC baggage.

The younger leaders initiative you mentioned, because it raised hopes briefly but didn't deliver, may have done more harm than good.

Our theological distinctives are being received as jabs by those who believe differently instead of highways of conversation about God. We need to say to each other "you may not be my twin, but you can be my brother."

To echo Daniel's comments, the convention needs to look seriously at changing its name. Yeah right, I know, but if it was serious about its mission it would. I'm a 26 year old SBC planter in training and I would be MUCH more comfortable with the relationship if I didn't feel like I had to hide the association. And it's not due to anything other than the name. I know if I'm going to be serious about being missional to my generation, I can't use the terms "Baptist" or "Southern". How many new SBC plants have the word "Baptist" in the church name? We need to get a clue, but I fear it won't happen in time.

Ed, I'm 29 and pastor an established small/midsize SBC church in a small town. For my 2 cents worth...

One thing you said at San Antonio this past summer has continually stuck in my head. It was something like, "we will not reach North America of 2007 with a church model from the 1950's." To me this is one of the biggest problems for young leaders and the SBC.

I'm 29!!! I don't remember the 1950's!!! So when, as a pastor, I am expected to do church in a way that seems very ineffective, I struggle with it.

I love and believe in the SBC. We need all the young leaders we can get. And when we get young leaders we need to let them lead. We need to give young leaders the responsibility of leading and the authority to do so.

Thanks Ed for your work.

Blessings...

well you certainly know my story ed. but thats why guys like me are leaving their full time staff jobs and exploring new alternatives.

maybe the ship isn't sinking. but riding in circles isn't my idea of fun either.

good research.

do you have any research on actual congregations as opposed to the convention?

like what is going on with staff and lay leaders? that would be some insightful research that i'd be interested in.

I wonder if there is any connection between the rise of Calvinism’s influence among young pastors in the SBC, the rise of ridiculous anti-Calvinist rhetoric coming from SBC leadership and the constant decline of young SBC'ers involvement in the process?

I also wonder if there is a similar connection between the general missiology of younger SBC pastors and the critical rhetoric aimed at it from some SBC leaders at these meetings?

I know I don't care to show up just to be shot at, mocked or mischaracterized by the men on the platform. It's not constant of course...but...cheap shots are taken every year it seems.

Ed,
Is this downward trend consistent with federal election voting trends, and involvement by young people in other bohemeth organizations, i.e. political parties? It seems like young people are more interested in small, quaint gatherings such thus the re-emergence of the coffee shop, cafe, cigar/pipe bars. My anecdotal evidence would suggest that young people don't like gigantic gatherings to begin with. If you notice many of the large concert venues are struggling. Here in Nashville that's most evident. All the while, smaller more intimate settings are thriving. Microniche marketing has never been more effective. The SBC is anything but a microniche.

I should not even enter this discussion for certain reasons but as Ed knows I have never really been known to keep my mouth shut. I was SBC educated and trained - including a MDiv from SEBTS, a ThM in Systematic Theology & PhD in NT from SBTS. I was mentored by some of the SBCs most recognized leaders - men I still love and respect. I pastored 2 growing SBC churches and had multiple opportunities to continue to climb the SBC ladder when I decided to walk away from the SBC and plant a non-denom church in a post-Christian culture. I am frequently asked "why" I made that choice and space will not allow for my detailed explanation. Yet at the end of the day, the question that haunted me when I decided to go non-denom was simply "why would I choose to stay?"

I love the SBC but I honestly do not have the time and energy required to invest in it - especially when past investments have come back void. I have watched some of my best friends try and "cooperate" with local, state, and national agencies only to be thrown under the bus over nonessentials. I have experienced the retaliation of failing to "toe the party line" over extra-biblical matters. To be honest I finally just got frustrated and tired of the battle and decided it was not worth it.

I applaud those younger leaders who choose to stay and make an impact but I am afraid many more of us simply choose to focus our energy on a different more front line battle.

To those who choose to stay and engage, support guys like Ed who in my mind provide a sanity amidst the chaos.

For the sake of discussion let's say that 100% of us agree that this downward trend is a bad thing for the SBC> Let's further admit that we believe the SBC still has a great Kingdom Purpose of reaching the globe for Christ anywhere and everywhere. What keeps us from developing the solution?

If I am a 40-60 something SBC leader and I see this problem I do what humans naturally do. I ask myself, "Who can help fix this problem?" Here is where the first breakdown occurs. The people I think of are almost exclusively going to be people I went to seminary or college with and who I have known in the ministry for years. In othr words, I am going to look to people like me to reach people not like me.

Kyle #2, that's why your list was DOA.

Dr. Draper's push was authentic, inspired and welcome. Still, the numbers suggest there has to be a different way. There are some things that I believe could help. One is moving from an annual meeting "Convention" structure to what I will call a "Convergence" structure. I know the wording is a bit hokey but I am lobbying for a move away from our 1800's model of denominational polity. Here is what it might look like: First the meat, more training and less "inspiring". Unleash the Ed Stetzer's of the world to show us how rather than trying to get people from "should to would". Notice I did not say less business. We might even need more business. That's where the potatoes come in: Have a main "Convention Hall" where people can come and rub shoulders but have satellite gatherings all around the country who would also participate. Hey, this year we piped in President Bush, why not pipe in some more Baptists! Further, individual churches and their messengers could participate online. If we can register a messenger online we can surely count a vote online. These type of upgrades would allow us to set a more firm agenda for the meeting. Resolutions could actually be intelligently considered. Motions could be evaluated in a more detailed way. Even entity reports could have more opportunity to respond to concerns or questions.

Am I wrong in thinking a new way of doing business might help us to be more effective at what we do and MIGHT also help to show up and coming generations that we are not content to follow an 1800's model of doing business and that there is room at the keyboard for them?

BTW,

Seems like in College or Seminary, maybe both, I had to sign an acceptance letter stating something to the effect that I understood my education was being subsidized by CP dollars and that if I ended up ministering somewhere other than an SBC environment I COULD be asked to pay back the CP funds. If I were to leave the SBC (no intention to do so) would it be the right thing for me to try to repay those CP dollars, even if no one would be asking for it?

Brother Ed,

A couple of questions. First, does the survey take into consideration that the Baby Boomer generation is the largest generation and most of the 50 and 60 and over were under 39 in 1980? Second, did the research go back to before the CR to do a comparison?

Blessings,
Tim

I believe the SBC is worth saving. I believe it to be an ultimate source of good in our world for Christ, but I also understand why some young leaders do not agree with me.

I wish the discussion here and elsewhere would stay away from "who's fault is it anyways?" That simply causes more (young and old) to leave and it presents yet another negative image to those outside the faith.

There are areas where every demographic can improve to correct this issue. The are things both the leadership and the laity can do. It is not just the simple stereotypes of "young people think they know it all, don't respect their elders and are too demanding" and "old people are just power hungry and too concerned with the old days to win people to Jesus."

All of us can pop in here with some anecdotal evidence that supports our theory and/or blames the "other side," but the actual solutions are going to require work and sacrifice from everyone in the SBC.

We must work together on this because we are not simply losing a generation of young leaders to other Christian organizations/denominations. We are losing a generation period.

Michael,

I am not sure how it trends with (governmental) voting patters. I am guessing it is more pronounced, but I am not sure.

Ed

Mark,

Thanks for the kind words.

I think we will need all kinds of godly leaders, young and old, traditional, contemporary, and emerging, working together to see God's mission advanced.

Tim,

You are a good thinker… thanks for asking.

In answer to your first question: “First, does the survey take into consideration that the Baby Boomer generation is the largest generation and most of the 50 and 60 and over were under 39 in 1980?�?

These represent the messengers who filled out the survey each year from 1980-2007. Any adjustments would mean the data no longer reflects the messengers. So, this trend line can be compared to other age statistics, but cannot be altered by them.

If SBC messengers mirror the population, it could contribute to a part of the change. However, the magnitude of the general population's age shift is much smaller than the age shift at the SBC, indicating something else is happening at the SBC meeting.

Finally, the aging general population does not explain the strong upswing in the age 60+ numbers we are seeing at the SBC.

Also, if this was a matter of one large age cohort moving from the youngest age range to the oldest in these 27 years, we would see the cohort moving from one age group to the other (something akin to a snake's dinner being noticed as it moves away from its mouth). The sixth page of the PowerPoint on the LifeWay Research website, shows all three age groups and we do not see a "bubble" moving from one line to the other. All three trends are pretty linear.

So, there is certainly more going on than a general demographic shift.

------------------

And your second: “[D]id the research go back to before the C[onservative] R[esurgence] to do a comparison?�?

2) We did not look at statistics prior to 1980 for this analysis.

Since the Conservative Resurgence is a key part of S.B.C. history and, to be transparent, something we value, it was a good place to start.

Pre-1980 would be an interesting comparison, but beyond the scope of our analysis.

------------------

I read over at your blog that the survey did not answer "why." And, you are correct. I have opinions that I have shared in many places, but we focused on the facts and trends. (It is "Facts and Trends" magazine, grin.)

It would be an interesting survey, I think, to know "why."

But, since you asked a question, let me ask one back: why do you think it is happening?

A few thoughts from a young pastor at an SBC church (28). For clarity, we are discussing the "annual meeting" correct - it seems as though some comments are more directed at the convention itself (not that they are mutually exclusive).

I went to the SBC website sbc.net and looked at the archives from the 2007 meeting.

Here are a few observations:

1) Every church represented on the platform - by pastor/speaker - has the word "Baptist" in it. And yet, if you read Outreach Magazine's 50 fastest growing churches - almost none of them use the word "baptist" in their name (though some definitely are in doctrine and values).

2) Solomon said it best in Ecclesiastes "There ain't nothing new under the son." In other words, remember young pastors, we're the lastest generation on the block. Unfortunately in ten or twenty years we too will probably push those "idealistic, naive" younger pastors to the side as well. (Time will tell!)

3) Have you attended a national convention of any other denomination lately? I have been to two (and "no" I won't tell you which ones). The SBC meeting, perhaps unfortunately, is lightyears beyond what they are thinking about? (For example, this one denomination was discussing whether or not Christians should try to do things other than preaching sermons to reach people...are you kidding me?)

I am no longer a young pastor- I turned 51 last summer. Having served for 30 years in the Northwest I can say that when I was a younger pastor-serving small, single staff churches, attending the annual SBC convention was fiscally impossible. My first church (agreed, it was in the 1980's) paid $800 per month-total-all included. So, travel to the next town was often a cahllenge. My second pastorate wasn't much larger, nor was the salary much better- so again, travel was a luxury rarely afforded. I am not complaining, just stating anecdotal evidence that may shed light on why some younger pastor's aren't more involved.
EVen now- pastoring a small church my entire travel allowance is $600 annually- attending regional conferences pretty much eats that cost up- so again, attending the SBC is a wished for luxury.

Brother Ed,

I am not the researcher, so any response from me would be one that is without numbers. Since you tell me that numbers are our friends I guess I will give you an unfriendly answer. Of course I would have to get Dr. Yarnell to do the math. :^)

Seriously, I do not know the why. Because the YPs are raised by Baby Boomers we need to ask, I believe, what trend do we see from the nurturing environment that is common among everyone concerning denominational life. I personally feel the Baby Boomer's rebellion against authority and their suspicious nature concerning organized movements is one thing that was transferred to the children in a big way.

Just MHBAO. :^)

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

As you know, I think there is more to it than that, but I think we agree that the anti-institutional nature of emerging generations is a contributing factor.

Have a great weekend.

Thanks,

Ed

If anyone wants to know why we are frustrated as young leaders, just read this article courtesy of B.P.
http://www.bpnews.org/BPnews.asp?ID=27181