The SBC declined again this year in both membership and baptisms. You can read the news story here. There is some encouraging news about missions giving, but the membership and baptism declines are disturbing.

All one has to do is to look at the age of the messengers, the 50 year trend, and the current state of the convention to see things are not going well. The Conservative Resurgence restored and focused us on essential beliefs but did not deliver a Great Commission passion.

The churches of the Southern Baptist Convention have been home to me for all of my adult life. Southern Baptists are my spiritual family. I love our family. But our family is not feeling well today.

Today, LifeWay released the 2008 statistics from the Annual Church Profile. The ACP is our way of measuring how SBC churches are doing in a collective sense. We are a people who like to measure-- everything from baptisms to the collective value of congregational property. For good or bad, we have always been a people of numbers.

But today we are facing a set of numbers to which we are not accustomed. Last year, I said we "peaked" in our membership. This year, I believe that our tipping point continues to tip. Unless things change, we are about to enter a time when we grow accustomed to decline and think back to the good ol' days of growth.

On April 28, 2008, I posted a graph of our membership numbers beginning in 1950 on my blog and said, "our year-to-year growth has been in a constant trended decline, not for one year, but for decades--this is not a one year blip, this is a 50 year trend."

In that reference, I was speaking of the 2007 numbers with a "statistical warning" for us to heed. Today, I bid you an uneasy welcome to continued and ongoing trend of membership decline. Any hope for a "blip" has been crushed by reality. With fewer baptisms and a declining membership, the trends point to several years of decline in our future, save for God's intervention on our behalf.

We are a denomination in decline, at least in our membership and definitely in our evangelism and baptisms. The most rational decision now is to acknowledge its reality so we might deal with its consequences and discover solutions for our churches.

But, as we are Baptists, my fear is the proverbial witch hunt that will try to find who or what is to blame. Will straw men be erected; will new battle lines will be drawn?

I hope not. There are bigger issues and we need to face some facts: we face a culture turning its back toward us, a declining and aging membership, and young leaders who are choosing other partnerships.

Last year, some leaders tried to ignore the facts and buried their heads a bit deeper in the sand. Some skeptics of the ACP data from last year said it was simply a figment of someone's imagination. Well... that figment is looking more and more like our future.

Do these facts reflect upon our culture, churches, pastors, members, or the denomination? My check mark will have to be on "all of the above." And it reflects on me and my failures as well.

Is the culture getting worse? Sure it is. But we should be the ones giving a reason for our hope rather than hoping for a reason.

Do we have chronically dysfunctional churches in our denomination? Sure, but everyone has the one crazy uncle that comes to the family reunion.

Are pastors shirking their responsibilities? Some, but I generally believe in the trustworthiness of those in vocational ministry. They get beat up by plenty of others and I will not join the pile on.

Is it a lazy membership that is the root of the decline? The multitude who act more like spectators at a show than ambassadors of the kingdom certainly share the blame. But I genuinely love those in my own congregation and hope for the best in all believers.

So what do we do? There will be lots of answers provided in the coming days. And, it will be worth your and my time to listen and learn from others.

And, of course (and on cue), some will call for Southern Baptists to turn leftward theologically as the solution to our decline. And, I will wonder out loud-- does anyone read statistics? As I have written before, a left turn does not stem decline, it accelerates it.

So what do we do?

We cannot simply mandate how churches, pastors, and believers live. Our theological convictions of the priesthood of all believers and local autonomy of the church lead us to allow each church to heed God's will on their own. But on a denominational level, I believe we need to heed the words sounding from numerous places in the convention for a Great Commission Resurgence.

Our situation would be much worse if we did not have the Conservative Resurgence, but a Conservative Resurgence without a Great Commission Resurgence is an exercise in belief without action.

I believe this must be our wake-up call. Again. If not, there will be plenty more days like this in the coming years.

Last year, I quoted from Christ's message to the church at Sardis in Revelation 3:

I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you."

We have been lulled into evangelistic complacency and missional inaction. We fought and won a battle over the Bible but are now struggling live it out through cooperation, collaborative missions, and personal evangelism. As Chuck Kelley has explained, Southern Baptists have become the new Methodists (no offense to my Methodist readers, please).

I am grieved, but I also see opportunity if we can ignore the responses that are soon to follow explaining how it is all going fine and we just don't need to worry. Those in charge know what to do to fix it. Instead, I think we need to see this as the bad news it is but also an opportunity to change.

It is an opportunity for discovering a regenerate church membership living on mission.
It is an open door to pray for God's reviving of the church.
It is the motivation for a Great Commission Resurgence for all Christians, in the hearts of pastors, through a church planting renaissance, and in our denominational structure.

But change does not come easy for us. For that matter, it does not come easy for me. To illustrate and conclude, let me tell you something funny about myself-- I have oddly-shaped feet. They are too wide in the middle to wear normal shoes. So, years ago I found a brand of shoe that fits and it is all I wear. Because they are hard to find and replace, I will literally wear out the soles of my shoes before buying new ones. My clue is normally a cold puddle of water accidentally stepped in. But the sting of the freezing water rushing over my toes usually motivates me to buy new shoes. Finding new shoes is a pain. It costs me time and resources. And I don't like those pains in my life. I don't like the pain of change.

Here is the principle: People do not change until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change. And, neither do denominations...

So let me ask you a simple question: Are we hurting enough to make the changes we need?

If you are interested, here is the post I wrote a year ago. Neither my opinion (or the situation) has changed much.

Let me encourage you to answer a question in the comments below: What is the needed change and do you have hope that change is coming?

I hate to post over this morning's post about Barna's new research, but the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) has caught everyone's attention today as it points out the decline of religion and the rise in secularism in America. Bloggers, news outlets and newspapers are buzzing. The Washington Post's Michele Boorstein explains, "The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped dramatically over the past two decades, and those who do are increasingly identifying themselves without traditional denomination labels."

Cathy Grossman and the USA Today have done their usual fine job of analysis. They summarize,

The percentage. of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers -- or falling off the faith map completely.

Denominations and denominationalism are in decline, the cultural influence of Christianity continues to slip, more people are describing themselves as non-religious (now at 15%) and minority religions are increasing in popularity (like Islam and Wicca). Baptists are shown to be an aging group that continues to lose the younger generations and leaders. And, be sure to check out this very helpful interactive chart at USA Today.

The folks at ARIS have been gracious to let many of us see the research beforehand (embargoed until today), and it is a well done project with a solid methodology and an excellent sample.

What are your thoughts? What do you think this means for the church?

Here is my editorial in today's Tennessean, the Nashville paper. They asked me to write on the topic, "How to Stem the Decline of the SBC."

There are three editorials and some reader's letters: one from the editors from the paper, one from me, and one from Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics and Ethics Daily. Finally, there are reader's opinions.

The first editorial from The Tennessean editors mainly focused on the North American Mission Board and the Global Plan for Sharing, drawing from an earlier piece they wrote on the subject.

The second was from Robert Parham. Robert is a good (and prolific) writer and would be one of the more vocal critics of the conservative shift of the SBC. He stays true to form here and I am sure he will provoke many responses. Obviously, we would disagree on some important issues. Most obvious in this context: I would be a supporter of the conservative shift while he (as you can tell from the article) was not. (We call it the "conservative resurgence" and Robert would refer to it as a "fundamentalist takeover.")

Mine was third and I drew on an earlier blog post here and this post explains the trend. Here is mine in its entirety:

Stemming SBC Membership Decline

LifeWay Research recently reported that the SBC had declined in membership. The SBC growth rate has been slowing for decades but last year was the first year of decline in a long while--but trends say that more will follow.

The SBC I care about is in decline. Yes, it's part demographics (i.e. we're historically rural and such regions are in numeric decline) and ultimately changes have to be made at a local church level. But, many believe there are issues the convention can acknowledge and address to help turn around the decline. Denying the facts won't help, nor will a theological left turn, but there are things that need to change to reverse the decline.

When the news came out, some in the SBC stuck their heads a bit deeper in sand saying, "We're doing just fine, thank you!" They believe trying harder without change is best. Besides, they say, the SBC is not shrinking as fast as liberal denominations--which seems to me like bragging that our sunset is brighter than theirs.

On the other hand, some "finger waggers" will propose that the answer is to move leftward theologically. Yet, regardless of one's theological views (and that is important), no evidence exists to support that a leftward shift will grow a denomination--generally, the more liberal a denomination is, the faster it is declining.

Yet, a growing number of us believe that change is needed in the SBC. Let me suggest a few of those needed changes.

First and most importantly, the SBC must refocus on the gospel. The convention has become big, bureaucratic, and distracted by so many things--from politics to boycotts to programs. In the process, we have, at times, lost the focus on what was once the main thing: being, doing, and telling the good news locally and globally. We must return to our "first love" (Rev. 2:4), Jesus, and then show and share his message. We need gospel change.

Second, the SBC must address the continued loss of leaders. Ongoing denominational conflict has hastened the depopulation of young leaders. Furthermore, ethnic leadership remains mostly absent after decades of ethnic change in America.

Yet, such change will require an openness to other approaches to church and ministry from different cultures and generations. Openness will be difficult since preaching against other ways of doing church still gets the "big amen" at the SBC meeting-- even though the "Amen Corner" is getting older and smaller every year. If we share a common theology, we need to hold out a chair and ask new generations and ethnicities to sit at the table of leadership. We need leadership change.

Finally, infighting must not define the SBC. It is public knowledge that Baptists do not always settle their differences amicably at the convention or local church level. If "Baptist" and "bad-tempered" are synonyms to the average American, the trend toward decline will only accelerate. We need a heart change.

Can the tide be stemmed? Yes. Will it? Realistically, the "odds" are against it. But, I am one who believes that if we obey God's leading, He can continue to use even an imperfect people like Southern Baptists.

Interestingly, The Tennessean editors changed my title from "How to Stem the SBC Decline" to "SBC needs right kind of change." I prefer the original title much more than their new one and hope that change does not confuse readers with the multiple meanings assigned to the word "right."

Being the guy who writes the conservative evangelical position in the secular paper is always interesting (particularly in 500 words!). But, I hope I held up a commitment to biblical theology while calling for change in the denomination. You decide.

Today, something personal.

This post is the product of a conversation I recently had with Bill Kinnon, uber blogger and provocateur, about the importance of the local church, and the questions I often get while preaching and teaching across the country. Questions like, "Ed, why are you currently serving at an established church?" (being a denominational leader and, formerly, a church planter).

The simple answer is I do not believe I can talk about the church without being a part of a church.

But let me unpack this a bit.

In the past I have worked for Southern Seminary and the North American Mission Board, and I currently serve Lifeway, the International Mission Board, Southeastern Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Whatever you call them, they are not the church, but serve along side it. However, my experience has been that in many cases they are staffed by people who were formerly pastors. And, in some cases, it seems that moving into a role like this leads many to a diminished connection to a local church. Some of that is a function of the role change, but in most of the places I have served, we have sat down together and lamented the disconnect we felt with the local church. Some worked hard to overcome it. Some did not.

This is not a criticism of others. The point is that I found the temptation in my own life. You see, I teach pastors and church leaders. I tell them they should be biblical, missional, and spiritual (see chapter one of Comeback Churches). I have a high standard of church, and, to be blunt, it seems that no church meets that standard (except maybe the churches I plant, which points to a pride issue).

So, here is what I am trying to avoid in my own life: too many church consultants, speakers, leaders, professors, and denominational leaders (like me) see themselves as voices to the church and not a part of the church.

I have often heard people say (and have said myself) the church is, in many ways, broken and in need of some change. However, it is exceedingly dangerous to become a critic of the church while you are not a part of one. I love the church, and therefore feel compelled to point out our challenges with the hope of seeing transformation. I guess this makes me a critic of the church, but it should also makes me a critic of myself.

I currently serve as interim pastor. For those of you not in our autonomous church tradition, I am basically the "fill in" preacher until they find a new pastor. The role allows me to be a part of the church here and help them during the transition. It is not a perfect situation and I know I need deeper connections, but it is how I am connected at this time.

This brings me back to the question I am sometimes asked, "why are you currently serving at an established church?"

For me, doing an "interim" helps me be a little more faithful in several ways.

First, it keeps me home on weekends and in community. It is a temptation to be on the road every weekend. A lot of great churches will invite you to speak - but as interim I can't do that. This keeps me in my church and home with my family.

Second, it keeps me preparing messages. In the past, I have "re-preached" many of my sermons. Having done 7 or 8 interims, you can basically re-preach the same messages in each church. But, my former co-pastor (Philip Nation) challenged me to bring a "fresh word" at church every week. So, that is what I try to do at church and that keeps me preparing. When I look in a pastor's eyes, and that pastor is tired from sermon prep work, I know what that means. (I finished my message at 12:30a.m. this morning.)

Third, it reminds me of what real ministry work is. It's all too possible for me to fly in and out for pastor's conferences and start to believe my own P.R. (Being a mere D-list celebrity doesn't dissuade one from believing his own press releases).

At church, I am not the normal pastor (being an interim), but I still have the privilege of opening the word of God and sharing it with God's people. It is not the same as being the congregations shepherd, but it keeps me in real world life and ministry. People still complain to me, there is still that opinionated guy who keeps coming up after the service to question my Bible teaching, and I get an occasional piece of hate mail. If I were a "real" pastor there would be more, but since the church has over 3,000 Sunday morning attendees, there are always some percent of people who are unhappy enough to tell me - and it reminds me that real world ministry does not look like a TV show - it is messy because it involves people. And, that is also what makes it real life ministry.

Lastly, by serving as interim in a local church, a simple and very important truth is reinforced in my life; God has chosen the church, not denominations and parachurch organizations to make known his manifold wisdom (Eph 3:10). This fights against some of the triumphalism in my denomination and elsewhere. They may come and go, but it is the church that will prevail against the gates of hades.

Let's be honest, there are more verses in the Bible that justify you having a concubine than us forming a denomination (much less a Lifeway). Yet, I stay in what is basically a church support (rather than a full-time local church) role. Why? Well, it is for the same reason we have a denomination. We can do more together than we do apart. For example, I value church partnerships like denominations as it means I can help resource 5,000 missionaries around the world through organizations like the IMB. I believe in partnerships (of which denominations are one expression) because I believe we can do more together than we can do individually-- and, although the Great Commission is given to the church, each local church can not (by itself) effectively evangelize the world.

The reason I do not become a full-time pastor is that for now I am called to help pastors and church leaders. However, I will always remain a pastor and will always be a part of a church.

Is it a lot of work sometimes? Yes. Do I regret doing it sometimes? Honestly, I do. It would be easier to be a "prophet" to the church and not be a part of the church. But that seems pretty hypocritical to me.

The bad thing about being an interim is that eventually you have to leave. What then?

Well, I am leaning against doing another interim. This one is great - the church is 3 miles from my home and we know many people in the community. It is a great church with a passion for the Bible and has a heart and desire to be missional. However, teaching every week has been a bit too much and I have not been able to connect in some other ways. After my interim, I hope to serve in a church role where I do occasional teaching (weekly has been wearing me out!) and serving in a church's ministry and leadership teams.

All that being said - I know that many who read this are frustrated by the church. Most of the denominational leaders I know are. I am. Yet, I love the church. It is that love that makes me want to provoke the church "to love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10:24).

The church is filled with people who know Jesus, love one another, and are (or at least want to be) on-mission. It is the family of God. It is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is the sent people of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that the good God wants to accomplish in the world, and in me, will happen in and through the church.

On Saturday, I was speaking to the General Association of General Baptist Churches in a very rural part of Missouri.

The General Baptist denomination is an Arminian Baptist denomination. In many ways, they are similar to my own denomination, but they do not hold to the idea of "eternal security"-- or the idea that (in popular terms) once you are a believer you can't "undo" that. This view is held by Wesleyans, many Pentecostals, etc.

Over lunch, we reminsced a bit of the Second Great Awakening history.

Today I am in Bowling Green, KY teaching at First Baptist Church, Bowling Green for the Kentucky Baptist Convention.

Here is a photo of the conference from inside the sanctuary of First Baptist. There were about 350 people at the conference and the KBC announced that they are creating a process around our book, Comeback Churches. You can download the PowerPoint here.

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

Now, you keen students of history know that First Baptist is an important part of the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.

And, since I like to give a "little extra" on the blog...

First Baptist was a key part of what is knows as the Landmark Baptist movement.

Wikipedia explains Landmarkism:

Most theologians and historians who have dealt with Landmarkism have agreed that the following ecclesiological convictions were inherent to the system:

The exclusive validity of Baptist churches

Although different champions of the Landmark Baptist cause have identified different required characteristics, or "marks," that validate a legitimate Baptist church, all varieties of Landmarkism stipulate that legitimate Baptist churches are the only legitimate churches. According to Landmarkism, congregations of other denominational varieties are merely religious gatherings, or "societies," with no claim to the title "church."

The invalidity of non-Baptist churchly acts

Landmark Baptists have refused to recognize as valid any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a Baptist church. Thus, Landmark Baptists have declined to allow non-Baptists to preach in Landmark Baptist churches and have required prospective members who have received "pedobaptism" or "alien immersion" to be baptized by a Baptist church before receiving them into membership. Expressed as a syllogism, the Landmark Baptist argument is:

Major premise: To be valid, Christian ordinations and baptisms must be performed by a valid New Testament church.

Minor premise: Only valid Baptist churches are valid New Testament churches.

Conclusion: Therefore, only ordinations and baptisms performed by valid Baptist churches are valid Christian ordinations and baptisms.

The leaders of the Landmark movement were at times called "The Great Triumvirate," made up of J.R. Graves, James Madison Pendleton, and Amos Cooper Dayton.

James Pendleton was the pastor of First Baptist in Bowling Green. His work, Old Landmark Reset, is a foundational document for Southern Baptist Landmarkism. You can download the entire book here, and be sure to note the subtitle: "Ought Baptists to Invite Pedobaptists to Preach in Their Pulpits?"

However, Pendleton did not hold the same views as some other Landmarkers, particularly on "Baptist successionism."

Baptist Successionism

Some Landmark Baptists (not all) believed that the true church could be traced back all the way to John the Baptist. They wanted a view of "succession" that focused on baptism (hence Baptist Successionism). Some saw this as a response to the view of Apostolic Succession, or the belief that Peter ordained (Pope) Linus ordained (Pope) Anacletus... eventually ordained the current pope. I tend to think it had more to do with the Stone Campbell movement's "restoration" views-- Baptists wanted to show they had nothing to "restore." They were always here.

Landmark Baptists believed that the early Christians baptized each other properly. But, they believed, error soon crept in on issues such as baptism. But, some believed there was always a remnant, a "trail of blood." So, the Montanists baptized the Donatists, who baptized the Paulicians... eventually baptizing Southern Baptists.

You can click here to download the chart with all the details. (As a young pastor, I once preached at a rural North Carolina church with this very chart painted on the wall.)

James Milton Carroll, decades later, wrote The Trail of Blood, telling the full story from the Landmark Baptist successionism perspective. You can download the whole book/pamphlet here. Over 2 million copies were published and its influence on the denomination was profound.

Some people mistakenly equate successionism with Landmark ecclesiology although, as with Pendleton, one can be the latter without being the former.

So What is Landmark Baptist Ecclesiology?

Theopedia explains in more detail:

The impetus for the movement was the publication of Pendleton's An Old Landmark Reset in 1854, and the Cotton Grove meeting of Baptists in 1851. The meeting at the Cotton Grove Baptist Church near Jackson, Tennessee sought to answer five questions:

"(1.) Can Baptists with their principles on the Scriptures, consistently recognize those societies not organized according to the Jerusalem church, but possessing different government, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices as churches of Christ?

(2.) Ought they to be called gospel churches or churches in a religious sense?

(3.) Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies as gospel ministers?

(4.) Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits or by any other act that would or could be construed as such recognition?

(5.) Can we consistently address as brethren those professing Christianity who not only have not the doctrine of Christ and walk not according to his commandments but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?"

The emphasis of Landmarkism is:

-that the church is local and visible only;

-that the church has had a continuous existence since its organization by Jesus before Pentecost until the present day (sometimes called Baptist successionism or church perpetuity);

-that the Great Commission was given to the church (local churches) only; and

-that baptism and the Lord's supper are church ordinances and are only valid when performed by authority of a New Testament (Baptist) church.

So, today I spent that day at a church that was part of a movement... interesting indeed.

Although I am not teaching history today, I thought you might find it interesting!

Here is a picture of the baptistry. It is big-- very big. I am guessing 8 people could fit in there. There is a dome over it and it is the most distinct feature in the sanctuary (which, makes sense, considering the info above).