Occasionally, I list things of interest inside my denomination that may be helpful to readers of this blog. I will continue to do that (as I am today), but I will be moving my denomination-specific blogging to a new blog. My blog has become a place to discuss mission, culture, and research. So, I have decided that, with a few exceptions, I will move my denominational content to Between the Times.

A few weeks ago, Richard Harris and I sent out an email indicating that the North American Mission Board (NAMB) task force, of which I was a co-facilitator, had been disbanded with the resignation of NAMB's president. We mentioned in the email that we would be releasing the "list" we made at that meeting since it had been reported in the news.

I think the list might be helpful to people both inside and outside of my denomination. But, before we get to the "list," let me tell you a little about the group. Here is a picture of the meeting. If you follow on Twitter, you have already seen this pic.

The group had a mix of people:
• Four state execs (staff leader of the state convention from where they came-- the closest is Terry Robertson, from NY, up close and on the right)

• The president of the Woman's Missionary Union, Kaye Miller (way back on the left side)

• Seminary professors (you can see Chuck Lawless from SBTS on the right and Gus Suarez from MWBTS with a big smile and also on the right)

• Directors of missions (George Dean is in a stylish green on the left, you can't miss it)

• Several pastors and church leaders from diverse contexts, races, and church sizes (you can see Charles Roesel, who always wears a suit, on the near left-- the other pastors were suit-less!)

And, yes, that is my Mac in the front, right next to former co-facilitator Steve Reid. My Mac is (predictably) open to Twitter, which is where I originally posted this picture.

Let me say how thankful I am that these men and women took the time to come to Atlanta and talk about North America. Why?

Well, I believe that my denomination is at a crucial point: will we recapture the evangelistic passion and missional impulse we have seen in the past? As I have written about over the past several years, if the 50-year membership change trend continues, we will enter a protracted period of decline.

The task NAMB has been given is both big and essential: if our churches are not effective here, none of the other agencies (including the IMB) will have much of a future.

Initially, the members of the group were asked, "What are the big issues we need to address?"

We talked for over an hour about the things that needed to be studied and discussed. As we talked, Rich Carnie wrote them all on a big whiteboard. We wanted to narrow them down to a group of issues we might be able to address.

Here is an actual picture of the board (sorry about the erased section on the top left, but you can still see it all). I snapped a quick picture just as they were erasing it.

Here is the list in text form:
1- Understanding/engaging ethnics

2- Church planting/effectiveness (methodology)

3- Discipleship - fill church with more robust passionate disciples

4- Urbanization/cities

5- Next generation issues

6- See and engage NA as a mission field 

7- NAMB funding issues

8- Partnerships

9- How we do church

10- Prayer/spiritual awakening
 


Tammi Ledbetter, who was part of the committee and also an excellent journalist, sent me the list. Thanks, Tammi.

Note: Although they are in a numbered list, they are not in order of priority. We just put numbers on the list to focus in on ten.

We discussed how to release these items after I mentioned to the members of the task force that we would be doing so. We considered a release from NAMB, but it seemed odd to release something from a dissolved task force. So, after talking it over with the NAMB communications team, we agreed for me to blog about it here.

Tammi suggested, and NAMB communications agreed, that I should try to explain what a few of these mean since they are not self-evident. Keep in mind that these are my descriptions, not those of the entire group, though I think they are reflective of such. But, I just don't feel authorized to speak for a group of people that no longer exists. (Well, the individuals still exist, just not in group form--you know what I mean.) The list is in the picture; my descriptions are my own.

I think that numbers 1-5 seem self-evident, so I'll keep my explanations to the latter five.

6. See and engage NA as a mission field 

Number 6 specifically addresses the issue of the need to think and live in mission-focused ways in North America. There was some discussion about the word mission/missional. Mine and Tammi's notes both say "mission," but what was on the board was "missional." Either way, the point was we need to help our churches see and engage our immediate contexts like we do the rest of the world-- like a mission field. The mission is now "from everywhere and to everywhere."

Now, let me make a personal comment: I think it is encouraging to see the shift in thinking about North America as a mission field. Ten years ago, this was considered controversial. Some of the voices talking about "thinking missiologically" and talking "missional" today were actually opposed to the idea a decade earlier. I'm glad that this idea has now become mainstream, but I will be "gladder" when the idea becomes a mainstream practice.


7. NAMB funding issues

Number 7 addressed issues of funding. The main question here seemed to be: are we directing NAMB funds to the appropriate locations for the best strategy?

We specifically discussed NAMB and the "Cooperative Agreements." Though most of you have never heard of these, it is these agreements that are the basis for the partnerships NAMB has with state conventions. NAMB only works in and through these "Cooperative Agreements." (More info about that in the next point.)


8. Partnerships

Number 8 addressed how partnership works. Why? Well, here is something most people in the denomination do not know: NAMB has the convention assignment for planting churches but does not plant churches. Ever. Anywhere.

Most church planters NAMB helps don't receive checks from NAMB, but NAMB helps out with their paychecks through funds sent to state conventions and to sponsoring churches. More assistance comes from NAMB for outreach and other planting startup costs. And NAMB funds pay church planter strategist missionaries who help multiple church planters in an area. Training, research and other resources are also made available to church planters through NAMB. But it's all done through partnerships that sometimes mask NAMB's involvement by the time money and resources reach the front lines. 

It's an approach that values local churches and local state conventions. You cannot talk about church planting and NAMB without talking about partnerships.

9. How we do church
Number 9 addressed the issue of HOW we do church. There seemed to be several issues at work here as I listened.

First, there was the ecclesiology question: what is a biblical church in our confessional understanding?

Second, there was the missiological question: what is the best way to plant churches that leads to a church planting movement?

Again, a personal comment. NAMB addressed the ecclesiology question years ago and has a statement on ecclesiology. Richard Harris, who is acting interim president at NAMB right now, commissioned the project.

My friend Stan Norman wrote the statement. I had the privilege of being the "editor" and argued with Stan on many occasions (something for which Stan thanked me in his ecclesiology book, so I felt good about our arguments!). I think by always asking, "what is biblical?," not just our tradition, helped shape the document.

10. Prayer/spiritual awakening
Although this was last on the list, it was not last in priority. The group was passionate about the fact that what we really needed was God's people praying for (and receiving) a fresh outpouring.

Conclusion

I emailed the (former) task force about releasing this list and how we might share it with others. I also forwarded the list to Ronnie Floyd, chair of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. I let him know that these were the issues we considered important as we move toward the future.

Again, thanks to the members of this task force. Although we only had one meeting, I believe that our time was not wasted--this can help inform conversations about the future and even some of the research we are doing at present.

For decades, the phrase, "If you were to die today, do you know for sure you would go to heaven?" was associated with evangelical attempts at sharing their faith. My guess is that millions of people have been asked that question over the last few decades-- and I would not be surprised if God used such a conversation and question and many many became followers of Christ.

But, the question itself always intrigued me. And, one of the great things about my job (as a researcher), is I get to say, "I wonder..."

And, in this case, I wondered how many people really ask that question. In other words, how often to people wonder if they were to die today would they go to heaven. My first assumption was that only a few people really would think about their eternal destiny and, thus, thought the question might be less helpful today if few asked that question.

So, to test my informal hypothesis, we commissioned a poll.

About three years ago, while I was serving at the North American Mission Board's Center for Missional Research (now led by my friend Richie Stanley), Richie and I did a poll on that very subject.

Interestingly, "Will I go to heaven when I die?" is not a question most Americans ask themselves with much frequency. The North American Mission Board's Center for Missional Research conducted a survey that give some insight into what Americans are really thinking.

There are a good number of people who ask that question and do so frequently, but most do not.

Perhaps in previous generations people were asking questions about life after death, and so evangelistic approaches that focused on that issue were contextually appropriate. But the times - they are a-changing.

It appears that more people are thinking about meaning and purpose than life after death. (And it is important to note that the Bible provides the answers to all these questions.)

More people are thinking about is the purpose of life. People are looking for and thinking about purpose: perhaps one of the reasons that Purpose Driven Life has been such a best seller.

Why are we here? How can my life have meaning, value and significance? Explaining what the gospel says to these questions will more readily demonstrate just how relevant the gospel is to their lives. What happens after death is eternally important, but the world isn't always ready to see that. But they are somewhat prepared to consider that because we are made in God's image we have infinite value and dignity; that sin is what robs us of experiencing the reason for which we have been made - to glorify God and enjoy him forever; that Jesus alone is our only hope of redemption - that in him our sins are forgiven, the image of God is restored in us and by him we can glorify God and enjoy him now and forever.

This is the work of contextualization. Answering the questions the world is asking from God's word, pointing them back to the gospel. This is why I value research (asking questions, and really listening). Let's be about the business of making the gospel clear. To do that you will have to do more than speak. You'll need to do some listening as well.

I am in Atlanta today talking about two research projects from LifeWay Research.

The first focuses on younger evangelicals and their views of social justice. I am presenting that data at the Flourish Conference. Thus part of that will deal with our recently released data on global warming which was all over the news a few weeks ago. There is much additional data which I will comment on here when it is published.

This afternoon, I am at the North American Mission Board presenting data on first generation immigrant groups and their receptivity to the gospel.

Below is a recent blog post I wrote on our global warming research. Below that is information about our soon-to-be-completed research on first generation immigrant groups.

Lifeway Research recently conducted a phone survey of over 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors concerning global warming. The question was not just whether or not global warming is happening, but if it is happening and is the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, "I believe global warming is real and man-made," and it turns out that Protestant pastors are split right down the middle. 47% agree (either strongly or somewhat), and 47% disagree (either strongly or somewhat). But the study is also interesting in that it shows that these views tend to settle in particular denominations, locations and ideologies.

Here's some of the breakdown...

75 percent of pastors in mainline denominations agree global warming is real and man-made, but only 32 percent of pastors in evangelical denominations agree. Pastors in rural areas are less convinced than large-city pastors. Forty-three percent of rural pastors and 55 percent of large-city pastors agree. Pastors in the Eastern and Western United States are more persuaded, 60 percent and 53 percent respectively, than pastors in the South (45 percent) and Midwest (40 percent).

When the pastors' personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively.

Go and read the entire article here, and the PowerPoint presentation of the data is available here.

Here is some information on the people groups research we will complete this summer (excerpted from an earlier blog post):

The latter project, focusing on first-generation immigrants, is some desperately needed research, and the first of its kind. The need for this study "stems from the fact that between 1970 and 2005, the foreign-born population in the United States doubled from about 5 percent to more than 12 percent. By 2050, half the U.S. population is expected to be of a different race than non-Hispanic white."

Why does this matter?

Well, the NAMB leadership explained it this way:

"Out of all the people groups in North America -- and there are 587 based on ethnicity and language -- we need to decide which groups to address first," said Van Kicklighter, senior church planting strategist for NAMB in Alpharetta, Ga. "Who are the most receptive? Which groups are most readily engaged in the Gospel or spiritual things?"

You see, research like this can help us better what people what people believe and how they behave. It can uncover presuppositions, prejudices and preferences, and therefore help us to see what we as the church can emphasize with ease, and what we will have to work at building a case for. I believe in research because it can aid us in developing strategies and determining emphases that allow us to preach and teach with precision. So, I'm grateful for what the North American Mission board is doing as they seek to plant biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter-cultural churches for the glory of God.

So, a full day of research... but that's a good day if you are me. ;-)

Donna and I are in North Georgia today.

We are here for a few reasons. First, we are taking a little time off today. Then, I have some meetings at the North American Mission Board tomorrow. Finally, we are staying over for a conference on Monday called ChurchPlanters.Com. (It's a great conference so check out the web page if you are in the area-- more about that on Saturday.)

My meetings at NAMB revolve around some recent research.
Obviously, I believe in research. It doesn't hold out the hope for fallen humanity, but I believe that research is valuable to the church as we seek to communicate the gospel, plant churches with strategic precision, and lead congregations that are effective in their God called tasks.

Over the years, we have learned a few things about research in SBC life. Research tends to get people in our denomination excited. Many people quote it, most like it, and some despise it. People will quote and misquote statistics regularly to prove or disprove whatever matters to them. Simply put, we are an enthusiastic, passionate, and often imprecise people when it comes to church research.

As such, when we do research, it gets a lot of debate and discussion. We do not mind at all--and sometimes we read a comment and think, "Good point!" or "We should have thought of that." As such, we very infrequently respond to inappropriate uses or criticisms of our research.

However, I do see a pattern developing. It appears that when one of the faculty members at one of our seminaries disagrees with the results of our research, they write a rebuttal or a criticism. We actually don't mind a (good) rebuttal and questioning the wording of questions is normal and expected. However, it does seem that some of the faculty at Southwestern are making a habit of taking time away from their important tasks to critique our research. I thought it would be wise for me to take this opportunity to respond in what I hope is a gracious way.

Actually, our team debated whether to respond (and have not in the past). Since few people have read or commented on the critique, it is regrettable to bring attention to it. However, since these critiques seem to be a recurring (and public) pattern, it seems best to address it publicly.

On to the specifics...

Dr. David L. Allen of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently released a white paper entitled, "Calvinism: A Review" at baptisttheology.org. In his white paper, Allen reviews the book, Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue of which I contributed the chapter, "Calvinism, Evangelism, and SBC Leadership." In my chapter, I present results from two recently collected data sources, the North American Mission Board's 2007 New Minister's Study and LifeWay Research's 2006 Calvinism Study.

In his review of the book, Allen presents a critical review of the data analysis done by the North American Mission Board and LifeWay Research. He raises a number of "weaknesses" surrounding the study. Actually, such comments are fine--no study is perfect and this study representing the NAMB and LifeWay surveys is far from flawless due to several factors I will list below. There are weaknesses to this study as in every study. And, we don't mind a good debate on the issues at hand.

However, this is the best, current study on the topic of Calvinism trends in the Southern Baptist Convention. Moreover, the data analysis is sound and accurate. And, in light of the pattern of such critiques coming from the same sister entity, my colleagues and I decided to respond.

The following response to Allen's review will take each of Dr. Allen's points one by one, providing further evidence and clarity for each issue raised by Allen.

One of my favorite troublemakers is Frank Viola. When George Barna "entered" house church world (through his writings, at least), one of my comments was that he had not actually connected with any of the people in house church world. In other words, Barna was saying all the things house church people say, but not providing any solutions or awareness of the house church movement. And, I found Revolution to be a relatively unhelpful book for that reason (and several other theological reasons I have stated elsewhere).

In the follow-up book, Barna seems to have jumped whole hog into the house church world with none other than Frank Viola. Together they published Pagan Christianity which riled a lot of people up (me included) and not just because of the not-so-subtle title. For what it is worth, I think New Testament scholar Ben Witherington did a great job in his series on the book (starting here) and Frank was gracious in his response.

Yesterday I was in Philadelphia at a NAMB Missional Network event. It was good to see friends from many different churches there.

We had a morning dialogue with the pastors, church planters, and others at Real Life Church (more about them below).

The setting was great for dialogue.

And discussion.

And community.

After the morning dialogue, we then went over to Nazarene Baptist Church for the afternoon meeting. Nazarene Baptist Church has the unique challenge that if you mix up the name, it changes denominations. Grin.

The church is a large African-American church, pastored by the state convention president, Keith Marshall Williams, Jr., who was recently elected to be the "President�? of the State Convention Presidents Fellowship.

The contrasts between the two churches were fascinating-- and it was encouraging that we were able to meet in both places in one day. The meetings illustrate the kind of partnership evidenced in these churches.

Let me specifically mention Rob Burns and Real Life Church. They were gracious to host the event in Philadelphia. The church is a new SBC church plant, also networked with Acts 29.

They started their church by purchasing a former neighborhood bar. (In the Northeast, most urban contexts have a small bar that caters to the people who live nearby.) The bar serves as something of a "Third Place."

Wikipedia explains:

"The Third Place" is a term used in the concept of community building to refer to social surroundings separate from the two usual social environments of home and the workplace. In his influential book The Great, Good Place, Ray Oldenburg argues that third places are important for civil society, democracy, civic engagement, and establishing feelings of a sense of place.

Oldenburg coins "first�? place as our home and those we live with. Our second place is the workplace -- where we may actually spend most of our time. Third places, then are "anchors" of community life and facilitate and foster broader, more creative interaction. All societies already have informal meeting places; what is new in our day is the intentionality of seeking them out as vital to our current societal needs. Oldbenburg suggests these hallmarks of a true "third place": free or inexpensive; food and drink, while not essential, are important; highly accessible: proximate for many (walking distance); involve regulars - those who habitually congregate there; welcoming and comfortable; both new friends and old should be found there. (58)

As part of their mission strategy, Real Life Church bought the bar, extensively renovated it, and turned it into a coffee and snack bar. And, it is an intentional Third Place outreach and church.

There is a helpful article on Third Place ministries here. It is worth a read.

Pray for Real Life Cafe that is helping make Real Life Church possible.

They are reaching Bridesburg, a section of the city that few know. It is very white, very Irish, and very Catholic.

This is hard soil, but the church plant is already seeing 60 or so people attend each week. That is remarkable for a year old church in a community like this.

Sometimes, I don't know what I think about Geoff Hammond, new President of NAMB. He just does not do things "right."

There it was. My brand new Pontiac coupe. Shiny and spotless--except for the bubble in the factory paint. Ugh! I was so disappointed. But with my workmanship warrantee in hand, I was confident the dealer would fix it. Eighteen repair trips later I gave up. My view of "Mr. Goodwrench" was changed forever. From that time on, I vowed NEVER again to purchase a Pontiac. However, about 14 years later I did buy a 'pre-owned' GM product but only for two reasons. First, it was sold to me below market price. Who can resist a good deal! Second, any guess? It wasn't a Pontiac. Could there be any connection between their current marginal auto market share and the way they have responded to their customers understanding and desires? See here.

Unfortunately, the local church has been ignoring an unsightly blemish on the face of the church hoping the problem will just fix itself. No one is going to be shocked by the newest LifeWay research released on the dropout rate of 18- to 22-year-olds from church. If anything, I suspect that many will be surprised that the numbers are not higher than 70%! But do we really need numbers to tell us that we've had and do have a serious issue that desperately needs to be addressed? No, not really.

When I am asked to answer questions for an interview, I am going to make a habit of posting the answers here at the Lifeway Research Blog.

Since I am speaking today at the North American Mission Board, this seemed a good time to share about the future of mission agencies.

This is from an interview by Ken Camp on the future of missions. Ken's story is here.

I found Ken Sorrell's interaction on the subject to be insightful.

For those of you who don't "speak SBC," click on Lottie and Annie to understand the references. And, when you feel led by the Spirit, click here. Grin.

Here is the interview:

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

>> (1) What is the role of the large denominational missionary-sending agency at a time when denominational loyalty is low and many churches want a more personal connection to missions?

My co-author and long time friend, Mike Dodson, will be teaching today as I make a one day trip to fellowship with friends and speak at the NAMB State Summer Leadership Meeting in Atlanta. I hvae missed the blissful fellowship and fried chicken of my Baptist fellowship...

Mike was really the brains behind Comeback Churches so I think a good time will be had by all at Indiana Wesleyan University.

Ed

Tomorrow, I head down for a day in Atlanta for a meeting sponsored by the North American Mission Board. New NAMB president, Geoff Hammond, has been facilitating a discussion about the future of church planting, evangelism, and sending missionaries in our convention.

In our SBC polity, state conventions are not districts of the national office. Instead, they are seperate organizations that choose to work together. The same is true with the local expression, the association. So, few people have to come to this meeting, but they do. Interestingly, this year has marked a record attendence.

Could it be that we are ready to cooperate to reach North America for Christ?

You can, and really should, watch NAMB's presentation in San Antonio. You can do so by clicking here (click on the video archives).

I wrote Geoff an email about his presentation in San Antonio: "In your report, you made much of God's mission, missionaries, and cooperation-- I believe God was glorified, and Southern Baptists were encouraged, by your report."

I will do two presentations in Atlanta: one focused on the research from Comeback Churches and the other looking at best practices in church planting.

Tomorrow, I will post on the future of denominational mission agencies.

Last week, I spent the morning lecturing for Roy Fish in his D.Min. class at Southwestern Baptist Theologcal Seminary.

Roy is one of the most godly, irenic, and gracious people I know... and he has an unstoppable passion for sharing Christ.

What a blessing it is to have a man like him in my denomination and serving God's people. And, how encouraging is it that Geoff Hammond's first action as president of NAMB was to name former interim presidnet Roy Fish as a NAMB ambassador?

There are few living people who deserve to have a school named after them-- but I am glad Roy Fish is on of them and I am glad to call him friend.

It is also great to find someone like Roy who can show you where the cigar was once held in a certain seminary presidential painting. Grin.

He made an interesting comment about my ministry which made me think-- and I plan to comment on it in a couple days.

Ed

John Piper is speaking on church planting. Interesting comments. As always, God-centered and theologically driven. But, in this case, it had a surprising ending.

Piper takes the month of July off. (Sign me up for that.) Thus, he is speaking via video.

His focus is, "I will build my church."

I = A Risen Christ, worthy of eternal worship, is the one who plants the church.

Will build = Christ builds His church through "ripping the gates of hell off of the human heart... so they can see."

My = The church belongs to Jesus Christ and Jesus is already at work in the city where you are planting. "For I have many people in this city" (Acts 18:10)

Church = Only one institution in the entire universe is given the promise that Jesus will build it.

Then... John speaks of his morning devotions from Mark 4.

Surprising quote for a church planting seminar: "You don't know how to grow the Kingdom of God... beware of books, beware of conferences, and beware of seminars that tell you how to plant the church."

Hmmmmm...

Today I shared on planting biblically faithful churches in emerging culture and on developing core values. I am heading out of town to Irvine, CA for a different conference. The Global Church Advancement Seminar conference will go on till Friday. Be sure to follow updates from Drew Goodmanson and David Wayne.

By the way, it was encouraging to see an ad from the Minnesota / Wisconsin Baptist Convention and the North American Mission Board advertising on the program. It was great to see Leo Endel and Steve Melvin there and get to brag on them in front of the group when I led my session.

Ed