Finding something that is real these days can make for an interesting journey. Everything from synthetic oil to fake nails are now the norm. Finding something real - something that is totally real can be rare.
Christianity has not escaped the onslaught of hybrids and fake. With so many different definitions, beliefs, denominations, variations, and fads, knowing the real meaning of what it means to be a Christian can be a needle in a haystack for people. Are we born this way? Is there a formula? Does Baptism do it? Can church attendance clarify? Does it matter? Are there actually multiple ways to get it? Who is right and who is wrong?
With the secularization of our country and polarization of intellectualism we find ourselves in a fight today to understand the differences when people say they are a Christian and then live, believe, and approach their Christianity differently. The issues are challenging and the methods of advancement for a particular "flavor" are sweeping. The average church attendee has little understanding of how they are being misled or guided. Surely our efforts at teaching the Bible over the past 50 years have left us with a sad reality. We have taught stories and historical facts but have accomplished little in true discipleship - the daily walk with Christ.
John 3:16 states it clearly...or does it? "For God so loved the world..."! Now we are hearing that the word world means only the elect world. Does God create people destined for Hell? Does God create people destined for Heaven? Is there zero human choice for man?
Today the definitive subjects have two polar opposites in many minds. Either one is Calvinistic or one is an Arminian. But I am neither!
Calvinists theology is NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is the simply and profound fact that God loves mankind. Sin entered into man with Adam and Eve and Jesus was the propitiation for our sin. It is a free gift offered to those who will receive. It is offered to everyone. Man has a choice to make.
Which choice have you made?
Whom have you shared Jesus with or do you share more than Jesus?
Real Christianity upon the acceptance of Christ is then lived out in love and surrender to the one who paid for our sins. We do not have to live a certain way to be a Christian, but we will want to live a certain way because we love the one who died for us! It is this way that changes who we are and what we do, think, and say. It is this way that reveals the character and nature of God growing in us and thus visible to all around us. It is a life sold out to the one who died for us!
If we are born saved, the above would not matter. If we are born destined for Hell with no option, the above is meaningless.
Real Christianity is being lost, stolen, and corrupted today by those whose beliefs are different than what the Bible says of itself.
I am neither a Calvinists nor an Arminian. I am a Biblicists and I have dedicated my life to sharing the real version of Christianity with all who will listen until the day I die!
Blogging for the purpose of Spiritual Growth and Edification
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Answer or The New Coke?
On Monday evening the Task Force to study the name change of the SBC reported simply that to change the name would be too costly. I agree! But they did not stop there. In an effort to "keep this issue from coming up every four or five years" they recommended that an official moniker be adopted - Great Commission Baptist.
In the words of the task force this new idea would be optional.
The initial response has been mixed at best. Pleas are being made to be cooperative. The full Executive Committee will vote on Tuesday. Proceeding from there is a mystery. Whether a vote will be required is still to be seen. How the whole deal gets implemented will be something to behold.
Why?
The proposal is non binding, unofficial, and not legal. No church has to adopt it. No agency has to adopt it. What will individual churches do? Agencies? I am still trying to grasp it!
Take a typical southern town. Two SBC churches located within 2 miles of each other. One adopts, one doesn't. A family visits seeking a new church home. One is SBC, one is GCB. The family asks the SBC and the GCB church what they believe. Then it happens. The family realizes that both churches basically believe the same but one has chosen to be known by the moniker and the other by the offical name. Why?
Imagine the answers to that question! Try explaining that one in unity!
I remember when Coke tried this. It failed. As a result there is now no New Coke and no Coke Classic - just Coke. No one could get them straight.
Will we?
I am not trying to be divisive and I do understand the history and baggage, the limitations and potentials. I am just not sure how this is going to play out on a local level between two or more churches in close proximity.
And that greatly troubles me!
And for the record, I like Coke Zero! :)
In the words of the task force this new idea would be optional.
The initial response has been mixed at best. Pleas are being made to be cooperative. The full Executive Committee will vote on Tuesday. Proceeding from there is a mystery. Whether a vote will be required is still to be seen. How the whole deal gets implemented will be something to behold.
Why?
The proposal is non binding, unofficial, and not legal. No church has to adopt it. No agency has to adopt it. What will individual churches do? Agencies? I am still trying to grasp it!
Take a typical southern town. Two SBC churches located within 2 miles of each other. One adopts, one doesn't. A family visits seeking a new church home. One is SBC, one is GCB. The family asks the SBC and the GCB church what they believe. Then it happens. The family realizes that both churches basically believe the same but one has chosen to be known by the moniker and the other by the offical name. Why?
Imagine the answers to that question! Try explaining that one in unity!
I remember when Coke tried this. It failed. As a result there is now no New Coke and no Coke Classic - just Coke. No one could get them straight.
Will we?
I am not trying to be divisive and I do understand the history and baggage, the limitations and potentials. I am just not sure how this is going to play out on a local level between two or more churches in close proximity.
And that greatly troubles me!
And for the record, I like Coke Zero! :)
The $20 Million Question
This week the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) Executive Committee will officially hear the report of the study committee on renaming the SBC. As rumors fly as to which name will be proposed one must acknowledge the absence of rumors stating that NO new name will be the recommendation. It is with this absence that I write to express what I think it is the greatest question pertaining to the idea of a name change.
I can see how the "Southern" in our name could be a hindrance in some areas. I also acknowledge that in the scope of this debate emotions will run strong on all sides. This article is NOT to be construed with any of the above. I am NOT anti a name change if certain criteria are met and all factors point to such. What I am writing is simply a response to a specific aspect that I feel must be addressed when considering to support such a change now.
What is the specific aspect?
The money required to change the name of an organization the size and scope of the SBC must first be considered; especially now. The principle of being good stewards should be at the forefront of all that we as Christians do. Being faithful stewards of what God has blessed us with to reach the nations will propel us to faithful obedience while the lack there of will destroy us. It is this aspect that has me greatly concerned. From the standpoint of the SBC, is this really the time to spend the money? Does the name of the SBC really merit such an expense?
Today many churches are making changes to deal with relational issues tied to Brand Identity etc.. Each church should carefully look at this from time to time. In fact, it is the individual churches that really deal with this on a daily basis. What the SBC is called seldom comes into play if the ministry and obedience of the church is where it should be. We are NOT winning or drawing people to the SBC. At least we should not be. We should be drawing people to Jesus. It is our local churches that have been tasked with this mission. The SBC serves as a support and avenue for missions around the world. But in this role, it must remember that it is only a support. So one must ask - just how important is the name of a supporting agency? In 22 years of ministry I have never shared with an individual that they need to believe the SBC way. Nor have I ever led someone to Christ and told them this was the SBC way. In fact, our church affiliation has never come up. So just what would we gain from a local church perspective?
As the title of this article reveals, it is my understanding that a minimum of $20 million would be needed to accomplish such a change. The re-branding will not be inexpensive if it is to be effective. I personally think the cost will exceed $20 million when all is said and done. $20 million for a name of a supporting type institution. $20 million of what churches and individuals have sacrificially given to reach the nations. My question is simple - is this the best use of $20 million? How many missionaries would $20 million support? Or how many church plants would $20 million fund? What would a true cost benefit be. Would the name effect the efforts of individual churches to reach the lost? How many parade the name around on a weekly basis?
What do we risk losing?
Local churches are the SBC? What would a $20 million expense on a name change relate to in the local church? I have asked around and discovered some key thoughts that must be examined.
1. For older members with lifelong ties to the SBC - they reject it hands down!
2. For younger members they do not care!
3. It seems to be a "minister" issue or location issue. Is there another way around it?
Again the issue of the role of the SBC comes to light. The priorities of Jesus being the one we proclaim and share are key. Second, we worship Jesus at our local church called (Your Church Name). Third, we believe what the Bible teaches. And finally fourth, we are an SBC affiliated church.
Do we further alienate people in local churches by pushing something that is fourth tier at best in the scope of reaching people with the Gospel?
Do we alienate people in the South? Will individual churches adopt a new name or will they continue on with SBC? What will we get when we spend $20 million?
Is the name worth $20 million?
This may be an odd way to state this point but think with me. If we are talking about names that have been mentioned already such as Continental, Great Commission, etc.., we are talking about names that will do little to inspire passion for such a move. I was actually excited to hear what possibilities would be developed. I saw a chance for some really creative ideas. But with what appears to be the direction (and I am speculating) from the domain names reserved, the excitement left quickly. $20 million is a lot of pennies for something that has no "thump"! If we spend $20 million on a name, it better be a $20 million name in my opinion. THE ABOVE DON'T TOP $5!
Final thoughts!
In the end it is a big $20 million question!
I can see how the "Southern" in our name could be a hindrance in some areas. I also acknowledge that in the scope of this debate emotions will run strong on all sides. This article is NOT to be construed with any of the above. I am NOT anti a name change if certain criteria are met and all factors point to such. What I am writing is simply a response to a specific aspect that I feel must be addressed when considering to support such a change now.
What is the specific aspect?
The money required to change the name of an organization the size and scope of the SBC must first be considered; especially now. The principle of being good stewards should be at the forefront of all that we as Christians do. Being faithful stewards of what God has blessed us with to reach the nations will propel us to faithful obedience while the lack there of will destroy us. It is this aspect that has me greatly concerned. From the standpoint of the SBC, is this really the time to spend the money? Does the name of the SBC really merit such an expense?
Today many churches are making changes to deal with relational issues tied to Brand Identity etc.. Each church should carefully look at this from time to time. In fact, it is the individual churches that really deal with this on a daily basis. What the SBC is called seldom comes into play if the ministry and obedience of the church is where it should be. We are NOT winning or drawing people to the SBC. At least we should not be. We should be drawing people to Jesus. It is our local churches that have been tasked with this mission. The SBC serves as a support and avenue for missions around the world. But in this role, it must remember that it is only a support. So one must ask - just how important is the name of a supporting agency? In 22 years of ministry I have never shared with an individual that they need to believe the SBC way. Nor have I ever led someone to Christ and told them this was the SBC way. In fact, our church affiliation has never come up. So just what would we gain from a local church perspective?
As the title of this article reveals, it is my understanding that a minimum of $20 million would be needed to accomplish such a change. The re-branding will not be inexpensive if it is to be effective. I personally think the cost will exceed $20 million when all is said and done. $20 million for a name of a supporting type institution. $20 million of what churches and individuals have sacrificially given to reach the nations. My question is simple - is this the best use of $20 million? How many missionaries would $20 million support? Or how many church plants would $20 million fund? What would a true cost benefit be. Would the name effect the efforts of individual churches to reach the lost? How many parade the name around on a weekly basis?
What do we risk losing?
Local churches are the SBC? What would a $20 million expense on a name change relate to in the local church? I have asked around and discovered some key thoughts that must be examined.
1. For older members with lifelong ties to the SBC - they reject it hands down!
2. For younger members they do not care!
3. It seems to be a "minister" issue or location issue. Is there another way around it?
Again the issue of the role of the SBC comes to light. The priorities of Jesus being the one we proclaim and share are key. Second, we worship Jesus at our local church called (Your Church Name). Third, we believe what the Bible teaches. And finally fourth, we are an SBC affiliated church.
Do we further alienate people in local churches by pushing something that is fourth tier at best in the scope of reaching people with the Gospel?
Do we alienate people in the South? Will individual churches adopt a new name or will they continue on with SBC? What will we get when we spend $20 million?
Is the name worth $20 million?
This may be an odd way to state this point but think with me. If we are talking about names that have been mentioned already such as Continental, Great Commission, etc.., we are talking about names that will do little to inspire passion for such a move. I was actually excited to hear what possibilities would be developed. I saw a chance for some really creative ideas. But with what appears to be the direction (and I am speculating) from the domain names reserved, the excitement left quickly. $20 million is a lot of pennies for something that has no "thump"! If we spend $20 million on a name, it better be a $20 million name in my opinion. THE ABOVE DON'T TOP $5!
Final thoughts!
- I have come to realize that items such as this mean little to people and their eternal destination. If we make much of Jesus, Jesus takes care of the drawing. Our name WON'T COME INTO PLAY.
- There are already a "ton" of different types of Baptist out there! A new name won't clarify the confusion that already exists.
- Do people who have not been raised in church even care?
- $20 million? Really? When we hear that we need more money to send people to the mission fields and we need more money to plant churches - do we really spend $20 million on a name?
In the end it is a big $20 million question!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)