BTSR's Increasingly Bright Future

Friday, January 18 2013 11:09:15 AM

In writing this blog I assume my readers are familiar with the joint press release from BTSR and Veritas and the second press release related uniquely to BTSR concerning the sale of BTSR property.  Both of these documents provide helpful information about the basic decision the seminary has reached regarding selling property.

In this blog, I will repeat some information, add some information and focus on what the property sale means to BTSR’s future. 

Background

BTSR trustees voted on January 18, 2013 to sell a large part of our campus.  Additional property will be sold in the coming years as we shed excess property.

Trustees voted in March 2011 to sell property as a way to do two things: transforming the seminary’s business model and reducing debt.  Three reasons led to this decision: the exceedingly rapid shifts of theological education in the early twenty-first century, the impact of numerous other moderate Baptist seminaries opening and the overall impact of the Great Recession of 2008 and following.  Frankly, if trustees had postponed their action of March 2011 the seminary would not have survived.  Twenty years from now we will look back and say, “The seminary’s strategic plan got in front of that wave and is healthier for it!”

The proceeds from the sale of property will go to reduce debt; we expect to reduce our long-term debt from $5.9 million to less than $2.5 million.  The old nursing dorm is on the market for $1.2 million.  When we sell that building we will further reduce debt and cut expenses.  In five to seven years, we will sell Kraemer Hall to Veritas, or another buyer.  

The Increasingly Bright Future

When trustees voted to sell buildings in 2011 the news stories focused on DEBT, as if it was the only important ingredient in the unfolding story.  The 2011 story, and the 2013 story, is really about the seminary moving forward on its strategic plans.  We are selling buildings because it is part of our strategic plan for the future.  The business model the seminary has used over the last ten years is not working in our rapidly changing world, therefore we are adapting.

BTSR’s strategic plan centers in three processes.

BTSR will focus on its core mission, equipping and training women and men for ministry.

BTRS is encumbered with substantial building costs and the debt associated with buildings.  Relieved of these building costs, BTSR will be able to devote resources into areas which will grow the student body (scholarships, enhanced teaching/learning experiences, etc).  We choose to invest in students.

BTSR will create an effective business model.

This may be more about penguins than you want to know; but let me try to make it simply.  Historically, seminaries are of three types: tuition driven, donor driven, or endowment driven.  By ‘driven’ I mean the revenue is heavily dependent on one verses the other.  As an example, an endowment driven school may depend on interest from investments to provide 80% of the school’s revenue; therefore, the school doesn’t expect much from tuition or donors.

BTSR has been a donor driven school, heavily dependent on gifts from donors to keep the school strong; our tuition has been low and our endowment modest.  In challenging economic times, this is a recipe for disaster.  And I would add, this is an unhealthy business model for the twenty-first century.

I advocate balance.  Successful seminaries of the twenty-first century will not be donor driven, or tuition driven or endowment driven.  They will be driven by all three; they will have a revenue stream balancing revenue from donors, endowment and tuition.

For BTSR this means we must grow our student body and our endowment.  We had 101 students in class this past fall.  We want that number to grow toward 150.  A $4.5 million endowment will not sustain a seminary.  We need an endowment of $35 million, the sooner the better. 

With a larger student body (tuition revenue) and a larger endowment our revenue stream will become far more balanced, and stable.

BTSR is updating its curriculum .

Most of us get lost in the conversation soon after the introduction of the word ‘curriculum.”  Let me offer a simple explanation (over simplification): a seminary’s program of study, how that program is offered and how effective it is in accomplishing its goals are all vital twenty-first century issues.

BTSR must provide a great product (program of study) attuned to the needs of twenty-first century churches and students.  BTSR has a long history of offering a great product.  We need to increasingly become sensitive to the market and the needs of churches and individuals.

We expect to roll-out this new curriculum in fall 2014.

The point of my blog is fairly straightforward.  BTSR is following its strategic plan.  We are claiming our bright future.

Ginter Park Baptist, the BGAV and the Tie that Binds

Thursday, November 01 2012 07:48:09 AM

Ginter Park Baptist Church ordained a gay man as a minister in September, 2012.  This is creating a stir among Baptist organizations in Virginia.

The Richmond Baptist Association (RBA), on Sunday October 21, 2012, created a committee to study the association’s relationship with Ginter Park Baptist Church and report to the April RBA meeting.  This approach postpones the conversation and demonstrates the RBA desires a deliberate and thoughtful process.

The Baptist General Association of Virginia’s (BGAV) Executive Committee took another approach; it simply noted the church’s actions were outside the parameters of the BGAV and asked the church to withdraw before the end of the year.  If the church does not withdraw the BGAV will no longer receive its financial gifts, effectively dismissing the church.

Every Baptist body has the right to set its own ‘membership policy’ and this is not really open for other Baptist bodies to judge.  The BGAV is not defining what is right for the larger state of Virginia or what is appropriate as Federal policy.  It is addressing the parameters of membership in the BGAV. 

For some, this issue is mostly one of integrity and loyalty to a particular way of interpreting scripture.  Others see this as primarily an issue about church autonomy.  I think the issue is more complex, and yet simpler.    

The BGAV is struggling with membership; identifying those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out.’  The BGAV is saying, “We are not willing to cooperate with churches that ordain a gay person as a minister.”  This is drawing a membership line.  To a church that is presently ‘in the family’ or ‘on the team’ the BGAV is saying, “Not anymore.”

The BGAV has been abundantly clear about its view of homosexuality; see the 1993 Resolution approved by the General Association.  In spite of its clear view, if a local church wants to cooperate with the BGAV’s ministries and work --- let it!  When the BGAV accepts financial gifts from a church there is no implicit affirmation of the church’s theology or practice, never has been.

My personal contention is the ‘tie that binds’ is a bit too tight around the waist.  Ginter Park Baptist Church is one, only one, of 1,200 BGAV churches.  One ‘unique’ church does not spoil the bushel of apples.  One ‘unique’ church does not somehow side-track the whole of the General Association.  Ginter Park Baptist Church is expressing what she understands to be her calling and place in ministry.  Why not just let her be? 

The decision about Ginter Park Baptist presents a question about the BGAV’s capacity for dissent.  With whom will the BGAV cooperate?  How much is too much?

I think the tie that binds is a bit tight around the waist.

Grace and Peace,

Ron

Good for the BGAV Budget Committee

Saturday, October 20 2012 05:46:17 PM

Good for the BGAV Budget Committee

I have briefly reviewed the revised BGAV 2013 Proposed Budget: good for the Budget Committee and good for BGAV leadership.  Thank you for hearing the wails and cries of disappointment.  And thanks for WMU choosing to share the pain.  Now, this makes you proud to be a Virginia Baptist!

I know this is going to make some of my readers cringe……, but I have a question, “Why put us all through this agony?”  If the Budget Committee had come forward with the revised budget first, there wouldn’t have been a Baptist squabble.  Why put the BGAV family through this torture?   And, “Ron, you should trust the process” is not an adequate answer.  It is not an adequate answer when a Budget Committee will come out with a proposal to cut a partner 50% without warning.

The system is either broken or in need of significant repair.

Let me play the “Jim White’ card.  If the BGAV wants to reduce BTSR over the next five years I am good with that.  I don’t like it, but I can deal with it.  Is it asking too much for us to have a respectful conversation and plan together to reach a mutually agreeable timetable for that to happen, and should BGAV trustee representation on partner boards change as BGAV dollars decline?  Or is BTSR and other partners simply at the mercy of whomever is on the Budget Committee in any particular year?  Why is the budget process not looking at multiple years and establishing yearly goals for how the partner relationships (funding) will change?  Why can’t partners and BGAV leaders sit together and plan out a mutual future?

Let me play the donor card.  A major donor of BTSR read the news BTSR was to be cut 50%.  She quickly tweeted Tim Heilman (VP for Advancement) in a bit of a panic.  She wanted to know why Virginia Baptists were radically cutting the seminary.  All we could say was, “We have no clue.  We are as surprised as you.”  It is really hard to recover from this kind of impression in a donor’s mind.  While we are busy with damage control, an unfortunate seed has been planted in the back of a donor’s mind.  The Budget Committee’s original recommendation has made BTSR’s life more difficult and caused a boatload of unnecessary pain.  If the BGAV is intent on reducing funding to BTSR over the coming years can we do it in a way that does not wreck our efforts to secure the seminary’s future?

I am going to play the centralization card again.  Sorry to be counter-cultural.  Centralizing Virginia Baptist efforts in a social context bent on decentralization is a mistake.  The Virginia Baptist mission portfolio is very heavily concentrated in one ‘stock.’  This is a really bad idea.  Centralization in Baptist life began (in a major way) in the early twentieth century.  In the Cooperative Program (1925) Baptists decided to adopt the model of the Industrial Age (assembly line) to grow denominational life.  Following an Industrial Age philosophy in the Information Age will lead to death for any church or organization.  In the 2013 Proposed Budget Virginia Baptists are doubling-down on centralization.  This is a bad idea.

Finally, I want to return to the beginning.  How the BGAV treats partners leaves much to be desired.  Let me illustrate my point.  In the revised budget Leland is move from the ‘state-side’ to the ‘national side’ of the budget.  This is a fundamental philosophical change in the BGAV-Leland relationship.  Did this fundamental philosophical change come as the result of a careful and thoughtful process over six months, or did it just happen as a committee was trying to make numbers work in a particular budget?  We can do better than this.

Grace and some measure of Peace,

Ron

Budgetary Revelation

Wednesday, October 17 2012 12:44:54 PM

The 2013 Proposed Budget of the Baptist General Association of Virginia (BGAV) is a very revealing document.  How we chose to spend our money says a lot about our values.

For those coming to this conversation a bit late, let me provide a quick summary.  The BGAV’s proposed 2013 budget cuts partner organizations by about 50% while providing a $391,000 increase to General Board ministries.  As you can imagine the partners are wailing, partly because they had no clue a cut of this magnitude was in the works.  General Board staff (and the Budget Committee) say the money is needed for new initiatives for the BGAV in church planting, evangelism and discipleship.

I also want to refer my readers to the Religious Herald Website.  A letter from Tim Madison and an editorial by Jim White is must reading if one wants to be well informed about this conversation. 

While the final interpretation of the merits of the proposed budget will be decided by the BGAV in a few weeks when it meets in its annual session, I want to share a few observations.

The proposed budget reveals a significant failure of BGAV leadership.  All of a sudden we have a mess on our hands, created by a poor process.

These substantial cuts are being sprung on us within a month of a BGAV vote.  I am well aware of the normal sequence for presenting a BGAV budget; in fact this year, the Budget Committee gave an additional week of notice about its proposal.  However, a change of this significance should not be sprung on such short notice.  In this regard I agree with Tim Madison’s recent letter (posted on the Religious Herald’s webpage) which suggested this budget represents a fundamental philosophical change from those that preceded it.  To add facts, the 1993 BGAV budget provided 37% of all state-side dollars to partner organizations; the 2013 proposed budget provides less than 11% of state-side dollars to partner organizations.  A 50% cut to partner organizations is a philosophical change that should have been studied and approved by the BGAV before an implementation was attempted.  Our leaders have failed us in that they have not helped the larger body establish priorities in an orderly and input friendly process.  These cuts start on January 1, 2013 less than sixty days after a BGAV vote.

When I teach my next class on the Life and Work of the Pastor I will use the 2013 budget proposal and process as an example of how one should never lead a local church.  We can do better than this.  The mess we now have is a reflection of less than wonderful leadership.

The Proposed Budget reveals a profound misunderstanding of the twenty-first century. 

The proposed budget provides an increase of $391,000 to the VBMB for “evangelism, discipleship and starting new churches” (RH article).  Is there anyone who thinks this is enough money for these enterprises?  How many churches will be started?  What will the additional funds provide for in the area of ‘discipleship,’ over and above what is already being done at the VBMB?  In the same article someone suggested these new initiatives will help grow the Kingdom.  All for $391,000?  $391,000 represents 6.5% of the 2011 VBMB allocation.  What is going to be transformed with an additional 6.5%?

We will not claim the twenty-first century by cutting Peter to pay Paul; the twenty-first century requires a fundamental reorientation of how we do things.  We will claim the future when we transform twentieth-century systems into twenty-first century methods.

I visit a few churches from time-to-time and I hear well-meaning members say, “We can’t keep cut-cut-cutting.”  I respond with, “Well, stop cut-cut-cutting and transform?”  In the case of the BGAV we need to start asking fundamental questions (which are not being asked now), “What do churches need us to do for them in the twenty-first century?”

Denominational entities exist for one reason only, to do for churches what they cannot do for themselves.  What do churches need us to do for them?  This is the “unasked question” and it is the essential question if we are serious about the Baptist future. 

I can’t help but see a painful irony in the 2013 proposed BGAV budget; we respond to a decentralizing age by centralizing what we do (moving money from diverse partners to a centralized structure).  Do we really think the future will be claimed through centralization?  Where has this worked (in the twenty-first century) in other church organizations and non-profits?

The 2013 proposed budget takes from Peter to pay Paul.  This strategy will fail in the twenty-first century and unnecessarily makes Baptist life very messy.

The proposed budget reveals a flaw in the BGAV budget process. 

Is there anyone who thinks the 2013 BGAV budget process has served us well?  Let me quickly say, the process used this year was the same as in the past.  However, this year it failed to fairly serve all interests in the BGAV.  Sometimes flaws in systems are only revealed under great duress.  The present budget process has served us fairly well in the past. 

The BGAV Budget Committee serves the interests of all BGAV stakeholders.  One can certainly make the case the 2013 Proposed Budget serves the interests of some partners better than others.  We need a system where partners have an opportunity to meet directly with the Budget Committee.

A lot of good will has been lost with the 2013 BGAV proposed budget.  We need to change the system to more fairly represent the interests of vital partner organizations.  While a changed system may not increase dollars going to partner organizations it will at least give them a real voice in the process, which they clearly do not have now.

As I write this blog I have no idea if the BGAV Budget Committee will change its recommendation.  I hope it hears the outcry.  If not, I will vote to amend the budget in Roanoke in a few weeks.  What has been presented to date is unacceptable for a multitude of reasons.

Grace and Peace,

Ron

Demon Possesion of the Twenty-first Century

Tuesday, September 25 2012 08:53:15 AM

The twenty-first century is the age of hyper-individualism.  We want what we want!  Hyper-individualism is ‘in the water we all drink’ and its impact is pervasive in modern American life.

Before we make a major purchase we develop a list of features.  We make extensive lists of the features we want on cars and homes, prospective mates, churches and seminaries we attend.  As Burger King said nearly 40 years ago, “You can have it your way.”

I encounter hyper-individualism when I talk with a church member resistant of modern trends in worship.  They want to keep the hymnal and they despise anything that requires a video screen.  In essence, they say, “I want what I want.”  Sometimes it is more emphatic, “I want what I want and I don’t care if a local church dies.”  Ministers are often caught in the middle of church conflict.  While navigating short-term troubled waters it is always important to have a clear sense of the deeper issues at work in congregational life.  It is important to name the demon.  At the end of the day the demon is hyper-individualism and it has taken deep root in us all.

I encounter hyper-individualism when I talk with my ‘postmodern’ friends about worship.  They of course want to re-invent worship and act as if they are the first to discover the Kingdom of God; apparently, it has been hidden in the New Testament amid a grand conspiracy among Church leaders to keep people ignorant of it!

Of course, my postmodern friends are savvy.  They see themselves as reacting against the entrenched imperial views of the Church’s status quo.  They want to free the Kingdom and the Church from the shackles of small-minded traditionalists.  They see themselves as those who ride white horses and have risen above the human condition, which pulled traditionalist into the gutter.  My postmodern friends want what they want, and they don’t care if a local church dies.

Ministers know church members rarely argue about the ‘real issue.’  The color of the carpet or the use of video in worship or the use of a bulletin (or not) are tips of an iceberg.  Traditionalists and postmodernists neither occupy higher ground; we all are stuck-in-the-mud of the human condition.  We want what we want.  Traditionalists want what they want and they don’t care if a local church dies.  Postmodernists want what they want and they don’t care if a local church dies.

I am not offering an antidote; I am not sure one exists, though good teaching and preaching has to help.  I simply believe naming the demon may give us power to mitigate its influence.

Hyper-individualism!  It is in the water we all drink.

Grace and Peace,

Ron

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

Sunday, September 09 2012 06:46:01 PM

A new future began to emerge for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in Fort Worth, Texas June 20-22, 2012.  The retirement of long-time Coordinator Dan Vestal was front and center throughout the meeting.    Add to this the retirement of Terry Hamrick and the return to the classroom of Rob Nash (and the departure of still others in summer 2012), CBF is undergoing an unprecedented change in leadership, unprecedented.

And, the General Assembly approved the 2012 Task Force Report altering CBF’s future organizational structure.

The first shoe dropped in Fort Worth with the retirement of Dan Vestal and the approval of the 2012 Task Force Report.  There is another shoe to drop, in the not-too-far future.

Reviewing History

Baptists, with their individual centered-polity, are heavily influenced by cultural shifts; thus, the Temperance Movement led Baptists to do a very unbiblical thing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, remove wine from the communion cup.  In the early twentieth century (Industrial Age) Baptists adopted the organizational model of the day and created the Cooperative Program and a strong Executive Committee.  This new industrial model gave birth to the creation of a very strong national organization (SBC), strong state organizations (state conventions) and significant associational organizations.  State and associational organizations (as well as the SBC) existed prior to the early twenty century; yet they were transformed in the first three decades of the twentieth century based on the industrial model.  By the late 1950s the industrial model was fully absorbed into the way Baptists went about their work at the national, state and associational levels.

With the emergence of the Information Age the industrial management systems of the SBC began to unravel.  The decentralization of the computer age did not sit well with the well-oiled machine of denominational life.  Individuals and coalitions wanted more influence; attendance at annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention swelled and the Takeover and Conservative Resurgence were on!

In the formation of CBF (another expression of decentralization) organizers opted for a very different kind of national organization; a weak central office to lead the movement and very weak connections to partner state and CBF organizations. I use the term ‘weak’ with no malice; the term suggests the system itself was not dependent on employees in a central office but found energy and leadership in a larger constituent base.  As an example, the original Coordinating Council was the ‘center of gravity’ in the early Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.  Later this was changed and the Coordinating Council became more advisory in nature with influence shifting toward the professional staff.  CBF started with a weak central office, shifted to a stronger central office structure where employees ‘resourced churches’ and is now moving back to a weak central office structure. 

With a weak national office in CBF’s early years, most state CBF organizations followed the Movement’s lead and created weak to very weak state CBF chapters.  CBF of Florida was the early exception.  CBF of Florida emerged early and moved quickly to become a strong presence on the national CBF scene and a unifying force in the state among CBF churches and congregations willing to passing money along to CBF.  Instead of creating a weak state office, Florida CBF opted for a strong central office formatting itself on the old state convention model of the SBC .  Up until the last eight years, Florida CBF was an anomaly.  Now since the 2012 Task Force Report, CBF of Florida is seen foreshadowing things to come.

CBF’s organizational life was forever altered by the development of North Carolina’s CBF state organization in the wake of the split of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.  Initially CBF of North Carolina developed a weak organizational structure. However, that changed when moderates in North Carolina gave-up on the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina after many years of struggle and withdrew.  As they withdrew they changed CBF of North Carolina into a mini-state convention.  While there is a sense in which North Carolina CBF followed the lead of their counterparts in Florida what was created in North Carolina CBF was truly unprecedented in CBF history.

When the 2012 Task Force began its work considering ways to reshape CBF’s organizational structure an ‘elephant in the room’ was CBF of North Carolina.  With a strong central office in CBF of Florida and an unprecedentedly strong mini-state convention in CBF of North Carolina the 2012 Task Force had little choice but to offer recommendations that, in effect, transformed the national CBF office back to a weak organizational model.  I am confident other issues were involved in the deliberations of the Task Force; even so, there was no way getting around the triumph of strong state CBF organizations as exemplified by CBF of North Carolina.

The 2012 Task Force Report will change the nature of CBF.  CBF will become an organization characterized by a weak national office (with a fairly strong mission sending arm) and strong state and regional organizations.  When state and regional CBF organizations begin conversations with the national office about how much CBF money should stay in their respective states, the state organizations will argue for more money to stay in their respective states.  Implementing the 2012 Task Force Report will transform CBF into a centralized mission sending arm and a decentralized network of state CBF organizations.  The national office of CBF will coordinate work among a decentralized network working along-side, not above, state and regional CBF organizations.

CBF of Florida started the move, CBF of North Carolina has invigorated it and now other state CBF organizations will follow.  To this point CBF has been a national movement with small affiliates in states and regions.  CBF will become a network of state and regional organizations with a weak national presence.  

When people gathered for the Consultation in Atlanta in the summer of 1990 (which gave birth to CBF), virtually no one imagined CBF would become a ‘state-centered’ movement.  I am not suggesting this is a negative development.  I am saying it is inevitable.  This is the way CBF’s future is unfolding.

The Shoe to Come

I very much enjoyed the Tallowood Players in Fort Worth; they are a drama troupe from Tallowood Baptist Church.  In a skit, one player wondered about CBF’s future.  Another player introduced the idea of churches resourcing each other, instead of being dependent on a national organization.  Woops…. The cat is clearly out of the bag; in fact, it is not a cat but a lion cub.

Another shoe will drop when people begin to wonder why churches are dependent on state organizations when churches can resource each other, without having to go through a ‘middle person’ (state CBF entities).   Apparently, the Tallowood Players see this coming future.

Churches will do well to claim their birth-right as the center of Baptist life in the Information Age.  We CBFers are slowing beginning to catch a glimpse of the coming reality (the second shoe).  Increasingly, we need to focus our interest and attention on the local church and ask, “What does the local church need CBF to do?”  Denominational structures exist, and only exist, to do for churches what they cannot do for themselves; and the list of what churches can’t do for themselves is getting shorter!

Over the next five years there may be a good bit of excitement in state CBF organizations.  Why not, they will retain a larger share of money given by churches in their state.  With expanding budgets, state organizations will revel in the excitement of deciding where to spend money; and I am confident state organizations will do wonderful things with these ‘diverted dollars’ (diverted from CBF national).  These funds will create vibrant state organizations.  So, at the state level we are in for a euphoric decade as we falsely imagine ‘the budget is growing;’ when in fact, dollars are simply shifting.  The unknown question is: “Will this activity and excitement at the state level provide enough impetus for local CBF churches to increase the amount of money they send to ‘missions.’”  Can the amount given to all CBF causes actually grow with this new structure?  Probably not.  As churches rediscover their financial autonomy they will give greater focus to their ‘denominational’ gifts (more designations), use more funds in their own missional activities in their communities and provide fewer funds for denominational ‘overhead.’

The Long-term Future

So, where is all this transformation heading?  It is heading to the future-past.  Long before there were associational, state and national Baptist associations and conventions, the local Baptist church was standing by itself and loosely connecting itself to other local congregations.  Churches connected with one another for camp meetings, good preaching and good eating.  In the midst of our transformations may we have the wisdom to keep the best of our past, good preaching and good eating.

Grace and some measure of Peace in these changing times,

Ron

What Is In A Name?

Tuesday, February 28 2012 12:00:00 AM

So, Southern Baptists are thinking of changing their name.  Two reasons are offered as a rationale: “the name is too regional and hinders effective efforts to plant new churches;” and, the “name has become a liability because it is too often associated with divisively partisan politics” (AP).

A more recent article (ABP) noted the convention’s Executive Committee cannot make up its mind about a name change.  They want to keep the official name and then add “Great Commission Convention” for branding purposes.  I guess an alias is helpful from time-to-time.

There is no question the word “Southern” is clearly regional and needs changing if the convention wants to expand.  I remember conversations about changing the name thirty years ago; too bad it was not changed then.

The name’s association with ‘divisively partisan politics’ and, I might add, simple old-fashioned narrow mindedness, is a great labiality; of course, this is the fault of Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders of the last thirty years.  In the mid-1970s SBC was conservative but reasonable and thoughtful.  No more.  I am old enough to remember the rhetoric of the mid-1980s, fundamentalists were out to purify the denomination (get rid of the ‘liberals’) then God would bless the convention and it would soar to new heights.  To use an Obama term, “they drove it in the ditch.”  

Ideologues always drive organizations into the ditch; it is their nature.

Friend and foe alike resonate with a name change for the SBC.  In my opinion, the name change should await a few more retirements.  A handful more of SBC ideologues need to retire before the name is changed else it is nothing more than a new coat of paint on an ugly barn.  They have ruined one name; why give them a new one to tarnish?

The name needs to change as a new generation of pragmatic leaders move into positions of responsibility.  New leaders have the opportunity to drop the ideological side-show and get focused on God’s mission in the world, which has been forgotten amid battles about inerrancy, infallibility, Calvinism and artificial purity.

While there is a part of me which would like to suggest a few new names for the convention (Republican Baptist Convention, Stuck-in-the-Mud Baptist Convention, Yesterday-is-Better Baptist Convention, Calvin Baptist Convention, etc) I think it is critical the SBC develop a new name and a new brand.   As an evangelical denomination it has a place of importance in American religious life.  A new beginning could provide a much healthier perspective, if new pragmatic leaders emerge at the same time.

I am not so sure “Great Commission Convention” is the right move.  It they want a new face for a new century they need to drop ‘convention;’ association, a historic Baptist term, or network would be an improvement. 

Even those who make a mess of their lives deserve a new beginning.  Of course, only a fool would offer a new beginning to an unrepentant ideologue.

Grace and Peace,

Ron

New blog home: roncrawford.net

Context is Crucial

Friday, February 24 2012 07:19:19 AM

Insight is always rooted in context.  What works in Richmond rarely works in Asheville and never works in Orlando.

Recently, I was in Florida visiting with Dr. Duke McCall, retired president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a former president of the Baptist World Alliance.  Dr. Caleb Oladipo our mission professor was with me.  Dr. Oladipo asked Dr. McCall what his advice would be to a new seminary graduate.  Dr. McCall thought for a moment and said, “I don’t know how to answer your question because I don’t know the context anymore.”

He went on to talk about what it is like to be 97 years old.  He is grateful for living this long but realizes his finger is no longer on the pulse of the context of a new seminary graduate.  As he said, “My wife bought an IPad.  She is giving up her computer.  I have no use for it.” 

I thought to myself, Dr. McCall is a smart man.  He clearly understands many people pontificate as if they know much when then do not understand the context.  It is better to hold you peace if you do not know the context.

This is a point I tend to drive home in the Life and Work of the Pastor class I teach at BTSR.  While it is very helpful to have a head-full of knowledge, the only knowledge usable is that which fits the context.

The silver bullet in ministry is always a person.  I remember being pressed by a number of church members who were traditionalist, “What is the program?  We have to have a program to implement.  What is the program?”  To which I heard myself say, “You are the program!” 

While programs of all sorts can be helpful, the solution is always a person.  Are we not pleased God sent a person, Jesus, not a program?  Programs do not transform churches, people do; and often, resurrection begins with a single solitary individual.

If the pastor becomes a better person the church will become a better church, by necessity.  The image for the pastor of the twenty-first century is not that of a CEO, or coach, or scapegoat, but that of leaven.  Put a bit of leaven in dough and watch, and stand back!  Ever tried to stop dough from rising?

We become better ministers by growing spiritually, by sorting out our psychological and family ‘stuff,’ by updating our skills, by learning to change and embrace the changing world around us.  Of course, demographic trends are important in ministry.  Becoming a more noble spirit is more important.  When the pastor becomes a better person the congregation will always follow.

In our visit with Dr. McCall I followed-up his confession about context by mentioning online education.  I mentioned a few of the best theological libraries in the U. S. are in the process of digitizing their holds.  His eyes immediately lit-up.  While the computer is not his friend, Dr. McCall sensed an online theological library will change the ministerial world, in due season.

The days of one size fits all is over.  We now live in unique contexts which call for creativity and innovation.  Clearly understanding one’s context is the first essential ingredient in leadership.

Scientific Calvinism

Monday, February 20 2012 03:03:52 PM

I debated writing this blog: the topic is a bit afield for me.   But then, I said, “Why not?”  So, I sat down this morning and pecked-out this blog, of my own free choice.

I write in response to Jerry A. Coyne’s article “Why you don’t really have free will” which appeared on USA Today’s webpage in January.  The second paragraph reads in part, “You may feel like you’ve made choices, but in reality your decision …. was determined long before you woke up today.”  Later he wrote, “There is no freedom of choice, no free will.”  Coyne, a University of Chicago professor, sites scientific studies on brain research to support his case.  His article may create interest in his book, Why Evolution is True.

So, I guess I am not deciding to write this article after all?  Maybe I should stop.  If I am not deciding to write the article who is?  Coyne’s answer is DNA and the sum total of my experience to this point in my life.  He suggests I am driven to write this article. 

If Coyne had suggested we experience limited free will, or very limited free will, I might well have agreed with him; for homo sapiens are very predictable.  We tend to live out of past stories without examining underlying values; churches do this as well as individuals.  In truth many simply ‘go with the flow’ and fail to exercise any real choice in life.  Coyne could have had a supporter in me if he had not gone ‘off the deep end,’ denying any sense of free will in human experience.

There are several foundational problems with Coyne’s approach.

Science is an evolving field.  In many ways science is in its infancy, maybe adolescence.  It wasn’t that long ago science-minded people were saying, “We now understand the universe.”  Then quantum mechanics re-stirred the pot.  Science of today has no unified theory of how the universe works; there is no formula that reconciles gravity with quantum mechanics and other areas of modern scientific study.  In many regards science struggles to understand fully itself.  For a scientist to declare “no freedom of choice, no free will” while standing in the unfolding flow of science is a betrayal of the foundations of science.  Scientists rarely make definitive statements; rather they say, “Based on our best research and the knowledge available to us now such-and-such seems true.”  This is a far cry from “no freedom of choice, no free will.”

Science isn’t the only way of knowing.  Coyne made the mistake many make in the Scientific Age, he assumes nothing matters but that which one can weigh and measure.  He has narrowly defined his world according to the tenants of science and ignores other realities around him; he creates a circular argument.  Thus, following his narrowly defined universe he reaches the conclusion there is no free will of any kind.  This appears to be a rather close-minded perspective.  Of course, this happens rather often in our world.  Because we live in the Scientific Age many not only appreciate science, they worship at its altar; their devotion to science blinds them to a broader and deeper sense of reality.  In essence, they create carefully crafted scientific models which ignore the depth and complexity of reality; if it doesn’t fit in a test tube it doesn’t exist for them.

Confession: I am a reason and revelation person.  Reason cannot explain fully over universe, and it never will no matter how much data is collected.  Let me offer a few illustrations.

Seen any great artwork lately?  Picasso’s work portrays things as they really are, not simply as they appear.  Science is only interested in how things appear.  Picasso’s distorted, disjointed, twisted figures reveal the essence behind the reality.   This essence will never be explained by reason alone.  This is my fundamental point, part of reality falls outside of science’s narrowly self-defined field of study.

Listened to any good music lately?  And, don’t get me started on what seeing one of those grandbabies does to my essence.  Reason is most certainly a good friend, but ought not to be our only friend.

Is reality nothing more than atoms running around this way and that?  Is there no mystery and majesty in human experience?

Coyne’s article reminded me of the breath-taking experience of standing on the northern rim of the Grand Canyon.   I stood there in utter amazement and awe.  After a few moments I looked down to check on my son.  He had his head stuck between two rails watching his spittle descend into the depths.  He missed the majesty of the moment.

Can Ministers Survive Advent Again?

Tuesday, November 22 2011 05:47:57 PM

Advent offers a busy beginning to the Church’s year for most of us; we look forward to the parties and special church programs.  Of course, there is another side to this saga.  Advent can drain the life out of ministers in a few short weeks.  While most ministers look forward to the celebrative atmosphere of Advent, they also need to take some precautions else they will have no ‘gas in the tank’ for the Christmas Eve service.

Pace Party Life

Attending every church party during December is a really bad idea.  Rather, a minister should attend no more than a handful of parties each Advent, rotating the ones attended yearly: attend the Forever Young Christmas Party, the young adult Christmas Bash every other year.  Do not, do not attempt to attend every church related party every year.  Pace yourself.

Do not, do not party hop.  There is nothing worse than a minister ‘attending’ three Christmas parties in one evening.  The ‘party hopping minister’ sets a really bad example for the congregation; the behavior suggests the minister wants to touch bases without investing in others who attend the events.  With fewer parties to attend the minister is far more available at the attended events, arrive early and stay late. 

Party hopping is a professional sin.

Nibble on Desserts

There is no law ministers have to eat everything put in front of them.  “Stuffing one’s face” is not a ministerial virtue.  Make a routine of eating (literally) a bite of this and a bite of that.  There is no biblical reason to accept half a slice of pie, a much smaller amount will do.  ‘Taste’ five desserts instead of eating full-slices of two, or three.

Come-up with your own excuse and use it without fail and stick to it; mine was “I am not a dessert person.”  In my second year of ministry (1978) I realized if I ate every dessert put in front of me I would have significant health problems down the road.  So, I passed on desserts at restaurants and in members’ homes, or asked for just a mouthful.  Surprisingly, people complied and did not seem to mind.

Setting dessert limits for yourself makes a significant statement to your congregation and encourages a healthy perspective in your church.  Again, ministers can model self-control; and provide a wonderful example for their parishioners. 

Of course, I have often heard the excuse, “Oh, I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by turning down a dessert.”  This line may still work with a few uninformed members of the laity….  Put on your big boy/girl pants. 

Enjoy Your Family

Contrary to the familiar Abraham/Issac story, God does not expect ministers to sacrifice children on the church’s Advent altar. 

Christmas is the season of negotiation with your spouse.  In late November, or better before Thanksgiving, look over the December schedule and set some parameters to protect time with your family.  Some simply suggestions:

Set several days aside (afternoons/evenings) to share with family: go shopping, decorate the tree, etc.  Flexibility is a must for people tend to die ‘at the most inconvenient times.’  If ample time for family in your schedule is ‘protected’ a few ‘interruptions’ can be managed.  There is no solution for six funerals in two weeks!

Get used to a very flexible schedule after December 20^th.  Make necessary visit to church members and attend to other important matters before December 20^th.  Then, focus on a small list of things that must be accomplished before the Christmas Eve service.  Thus, your schedule is hectic for the first three weeks of Advent, but is not for the last five days before Christmas. 

Use the after-Christmas week wisely.  No one really wants to see you that week anyway.  Lay low and enjoy some time off.  Plan a low-keyed worship service for the Sunday after Christmas.  In fact, a good number of ministers take the Sunday off.  I rarely did, the week after Christmas is a ‘slow week’ in ministry.  Work a slower pace that week and take vacation on a much busier week later in March or April.

Cherish family; they stick with you through thick-and-thin.

Listen for the Angel’s Song

Over-familiarity with Advent and a hectic pace of life can keep a minister from experiencing the freshness and wonder of Advent.  In your heart-of-hearts find a way to experience again the fresh wonder of Advent for yourself.  It is a terrible shame when those who preach about the Coming One never experience the joy of the season because of a bruising schedule; it happens often to those of us in ministry.  We do for others ‘til we have lost the capacity to do for ourselves.  I am by no means an expert on these matters but here is part of my Advent strategy.

Spent time with children, they know about Christmas wonder.

Listen to music that inspires you.  I am not a CD-in-the-car kind of guy, except during Advent.  Handel’s Messiah offers me the best chance of hearing the Angel’s song.  I listen to it over and over and over and over during the weeks of Advent.

Work at ‘being present’ with members of your church during Advent; no party-hopping or running around wildly.  Stay centered in the moment.

Practice silence.

Embrace Failure

In spite of your best scheduling and focusing efforts some Advent seasons are just routine; no angels singing, no joy, no peace in the deep places of the ministerial soul.  It just goes with the territory; it is not you.  ‘Suck it up’ and go forward.  There is always next year. 

If the pattern continues (Advent, Easter, Pentecost, Advent, Easter, etc.) invest in a counseling relationship with a psychologist.  Ministers are really complex people.  From time-to-time we need a little help to find ‘center’ again.  We too are entitled to the ‘abundant life.’

Grace and Peace (and Advent Joy),