If you could look at my small DVD collection, you will quickly ascertain that I enjoy war movies. It is not that I love to see the conflict and killings so much as I find in moments of war the very best and worst of humanity put on display. It is where heroes are made, victories won, and lessons learned so that we might have a better tomorrow.
Saving Private Ryan was a movie that captured the heart of what war is all about. The story begins with the Battle of Normandy on Omaha Beach but quickly changes when Captain John Miller receives a report “straight from the top.” Private First Class James Francis Ryan lost all three of his brothers within days. Unaccounted for, General George C. Marshall orders that a special group of eight men under the leadership of Miller be assembled to find Private Ryan and return him home to his mother. These eight men throughout the movie are wrestling with the idea that eight soldiers are giving their lives to save just one, and through misleading information and loss of life, the frustration only increased with each passing moment. Is this a just cause? Why have we been chosen to risk our lives for this? As one solider opined, was this not just another “serious mis-allocation of valuable military resources?”
The squad gets word that Ryan is defending a strategically important bridge which would be the scene of the final battle. Ryan refuses to leave, telling Captain Miller that his fellow soldiers are “the only brothers he has left.” As a result, Captain Miller decides to stay and fight. A minor character with major consequence is Technical Corporal Timothy Upham a reporter and interpreter who had never been in combat and was writing a book about the bonds of brotherhood in war. In the final battle, several of the soldiers were out of ammunition, and Upham’s primary goal was to get several hundred rounds to his fellow soldiers. Shrinking down in cowardice, Upham fails to accomplish this task, and the most gruesome killing of his “brothers” followed in part because of his cowardice. Instead, Upham hunkers down one floor below and listens to his brothers be beaten, stabbed, and shot to death.
The critical bridge which Ryan refused to abandon became the place where Captain Miller would become a victim to enemy fire. American reinforcements arrive in the form of Mustangs who took out the enemy, and Miller give his final words to Private Ryan, faintly declaring, “Earn this.”
I share this storyline with you because I believe it directly relates to where we are as the Southern Baptist Convention. For the past three decades, Southern Baptists have been fighting battles, not the least of which is the recovery of Biblical inerrancy. However, we are at a point in the life of the SBC where it could be argued that we have a special mission, a very difficult task before us, namely saving the SBC. This special mission will require special men with special sacrifice – something we have seldom seen in SBC life.
Undoubtedly, there are many in the SBC who are asking the same question those eight men under Captain Miller were asking. “Is the SBC worth saving?” “Why should we spend our lives and give it for a denomination that has so much political infighting and unhealthy churches?” “Would not the giving of our lives be just another ‘mis-allocation of valuable resources’?” For over a year now, I have been confronted with these questions both internally (within my own conscience) an externally (though the weekly emails and phone calls by fellow seminarians and young ministers wanting to leave the SBC). Unfortunately, at this time in the SBC, one struggles to find a Captain Miller who is willing to address these questions and motivate us to accomplish such a noble task.
As I reflect on recent events in the Convention, I see traces of such leadership (examples include David Dockery, Danny Akin, Tom Ascol, and Thom Rainer), though it is still not enough to marshal a movement that will save the SBC. More than that, however, I am finding it even more difficult to find special men who will take ownership of this special task. I find too many men who are more concerned about preserving their political clout, too many men in denial of our denominational pride, too many men who hold fast to their personal agendas, too many men more committed to personal allegiances and SBC political correctness than the betterment of the SBC and her local churches, too many men who would prefer selective silence than a bold confrontation of our waywardness, too many men who I find to be either cowards or cronies rather than men of courage and conviction. Where will we find such men who will put their reputation on the line for the sake of the truth, crucify the fear of men and the “one of us” allegiances, and lay down their lives for the sake of the local churches in the SBC which are becoming increasingly unregenerate and devoid of the gospel?
Since February, we have heard the call to build bridges in the SBC to be committed to cooperation, established in consensus, and grounded in our common confession. I find it incredibly ironic that the very place Private Ryan refused to leave was the bridge that Captain Miller and his eight men fought and died. Those men knew the importance of “holding the bridge,” but I fear that man Southern Baptists haven’t quite learned that lesson. I don’t know what it will take for us to see the importance of this, but perhaps it will take the dying words of one of our Captain Miller’s whispered into our ears.
So the question remains. “Is it worth it?”
The last scene of the movie fast forwards with Private Ryan at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, looking at the grave of Captain Miller. On his knees, with tears in his eyes and his family looking on, he asks whether or not he lived a “good life” and was a “good man.” He knew that the sacrifices of those men that day were a heavy price to pay to sparing his life. If the SBC still exists fifty years from now, I wonder what future generations will say about those of us fighting these “Baptist Battles” today. I wonder what the ecclesiological landscape will look like. Will there be ruins that remain and casualties that will never be remembered? I don’t know. But what I do know is that there are a lot of wounded Southern Baptists today, most of whom have been shot at by their own Southern Baptists. I feel like crying “Medic! Medic!” after every conversation I have with another friend who emails me telling they are leaving or another minister who has been kicked out of his church for no good reason.
I know that I have said a lot of strong things regarding the SBC. I have probably upset many people in the process. However, two years ago when I got involved in this whole business of caring about the future of the SBC, I refused to let my memory in the SBC to be that of Corporal Upham who knew how to write about the “bonds of brotherhood in war” but knew nothing of it personally. I refuse to let my lasting snapshot be that of my brothers’ life-saying ammunition as a yoke around my neck as I hunker down in cowardice and listen to their spiritual lives and ministerial ambitions being taken from them. I refuse to wear the fatigues and not understand the nature of the fight. Although Upham’s life was spared, but it wasn’t spent well, and sitting idly by, watching the SBC implode, is not something my conscience can bear.
I suspect there will be many in the SBC who will find it worth saving. I just don’t know if there are many who are willing to give their lives to “hold the bridge.” The price is high, and those who have given their lives for such noble causes remind us of that. Perhaps we need to revisit their graves. Perhaps we need to realize that the future of the SBC will not be in the context of Convention meetings, seminary statesmen, or the popularity of Southern Baptist blogs. The future of the SBC will be in the context of the local church, and it is there we must focus our attention and give our lives.
May God raise up special men for the special mission of saving the SBC.
Here’s a clip of Saving Private Ryan of the battle for the bridge.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBXjThmQwWY]
[Warning: This video contains scenes of war that might be inappropriate for children to watch.]
As mentioned on my previous post, I will be on vacation and away from the computer for the next week. Please feel free to comment and discuss what I wrote. I do ask that you moderate yourselves in whatever discussion that ensues. I hope everyone has a wonderful week, and I should be back in the saddle next weekend (June 23).
Grace and peace,
Timmy
The local church is the answer. I think that is why so many ‘writers’ are backing out of the political-reform front. Ultimately, the assembled convention can be no healthier than the individual churches. Mark Dever seems to understand this better than most. Only by recovering the Gospel and its implications in all of life – at the local church level – can we every move toward meaningful convention wide reforms.
Enjoy your vacation.
I agree with Tony. The preservation of the SBC has to start on a local level and work it’s way up. It’s like the french-fry chef at McDonald’s working his way up to managing a store, it’s hard work but in the end the little guy can make a difference and end up a winner.
There are so many problems facing the SBC and all true Christians. Too many sins and so little time! If it’s not the queens trying to force themselves into our churchs and tearing them apart it’s the liberal leanings of those who accept this perversion as genetic.
Pray long and hard for the SBC and for this Christian Nation.
God Bless!
Lynelle Bryant
http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/
i dont think its an either or. yes there must be biblical fidelity at the local church level, but the fact of the matter is, there are many churches who will never be willing to change no matter who their pastor is because of things they have heard and observed from the leadership of the sbc. (or *not* heard or observed, as the case may be)
we do need strong and biblically faithful pastors in the local church, but we also need courageous men in leadership at the state and national level who are willing to sacrifice clout and reputation and maybe a decimal place on their paycheck to not throw those same pastors to the wolves.
it is a matter of integrity. dont stand up in front of a seminary student body whether at home or as a guest and tell them to be courageous and to die to self, to speak the word without fear of men, if you are not willing to do the same thing in front of an audience that doesn’t already agree with you.
i appreciate your post timmy. may we continue to pray that the lord’s will be done in the sbc , and that he would use us in as big or as small of a role as he chooses.
and as we share and voice our concerns about others, whether institutions or individuals, may we first examine ourselves with the same intensity.
may god grant us this mercy…
If there are so few young men heading into SBC ministry then why are there record enrollments for the M.Div. at our seminaries? Why are the Bachelor’s programs affiliated with the seminaries so full? Are we to assume that the vast majority of these are headed for the international mission field? (I would hope that many, many of them are, but even then they are still part of the SBC family)
Perhaps a better way of looking at the lack of SBC young (under 35) men at an annual meeting is to see it in terms of finances. Most under-35 pastors hold positions in churches with small budgets. Within these budgets, there may or may not be any money set aside for “Convention Expenses”. If the church does allow for some money, it may be lumped into “Pastor’s Travel Expenses” which can be spent any way the pastor chooses. In this case, the pastor has to decide between the annual convention, a state convention, and/or Bible conferences. With the price of hotels and lodging surrounding an annual convention, it would be easy to see an entire year’s worth of “Travel Expenses” spent in five days at an annual convention. Hence, the under-35 crowd would, because of finances, be limited in their attendance at the annual meeting.
Now, on another point of concern, if it is in fact the case that young men are flooding our seminaries and receiving a discounted tuition rate that is only one-third the price of comparable seminaries, but they already have little or no intention of making a go in the SBC, then I wish they would listen and heed the words of Dr. Akin, who in his sermon at SBTS this spring, challenged all such men to show integrity and honesty and pay the full “non-SBC” tuition price. Why should the Cooperative Program fund the seminary education of men who are already convinced they aren’t even going to try to be an SBC pastor?
I would argue that it is far easier now than it has ever been for young Bible-preaching to find and serve in pastoral ministry in the SBC.
Well,
For starters, not all who enter an SBC seminary enter to be pastors. Some enter to be educators, counselors, etc. so it seems rather myopic to concentrate on “pastors” and SBC ministry. Is it illicit for those persons to enroll if they do not intend to teach at a Southern Baptist university or school or be part of an SBC supported ministry of some sort?
Additionally, it seems to me that you are saying that these men are somehow duplicitous, but how so? The SBC does not state that when you attend an SBC seminary coming from an SBC church that you must serve the SBC itself, nor do they serve the SBC alone. So, how is it duplicitous? I would further add that many of these other seminaries do not discount their rates for students, even those from their own denominations. So, if there is a problem, then maybe there needs to be some effort to get with those schools on their costs. It would be duplicitous for a man to join an SBC church to attend an SBC seminary at a discount and then intentionally leave to go back to his home denomination. But that’s not what you seem to be discussing. Rather, you seem to be lamenting students becoming disenchated with the SBC while in seminary, but whose fault is that, the student or the SBC? It’s time the SBC own up to its faults, and the fact that it does not do so is a prime reason many who are there change their minds. Further, some who graduate don’t go to SBC churches, because other churches, institutions, and ministries simply offer a better opportunity for those graduates. There are some things for which a graduate cannot plan, and sometimes he or she makes decisions about employment for reasons other than loyalty to the denomination.
Gene,
What Dr. Akin said is very simple.
If a student sits through his/her years of Cooperative Program funded seminary education, enjoying the 1/2 price tuition, relieving themself of the burden of paying tens of thousands of extra tuition dollars on account of the fact that they have stated, on their honor and from the church that recommended them, that they in fact are a member of a Southern Baptist Church… but all the while they are enjoying the financial rewards of such membership they are thinking, “There is no way I am staying SBC when I graduate”… then in this particular situation they are being dishonest.
Actually, Dr. Akin’s message took it a step further. He actually said that seminary students who sit around bad-mouthing the “theological ignorance” of the common SBC laymen, while living off the cheap-tuition that these supposed theological nitwits have put into the offering plate to fund the seminaries… then this is dishonesty and sin.
Anybody can understand that the reason why students from SBC churches receive 1/2 price is because it is understood that the denomination is providing seminary training for pastors (and yes, counselors, music ministers, college teachers, missionaries, etc. etc.) FOR SBC churches.
Life-plans change, and yes, an SBC seminary graduate may in fact move to another denomination. Neither I nor Dr. Akin is saying that these people are dishonest. It is the ones currently sitting in the seminary with little or no intention on serving the denomination that is feeding them that I would call into question.
Furthermore, on another note, I distinctly remember Dr. Akin telling a group of prospective Boyce and SBTS students to NOT come to the school thinking they were there to debate their theology professor and fix the seminary… they were to come to seminary to get trained for ministry.
If a seminary student at SBTS is completely disenfranchised with the SBC, then in my opinion, which I am sure is not shared by everyone who will read this, the problem may in fact be a lack of focus as to the purpose of why God had them at seminary in the first place.
This whole conversation raises an excellent question, “Does the half priced tuition require all seminary graduates to be denominational loyalists?”
I am personally committed to the serve in SBC and among Indiana Baptists for the following reasons:
1. It was a Southern Baptist church in Indiana that helped me grow in the Lord.
2. The education I have received at Boyce College and SBTS.
3. I believe the best opportunity to fulfill the great commission in our lifetime is to work together via the cooperative program.
Scott:
I was a late bloomer of sorts. By the time I arrived at seminary to work on my MDivBL, I probably had paid the other 1/2 of my tuition via my own contributions to the Cooperative Program (I also made the financial and other personal sacrifices to stay enrolled until finished). If my CP contributions hadn’t paid the full amount for me, then those of my parents, siblings, and inlaws certainly had during the years up to that time (I’m the only seminary grad among my family members).
I believe in “denominational loyalty” until a believer’s own well-informed and biblically-conservative conscience will be violated to remain as loyal to it; then, in my humble opinion, that denomination must examine itself. This is where the SBC is and has been for 30 years, yet its leaders live in a state of denial–“the problem cannot possibly be the entity”. It can; it is, at least to some extent. In the end, we’ll stand alone before the Lord for judgment; if others don’t mind, I’ll maintain enough personal integrity to be better-prepared to stand there before Him that way.
None of us should follow any others of us blindly–we should speak up, and we should listen–and we should move together as a team, where/when we need to do so, for missions and evangelism (I’ve posted at other sites this week about how we do and don’t need each other).
Sunday’s here; do something good with it!
Gene, I think Scott is absolutely right to point at MDiv enrollment as a distinctly pastoral indicator. Years ago the MDiv may have been a “one size fits all” degree, but no longer. Christian Ed, Church Music, Counseling, etc. all have their specialized programs that are enumerated separately.
I also think there is some misunderstanding of “denominational loyalty”. Please, if you are not a historic Southern Baptist in your convictions, please do NOT stay “loyal” to us. I wish droves of folks would have heeded this advice in previous generations! However, if you realize this and actually have plans for this prior to your seminary education, please do not “use” us for supplemented education. If you come to this slowly during your study, then there is no foul whatsoever.
And Timmy, based on some conversations with older generations of ministers, it seems that there is always a certain amount of “defection” as people sense that the SBC is not right for them (or vice-versa). While this number may include wonderfully gifted folk, it is not unique to our time or even for the same reasons.
I mean, thank God he has brought guys like Scott and Timmy into the SBC! ;0
You said – “May God raise up special men for the special mission of saving the SBC.”
If things get much worse, you very likely see an grassroots revolution by Southern Baptist laypeople that will result in a Convention where all executive committee members, agency heads and seminary presidents are removed and management of the Convention is handled by laypeople.
The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t belong to the seminarians.
i am currently enrolled in the mdiv program at swbts. i am not sure whether i will serve either a church or other denominational institution once i graduate. if i do, i will be the fourth generation to do so in my family. i have been a member of an sbc affiliated church ever since i was saved nearly 18 years ago. i am still a member of an sbc affiliated church. i am an intern at that church. HOWEVER, the political nature of the sbc that i have witnessed with my own very two eyes at SWBTS disgusts me. for a long time, i have wanted to leave. thank you for encouraging me to step up to the plate and make a difference in the local church and in the world. ultimately the convention doesn’t really matter at the local level. it only matters because baptists get a bad name and possibly when people are unjustly denied missionary service. my time at swbts has tired me out. please pray for me and those like me that we do not give up.
The SBC is worth defending and saving and reforming or whatever you need to call it. It remains the most significant mission sending organization in the US. Its six seminaries are training thousands of pastors and other ministers.
The big bold question in the middle of the blog was, “Is it worth it?” Funny that I read this blog today b/c I preached this morning on the fact that the unity of the local church was worth fighting and living for.
The local churches of the SBC are worth it.
I’m a young pastor in a rural area in Tennessee. I just finished seminary last year. There’s a load of difference between the seminary environment and the small church environment. (Most of our churches are small churches). I don’t even know if most of my congregation even knew there was an SBC meeting this past week. The politics and such doesn’t filter down here very well. I don’t think that any “saving of the SBC” will filter down here very well either.
That being said…if there is a saving of the SBC to be done, it will be from the bottom up, not from the top down. Pastors and laypersons of local churches will decide that their local church is worth it.
I have posted on Timmy’s Blog many a time now, and I would like to say that I am a student coming from and SBC seminary and receiving the 1/2 off discount and am not planning to serve in an SBC church at this present time. I can honestly say that for me it was not an intentional fleecing of the SBC of CP dollars (I honestly did not pay attention to how much it costs when I applied). Since I have been here (SBTS ‘Boyce’), I honestly can say that my views on missiology and ecclesiology have changed to the point where I disagree more with the SBC then I want to. Biblically, I really cannot stand behind some of the “traditional” practices of the SBC. I honestly would have paid full price for my tuition and done it happily because in my humble opinion SBTS is still one of the best theological educations around. In saying all of this, I am not ruling out my involvement in the SBC in the future, merely the fact that I am one of those that have sought to be more biblical in ministry, and that has lead me in a different direction. Are the issues I talk about critical to the church? Directly, no, indirectly, in more ways than we know.
In those indirect ways is where we are missing it. We are seeing the fruit of what are predecessors needed to do to reclaim lost ground (mainly a Political Action Committee style of debate). This worked against some of the rampant liberalism, but in today’s post-modern context where everything is politics, which is the last thing we need in our churches is more SBC political fights.
Do I have the answers to the SBC’s woes? No. not entirely. I can only speak to what my young mind (23) has experienced, and what I have learned from the Lord. I pray that we could all clearly see the cost and the objectives in making the next step in making the SBC more Biblical and less culturally defined.
For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, til death you do part.
I will never leave you nor forsake you.
Could you imagine at the bottom of every degree or diploma and award of achievement issued by a institution of education in the SBC this caveat: Awarded to (your name here) in recognition of his/her academic achievement and for his/her life long commitment to the SBC. Or, how about not issuing and letters of recommendation for any seeking to leave the SBC after receiving reduced cost funding for education. That would be cold hearted. But, then again, would an abandoned spouse give recommendation to the prospective replacement?
Nah, in a world in which commitment is just another word for abuse of privilege, who are we kidding. You can preach commitment, and teach it, but no one should be expected to really commit, right? I wonder what someone whould make of a cooperative organization that actually took commitment seriously? Do you think it would slow down the avalanche of marriage dissolution? Maybe, just maybe there is some connection. But then, if it is acceptable to be driven about by every wind of change in life, perhaps it is not so difficult to understand why so many remain children driven by every wind of doctrine. Or, maybe I have this backwards. Could it be that we care so little about doctrine that the winds drive unanchored souls out of control with no specific port in mind, and that is the reason that we no longer understand commitment?
Thomas,
I really hope you comment was not response to my post. It is true I am not committed to any institution of man but I am committed to the calling on my life by God and to Christ’s bride, the church. If, Only if, you are making the argument of some sort of landmarkism, Baptist style, then I would humbly suggest that there is a church outside of the SBC. I can honestly say that in all of the abstracts, and student covenants I have signed at the school I currently attend, I have never seen anything resembling a requirement to serve in the SBC if you are attending an SBC, and honestly. For those that have received the half off discount at an SBC school and then leave, the financial impact of such an act is miniscule compared to some of the antics that go on through the different associations (such as distributing anti-Calvinist rhetoric throughout Florida on the associations dime). If your comments were not aimed at me, I guess my questions still apply.
Hey Taylor,
You said:
“I have never seen anything resembling a requirement to serve in the SBC”.
“I can honestly say that for me it was not an intentional fleecing of the SBC of CP dollars (I honestly did not pay attention to how much it costs when I applied).”
So there is no mistake, my comment is aimed at you – An engineering company pays two years of tuition and expenses for a graduate level engineering student. At the end the graduate says to the company; I appreciate what you did for me. Thanks, but I’m going to work at another firm.
Was he right or wrong?
Well you are talking apples and oranges in the fact that in most cases, private scholarships have contractual commitments, as I said, there is no contractual commitment or agreement when receiving the CP dollars. This is due to the fact that the CP receives the money that is dedicated to the schools of the SBC from the autonomous churches themselves. This being the case, if you (we, I, whoever is receiving the money) has any obligations or agreements it would be with the local church that sent you (we, I, whoever is receiving the money).
I say all of that to say, the requirements of the tuitional discounts would have to change. It should change from “currently a member of a SBC church” to “intending on serving in an SBC church”. That change would solve the issue, and that agreement should be signed every semester just as the current “member” requirement has to be signed every semester.
This also brings up the question of International students. If we want to get particular, what happens to the internationals of which we have many at SBTS receiving this discount, and many are planning on returning to serve in their home countries where there is no SBC (South Korea, Trinidad, Kenya, Nigeria, etc…)?
I will say that some students, which have mostly come from either missionary Baptist, independent, and the PCA, have come to SBC schools, joined a Baptist church to receive the discount and then went back to their originating denomination, I will say that IS WRONG, and do not agree at all with it. However, a change in calling is a different issue.
I do not think the tuitional discount of the seminaries is the issue. The issue lies in the fact that the SBC needs dramatic changes in how it handles itself if we are to maintain those who we have. As I have said several times before, I can speak from my personal situation, and that is I do not have any specific reservations against serving in the SBC, however according to my convictions, I do not believe it is the most Biblical model of ministry at this point in time, which is why I am leaving. I cannot rule out ever serving in the SBC. I do pray that it would change, I would love to minister in the SBC.
I know this is off-topic, but I’ve gotta say that whenever I see that part of the movie SPR, I am always thankful that when Jesus died for us on the Cross, He didn’t say, “Earn this.”
Taylor,
You said – “I do not have any specific reservations against serving in the SBC, however according to my convictions, I do not believe it is the most Biblical model of ministry at this point in time,”
Oh, man. According to your convictions?
yes… we all have them…. I differ from the current SBC in the matters of some ecclesiological issues and most missiological issues.
It is interesting that most of the posts did not deal with the question of is the SBC worth saving. Personally, I think it is…primarily for the purpose of seminary education and missions; but secondarily for the power and witness of autonomous local churches cooperating for the sake of kingdom work. It is this cooperation that is the undergirding of everything we do as Southern Baptitst and what make us truly distinct. It is also that which, I think, has been the root of our growth and effectiveness over the last 100 years. We cooperate, we are not coerced, and when we join together to do something it is because we want to do it, sense God’s leading in doing it, and are joined with like minded, like spirited people with like passions. We as Southern Baptists have always operated more from the bottom up than from the top down, which is the genius behind our effectiveness at home and abroad. I say this as one who was not raised Southern Baptist, but as one who has come to appreciate the model the SBC is based upon.
I think the problem with many of the pastors who are leaving the SBC is a matter of selfishness. I recently visted with a young, between 35-40, pastor who told me his church was thinking of leaving the SBC because they did not think the SBC has anything to offer them. This is the same sentiment I keep seeing in most of the blogs I read. This is really “church narcisissim” where it is all about me from the church’s and pastor’s standpoint vs what can I as a pastor/we as a church do for the work of the kingdom.
I hate long posts so I will wrap it up here, but this is something I have personally given much thought to over the last several months as I am planting a church and one of the issues I have had to make a decision about is affiliation. In my view the SBC is worth it for the reasons I listed above, however I do think the SBC is going through a pruning process and will come out of this process leaner, more focused, and more effective. In essence, a better SBC.