Barnabas File

Let me tell you a story about some friends of mine.  This Christian couple are longtime church members. The husband’s family practiced the tithe (ten percent of one’s income BEFORE taxes, of course), believed that the church was the “storehouse” of God’s tithe, and taught him the same. The wife’s family were church donors but not tithers, but when they married, the couple decided to be regular contributors to the church, always giving ten percent of their income. The church they have attended for years was a generous supporter of the denominational missions program at one time, usually sending more than ten percent of its undesignated gifts to the denomination for “missions” (that included not only domestic and foreign field personnel, but seminary support, benevolences, etc.).  In fact, their church was one of the largest supporters of the denominational work in the state. Something interesting happened several years ago, however. The church found that it needed more money

Each year churches and other Christian groups spend a great deal of time on strategic planning.  They consider their environment, assess their resources, and make goals for three, five, or ten years into the future.  Unfortunately, most of this is wasted effort.   Current realities change so quickly that it is difficult to know what will happen next week much less years into the future.  What’s the alternative?  In Great by Choice , the new book by Jim Collins and Morten Hansen, the authors address the question, “Why do some companies thrive in uncertainty, even chaos, and others do not?”  The answer is not simple, but an illustration early in the book reflects some of the characteristics of organizations that prosper in uncertain times. The authors tell the story of the competition between Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott in 1911 to reach the South Pole.  Amundsen’s team succeeded, reached the Pole, and returned home safely.  Scott’s team finally made it to the Pole,

A couple of years ago, I read Missional Renaissance by Reggie McNeal.  McNeal calls for several shifts in emphasis for the church in the 21 st century: ·          From an internal to an external focus. ·          From program development to people development. ·          From church-based to kingdom-based leadership. The one that particularly got my attention was his strong appeal for the church to move from a program-driven focus to a people-centered focus.  He suggests that the effectiveness of a missional church is based more on the quality of its people than the quality (and quantity) of its programs. In the past, we often operated out of this mindset:  “Here is what we have for you. Come and plug into it.”  We accepted programs that were developed elsewhere and forced them to fit our context.  The question we need to be asking is, “Where are you in your Christian journey and how can we help you live for Christ each day?” The difference is between an indust

As I am involved in discussions with pastors and other church leaders, a question that surfaces frequently is “How do you measure success in the church?”  Traditionally, we have used the “nickels and noses” (giving and attendance) approach.  Some measure their success by baptismal rate and others by the numbers involved in Christian education programs or weekday ministries. Many leaders are moving beyond these metrics because they do not always reflect what the leaders are really seeking to form—committed followers of Jesus Christ.  Several years ago, Willow Creek church commissioned a study that revealed (it was called REVEAL) that the church was not achieving its goal:  “Willow Creek exists to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ.”Some used this as a basis of criticizing the church and its methodologies.  In reality, the church should be praised for being willing to ask the hard question, “Are we really doing what we say we are doing?” Writers

Where will we find the next cohort of church leaders?  Traditionally, our leaders grew up in the church, were nurtured by youth ministries and collegiate ministries, responded to “the call” to ministry, and then prepared themselves through graduate theological education.  Although there were certainly exceptions to this pattern, most current leaders followed this path. Of course, this is no longer a truism. A recent article fromLeadership Network addresses significant changes in church leadership.  Two items caught my attention.  First, the article states that “an increasing number of key implementers and team leaders are coming from business vs. ministry backgrounds.”  I agree and could add that many are coming from other backgrounds as well, such as education and the not-for-profit sector.  These folks have unique skill sets that are needed by the church at this particular point in time, and their selection for such roles should be encouraged. The author goes on to say “

If you haven’t noticed, theological education in North America is going through a “shake-out” process. I learned this week of one free-standing denominational seminary that is negotiating to become the divinity school of a college in the same denomination.  Other seminaries are combining or closing their doors.  Those that survive with find new partners and strengthen their relationships with old partners. New approaches to theological education like those being offered by Central Baptist Theological Seminary require contextualization and creativity, but they will fail without cooperation.  Healthy, flexible, and supportive partners are needed for these efforts to be successful. Partners assist theological institutions in a number of ways.  For one thing, partners—church, judicatories, other institutions—link the theological schools with potential students.  Seminaries and divinity schools are exhibiting flexibility by offering programs to educate lay or licensed minister

The decentralized model of theological education that Central Baptist Theological Seminary is offering not only in Tennessee and Wisconsin but through the Access Program depends on three things:  contextualization, creativity, and cooperation.  This post addresses creativity. In August 1967, Rita and I packed all of our worldly goods into a station wagon and a trailer and left Alabama for a sojourn of three years in Fort Worth, Texas.  In order to get a seminary degree in those days, a person needed to relocate (unless fortunate enough to have a seminary in their backyard) in order to get an education and a degree.  This meant finding a new job (for at least one family member), a place to live, and a new church (where you would serve either as volunteer or paid staff).  This also meant leaving behind family and friends (although some people we knew had made the same trek) and a church context that we were very familiar with and we deeply involved.  Was it worth the effort?  Yes

For the past six years, I have had the opportunity to work with the leadership of Central Baptist Theological Seminary to “create a bridge as we walked across it.”   The bridge is the Murfreesboro center of CBTS, now known as “Central Baptist Theological Seminary Tennessee.”   Our goal has been to offer quality graduate level theological education that is affordable and accessible.   During these years, we have offered thirty-four classes, enrolled some forty individuals, and graduated six students with the Master of Divinity degree.   Although now fully accredited, the model of theological education we offer in Tennessee is still something of an experiment.   The ongoing viability of that experiment is contingent on three things:   contextualization, creativity, and cooperation.   I will address the first here and the other two in subsequent posts. In our situation, contextualization can mean many things, but I believe that it begins with recognizing who our students are a