chadwickivester

Click on ALL Pictures for more comments.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this interview belong solely to Dr. Bill Curtis. They do not express the views of the North American Mission Board or the views of the trustees at NAMB.

Dr. Bill Curtis is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church near Florence, South Carolina.

This interview with Dr. Bill Curtis was spawned by two factors:His excellent orchestration of  The 2006 South Carolina Baptist  Pastors’ Conference  (this is where Dr. Danny Akin preached, “The Pastor as Theolgian.” You can read excerts from Dr. Akin’s sermon here and here.) and his “Open Letter to Southern Baptists.”

I immediately knew that Dr. Curtis has ”something worth saying” about the Southern Baptist Convention.

Therefore, I pursued him to get his thoughts about the SBC! . . . the rest is history.

Part One of the interview contains Dr. Curtis’ views about the SBC. Part Two of the interview will consist of Dr. Curtis’ views  about the South Carlina Baptist Convention.

 

Question # 1. Chadwick Ivester: Why do you think the majority of the SBC’s influential voices don’t see the “writing-on-the-wall ” (the real problematic issues), in my opinion, as clearly as you and a select few? Or if some do, why are they choosing to be silent about it?

Dr. Bill Curtis: Well, I think that the majority of the leaders recognize that there is a problem. They can see pretty clearly about our convention. But when you talk about top SBC leadership, I think there is a reluctance to address in a public way the reality of these issues. I think there is a fear of alienating certain constituency groups. I also think there is a fear of portraying our convention in a negative light that could be picked up on by the secular media. Certainly, our entity heads must be very careful about what they say, because their words can be taken in many different ways. However, leadership, by definition, requires a willingness to engage sensitive issues, regardless of the potential risk. Sadly, the silence is deafening from many of our SBC leaders in regards to the issues I’ve raised in my articles.
As it stands, there seems to be two major groups in the SBC, and they view this situation differently. Group A fears the contemporary worship movement and the increasing number of pastors who are Reformed. Group B fears a further “narrowing” of the convention based upon personal preferences and generational methodologies. What you have is two different groups looking at the same issues from totally different sides. And that’s where, for Southern Baptists, a choice must be made: Are we going to make preference issues a test of fellowship within our convention? Or are we going to say, ‘No, we have a document which serves as a statement of our collective beliefs called the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. We’re going to let that be the document that helps us define who we are. And when there are opposing positions which can exist within the confines of that document, we’re not going to break fellowship over those issues but move ahead together to fulfill our primary mission as a convention—fulfilling the Great Commission.’

So, I think there are denominational leaders who see the problem. However, the time is now to decide what is going to define the way that we cooperate with one another. As difficult as it may be, I think it is essential for leadership to wade into this arena. We need our SBC leadership to set the example and take the lead in stopping the kind of harmful rhetoric that can hinder our work.

Question #2. CI: Is there a fresh wind blowing amongst the SBC’s younger leadership? Are the days of “uniform conformity” over in the SBC?

BC: Well, let me start by saying, I’m not sure that there has ever been a day of ‘uniform conformity’ in the SBC. I mean, anytime you have a group of Baptists together, you’re not going to have ‘uniform conformity (laughter).’ There have always been differences of opinion, and in many ways, that’s been one of the strengths of our convention. However, it does seem in recent days, at least, that there is a segment of Southern Baptists who would like some type of ‘litmus test’ to define what a real Southern Baptist looks like. However, any time we begin using litmus tests for fellowship, we create an immediate problem—who gets to draw the lines for cooperation? Are worship styles going to be a litmus test? Will Calvinism be a litmust test? Is even a fixed percentage of CP (Cooperative Program) giving going to be a litmus test? Are we going to impose some type of ‘unofficial guide’ for determining whether you can be a part of the convention or whether you can be an SBC leader? Of course, most people believe that there is some ‘hidden criteria’ for involvement in our convention. Today’s convention-wide dialogue is seeking to bring those criteria into the light of day.

In recent days, I’ve heard people talking about the difference between fellowship and leadership. Well, that’s a false dichotomy: if a person is in fellowship, he/she ought to be qualified to be in leadership. Now whether God chooses to place that person in a leadership capacity is up to Him. But these subliminal litmus test issues are floating around the convention, and they are hindering the ability of some of our SBC folks to serve. It is this problem, and the views of some who support it, that has prompted me, in part, to address these particular issues.

Have young leaders begun to exert more of a role in Southern Baptist life? I think the answer to that question would be a resounding ‘Yes.’ I think there is a ‘fresh wind’ blowing among a new generation of Southern Baptist pastors. And I think this can be seen in the fact that most young pastors are less committed to an institutional approach to ministry than, maybe, some of our previous generations have been. They are committed to a mission as opposed to committed to a structure for structure’s sake. At 43, I still like to think of myself as a ‘young leader’ (of course, I might just be delusional! Laughter). Most of our young leaders are committed to a conservative theology. Most young leaders I know are comfortable in affirming the BF&M 2000. It is not a creed, but it does help serve as a confession of where we are as a convention theologically. Today’s young leaders want to be on-mission and use whatever means are at their disposal to accomplish God’s work. We are very committed to kingdom ministry, and as long as the convention is headed in that direction, many young leaders are saying, ‘Yes, count me in.’

But as a group, today’s young leaders are unwilling to break fellowship over preference issues; whether it is an issue of worship styles or how one defines himself as it relates to Calvinism. Young leaders want to plant churches; they want to share the Gospel; they want to be effective in ministry and in the use of their resources. So there is a desire on the part of young leaders to be involved in Southern Baptist life, but not simply for the sake of the convention. And I think that is where some of the challenge lies. I think that’s why we’ve seen in young pastors a greater willingness to step out of convention life than we have ever seen before. Issues like the ones I’ve discussed must be addressed if we have hopes of keeping our young pastors in the convention. If we’re prepared to exclude or ostracize them on the basis of worship style, or worship methodology, or even where they may be on the spectrum of Calvinism, the exodus will continue to grow. But if we’re willing to say that, within the confines of the BF&M 2000, there’s a place for our young leaders in the convention, I believe they will continue to labor among us. So I think a ‘fresh wind’ is blowing in our convention; and I think that is one of the reasons why we’re suddenly experiencing this tension related to preference issues within the SBC.

Question #3. CI: Were Bill Harrell’s comments the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for you to speak out against the “attempts to narrow the perimeter of the 2000 BF&M, verbal attacks toward contemporary worship & Calvinism, and loss of focus on the Great Commission?”

BC: Well this issue has been percolating for some time throughout our convention. And anyone who has gone to a national SBC pastor’s conference, or a state pastor’s conference, or a state evangelism conference, knows that there has been a tremendous decrease of participation by younger pastors. The average attendee consists of older pastors; you don’t see a whole lot of the young leaders coming anymore. Our state convention folks often ask the question, ‘What can we do?’ and, ‘Why don’t the young guys come to our meetings?’ The answer is simple: when a young leader goes to the average state meeting, he often will spend several hours listening to seasoned pastors disparage contemporary worship styles and methodologies. Those who may hold to some form of Calvinism often will have their position denigrated as if there is no Biblical support for their position. And the young guys have finally said, ‘There’s just no reason for me to go and put myself through that!’ So that mind-set, that attitude, has been prevalent in recent years. When the Bill Harrell article was released, from someone in such a significant position of leadership in the SBC, it reinforced, for me at least, the fact that it’s not an accident that this is happening, and that there really is a growing divide between major segments of Southern Baptist life.

One thing I really want to clarify is that my article was not directed against Bill Harrell. Bill is my brother in Christ. God is using him to do great work in his church, and he is being used by God in leadership in the SBC. I personally affirm all of those things. My issue is not with the man, it is with the ‘mind-set!’ It is the mindset that is the problem. These issues, contemporary worship methodologies and Calvinism, are not outside the scope of BFM 2000. As a result, they are currently personal preference issues. However, there are some who want to make them test of faith/fellowship issues. I am absolutely convinced that over the long run, this growing divide has the potential to be very damaging to our long-term effectiveness as a convention in there area of evangelism.

We have this growing cross-generational conflict over issues that are outside the scope of BFM 2000. We are going to become more ineffective as a convention, and we’re going to lose a whole generation of young pastors if we don’t resolve these issues. And, that has tremendous implications for our church planting strategies, not only those that are assisted through NAMB, but also at the local church level. It will also influence our ability to produce pastors to shepherd thousands of SBC churches as many older pastors prepare to retire. So this has huge implications for us, and we’ve got to ask the question, ‘Are we prepared, after all the work of the conservative resurgence, to see it come apart over these issues?’ I, for one, say that I am not prepared to do that! And I don’t think the majority of Southern Baptists are prepared to see that happen either. So now is the time to have the conversation and say, ‘We may disagree on some debatable areas within the scope of the BFM 2000, but we will not break fellowship over these issues.’

Question #4. CI: As you reflect upon the missionology and methodology of our missionary icons of the past, such as David Brainard, William Carey, Lottie Moon, and Annie Armstrong, what can we learn from them to recover from our missional decline, as cited from the statistics from the NAMB?

BC: Well, obviously the folks you’ve mentioned are people whom God has used to provide for us a legacy of missions, a commitment to taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The necessity of a cooperative effort is essential if we’re going to be successful in this endeavor. As a convention, we must continue to believe that we can do more together than we could ever do by ourselves. And through the vehicle of the Cooperative Program, we have had the opportunity to have a missional effort that is unprecedented in the history of the church. This great legacy of missions is one that we remain committed to as Southern Baptists.

In the long term, however, our ability to sustain that missionary effort will be dependent upon the degree to which we, as a people, can work together. My concern is with the potential fallout from a further narrowing the SBC tent. The choice to limit cooperation even further will affect our capacity to support missionaries and to fulfill the Great Commission as a convention. So as I think about what it’s going to take, as we reflect on these numbers that are tracked by NAMB, I think there are several things that have to happen if we’re going to fulfill the Great Commission as we would desire.

Initially, we must resolve the conflict that is brewing in our convention. We are being distracted over issues that should not be divisive to us . . . that must happen first! We have to say, ‘We are not going to fight about these issues any more.’ We all have our preferences. God has called some of us to different styles of ministry, but as long as we can affirm the BFM 2000, then we should respect one another’s differences and continue to labor together to fulfill the Great Commission. So this has to happen first.

Next, Southern Baptists must develop a cohesive, inter-agency, national evangelism strategy. It has been a number of years since we have had a cohesive national strategy that involved not only NAMB, but our state convention partners and local churches. So we need a national evangelism strategy to mobilize pastors and churches to be proactive about evangelism. We need a renewed commitment to evangelism as churches, as state conventions, and as NAMB. We also need a renewed emphasis on church planting. When we think about church planting in North America, we really need more of our churches to catch a vision to be involved in church planting. The Acts 1:8 strategy is a strategy that NAMB developed several years ago in partnership with the IMB. This strategy, which my own church is involved with, encourages churches to be involved in church planting in their local areas, their states, North America, and around the world. Many churches have adopted this strategy as well, but we need more. So we need a renewed emphasis on evangelism and church planting throughout our churches in the SBC.

Finally, we need a commitment to church renewal. We need increased partnerships between our churches, state conventions, and NAMB to assist churches that are plateaued or declining. We need to help them recapture the vision for evangelism and church planting. I think that this is very doable. I believe there is a greater desire for partnership between agencies than there has been in recent years. We must avoid getting bogged down over preference issues and “turf” issues. This will allow us to focus on the real issues in our convention life. I believe we can see a real awakening take place in our churches, which can lead, then, to greater evangelistic efforts in our country and around the world.

Question #5. CI: Some say that blogging played a big part in the 2006 SBC Presidential Election. Do you think that “bloggerism” has contributed to help break the “stronghold”of the SBC “powerbrokers?”

BC: Well, I like to say that Luther nailed the first blog onto the church door at Wittenburg; it wasn’t popular then . . . and it’s not too popular now! For Luther, it was a means of calling for reformation in a system that was resistant to change, and in a context where he wasn’t able to gain much of a hearing. Frankly, this kind of dialogue has been happening for centuries. With the internet, however, it has greatly expanded the opportunity for people to voice their opinions and to dialog about issues that are significant. It has given a new voice for everyone to participate in the conversation. Blogging in our convention represents a call for accountability, a call for change in some situations, and a call for relevance.

Blogging, itself, has positive and negative elements. Some of the items we see on blogs are very beneficial to SBC life. And some, I would say, have the potential to be very destructive. But I think that issue resides in the character of the blogger and not in the medium of blogging itself. Blogging does provide a voice for some who, perhaps, have been unable to gain a hearing through traditional Southern Baptist media outlets. I think that this is a positive development overall. As for the issues that may have influenced the Dr. Page’s election, I don’t know that I’m prepared to say that blogging was the primary contributing factor. Did it have an influence? Absolutely. But, I don’t know how you would ever quantify the degree of its influence.

I think there were a number of things that coalesced in the election of Frank Page.
First, there was the involvement of numerous emerging leaders. There has been a feeling within the group of emerging leaders, of young leaders, that they have been disfranchised; that they have been unwanted. They believe they have been excluded primarily because of worship style and methodologies. I believe that group of young pastors voted heavily for Frank Page. They saw him as a fresh voice for change.

Second, I think the election of Frank also signaled a rejection of the past method of electing the Southern Baptist president. Messengers have grown weary of electing a president who’s hand-picked and ‘annointed’ by a small group of SBC leaders. That was probably the greatest contributing factor to his election. I believe Frank’s election reflects the desire of Southern Baptists to have options when it comes to the choice for president. All three of the men who were brought forth at the convention may have done a fine job as the SBC president. They all share the same theological perspective. Yet the election of Frank Page was, in my opinion, a desire by Southern Baptists to step out of what is perceived as a ‘good old boy’ system of electing the president. I think this was indeed the single greatest factor in Frank’s election.

Third, I think Frank’s election also signaled a renewed call for cooperation in missions through the Cooperative Program. For our missions to be successful, every church must do its part. I think messengers looked at the CP of the candidates churches as part of their decision-making process. While I’m not comfortable with a CP litmus test, because every church situation is unique, I think it is fair to ask the question of our candidates and to let the messengers decide for themselves. So you really had a number of these factors that all came together in one election. And Frank’s election, on a first ballot no less, was really the result of all these things working together. I also think it signaled for the SBC that the day of an ‘heir-apparent presidency’ is over. I think that’s a healthy thing!

Question #6. CI: You used the phrase in your article: “evangelistic Calvinism.” Where did you get it?

BC: This is one of the aspects of my article where I have received the most criticism. Let me clarify this for you. I coined the term, “evangelistic Calvinism,” because I want to provide a distinction for Southern Baptists that has yet to be delineated in conversations throughout our convention.

As it stands right now, when people speak out against ‘Calvinism’, they are using that word to characterize everyone in the convention who affirms some aspect of the doctrines of grace as a double-predestinarian, hyper-Calvinist who rejects evangelism. And that is an unfair way to describe a majority of Southern Baptist people and pastors who are Calvinistic. The pejorative use of the term by some assumes that one cannot be a Calvinist and committed to the evangelistic mandate of the Great Commission. None of my Calvinistic friends reject the mandate of the Great Commission. And yet, it is being portrayed that all Calvinists reject evangelism. That is the mindset that I’m trying to change. I am using the term “evangelistic Calvinist” to refer to a pastor who affirms the doctrines of grace, and yet at the same time, affirms the mandate of the Great Commission. And to say that those two things cannot coincide is not just foolish; it’s also biblically incorrect.

Years ago in my Systematic Theology class at Southeastern, Dr. Danny Akin made a statement that I’ve never forgotten. He said, ‘Any system of Theology which de-emphasizes the Great Commission is a flawed system.’ And I say, ‘That is absolutely correct!’ But I also say it is possible to affirm the doctrines of grace and whole-heartedly embrace the Great Commission. I believe that is where the majority of pastors are in the convention who are, to some degree, Calvinistic. It is my desire, therefore, through the use of the term ‘evangelistic Calvinism,’ to begin to differentiate between a handful of Calvinists who may deemphasize evangelism and the vast majority of guys in our convention who are Calvinistic and committed to evangelism.

I hope from now on when somebody uses the term ‘Calvinist’ and tries to broad-brush the whole convention with it, that people will respond by asking him to clarify who he is talking about. The question might sound like this, ‘Are you talking about evangelistic Calvinists, or are you talking about Calvinists who reject evangelism?’ Perhaps from this point on we can insist that people identify more clearly who it is that they are talking about. That’s why I’ve introduced the term, and I’m hopeful that it will move us beyond the kind of harmful rhetoric which assaults the evangelistic integrity of many of our pastors; men who don’t deserve to be labeled the way that they are being labeled.

Question #7. CI: What kind of advice can you give younger pastors, like myself, about our “task of fulfilling the Great Commission as cooperating Southern Baptists?”

BC: As I mentioned earlier, I still like to think of myself as a young leader. Whether I qualify is up to your readers to decide (laughter). However, if I had the opportunity to sit down with the young pastors in our state or our convention and just share my heart with them for a few minutes, here are a few things that I would encourage them to consider:

First of all, cultivate a close personal walk with Christ. It is so easy to substitute ministry preparation for personal devotion. The ability to serve Christ in a way that can be blessed by God flows out of a close, personal walk with Christ. That’s the starting point for successful ministry.

Second, maintain theological integrity. Become a Pastor/Teacher/Theologian. By that I mean, let good theology influence your methodology; don’t let your methodology determine your theology. It is possible to be contemporary in your mind-set and methodology, while still remaining conservative in your theology. This approach will safeguard your ministry.

Third, practice the exposition of Scripture. It is the Word of God that is used by the Spirit of God to transform lives. We have to be faithful communicators and teachers. Some have held that if you’re contemporary in your methodology, you cannot be expository in your preaching. This is simply incorrect. People are hungry for the truth of the Word of God. If you look at some of the significant emerging young leaders who are preaching across the country, one of the interesting things is that they are contemporary in their methodology, but they are very expository in their teaching. So teach the Word faithfully, and don’t be deceived into thinking that you can’t be a solid Bible teacher and still use contemporary methodologies.

Fourth, strive to grow a healthy church, not a huge church. Previously, I talked about some of the false models we’ve set up to define success (like pastoring a large church or having big numbers). Size as a determiner of success can be found no where in the New Testament. The evidence of a successful ministry, regardless of the number of people who attend it, is the overall, spiritual health of a church. I like to say that healthy things reproduce—and that’s true. Healthy believers reproduce other believers; healthy churches reproduce other churches. Strive to have a healthy church, and let God take care of the numbers. A healthy church is one that is led by a pastor who has a close relationship with the Lord. It is defined by theological integrity, regardless of the worship methodologies utilized. It is a place where the Scripture is faithfully and consistently taught. God will use the combination of these things to grow a healthy church.

Fifth, develop a Kingdom mind-set. We are blessed to be involved in the Southern Baptist Convention. It has its short-comings. It has its problems. But there’s still not another organization that I know of that has a greater scope or reach for fulfilling the Great Commission. In the midst of that, develop a Kingdom mind-set that strives to make a global impact. See if God might lead you to begin cultivating a ministry that is involved in evangelism and church planting that has a global reach. The size of a church is not a factor; every church can develop that kind of mind-set. So, to one degree or another, strive to make an impact at the Kingdom level. I would challenge every young pastor to invest their lives in that kind of ministry.

Lastly, I would urge young pastors to stay connected to the SBC. I still believe that our best days may be ahead for us as a convention. Yes, we’re struggling over some preference issues right now. But the voices across the convention which are calling for cooperation in the Gospel are beginning to be heard. So don’t stop your efforts—pray, stay informed, write, attend your conventions, support presidential candidates that embody a new day of cooperation, and we’ll continue to see God do great things. I really believe we can move beyond these days to a new day of cooperation which will enhance our ability, as Southern Baptists, to be on mission, to fulfill the Great Commission, to plant churches, and to see God move in an amazing way.

So that would be my challenge to a young pastor. I want every young pastor to know that I, for one, am pulling for them to accomplish all that God wants to do in their lives. And though it may not seem like it at times, there are numerous other pastors like me who feel the same way. Stay the course, and let God use you not only in Southern Baptist life, but also in South Carolina Baptist life.

(This interview was conducted on November 30th, 2006 at Cornerstone Baptist Church near Florence, South Carolina.)