Fuel the Fire: Lessons from the History of Southern Baptist Evangelism

by Charles Kelley, Paige Patterson (Editor), Jason G. Duesing (Editor)

Overview

The evangelistic focus of the Southern Baptist Convention has diminished, creating unprecedented challenges. 

In Fuel the Fire, Chuck Kelley intends to start a conversation. A denomination accustomed to the inevitability of growth is in the grip of decline. By remembering the evangelistic strategies and core convictions that have strengthened the Southern Baptist Convention since its humble beginnings, and by cultivating the theological focus that enhances modern-day evangelistic engagement, readers will find new urgency in carrying out the work of evangelism. Kelley emphasizes that strategies are important; however, our efforts are in vain apart from a stirring of the Holy Spirit. 

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781535908245
Publisher:	B&H Publishing Group
Publication date:	05/15/2018
Series:	A Treasury of Baptist Theology
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	288
File size:	1 MB
Age Range:	3 Months to 18 Years

About the Author

Jason G. Duesing (PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) is provost and professor of historical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.


 

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

The Great SBC Evangelism War

A motion from the floor in the 1904 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention started the action. Perhaps that is not entirely accurate. Throughout the previous 59 years of Convention history, there had been several expressions of the evangelistic passion of Southern Baptists. Motions had been made and some actions taken in attempts to reach the nation with the gospel. Always keen observers of what works, pastors and other leaders saw evangelistic fruitfulness in other American church families that they longed to see in their own churches. A slowly growing feeling arose that there was a missing piece Southern Baptists needed for greater evangelistic effectiveness. The simmering passions and ongoing observations came to a head in the motion of a Georgia pastor during an SBC business session. Convention processes turned that motion and the controversy it sparked into a defining moment for how Southern Baptists would go about the work of reaching the nation for Christ.

Early Approaches

In 1845, the first convention proceeded, and the following resolution was soon adopted:

"Resolved, That for peace and harmony, and in order to accomplish the greatest amount of good, and for the maintenance of those scriptural principles on which the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist denomination of the United States, was originally formed, it is proper that this Convention at once proceed to organize a Society for the propagation of the Gospel."

Those assembled believed that the unifying passion for Baptists had been and should continue to be evangelism. They shared a common cultural heritage; they shared common beliefs and practices; but most of all they shared a common task — fulfilling the Great Commission of their Lord.

The first expression of that foundational evangelistic passion was the creation of a Board for Foreign Missions and a Board for Domestic Missions, which became known, respectively, as the Foreign Mission Board (FMB) and the Home Mission Board (HMB) and later still the International Mission Board (IMB) and North American Mission Board (NAMB). The work of the two boards in spreading the gospel to the nation and world reinforced the identity of Southern Baptists as an evangelistic, mission-minded people. The pressures of financially supporting the work of those boards continually strengthened the image of the churches as co- laborers working together to share Jesus with the world. Evangelism was thus a critical factor in encouraging an even stronger denominational identity. The principle of local church autonomy that has always characterized Southern Baptists was balanced with the recognition that cooperative ventures could also enhance the productivity of each congregation.

Initial resolutions regarding the Board for Domestic Missions (called Home Mission Board or HMB) defined its task narrowly. The HMB was to take measures for "the religious instruction of our colored population" and to "direct its effective attention to aid the present effort, to establish the Baptist cause in the city of New Orleans." In addition to these specific charges, the HMB was understood to be responsible for guiding the denomination in evangelizing the home territory. At this point, the field of operations for Southern Baptists went from Maryland in the North to Texas in the South, and from Missouri in the West to Florida in the East. In that area, J. B. Lawrence estimated there were only 350,000 Baptists, including 125,000 slaves.

Vast distances and small numbers were only two of the challenges facing the newly formed Board as it attempted to fulfill its purpose. Transportation and communication were slow, making it difficult to establish an identity and sense of kinship among Baptists. As a result, little financial support for the work had been developed. Three men were elected to lead the HMB within its first year. Each resigned soon after his election, adding to the atmosphere of instability. Previously, before the organization of the SBC, while Luther Rice traveled the country building support and raising money for foreign missions on behalf of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America, no such voice had yet captivated the hearts of Southern Baptists about the need to evangelize the homeland.

Despite the obstacles, the HMB began by appointing six missionaries in 1846, including one for the city of New Orleans and two for the state of Texas. Most missionaries were appointed as pastors for mission churches or as church planters expected to start a church in an area without Baptist work. Evangelists were appointed as well, but generally the focus was on establishing new churches rather than engaging in evangelistic campaigns. The work grew slowly but steadily until the Civil War caused massive disruption.

Although the period of reconstruction following the Civil War was a difficult time for Southern Baptist work, the concern of Southern Baptists for evangelism was undiminished. In 1866, the Convention instructed the HMB to make evangelism its major work and to promote a comprehensive system of evangelism, including the appointment of evangelists. The resolution appeared to express a desire on the part of some for the Board to expand its methodology of evangelism as the great evangelist D. L. Moody was beginning to make his impact from the Midwest through the Northwest and across the ocean in Great Britain. Whereas many missionary appointees had been church planters, the call was raised for the appointment of some preaching evangelists. This move appears to be the earliest formal indication of the impact that mass evangelism in the form of revivalism would have on Southern Baptist life.

The response of the Board to the call for evangelists simply reaffirmed the emphasis on church planting. The challenge of surviving the aftermath of the Civil War was viewed as a more pressing need then shifting the strategy to enlarge an emphasis on evangelism. The crushing defeat of the South left the churches in desperate condition, and the ministries of the HMB were reduced drastically. The economy collapsed. Religious leaders in the North attempted to confiscate church property in the South. Gradually, however, Southern Baptists and their mission boards began to recover. The missionaries who served as chaplains and worked with the soldiers during the war began helping churches rebuild and planting new work. Debts were paid, budgets were raised, and ministries were expanded. And then it happened: the Great SBC Evangelism War.

The Unexpected Battle

In 1904, Len G. Broughton, a Georgia pastor, raised the issue of the Convention's approach to evangelism. He proposed the following resolution:

That the Convention appoint a committee of twelve pastors, not members of any Convention Board, to be known as the Committee on Evangelism for the Needy Sections of our Convention Territory;

That this Committee, in co-operation with the Secretaries of our Boards, shall employ a general evangelist, who shall also be Secretary of the Committee;

That said evangelist shall, in addition to his evangelistic work, gather statistics, disseminate information and call to his aid such help and helpers as the Committee may approve;

That the co-operation of the State Boards be secured as far as possible, where work is to be done in needy and destitute fields;

That the salary of the general evangelist be paid by the three Boards of the Convention, and other expenses, including the salaries of special evangelists, be arranged for by the field or cooperating board;

That collections be taken at every meeting held by the evangelists for the work of the Evangelistic Committee;

That the Committee also report annually to the Convention.

The resolution marked a significant milestone in Southern Baptist life. The action proposed by Broughton was an attempt to have the denomination accept specific responsibility for the task of calling lost people to Christ, becoming involved in that task with the churches in clear, definite ways. It was also a call for the Convention to receive annual reports on evangelistic progress. As logical as that step may seem to Baptists today, a great storm of controversy erupted and lasted for two years.

After some discussion, the Convention decided not to act on the motion. Instead, a study committee of five persons was appointed to consider the matter and report to the next meeting of the SBC. Broughton was not included on the study committee. The members were Andrew Jackson, Spears Thomas, Milford Riggs, John E. White, T. B. Ray, and W. S. Ryland.

In 1905, the SBC met in Kansas City, Missouri. The report of the Evangelism Study Committee was not given until the afternoon of the fourth day. Committee members felt that the appointment of a permanent evangelism committee and the hiring of a secretary for that committee were inappropriate. Instead, they recommended the formation of another committee to study further the situation and suggest a course of action. Their recommendations were:

1. That this Convention appoint a special committee of five brethren whose duty it shall be to take this whole matter under advisement and into consideration, and to report at the next Convention on the "Work of Evangelism in the several States of the Convention."

2. That the committee be instructed to seek information as to the wisest methods in the work of evangelism consistent with our church polity and our denominational policy; to ascertain as far as practicable the special needs, and what is being done in the several States, as to the number of evangelists employed, where, and how employed, and as to the general results obtained; to agitate the whole subject of evangelism, and to gather any statistics in connection with the work, and any other information or intelligence touching the spiritual condition of our people, and the work of the denomination in reaching the unsaved masses at the very doors of our churches.

3. That in the prosecution of this work the committee shall solicit the co-operation of our religious newspapers, the State mission secretaries, and the secretaries of our general boards, and that these brethren be requested to render any aid they can to this committee in seeking the desired information.

4. That this committee, after a careful study of men and methods, shall feel it their privilege to discreetly recommend to inquiring pastors and churches such brethren as in their view possess the evangelistic gifts, and who can acceptably do the work of an evangelist.

5. That it is understood that the committee in their work shall not entail any expense upon the Convention, or its boards, but that the committee is at liberty to receive any contributions that may be furnished by the friends of this cause for any necessary expenses that may be incurred in the successful prosecution of its work.

Although Broughton's motion was not fully rejected, the report of this committee did reshape his motion in significant ways. The creation of a temporary committee, small in size with no employees, was advocated as opposed to a large, permanent committee employing at least one evangelist. The cooperation of Baptist agencies was suggested but not required, and no definite source of funding for the work of the committee was recommended. The SBC was to be made aware of evangelistic statistics, needs, and methods, but the Convention was to assume no new responsibilities for helping churches with evangelism.

The report of the committee was accepted by the Convention in Kansas City in 1905. A second committee of five was appointed, this time including Broughton, along with George W. Truett of Texas, W. W. Hamilton of Kentucky, W. M. Vines of Virginia, and A. J. S. Thomas of South Carolina. The stage was set for what proved to be a "battle royal" over what Southern Baptists should do about evangelism.

The new committee gave its initial report during the first evening session of the 1906 Convention. Further discussion of their recommendations was postponed until Sunday afternoon. This schedule was a parliamentary move intended to make it impossible for the messengers to act on a motion, for business could not be conducted during a Sunday session. Later, an attempt was made to move the discussion to a time period when action could be taken. After much debate and in a close vote, the time shift was denied. The failed motion to shift the time was followed by a motion to give the evangelism committee a third opportunity to address the body at a time when the messengers could take action. That motion carried. Vociferous debate and parliamentary maneuvering had not been unknown in Southern Baptist life, but what kind of evangelism report could create this kind of controversy?

Len Broughton presented the report. He began by telling of great evangelistic harvests that other denominations were experiencing across the United States. Two factors seemed to be present where these harvests were taking place. First, the methodology of revivalism was widely used, especially campaigns involving groups of churches in a joint crusade:

The large central meeting, or a number of simultaneous meetings in the same general movement, has usually been the order of the evangelistic work of the past year so far as the cities are concerned. Great halls, theaters, skating rinks, and other large central meeting places have been utilized by evangelists, and thousands of non-churchgoers have been reached in this way.

Revival meetings were proving to be a very productive approach to urban evangelism in the United States.

The second common factor was the presence of denominational evangelists. Other denominations were appointing evangelists to organize and preach these revival campaigns. The committee felt that Southern Baptists were not capitalizing on the ready harvest of souls because they lacked evangelists to mobilize their churches for evangelistic crusades. Broughton noted, "But with all our opportunities as Southern Baptists there is a serious weakness. We have the evangelistic soil; we have the evangelistic spirit; but we need better evangelistic organization." The committee believed that the time had come to institute a more intentional approach to evangelism. Their recommendations were as follows:

First, That the Convention instruct its Home Mission Board to create the Department of Evangelism, and that a general evangelist, with as many associates as practicable, be employed.

Second, That the Home Mission Board be requested to adopt such measures and methods as may be found necessary to give effectiveness to this department of the work.

Third, That in view of this advanced work our people be requested to increase their contributions by at least $25,000 for its support, and that the Home Mission Board be instructed to take the necessary steps to raise this amount in addition to the amount needed for other work.

From these recommendations the controversy arose. What was the issue provoking such strong feelings?

For many of the messengers, the real issue was a matter of Baptist polity — that is, the role of the local church versus the role of the denomination — for evangelism is ultimately the responsibility of the local church. Why should the denomination get involved in doing what every local church should be doing on its own? The concern over this question reflects the lingering influences of Landmarkism within the Southern Baptist Convention. Landmarkism can be described as what many today would call an extreme emphasis on the autonomy of the local church. In the late nineteenth century, proponents such as J. R. Graves embroiled the Convention in bitter controversy over the appropriate roles for the church and denomination. This debate was not over the importance or priority of evangelism. The issue was the role of the denomination in a ministry belonging to the local church.

Broughton and his committee attempted to address this issue in the report. He explained, "To be sure, this work [of evangelism] is, and ought to be, under the direction of the churches, just as every other agency of the denomination is. It is our profound conviction that the supreme centers of evangelism are the churches." Concern remained, however, over the propriety of forming an Evangelism Department.

From the committee's perspective, their recommendations were an attempt to strengthen and assist the evangelistic efforts of Southern Baptist churches. Even though evangelism was a local church responsibility, not all churches were engaged effectively in the work. The committee felt that a Department of Evangelism would stimulate uninvolved churches to become involved and would enhance the work of those churches already reaching out to the lost. Acceptance of these recommendations would also make evangelism possible on a larger scale than a local church could attempt on its own. This, after all, was one of the reasons for forming a convention in the first place.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "Fuel the Fire"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Charles Kelley.
Excerpted by permission of B&H Academic.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Dedication,
Acknowledgments,
Abbreviations,
A Treasury of Baptist Theology,
Preface: Fuel the Fire,
Introduction,
Lesson 1: Without a gardener, there can be no garden.,
1. The Great SBC Evangelism War,
2. Foundation for the Future,
3. Crime and Consequences,
4. The Energizing Key,
5. Return to Yesterday,
Lesson 2: Old McBaptist needs a farm designed to sow the gospel and reap conversions.,
6. Decisional Preaching,
7. Personal Evangelism,
8. Sunday School,
9. Revivalism,
10. The Southern Baptist Paradigm for Evangelism,
Lesson 3: Theological focus enhances evangelistic engagement.,
11. A Great Commission Hermeneutic,
12. A Moral Responsibility,
13. A Possible Task,
14. A Transferable Gospel,
Lesson 4: When the winds of change are blowing, the adjustments you make will determine the direction you sail.,
15. A Great Commission Update,
16. The New Methodists,
17. Mega-Shifts in SBC Life,
Lesson 5: The knock of opportunity is useless unless you answer the door.,
18. Four Places to Start,
19. Next Steps,
Conclusion: All Is Vain Unless the Spirit of the Holy One Comes Down,
Appendix A: Motion to Create a Department of Evangelism, 1904,
Appendix B: Report of the Evangelism Department Study Committee,
Appendix C: Report of the Second Evangelism Department Study Committee,
Appendix D: Shall the Atlanta Board Be Instructed to Employ Evangelists and to Call for an Extra $25,000 for Their Support?,
Selected Bibliography,
Name Index,
Subject Index,
Scripture Index,