Shortly after setting in the front row with the pastor and seemingly in deep prayer and conversation, he was quickly wisked away, only to appear in the baptistry with the pastor. Now the baptistry was seemingly some 100 feet up and there he was getting “dunked” for the umpteenth time. As he came up out of the water, the pastor said, “And all God’s people said…” and right on cue a loud chorus of  “Aaameeen!” went up to the heavens.

             Does this sound all too familiar? How many times have seen people getting “saved” over and over again. And then marched up into the baptistry once again, cause this time it was for sure a conversion to Christ. All the while the preacher rejoices in another soul gettin saved and joining the church. And the congregation says the pastor is doing a great job of bringing people to faith and joining our church.

             When my mind wanders back to the early days of my new found faith, I can replay this “conversion” event over and over. Honestly it kinda makes me sick at my stomach. Is it any wonder why people are either turned off by Christianity or confused about what conversion is? Is it a one time thing, or do we keep on surrendering? Is being baptized several times, a type of works system and thus making it a part of salvation?

             I was counselor at a Baptist camp this summer and was frustrated with the invitations given to follow Christ. The lights would actually be turned off, except those on the stage to highlight the preacher and the band. The preacher would close his message with a gut wrenching story to drive home the need to get ”saved”. He would then ask that every ”head bowed and every eye closed” and to listen attentively to what he was saying. 

          He would then say, “If you are here tonight…” as if they aren’t there? Anyway, I digress. And proceed to ask that hands be raised, “no one looking”  and then he would look around and say something like “amen, I see that hand”, if you desire to give your life to Jesus.  Of course with the lights out and you can’t see very well, the kids look around to see who is getting “saved” and so join in on this thing.

         While the band plays some soft soothing music to “manipulate” the repentant hearts to decide for Jesus, the preacher asked those who raised their hands to come down the “aisle” and get saved. Lights are still out and the invitation to “respond right this moment” is given. If only a few come down, the preacher would then give another “invitation” to come down the aisle.

            At this camp, the “invitation” was given each night of camp and the “decisions” shared with hearty “amens” from the counselors and staff. Each counselor was strongly encouraged to get decisions from all campers. After all that’s what we were there for. The churches that submitted larger numbers of “decisions” got real strong shouts of “amen”. Smaller numbers were almost greeted with defeat.

             I guess the question for me is, is this the way Jesus told us to do it? Did Jesus give “altar” calls? Did Jesus ask people to bow their heads and close their eyes and then raise thier hands if they wanted to follow Him?  Did Jesus ask that the lights be turned down low and play soft soothing music to “get” decisions from people?

              Is it “spiritual rape” to manipulate people, especially young people to make “decisions” in such a staged environment? 

              Billy Graham, or so I am told, said that less than half of the so called “decisions” at his crusades were real. Lots and lots of money went into those crusades to gain souls. And for what? Lots and lots of money was spent at the baptist camp I was at. I’m on the camp board and to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been published as to how much it cost to get high powered speakers and bands to come and “get” decisions.

            Whatever happened to one on one relationship building and slowly bringing someone into the arms of Christ? But that takes work and time. We live in a fast paced society that wants instant results and youth camps do just that. We just gotta bring em and then they get saved.  But are they really? Do they understand any of it? Are we just copping out of doing what we should do?

What say y’all?

They bring atheletes, celebrities etc to “entertain” the prisoners and then hit them with the Gospel. As a matter of fact the posters they post around the prisons say nothing about the “event” being Christian. I asked about this and was told, that if they advertised it as a “Christian” event, then many prisoners would not come. So they leave that pertinent information out.

So they basily bait the prisoners to an “event” of entertianment and then “hit” them with the Gospel. Hmmm. What if, a group came and had posters put up all over that said it was an entertainment show, only to find out they were “preaching” the muslim faith? All hell would break lose!!! And rightly so.

But Christian organizations can do this with no repurcussions? In the minds of some, the end justifies the means.

I can remember when I lived in Southern California and students at the beach would hand out flyers related to free music, food and volleyball. They would draw a large crowd and then preach to them. Food and flyers would hit the ground as fast as these bamboozled students could run from there. Again for this group the end justified the means.

On many occasions groups are invited to come and speak at our public school assembly programs. Generally they tell the kids to stay off of drugs, alcohol etc. Then at the end invite them to a rally, held at a nearby church. I don’t have a problem with this. Provided the speakers at school stay away from preaching the Gospel and save it for the rally. That way the students choose to attend a rally, knowing that it is Christian because it is at a local church.

Let’s be real, on a number of occasions these same groups do preach the Gospel and that is not the place. At the same meeting I was at, someone asked if they preach the Gospel at the school assemblies they host. I said, before an answer was given, probably not loud enough, ”They shouldn’t” . The host said they do on occasion, depending if the school administration approves of it. His answer was greeted with a hearty amen. I was appalled.

It is the churches responsibility to preach the Gospel to youth, not the schools. Churches that leave evangelism to the schools are taking a huge risk. Whose brand of Christianity gets preached? Could be a conservative group or a liberal group (not likely a liberal group, they are not as prone to do anything like this) or it could be a charismatic group or a ultra-conservative group who tend to teach a works system for salvation.

Prison evangelism is the churches responsiblity. So maybe to assuage our apparent guilt for having not done so, we bring in a mass evangelism organization and fork out tons of money to have them do it. Never mind that at two of our local prisons we have a hospitality house ministry that does some of the same evangelism they will be doing. Although the hospitality house cannot actually go in an evangelize, there is a chaplain in the facility. Oh, but he/she might not be “doing it right”. So let’s bring in a huge high dollar organization to do it for us.

There are lots of prison ministries that go in and do one on one evangelism, the best and most effective there is. So why this mass evangelism event, that generally has most of the “decisions” not being real. It is a fact, that many prisoners will “confess” Christ, just so it looks go on thier record when probation issues come up.

My biggest objection to this mass evangelism event is the bait and switch that is going on. It is no different than the guy who invited me to a meeting not telling me what it was. I asked if it was Amway and he said no. So I went and lo and behold it was Amway. I got up and walked out the door. He stopped me and said if he had told me what it was I wouldn’t have come. For him the end justified the means.

So lying about what we are really doing, is justified. Hmmm.

Just thought I would offer some thoughts related to the convention. I did not go this year. No it was not a protest, not mad at anyone or trying to make a statement. It was just too dadgum far away. The cost to attend would have been too much and the travel time horrendous. So that is the only reason I did not attend.

I realize some are strongly suggesting the lack of attendance at this year convention as a sign of a downfall of the TBC. Among my pastor friends everyone of them said the distance factor was the biggest reason for not going.  Our church budget is tight this year as well for many others.

So distance and economy is the biggest reason for lack of attendance. I suspect similar numbers were at play in the 1930′s. But alas some still beat the dead horse of conspiracy and the supposed downfall of the TBC.  Some claim low numbers at the TBC and lower giving levels is a sure fire sign that people are “pulling out of the TBC” and showing displeasure with the TBC.

For some that may be the case, but for most they would site economical reasons and time restraints. Admittedly our society has changed and attending conventions is not a priority for many.

Maybe it is high time to consider changing how we do convention. Many options are available:

Meet every other year. (American Baptist do this)

Meet in one central location only.

Have several satelite sites available.

Change format to modern times (whatever that means!)

There may be other ideas. Write me and let me know of other suggestions for making convention time better.

I think convention time is important. It gives all the the TBC churches a connectionality to each other and encouragement for the journey. We need each other and convention reminds us how we can do more together than alone.

In agreement with another blogger, I think the focus of TBC needs to change, to make it more church centered and not staff centered. Maybe it has become too top heavy. Trim the budget to meet church needs instead of staff needs. Yeah, some staff need to be available, but some may be duplicious.

Let’s keep the TBC, but remodel it or streamline it.

To that I say more power to ya.

But why not a Biker church? Has anyone  ever done one? Would a Biker feel comfortable or at home in any church?  Will some of the old school type of people accept the loads of tats on display on Bikers? Will they accept the loud noise of bikes pulling into the parking lots? Can they accept the long hair and many piercings? If a church can, awesome.

In most churches they would not be accepted. They would be stared at and made to feel uncomfortable. Some would never say it out loud, but they would think to themselves “Those people don’t belong here.” But then again some churches, very few, might be willing to accept them. Maybe David’s church is one of them. I pray it is.

Go for it David, I applaud your efforts.

See I am not a bad guy, you just think I am.

When I was sharing with some of my pastor friends about our church plans, they almost felt sorry for me. I understand why now. The ugly nature of some is multiplied at planning meetings. Some that never spoke up at the meetings related to voting on the building are now speaking up and loudly. They are getting downright mean about it.

I guess doing a building program like this brings out personal feelings like nothing else. But in the process feelings are getting hurt. For that I am deeply sad. I am between a rock and a hard place on all this. Do I address the ugliness and risk stirring it up or ignore it and allow it to grow?

If I had known how many sleepless nights I would be losing over the stress of this project I almost would have asked the church not to do this. But we desparately need this building for future growth of our church. So I spend lots of time in prayer for those who are being ugly and praise God for the joy it brings to the many who are genuinely excited about the building.

Yall got advice to give me on dealing with the soreheads in this mess?

Keep me and  the church I pastor in your prayers.

Recently had one that left the building an abosolute mess. They knew they were to clean up and I personally talked to the after the wedding to do so. They said they would be back the next morning (Saturday morning) to clean it up. They never showed and left tons of rental equipment in the kitchen. Apparently they rented dishes etc. for the reception and left it all behind. As of today (Sunday) they still are piled up in the fellowship hall.

As if that is not enough they stiffed us on the building rental. I have personally had enough. The church policy allows for outside weddings. But I am moving more and more into the direction of banning them altogether.

There is no respect these days from strangers about the church. So they assume they rented it and can do whatever they want.

Most of my colleagues have also banned outside weddings for this very reason. It is too much hassle and too much risk for things to get torn up. Plus since I live next door to the church, it is “dumped” on me to handle all wedding issues. Which generally means I have my day off shot dealing with a wedding.

What is yall’s opinion on this matter. I personally think the church should have a wedding coordinator on standby to handle all of these issues and is paid out of the building fees.  And the suggested fee for rental should be such so as to discourage rental.

What say yall?

I can only imagine how dismayed and pained the TBC board was when they were dealing with that situation. Apparently they dealt with it fairly and honestly. I personally applaud them for what they have done.

It is way too easy to judge when one does not have all of the facts. It must pain the TBC board to hear of Montoya’s pre-judgemental comments. I personally feel he owes them and Dr. Lowrie an apology, but that is probably not gonna happen.

Dr. Lowrie, as President of the BGCT, has done a tremendous job and should be applauded for his work.

If only we ask questions  of the right people before we shoot off with the mouth. It might save a lot of unneccesary hurt and misunderstanding.

I am not here to attack them per se, that is what they percieve. My reason for writing regarding them, is that for the most part they go unchallenged. They write as if they are right and everyone else is wrong. Montoya goes after anything BGCT and many times (not always) without merit.

Both of these guys do bring up some very good points. Montoya is not a bad buy and I absolutely do not wish ill on him. Davis is not bad buy either. They both seem sincere in thier comments. My problem is that at least with Montoya he is reactive and shoots off at the mouth/blog and comes across as mean spirited.

Again I wish no harm on either brother in Christ.

No one sent me any dirt and even if they did, I honestly would not publish it. I am not a publisher of gossip. I did, as mentioned before, recieve one anonymous message on the churches answering machine. Cowards leave no name and number. He just called me  a name and said he had said his piece. Oddest message I have ever recieved, and so childish. Deleted it right away. When I recieve anonymous letters in the mail (haven’t had one in more than 10 years), I actually shred them and ignore them.

So David I am not against you, per se, just opposed to the shotty way you shoot at people and seem to intentionally slander people. You aren’t building up the kingdom when you shoot and ask questions later. I know you will most likely slam me for this post, but so what, that is who you are.

We can build up or we can tear down. I honestly thought that was what you said you were gonna do when you reopened your blog. I truly was hopeful.

Love ya bro.

I sincerely meant no harm to Davis. I understand when a church situation turns ugly and it hurts. I suspect even now the pain of the situation still stings. To Rick Davis I sincerely apologize.

Now, Montoya has published my church address and phone number.  He is trying to drag my congregation into this mess and that for me is hitting below the belt. My blog is my blog and not the churches blog.  So lay off David!!

I just got home and found a nasty anonymous message on my answering machine. Is that what you intended?  Are your supporters and followers that low?

He finds fault with the BGCT raising funds and awareness for the hungry in Texas and he slams it as much ado about nothing.  Instead he uses it as an excuse to stand mentally outside the “Building” and proceed to throw rocks at it.

I thought the tone of his new blog was gonna be more supportive and positive. That’s is like asking rattlesnakes not to have poison. He really should start his own convention. That is what happened more than 100 years ago, and maybe it is high time he just pull out of the BGCT he so hates and either join the SBTC or start his own convention. He and Rick could be the catalyst for a new and perfect convention.

I remember in the seventies the bumper sticker that said, “America, love it or leave it.” In the same mindset, Montoya and his followers should do the same in regards to the  BGCT.

He can’t say anything nice about the BGCT, then he should get a divorce and let it go. The marriage between he and the convention just aint working out. It is time to cut his  loses and move on.

Don’t get me wrong the BGCT is anything but perfect, it is an human institution afterall. And neither are we perfect, but like all we strive for holiness and we fail often and fall on the mercy seat of our Heavenly Father. There but for the grace of God go you and I.