The GCRTF “Secret Agenda” Revealed!

In a post on his Blog, Between the Times, today Daniel Akin, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, made a stunning admission to the reality of the “True” Agenda behind the GCRTF. Concerning the GCRTF recommendations Akin makes the following comment:

“ It sends a strong signal where Southern Baptists want to go in terms of what we emphasize and what we support. In the “Axioms of a GCR” message, it was stated that Southern Baptists could come together and would support that which promotes 1) International Missions, 2) Aggressive Church Planting and 3) Healthy Theological Education. Here is a 3-prong vision that transcends generational and methodological differences. Here is a captivating agenda that can lead us into our greatest days as a Great Commission people”

Absolutely Stunning!

Grace Always,

SBC Convention Update

2010 SBC Annual Meeting Update (July 15, 5:20)

The (Southern Baptist) World has changed…

I have been glued to my computer screen all day today watching the live-stream of the 2010 Convention in Orlando, and I thought that I might post on some of what I have seen so far.

There were 10,994 messengers registered (I think I got that number correct, if not I am not off by much.) This number was well up from previous years, and is a good sign. I do not know yet, but it is my suspicion the increased numbers are due to many of the younger generation attending for the first time in many years.

The Great Commission Resurgence Taskforce Recommendation was approved by a majority of the messengers in Orlando. Not being there and no numbers given I do not know by how large of percent this passed. But pass it did! So bring on the naysayers…

There was much (and sometimes passionate) debate and many attempts to modify the recommendations failed, however one amendment to modify the language of recommendation number 3 to basically say that direct giving is to be considered “supplemental to Cooperative Program giving” did pass. This amendment was in reality just semantics and does not change the substance of recommendation number 3 at all. In a powerful display of seeking to preserve the unity of the convention the GCRTF committee itself joined in with the messenger who made the motion to create a compromise language on recommendation number 3 that in the end may very well have won the day for the entire GCRTF Recommendations which went on to pass easily.

First Round of voting on the next President of the SBC:

Bryant Wright 36.84%

Ted Traylor 29.18%

Jimmy Jackson 26%

Leo Endel 6.32%

Wright and Traylor will advance to the second round of voting.

The low-point (and low blow) of today’s proceedings at the convention, was the address by outgoing Executive Committee President, Morris Chapman. Who last year used his time before the convention to bash Calvinism and this year used his time to bash the GCRTF recommendations. One good thing that Morris Chapman said and to which I gave a hearty amen (howbeit in my office) was when he said this would be his “Last Address to the Southern Baptist Convention.” Amen, and Amen!

Morris Chapman should be the poster boy for a campaign to limit the term of anyone serving as Executive Committee President to no more than 8 years.

By the way Frank Page has been elected to be the next Executive Committee President…

Grace Always,

GCRTF and Fading Fundamentalism

In the ebb and flow of the ever changing tides of influence in the Southern Baptist Convention; Fundamentalism, with it ridged set of qualifications for acceptance in SBC Leadership circles, appears (Thankfully) to be fading.

DISCLAIMER: “For those of you who do not truly know me; I am a Biblical Conservative, a 100% supporter of the Conservative Resurgence, and have been for over 20 years now! Additionally, I do not equate the Conservative Resurgence with Fundamentalism as some of the critics of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC often do."

The influence of Fundamentalist ideology has certainly found fertile ground and expression among some members of the Conservative Resurgence over the last twenty plus years , perhaps hitting its high-water mark with the disastrous IMB policies that sought to regulate the private devotion of our missionaries and the baptism policy of the autonomous churches that make up the Southern Baptist Convention. Be that as it may, the Conservative Resurgence as a whole cannot in any reasonable discussion be considered a Fundamentalist movement. The battle cry of the Conservative Resurgence, around which the autonomous churches of the SBC rallied, was the inerrancy of Scripture (Solo Scriptoria) and not conformity to the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence idea of a “Baptist Identity”.

Some bloggers have tried to equate the work of the GCRTF with the end of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC and have even ask if the adoption of GCRTF recommendations will actually amount to a takeover of the SBC and an end to the Conservative Resurgence itself. In a recent Blog post titled "GCRTF Takeover of the SBC?", Les Puryear lays out the argument that the passing of the GCRTF recommendations will mark the end of the “Conservative Resurgence” and sweep prominent members of the Task force into key leadership positions within the SBC.

Les writes:

“Word on the street is that after the GCR recommendations are passed in Orlando and the controversy dies down, that Ronnie Floyd will be the next NAMB President. Also, word on the street has it that Danny Akin will take the IMB Presidential slot. If Ted Traylor wins the SBC Presidential election in Orlando, then the GCRTF will have their members in all four key positions in the SBC. Thus, the transition from the "old guard" Conservative Resurgence will be complete and the Hunt/Akin/Floyd/ coalition, who can arm-twist with the best of them, will be in power.“

I am not that well connected to the political network inside the SBC to be able to say whether or not Les knows what he is talking about here, and really I don’t want to be that connected. Regardless of that, I do think that Les is correct in that clearly a transition is in the making. Les appears to believe that this transition will mark an end to the “old guard” Conservative Resurgence (whatever that is?), and that this will be a bad thing for the SBC.

I, on the other hand, believe that in the passing of the GCRTF recommendations we will be witnessing the passing of the baton from one generation of Conservatives in the SBC to the next generation of Conservatives in the SBC, and far from being something bad for the SBC, this will be something very positive for the SBC. Why? Well, for without fanfare or applause the passing of the GCRTF recommendations, and the selection of new leadership that will surely follow, will mark a turning point in the SBC… and a defeat (at least in part) of the Fundamentalist Ideology that has caused so much harm to our cooperation in the last few years.

Honestly, I am not sure (and I don’t think anyone else is) exactly how the adoption of the GCRTF recommendations will impact the various ministries of the SBC… But one thing I know for sure is this; the adoption of the GCRTF recommendations will be a huge blow to the Fundamentalist Ideology of the Baptist Identity Movement in the SBC. And this is a very good thing for the future of cooperation in the Convention.

Grace Always,

Pastor/Teacher --- "Stranger?"

Yesterday (Dec.9.2009) Les Puryear made the following comment on his blog:

“ I would like to see seminaries such as SEBTS begin to recognize that the majority of their students will minister in small churches, whether established or newly planted, and provide courses which will equip them to minister in the small church culture which is a completely different environment than is found in megachurches.”

The high turnover rate of Pastors in the vast majority of Southern Baptist Churches, and the damage it causes to the witness of Christ and the work of the local church in our communities, is something that I feel very passionate about. I am told that the average tenure of a Southern Baptist Pastor is around 2 years… (If anyone has the precise numbers on this I would love to have them posted)

If this inexcusable number is even close to being correct (and I believe it is) then it is a clear indication that we have a deep rooted, unhealthy, and systemic issue within our Southern Baptist culture of accepting as normal short term/unstable leadership in our small Southern Baptist Churches.

There are many factors contributing to this sad condition and I make no pretense of being in any position, or possessing sufficient wisdom, to address them all. However, there is one thing that that I believe to be ‘the’ major contributing factor in all of this, and that is the practice of most small Southern Baptist congregations of calling absolute “STRANGERS” to pastor their church.

Here is the comment I posted on Les Puryear’s blog that gives my basic argument on this issue:

Les,

Thanks for this post!

This gives me the perfect opportunity to vent about something that I am very passionate about… and that is that this whole modern system of calling a “stranger” as your pastor is completely unbiblical.

Can anyone give me just one example in the Bible where a congregation called a “stranger” as their pastor? Yet 99.9% of the time in Southern Baptist Churches, no matter how careful the search committee is, and no matter how long they take, that is exactly what they do. They wind up calling a complete stranger to fill the most important position in the Church. Would anyone dare propose to their congregation that they need to look outside of their own body for Elders, Deacons, Teachers, or general officers? I think not. So why do we do exactly that for the positions of Pastor, and then get all offended when they don’t work out, or move on to bigger churches? There is a real simple solution to the problem of small churches being used as stepping stones… “Stop calling strangers as your Pastor”.

Can anyone explain to me how any search committee can affirm with any certainty that someone from outside of their own local community actually meets the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3:1-7. How can they know if this handsome young stranger with the good looking resume and the perfect wife and 2 little children on the front row, is of a blameless reputation or is nothing more than wolf in sheep’s clothing? In truth they cannot, but if he grew up in this community, or lived there for a few years they would know. They may actually check the references listed on his resume, but does anyone truly expect to uncover anything that would disqualify someone by asking the people listed on a resume? No, not really, so they usually wind up never asking any questions whatsoever about the man’s qualifications. You will notice that 1 Tim.3:7 says that he must have a good reputation of them which are without (in the community). How can a “stranger” possibly meet this requirement?

Ok… I could go on and on, but I think you get my point so I will shut up now :-)

Les replied:

“Greg, I have never heard that perspective before.”

I know this perspective cuts against the grain of our accepted practices within our Southern Baptist culture, and as I said above I could go into a much greater defense of this position… But what I really would like to know is what some of you think about this issue?

We discussed this issue at length during our Bible Study time at our Wednesday night services last night, and one of our Elders made the comment that the church is to function like and be modeled after the family and no family would ever seriously consider going out and bringing in an absolute stranger to be their “Father”. I thought that was a very insightful comment.

So, what say you?

Is NAMB a "Relic of the Past"?

Last week on SBC Voices Blog I made a statement that has drawn some heated debate that I need to clarify just a little bit. The comment I made was:

“NAMB is a relic of the past… church planting networks like Acts 29 own the future.”

Responding to my comment Ron West wrote:

“Greg you seem bitter about the IMB and NAMB. You desire to have them done away with and calling them relics of the past is undeserved in my opinion.”

Now I will be the first to admit that I rarely beat around the bush about things and my comments can most certainly come across as being bitter or angry, both of which I am not. I do not equate having strong convictions with being either bitter or angry, but I can see how Ron could read that into my comments about the IMB and NAMB.

Following is the follow up comment I posted to Ron’s comment above which explains my original comment that “NAMB is a relic of the past… church planting networks like Acts 29 own the future.”

---

Concerning the IMB and NAMB:

My first preference would be that both the BOT and Administration of the IMB and the NAMB would realize that the Baptist Churches of the SBC, which they serve, are a diverse group of Churches. We Southern Baptist are far from being “of one accord and one mind”…

So it is with this understanding that I passionately believe that both our mission agencies should represent, and make allowances for (without discrimination), the diverse group of Churches that make up the SBC. This is something that they have NOT done in the past, and is something that I and many others in the SBC would welcome with much joy.

Should not every cooperating church, which is in good standing with the convention, have the reasonable expectation that it may fully participate with, and receive support from, these agencies equal to the participation and support afforded to others? Why is this convection such a “Radical” idea? Why is this asking to much for people like David?


The truth is that unless these agencies are willing to change and adopt a new attitude toward the diversity that is a reality in the SBC then they will rapidly become relics of the past as more and more of our churches look elsewhere for mission partners.

----

If you have had a negative experience with the IMB or NAMB, or if you believe these agencies need to change to fully represent all churches of the SBC I believe the SBC needs to hear what you have to say…???

Grace Always

Battle for the Baptist Faith and Message

With the momentous resurgence of Passionate Missionary Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention over the last few years, I guess it was just a matter of time before those who oppose this resurgence of Calvinism within the SBC began to question the strongly Calvinistic Statement of Faith of the SBC; the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

Peter Lumpkin’s, an often vocal and aggressive critic of Calvinism on the blogs has recently posted an article titled Calvinists Critique Morris Chapman's Clarification: Part II in which he mostly criticizes Timmy Brister for his critique of Morris Chapman’s (somewhat infamous) comments to the convention this year in Louisville, KY where Chapman felt obligated to (once again) take a broad swipe at Calvinism in the SBC.

Now Peter, who is fast becoming known as an aggressive Anti-Calvinist and Anti-Alcohol “watch-dog” in the SBC, wasted no time in this article in going after Timmy Brister with both barrels blazing. Ironically, or should I say in typical fashion, in this article Peter is guilty of exhibiting toward Brister the exact attitudes he has accused Timmy of having toward Chapman. It appears that Peter is willing to allow himself the freedom to be critical of others in the SBC but would very much like to muzzle all other voices, especially those who speak out against those who abuse their positions in the SBC to advance their personal Anti-Calvinist or Anti-Alcohol agendas.

However, if Peter (who repeatedly refers to Brister as a “strict/stern/hyper Calvinist” and his Calvinism as “skewed”) wishes to engage in this tactic of “attacking” those who disagree with him, instead of debating the issues… well then he should not be shocked when others go after him in like fashion.

But more to the point of this post is something very disturbing that Peter says about the Southern Baptist statement of faith; The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Now, Peter is notorious for (how shall I say this…) displaying “Extreme Gymnastic” skills in twisting the meaning of the English language, and playing “Fast and Loose” with his reinterpreting the meaning of words, grammar, and sentence structure as seen in his comment below.

“ And, so far as the BF&M is concerned, Timmy wants it to definitively teach regeneration precedes faith. I’ll bet that would be a new one on Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, and all the other non-Calvinists who worked on the revision committee.

Personally, I think the BF&M is rubbery enough to include strict Calvinists, modified Calvinists, and non-Calvinists among its supporters. For Brister, however, non-Calvinists and even modified Calvinists like Akin find no support there. It definitively teaches the theological tomfoolery that there exists an animal others have called a born-again unbeliever. ”

Here is what the Baptist Faith and Message actually says:

“ A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.”

Peter appears to be reading this portion of the BFM2000 with blinders on, so I will put the part he appears to have a hard time reading in bold print.

"It (Regeneration) is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

That any man, with any degree of integrity, would attempt to tell Southern Baptist that our statement of faith does not in fact teach that regeneration precedes repentance is either a display of intellectual dishonesty, or crude arrogance… or both.

Peter’s strict/stern/hyper bias against Calvinism and all Calvinist is on full display in this article. And this salvo from the pen of Peter Lumpkin is a clear indication that the long war on Calvinism in the SBC is far from over, and in fact a new chapter in this war has just began; “The Battle for the Baptist Faith and Message”.

Grace Always,

The Rise of Passionate Missionary Calvinism in the SBC

Image via Wikipedia

Morris Chapman in his Executive Committee’s Presidential report (see here) presented on 6/23/2009 at the SBC Convention made the following comments expressing his concerning over the rising influence of Calvinism in the SBC and the negative effects on evangelism and missions that he fears this rising influence of Calvinism will have on the future of the SBC.

The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man…

Some are given to explain away the “whosoever will” of John 3:16…

The belief that sovereignty alone is at work in salvation is not what has emboldened our witness and elevated our concern for evangelism and missions through the ages. This is not the doctrine that Southern Baptists have embraced in their desire to reach the world for Christ.

If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me begin by saying that in the face of a young Calvinist movement in the SBC that is absolutely on fire for evangelism and missions these were most unfortunate comments coming from the President of the Executive Committee of the SBC, and that Chapman has seriously misjudged the current mood of cooperation in the convention. Yes, there is indeed great apathy toward evangelism and missions among many in the SBC; however it is among the Non-Calvinist that we see this sad form apathy toward the lost and not among this young generation of Calvinist in the SBC.

The issue of the rise of a passionate, missionary, form of Calvinism in the SBC and the long term apathy of many Non-Calvinist in the SBC toward evangelism and missions is one that I believe will occupy volumes in the future history books of the SBC.

In one very real sense the rise of this passionate missionary form of Calvinism in the SBC, that has lead to us now seeing a vastly disproportionate number of young Calvinist in the SBC becoming missionaries and Church Planters, is due to the fact that for many years these young Calvinist have suffered a constant barrage of criticism from the Non-Calvinist of the SBC (especially from the older generation) that Calvinism kills evangelism and missions. This criticism appears to have had an unintended effect on these young Calvinist. Instead of turning them from Calvinism, as the Non-Calvinist critics had hoped, it spurred these young Calvinist to become the most passionate and dedicated missionaries and church planters the SBC has seen in many generations.

So while many of the Non-Calvinist churches in the SBC have become apathetic toward evangelism and missions, the Calvinist are on fire for evangelism and missions. This is absolutely fascinating!

I would like to add that the Calvinist emphasis on regenerate church membership, and the Non-Calvinist lack of emphasis on regenerate church membership, has played a fundamental role in what we now see going on in the rise of this generation of passionate missionary Calvinist in the SBC. Simply put, those who are not regenerate have no passion for either evangelism or missions. So no matter how hard you preach evangelism and missions to them they simply pay no attention. Yet, if at the same time we see the Calvinist gathering more regenerate (though less numbers of) members in their churches there will be more passion for evangelism and missions among these smaller Calvinistic Churches than we see in some of the larger mega-churches that we often hear so much about from the older generation of SBC Leaders like Chapman.

In a very odd twist of fate the Non-Calvinist, by their harsh criticism of Calvinism, have fueled the rise of the passionate Calvinist Missionary, and Church Planter, we now see in the SBC. As I said earlier, this is absolutely fascinating!

Grace Always,

Hunt names 18-member GCR Task Force

Image via Wikipedia

(Baptist Press) Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 10:18:00 AM

Speaking from the podium, SBC President Johnny Hunt seconds ago publicly named the 18-member Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. The task force is:

-- Ronnie Floyd (chairperson), pastor, FBC Springdale, Ark.
-- Jim Richards, executive director, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention
-- Frank Page, pastor, FBC, Taylors, S.C.
-- David Dockery, president, Union University
-- Simon Tsoi, first vice chairman, International Mission Board
-- Donna Gaines, Bellevue Baptist Church, Cordova, Tenn.
-- Al Gilbert, pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, Winston-Salem, N.C.
-- J.D. Greear, pastor, Summit Church, Durham, N.C.
-- Tom Biles, director of missions, Tampa Bay Association, Executive Committee member
-- Danny Akin, president, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
-- R. Albert Mohler Jr., president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
-- John Drummond, St. Andrews Baptist Church, Panama City, Fla.
-- Harry Lewis, North American Mission Board
-- Mike Orr, pastor, FBC, Chipley, Fla.
-- Roger Spradlin, pastor, Valley Baptist Church, Bakersfield, Calif., Executive Committee member
-- Robert White, executive director, Georgia Baptist Convention
-- Ken Whitten, pastor, Idlewild Baptist Church, Tampa, Fla.
-- Ted Traylor, Olive Baptist Church, Pensacola, Fla.

(Baptist Press Article ends here)

That sure is an interesting list… I could not help but notice that a lot of North West Florida Pastors made the cut. Not sure what’s up with that except that perhaps Johnny like to vacation in my neck of the woods. I could also not help but notice who is not on the list.

Care to name those you find interestingly absent from the list?

I’ll start with my good Baptist Identity buddies from SBC Today… You would think that those guys who represent our true Southern Baptist Identity should be on the list… but alas they are not.

Tim Rogers
Robin Foster
Bart Barber
Scott Gordon
Wes Kenney
John Mann
Joe Stewart


Grace Always,