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,

“Baptist Identity" Movement Endorses Jimmy Jackson

The Baptist Identity Movement have chosen their man for SBC President and it’s Jimmy Jackson.

If the Fighting Fundamentalist over at SBC Today have found their man in Jimmy Jackson, that is enough to give me pause in considering him for President of the SBC.

Just saying…

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,

The C.P. 10% Idol

The SBC Majority Initiative has Endorsed Jimmy Jackson for SBC President.

In light of the SBC Majority’s own list of qualifications for SBC candidates, which says “A man whose church gives a minimum of 10% of total undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program.” and the fact that Jimmy Jacksons’s church gives just 5% to the CP, has raised some questions about the proper percentage a church in the SBC should be giving to the CP.

Let me start this discussion by saying that Jimmy Jackson is, by all accounts, a good choice for President of the SBC and unless something changes my mind I will be supporting Brother Jimmy.

Now, concerning the main point of this post, I personally (and I don’t want to pick a fight with my friends here) think we need to be very careful that we do not make the percentage one’s church gives to the CP the end all “litmus test” for one being qualified for the position of SBC President.

There are a number of real and valid reasons why a church, large or small, may not give 10% to the CP. One of which might be providing food and shelter for a Widow within the local church, or writing a check to the local crises pregnancy center in order that they might keep their lights on and their doors open for another month, instead of sending an extra 1% to the CP in order that their Pastor might be considered “qualified” for SBC President. In such cases as these I don’t think that any of us would vote for a man who chose to ignore the needs of his own church and community in order to send his 10% to the CP.

Giving to the CP in order that we might equip and send missionaries to a lost and dying world is, of course, a noble and worthy cause… I ’m just saying that this 10% “litmus test” can become is “slippery slope” and we need to be careful that we do not create a false standard of righteousness by which we measure our leaders in the SBC.

Grace Always,

SBC Today - Three Blind Mice

The “Three Blind Mice” over at SBC Today are now decrying, of all things; “Great Commission Giving”.

Are you kidding me? I wish I were making this up… but, sadly it is not April fool’s Day, and I am not making this up. Today Tim Rogers posted a lengthy screed entitled “Great Commission Giving–The Dumbing Down of the Cooperative Program”

Apparently Tim is deeply concerned about the Great Commission Task Force recommendation to give the local Baptist Church the authority to direct its mission giving to the Southern Baptist causes it deems are the most important and worthy of receiving their missions offerings.

Just how Tim equates this recommendation of the Great Commission Task Force with the “Dumbing Down of the Cooperative Program” is anyone’s guess. Personally, I think Tim is just spewing inflammatory rhetoric here, but that is nothing new. Beyond the absurd title, Tim goes on in this article to make the ridiculous claim that this recommendation actually “mutes the Cooperative Program while quashing local church autonomy.”

Yes, Tim I can clearly see how actually giving local churches a voice in the SBC as to how their mission dollars are being spent would quash the Baptist Principal of local church autonomy… NOT!

Tim tries, unsuccessfully, in this article to build his argument against this recommendation by bringing in charts and comments from other bloggers and by saying over and over that this will dumb down the Cooperative Program. As if saying it over and over will win the day. It will not.

Reading this article through it is not difficult to discover what has set Tim off… He writes:

“The combining of the CP with other designated mission monies has not seen this problem in the past. Why? Churches were not supposed to be wooed by entities to give for special projects. No one knows when this changed but it did and we are reaping the bad fruit from this practice. Now we have churches giving more of their funds directly to various entities.”

O the tragedy of it all!!! Southern Baptist Churches have had their local autonomy quashed… Local Southern Baptist Churches are in ever increasing numbers deciding (of all things at the local church level) just where their missions giving will go. This must not be allowed to happen in the Southern Baptist Convention!!! --- [Sarcasm Intended]

To truly understand what has the Blind Mice over at SBC Today so upset with this recommendation, one only need to realize just WHO these local churches in ever increasing numbers are NOT sending their missions offering to, and the fact that under this recommendation direct giving to entities would be counted toward qualifying churches for sending messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Contrary to Tim’s opinion, this recommendation is a huge step in the right direction for building a brighter future for the SBC… It is in my opinion long overdue and is something that will in practice build greater cooperation throughout the SBC by getting the local churches directly involved in the work of the SBC (something sorely missing today). And just the opposite of what Tim says; by keeping these decisions at the local church level it will empower and undergird the autonomy of the local church… not quash it. Any claim to the contrary is absurd at best, and perhaps even disingenuous.

Grace Always,

SBC Today and Spurgeon

In his ongoing attempt to defend the peculiar doctrine of the “Baptist Identity” movement, David Worley posted a quote by Spurgeon on the SBC Today Blog where Spurgeon makes several comments that have been used for years by the proponents of the Landmark (Now Baptist Identity) movement to bolster support for their inflated claims concerning Baptist History.

Here is Spurgeon’s comment:

”We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin was born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.”

I am not at all embarrassed that Spurgeon made these comments… I believe the “Baptist Identity” guys take these comments and grossly overstate Spurgeon’s agreement with the peculiar view of Baptist and Church history promoted by their fringe movement, but I am not embarrassed by Spurgeon making them. If Spurgeon were alive today I think it would be very enlightening to hear his explanation of these comments, and I think David would be very disappointed with Spurgeon’s explanation.

On a slightly different note, I am very pleased to see that the guys over at SBC Today have decided to adopt Spurgeon as the authority on Baptist doctrine and Identity… Very Pleased Indeed! Why? Because the same Spurgeon who made the above comment also made the following comment:

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

Are you guys at SBC Today sure you like Spurgeon?

Grace Always,
Greg

Earliest Known Hebrew Writing

The topic of the following article by Clara Moskowitz at LiveScience.com is worthy of discussion in and of itself… (I just love it when science finally discovers that, in spite of all the cynicism from those who have scoffed at the Biblical record for the last two hundred years, what the Bible says is true after all.)

However, in this post I do not so much want to discus the implications of this discovery on our understanding of when the Bible was possibly written… but instead I want to discuss the content of this discovery. Indeed it is quite fascinating to discover a pottery shard with Hebrew writing dating back to the period of King David’s reign… But what is equally amazing to me it that the scientists get all excited about the age of this discovery, and completely ignore the content of the message itself. To me this is like being the caption of the Titanic and getting a warning message of a massive iceberg directly in your path and being so excited over this wonderful new technology (wireless) that allows ships to talk to one another that you completely forget to read the message.

Anyway, I digress… It’s the message that’s important not the pottery shard itself.


--------------------------------------------------------
(Article begins here)

Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests

Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com

Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.

The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)

Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

"It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research," said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.

BCE stands for "before common era," and is equivalent to B.C., or before Christ.

The writing was discovered more than a year ago on a pottery shard dug up during excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, near Israel's Elah valley. The excavations were carried out by archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. At first, scientists could not tell if the writing was Hebrew or some other local language.

Finally, Galil was able to decipher the text. He identified words particular to the Hebrew language and content specific to Hebrew culture to prove that the writing was, in fact, Hebrew.

"It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ('did') and avad ('worked'), which were rarely used in other regional languages," Galil said. "Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ('widow') are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages."

The ancient text is written in ink on a trapezoid-shaped piece of pottery about 6 inches by 6.5 inches (15 cm by 16.5 cm). It appears to be a social statement about how people should treat slaves, widows and orphans. In English, it reads (by numbered line):

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

The content, which has some missing letters, is similar to some Biblical scriptures, such as Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, and Exodus 23:3, but does not appear to be copied from any Biblical text.

(End of article)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The principals (ideals) of social conduct contained on this simple shard of pottery dating back to the period of King David are simply extraordinary.

1st – That it was written upon a clay tablet indicates that the wisdom it contented (the message) was of such importance that it should be persevered for all future generations.

2nd – The text is in essence a “Constitution” or “Social Contract” laying down the very foundational rules for this society.

3rd – This society is first of all to be a “Religious Society” and not a “Secular Society”. The establishment of a purely secular state, so entrenched in the thinking of our society today, is not found here.

4th – In this society “Religious Tolerance” is NOT a virtue. God alone is to be worshiped.

5th – Justice for all, regardless of their station in life, is to be one of the foundational principals upon which this society is built. Regarless if one is a slave, a widow, an orphan, or even a stranger (Immigrant) in the land, all are to be treated justly.

6th – Unlike in other societies, where the strong rule over the weak and the defenseless, in this society the rights of the weak and the defenseless are to be earnestly protected. I am deeply moved by the fact that the earliest known Hebrew writing ever discovered says; “Plead for the Infant” . Which I strongly believe applies to the unborn child and the ongoing abortion holocaust of the last fifty years.

7th – And lastly the Poor, the Slave, and the Stranger (Immigrant) are not to be abused, or taken advantage of.

I may come back and expand upon my initial observations latter (depending upon if anyone is interested or not), but duty calls me away and I must end this post for now.

Grace Always,
Greg

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?

Great Commission Resurgence & State Conventions

I have read many articles on, or about, what Southern Baptists are hoping will come about as a result of the work of the Great Commission Resurgence task force. There are certainly a lot of ideas out there as to what a reorganized Southern Baptist Convention should look like, and there are a lot of questions being ask. However, the most common question almost everyone appears to be asking is “What to do with the State Conventions?”

For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the GCR and State Conventions:

1.) I believe the State Conventions are important and have the potential of playing a major role in any Great Commission Resurgence that might take place in our lifetimes within the Southern Baptist Convention.

2.) I believe that full autonomy (without any oversight and genuine accountability) for our State Conventions has proven itself to be a very bad idea. Human nature being what it is; oversight, transparency, and accountability are an absolute must (especially when finances, positions, and power are involved).

3.) I do not believe the State Conventions should be in the church planting business at all! The examples of where State Conventions have wasted huge amounts of money on failed churches, and sometimes even outright fraud, are too many to list. Not to mention that (regardless of how good a plan someone has, or how large of a core group they have already gathered) many times State Convention Leaders have been guilty of discriminating against those who are from a different theological camp than they are, or who’s worship style is different from their own, or who disagree with their own convictions on second and third matter doctrines. This abuse of authority has lead to many new Baptist Churches being planted “Outside of the Southern Baptist Convention” by a younger generation of Southern Baptist Pastors and Church Planters who are unafraid to go it alone.

4.) I do not believe the State Conventions should be involved in any mission’s activity outside of their own state. We, as Southern Baptist, have both an International mission’s agency and a North American mission’s agency. Why are State Conventions duplicating services that we as a convention already provide for? Why are the State Conventions not “Cooperating” with (working through) our national missions agencies? In my opinion our State Conventions should be focusing upon reaching the mission fields of their own states, and not trying to do the work of the IMB or NAMB.

5.) Ok… here is where I believe the State Conventions could play a major role in a Great Commission Resurgence. I believe that State Conventions should put the establishment of Christian Schools, Daycare Centers, Orphanages, Adoption and Foster Care programs at the top of their agenda. This is where I feel they could truly find their purpose and place in bringing about a true and lasting Great Commission Resurgence. I also feel that no other organization within the Southern Baptist Convention is as capable of filling this much need role as is our State Conventions. How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to start a Christian School in every community, county, or parish in America by the end of year 2020? How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to start a Christian Daycare in every community, county, or parish in America by the end of year 2020? How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to see that no child in America is ever unloved and unwanted by the end of year 2020? In short, how great would the impact on our culture be if by the end of year 2020 every State Convention saw itself purely as a mission organization, and the people of their state as its mission field?

In closing, I believe if we are to have a true and lasting Great Commission Resurgence in America that we must “Reengage” the culture and society in which we live… that we must make it our highest goal to win the hearts and minds of the next generation. This we will not do unless we are willing to change. And if we are not willing to change for the sake of reaching the next generation for Christ, then all this talk about seeking a Great Commission Resurgence is nothing more than shameful religious bravado and we might as well spend our money on prayer rugs for the next generation.

Grace Always,
Greg