;)
Great Commission Resurgence… Thoughts?
Posted by John Stickley in Baptist Life
I’m not sure this topic really needs much introduction, so I’ll just get to the point.
Dr. Akin’s Great Commission Resurgence…
What do you think?
29
Apr
19 Comments so far:
-
;)
The Bible And The Qur’an Are Not The Same
-
;)
Choosing Sides
-
;)
A Simple Beginning Point
-
;)
Counting the Costs
-
;)
Live Tweets on the Convention…
-
;)
Keeping The ‘Mas’ In Christmas
-
;)
Both Sides Now: IMB & “Faith Missions”
-
;)
The Sinner’s Prayer and Discipleship: Some Connections
-
;)
When the Unthinkable Happens
-
;)
Architecture Of A Church Split
On the face, it is self-evident and obvious.
It’s the execution where things get fun. That’s what I’m waiting to see. There is a long history of enthusiastic embrace of new initiatives but then only a half-hearted commitment to follow through. If we can sustain the enthusiasm through the execution phase, Ed Stetzer may have some new statistics for us.
Ok, here’s my concern–there are a few axioms that I personally would like a little more clarification on. Not saying I disagree with them necessarily but I am curious just how eccumenical (sp) this thing is gonna get. I am by no means BI but I’m also not “Mainstream” either. Certainly there are points of theology that we can and should be able to agree to disagree on for the sake of spreading the Gospel, there are others (the clearly taught different yet complementary roles of men/women in the church, homosexual behavior/feelings always being sinful, the fact that the Bible does not “contain” the word of God but it IS the word of God) that cannot be compromised on.
After seeing this for the first time yesterday, I went ahead and added my name to the list of signatories this morning.
To tell the truth, I wrestled a bit with this decision for the following reason: I agree 110% with 99% of what this statement says. I am VERY enthusiastic about the main focus, and am THRILLED with the general direction in which this statement points.
However, I am aware that there is a section in the statement that deals with support of the BF&M as a consensus for cooperation for Southern Baptists. I am also aware that I have come out publicly expressing a personal caveat I have with the phrase in the BF&M that stipulates biblical baptism as a prerequisite for participation in the Lord’s Supper (for any who may read this, and are not familiar with my position, it is a bit nuanced, and, in my opinion, very close, yet not technically in agreement with the wording of the BF&M on this particular point). This morning I read the text of Dr. Akin’s accompanying message, “Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence.” Being a bit longer than the “Towards a Great Commission Resurgence” statement, it is even more forceful, and, in my opinion, clearer than the more concise statement. I found myself enthusiastically resonating with Dr. Akin in what he says there. I did notice one thing, though. When he comes to the part about matters clearly covered in the BF&M and those on which it leaves room for disagreement, the matter of “close communion” is not mentioned one way or another.
Personally, I am happy to join with Southern Baptists who look to the BF&M as a consensus statement of shared beliefs. Whether or not the rest of Southern Baptists are happy to work with me, with my particular caveat, depends on them.
It is important for me to be open and forthright in what I say, and not two-faced. Thus, I am happy to be able sign the statement, and, at the same time, give an explanation here for my initial hesitation in doing so.
I am at the same time sorry to have to bring up in this context the secondary/tertiary issue of “closed communion,” as I feel it is distracting to the main thrust of the statement: focusing on the gospel. I would not want the discussion here to get side-tracked on that. We have discussed that previously on other posts.
I too was slow to add my signature wanting to make absolutely sure that I was in agreement with each printed word. I read it through very carefully this morning one more time and have now confidently added my signature. I will also be sharing the GCR with my church and with my state convention as a potential consensus document.
Dr. Akin was my favorite professor at Southeastern and there is nothing about him that I find offensive. I agree that there is a need for restructuring in the SBC but this will not solve the problems that have been surfacing over the past few years. I am concerned that what will eventually happen is that those who are pulling the chains in dark corners will limit the accountability of actions taken by those who have come after the Pattersons and Presslers. Is it not clear enough to those who are blinded by obtaining the best seats that many Rehoboams are dividing the kingdom that they might lop off a piece for their selves? It’s great to speak of the Great Commission, but crossing land and sea to make one proselyte is a dangerous place to be when things are amiss.
Brother John,
I like the way you got right to the point!
Dr. Akin’s and friends seem to have written a reasonable set of things to embrace. The only changes I would make would be to the emphasis and order.
I. A Commitment to Gospel-Centeredness
II. A Commitment to Christ’s Lordship
III. A Commitment to Biblical Inerrancy and Sufficiency
IV. A Commitment to Sound Biblical Teaching
V. A Commitment to the Great Commandments
VI. A Commitment to Distinctively Christian Families
VII. A Commitment to Biblically Healthy Churches
All the others will flow very nicely if these foundations are in place.
I like what was written,….Thanks for the link.
Blessings,
Chris
I have already signed only to find out this morning that a new version is in place with a significant revision of the restructuring call. I feel like I just bought MS Vista only to find out that they released it before all the bugs have been worked out. Now, this bug has been revised more to my liking. If they, however, revise another statement which I then find not to my liking, will I be able to remove my name from the document?
The Conservative Resurgence and the need for a Great Commission Resurgence will always be trusts which we need to guard in Southern Baptist life. This document will not be the fix-all which some hope it to be. Faithfulness to submit to the Lordship of Christ in all areas of our lives and ministries is an ongoing task. I am thankful for the opportunity to once again be reminded of and state my commitment to God’s word and completing His work.
Sola Gratia!
Signed it. Support it. Excited about it.
There are a couple of things that give me pause. We are supporting some form of restructuring without knowing what that is. Bart Barber has pointed out what I think is true – often our restructuring has NOT led to more effectiveness, but less.
I support the idea, but am nervous about the details.
I also have some reservations, as David mentioned above, about the use of the BF&M. We may need some sort of BF&M Bill of Rights that spells out exactly how the BF&M is to be used.
Especially, we need to address two simple questions:
1) Can agencies exceed the BF&M to exclude people from service (like the IMB policies did)?
2) Can a person (as David above) have minor disagreements with the BF&M and still serve our denomination?
I have a couple of concerns. But I am so excited. I got into blogging because of what I saw as abuses on power by some denominational leaders. I see Danny Akin addressing these issues in a gracious, statesman-like way.
Even if I have a couple of qualms about specifics, I’m “all-in” for the GCR!
Am I in trouble for using a poker-related inference??
Brother Scott G.,
I think you are absolutely on target. This document, as nice as it is, actually has little or no application, because there will be even fewer embrace it from the small group that will actually read it.
Resurgence or recovery is done when I say or speak the gospel to this person that is sitting next to me now…… So, if leadership is about the business of teaching and equipping for that purpose, the speaking forth of the gospel may actually occur.
Rallying the troops at the denominational head (i.e. seminaries) is backward to the Apostolic evangelistic resurgence, which is always local where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, bent on the purpose of equipping and moving out with the news and faith once delivered.
Baptist’s need more equippers and less banners. That is when real recovery will be known!
Blessings,
Chris
I approve of the intentions I see behind the axioms, but I doubt I’ll sign anything until I begin to see how it’s actually interpreted. These axioms are all of two weeks old and there’s already a website with a document devoted to it with more than 800 signatures. I’m worried this is already becoming another program or vision for people to buy into. Everyone in the SBC wants the quick fix to get the denomination “back on track” or growing again. I don’t see many people really talking about what it will cost us personally, in our churches, associations and conventions to bring about the fundamental changes that need to happen. To use an analogy, the axioms seem like we’re downshifting out of church growth models of ministry to something more biblical, but what we really need is to rebuild the transmission.
Also, I’m going to have a hard time taking seriously any kind of changes about the SBC that doesn’t include serious discussion about church/association/convention/denomination discipline. I thought autonomy was supposed to be about granting the freedom to act missionally in our communities, but now it seems like it’s used as a shield to protect people from accountability. The SBC and its conventions, associations and churches need to outline real biblical church discipline models so we can keep each other accountable to the mission and vision we’ve been given by Christ.
Every denomination has politics and does things not everyone is going to agree with. As a young person in the SBC who appreciates the passion, vision and resources, the hardest thing for me to deal with that makes me want to leave is the complete lack of accountability and discipline structures.
David Rogers,
If you’re 110% in agreement with 99% of it, doesn’t that mean you’re 108.9% agreeing with it all?
I signed it too, if my computer worked right.
Scott,
I’ll admit, I haven’t followed this issue closely… just thought it would make a good discussion topic today.
You say the document has changed? Do you have the old and new language you can share?
Baptist Press has run an article about the GCR website et al. In it they include the concepts that were changed. I am looking for the comparison between the two.
SBC president’s declaration calls for a ‘Great Commission Resurgence’
The quote from the article:
Both Akin’s address and the version originally released on GreatCommissionResurgence.com had called for Southern Baptists to “rethink our convention structure and identity so that we maximize our energy and resources for the fulfilling of the Great Commission,” saying Southern Baptist methods are aimed “at a culture that went out of existence years ago” and that structures at every level of denominational life are “bloated and bureaucratic.”
The online document as revised reads, “Some of our denominational structures at all levels need to be streamlined for more faithful stewardship of the funds entrusted to them.
“We must address with courage and action where there is overlap and duplication of ministries, and where poor stewardship is present. We are grateful for God’s gift of Cooperative Program dollars to both state and national entities. Both state and national entities must be wise stewards of these funds, and closely examine whether the allocation of Cooperative Program dollars genuinely contributes to Kingdom work or simply maintains the status quo. We are grateful for those churches and state conventions that are seeking to move more Cooperative Program dollars beyond their respective selves, and encourage this movement to continue and increase in the days ahead.”
Sola Gratia.
I signed the document a couple of days ago.
I don’t have a definable location in terms of Baptist sub-groups. I don’t consider myself to have any particular position on the Calvinism/Arminianism spectrum, I’m not a BI guy, and I don’t distinguish between the 1925, 1963, or 2000 BF&Ms. So for me, what’s there not to like when a document calls for more cooperation in order to increase effectiveness?
I was a little surprised when they changed what was axiom 8 of the document to soften the wording regarding “bureaucracy” and the need to streamline operations. I thought, “Wow, how can I sign something and then they change the wording ex-post-facto.” But I agree that the toned-down language gets the job done without being so inflammatory.
Also, I initially was disappointed when Axiom 12 (on reconciliation and cooperation) was removed. However, essentially the same content was picked up in the section that calls for “loving God and loving others”.
My main interest is in seeing the SBC become:
(a) More effective in spreading the Gospel;
(b) Cooperative in doing the task at hand — instead of posturing for/against various niche positions which only serve to polarize.
The task at hand is winning the world for Christ; not engaging in a contest of theological one-upmanship.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
OK. I think I have all the info collected.
First, a link to the YouTube clip from Dr. Akin’s address regarding the restructuring of our convention:
Dr Daniel L Akin Axiom 08 Rethink Convention Structure Chapel Spring 2009
Second, the two versions of point 9. The original posting, which is still on the .pdf link on the “Media” page of the GCR site, and the current one on the home page of the GCR site:
As it was originally–
IX. A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure. We call upon all Southern Baptists to rethink our Convention structure and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfilling of the Great Commission. (1 Cor. 10:31)
At the midpoint of the 20th century the Southern Baptist Convention was a denomination characterized by impressive institutions, innovative programs, and strong loyalty from the churches. But the denomination has too often failed to adapt its structure and programs to the changing culture. We are frequently aiming at a culture that went out of existence years ago, failing to understand how mid-20th century methods and strategies are not working in the 21st century.
This situation is complicated by the reality that our denominational structures have become bloated and bureaucratic at every level, from local associations to state conventions to the SBC itself. We believe our ministry effectiveness is being strangled by overlap and duplication, poor stewardship, and a disproportionate amount of Cooperative Program dollars being kept by the state conventions. We are convinced that most Southern Baptists would be understandably upset if they understood just how their Cooperative Program dollars are being used. Calls for greater financial investment from our churches must be accompanied by calls for better stewardship by those who spend our churches’ contributions.
We must take steps toward simplifying our denominational structures in an effort to streamline our structure, clarify our institutional identity, and maximize our resources for Great Commission priorities. We should ask hard questions about every aspect of our Convention structure and priorities and pray for God’s wisdom and blessing as we pursue wise answers to those questions. We must be willing to make needed changes for the good of our churches and the spread of the gospel. We believe that North American church planting, pioneer missions around the globe, and theological education that starts in the seminaries but finds its way to our local churches are three priorities around which Southern Baptists will unite. Our denomination must be restructured at every level to facilitate a more effective pursuit of these priorities.
As it currently reads–
IX. A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure. We call upon all Southern Baptists to rethink our Convention structure and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfilling of the Great Commission. (1 Cor. 10:31)
At the midpoint of the 20th century the Southern Baptist Convention was a denomination characterized by impressive institutions, innovative programs, and strong loyalty from the churches. But the denomination has too often failed to adapt its structure and programs to the changing culture. We are frequently aiming at a culture that went out of existence years ago, failing to understand how mid-20th century methods and strategies are not working in the 21st century.
Some of our denominational structures at all levels need to be streamlined for more faithful stewardship of the funds entrusted to them. We must address with courage and action where there is overlap and duplication of ministries, and where poor stewardship is present. We are grateful for God’s gift of Cooperative Program dollars to both state and national entities. Both state and national entities must be wise stewards of these funds, and closely examine whether the allocation of Cooperative Program dollars genuinely contributes to Kingdom work or simply maintains the status quo. We are grateful for those churches and state conventions that are seeking to move more Cooperative Program dollars beyond their respective selves, and encourage this movement to continue and increase in the days ahead.
We must take steps toward simplifying our denominational structures in an effort to streamline our structure, clarify our institutional identity, and maximize our resources for Great Commission priorities. We should ask hard questions about every aspect of our Convention structure and priorities and pray for God’s wisdom and blessing as we pursue wise answers to those questions. We must be willing to make needed changes for the good of our churches and the spread of the gospel. We believe that North American church planting, pioneer missions around the globe, and theological education that starts in the seminaries but finds its way to our local churches are three priorities around which Southern Baptists will unite. Our denomination must be restructured at every level to facilitate a more effective pursuit of these priorities.
The italicized paragraphs indicate the changes made.
Sola Gratia.
As yall can imagine, Johnny Pierce of Baptists Today has some serious reservations about this initiative and has expressed himself at his blog http://www.bteditor.blogspot.com
I have expressed myself there.
I would be surprised if churches the likes of FBC Montgomery and Dawson Memorial in Alabama–both major givers to CProgram sign; as most likely they will part company when Bama SBC president Jimmy Jackson starts purging churches in Alabama friendly to ordained women preachers.
And it is still foggy how Johnny Hunt himself appeared on platform in Alabama in January with Anne Graham Lotz when she endorses women’s ordination.
So there are lot of problems with BFM 2000.
Ben Cole, David Burleson’s good friend, is now writing oped pieces for the CBF affiliated abpnews.com
It will be interesting to see what he and other Memphis Declaration folks say.
And there is a hearty discussion of all this at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums
I thought Dr. Akin’s message was spot on. What he is calling for should have been addressed quite some time ago. I pray that God will use this Resurgence to further his grace and kingdom through the gospel of Jesus Christ in the SBC.
However, in his message I was also reminded of the Calvinistic roots of the SBC. Since I am a Classical Arminian (one who holds to the teachings of Arminius himself, as opposed to the semi-Pelagianism masquerading as historical Arminianism in these modern times), not holding to Unconditional Election as the Abstract and BF&M 2000 holds, I fail to see how I have any future in the SBC. Yet, I do not necessarily see this as a negative aspect. If anything, I woud like to see the SBC become more doctrinally unified (without robbing SBC churches of local church autonomy). For me, I wish the SBC had a distinctive soteriology. But that’s just me.
I have always been impressed with Dr. Akin and the professors at SEBTS, both in scholarship and integrity. And for the sake of Baptist identity in our culture, as well as the furtherance of the gospel of Christ, I pray that God will use this Resurgence to those ends.
For His Glory,
William Birch
And for the record, when I mentioned that I wish the SBC had a more distinctive soteriology, I was referring to Calvinism vs. “non-Calvinism,” whatever that means. Historically, if one encountered a Southern Baptist, there would be little to no doubt that he or she was a Calvinist (whether a 4- or 5-pointer). Yet today, there are Calvinists and “non-Calvinists” (for they refuse to call themselves Arminian because of the perseverance issue, though I personally know plenty of Arminians who hold to Perseverance) under the banner of the SBC. Such diversity soteriologically is uncomfortable for me. Then again, that’s just me.