;)
tagged: Baptist Identity, Great Commission Resurgence, John Stickley, SBC, SBC Issues, Southern Baptist ConventionDoes it Really Matter?
Posted by John Stickley in Baptist Life
I should probably know better than to wade into the muddied waters of SBC issues, but I’ve got a question burning in my mind and I’m curious your opinions.
The “Great Commission Resurgence” has been a hot topic recently. Before that, “Baptist Identity” discussions seemed “rule the roost” amongst the blogs.
At their essence, both of these “movements” (if that’s an accurate term) seem to aim to affect the course of the SBC as a whole. In the end, I wonder…
Will either of these really matter at all in several years? Are these things just the flavor of the day in Baptist life?
Perhaps I’m a cynic (or maybe just flat-out dense), but I just don’t see how large-scale efforts directed at changing the course of the SBC really are going to make all that much of a difference where the action really lies… on the mission field, be it local or overseas.
So enlighten me with your thoughts.
How do you see the “Great Commission Resurgence” or the “Baptist Identity” movement changing how “FBC YourTown” goes about its mission in reaching the lost? Or how do either of these affect the local church, period?
How do you see either of these changing how cooperative missions happens? And does either really affect our missionaries aside from creating potential upheaval? How does either help or hinder their efforts?
Any thoughts on other related matters about these?
(And on that note, I’m bowing out of this conversation for now… I’ll be out of touch from blogland until Monday at the earliest. I am looking forward to seeing what you have to say, though, so please… fire away with those thoughts and opinions. Just play nice, okay?)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
John,
It’s of the utmost importance which direction the SBC takes. It will affect many, many things that SB’s do. From what missionaries will be sent to the mission field to what kind of Churches we will be starting to what kind of literature comes out of Lifeway to who is teaching and what is being taught in our SB seminaries. The difference can be huge.
ANd, with what’s happening today in SBC life, the difference to me is whether we’ll be truly Baptist in our approach, or we’ll be some ecumenical, evangelical, fuzzy whatever. To me it’s a matter of staying sound and wise in what we do, or else going off the deep end and leaving some of the doctrines that we hold dear to our hearts….doctrines that we feel are important to stay true to Scripture.
It’s that important to me.
David
Brother John,
You bring up a very good question in my opinion. The real work, (unlike we see in many cases today),… to maintain what is referred to as “resurgence” or “identity” is always local and with humility. Even as we go into the world with the gospel, ultimately the work is local and intimate, brother to brother. The great commission is really defined from a local view. This view is echoed not only from the prophets of old, but clearly in the letters written by several of the disciples that are now realized as the New Testament. The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians makes an interesting statement from the perspective of admonishment…..he is speaking ironically when he states….
1 Corinthians 4:9-13 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. (10) We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. (11) To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; (12) and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; (13) when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.
The SBC for some reason seems to try and hold a political banner of solidarity, not necessarily in Christ through the gospel, but on many other fronts besides the gospel. We all have a tendency to be honored and put on display as a new shiny penny or the next greatest star,…the image soon becomes more important than the substance…. Christ.
1 Corinthians 4:15-16 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. (16) Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.
So as Paul would say….we have “countless tutors in Christ”, yet not many “fathers”. We need to imitate what Godly fathers there are living in the community at the local level, in our churches, being one of another…. This is where the commission begins and is sustained. I hope as a convention, we can learn resurgence is the local church family, small as she is, maturing fathers worthy of imitation…. That is as good as it gets, because it is Christ in whom we mature.
Blessings,
Chris
From my perspective, I do not see how a denominational mandate such as the GCR will have much affect on the local church. I know that it will have no effect upon mine. The entire notion that it would affect the local church assumes a “top-down” relationship between denomination and church, which is anything but Baptist.
I believe that what some intended as a well-meaning statement calling for greater focus upon evangelism and mission by the SBC has been co-opted by others who see it as an opportunity to further consolidate bases of power and funding.
No, we will keep on doing what we have been doing to minister in our community, our nation, and our world … no matter what comes out of any committee, vote, or mandate from Louisville next week.
That’s my 2 centavos …
The problem I see with the GCR is in its implementation. I have not seen anything thus far in all the duscussions that really makes this any different than the Conservative Resurgence. I am not demeaning the CR by any means, but here was are in 2009 and how many Christians in Southern Baptist churches now anything about the CR.
I am afraid that the GCR is headed down the same path. It has as its goal a great thing, but if we had not lost focus of the great thing we wouldn’t need to have a resurgence of the great thing. Did anyone understand that?
If we began training pastors to equip their congregations to go forth and carry the gospel everywhere, I think this debate would be a moot point. As it is (from my perspective in Florida), too many churches are only worried about growth. And not necessarily healthy growth.
As far as how this will change the way we do missions–probably not much at all. The only way it would truly affect us is if some kind of restructuring took place that would encourage us to give even more to the CP or to give less (depending on the restructure). Other than that, I feel like the GCR is just another “baptist” way of saying what we should be doing.
Just on the way to VBS counseling. I’ll be brief.
“Baptist Identity,” of course, is an undefined label. To my knowledge, “Baptist Identity” has no program of change for the SBC nationally. I don’t know of any “Baptist Identity” person planning to offer any sort of a motion at this year’s convention. There are no “Baptist Identity” candidates for anything at this year’s convention.
I published a document long ago entitled the “Fifth Century Initiative.” It spells the broader strokes of “Baptist Identity” as a movement as I see it. I believe that it is a local-church centered document. I have poured the vast preponderance of my time and energy this year into the culmination of our local church’s Constitution & Bylaws and Membership Covenant documents and the efforts to become more biblical in our local church’s practice.
“Baptist Identity” is not a movement to steer the churches from the convention level, I don’t believe. At least, if we have anything parallel to the GCR, I can’t identify it. Can you?
Because the two movements operate at different levels (BI is a local-church movement and GCR is an SBC organizational initiative) and deal with different subject matter, to juxtapose the two into opposition is fallacious.
Bart,
I said I’d be out, but got your reply via e-mail notification. Had to jump in briefly to clarify.
I didn’t intend to place GCR and BI in opposition. I intended to indicate that they’re both “hot topics” so-to-speak in SBC life, and that I’m curious how people think either of them will make a difference in the areas I asked about.
Granted, it may have been a bit of a mischaracterization for me to lump BI in the same category as GCR… it’s not formally necessarily organized for organizational reform… but the thought remains. Since “BI folks” (I know you guys hate the term, but I couldn’t think of a better way to say this) are probably generally going to feel the same way about SBC matters on a national level, to some extent won’t BI (organized or not) have influence on issues there? So, organizational reform movement or not, the question I’m getting at remains: how do people envision both BI and GCR having impact “where the action is”, in the local church, on the mission field, etc.?
Sorry if I haven’t been clear. I’ll be checking out for the extended time I had originally planned now… my crazy schedule is screaming at me to get focused again!
I tend to see the “GCR” as a reaction to what is already underway at the local and state level (at least where I live and work). It’s not a program from the top-down–it’s an adjustment from the bottom-up. Financial short-falls require streamlining and adjustment. Limited dollars require limited administration in order to accomplish our mission–The Great Commission! Never again do I want to see a half-dozen NAMB employees come to Colorado to lead a conference for less than two dozen participants. I am CERTAIN that there has been waste and there needs to adjustments made. How does that effect the Great Commission? That’s easy: fewer $$ spent on admin = more $$ spent on missionaries. We must do more with less!
John,
I am not a politician nor am I the son of a politician. But I recognize politics when I see it. I have been a Baptist church member for 57 years. I always thought that that the local church does community and association missions. Then local churches gave to the Cooperative Program which funded State mission and the SBC “home” and “foreigh” missions. Now, many local churches haved focused interest and funds on sending ten day tours to international mission. This removes money from the Coopertive program and may have turned SBC international missionaries into tour guides.
I a local church is interested in world missions, then specialize in a language group, have select members learn the language and culture and minister in the community to that language group. I think the International Mission Board might be able to use language trained volunteers.
This argument reminds me of kids arguing about where they are going to sit in the car. By the tone of the agrument, where the kid sits becomes more important than where the car is going.
This is just an old goatherders opinion.
Mike
As I understand it, the initial crux of the matter, that ties the two together, goes back to the new policies of the IMB Board of Trustees on PPL and BI-baptism. The justification presented by several trustees for these policies was the need for IMB mission work to maintain and promote a “clear Baptist identity.” I think that a lot of the ensuing talk on “Baptist Identity” roots there.
For me, as a missionary, the question embraces an overall philosophy and approach to missions: Are we, as Southern Baptists, seeking primarily, along with our preaching of the gospel, to spread a denominationally-defined approach to ecclesiology around the world, or are we more about taking our place, as one group within the larger Body of Christ, joining hands with all of God’s true Kingdom partners in seeing souls won to Christ, disciples made, and new churches planted?
As I see it, the GCR is a call to get back to majoring on the majors, and not to get derailed into a endless discussions on fine points of ecclesiology, and other matters which many of those who were in agreement on the basic points of the Conservative Resurgence are not in agreement on.
The main issue at stake is whether or not there is room within SBC-supported missionary efforts for those who do not have a relatively “closed ecclesiology,” referred to by some as a “strong ecclesiology,” and referred to by others (not me, anymore
) as “Neo-Landmarkism.”
For me, from my personal convictions, it is very important to approach missions as a task given to the entire Body of Christ, and concerted efforts toward true unity, based upon the essentials of the gospel, as a key element of a faithful implementation of the Great Commission.
No doubt, there are others (among them both supporters and detractors of the BI movement, and both supporters and detractors of the GCR) who view these matters differently, and would accentuate different points.
But for the record, I believe our approach to both BI issues, as well as the GCR, does matter, and, in the overall scheme of things, has immense consequences.
The death knell of the Sbc has sounded. Soon it will go the way of all those who apostasize.
John, as a layman you may have the best insight to the relevance of the GCR, or really any top-down initiative of the SBC. I have a similar perspective.
To be blunt, it is irrelevant.
This may be a topic among a lot of pastors and denominational leaders and workers, but it is not among the average layperson. I would argue that it is not even on the radar screen of most pastors.
Put simply, nothing the SBC initiates will ever cause churches and their members to be counter-cultural and sell out completely and radically follow Christ.
Just my take.
Mike Woodward,
If, as disciples of Jesus, all that matters is living our daily lives in the context of our local church, in front of our family, neighbors, and workmates, then you are probably right. But, if it also means making an impact on the world, and being concerned about the unity of the Body of Christ beyond the confines of one’s local congregation, then I believe these matters should be considered consequential for all, pastors, denominational workers, “lay-people,” and all.
I reread what I wrote and I think I went wrong with the word ‘relevant’. As you very clearly (nice job!) explain, the concept of a GCR is very relevant to everyone who follows Christ.
My comment was aimed more at the concept of this document being a change in direction for 1 supertanker (SBC) when in reality the change needs to occur in the daily lives of 45000 speedboats. Even then it has to go down to each occupant of each speedboat.
The GCR might not matter at the local church level. It all depends on if the local church leadership decides to lead his people accordingly or not.
The document that is supposed to be the proposed resolution on the Great Commission gives me some concern. To me, it is a front.
“How so?” you may ask.
While the men who drafted the GCR may indeed have the best of intentions from their own perspective, it comes across as being a ploy for power grab.
“Oh, no! You didn’t just say that?” many of you are now saying.
If it is about the Great Commission then points 1-8 and 10 are indeed well stated. Point 9, the restructure clause, is obviously not even of the same genre. Its like plopping a sub-plot from Tom Clancy into a JRR Tolkien novel complete with modern day technology right into Middle Earth.
I suspect that the real issue here IS point 9 — or Axiom IX if you will. The whole document seems to be about point 9 in the ongoing conversations. I submit that points 1-8 and 10 are merely ploys to sugar coat and distract from the real purpose — get a mandate from the convention to restructure.
No Baptist would dare vote against the Great Commission would they? The elites who are pushing this know that point 9 by itself does not have support enough to get out of committee. But they are also astute enough to know that the SBC as a whole holds high regard for biblical inerrency. Therefore, perceiving this as SBC gullibility, they have (in my not so humble opinion) concocted the GCR as a vehicle to move their own plans forward among the unawares.
The GCR is a prop. It will probably pass. And if it does, then that is the last you will hear of points 1-8 and 10. It then becomes all about “Axiom IX”.
This may sound silly, but the reason people don’t care is because all of the reasons they used to care were killed off, mostly by those like the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention folks. I’m 65 and retired, but I was in Texas when Miles Seaborn guided churches away from the BGCT using inflamatory and flase accusations. Until there is mass repentance there will not be a new day in the convention no matter the acronym that is adopted.
Jake
I cannot see how a Denomination that breaks with the Baptist World Alliance can be going in the right direction.
And as I have said before on this board, like him or not, Wade Burleson is something of a canary in the coal mine and if he comes to the conclusion the Conservative Resurgence has done more harm than good, you have serious problems.
At same time Alabama 2nd VP John Killian has blogged today at http://www.johnkillian.blogspot.com he is going to Louisville with open eyes.
On the other hand I think Auburn, Alabama FBC pastor Jim Evans gets closer to your dilemma in his essay today at ethicsdaily.com
If Wade is the canary in coal mine then the SBC must be doing better than every one thought — Wade is still griping. But he got his tail-feathers plucked when his motion got overwhelmingly voted down this morning. The more he sings the more fight he proves the SBC has.
Scott:
You said–”But he got his tail-feathers plucked when his motion got overwhelmingly voted down this morning.”
What was the vote total for the motion and the vote total against the
motion. My thanks in advance.
Stephen Fox,
I am awful glad that others cannot portend to have an opposite opinion in the face of your absolute certitude. Shucks, what did Christendom ever do before the Baptist World Alliance was formed? And what would the world come to if it ever disbanded? Woe is me!
Mr. Star,
A public warning here – since you do not stand in the place of God, your opinions are just that – your opinion. Since you are not God, then hold off being the judge and executioner here. SBCImpact is a place for healthy discussion, with love and tolerance for the brethren in a loving environment be they BGCT or SBCT. There are plenty of places on the internet where bile and bitterness are welcome – not here. Before you condemn the stupid ignorant masses following after the evil ways of the founders of the SBCT, I would pause for a moment and ask a question “why they were willing to be lead away in the first place?” And if your response is “they did not know any better” then “de nial is not just a river in Egypt.”
Jake,
I cannot speak to your experience. But my answer to Mr. Star in part is also for you. Our Lord spoke about loving those who hate us, and forgiving a brother “seventy times seven.” It seems to me that both sides of the Texas divide ought to put that to heart.
If no one has anything more positive to talk about, then this post is over.
Rob
Rob-
Whew, son. What a response! No, you can;t speak to my experience. i was there, were you? Miles told us that the BGCT was a homosexual haven whose leaders didn’t believe the Bible. Our pastor repeated those words to us, who had just come in from long days of work to a series of Wednesday night meetings that scared us half to death. Me and my friends thought the Baptist sky was falling and that our only hope was to leave the BGCT. That’s what we were told by those we trusted, that’s what we believed, and frankly, I had a business to run so I took it at face value and did not do months of investigative work on my own.
Come to find out, the Baptist sky didn;t fall, most churches didn’t go to the SBTC, the BGCT remained committed to church planting and evangelism, and nothing changed except now the SBTC sends a higher percentage of money to Nashville. What also resulted were lots and lots of broken friendships.
My point here, and in my previous post, is that there needs to be mass repentance for many unkind words and inflamatory speech. Frankly, son, your response back to be was terse and judgmental. I’m retired now, and just ran across these blogs and thought I’d offer some perspective from someone who might know the root causes for decline. People (on all sides) need to say “sorry,” admit that they said things they shouldn’t have said, admit that they incited what amounts to a denominational divorce (BGCT, BGCV). The sense of love that I heard in the pastor’s conference at the SBC needs to be taken to heart and applied to past wrongs.
Jake
Rob,
Also -
I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my 11 year old grand daughter. If you judge someone else’s speech to be in and of itself “bile and bitterness” then you have just become guilty of judging. You can respond to people, brother, without adding inflamatory adjectives.
Jake
Jake,
“Our Lord spoke about loving those who hate us, and forgiving a brother “seventy times seven.” It seems to me that both sides of the Texas divide ought to put that to heart.”
What part of that my friend did you not understand? The point was not to rehash old divides which leads to bitterness and vile. Christ calls us into reconciliation, not condemnation. Have you ever approached your brother to tell him of the hurt he caused which has so abused your heart? You and I are not the judge – God is – and He will judge the past and call those in need of repentance, not you or I. All we can do is live our life in the light we have been given, giving God glory all the way.
Again, brother my elder, if you have nothing good to say, then in the love of Christ I am telling you to not say it here. If you were unwilling to discuss what disturbs your heart with those that did disturb it, you do not have permission here to do so serendipity. I did not start off the bitter talk – you and your compatriots did. As one of the moderators here, it’s my duty and call as to the level of discussion nonsense I can stand – your condescending “son” talk notwithstanding. Thankfully we have not had to call down many – and I have had no pleasure in doing so with you now.
If you would enjoy further discussion of this in private, please e-mail me at rob@sbcimpact.net. Otherwise this discussion is closed.
Rob