JDGreear.com

The Humor behind the AP Story, "Young Baptist Preachers Chart Different Courses"

Some of you will see in the coming days an AP story on Real Clear Politics and some other places entitled "Young Baptist Preachers Chart Different Courses" in which I was featured. I thought the guy writing the article, Eric Gorski, did a pretty good job. I had to laugh at my depiction as the "non-traditional," "progressive," and "not quite sure he's southern" guy. Any of you that know my background and general persona will probably get a kick out of that.

A few things I wanted to make clear:

The phrase "humble orthodoxy" is not originally mine. I owe that one to Josh Harris. I'm not sure if he made it up or not. I also did not say "I am humbly orthodox," but that humble orthodoxy is what I strive for. To say "I am humbly orthodox" would seem to contradict the very thing I want to be, like saying "I'm pretty darn humble and proud of it!"

The phrase "we may not believe what the Summit Church believes but thank God they are here because otherwise we'd have to raise our taxes" is not mine either. I owe that to Robert Lewis. As I've often said, "I've never had an original thought in my life." Including that one. I heard C.J. Mahaney first make that statement.

Eric (the author) seemed to make a big deal out of the Southern Baptist Global Climate initiative I signed... perhaps a bigger deal than it is to me. The article says that me and a more traditional pastor, Eric Hankins, "part" on global warming--implying that Eric is skeptical of global warming claims while I buy into them. Not necessarily. I would say, if anything, I am more skeptical than believing.

Actually, I don't think that determining the science of global warming is the job of the local church or a convention of local churches. Other Christians can and should devote themselves to that question, JUST NOT THE LOCAL CHURCH. Our role is the preaching of the Gospel, and I don't want to let ANYTHING, including my stance on various, more minor political issues, come in the way of life's most important message.

I see my role as a pastor as teaching biblical principles you can apply to politics, but, with a few exceptions, I stay out of the political ramifications of those. In the words of Mark Dever, I might be wrong about global warming, but I'm not wrong about the Gospel. I don't want my opinion on the former to be a stumbling block on the latter.

That's why I would only sign the Southern Baptist Global Climate Initiative (SBECI) after it was denuded of any policy directives. Jonathan Merritt, author of the document goes to our church and asked me to be one of the original signers of it. In its first draft, I would not sign, because it called for (what I thought were) specific policy suggestions. I told Jonathan I thought that making specific policy suggestions was "out of bounds" for the church. I told him that as a pastor I did not want to speak in areas that were beyond my calling. I urged him to reword the directives of the document so that it stayed out of declaring what were the causes of or cures for global warming. I told him I could sign a document that simply declared our understanding that we need to be good stewards of the earth and that this was an issue we needed to pay attention to. He graciously reworded it and then I signed it.

Here's another example: In 2003, I was on a committee asked to issue a statement on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention about the war in Iraq. I told the committee that I didn't think it was our place, as a convention of churches, to determine which wars were just and which were not. My suggestion was that we issue a general statement about the need for just wars in certain situations and that we urge our leaders to investigate whether Iraq was a just war and, if so, to pursue it with all their might. I have my opinion about Iraq, but I don't want to make that the official opinion of "the church." Again, I might be wrong in my opinions on the war in Iraq, but I'm not wrong about the Gospel. I don't want my opinions on the war in Iraq to cause someone to miss the message I've been called to preach: THE GOSPEL.

There are times, of course, where we MUST speak into specific policy issues. For example, if I were a pastor in Richmond, VA in 1860 I don't think it would please God for me not to preach against racism just because it was a "politically charged issue" (nor should I avoid talking about it today!). If I were a German pastor in 1939 I don't think I should keep my mouth shut about anti-semitism. Today, I can't call myself a follower of Jesus and keep my mouth shut about the mass-murdering of an entire generation of children, particularly the children of minorities, in the name of "freedom of choice." The issue of what should be recognized as a "marriage" is another. These are issues that I think are of such importance to the general welfare of society that, out of love, we have to speak clearly. (As the church we are called to be salt and light and to lovingly help preserve our society.) However, on many (even, most) other political issues, I choose, as a pastor, to stay out of them because it is not my calling. "No man that wars entangles himself in the affairs of this life."

I do not mean that all Christians should stay out of them. We need some Christians working full-time in politics, applying the Christian worldview to all areas. I simply mean that my role, as a Pastor, is building a community around the Gospel. I do not want our church or the Southern Baptist Convention of churches mired in politics, even (what I see to be) good and right politics. More on that here.

Anyway, hope that makes sense and helps provide a little clarity. Eric Gorski, good job on the article. Eric Hankins, you sound like a guy I'd really like and would love to meet. Obviously, we have all the right things in common.

Being "Young" and Southern Baptist?

The WEEK OF HOPE for RDU is coming! Want to know how others are serving through Hope For Durham? Visit www.hopefordurham.info to read the stories and post your own!

Here's another rerun of a recent post by JD about the SBC:

Recently my friend Ed Stetzer released a Lifeway study showing that the Southern Baptist Convention actually declined in membership in the past year. Ed (together with Southern Baptist president Frank Page) caution Southern Baptists that this probably reflects a drift of the "younger" generation of Southern Baptists away from the SBC. Ed's research is convincing... he shows that this is a 50 year trend, not just a one year blip. Ed ends the article with a very penetrating question, "Now is the moment for us to hone our vision and take on a bigger battle—we must battle to build upon our Conservative Resurgence and make it a Great Commission Resurgence... If we don’t, why did we bother with the Conservative Resurgence in the first place?"

Let me explain first off that our church has chosen to cooperate missionally with the Southern Baptist Convention because we believe unified effort between Gospel-loving churches increases our effectiveness in church planting, leadership training, and public witness. The blessing and curse of my generation seems to be an independent, can-do spirit when it comes to mission. I just finished reading Stephen Neill's A History of Christian Missions, and one of the points he makes is that though Protestants have historically been extremely zealous for missions, we often have charged into unreached areas like Lone Rangers with no sense of who else was doing what for the cause of Christ there. Because of our lack of cooperation, we have often repeated easily avoidable mistakes and caused unnecessary chaos in the fields they we are trying to reach. Therefore we (the Summit Church), through the SBC, want to link up with missional, like minded churches for the purpose of mission.

Ed's call is a timely one and one that I believe we absolutely must heed. I do know some "younger" Southern Baptists who have left the Convention, or, having stayed, involve themselves in it only minimally. I'll try to make this short and to the point:

• Misplaced focus on priorities other than the Gospel. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is our statement of belief, and its beauty is that it is specific enough to define us as a Gospel-faithful people, and broad enough to tolerate acceptable diversity among us. "Southern Baptist" should not indicate a style of worship or a political platform or interpretation about issues of Christian freedom or a stance on the finer theological points of Calvinism or even one's position on minor spiritual gifts. The Convention exists for a shared mission around the Gospel. When minor things (such as the ones I listed) become major things, then the mission itself becomes minor. When that happens, many Gospel-loving people look to better organizations to facilitate their cooperation in mission. We need to renew our commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 as the substance of our unity.
• Failure to distinguish between necessary cultural adaptation and real worldliness: In an attempt to separate Christian witness from the pollution of the world, some Southern Baptists have mistaken a cultural preference for faithfulness to the Gospel. We have assumed that faithfulness to the Gospel meant a certain style of music, a certain tradition of worship, a certain method of evangelism, even a certain tone of voice and a certain coiffed hairstyle. Most Southern Baptist churches are a beautiful blend of the 16th and 17th centuries. The tragedy in this is that in those places where we absolutely SHOULD NOT look like the world--specifically how we treat money, power, and outsiders, we look just like the world--like Samson, we have not only failed to "overcome" the Philistine culture, we have absorbed their values and look just like them in the places we are supposed to be distinct. Many younger Southern Baptists have seen that in order to reach their culture they were going to have to change some of their methods and traditions. No doubt they (and I) have made mistakes in attempting this, but some older Southern Baptists have mistakenly insisted that we hold on to some things that have nothing to do with the Gospel. If given the choice between effective Gospel ministry and Southern Baptist traditions which have nothing to do with the essence of the Gospel, many younger pastors will choose (correctly) the Gospel.
• Bad parachurchism: OK, I totally made that term up. But here's what I mean: there is good parachurch and bad parachurch. GOOD parachurch ministries FACILITATE the ministry of the church. A good parachurch ministry attempts to be a resource to the local church through which the church can do her ministry more effectively. BAD parachurch takes ministry from a local church and does it for her. Bad parachurch says, "Give us money and people and we'll do ministry for you."

The SBC was born out of the "good parachurch" model: the agencies of the Convention facilitated the ministries of local churches. Local churches led in the ministry, the Convention served the initiatives of those churches-- but it was the local churches that took the lead and got things done. Over time, it appears that some parts of the SBC have shifted into 'bad parachurch' mode. They expect the local churches to turn over resources so the agencies can do the work. Burgeoning bureaucracies were created that basically duplicated what was to be happening in the local church. We, the local church, are to give our money and be happy with the results, and scolded for not giving properly.

Some missional churches are not actively participating in the Convention because they don't see the SBC helping them (that is, the local church) fulfill the call God has given to that local church to plant churches. Sure, sometimes "younger" pastors don't give because they are arrogant, shortsighted and don't see the value of cooperation. Often, however, it's because they are not convinced the SBC is best channel for fulfilling their calling to reproduce and multiply. And this is, in part, because they see the Convention taking ministry initiative away from the churches.(Of course, there are some things local churches can't do effectively... for example, most churches cannot house a an academically credentialed seminary... and for that we are happy to turn over the role to a Convention agency. We should not, however, relinquish the responsibility to raise up and train ministers). 

Many of these new churches are simply not going to give to the SBC out of a sense of loyalty. They are going to give to the SBC when they see that this is the most effective way of accomplishing the call placed on them to plant churches and transform their cities. Many "younger" pastors are more committed to the call of God to plant churches than they are to the Convention, and this, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. When the Convention reveals that it is the best investment for assisting the local churches in training leaders, planting churches, and doing the work of God in the world, that is when many of the "younger" pastors will give their money and involvement to the work of the SBC.

We, the Summit Church, give somewhere around 21% of our budget outside of our church to evangelism, community ministry, and church planting work. We give a significant portion of that to the Convention because we do see the value in cooperation and shared resources. We know that whenever you cooperate not everything will be done exactly as we like it, and we are ok with that. We send out most of our teams under the direction of the IMB and try to give generously to the IMB for that purpose.

We also recognize, however, that the Summit Church will answer to God personally for His command on us to multiply and grow, and so we prudently evaluate how effectively the money we give to church planting efforts is helping us to fulfill OUR calling to plant churches. We are more committed to the call of God on us than to a "denominational giving program." As the Convention helps us fulfill our calling, we will participate in it.

I do believe that as the SBC refocuses itself on the priority of the Gospel, majoring on it and not on other minor (though important) things, and that as it continually realigns itself to catalyze the work of local churches, we will see more "younger" Southern Baptists happy to remain a part of this great mission organization.

Let me explain first off that our church has chosen to cooperate missionally with the Southern Baptist Convention because we believe unified effort between Gospel-loving churches increases our effectiveness in church planting, leadership training, and public witness. The blessing and curse of my generation seems to be an independent, can-do spirit when it comes to mission. I just finished reading Stephen Neill's A History of Christian Missions, and one of the points he makes is that though Protestants have historically been extremely zealous for missions, we often have charged into unreached areas like Lone Rangers with no sense of who else was doing what for the cause of Christ there. Because of our lack of cooperation, we have often repeated easily avoidable mistakes and caused unnecessary chaos in the fields they we are trying to reach. Therefore we (the Summit Church), through the SBC, want to link up with missional, like minded churches for the purpose of mission.

Ed's call is a timely one and one that I believe we absolutely must heed. I do know some "younger" Southern Baptists who have left the Convention, or, having stayed, involve themselves in it only minimally. I'll try to make this short and to the point:

• Misplaced focus on priorities other than the Gospel. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is our statement of belief, and its beauty is that it is specific enough to define us as a Gospel-faithful people, and broad enough to tolerate acceptable diversity among us. "Southern Baptist" should not indicate a style of worship or a political platform or interpretation about issues of Christian freedom or a stance on the finer theological points of Calvinism or even one's position on minor spiritual gifts. The Convention exists for a shared mission around the Gospel. When minor things (such as the ones I listed) become major things, then the mission itself becomes minor. When that happens, many Gospel-loving people look to better organizations to facilitate their cooperation in mission. We need to renew our commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 as the substance of our unity.
• Failure to distinguish between necessary cultural adaptation and real worldliness: In an attempt to separate Christian witness from the pollution of the world, some Southern Baptists have mistaken a cultural preference for faithfulness to the Gospel. We have assumed that faithfulness to the Gospel meant a certain style of music, a certain tradition of worship, a certain method of evangelism, even a certain tone of voice and a certain coiffed hairstyle. Most Southern Baptist churches are a beautiful blend of the 16th and 17th centuries. The tragedy in this is that in those places where we absolutely SHOULD NOT look like the world--specifically how we treat money, power, and outsiders, we look just like the world--like Samson, we have not only failed to "overcome" the Philistine culture, we have absorbed their values and look just like them in the places we are supposed to be distinct. Many younger Southern Baptists have seen that in order to reach their culture they were going to have to change some of their methods and traditions. No doubt they (and I) have made mistakes in attempting this, but some older Southern Baptists have mistakenly insisted that we hold on to some things that have nothing to do with the Gospel. If given the choice between effective Gospel ministry and Southern Baptist traditions which have nothing to do with the essence of the Gospel, many younger pastors will choose (correctly) the Gospel.
• Bad parachurchism: OK, I totally made that term up. But here's what I mean: there is good parachurch and bad parachurch. GOOD parachurch ministries FACILITATE the ministry of the church. A good parachurch ministry attempts to be a resource to the local church through which the church can do her ministry more effectively. BAD parachurch takes ministry from a local church and does it for her. Bad parachurch says, "Give us money and people and we'll do ministry for you."

The SBC was born out of the "good parachurch" model: the agencies of the Convention facilitated the ministries of local churches. Local churches led in the ministry, the Convention served the initiatives of those churches-- but it was the local churches that took the lead and got things done. Over time, it appears that some parts of the SBC have shifted into 'bad parachurch' mode. They expect the local churches to turn over resources so the agencies can do the work. Burgeoning bureaucracies were created that basically duplicated what was to be happening in the local church. We, the local church, are to give our money and be happy with the results, and scolded for not giving properly.

Some missional churches are not actively participating in the Convention because they don't see the SBC helping them (that is, the local church) fulfill the call God has given to that local church to plant churches. Sure, sometimes "younger" pastors don't give because they are arrogant, shortsighted and don't see the value of cooperation. Often, however, it's because they are not convinced the SBC is best channel for fulfilling their calling to reproduce and multiply. And this is, in part, because they see the Convention taking ministry initiative away from the churches.(Of course, there are some things local churches can't do effectively... for example, most churches cannot house a an academically credentialed seminary... and for that we are happy to turn over the role to a Convention agency. We should not, however, relinquish the responsibility to raise up and train ministers). 

Many of these new churches are simply not going to give to the SBC out of a sense of loyalty. They are going to give to the SBC when they see that this is the most effective way of accomplishing the call placed on them to plant churches and transform their cities. Many "younger" pastors are more committed to the call of God to plant churches than they are to the Convention, and this, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. When the Convention reveals that it is the best investment for assisting the local churches in training leaders, planting churches, and doing the work of God in the world, that is when many of the "younger" pastors will give their money and involvement to the work of the SBC.

We, the Summit Church, give somewhere around 21% of our budget outside of our church to evangelism, community ministry, and church planting work. We give a significant portion of that to the Convention because we do see the value in cooperation and shared resources. We know that whenever you cooperate not everything will be done exactly as we like it, and we are ok with that. We send out most of our teams under the direction of the IMB and try to give generously to the IMB for that purpose.

We also recognize, however, that the Summit Church will answer to God personally for His command on us to multiply and grow, and so we prudently evaluate how effectively the money we give to church planting efforts is helping us to fulfill OUR calling to plant churches. We are more committed to the call of God on us than to a "denominational giving program." As the Convention helps us fulfill our calling, we will participate in it.

I do believe that as the SBC refocuses itself on the priority of the Gospel, majoring on it and not on other minor (though important) things, and that as it continually realigns itself to catalyze the work of local churches, we will see more "younger" Southern Baptists happy to remain a part of this great mission organization.

Our Missions Strategy and the SBC

JD is in Indianapolis this week for the annual meeting of the SBC (that’s Southern Baptist Convention for those of you not down with Baptist lingo). Our church cooperates missionally with the SBC and other parachurch organizations because we believe unified effort between Gospel-loving churches increases our effectiveness in church planting, leadership training, and public witness. Here’s a rerun of a post elaborating on our relationship with the SBC in regards to missions:

There seem to be two extremes when it comes to working with the Convention for the purpose of missions.

The first extreme is when churches depend on the agencies of the SBC to do church planting and missions for them.This is what I call "bad parachurchism." OK, yes, I totally made that term up. But here's what I mean: there is good parachurch and bad parachurch. GOOD parachurch ministries FACILITATE the ministry of the church. A good parachurch ministry attempts to be a resource to the local church through which the church can do her ministry more effectively. BAD parachurch takes ministry from a local church and does it for her. Bad parachurch says, "Give us money and people and we'll do ministry for you." 

The SBC was born out of the "good parachurch" model: the agencies of the Convention facilitated the ministries of local churches. Local churches led in the ministry, the Convention served the initiatives of those churches-- but it was the local churches that took the lead and got things done. Over time, it appears that some parts of the SBC have shifted into 'bad parachurch' mode. They expect the local churches to turn over resources so the agencies can do the work. Burgeoning bureaucracies were created that basically duplicated what was to be happening in the local church. We, the local church, are to give our money and be happy with the results, and scolded for not giving properly.

Churches are God's vehicle for ministry. Jesus' strategy for reaching and transforming the world was have His Apostles plant churches in every community (this was Paul's entire strategy!); the local church has the potential to provide the most wholistic, community-loving, Gospel-preaching, multi-generational community necessary for fully-orbed ministry.

Local churches are best suited to provide the resources, training, accountability and drive necessary to accomplish church planting. Churches plant churches. For any parachurch organization, including the National and State Baptist Conventions, taking  this initiative out of the hands of the local church is surely doomed to failure. (to note, I am grateful for and in support of some parachurch ministries which, by my definition above, would be considered 'not ideal'--i.e., ministries not directly tied to a local church. I am in support of them because they are doing things that local churches are simply not doing yet. I am grateful for their ministries, and personally contribute financially to them... I am also grateful that many of them are actively seeking ways to participate with the local church. We have representatives of several of these ministries in our church, and I am VERY grateful for them.)

We, the Summit Church, don't just recruit people to work for the International Mission Board (IMB) or take up money to give entirely to them. These church plants around the world are ours. But before I get ahead of myself, let me mention the opposite extreme:

The second extreme is when churches believe they can do it all by themselves and do not need the expert guidance of parachurch organizations like the International Mission Board. The blessing and curse of my generation seems to be an independent, can-do spirit when it comes to mission. I just finished reading Stephen Neill's A History of Christian Missions, and one of the points he makes is that though Protestants have historically been extremely zealous for missions, we often have charged into unreached areas like Lone Rangers with no sense of who else was doing what for the cause of Christ there. Because of our lack of cooperation, we have often repeated easily avoidable mistakes and caused unnecessary chaos in the fields they we are trying to reach. The IMB has full time "experts" devoted to knowing the various fields, studying what methods work, and linking like minded movements together. They provide a wonderful organization through which to plant churches.

We try to avoid either extreme. We don't just give money and recruits to the IMB and ask them to do our church planting for us. But neither do we charge out to it alone. Our church has chosen to cooperate missionally with the Southern Baptist Convention because we believe unified effort between Gospel-loving churches increases our effectiveness in church planting, leadership training, and public witness.

The IMB's massive resources (that are compiled from so many churches working together) make it so that our missionaries do not have to raise support. The IMB makes a great structure for technical training of our missionaries, ensuring their care while on the field, and giving strategic direction. But they are still "our" (the Summit's) churches we are planting. The initiative lies with us; we use the IMB as the vehicle through which we plant churches. To note, the IMB has been great to work with in this regard.

Reversing the Guidelines of the IMB?

I have chosen to place my name as one of the original signatories of a letter calling on the International Mission Board to reverse its "new policies." The letter, and the issues surrounding it, you can read here. The statements on this website reflect sufficiently my own reasons for supporting such a call.

To note, I have received some question because my name appeared on the original signatory list, then disappeared, and is now back on... the story is this: One of the authors, Allan Blume, had shared with me the intent of the letter in a face-to-face conversation and I had expressed my full agreement with it. He told me he would send me a copy of the letter for me to review and did so but somehow I didn't get it. He took my silence as my consent. When the website went live yesterday, however, I had not seen the letter so I asked Allen to pull my name until I had a chance to review the letter myself. Allen graciously agreed and I took last night to look through it. This morning I re-added my name.

Our church has chosen to work with the IMB in helping us to plant churches overseas. They are a wonderfully effective organization, and we are grateful for the expertise they bring to our efforts. They do a great job strategizing, training, leading, supporting and caring for our teams overseas. They make us MUCH more effective in obeying our call to plant churches among the nations.

I do not object to the IMB trustees doing their job of determining what "kinds" of missionaries best represent churches like ours. It seems to me, however, that they have elevated some issues of personal preference to matters of primary importance. I hope they will listen to the voice of those of us who say that their new policies are not at all reflective of our wishes.

I have many strong, personal opinions on matters of great importance to me that I choose not to make "defining issues" that determine whom I will support and work with in missional endeavors. These include many secondary doctrines, political opinions, and favorite college basketball teams. The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 is a document sufficiently clear, in my opinion, to establish the parameters of the kinds of missionaries we want to support. I love the BFM2K because it is sufficiently specific to ensure general agreement on the main things and vague enough to allow for difference in style and opinion on more secondary matters.

If the IMB trustees believe that these two issues (only baptisms in churches that hold a certain stance on selected doctrinal issues are valid and the use of a private prayer language) are of primary importance, I would encourage them to bring them to the floor of the Convention to have them officially added to the BFM2K. Let's let the churches decide which issues are of primary and which are of secondary importance.

We recently had one of our staff pastors who was going to serve in our Central Asian church plant who was told he could not go with the IMB because he had been baptized in a Pentecostal church whose position on eternal security could not be verified. Being a very humble guy, he graciously submitted to be rebaptized, but I just felt kind of silly about the whole thing. It didn't seem to have the same glorious feel of the famed Grebel/Blaurock mutual re-baptism of 1525. (There's a throwback for you Baptist history nerds).

I realize that it is difficult to establish what are "primary" matters in Christianity and which are "secondary." I do not envy the position of the Trustees on this, and pray that God will give them wisdom in the days to come.

I am also grateful for how the Convention we work with is set up, in that all of our agencies are accountable to the churches and not visa versa. In many denominations, what the hierarchical leaders say goes, as they are in authority over the churches. The SBC is organized on the principle of local church autonomy, meaning we recognize no authority over a local church except for Jesus Himself, and that all of our missional agencies utlimately answer to the church congregations they serve.

Being "Young" and Southern Baptist? Ed Stetzer, Paige Patterson, and etc

Recently my friend Ed Stetzer released a Lifeway study showing that the Southern Baptist Convention actually declined in membership in the past year. Ed (together with Southern Baptist president Frank Page) caution Southern Baptists that this probably reflects a drift of the "younger" generation of Southern Baptists away from the SBC. Ed's research is convincing... he shows that this is a 50 year trend, not just a one year blip. Ed ends the article with a very penetrating question, "Now is the moment for us to hone our vision and take on a bigger battle—we must battle to build upon our Conservative Resurgence and make it a Great Commission Resurgence... If we don’t, why did we bother with the Conservative Resurgence in the first place?"

One of my mentors, Paige Patterson (president of the Southwestern Seminary in Ft. Worth) took exception to some of the conclusions. Dr. Patterson brought out a number of good points, including:

• Dropping in membership numbers can actually be seen as a good thing, if it represents removing some of the "inflatedness" of Southern Baptist numbers (i.e. counting people who haven't been to church in years because they left the faith, have joined other churches, or are dead, all of which are true of many Southern Baptist churches that have 3000 on the membership role and only 300 present on Sunday morning).
• The supposed decline in membership numbers does not indicate a failure of the "Conservative Resurgence" for at least two reasons: 1. The baptism/membership numbers of the "moderates" who left the Convention are much lower than those of conservative churches. 2. Ultimately, the conservative resurgence was not borne out of a desire for increased growth, but out of a passion to be faithful to Scripture and the historic doctrines of the church, recognizing you could find "no place in history where any movement based on questioning the authority and accuracy of God's Word ever produced evangelistic fervor, missionary zeal or healthy churches."
• "Mean-spiritedness" is never appropriate in the cause of Christ and is to be regretted.
• There are a number of "younger" pastors (of whom he cited me as one), who have not left the Convention.
• Many of the "older" Southern Baptist leaders have spent their lives investing in younger leaders and remain as mentors to those leaders today.
• Many of the "younger" pastors who have left the Southern Baptist Convention have done so because they simply do not share the convictions of Southern Baptists... convictions on things like faithfulness to Scripture, the historic doctrines of the Gospel, the necessity of faith in Christ and the call of God to world evangelization.
• The really critical issue for Southern Baptists is not that we need a new worship style or more up-to-date marketing, but the fact that we have substituted dependence on God in prayer with flashy, ready-made programs, and replaced the responsibility of believers to share Christ with clever marketing schemes.

Both Ed and Dr. Patterson are my friends and men I look up to, and both share the same values and commitment to the Gospel. Both love the church and her mission.

Let me explain first off that our church has chosen to cooperate missionally with the Southern Baptist Convention because we believe unified effort between Gospel-loving churches increases our effectiveness in church planting, leadership training, and public witness. The blessing and curse of my generation seems to be an independent, can-do spirit when it comes to mission. I just finished reading Stephen Neill's A History of Christian Missions, and one of the points he makes is that though Protestants have historically been extremely zealous for missions, we often have charged into unreached areas like Lone Rangers with no sense of who else was doing what for the cause of Christ there. Because of our lack of cooperation, we have often repeated easily avoidable mistakes and caused unnecessary chaos in the fields they we are trying to reach. Therefore we (the Summit Church), through the SBC, want to link up with missional, like minded churches for the purpose of mission.

I also want to say that I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. Patterson and other 'older' Southern Baptists who have invested heavily in my life. I was told long before I met Dr. Patterson that he was a mean-spirited man by some people who obviously did not like him. However, upon meeting Dr. Patterson I did not find the charges of mean-spiritedness to bear any real truth at all. He was gentle and forgiving. His insistence that we remain faithful to Gospel doctrines grew out of a fervent love (or so it appeared to me) for Jesus and for people. He was the one who taught me, "You must always be sweet. You can never do Christ's work with Satan's spirit." I began to wonder if the charges of mean-spiritedness were truer of Dr. Patterson’s critics than of Dr. Patterson.

I do want to note, however, that Ed's call is a timely one, and one that I believe we absolutely must heed. I do know some "younger" Southern Baptists who have left the Convention, or, having stayed, involve themselves in it only minimally. I'll try to make this short and to the point:

• Misplaced focus on priorities other than the Gospel. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is our statement of belief, and its beauty is that it is specific enough to define us as a Gospel-faithful people, and broad enough to tolerate acceptable diversity among us. "Southern Baptist" should not indicate a style of worship or a political platform or interpretation about issues of Christian freedom or a stance on the finer theological points of Calvinism or even one's position on minor spiritual gifts. The Convention exists for a shared mission around the Gospel. When minor things (such as the ones I listed) become major things, then the mission itself becomes minor. When that happens, many Gospel-loving people look to better organizations to facilitate their cooperation in mission. We need to renew our commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 as the substance of our unity.
• Failure to distinguish between necessary cultural adaptation and real worldliness: In an attempt to separate Christian witness from the pollution of the world, some Southern Baptists have mistaken a cultural preference for faithfulness to the Gospel. We have assumed that faithfulness to the Gospel meant a certain style of music, a certain tradition of worship, a certain method of evangelism, even a certain tone of voice and a certain coiffed hairstyle. Most Southern Baptist churches are a beautiful blend of the 16th and 17th centuries. The tragedy in this is that in those places where we absolutely SHOULD NOT look like the world--specifically how we treat money, power, and outsiders, we look just like the world--like Samson, we have not only failed to "overcome" the Philistine culture, we have absorbed their values and look just like them in the places we are supposed to be distinct. Many younger Southern Baptists have seen that in order to reach their culture they were going to have to change some of their methods and traditions. No doubt they (and I) have made mistakes in attempting this, but some older Southern Baptists have mistakenly insisted that we hold on to some things that have nothing to do with the Gospel. If given the choice between effective Gospel ministry and Southern Baptist traditions which have nothing to do with the essence of the Gospel, many younger pastors will choose (correctly) the Gospel.
• Bad parachurchism: OK, I totally made that term up. But here's what I mean: there is good parachurch and bad parachurch. GOOD parachurch ministries FACILITATE the ministry of the church. A good parachurch ministry attempts to be a resource to the local church through which the church can do her ministry more effectively. BAD parachurch takes ministry from a local church and does it for her. Bad parachurch says, "Give us money and people and we'll do ministry for you."

The SBC was born out of the "good parachurch" model: the agencies of the Convention facilitated the ministries of local churches. Local churches led in the ministry, the Convention served the initiatives of those churches-- but it was the local churches that took the lead and got things done. Over time, it appears that some parts of the SBC have shifted into 'bad parachurch' mode. They expect the local churches to turn over resources so the agencies can do the work. Burgeoning bureaucracies were created that basically duplicated what was to be happening in the local church. We, the local church, are to give our money and be happy with the results, and scolded for not giving properly.

Some missional churches are not actively participating in the Convention because they don't see the SBC helping them (that is, the local church) fulfill the call God has given to that local church to plant churches. Sure, sometimes "younger" pastors don't give because they are arrogant, shortsighted and don't see the value of cooperation. Often, however, it's because they are not convinced the SBC is best channel for fulfilling their calling to reproduce and multiply. And this is, in part, because they see the Convention taking ministry initiative away from the churches.(Of course, there are some things local churches can't do effectively... for example, most churches cannot house a an academically credentialed seminary... and for that we are happy to turn over the role to a Convention agency. We should not, however, relinquish the responsibility to raise up and train ministers). 

Many of these new churches are simply not going to give to the SBC out of a sense of loyalty. They are going to give to the SBC when they see that this is the most effective way of accomplishing the call placed on them to plant churches and transform their cities. Many "younger" pastors are more committed to the call of God to plant churches than they are to the Convention, and this, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. When the Convention reveals that it is the best investment for assisting the local churches in training leaders, planting churches, and doing the work of God in the world, that is when many of the "younger" pastors will give their money and involvement to the work of the SBC.

We, the Summit Church, give somewhere around 21% of our budget outside of our church to evangelism, community ministry, and church planting work. We give a significant portion of that to the Convention because we do see the value in cooperation and shared resources. We know that whenever you cooperate not everything will be done exactly as we like it, and we are ok with that. We send out most of our teams under the direction of the IMB and try to give generously to the IMB for that purpose.

We also recognize, however, that the Summit Church will answer to God personally for His command on us to multiply and grow, and so we prudently evaluate how effectively the money we give to church planting efforts is helping us to fulfill OUR calling to plant churches. We are more committed to the call of God on us than to a "denominational giving program." As the Convention helps us fulfill our calling, we will participate in it.

I do believe that as the SBC refocuses itself on the priority of the Gospel, majoring on it and not on other minor (though important) things, and that as it continually realigns itself to catalyze the work of local churches, we will see more "younger" Southern Baptists happy to remain a part of this great mission organization.

Reflections on the SBC in 2007

The following is a "guest post" by Danny Akin, containing the text of a letter he sent out recently to Southeastern alumni. A number of you have asked me about the Convention, and I thought this letter stated things quite well. I have included the letter here, with his permission. Again, these are his words, not mine, but I find myself in ready agreement with most everything he says below:

Having returned home from the annual meeting of the SBC in San Antonio, I again was reminded why I love and appreciate the people called Southern Baptists.  We are not perfect to be sure.  Sometimes we can be somewhat funny and even a bit strange in how we do business.  Still, our love for the Lord Jesus, devotion to the Bible, and passion for the lost makes me glad to be a part of this family.  It honors me to serve you and our Convention at Southeastern Seminary.

As I have done in previous years, let me share some reflections on this year's meeting, where I think we are, and where, by God's grace, we can go in the days ahead.  Know that what follows will chart the future for Southeastern Seminary. 

First, I rejoice in the re-election of Frank Page as our Convention president, and the election of Jim Richards and Eric Redmond as 1st and 2nd vice presidents.  All three are friends of mine, and they are men for whom I have great respect.  I will support each of them this coming year, especially with my prayers.

Second, we saw a renewed commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the sufficiency of Scripture, our doctrinal commitments, and the priority of the Great Commission both at home and abroad.  All Southern Baptist should be able to unite around these great affirmations.  Along with my fellow seminary presidents, I believe the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a solid theological confession to guide us.  It is not an exhaustive statement, but it is a sufficient statement.  It, along with the Abstract of Principles, will continue to give theological direction to Southeastern.  This is what our convention reaffirmed on Tuesday evening. Barry McCarty, our chief parliamentarian said to me at the airport following the Convention, there was no understanding that this motion was asking our agencies to do anything different than what we had been doing.  It was a reaffirmation, not a re-direction.  In that context let me say this.  Your seminaries are not interested in theological witch hunts.  At the same time, we will not be ostriches with our heads in the sand.  If we spot a teaching that possesses a danger to our churches or will compromise our ability to fulfill the Great Commission, you can rest assured that we will withstand it with all our might.

Third, Southern Baptists are overwhelmingly a body of cessationist and continualist when it comes to spiritual gifts and their activity today.  We are not "charismatics" in any historic sense of that word.  This is what the recent LifeWay survey clearly revealed, and I am surprised at a number of shrill responses I have heard.  I am personally grateful for the research done in this area by LifeWay under the superb leadership of its president Thom Rainer, and I am disappointed that some have questioned Dr. Rainer's motives and intentions.  I have known Thom for more then ten years, and I know him to be a man of the highest degree of integrity.  Now, let me put my theological cards on the table as I did at this convention.   I am a continualist, "open but cautious," when it comes to the activity of spiritual gifts in our day.  This has been my position since I began teaching at Criswell College almost twenty years ago.  It is also the case that I do not have a private prayer language nor do I believe that one can make a good case for a private prayer language from the biblical text.  Still, I must be honest and note that good non-charismatic scholars like D.A. Carson and Darrell Bock believe 1 Corinthians 14 allows for the possibility of such a gift.  Therefore, for me and for Southeastern Seminary, the issue will be one of priority and agenda.  If someone makes private prayer languages an agenda item, then I will oppose them in the strongest measure.  In fact, as I said above, I will withstand any agenda or movement that gets in the way of fulfilling the Great Commission of Christ.  Perhaps you wonder how many of our faculty at Southeastern has a private prayer language.  The answer is I do not know.  I have never asked.  It is not an issue with this faculty, and it will not become one.

Fourth, I believe it is clear that Southern Baptists have got to grow in the discipline of thinking theologically and living biblically.  Hopefully the new Broadman and Holman work, A Theology for the Church, will help us in this area.  I had the honor to edit this book, and it includes contributions from some of the brightest and best in Southern Baptist life.  Our own David Nelson, Pete Schemm, John Hammett and Ken Keathley participate in this project.  You will also discover that Mark Dever, David Dockery, Timothy George, Al Mohler, Russ Moore, Paige Patterson, Malcom Yarnell, and Greg Thornberry penned significant chapters as well.  Southern Baptists cannot afford sit on the sidelines when it comes to good and careful theological reflection.   At Southeastern we are committed to loving God with our heart and head.  We believe in pursuing the model left to us by the apostle Paul, the great theologian and the great missionary.  We believe the best context for doing theology is the Great Commission.  The best missionaries are capable theologians, and the best theologians are also passionate missionaries.  The two must never be separated.   This is absolutely essential for the future health of our denomination.

Theological discussion and debate, carried out in the atmosphere of mutual love and respect, is a good and healthy thing.  Indeed, it is vitally necessary for the health and well-being of the church.  Southeastern is delighted to partner with LifeWay and the Founder's Ministry in sponsoring a conference on Calvinism at Ridgecrest on November 26-28.  No subject needs more light and less heat than this one.  Extreme positions and dispositions need to be exposed, confronted and rejected.  Areas of agreement that will show how we can work together for the gospel need to be embraced and affirmed.  We are thrilled to host on our campus, October 26-27, what is certainly to be the premier C.S. Lewis conference in America in several decades.  We also are glad to sponsor a conference on the Emerging/Emergent Church with participants like Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer on September 21-22.  I applaud neither Pastor Driscoll's view on alcohol nor his less than wholesome language.  The former is unwise and runs the risk of compromising his witness.  The latter is blatantly sinful.  However, we need to hear and learn from persons like Mark Driscoll in how to effectively engage an increasingly secular culture with the life changing gospel of Jesus Christ.  We can learn from those with whom we do not see eye-to-eye theologically, or practically, (e.g. in everyday decisions of Christian living).  I want a well informed and educated student body.  I believe it is appropriate to invite to a college or seminary campus those you would not invite to speak or lead in worship when your local church gathers for worship.  It seems to me that a clear difference exists between the two. 

Fifth, I was delighted we approved a resolution on integrity in ministry but disappointed we did do the same for one on regenerate church membership.  Some feared the latter was telling the local church what to do, but a resolution can never do that.  Some may think there was some political agenda in the works.  However, this is a clear biblical and theological issue all Baptist should be able to affirm.  Perhaps the resolution presented needs to be reworded or adjusted, but an emphasis on regenerate church membership needs to be recaptured by our churches.  I have personally been saying this for several years now.  I will continue to speak to this in the days ahead.

Sixth, it was a joy to welcome Geoff Hammond as the new president of North American Mission Board and to receive their fine report.  Southeastern hopes to work side by side with the North American Mission Board in the years to come as we seek to reach North America with the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Finally, this year's attendance is a cause for grave concern.  In spite of "pre-convention activity," this was one of the smallest conventions in years.  Our annual meeting is also aging, and I include myself having turned 50.  A younger generation committed to the goals and convictions of the Conservative Resurgence must be sought out. We must get them involved with what we are doing.  They need our wisdom and we need their passion and energy.  I pledge to do my part to see this happen.  I believe what is happening on our seminary campuses is a very hopeful sign.

God has blessed our Convention beyond what we deserved.  He has indeed been gracious and faithful.  Now is the time for us to come together as a mighty army equipped and ready to take the gospel to the nations.  Time is short.  The hour is urgent.  Heaven and hell are real and Jesus is the only difference.  If you come to Southeastern, if you send your children to Southeastern, know that our challenge will not be, "Should you go to the nations?"  Rather, it will be, "why would you not go?  You have already received the command to go to the nations by the Lord Jesus Himself."  Southeastern is committed to being a Great Commission Seminary, and a Great Commission seminary is what we will be.  I love you and consider it a joy words cannot capture to serve you.

Danny Akin, President