Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Who deserves to hear the Gospel?

A disturbing trend in some very influential circles in our convention is the attitude that no one deserves to hear the Gospel twice while there are those who have yet to hear it once. That might sound good. It is certainly emotionally moving and motivating. That mantra is being used to stir people’s hearts for the nations. But at what cost?

Jesus charged us with reaching the nations. Since our inception, Southern Baptists have always been passionate about joining together to reach the nations for Christ—it’s in our DNA. But we have also always been passionate about joining together to reach our Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria for Christ. I have never seen an area that we can afford to neglect with the Gospel. Have most of our resources as Southern Baptists been concentrated in the American Southeast? Yes. Is that area so evangelized that we can now pull out and martial our resources in another area? No.

During the period of time commonly referred to as the First Great Awakening, there was no place that was more evangelized than what is now the American Northeast. In the subsequent years, evangelism efforts focused almost exclusively outside of that area. The thought was, everybody has already heard and responded to the Gospel in that area—now it’s time to move on to those who have not been evangelized. Within a generation, the area which had been so fervently on-fire for Christ was now what historians call, “The Burned-over District”. The decline continued to the point that the American Northeast is now one of the most secular regions of the Western World.

I am not arguing against our emphasis on getting the Gospel to unreached people groups. I applaud this emphasis. But Jesus has not called us to an either/or mentality. He has called us to be witnesses everywhere at all times. That includes those who have never heard the Gospel as well as those who have heard and rejected it 1,000 times. Remember that God still sent Isaiah to preach to Israel—even though He told him that they would continually reject his message. The entire history of God’s relationship with Israel is one of them rejecting Him, but God continually sending His prophets to them. I thank God that He has never had the attitude that, “No one has the right to hear the Gospel twice as long as there are those who have never heard it once.” God has never had that attitude and neither should we.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Messengers must be allowed to vote online.

The only way for our convention to accurately reflect the will of the majority of our churches is to recognize the voice of every possible messenger. It is no secret that over 80% of our churches run less than 200 in average Sunday morning attendance. Because of the outstanding Cooperative Program giving of most small churches, we are allowed the same number of messengers as even the largest mega-churches. The problem is, most small churches and small church messengers cannot afford to send their full contingency of messengers. For example, due to our CP giving, Brushfork Baptist Church is allowed to send a full slate of messengers to the convention. Financial considerations only allowed us to send me and my wife. Even though we will only allow the church to pay for our hotel, it is a significant expense that causes a strain on our finances. Similarly, the gas, food and other expenses that my wife and I choose to pay put a tremendous strain on our personal finances. Many small churches and churches with bi-vocational pastors are simply not able to absorb that cost and send any messengers.

I believe that each messenger from each of our 40,000-plus churches needs to have every opportunity to participate in the business of our convention. Technology provides that opportunity.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Never depend on someone else to do the right thing.

Early on in discussions about the interim report of the GCR Task Force, several of us commented on the necessity of voting on the recommendations individually. Although I was fairly confident that the Task Force was going to presented them that way, we discussed the parliamentary possibilities if the report was presented as a whole. There were several options available that would have at least forced a vote on considering the recommendations individually. Had that happened, I think the outcome might have turned out differently. We will never know.

I sat amazed as the Task Force boldly presented their recommendations as a whole. My amazement grew to shock as no one moved to divide the question. A motion was made to table it, which would have effectively killed it. Although opposed to the recommendations, I voted against the motion to table. I thought that the diligent work of the Task Force should at least be decided upon. Another motion was made to refer the recommendations to the Executive Committee for further study and consideration. This seemed to be a fair motion, but was soundly defeated. The mood of the messengers (whether for or against) was to deal with the issue without further delay.

The right thing to do was to decide the issue that day. I still believe that the right thing also would have been to decide on each of the recommendations separately. I was not alone in feeling that way. As a matter of fact, nearly everybody that I talked to—both for and against—felt that way. So why did it not happen? It didn’t happen because no one made the motion.

A motion to divide the question is a simple motion. It requires a second (which the man in the rear-left of the convention hall would have eagerly and loudly made). It does not even allow debate, so absolutely no eloquence would have been required. After the motion and second, all it requires is a simple majority vote. I believe it would have had a good chance of passing—but we will never know. We will never know because no one made the motion. We will never know because I did not make the motion.

Sitting back and hoping someone else will do the right thing is the same as doing nothing. I did nothing, so we will never know what might have happened.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

It’s hard to see past our immediate context.

It's hard to see the forest past the immediate tree we're looking at.  People automatically tend to filter methodological decisions through their immediate contextual grid. Diversity is not only important to our convention, it is essential. Achieving racial diversity, non-essential theological diversity, regional diversity and church-size diversity throughout our denomination is crucial as we move forward. A white, urban Calvinist hipster has valuable insight for the direction of our convention. So does a black, inner-city revivalist missionary. So does a mega-church, multi-staff nationally known pastor. So does a rural, traditional, bi-vocational pastor. We are not a convention of white, Southern mega-churches. We are a convention of churches of all types, styles, sizes and stripes. We have churches that need planted as well as churches that need to be renewed. As a convention, our focus must be on Jerusalem (local), Judea (regional and national), Samaria (those in our region/nation who look and act different than us) and the ends of the earth—at all times in all ways. The only way that can happen is if we diligently strive to have diversity in all areas of our convention. On the boards, committees and staffs, and even on the platform.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

All issues are theological at their core.

The only way to figure out the best methodologies is to have your theology right. While the Southern Baptist Convention has settled the question of biblical inerrancy and authority, there are still great differences of interpretation in what the Bible actually says and its implications for how we function as a convention of churches. Our words clearly articulate the primacy of the local church. Our recent actions have not matched our words. Is the convention to try to act as one large church? Are the entities of the convention to take on roles and tasks traditionally and theologically reserved for local churches? How is our polity theologically informed and should we maintain and defend our traditional role of boards, committees and trustees made up of hundreds of members of diverse local churches scattered throughout our convention? Or should their clear will be usurped or manipulated by small ad hoc committees of influential personalities? Our ecclesiology should consistently inform those issues and prevent us from potential denominational shipwreck.

Read more »

Things I learned at the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting

Politics are necessary, but don’t have to be ugly.

“Politics” carries a negative connotation in our culture. “Polis”, the word from which we get “politics” simply refers to a gathering of people. In other words, politics is what happens anytime a group of people gather. Despite the negative connotation, we can’t escape the fact that politics happen. Whether in the local church, or at a denominational level, politics are a necessary fact of life. Since politics are inevitable, we must focus on how we conduct ourselves during and after their processes. Will we be fair and just in trying to promote our positions and accomplish our ends? Will we be gracious and humble in defeat? In the months leading up to the convention and in the convention itself, we saw positive and negative examples of both. It is my prayer in the days to follow we will exhibit the mind of Christ as we move forward. I praise God that political differences were publically handled gracefully and peacefully from both the floor and the platform of this year’s convention.

Read more »

2010 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting Follow-up

It's been a few days since the conclusion of the 2010 SBC Annual Meeting in Orlando.  Commentary over the past few days has ranged from utter despair to sheer ecstasy.  Over the years, I have tried to cultivate a teachable spirit.  Whatever circumstance I experience--whether immediately perceived as good or bad--I try to learn something from it.  I have made it no secret that I oppose the recommendations made by the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. I was surprised that they passed, although I suspect that there were many who did not fully understand the implications of what they were voting on.  Rhetoric is a powerful tool and it was skillfully employed during the Pastors' Conference and Convention.  Those decisions are now in the hands of our entity trustees. We should now pray specifically for their wisdom and discernment as they go forward.

Later on, I may post my thoughts on where I think we should go from here.  I am still prayerfully sorting through my thoughts on how I will lead our church in these matters.  For now, I want to share with you some of the immediate things I learned in Orlando.  I will be posting these thoughts over the next several days, so continue to look for them.

Read more »

Why I Am Running for First Vice President of the SBC

My name is Jim Drake. Odds are, you’ve never heard of me. Let me take a few minutes to tell you about myself. First of all, I am a child of the King—chosen, purchased and redeemed by Jesus Christ. All that I am and all that I ever will be is because of Him. My chief desire is for everything I do to bring glory and honor to His great name. Second, I am a husband to Miranda—the finest woman I know. She has graced me by joyfully serving in the two most difficult callings a person can have, military wife and pastor’s wife. She is my continual support, encouragement, council and companion. Third, I am a father to Kyla, Katelyn and CJ. Kyla (21) is married to Josh Lange and is expecting my first grandson in August. She is enrolled at Auburn University Montgomery in Montgomery, AL. Katelyn (17) just completed her junior year at Mercer Christian Academy and dreams of dancing with Bellhaven College’s Ballet Magnificat. CJ (15) just completed his freshman year of homeschooling. He thinks he is being called into some sort of ministry—possibly youth ministry. Finally, I am a pastor to the wonderful people of Brushfork Baptist church. You have probably never heard of Brushfork, but if you are like the vast majority of Southern Baptists, our church is just like yours. We are a small congregation in a dying community. For us, growth often means replacing those who have gone home to be with the Lord. Thank God we have been able to do that over the years. We will never make national news, but we are able to see people saved. We are able to see people baptized. We are able to see them grow in the Lord. We are able to disciple them and even ordain some and send them off on mission. We are able to plant churches in cooperation with other churches in our local association. We are able to accomplish the Great Commission. From our little post in Southern West Virginia, we are able to reach our Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and even the furthest reaches of the earth.
I believe that my situation pictures most of you. Brushfork Baptist Church is not unique. Small churches on mission for Christ are historically normative. The historical anomaly of the handfuls of mega-churches in our convention are a tremendous blessing, but they are not the backbone of our convention. The backbone of our convention are small, local community churches, linked together with a common core theology, love for the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God and a passion for reaching the lost with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thousands of local Southern Baptist preaching points are precious in the sight of the Lord and should not be overlooked or discounted as “insignificant”.

I think it is time to remind ourselves that the majority of our churches are small. The vast majority of our baptisms come from small churches. The vast majority of our giving comes from small churches. The vast majority of our leadership originated in small churches. IMB, NAMB, ERLC, EC nor our six seminaries would exist without the cooperative support of small churches. They would not exist without churches like Brushfork Baptist. And they would not exist without churches like yours.
I did not seek this office nor have I campaigned for it.  I believe this is a door of opportunity that the Lord is placing before me.  If it is His will that I serve Him in this way, I will serve with a whole heart.  If not, I will continue to serve Him wherever He would have me.  Whether or not you support me for 1st Vice President, understand this—your church is significant. It’s not significant because of its size or location. It’s significant because of Who it belongs to. It is significant because Revelation 1:12-20 tells us that Jesus is walking in its midst and holding your pastor in the palm of His hand. I have allowed myself to be nominated for this office because I think Southern Baptists need to be reminded of that.

Read more »

GCR Report Impressions, Part 8

It has been several days since I began posting on the GCR Interim Report. I have elaborated on my opinion of five of the six components of the report.

Component #6 raises many of the same questions I have already asked concerning funding and the Cooperative Program. As the report says, it is more symbolic than substantive. It cannot be fully addressed outside the context of the completed budget presentation.

Despite this passage of time, I still have many concerns and questions. Once again, I will say that I have been and will continue to be a proponent of SBC self-examination and restructure for the purpose of working to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission. Because all things trend toward decay, all organizations must continually assess and evaluate their processes to insure they are effectively and efficiently accomplishing their mission. Our convention is no different.

My purpose in these posts does not come from the position of one who is resistant to change. I welcome and encourage necessary change. My intent in these posts has been to learn, and hopefully teach, by questioning. Certain philosophical underpinnings have been claimed in the report that I whole-heartedly affirm (denominational humility, decentralization, local church priority, effective stewardship, necessity of cooperation, urgency of the lostness of our nation and world). My concern stems from the fact that certain elements of the individual components do not appear to match the purported philosophy of the report. For example, direct appointment of associational missionaries by NAMB does not seem to be decentralization. The creation of a “Leadership Center of North America” to assess and equip church planters seems very far removed from personally accountable mentoring relationships within the local church.

Do not mistake my questions as blind defenses of the status quo. Personally, I do not hold any denominational institution as sacrosanct. Scripture never declares Christ’s love for State Conventions, Local Associations, NAMB, IMB, ERLC, any of our seminaries or the Executive Committee—but the Bible clearly declares Jesus’ love for the local church. The mission of the Great Commission is the mission of the local church. Insofar as Southern Baptist denominational institutions and entities facilitate and assist that mission, they are extremely beneficial. On the other hand, whenever they circumvent or attempt to replace local churches in accomplishing that mission, they are counterproductive, wasteful and potentially destructive.

It is my sincere desire that the questions I have raised in these posts will be answered and the concerns assuaged in the coming months. I am a Southern Baptist by conviction, not by convenience or regional default. I love and admire the work of the people who have ably served on the GCR Task Force and have led my church in praying for them regularly. I know that they have a heart for the Gospel and a love for the lost. It is my prayer that in the coming months, rhetorical battle lines will not be drawn, fiefs will not be barricaded and vocational territory will not be protected. It is my prayer that honest questions will be asked and answered, inconsistencies clarified and decisions, even though they may be difficult, will be harmoniously reached. We know that Jesus loves His local church. We know He has given her a mission. And we know that mission will never be accomplished by confusion, discord or strife. With that, I am looking forward to the final report on Monday, May 3rd, and the Convention in June. I agree with the Task Force when they said, “We believe this could be one of the most critical moments in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Read more »

GCR Report Impressions, Part 7

While I applaud the reaffirmation of the Cooperative Program stated in the fifth component of the report, previous elements seem to undermine it. Eliminating cooperative agreements between NAMB and State Conventions will garner the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing CP dollars being sent from the states. They will be forced to choose between total NAMB control of staff hires or internally funding the positions. Make no mistake about it—CP dollars from the State Conventions will shrink long before control is ceded. That is not meant to impugn character, it is simply acknowledging the fact that all people see their position as essential and will protect it to the best of their ability. There are some positions within our convention that I do not see as essential—maybe even counterproductive—to accomplishing our mission. But I can guarantee that each of the individuals in those positions can ably justify their existence. When forced to choose between funding a position one personally sees as essential and a distant, national, organizational pool of funds, the choice is a foregone conclusion. To see things otherwise is naïve at best.

Concerning designated gifts “counting” as CP giving, this seems to be a non-issue for a rural, small-church pastor like me. The fact that my church’s contributions to a local food bank, a crisis pregnancy center and a Bible in the Schools program don’t “count” toward our 15% CP giving bears no impact on the furtherance of the Gospel. The only context in which I have heard this issue raised was during the election of our previous president. While I freely admit ignorance as to the importance of the need for “credit”, it does seem petty and trivial. Even if there is some unknown Gospel importance to this accounting change, it certainly does not seem to rise to the level of the importance of the other components.

The next post will complete my impressions of the GCR Interim Report.

Read more »

The SBC Great Commission Resurgence Interim Report

The SBC Great Commission Resurgence Interim Report. A seminal moment for the Southern Baptist Convention.

GCR Progress Report from GCR on Vimeo.

Read more »

Akin Responds

Dr. Danny Akin responds to the criticism directed at his relationship with Mark Driscoll:

A number of motions and proposed resolutions expressed concern about my relationship with Mark Driscoll and Acts 29. Many of these concerns were based upon information that has been circulated around our Convention in the last six months in the form of Baptist Press articles, blog posts, and position papers. Some of that information was erroneous or outdated. Some of it is accurate, but my opinion usually differs from those raising the concerns. So, let me speak plainly and from my heart.

I appreciate Mark Driscoll and Acts 29. Southeastern has no formal relationship with either, but I am thankful for many aspects of both ministries. I think there is much that our students can learn from them. Mark and I have become good friends, but I do not agree with everything Mark says or does. In particular, I disagree with some of the language he has used in the pulpit in the past (though not in several years!) and I am uncomfortable with his position on beverage alcohol. I do appreciate his courage to tackle the difficult book The Song of Solomon and to address sexual issues with the adults in his congregation who have serious and important questions needing answers. Many of you know I have had a similar ministry through Marriage and Family conferences for years. I also wrote a book on the Song entitled God on Sex. Now it is the case I have chosen to address these issues in a different manner than has Mark, and at certain points I think he might have addressed some sensitive sexual issues in a more careful manner. But, I believe we can learn from those with whom we differ, and on the whole I believe Mark has much to teach us about missional living, theology-driven ministry, and culturally relevant expositional preaching. I also think our students, and Southern Baptists in general, are mature enough to treat Mark Driscoll (and every Christian leader) with appropriate discernment.

I want to remind our readers that good seminaries continually expose their students to diverse opinions, including the opinions of those with whom we disagree. There are few textbooks, guest lecturers, and even chapel speakers with whom I am in 100% agreement! Several times in the last decade the SBC annual meeting has been addressed by speakers who differ with Southern Baptists, including Condoleeza Rice (a Presbyterian who describes her views on abortion as “mildly pro-choice”), James Dobson (a Nazarene who is egalitarian and consistently Arminian) and Bill Bright (another Presbyterian). Individual Southern Baptists also learn from others every time they read a book by Augustine, C. S. Lewis or John Stott and every time they listen to a sermon by John MacArthur or Chuck Swindoll. It is a healthy thing to interact with and appreciate fellow Christians with whom we have theological differences and even strong disagreements on secondary and tertiary matters.

Let me invite any of our readers who have concerns about Mark or Acts 29 to do three things. First, make sure your criticisms are up-to-date rather than rehashing issues that were settled several years ago. Second, acquaint yourself with the doctrinal convictions of both Mars Hill Church and Acts 29. Finally, please note that all of the Driscoll addresses are available online at our website. I would encourage you to listen to them as well as an interview David Nelson conducted with Mark last spring. I think you will be blessed and encouraged by what you hear. If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to email me or call my office. I would be happy to talk with you, listen to your heart, and hopefully put your concerns to rest.

The entire article can be found at Between the Times.

Read more »

Convention Moments: Worst Personal Moment

Unfortunately, times of reflection bring up the bad as well as the good. As I reflect on our time at the Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference and Annual Meeting, there is one moment that I regret.

As my wife and I walked from the parking lot into the Expo Center on Tuesday morning, we were confronted by a man on the sidewalk who was handing out fliers. That is not an unusual occurrence during the convention, so I took a copy of what he was distributing. As a reader, if something has words on it, I immediately start reading. That can be a hazardous habit—especially when walking or driving. As I successfully avoided running into things while I walked and skimmed, I realized the nature of the document I was reading. It was a slanderous diatribe by a group called the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association directed at Mark Driscoll. I am very familiar with Driscoll’s ministry, his theology, and his past penchant for the use of shocking (sometimes immoral) language. I agree with one of his mentors, John Piper, that such language is wrong and entirely out of place in pastoral ministry. I also understand that, when confronted by men like Piper, Driscoll has repented of using such language. Of course, none of that was pointed out in the paper that was handed to me. Instead, much of the language for which he has since repented was published as if Driscoll is continually saying it to this day. Additionally, Driscoll and his past behavior were linked to Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Ed Stetzer, Director of LifeWay Research. The paper sought to drag these fine men’s names through the mudhole of Driscoll’s past sins that it created. Knowing the backstory, I was able to see the theme of the paper while skimming and walking into the Expo Center. Before we reached the convention hall, I had successfully deposited it where it belonged—the trash can.

But then came the regretful moment. No sooner had we reached our seats than my wife remembered that she had left her sweater in the car. As I walked out to get it for her, I told myself to avoid the man with the papers. I did not want to engage him because I know me—and James 3:8-9 was rolling around in my head. I tried to avoid him. But he practically ran up to me to insure I had one of his destructive papers. I told him that I had already received one and did not need another (whew, passed that test… but not for long). He immediately replied, “Well, what did you think?” Regretfully, I told him—and not in a constructively exhortatory manner. Fortunately, conviction grabbed me before I could respond to his implication that I must be a pervert for “supporting” the “perverted” Mark Driscoll. Thank God for restraint in the midst of regret.

Read more »

Convention Moments: Best Personal Moment

After a few days to reflect on the Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference and Annual Meeting, in addition to all the great messages, informative reports and important business, certain key moments have come to mind. I will share those over the next few days.

Despite the fact that the week’s schedule was extremely full and we tried to attend everything on the docket, there were some times of escape. Between two very active teenagers at home and one in college, homeschooling and the pastorate, sometimes several days go by where it seems that my wife and I just pass in the driveway. Instead of two ships passing in the night, we are more often like two vehicles passing on the highway.

During the convention, other than the Pastor’s Wives Conference, we spent the whole time together. It was wonderful. Probably only pastors know how much corporately worshipping God while holding your wife’s hand is a rare thing to be treasured. Another thing to be treasured is finding an out-of-the-way Thai restaurant in which to share a quiet dinner together. During the convention, we were able to savor both.

Read more »

Convention Lowlight

Yesterday I began with the good. Today I must reflect on the bad and the ugly.

Let me start by saying that I have a tremendous respect for Dr. Morris Chapman. He currently serves as the President of the SBC Executive Committee. Some would say that his is the most powerful position in our convention—if not a close second to the elected President. Dr. Chapman is one of the men responsible for the Conservative Resurgence. Along with men like Adrian Rogers and Paige Patterson, he stood strong in the face of opposition and steered this denomination back from the brink of theological liberalism. In doing so, they accomplished something that no other denomination has ever accomplished. Some have been able to stem the tide of liberalism for a season. But none have ever moved a denomination back to theological conservatism. While we were pleased at this year’s Annual Meeting to recognize the sesquicentennial of Southern Seminary, I agree with Dr. Mohler that the greater anniversary we should celebrate is the 30th anniversary of the Conservative Resurgence. I praise God for Dr. Chapman’s role in that.

With that being said, I have been disappointed in Dr. Chapman’s vocal opposition to the Great Commission Resurgence. In fairness to him, of course he is not opposed to the Great Commission. Neither is he opposed to many of the axioms of the document penned by Dr. Danny Akin. But he has expressed loud opposition to Axiom IX. He was vehemently opposed to allowing Dr. Johnny Hunt to appoint a committee to look across the SBC to see if we can do things more efficiently and effectively. That opposition disappointed me—but not as much as the presidential report he presented to the convention on Tuesday.

Rather than being a report, it was a diatribe. He lashed out against “every ecclesiastic fad that promises innovation at the expense of confessional fidelity, against every subtle temptation toward uncooperative narrowness and unorthodox ecumenism.” Those things seem worthy of standing against—until he elucidated.

Dr. Chapman used the “fad” point as an excuse to attack Mark Driscoll. Granted, he didn’t attack him by name, but he did mention Driscoll’s reputation for using “crude themes” and “vulgar language.” While I do not advocate the language Driscoll has used in the past (for which he has since publicly repented), I do admire his theological steadfastness and evangelical success in the godless and pagan community in which he pastors. I don’t know of many Southern Baptist pastors who could reach the people that God is reaching through Driscoll. Also, his Acts 29 Network is empowering hundreds of young pastors to pursue their calling to plant churches—without discouraging and deflating them with the seemingly endless bureaucracy of the North American Mission Board. NAMB can learn a lot from Acts 29.

It was “faddish” at this year’s meeting to rail against Driscoll, but Dr. Chapman’s next point was most offensive. His point of “subtle temptation toward uncooperative narrowness” was obviously aimed at the rising number of professing Calvinists in our denomination. I have written about my personal “labels” before, so I don’t need to go into that again. Suffice it to say that I am Calvinistic (if that’s even a word), but not a Calvinist. According to my understanding of Scripture, the atoning sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for all. My 5-point Calvinist brothers and sisters do not agree with me. That’s fine. They are not Hyper-Calvinists and I am not an Arminian. Furthermore, I have never met a Calvinist—even the staunchest Supralapsarian 5-pointer—who would say that “divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.” True Calvinism affirms the necessity of a faith response. Their whole understanding of man’s role in salvation is couched in terms of his responsibility. They simply believe (biblically, I might add), that man’s faith response is generated by a work of the Holy Spirit. By implication and by verbal accusation, Dr. Chapman pronounced that those who hold to “Doctrines of Grace” (a favorite term of the Calvinists), are more interested in their theological systems than they are in evangelism. That is a blatantly false and slanderous accusation.

As I have said, I have a deep respect for Dr. Chapman because of his role in the Conservative Resurgence. The Conservative Resurgence that he helped to lead has given the Southern Baptist Convention the foundation we need to cooperatively pursue the Great Commission. It has also driven us back to the Bible for our theology. As we seek to understand the tensions in Scripture between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, we will all fall short of completely understanding the mind of God. That is a good thing. That should force us to interact with those who disagree with us and drive us all back to the Bible for further understanding. Our theological disagreements on secondary and tertiary issues should not lead us to misrepresent one another by painting verbal caricatures. It should instead lead us to interaction and dialogue and further cooperation. After all, isn’t cooperation in accomplishing the Great Commission what we’re supposed to be about?

More to come….

Read more »

Convention Highlight

I have wrestled with whether to begin with the good, the bad or the ugly from the SBC Pastor’s Conference and Annual Meeting. Today is a happy day, so I think I’ll begin with the good. I’ll deal with the other things in later postings.

For me, the highlight of the convention is getting to hear from preachers with whom I am unfamiliar. This year was no exception. In an obvious attempt to appeal to younger pastors and messengers, Dr. David Platt was invited to speak. Although I had heard his name before, I was completely unfamiliar with him. At 30, he is probably the youngest mega-church senior pastor in the SBC. He has pastored the 4000+ member Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, AL for less than three years. He holds five degrees, including two Masters and a Doctorate from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Although those things are impressive, they aren’t what impressed me about him. As a matter of fact, I didn’t know any of those things when he first opened his mouth to preach. But then he began to preach….

Of all the speakers, preachers, reports and motions, it was during the two times that Dr. Platt spoke that I was most directed to the glory of God. Christ was exalted. God’s glory was boldly proclaimed. My heart was stirred to see the glory of God proclaimed among the nations. It wasn’t about numbers or programs or even the SBC. It was about God. It was about Jesus saving sinners, not for our sake, but for the sake of His great Name.

One thing that is very distracting to me during the convention is the constant movement on the convention center floor. People continually move in and out and mill about—even during the sermons. It makes me wonder how those pastors would react if their congregations were behaving that way during their sermons—but I digress. The two times Dr. Platt spoke were the only times I noticed when motion seemed to stop on the convention center floor. People were enthralled. But even though he is a good speaker in his technique and mannerism, he was no better than any other speaker there. So what made his sermons so captivating and convicting?

I am convinced it was two things. First, his utter dependence on God’s Word. He began his first sermon by reciting lengthy passages from the Psalms—from memory. But many of the speakers preached expositionally, so it had to be something else. Of all the speakers, no one elevated God’s glory like Dr. Platt. God saves sinners for His glory. God equips and enables missions for His glory. We exist for His glory. We live for His glory. We even die for His glory. If we as Southern Baptists can begin to grasp the fact that we exist for no other reason than to proclaim God’s glory among the nations, then we will begin to experience the Great Commission Resurgence we long for.

More to come….

Read more »

This One Thing...

Late last night, my wife and I arrived home from the Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference and Annual Meeting. We were both dragging, as the Convention capped off an exhausting couple of weeks for us. It’s good to be home.

This year’s Convention continued the recent downward trend in attendance. The last messenger count I heard was less than 9000. As Southern Baptists, we like numbers and we hate to see declines in anything. But here’s why I think fewer people at the Annual Meeting is a good thing. It means that the issues we are dealing with are not as contentious as they have been in the past. If you remember, attendance peaked during the years of the Conservative Resurgence as both sides tried to stuff the ballot box with friendly votes. Now, there is not an issue on the table that invites us to “politic” in that way. No matter what the blogosphere seems to indicate, there is simply not that much controversy in our Convention these days. That is a good thing.

That relative lack of controversy is brought on by consensus concerning what is most important—the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Holy Word. Sure, every year a KJV-only messenger will rail against modern translations—particularly the Holman Christian Standard Bible. People will continue to propose ridiculous motions. Those things will happen—but, praise God, we’re not having to battle over the nature of Scripture. And by His grace, we will continually hold steadfast to that commitment.

If that happens, we can all put up with a little bit of silliness in our midst! Over the next few days, I hope to post some of the best and worst moments of the meetings.

Read more »

Go West Young Man!

This morning, my wife and I are heading to Louisville to attend this year’s Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference and Annual Meeting. According to the blogosphere, I guess that means I am a rare breed—a 41-year old pastor who actually enjoys going to the Annual Meeting. The business sessions can be long, and I anticipate some contention surrounding the Great Commission Resurgence this year—but other than that, I enjoy the preaching and singing and praying. Last year’s theme of brokenness and corporate repentance was refreshing. My prayer is that the spirit from that meeting will continue to carry over into this year’s.

Read more »

As the Convention Turns

Like sands through the hourglass....

For those who enjoy soap operas, get a life. But until you do, a new installment of “As the Convention Turns” is airing in the blogosphere as can be seen here and here. The message they reference can be accessed here.

Let's set the scene.

On one side of the dustup is a group of Calvinists. What they are and what they are portrayed as are often two different things. On the other side is a group who wear the self-coined label “Baptist Identity.” Likewise, what they are and what they are portrayed as are often two different things. When referring to our Baptist heritage, the Calvinists like to trace through the Magisterial Reformers to the English Particular Baptists. The Baptist Identity folks tend to emphasize our connection to the radical reformers and the early Anabaptists. The Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty in salvation as typically enumerated in five points the Synod of Dort articulated to counter the Five Articles of Remonstrance. The Five Articles of Remonstrance were developed in 1610 by the followers of Jacobus Arminius and emphasized the free will of man in salvation…. I digress.

Wesleyan denominations such as Methodism have typically held to a more Arminian soteriology than Baptists. Presbyterian and Anglican denominations have typically held to a more Calvinist soteriology than Baptists. While Calvinists in the SBC hold to all five or at least four points of Calvinism, the Baptist Identity people only hold tenaciously to one. Even in that one point of agreement, instead of using the traditional Calvinist language of perseverance, they use the words, “security of the believer.” Those with more Arminian beliefs often impugn Baptist security of the believer by relabeling it “once saved always saved,” thereby attempting to equate it with antinomianism…. I digress again. Other than security of the believer, Baptist Identity people do not identify with the rest of the Calvinist soteriological system.

Due to shared soteriological beliefs between SBC Calvinists and other Calvinists, friendships and gospel partnerships have been formed between prominent SBC leaders and Presbyterians, Anglicans and other paedo-baptists. This has sparked the vocal ire of Baptist Identity folks who have publicly responded by emphasizing believer’s baptism by immersion. They are also addressing and debating who should be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Their take is that only immersed believers should be able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, thereby ostracizing all paedo-baptists. Theirs is an updated version of the historical closed communion policy of Landmark Baptists, which has instigated the charge of landmarkism leveled by their detractors.

The scene is set and the soap opera plot thickens.

Calvinists in the SBC call Baptist Identity folks landmarkers. Baptist Identity folks call Calvinists all kinds of names, but mostly they equate Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. In other words, they accuse Calvinists of killing evangelism. Calvinists accuse Baptist Identity of leading the SBC into a theology of baptismal regeneration. Baptist Identity accuses Calvinists of leading the SBC into a theology of reprobation that will eliminate evangelism. Accusations fly, harsh words are expressed and generalizations, overstatements and false accusations are made. But to what end?

I have spent my whole life as a Southern Baptist. I was on a Southern Baptist cradle roll and spent time in a Southern Baptist nursery. I was raised a Southern Baptist because that’s what my parents were. I am a Southern Baptist pastor today because that is the denomination which, thanks to the conservative resurgence, tenaciously holds to inerrancy and most reflects what I believe the Bible says. In my 41 years of being a Southern Baptist, I have never met a Hyper-Calvinist Southern Baptist. I have met many Southern Baptists who hold to varying degrees of Calvinistic soteriology, but never one who rejected evangelism as an impingement upon God’s sovereignty. By the same token, I have never met a Southern Baptist who held to baptismal regeneration. I have met many who place a huge emphasis on human responsibility and public response including baptism, but never one who taught that justification occurs in the waters of baptism.

Proper biblical doctrine is important—even essential. The heresies of history prove the necessity of well-reasoned doctrinal positions. Soteriological and ecclesiastical differences should not be papered over. They should be discussed—deeply, passionately, thoughtfully. Most of all they should be discussed peacefully. The Southern Baptist Convention is not defined by Calvinism. Neither is it defined by the Baptist Identity niche. Our ordinances alone do not define us. Just as our heritage is a conglomeration of both Magisterial and Radical Reformers, what we are today is a conglomeration. I will argue against limited atonement with a Calvinist—in an irenic manner and in private. I will argue against closed communion with a Baptist Identity person— in an irenic manner and in private. Certainly not in public on the internet before a lost and dying world. And certainly not as a basis for division among brothers in our convention.

What should our identity be as Southern Baptists? Many things that are summed up nicely in the Baptist Faith and Message. But standing high and above all of those things, our identity should be that we exalt the name of Jesus by the way we treat one another, that we exalt the name of Jesus by the way we handle His Word, and that we exalt the name of Jesus by the way we make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them.

It’s time to turn off the soap opera and get busy exalting the name of Jesus.

Matthew 5:9

Read more »

Double, Double Toil and Trouble

After a few months of respite, bickering about Calvinism within the SBC has bubbled to the surface once again. Is it just me, or did you notice that the debate resurgence mysteriously coincided with the end of the NFL season? I guess it is true that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. Maybe the debate will once again subside with baseball spring training.

Until then, if you would like some well-reasoned, balanced and thoughtful articles concerning the subject, check out the recent postings on Between the Times. Non-Calvinist, Dr. Alvin Reid has posted An Open Letter to My Calvinist Friends in the SBC. At the same time, his Calvinist friend, Dr. Nathan Finn has posted An Open Letter to My Non-Calvinist Friends in the SBC.

Each of these men teaches at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. They are dear friends. Amidst all of the rancorous rhetoric, I admire SEBTS and these two men for their irenic discussion and their focus on the Great Commission, despite their clear theological disagreement. It proves that cooperation is possible among those who agree on the central tenets of the Gospel even if they disagree on debatable theological fine points. It is important to flesh out the fine points, but if that process gets in the way of our mission as the church it has become an idol and does not glorify Christ.

Here’s to a Great Commission Resurgence in the SBC.

Matthew 28:19-20

Read more »