First, let me say, “What a convention!” Even though Frank Cox did not win the presidential race, I believe that all of us were still pleased that Johnny Hunt did. To me, the watershed moment of the convention was when Dr. Hunt preached at the pastors conference. A bunch of us did get to meet with Dr. Hunt after the vote was taken and he was gracious and kind. I look forward to his leadership and pray that the Lord blesses him as he leads our convention.
Last week at the convention, the big buzz phrase was, “Great Commission Resurgence.” (GCR) Every time I heard it there were positive affirmations given, but I wondered what exactly was meant by that terminology. Did it mean winning people to Christ or planting churches? If it did mean planting churches, what would these churches believe and how would they operate? Nathan Finn, an apt and astute scholar in his own right, believes it means to be the missional people God created us to be. Okay, what does it mean to be a missional people? I have read that to me missional, we must be incarnational. How is that played out in the real world as we are winning people to Christ? There seems to be a lot of terms used in defining the GCR, but after reading what others think it is and listening to still others explain to me me what they think the GCR is, it is not a stretch to say that there are competing ideas at play.
One thing that I noticed missing (though not totally absent) in explaining the GCR was the lack of using the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) itself as the defining parameter. I can’t say as to why this scripture has seemingly been ignored (again, not totally), but I wonder if it has to do with what it says. Namely that as we are going, we are to make disciples by baptizing and teaching disciples all that Christ had commanded. The little word “all” kills the idea that baptism and the Lord’s supper are some how “tertiary.” One excellent article I did find, even though it is not directly linked to the phraseology of GCR, was Dr. Yarnell’s White Paper, The Heart of a Baptist.
Now someone might argue that the Great Commission encompasses more than just Matt 28:18-20. In fact it encompasses the entire Bible. With that I do agree. In the revelation of the New Testament, we see that “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” But there is a strong foundation that is laid in the Great Commission that is our compass in defining what the church is to do and more specifically, how to do it. It is the last recorded command of Jesus to his band of followers (along with Acts 1:8) before he ascended to His Father. It should carry a significant load of weight in defining the GCR not only theologically, but practically as it is lived out in the lives of those who call themselves followers of Jesus.
I am going to leave this post specifically open to the following questions. It is not my desire to start defining my understanding of the GCR, but this post is to get us thinking as to what exactly is the GCR and how it should be played out in our churches and our convention.
So, what do you think the GCR is? How should it be defined and practically carried out by Southern Baptists?
Robin,
This is very strange indeed….almost frightening. I posted on the GRC just this morning, and here you are posting on it as well. And, more than that, we are saying some things very similar. This is indeed troubling….especially to you. I mean, Brother, to be that similar to me might cause you to be looked upon with suspicion in many circles!
David
Ps. Good post!
Robin,
Good thoughts. I think the inherent danger with how the GCR is being used at this point is that we will seek an evangelistic strategy that is void of theological integrity. In other words, we will seek to “make disciples” without “teaching ALL that Christ has commanded.” The ecumenical drift that is ebbing seeks to define important doctrines over and against unimportant doctrines. This is a fundamental reinterpretation of the Great Commission saying “Make disciples, teaching them only the important things that I have commanded.” I thought it was ALL important.
Robin,
Thank you for stating the Great Commission as Matt. 28:18-20. I have read so many people state it as only verses 19-20 and that is a pet peeve of mine. If verse 18 isn’t operative, then 19 and 20 ain’t gonna happen.
Les
Robin,
I am afraid that the term Great Commission Resurgance might be lost on some. It could be construed as Phase II of the Conservative Resurgance to be followed by whatever phase or “resurgance” is next. It almost smacks as an honorarium to the CR #1 and it may repell some who might otherwise participate wholeheartedly. Having said that, I am all in favor of lifting up the King of Kings and our mission statement found in Matthew 28:18-20. The topic is grand, the name may be too much of a play on endearing terms.
John Mann,
I would like for you to define who you are against at this point. Dr. Danny Akin? Dr. David Dockery? Who is using GCR language that “will seek an evangelistic strategy that is void of theological integrity.” I am not even saying that you are wrong. I would just really like to see who you are talking about. Specific people used GCR language at the Convention. Will you specifically engage their positions so that we can be aware of “fundamental reinterpretations of the Great Commission” instead of being left in the dark as to who is getting it right and who is getting it wrong?
Again, I am not saying that you are altogether wrong here, mostly because I am not certain as to what you are talking about. I am just confused because it seemed like the GCR language was a unifying force at the Convention from establishment conservatives. Is this yet another example of how the Southwestern crowd is not entirely happy unless EVERYTHING has a Baptist Identity stamp all over it? Does this type of thinking continue to show the rift between you guys and the great middle of the SBC that is trying to move forward?
Maybe not. But, I am just trying to figure out why you are critiquing the move toward a GCR. Didn’t the Conservative Resurgence define what baptist distinctives are? Isn’t that why we had the BFM 2000, the theological capstone of the CR?
Alan
Really, I do like you. In fact, I will go as far as saying that we here at SBC Today enjoy commenting with you and consider you one of our valuable readers. But you have sited something that is not provable, nor does any rational thinking person believe it is true. Could you please show proof from this statement you made: “Is this yet another example of how the Southwestern crowd is not entirely happy unless EVERYTHING has a Baptist Identity stamp all over it?”
Please site specific incidences where the “Southwestern crowd” has not been entirely happy. Please directly link it to Southwestern and who specifically this Southwestern crowd is.
If you cannot, then please offer some of your ideas as to what the GCR is? This is what the thrust of the post is about.
John stated some fears as to what and where some may be moving the GCR. He did not state the names of the men you mentioned and by linking them to his statement is unfair. Frankly, it is dirty pool. John in no way was linking those men you mentioned to the ecumenical push of some.
Good article Robin,
Potentially the GCR is a pretext or subjective few of establishment leadership that the SBC is in jeopardy, once again, of loosing its doctrinal moorings that have been defined as Baptist Identity.
Danny Akin said…..“I believe Southern Baptists are facing a similar scenario a little more than 20 years later,” …….“I am convinced in this new day and context we need men with a vision for what can be called ‘A Great Commission Resurgence.’ Building on the ‘Conservative Resurgence,’ we need a new passion and commitment to the final marching orders of the Lord Jesus.”
………..“There is room enough in our denomination for all of us who can agree on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and who have a heart to see the gospel go to all the nations.”
…………“We may not agree on everything, but we agree on more than enough to work together for our Lord Jesus in fulfilling the Great Commission. So, will we live or will we die? Will we come together for life or fracture apart in death? I make my choice for life. It is my hope and my prayer that you will join me. That’s what our seminary is about.”
The GCR may be better defined as what Christ commanded in the commissions found throughout the gospels. It appears to me that as Christ led his disciples, . he was leading them into worship, and then what came out of this worship was an understanding of the call to obedience by the power of the Holy Spirit
Matthew 28:16-18 “But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. (17) When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. (18) And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”
Christ’s commands came as they worshipped and were indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God for the mission.
Luke 24:44-49 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (45) Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, (46) and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, (47) and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (48) “You are witnesses of these things. (49) “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
John 20:20-22 “And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (21) So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” (22) And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
My hope is that the meaning of the GCR is that Christ would once again be placed, honored and worshipped as the head of His church. That comes by leading the flock into unhindered worship bathed in the glorious gospel, with pastors and teachers that know what it is to preach and teach the gospel. The commission only flows from that instrumental foundation.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris
I believe you have some great insights. I would only reverse the order. I believe our worship comes out of our doctrine. I don’t know if the text you sight has Jesus leading the disciples to worship, but while some were doubtful, those that worshiped, worshiped with a correct understanding (doctrine) of who Jesus is. It is a correct understanding and personal acceptance of who Jesus is, the Savior, that leads people to worship him initially in salvation.
Yes, worship is vital and having Jesus at its center is of utmost importance, but that understanding of worship grows out of a correct belief (doctrine).
I hope we are not splitting hairs. I don’t have many left. :-)
One would think that defining a Great Commission Resurgence (GRC), based on Matthew 28:18-20, should not be hard for Southern Baptists to do. Sadly it appears that is not going to be the case.
For me, and granted, I’m no intellectual giant, the commission we received from the Lord is very clear – on the bases of who Jesus is, and on the strength of His authority we are to “make disciples of all nations.” The verb “make disciples” is the only imperative in the statement. The words “go,” “baptize,” and “teach” are all participles relating to the imperative verb.
Craig Blomberg writes: “The verb ‘make disciples’ also commands a kind of evangelism that does not stop after someone makes a profession of faith. The truly subordinate participles in v. 19 explain what making disciples involves: “baptizing” them and “teaching” them obedience to all of Jesus’ commandments,” (NAC, vol. 22 page 431). D. A. Carson further clarifies this by noting: “… baptizing and teaching are not the means of making disciples, but they characterize it … The response of discipleship is baptism and instruction,” (EBC, vol. 8 page 597, emphases his)
This is, I think, what John Mann is saying. The GCR must be more than the modern idea of evangelism (“in the building, down the aisle, in the water”) if it is to be biblical. The GCR must focus on the commission itself (“make disciples”) AND on what that commission involves (“baptizing them” and “teaching them to obey”).
This is why I believe that it is important that our churches return to a solid discipleship ministry (whether you call it Training Union, Church Training or whatever). In my early years even in our children and youth classes and especially our adult classes, we taught church history, Bible, theology/ doctrine, ethics and church polity. Today it seems we are more concerned with the next 12 step to a better life program. In the mean time we just let people believe whatever, even to dividing our Lord’s words (“built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone” – Eph. 2:20) between important and unimportant (i.e., “less important”) and our covenanted communities of faith become fractured between competing self-interest groups.
I applaud the growing emphases on a Great Commission Resurgence so long as it involves more than just getting more people down the aisle and into the water.
Grace,
Wes
Brother Robin,
Actually I don’t think it is splitting hairs (or hair). Our worship is informed by the Spirit of God and subsequently drives us to rightly divide the word of truth leading to right doctrine. The church is birthed, lives and worships because of the power of the gospel.
I’ll go out on a limb here…. But I believe it is impossible to know right doctrine without the Spirit of God making us alive to know (the point of Jesus in the gospel commissions). It is no secret that right doctrine will lead our sinful hearts to unhindered worship. Yet the order is clear. The Spirit sanctifies us to know right doctrine. We do not sanctify ourselves or bring ourselves into worship without the “initial” and “sustaining movement” and work of the Spirit of God.
So, I think your right to say that right doctrine can lead to a worship that is unhindered, but we worship what we know.
John 4:21-24 Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. (22) “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. (23) “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. (24) “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
I do wholehearted agree with you that our worship is sustained by God’s word.
Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
My dear brother – you always bless me with your insight. Sometimes it seems you have an extra eye for the details others of us may miss.
Certainly worship is of vital importance to the life of the church – and the believer. Surely our Lord is worthy of all the worship our puny flesh could put forth. However, “making disciples” is in itself an act of worship, is it not? Even baptizing them and teaching them to obey is an act of worship toward the one who is all authority and power. We are to present our bodies “as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your [our] spiritual worship.” (Rom. 12:1). Worship is not just singing and praying – it is witnessing and obeying too. After all, can we truly worship the King if we neglect His command to go and make disciples of the nations?
Somehow I can’t help but believe this is your heart too – this is just your way of reminding us of “why” we “make disciples.” This is a very valuable lesson itself.
Grace,
Wes
Brother Wes,
Yes, Yes…. And I know that is Robin’s heart as well! But, I can’t help but understand were it not for the great miracle of hearing and seeing… I would be self obtained, blind and deaf. Yet there is the beauty of the true Israel, they see and hear. And at the very moment of life, I will know and worship the King of Kings. I must not forget that amazing commissioning truth, even as I begin to prepare and run with patience and endurance the race set before me, I must never lose sight of Him…because He is ever before me!
Hebrews 12:1-3 “ Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (2) fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (3) For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.”
After all, I will not only see and hear now in this life….but I am sustained throughout all eternity by the majesty of Christ and will worship Him forever (doctrine is made so much clearer when I fix my eyes on Him, …. assured to see him face to face).
Blessings,
Chris
Robin,
I like you too. I really mean that. I disagree on some issues with you, Wes, and Tim, but I think that we have been able to maintain a good personal relationship through all of this. Brothers in Christ should do no less and I thank you for your part in keeping it going. I hope to do the same.
I wasn’t trying to play dirty pool. It never entered my mind. I saw John Mann connect the GCR with the ecumenical movement that he has written against and I am trying to figure out why he would do that. The people that spoke about a GCR were Dr. Akin, Dr. Dockery, and some others at the Convention that are highly respected. Why would anyone even think that a GCR has anything to do with the negative ecumenism that John Mann is warning us against? If he is not talking about the aforementioned men, then who is he talking about? They are the ones who are promoting a GCR. I do not see it coming from any other source. Therefore, I do not feel that I artificially created a link. It is the only link available unless he tells me that he had someone else in mind. I can think of no one.
There is a burgeoning theological perspective that is developing at SWBTS. We all see it. It has been called “Baptist Identity” by more than a few. You even define yourself by that on this website. White papers pour out of SWBTS’ theological center promoting this view. The perspective that I have seen is that the Baptist Identity movement that seems to have a locus at Southwestern, is trying to “restore” the SBC to their view of what being a Baptist is. They do not seem to be satisfied with things in the SBC until it leans in a Baptist Identity direction. That observation is neutral. It is like saying that the Calvinistic movement in the SBC flows out of Southern and the Founders Ministries.
The issues regarding define the thrust of our disagreement over the past 2 years. The Baptist Identity group that controls the IMB BoT and SWBTS is not happy unless their view on baptism and ppl is enforced. There is no middle ground. There is not room for disagreement or compromise. Thus, they are not happy unless they get their way on these issues (I am not speaking to their emotional state – I am referring to their public disposition on the issue). Apparently, there are other issues that keep emerging that have yet to be thoroughly defined. My question, Robin, goes to the heart of our debate over the past couple of years. I asked if the Baptist Identity crowd that finds its home at SWBTS, among other places (Mid-America), will see the GCR as something to fret over unless it clearly reflects the image of Baptist life that they are trying to portray. Will there be an attempt to define it as such, and if it does not fit the BI definition of what a good baptist is, then will it be rejected as a dangerous ecumenism? I think that my question is pertinent to discovering what a GCR is in people’s minds, primarily the authors of this website who began the discussion in which we are now engaged.
Please forgive me as I have not read all the comments, but to answer the original question I see the GCR as a push by churches, to go to the unreached peoples of the world.
It seems that in Matt. 28:19 the active verb is “make disciples”. Among who? The ethnos or nations. Teach, yes; Baptize, of course. But we first have to go to the ethnos to begin making those disciples. It is not something we can turn over to the IMB to do on our behalf.
The numbers as to how many UPG’s have no gospel witness rise as high as 10,000 people groups ( Depends on what numbers you listen to). These are people who (to Quote Bruce Ashford) “could walk for days and weeks and never find a Christian who they can speak with”.
95% of the worlds pastors are right here in America seeking to reach 5% of the world’s population. Some have estimated that we as American churches only spend about .03% of our money to reach the over 1.6 billion with no access to the gospel. That of course includes all “Christians”.
I guess in my opinion, and it is simply an opinion, a GCR involves churches beginning to go to the ethnos making disciples. I appreciate the IMB but the task was given to the churches and a GCR would involve us in the churches having a complete missions strategy that included the world in addition to our neighborhoods. Again, just my opinion.
Alan,
Just to be sure: I don’t think anybody would argue that we do not need a Great Commission Resurgence. Those of us who are advocating so-called Baptist Identity are only asking that when we pursue this Great Commission Resurgence, we do so with an intentional effort to “teach ALL things which Christ commanded” and not relegate every doctrine that divides to a secondary and tertiary status.
Brother Chris,
“… looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith,” Heb. 12:2a
“And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” Col. 1:18
“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Mat. 28:18
“”I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Rev. 1:8
There is no question as to the place of Jesus in the life of the believer, the church or eternity. It is He who gives us life and secures our eternity. He alone is the source and object of our worship, our strength and our victory. There is no debate on this. Not from me, anyway.
Without the saving grace of Christ there is no knowledge of truth, no service of love, no endurance of hope. This is why the commission for disciple making rests solely on the authority of the Lord Jesus Himself. As we know, authority is not only the right but also the power to act. The work of making disciples is His work that He has chosen to accomplish through you and me. Thus in our obedience to the great commission, it is Christ working in us to accomplish His command.
Php. 2:13: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
The more we see of the glory of our Lord, the more we will strive to please Him. Jesus is everything and His worship is our highest ambition (2 Cor. 5:9). That desire compels us to obedience in all things. For me, I can’t separate “worship” from “service.” Jesus makes this very clear: “”If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:9). If we are truly focused on Jesus, it is reflected in our obedience in making disciples (and every other command He gives).
Grace,
Wes
Robin,
I don’t really have much of an appetite for “reinventing wheels” right now. But, the whole question you are posing here was treated in great detail in the blog dialogue in which I participated with Dr. Yarnell back several months ago.
Perhaps some of the readers who are not aware of this, or who are relatively new to the blogs, might want to check this out. The initial post, which includes links to all the 19 letters we ended up exchanging back and forth, can be found here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/06/dialogue-between-david-rogers-and.html
In any case, at the risk of coming across as self-absorbed, I will openly confess to being among the writers in the “Baptist blogosphere” who have given the most emphasis to Christian unity, in relation to the Great Commission, in the past several years.
I will leave it up to people like Dr. Akin, Dr. Dockery, Dr. Finn, Dr. Ashford, and Dr. Nelson to define exactly what they mean by “Great Commission Resurgence.” But is it possible, as part of the context of what you are writing here, you have in mind some of the things I have written in this regard? If this is so, I will be happy to respond to any specific allegations. If not, you can count me in with those who are advocating a Great Commission Resurgence. And, I am thrilled with the new winds of unity in regard to our mutual commitment toward the Great Commission that appear to be blowing across the Convention. I would hope we could all agree to agree on this one.
Brother Wes,
Great stuff!
Blessings,…and I hope your wife is doing well!
-Chris
David
You are correct, this was treated in detail with you and Dr. Yarnell. The problem I have with your view point is where it ultimately leads, your acceptance is a person whose baptism was done in a cult. I hate do rehash this, but it was your comment on Tim Rogers blog that really schocked and surprised me. You can candy coat that statement all you want, but I seriously doubt that the men you mentioned would agree with you.
I hope you can understand my concern with your acceptance of a believer as a church member whose baptism was done in a Mormon assembly. But I believe this is what ultimately happens when one errs in believing the church has no authority or role relegating baptism. The last time I brought this up it seems you got upset and said I misquoted you.I honestly don’t believe I did. You said it would be a rare occurance if this happened, but if it happened once, that would be one time too many.
I am looking forward to seeing what will be produced by the men you mentioned. But what about other men like Drs. Patterson, Mohler, Yarnell, Stan Moore, Russell Moore, Bart Barber. Are they not allowed a voice in this GCR?
So, I am back to the thrust of my post. What will this GCR look like?
Robin,
Okay. So everything else I have ever said is now judged and disqualified on the basis of the “Mormon baptism” ordeal? Is that what you are saying? By the way, I never said anything about a “Mormon assembly.” If you cannot understand what I am saying, it is best you quit repeating it, and misquoting me.
Also, I never said anything about anyone not having a voice. Where the rubber meets the road on this, though, is when someone raises an objection because someone else says they should not have a voice. And then, you say the person who raises the objection is trying to not let the other person have a voice. If the “voice” you insist on having is the voice of exclusion, then it becomes difficult to walk together with those you are excluding, and for those you are excluding to walk together with you.
Having said that, I believe we must exclude, in one way or another, at some point along the road. In the Body of Christ, though, we must accept all those who are truly our brothers and sisters (Romans 14:1; 15:7). In the SBC, we can set the parameters a bit more narrowly, as long as we don’t treat the SBC as if it were, in and of itself, the Body of Christ.
David
You are correct in that you never said Mormon assembly. That is my wording. I have decided not to use the word Mormon in conjunction with church since I believe that the term should only be used in reference to those who are called of God.
I am sorry if you feel I am incapable of understanding what you said and that you feel I have misquoted you. The bottom line is that you would accept a person who became a believer in the past and was baptized in a Mormon church (your term) therby recognizing that baptism as valid for membership.
I also never said that you wanted to exclude anyone. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I just wanted to know if those men I mentioned could have a voice along with the men you mentioned.
So David, can they?
if the GCR is the new buzz then what exactly are we saying about our ministry and proclamation as of late? what in hell (play on words) have we been doing and proclaiming? has our activities been void of the Great Commission? have we been up to things other than the Great Commission?
we can’t say, “oh…well…no…” and then talk about a RESURGANCE of the Great Commission in the SBC…
in my ever insightful and humble opinion…I believe we do desperately need a true GCR…seeker sensitivity and fundamentalism have been caused tremendous damage and confusion regarding our proclamation and ministry…so I’m all for a GCR…but I’m also honest enough to call for corporate repentance regarding the diluted, unclear and/or irrelevant proclamation of the message we are Commissioned to preach.
Robin,
I believe I said “baptized by a Mormon” and possibly “baptized in a Mormon church building,” which, for me, is different than “baptized in a Mormon church.” I believe I did state clearly that any baptism in which the person being baptized is identifying with and/or giving assent to the Mormon system of belief is invalid.
In any case, the individuals you mention can and undoubtedly will have a voice in the SBC, and in whatever “GCR” comes about, Lord willing, in the coming years. However, whenever any one of them, or anyone else, comes out saying that people who believe like I do should not have a voice, or should be eliminated from denominational service, I will reserve the right to protest against that.
Brother Robin,
You asked again, “So, I am back to the thrust of my post. What will this GCR look like?”
I think that trying to speak about the “Great Commission Resurgence” without first emphasizing “ends focused preaching/teaching” is like trying to teach the Doctrine of the Sovereign Election of God without first teaching the Total Inability of man.
I believe it all starts with the teaching of the Word as some have pointed out. There is very little spoken in the pulpits about the end of it all and the means to get to that end. Oh, there is a lot of talk about heaven, but it is mostly centered on man and how nice it will be to get there and is not centered on God. I believe the reason that we are saved is so that we can glorify God by spreading the good news about His grace that was given to sinful men from every tribe, tongue and nation so that He can further glorify Himself by calling His own to Himself. We were not called so that we could dress up on Sunday morning and feel good about our own salvation.
I know that there are some pastors who are doing a fine job, but there are some who are solely driven to have the biggest and nicest local church on the block.
I know that this is not a “quick fix”, but I believe it is ultimately the way to get the Great Commission done. If we ask ourselves, “What is the purpose of the Great Commission”, I believe we will find the answer in the words of the Apostle Peter:
Just my 0.02. Of course, I could just be reading too much Edwards.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
As I understand the term Great Commission Resurgence, it is simply saying that, now that we have, for the most part, settled the crucial doctrinal questions among us that threatened to undermine what we have been attempting to do, let’s get on with the task that joins us together: that of making disciples, both at home, and among the nations. I don’t think we need to make it any more complicated than that.
Robin,
You used some harsh words in comment #6 when you said that “no rational thinking person” would come to the conclusion that I came to and also when you told me frankly that I was playing dirty pool. I responded to you in comment #13 and, even though you responded twice after that, you never dealt with my comment. Perhaps you missed it.
I would appreciate a response, if it is possible. Again, my response to you was in comment #13.
Brother Alan,
I am not trying to answer for Brother Robin, but after reading your last comment I went back and would like to give it a shot. I know that Brother Robin is perfectly capable of answering for himself (if he ever gets his tongue off of that lollipop) so in the meantime this is my take on your question.
For me, the concern I have about floating around an idea of GCR has to do with definition. During the Conservative Resurgence, some call a Conservative Takeover, there was a clear issue that was advanced–the inerrancy of Scripture. It was argued that some did not believe that the Bible was without error and that correction needed to be changed. It was identified that leaders in our seminaries and other entities clearly advocated that the scripture could hold errors and in fact did. There were numerous publications out of the BSSB where those writing lessons advocated the scripture contained error. (Of course now we are dealing with writers that do not have theological degrees writing Sunday school lessons, but that is for another post.) The CR was announced as such and it was advanced with clear objectives in order to accomplish.
By those who spoke at the convention and in leadership position using the term “Great Commission Resurgence”, it leads one to ask questions. What does Great Commission Resurgence mean? Are these who advocate a GCR mean that leaders in our convention do not believe in the Great Commission? Does one mean we have preachers that do not believe in the Great Commission? What are the clear objectives sought in a GCR? We say we have won the ‘battle for the Bible’ (something, BTW, I disagree with) how will we know when the GCR will be completed?
What it appears, is the ones using the term GCR are using a ‘buzz word’ that means something else. No one knows precisely what it means because it is so generic that it one could apply thousands of definitions to the term. That is all I am concerned with in this entire debate. What does it mean to launch a Great Commission Resurgence?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Robin originally asked: “So, what do you think the GCR is? How should it be defined and practically carried out by Southern Baptists?” This was the question that I tried to answer. I thought Robin was asking our opinion as regards to what “we” personally believed about the “GCR”.
To answer your questions, it would probably behoove you to find the author(s) of the “buzz word” and ask him/her. This is the only way that we can know what is meant by the term as used in the context of the SBC “leadership”.
When you get those answers, I would spend my dime to read about it.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Brother AB,
Certainly I would like to have the authors of the GCR to answer this question. However, it seems that those using this term are not clearly defining the term. It seems they are leaving it open for definition. As you have said, you have done a great job defining what you think it means. There were 7000 + messengers at the convention. Do you really believe all 7000+ has the same definition that you have for this term?
I was trying to answer Brother Alan’s concern that he raised in question #13 as to the purpose of Brother John Mann connecting the GCR to open ecumenalism. Until this term is defined, and the rational for a need for a GCR then it is open to be defined and motives questioned. I mean I hear at the convention that we have record #’s of M’s and we have record #’s of financial giving, and we have over 600,000 baptisms and I cannot remember the number of church plants. Now we need a GCR. It seems we are doing the GC and I would never negate the fact that we could do better. But to have a GCR means that we have lulled ourselves into believing all is well when all is not well. Now, if GCR means more church plants here in the US, and more churches baptizing more people, and more people sharing their faith locally. That would be more of a Personal Evangelism Resurgence.
I am merely trying to say that we need these leaders to define the terms instead of just throwing them out there for sound bites. One example is Dr. Dockery. He has held conferences called “Baptist Identity Conferences”. In those conferences he has tried to define who we are as Baptist. Those are good conferences because it clearly defines who we are, the need for the conference and how we can address the issues seen lacking in Baptist life.
Blessings,
Tim
Alan
I am sorry, I cannot answer your question because you are asking me to answer for what other people will do. I do appreciate you considering my opinion on this, but it would be impossible for me to answer on their behalf.
Alan
Allow me to point this back to the thrust of my post. What are you asking us to accept as a definition of a GCR?
In terms of us joining with other groups, other denominations to do evangelism and such, I have a little illustration and comment that I’d like to see someone respond to.
I went to charismatic/pentecostal type church one time…in the town I used to live in…to their revival meeting; and I had a Preacher tell me how I was gonna do this, and God was gonna use me to do that, and God was gonna use me to unite all the churches in that town, etc. I guess we would have stoned him in OT times, because none of what he said ever came true. Now, he knew that I was the Baptist Pastor in that town. I showed up to show Christian love and support. I had to sit thru a solid hour of singing….then, another hour and fifteen minutes of his preaching…and then, they had this word of knowledge session that went on for another 30 to 45 minutes….and then, they were gonna have a healing session after that. I left before that fiasco began, especially after the preacher pointed to me and gave me his words of knowledge for me. But, if yall think that we can join with groups like this to do evangelism and missions…well, I dont think so.
My experience has been…almost always has been…that the Charismatic/Pentecostal type crowds talk a lot about tearing down denominational walls and all the denominations joining together because they want everyone to be “filled with the Holy Ghost and give evidence with the speaking in tongues.” Also, just about every Methodist, or Presbyterian Church leader that talks about joining together for whatever…is because their Church is small and dying, and they cant do some of the things they want to do without the money and the manpower of the Baptist Churches. Thus, they’d love for us to join with them, because they cant do it. They want us to pour our money and our labor into their “missions.”
David
John…Mann, is it?
;-)
I enjoyed meeting you in Indy and thoroughly enjoy your posts and comments here.
I am left to wonder if, since Alan so ‘emphatically’ dismissed your concerns by claiming you to be on a witch-hunt regarding those entity heads with whom he finds greatest commonality, we will ever hear a clearly articulated definition and purpose for the ‘GCR’ as labeled. My fear is that the ecumenical clothing so blatantly asserted prior to this year’s convention was far too stark for anyone of solid biblical conviction to agree to put on…so…now that mindset–as has been articulated by the likes of Drs. Akin & Dockery (I will admit my skepticism and fears here, Alan)–chooses to attempt to soften their wardrobe by more acceptable attire to the greater audience of Southern Baptists.
I fully concur that we as Southern Baptists need a resurgent commitment to the carrying out of the Great Commission our Lord has given to us. I fully assert that that Commission cannot be so emaciated as to only mean sharing the Gospel and wide-open acceptance of paedo/credo immer-sprinkled baptisms. I, too, believe that teaching to observe ALL things our Lord has stated in the Scripture is quite central to a true Great Commission Resurgence for our churches throughout our convention.
Now, before the salvo opens of accusations that I desire to be fully uncooperative with other brothers and sisters of various denominational affiliations for the sake of the Gospel…hold it right there! I have been cooperative in the past with various ministerial alliances in community evangelism, etc. I will gladly support a solid area or city-wide crusade here in KC which proclaims the Good News yet does not require me to sign the ecumenical (or was that ‘evangelical’?) manifesto. I also will not help build, with CP funds, a Presbyterian or Assemblies of God church here in KC…Missouri…Oklahoma…or Spain!
In other words, I believe that your concerns, John, have not even begun to be adequately addressed in this comment thread nor in the greater context coming out of this years convention meeting.
SOLA GRATIA!
Brother David,
According to some statistics gatherers, giving among various groups has typically been on the decline when comparing denominations or conventions across the board. It is interesting to see “giving” trends where the SBC, Methodist, and PCA always lag behind the Assemblies of God almost 2 to 1 in percentage point giving per member on average. I’m not really sure is there is any wisdom to be gained from the numbers, except that it has been said that the Assemblies teach the tithe more often than the others.
I’m not sure if the PCA or Methodist are jealous of the SBC’s money, but they are probably in debt like many of the SBC affiliated churches, …debt can be an excessive burden on a congregation and no doubt will confuse and stifle the view of GCR.
Blessings,
Chris
In recent weeks I’ve seen several references to GPS. I don’t know exactly what GPS is, but it is evidently not the same thing as GCR. I just went back over a number of news stories regarding the convention in Indianapolis but now I can’t locate the ones that were talking about GPS.
When I first saw all of the references to GPS I thought they were talking about “global positioning system”. However, it must be something else since it is some type of “program” being proposed by the SBC. I wonder what GPS is and how (or if) it relates to GCR.
You need to have a scorecard to keep this stuff straight.
Roger Simpson OKC
Alan,
We who are espousing a Baptist Identity are not doing so because we love the moniker “baptist,” but because we believe that a true Baptist Identity is the closest to the theological integrity that has been sacrificed by most denominations. What led to the Episcopal woes? Why did the PCUSA split? Why are the United Methodists struggling with the homosexual issue? In every case it is because of a loss of theological integrity at some degree. Specifically, it is because in some area of doctrine the “reason of men” trumped the “revelation of God.” In other words, they did that which seemed right in their own eyes. Their confession of “Jesus is Lord” was sacrificed for “cultural relevance and acceptance.” Will I help to advance a denomination that endorses homosexual priests, or promotes a works based salvation, or teaches that the Bible is an incomplete revelation of God that demands a second baptism of the Spirit for a fuller revelation? Absolutely not.
You ask me where this is occuring? I will offer only three instances that our theology is weakening, though I see many others.
Before I offer these three instances, I will offer a word of clarification. I AM NOT SAYING that the three examples are equal to or on par with the homosexual acceptance of the Episcopals or the PCUSA. I AM SAYING our doctrine is weakening today to the point that cultural acceptance is becoming the driving force behind evangelistic practice. The question we must ask ourselves is, “how far will we go to gain the acceptance of the culture?” The more liberal denominations have left the true faith because of cultural outcries of intolerance and condemnation. Shall we do the same? The point is, when we sell out doctrinal fidelity for the sake of cultural acceptance we will find ourselves on an Autobahn whose destination is apostacy and we will inevitably find ourselves in a state of panic when we discover we have no convictions left with which to brake ourselves along this speedway.
Examples of a loss of doctrinal conviction:
1). Our Baptist forefathers gave their very lives for a proper understanding of baptism as it relates to ecclesiology, and now, the IMB trustees have become public enemy number one because they expect our missionaries to maintain those same standards by policy. Why? Because other missions sending organizations think we are wrong.
2). One of the cherished Baptist principles is the sufficiency of Scripture. By its very nature the charismatic movement believes that God has something to say that is not contained in Scripture because it can only be spoken in an unintelligible language. The practice of speaking in unintelligble tongues assumes that Scripture is insufficient and we are in need of a further word from God outside of Scripture to truly function as the People of God. That is nothing more than a neo-orthodox theology carried to its fullest. Once again, our IMB trustees are being set up as the fall-guys because they will not endorse the practice of unintelligible tongues.
3). In Indianapolis, we had a presidential candidate who was a hair’s breadth away from being a Presbyterian who was to be nominated by a charismatic.
The mantra of many today is, “quit majoring on the minors.” As has already been said, Jesus commanded us to teach ALL things he revealed. He taught on baptism. He taught on prayer. He taught on the church. He taught on proclamation. And now we are being told that these things are ‘minor’ so don’t worry about them. That is highly concerning.
The question of the hour is “how broad should our tent be?” Some say we need to broaden our tent and accuse those of us who hold to traditional baptist distinctives of wanting to narrow the tent. So, how broad should the tent be? Only as broad as the narrow way that Christ has called us to trod. In other words, a narrow road probably leads to a tent that is likewise.
PS– My apologies to SBC Today for the length of this comment.
Scott,
I enjoyed our time of fellowship as well. By God’s blessings we will not have to wait until Louisville to meet again.
John,
No apologies for such stellar Baptist apologetics!
:-)
SOLA GRATIA
John Mann,
I was very impressed by your first point (Our Baptist forefathers gave their very lives for a proper understanding of baptism as it relates to ecclesiology) though I’d appreciate you citing a few of those forefathers. It’s not something I’ve heard of in this context before.
On your second point I wonder whether you’d be wiser to refer to words of knowledge or wisdom as practised by some Pentecostals – glossalia is not really an issue to do with the sufficiency of Scripture, but the cessation or otherwise of the spiritual gifts.
Wow. I may be alone but I think Mr. Mann’s 3rd point crosses the line. I wonder if Les would agree to the characterization of being a hair’s breadth from being Presbyterian? I wonder also about the guilt by association inference of being nominated by a charismatic. Is Dwight McKissic somehow not Baptist enough for the SBC?
Maybe I’m wrong and I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t think I like the SBC you envision.
Bill,
So, we need to have Southern Baptists who want to convert all our pastors to be TBN charismatics to be a better Southern Baptist Convention for you?
Sola Gratia!
Bill,
I have assigned no guilt. These are camps that the two gentlemen have gone into on their own cognition. I do not think they would say they are guilty of anything, though one does have an affinity for Presbyterianism and the other has charismatic tendencies by their own profession. I have neither twisted nor manipulated their own statements. I have simply used what they have said to answer the question of evidence of ecumenism.
Hey John,
You’re the Mann!
David
John,
Would you be willing to lead your church to work together with Pastor McKissic’s church to reach your community for Christ?
Jake,
Absolutely, Cornerstone is a fine SB church. Do you know of some reason I shouldn’t?
Before we move any further from the thrust of my post let me say that I don’t believe Bro. Dwight, nor his church, Cornerstone Baptist Church, to be charismatic. I have preached from his pulpit a couple of times and I have not noticed any charismatic incidences occurring from either Bro. Dwight or one of Cornerstone’s church members. While one may pray privately in what they term as tongues, I don’t believe that alone opens them up to the label of Charismatic. If that was the case, we would have a Charismatic president of the IMB.
Concerning working with Cornerstone, I would consider it an honor and privilege to work with such a fine group of people. They love the Lord and give of themselves sacrificially. If anyone ever gets the opportunity to worship with them or work with them, they would be blessed beyond measure.
I have done more research and I’m answering my own question. GPS means “God’s Plan for Sharing”. It was the movement introduced by the North American Mission Board at the convention last week. The quote below is taken directly from the NAMB website”
—–
“Just imagine if every believer in North America started sharing the Gospel – and every person heard that Gospel by the year 2020,” Hammond said, referring to the launch of God’s Plan for Sharing, the new National Evangelism Initiative NAMB has designed in partnership with state convention partners.
—–
I think it must be the case that GPS is the subset of the GCR that relates to evangelism in the USA and Canada. Of course “evangelism” is only part of the great commission since the great commission also includes “teaching them to obey” as well as “baptism”. I don’t know if “baptism” falls under the rubric of “evangelism” or is separate.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
John,
No, I know of no reason why you shouldn’t work with them. I asked because when I hear talk of a GCR I think of us as Southern Baptists working together to do what it is Christ has commanded us to do. The way we snipe at each other on the blogs I just had to ask if we can even work together as Southern Baptists before we worry about working with those outside our convention.
David,
Thank you, my chicken-loving brother.
John Mann,
Regarding your point #1: Can you give me an example of one of our Baptist forefathers who gave their lives to defend the idea that someone who was immersed in a church that teaches you can lose your salvation, or who may also sprinkle, needs to be re-baptized?
Regarding your point #2: Are you saying that anyone who does not believe that the gift of tongues ceased with the close of the canon denies the sufficiency of Scripture and “cherished Baptist principles”?
Regarding your point #3: What Bill said in comment #40.
John Mann
I would just point out that I’m not David Rogers (have never met him) but I’m disappointed that he’s needed to repeat (in a more combative form) the question I asked (39. above).
I do think think that my question deserves a response before the one you gave to the Brother on comment 43 which is more like my daughter’s facebook conversations.
Scott Gordon,
You said, “I am left to wonder if, since Alan so ‘emphatically’ dismissed your concerns by claiming you to be on a witch-hunt regarding those entity heads with whom he finds greatest commonality”
When did I say that anyone was on a witch hunt? When did I dismiss anyone’s concerns? Deal truthfully with my statements, Scott. I even told John that he may be right about what he was saying. I just wanted clarification as to who he was talking about since the only people that I knew of that spoke of a GCR were people like Dr. Dockery and Dr. Akin and surely he did not think that they were awash in the ecumenism that he has been against.
I asked questions. That is all.
John,
Now I am understanding your position more clearly. Thank you. However, in my opinion, you are wrong on all three of your points.
Point #1: The IMB BoT has only a veiled concern over ecclesiology, security of the believer, or ppl. They show that in the fact that a likely majority of the 609,000 baptisms that they so readily claim were performed by national baptist partners that would not be qualified to serve as IMB missionaries under the current policies that we enact stateside. If they were to be consistent, they would stop claiming those numbers so that we could really see how effective those that hold their views really are. I will not hold my breath for that day.
Point #2: You are wrong about what speaking in tongues or private prayer langauge is. It has nothing to do with the sufficiency of Scripture. That is another matter entirely that is sometimes connected to ppl, but it does not necessarily mean the same thing. Charismatics believe that God leads, guides, and speaks apart from Scripture. So do probably 80% of all Baptists in America, maybe more. Actually, the Bible tells us that He does. It does not mean that Scripture is insufficient. I do not know anyone with a ppl who believes that they are are hearing from God on par with Scripture. Plus, believing in or having a ppl does not a charismatic make. Look it up. Charismatic theology requires a seperate baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues as the sign. Charismatics are those who either stayed in their denominations or they started independent churches. Pentecostals have an identical belief as charismatics when it comes to spirit baptism, yet they formed their own denominations like AG and the Church of God. A ppl can stand on its own apart from that and runs contradictory to no known baptist doctrine.
As for #3, Dwight McKissic is not a charismatic, nor is Les Puryear a paedobaptist or close to one. Just ask them. Thanks for your words, Robin.
John Mann,
Sir, I don’t know you and I know you don’t know me. Your caricature of me is about the most ignorant comment I’ve ever read on this blog. When you sit down and talk to me about my beliefs face to face, then perhaps your opinion will actually mean something.
Maybe you should start your own blog and put your own comments out there for everyone to shoot at instead of using other people’s blogs for slander and divisiveness.
Talk to my face instead of behind my back.
Scott: Say it plainly. Does Dwight McKissic want to convert all SBC pastors to TBN charismatics? If not, your question has no meaning.
I, for one, would like to speak out on behalf of the Presbyterians of whom brother John seems to disdain so.
If it were not for the Presbyterians, I would have no books in my library. Praise God for Presbyterians.
Of course, I have to qualify this by saying that I believe that they have covenant baptism of infants wrong.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Bill,
Plainly Dwight had the opportunity in his appearance on TBN to stand up to those with whom he appeared and declare that the issue of speaking in tongues (whether ‘privately’ or publically) to be ‘secondary’ or even ‘tertiary’ or not mandatory for all Christians or pastors…yet he went on to look into the camera to woo all his Southern Baptist pastor ‘friends’ to just ‘let go and let God’ take charge of your prayer life and receive this special blessing. PLAINLY he went along with the TBN crowd verses standing up for the autonomy of his Baptist brethren. I know many of my friends here will tell you that he is not as charismatic as the TBN crowd…if that be true I am entirely grateful…but he really did not convey that sentiment in that TBN appearance.
Alan,
I am glad you are asking questions of John. Forgive me for reading into them more than you intended. I am in the habit of doing so after having been led down too many paths where others were fishing for the ‘gotcha’ or refused to answer the point by the practice of the ‘artful dodger’ and redirecting the discussion away from dealing with the issue at hand. All I want is clarity on this “Great Commission Resurgence”…too many in the past have attempted to co-opt biblical language for a point of view which fell way short of the biblical standard.
SOLA GRATIA!
Brother AB,
I am not trying to defend Brother John, as you can tell from his article, he is capable of articulating accurate thoughts. I believe if you read his statement he is only stating as Baptist we are not Presbyterian.
Brother John,
As you know Brother Les did openly state in Oct. 2007 that he was studying and considering the validity in Presbyterian theology. While that may have been a crisis of belief in his life, I can personally attest that my conversations with him recently have revealed an understanding of Baptist theology.
Blessings,
Tim
I just got off the phone with Les. Because I knew that Dwight would not be able to respond to the comment made by John, I stepped in and clarified what I knew to be true about Dwight and his church.
In my mind I thought that if Les wanted his position defended, he would do it. I was wrong not to correctly clarify Les’ position also. As Les repeated to me tonight he is a Southern Baptist and will remain a Southern Baptist. He did some time ago explore some of the teachings of Presbyterianism, but came to the conclusion they were wrong. As Les told me over the phone, he is unashamedly a Southern Baptist. Again, I aplogize to Les for not making this more clear.
I just got off the phone with John Mann. He is able to receive email responses via his phone on this comment stream, but is unable to respond since he does not at this moment have Internet access.
John will respond tomorrow with an apology concerning his statement on Dwight and Les.
Bro. Tim,
I appreciate your assessment.
When one speaks (Post #36) in one paragraph about the PCUSA’s acceptance of flagrant, unrepentant sinners in the ministry and then claims that a brother was “a hair’s breadth away from being a Presbyterian” a few short paragraphs later in the same post, I can only assume that the descriptor “Presbyterian” is used in the pejorative.
Maybe I am should refrain from connecting the dots. Heck, I don’t even disagree with the thrust of Brother Mann’s point as wanting an clear identity. I just wish he would have clarified that Brother Les is a long way from being in line with the PCUSA.
People keep wanting Brother John to provide proof of his claim in post #36, item number 1. The only way that I can understand his claim is if he believes that we as Baptists claim as our “Fathers in the Faith” the Anabaptists. If he holds this heritage, then I would submit that the Anabaptists were called heretics and murdered for much more serious “offenses” than merely practicing believers baptism.
Sorry for the length of this one.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
Les,
I apologize for my statement of you being a hair’s breadth away from a Presbyterian. My reasoning behind that statement was your investigation of Presbyterianism that Robin and Tim referenced earlier. However, I should have traversed a different path and sought your own conclusions before I openly stated what I did.
I also apologize for calling Dwight a charismatic. Though I still am strongly opposed to the practice of a private prayer language, believe it is anti-biblical and is a result of ecumenism, it was improper of me to attribute the term ‘charismatic’ to a person based on that practice alone.
Finally, I apologize to Robin for derailing what was otherwise a substantive post. It has been my practice to avoid personalities and focus on the topics while I have ventured into this arena. Unfortunately, I followed bad judgment in this particular comment.
John,
You’re still the Mann!
With that, I am….
Your Chicken-loving Brother,
David
ABClay,
Please don’t miss this statement in comment 36–
“Before I offer these three instances, I will offer a word of clarification. I AM NOT SAYING that the three examples are equal to or on par with the homosexual acceptance of the Episcopals or the PCUSA.”
In regards to my comment 61, continuing this dialogue seems almost fruitless, but I would like to offer one point of clarification. I never said that we should not read nor benefit from Presbyterians. Neither did I say that I held them in disdain. I simply said we should not have one as president of the SBC. Praise the Lord we have never had one nominated.
ABClay, David, et al,
As to Baptist forefathers, whether you follow an Anabaptist origin or an English Separatist origin, you must agree that those who practiced believer’s baptism sacrificed greatly as they were held in ill-repute by the Magisterial Reformers, Anglicans, and Catholics alike.
All that aside, the question that still remains to be answered is with the Biblical teaching of baptism. Wanting to relegate that to the status of ‘unimportant’ is irressponsible, especially as it relates to the security of the believer. A view of the security of the believer in acceptable doctrine goes to the very core of who we are because it relates to the nature of the Cross. Either the Cross was sufficient for salvation and the Spirit is sufficient for security, or they are not. This is not just some ‘system of doctrine’ but is a confession of the adquacy of a Triune God to accomplish what we could not. In other words, believer’s baptism is essential because it tells us not only what we believe about the church, but it also demonstrates what we believe about the work of Christ. It pictures that we have either died to our sin that we might have eternal life. A view lacking in eternal security at best says we have died to ourself and been put on life-support, wherewith the plug could be pulled at any moment. That’s a view of an abundant/eternal life that I want to avoid. If baptism is a sign of salvation, let us struggle to make sure it is a sign of a proper understanding of salvation. I cannot help but think it is important.
David,
Let us love chicken together, my brother. If you will baptize them in the grease I will imbibe them at the table.
John,
Thank you. I acccept your apology.
Les
John Mann,
Neither I nor anyone else involved in the BI discussions, that I am aware of, are saying that either “believers baptism” or “the eternal security of the believer” are not important. I think they are vitally important, and I strongly embrace both in my personal beliefs and practice. And I agree many of the original Anabaptists were martyred for their defense of believers baptism.
But to leave it there, in my opinion, totally misses the point. No one is arguing that we should allow missionaries who don’t believe in believers baptism or eternal security, or we should make room for such people as denominational employees. What I (and others) are arguing for is an admission that the Body of Christ also includes people who are wrong about these important doctrines. And, even though they are wrong on these important doctrines, they are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should treat them as such. That includes recognizing the legitimacy of their churches and their baptisms, whenever their baptisms are done according to biblical standards (e.g. for adult believers who are truly repentant, and by immersion).
That I am aware, none of the early Anabaptists was martyred for claiming we should invalidate the baptism (immersion) of authentic adult believers as practiced by other groups of Christians.
Pingback: The Back Story to the Great Commission Resurgence « Provocations & Pantings