Why Do We Need A Great Commission Resurgence (GCR)?

Todd

You may be correct that Dr. Akin was the one who first used the term. I have not read his article, but will do so. Brother, with all due love and respect, please read carefully my statement. I said “one reason” for the GCR, not the “only reason.” From the date on the file, Dr Akin produced this in January. There has been a rising tide of supporters since that time with an acceleration of support coming after the release of the membership and baptism numbers. The thrust of my post is not about who could be referenced as to why and when this movement began.

Concerning the BF&M, I rejoice that you hold to the BF&M without reservation. Thank you for voting for its adoption. I like how you phrased your last line, so I will follow suit.

The question is, at the end of the day, if we limit our trustees to only the doctrinal issues contained in the BF&M, what happens to the tongues policy that has been enforced for over 30 years? Does it get dropped, or do we update the BF&M with an article on charismatic gifts? It has been argued that these new guidelines would be dropped, but the old policy would be kept. That line of reasoning undermines the trustee system because if we limit our trustees to only making policies concerning issues addressed in the BF&M then everything that is not contained in that document will be off limits. Plus, what about the abstract of principles used by Southern and Southeastern or the Articles of Religious Beliefs by New Orleans? Can the trustees make decisions based on those documents that may not be addressed in the BF&M? To narrow the trustees ability to oversee an institution is not wise and will ultimately fail.

Robin,

Thank you for your cordial response. I realize that you stated that statistics were only one of the reasons for GCR language. I’m sorry if I suggested otherwise. I would submit, however, that the dominant idea of GCR is not the ACP numbers, but the idea that we must move toward being a denomination of cooperating conservatives rather than continuing to fight about tertiary doctrinal issues.

By your question, I believe I can safely assume you are talking about the IMB personnel policy debate. These policies, however, are merely one case study (and perhaps a current battleground) of a larger issue. The larger issue is about whether we will continue to fight about doctrinal issues or work together. The issue is both larger than the IMB trustee issue and predates it. Before the IMB policies were adopted, Calvinism was the major front in this debate. In fact, Dr. Akin’s initial call for a Great Commission Resurgence was in the context of the debate over the place of Calvinists in the SBC, not the IMB policies. Likewise, Dockery’s new work, Consensus and Renewal, addresses the broader issue of cooperation and touches on a variety of issues. We can and should continue to discuss, dialog, and even debate these issues, but they should not be used to divide.

You’ll note that I did not mention the IMB policy issue in my comment. I noted a number of issues not addressed by these policies, which are equally divisive and, in my opinion, should not be. You are correct to infer, however, that I oppose those policies. Until recently, my objection was primarily on the Baptism policy, because I found the “eternal security” clause to be unnecessarily restrictive and not reflective of the practice of the SBC as a whole. In the interest of transparency, however, I will acknowledge that I have recently come to a position of opposing the PPL policy as well (though this, again, was not mentioned at all in my original comment). While I personally do not practice PPL nor do I think there is any Scriptural basis for it, I think that dividing on the issue is premature.

In my comment, I intentionally did not mention the PPL issue. The reason for not doing so is that many people focus primarily on PPL for not only the IMB trustee debate, but on the larger issue of cooperation as well. Your response, moving directly to the IMB policy on PPL, though neither PPL nor the IMB was mentioned, is an illustration of such a tendency. For me, this is not a single-issue debate and I do not wish the larger issue to be argued on the basis of PPL.

On your final question, I am not seeking any sort of rule that would limit the authority of the trustees in this manner. I do, however, believe that trustees have a responsibility to be better representatives of the consensus of the Convention than the IMB personnel policies reflect. Neither a non-allowance of PPL nor a requiring of immersed Arminians to be re-baptized is anywhere near a consensus of Southern Baptists. Thus, the IMB policies, in my opinion, are indeed an example of narrowing cooperation among conservative Baptists.

Blessings,
Todd

Dr. Welty,

All I’ve seen by many, many people in the blogs is that they want a clear definition of what the GCR is, and what does everyone who is using the term mean? I dont think anyone is trying to put down Dr. Akin, but just want to know exactly what this term means, and how are some people gonna use this….some people out there would like to see the CR be over with…are they gonna use this term to say that we dont need to stay on a sound, Bible centered, Baptist theology course? I believe that that is the concern of many in here like Robin, and John, and others…and me.

In fact, I dont think that Robin even mentioned Dr. Akin in this post…did he? And, if I remember right, there were many people who used the term at the SBC….thus leading to all the discussions on the blogs about the term “GCR.” It wasnt just Dr. Akin who used this term. It was a lot of people.

David

Man I hate smiley-translators. Retranslate accordingly. The quotes are from brother David. The smileys belong at the end of the previous line.

Todd and Greg,
Maybe we ought to realize that assuming can get people in trouble. In speaking with several people at the SBC in Indy, there is no general definition that is being accepted. It has become a buzz word. I think that both of you know how the whole one definition fits all thing does not work.

Granted you take the term and application back to Akin and SEBTS – you may be one or two of a few. Others are advocating the use and definition in another way.

Maybe some slack ought to be given and some consideration that there are more people in the discussion than these here?

Dr. Greg Welty nails it in comment #5. This type of “shadow boxing” goes on constantly and it is irresponsible. I asked a couple of questions yesterday about who John Mann was referring to with his ecumenical talk, since I actually KNOW that Dr. Akin and Dr. Dockery are the main proponents of this, and I am accused of playing dirty pool. If we would read what has been put out (go to BPNews and type in Great Commission Resurgence in the search function), then we would have a better understanding of what is being said and we can deal with facts instead of speculation. It is philosophically impossible to try and deal with the idea of the GCR without referencing Dr. Akin’s words, since he is the original proponent of it. If people are running in different directions from what he said, then deal with them from that perspective. Do not call the entire thing into question unless you are ready to take on Dr. Akin.

Robin,

Great to get to know you better in Indy. Also, I concur with the spirit of what you are driving at here. I too heard over and over again the “Great Commission Resurgence” from various speakers as well as hall-chat of the same.

To my recall, no one–and I mean no one–either spoke of GCR as being an Akin idea and consequently linking it to him, or attempted to define/describe it the way it was given at the BBC. I plan sometime in the future to offer some comments on it, as I hope to do many of the other papers. I’m unsure at this point, there is a ’standard’ definition, regardless of Dr. Akin’s coinage of the term.

As for the triplet of questions, Robin, that you placed in the comment to Dr. Welty, I personally think you are verbalizing what others have been reluctant to do. These questions are sobering and need to be thought out. Some of us perhaps were hindered in posing these questions simply out of fear of being tarred. After all, who could possibly be ‘anti’ Great Commission Resurgence?! But one could very easily be pooh poohed for raising the issue.

Thank you my brother for fearlessly laying out for us some of the serious questions that need sober consideration. I hope to hear more.

Grace. With that, I am…

Peter

[This comment shall be liberally sprinkled with invisible smileys, which you'll have to guess at, since I don't trust the smiley-translator on this blog.]

Tim G,

I made a pretty good effort at defining the term by referring to the paper that initially defined the term. You can’t get much better than that.

But if that definition is rejected on the grounds that “there is no general definition that is being accepted,” then what exactly was the purpose of the post? The title is: “Why Do We Need A Great Commission Resurgence (GCR)?” Is Robin ordinarily in the business of asking why we need God-knows-what? Is he really posing for us an important question about an undefined topic?

As a matter of fact, Robin does two things in this post: (i) claim that several reasons proposed for a GCR do not in fact warrant a GCR, and (ii) offer a reason of his own as to why “we need a GCR”. I don’t think he could do either (i) or (ii) if he didn’t already have a good grasp on what is a GCR. I mean, is he really saying, “The bottom line is that Jesus commanded us to make disciples. Therefore, we need a God-knows-what.”

You say: “Maybe some slack ought to be given and some consideration that there are more people in the discussion than these here?” No doubt. So again, what was the point of the post? “Different people mean different things by the GCR. In fact, there is no generally accepted definition! So let’s all consider this important issue: why do we actually need this whatever-it-is that different people define differently?”

Is that not a baffling way to get the ball rolling?

—

Robin,

Thanks so much for your reply. There’s certainly no need to ask for my forgiveness. You’ve done nothing wrong! I was just perplexed that you hadn’t availed yourself of the paper, that’s all. When I read the title of the post, my first thought was, “The question was already answered, wasn’t it?” No, neither I nor anyone else should expect you to keep up with everything out there. Your family comes first. But here I will offer some light-hearted advice: if you have time to write a blog post, you have time to research it.

No need to shower accolades on Akin in my presence. Patterson, Mohler, Akin et al: these guys are all giants, and we’re all in their debt immensely for so many things.

I didn’t think your purpose was “to criticize, condemn, or create division.” My point in #5 above was simply to point out that lack of specificity makes it very difficult for anyone to rationally assess your claims. Pointing you to Akin’s paper was intended to give you some specificity to work with in future posts. My point wasn’t that you’re creating division by naming names, but that you weren’t bothering to name names at all!

I can’t comment on the “general feel” you got at the Convention, but I will of course take your word for it.

I’m not very “knowledgeable to this movement.” It’s just that I happened to be at the Building Bridges conference when Akin gave the paper. That’s pretty much the extent of my knowledge!

I’m not really sure how to connect the dots from your original post, to the three questions that you ask me, nor even why you’re asking them of me, specifically. But I’m happy to oblige:

(1) I don’t believe the Camel method is wise. I’ve read all of Bart’s posts on it, and IIRC, I agreed with every post. Pragmatically, it may help generate an interest from Muslims that wouldn’t otherwise be there. But I don’t think that approach is worth it in the long term, because it communicates something about the Quran that I wouldn’t want communicated: that it’s a reliable historical source whose testimony should be trusted. It resembles too closely a bait-and-switch, once you get to inerrancy and the lordship of Christ. Jesus is not magnified when we seek to enhance his credibility through the testimony of false prophets. In our apologetics and evangelism, our starting point, method, and conclusion must be consistent with each other.

Beyond that, it’s difficult to answer whether a doctrine or method “should be part of the GCR movement.” The baseline is the BFM 2000, meaning, the *entirety* of the BFM 2000. I wouldn’t be comfortable with any GCR that saw negotiables in the BFM 2000. I’m sure you’re aware of my responses to Wade on this point in the past. But the whole point of saying, “We unite around the BFM, in spite of our differences on doctrines not addressed by the BFM,” is to allow liberty in these other doctrines. So *allowing* someone to hold a view (such as: the Camel method is legitimate) is certainly not the same thing as saying the view *should* be one that is held. The whole point is to create conceptual and practical space for disagreement. Akin’s point about Calvinist and non-Calvinist perspectives is a good illustration. No Calvinist is going to say that non-Calvinist perspectives *should* be part of any SBC-wide movement. They think non-Calvinism is false, and they wouldn’t mind at all if everyone were to be persuaded of Calvinism. What Calvinist is going to say, “Hey, you should be a non-Calvinist!” But can they abide by the fact that others with whom they minister aren’t Calvinists? They’d better, since the BFM around which they unite doesn’t specify either way!

I believe in respecting the decisions of the trustees at our various institutions, and relying on the procedures to address those decisions, that have been in place in the Convention from the beginning. Notice that this is a two-way street. If the IMB has in fact decided that the Camel method is wise, prudent, applicable, etc., then — despite the fact that I would never recommend the Camel method — I would not call for some sort of division or separation or revolt in or from the Convention. I would seek to persuade others by lawful, non-political means, according to the sphere of influence and opportunity given to me by the Lord, consistent with my other responsibilities and priorities, that the decision to promote the Camel method is to be regretted, and should eventually be reversed.

All that to say, on my view: (i) the Camel method is unwise, and (ii) the Camel method should be tolerated in SBC life until a future, revised BFM excludes it as a matter of doctrine, or the board of trustees of a relevant SBC entity precludes it as a matter of practice for our missionaries. Neither element of (ii) has occurred, has it?

Therefore, I believe in a GCR that supports the BFM and our trustees. I’m sure you do as well.

(2) I have *no* idea if the GCR even has a position on the IMB policies. I don’t think one was articulated in Akin’s paper, for instance: there is no substantive reference to either PPL or the IMB there.

Does the GCR need to take such a position? If so, why? I presume that’s what the GCR is getting at with its emphasis on the BFM. That’s the non-negotiable baseline, but beyond that, there’s freedom.

Is the idea here that we can’t be committed to the Great Commission together unless we personally agree on the IMB policies? Then I guess that counts me out, since (as I have said before on Bart’s blog and elsewhere), I personally disagree with the IMB policies. By that I simply mean that if I were a trustee I wouldn’t have voted for them. I’m not convinced by the extant arguments for the policies. But that disagreement comes with two *huge* caveats that I’d like to now make a big, red, blinking line around, since they make all the difference in the world. First, I’m not an IMB trustee. So I don’t have access to all the information they utilized in making that decision. Even in disagreeing, I need to remember that. Second, the trustees had the perfect right to make the decision they did, since they are exercising a prerogative in oversight of our missionaries that is theirs to exercise. Basic SBC history tells me this, as Emir Caner documented in his paper.

So, what do you do with a guy like me? I’m willing to work with those who agree with the IMB policies. I’m willing to work with those who don’t agree with them. But I’m not willing to engage in SBC cooperation with those who will not *follow* them, if that’s what you’re wondering.

Thus, if the guidelines create a problem at our local church level (sending candidates to the IMB), I’ll tell them, “In the providence of God, these are the rules as they stand today, so be prepared to follow them. And if in conscience you can’t, I’ll understand, but you can’t be an IMB missionary. That doesn’t mean you can’t be a missionary, however.” (Thankfully, that has not been a problem, in the many candidates we have sent out, to the best of my knowledge.)

Do I think the policies should be overturned? Well, I guess I’d be happier if they weren’t in place, since I’m not convinced they were the best decision (see caveats above). But what, exactly, am I supposed to do? Lead a revolt? Never. Slander wise and godly men? Never. Give my point of view to anyone who inquires? Sure. And, if I really *saw* it becoming a problem at the local church level (it’s not, for me), I guess I’d write a few letters to the IMB letting them know my position, counterarguments, and personal experiences, since I think they’d appreciate the information. But practically speaking, there’s not much I can do beyond that. (Blog a petition? Please.) Perhaps I’m just not politically sophisticated enough. I’m sure that’s a good thing! Giving the IMB trustees the general prerogative to make decisions like these is part of the grease that keeps the Convention working. Bringing every decision like this to the general Convention is just an impossible proposition. (I agree with my President here.) Some might be outraged by what I’ll now say, but I think that occasionally having to live with decisions with which you disagree is just the price you pay to be part of the largest missions cooperative on earth. I don’t see a better alternative. The ones that have been offered would Balkanize the SBC into perdition.

(3) I’ve reread your question here several times, and I’m still not sure I understand it. The SWBTS policy on tongues prohibits faculty from advocating or supporting charismatic practices, including PPL. (Someone will correct me if I’m wrong; I can’t find the relevant email attachment right now.) This isn’t a problem for me as a professor, since I never had plans and most likely never will have plans to support charismatic practices. (I was converted under John MacArthur Jr.’s ministry twenty-three years ago; that should tell you something if you recall book publishing dates!)

The SWBTS policy had nothing to do with assessing missions candidates. That’s not within the purview of faculty responsibility. It had to do with what we teach in the classroom. For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could insist that you *need* to teach PPL in the classroom, in order to accomplish the Great Commission. In addition, I don’t even think the policy prohibited a faculty member from *having* a PPL. It was all about advocating and supporting it at the seminary. So no, I don’t see the policy prohibiting the GCR reaching its potential at SWBTS. (I’m still puzzled by the question, though. I don’t know what it means for the GCR to ‘reach its potential’ at a seminary.)

Maybe your thought is that it would restrict future hires at the seminary; i.e., if they have a PPL, then they won’t be hired. And then the idea is that precluding otherwise suitable candidates from the pool of potential faculty undermines the Great Commission, since they won’t be able to train pastors, missionaries, church planters, etc. But that’s a *non sequitur*, since once again seminary trustees and presidents have always had the prerogative to make the hiring parameters as narrow as they like. So the policy didn’t add anything in *that* department, that wasn’t already there. Faculty don’t hire faculty!

I want to close by reiterating that I’m still baffled by your questions. Do you really have anything to fear from a movement that says, “Let’s cooperate according to the *entirety* of the BFM, while giving freedom on non-BFM issues?” I mean, OK, if the movement says, “Let’s disrespect the CR, and disrespect the trustees,” then I want no part of it.

So, to sum up. My answers to your three questions, in order, are: No. I don’t know. No.

You’re not gonna hang me for honesty, are you?

I think I have now earned the right to ask you a question.

Currently, the IMB does permit, and perhaps promotes, the use of the Camel method among its missionaries.

Currently, the IMB restricts missionary candidates according to the recent baptism and PPL policies.

Do you see the policy permitting the Camel method as a hindrance or a stumbling block to accomplishing the Great Commission through our International Mission Board? If so, is it your goal to reverse it? If so, why would it be permissible for you to oppose IMB policy on the Camel method, but impermissible for others to oppose the IMB policies on baptism and PPL?

There may be an error in the assumption behind my question, so if there is, please point it out to me. I’m fallible, and willing to learn.

Dr. Welty,

This is why I like you. Even when I disagree with you (and we have tangled more than once), you present reasonable, well thought out arguments. Thank you for taking the time to do so. If we all followed your lead, the blogosphere would be much more productive.

I know that you were addressing this to Robin, but let me say that I agree with you on almost all points. The only area that I would disagree, as you know from past discussions that we have had, is in the area of not being able to influence the trustees at all. It seems like that a basic Baptist principle involves the autonomy of the local church. The IMB, NAMB, etc., exist to serve the local churches – they do not exist as an entity unto themselves. If they do, they should not. At the very founding of the SBC, the first president, William B. Johnson made this statement describing the SBC: “One Convention, embodying the whole Denomination, together with separate and distinct Boards, for each object of benevolent enterprise located at different places, and all amenable to the Convention.” I suggest that anyone interested in this read “The Relation of the Southern Baptist Convention to it Entities” by Dr. David Hankins at http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=275 . It sheds some light on this subject.

Now, amenability can be taken a lot of different ways, I guess. It could be taken that our entities should not go in a direction opposing the Convention. That is what the CR asserted. Or, it could be taken that our entities should not go beyond the stated position of the Convention. Either way, it does point to the general idea that complete autonomy was not in view at the founding of the SBC.

At any rate, I believe that there should be some way that the Convention that supplies all of the funding for our entities should be able to speak to our entities at times on different issues. That option is not presently available to us, but it does not mean that it is wrong for me (on the baptism and ppl issue) or Robin (on the Camel Method issue) to desire a way to speak to the IMB about things that we disagree with. I think that the SBC would be stronger if we had that opportunity.

But, other than that point of disagreement, I agree with you.

Greg,
If I may provide further thought on your response to Robin…
I have not heard Robin nor others say that we nor anyone else cannot challenge the Trustees. I do think that what has been discussed is the method – trying to make the convention do it via vote – which is not correct according to the SBC bylaws.

I am excited to hear of your views on the Camel. Just as many are challenging the Trustees to change this, I also think many are challenging the Trustees to hold to guidelines adopted on PPL and Baptism.

Are you arguing for no dissent or are you assuming on Robin and others a position that is not what they hold?

I for one, have held the view that the guidelines need to refrain from advocating or teaching a PPL by a M of the IMB. I have never waivered on this. I would hold the same for SWBTS or any other entity. I also believe it is ok to voice concern. Yet one must also take into account that in the SBC, we have multiple voices of concern.

Spirit and approach are key with me. Respect and order are at the top of the list.

When one fully reads the positions of those advocating a GCR, one might understand why I simply desired the return to the original and not a man made paper being used as a political spin instrument.

I just hope you have more to do than get caught up on all this back reading !

By the way, in case anyone is wishing that we didn’t have a Conservative Resurgence or they didn’t think it was necessary, read this article and you will quickly drop that idea:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=28326&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0619

Unbelievable.

First, let me say that I enjoy the tone of this conversation much more than at some other blogs and comment streams I have read in recent months.

Dr. Welty, Your comment (#16) is well stated. I appreciate your input. I find my self in almost total agreement with you with the minor exceptions that I have signed the petition, and I think the problem with the so-called camel method is with some problematic statements in the book The Camel and not the concept of bridging itself (see Akin, et al on this: http://sebts.edu/president/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/an-assessment-of-the-camel.pdf)
In any case, I appreciate your contribution to this dialog as a well-reasoned and balanced approach to this whole topic of Baptist cooperation.

Robin,
I also appreciate your spirit in this conversation. I just think you’re questions about the GCR suspect some hidden agenda that isn’t there. BTW, Akin’s speech is not the only source for GCR language. Lifeway has published a book entitled Great Commission Resurgence that includes a version of Akin’s speech plus further chapters by Rainer, Iorg, Lawless, and Rankin. The point of referring to this book is to show that there is more agreement on the meaning of the term by those who used it from the Convention podium than you imagine. In any case, I hope you have benefited from this whole discussion even if we are taking you to task a little . I know I have.

Blessings,
Todd

Tim claims that the GCR advocates,

“Lets win the world for Christ and not worry about doctrine.”

I have read way more on the GCR this week than I should have. I have yet to find anyone anywhere advocating that. Not a single person.

Can you link us to someone advocating abandoning doctrine to accomplish the Great Commission?

Unless you can, I will assume this is a red herring.

This is an interesting discussion. We have some people (such as myself) embracing a Great Commission Resurgence. Others, however, look with cynicism and skepticism about such a resurgence because of a fear that it is really not the Great Commission upon which these people are focused. Additionally, those who have publicly (at the convention, not on blogs) embraced the GCR were the very same individuals who were and are leaders in the Conservative Resurgence… and I mean leaders, not merely casual observers. But now these leaders are viewed through a lens of suspicion by some here, as though the convictions and loyalties of these leaders have changed; morphed into something less than what the CR was all about so that now they would use the GCR to undermine the CR to which they were committed.

HUH??

Tim Rogers,

I am not much of a blogger, but I do read. I appreciate much of what you share as well as your “Simon Peter” type approach at times. But, in your above example concerning expository preaching, you have made an error, in my opinion. You have suggested that “story” is not expository preaching. However, you even use the verb “exposit” to describe what “storying” is. I suggest that the inconsistency that you have uncovered is not in Dr. Akin’s comments but in your definitions.

I would very much like to hear your definition of expository preaching. It would also be helpful for you to share where you happened to get that particular definition. Also, to prove Dr. Akin’s inconsistency, you need to show how that the professor he hired does not fit the definition of expository preaching.

Just to get it rolling, some “story” sermons are expository while others are not. BTW, I do not have the skill to preach a “story” sermon, so I preach mainly “deductive / point” sermons. Some “3-point” sermons are expository while others are not. I would point you to the definition of expository (as far back as E. C. Dargan and as recent as Haddon Robinson).

If you do not do these things, then you have intentionally “slammed” Dr. Akin, for you have called him inconsistent. You have said that he calls for one thing and does another. I say that you are wrong and need to correct your statement or prove it (that’s a gauntlet — grin). Perhaps this is not the thread to tackle this issue, but if not, then integrity would demand that you take some public forum to deal with this statement that you have made. (And, “I stick by my statement” is not sufficient.)

I’m sorry to have this as my first engagement on this blog, but imprecise discussion and presentation of personal preferences as though it is absolute truth just bug me. Dave Miller has hit upon another statement of imprecision in the comment #26.

I know well many of the men who have publicly advocated GCR; namely at the convention. [[ but not so much on the blogs -- don't really use the blogs to help with my research on things dealing with Southern Baptists or life or doctrine. I rather peruse the blogs more devotionally (grin) rather than academically. ]] I personally advocate GCR.

I’m not positive about some of the underlying agenda in this discussion, but I am certain that this underlying agenda has little to do with the Great Commission or the Conservative Resurgence.

Blessings to All!!

Eric Thomas

Tim,

Brother, there’s no reason you should or would know me. If you would like a picture, though, I’d be happy to send you one (grin). It would be a family picture, for my wife and four daughters make my ugly mug a little more bearable.

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the length that you took to give a full answer to some of the questions. It is not my intention to overwhelm this thread with what may be a “rabbit trail,” but let me offer my response to at least one unusual perspective that you’ve given. I would be very interested to know the biblical / theological foundations that you offer in making it:

You write: “They [storying sermons] do not expose the text as much as they expose the story of the text. An expository sermon exposes the text and the Holy Spirit takes the Word of God not the story of God, to penetrate the hearer’s heart.”

You offer an unusual distinction between the story of the text and the text itself, as if the story is not the text??? You’ll need to unwrap that for me a little. Is this a new teaching of which I am unaware? I don’t think it is in any white-paper or article or journal or book that I have read. Certainly, I continue to be a learner, but that is an unusual idea. Maybe I’m not clear about what you mean. Seriously, help me with that one.

Additionally, you suggest that the Spirit takes the Word of God, not the story of God, to penetrate the heart of the hearer. The story is not the Word of God??? So, you’re saying that Luke 15 is not the Word of God??? (I know you’re not intending that conclusion, but it is what I’m reading you to suggest).

Your definition of “text” obviously is different than mine and conservative scholarship in general. Stanley Fish might agree with you. Theologically, I have great problems with your premise that the story within a passage of Scripture is not the text. Honestly, I think you would want to rethink that particular position — according to Scripture, you are wrong (that would be another gauntlet — grin).

Secondly, it is a little unusual to hear that expository preaching is “logically expanding” the theme of the passage to “show that it is a biblical doctrine.” I think most classical and traditional definitions of expository preaching have the purpose at exposing the text — not expanding the theme.

Is the point of expository preaching, then, in your definition, to show biblical doctrine through logically expanding the theme? But this can’t be done through “Storying”? Are you sure? (I’m grinning here, just so you know).

Again, my main point here is that your definition of expository preaching is somewhat unusual to me. Based upon a definition which you have developed (“borrowed with a few additions”), you now suggest that Dr. Akin is inconsistent.

Could it be that Dr. Akin is not inconsistent, but that his definition of expository preaching is more traditional than yours — that he believes perhaps that the stories of the text is as much the Word of God as Pauline epistles (again, I confess I’m pushing you a little hard on this to make the point)?

By the way, based upon a more traditional view of “text” one could very rightly preach expository sermons through “storying.” Storying may be every bit as much “text-driven” as didactic / deductive sermons that you are suggesting.

Tim, I’ll leave you with the last word if you desire. I must go on to a wedding. Thank you for allowing me to engage you on this. Again, I do not believe that you have proven Dr. Akin as inconsistent.

Using your illustration of riding a horse, I think that the horse needs some food that will help it ride more faithfully and effectively through the terrain. The horse is the SBC. CR is oats. GCR is hay. The horse needs both oats and hay.

Really, brother, thank you. Please know that my words are meant in love, and I hope that they point to truth.

Eric

Hi all. I confess i did not read all the above, just snippets, so sorry. I rarely read many blogs as I have a pretty busy world. But I took off today and got bored watching my hurricanes lose and here I am.
I would like to make one simple point. The folks I know who are advocating a GCR, and they are many of the major people from the start (btw, Thom Rainer first used the term publicly), are folks who love the Word of God. They supported the CR before it was cool. They have stood where all the other heroes of the faith have stood in our lifetime. The difference? They are not convinced the status quo is acceptable. They do not at all blame the CR for our obvious decline, but they do not neglect the decline either. They call for change for the gospel’s sake. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy. Just a love for the gospel and the SBC (one does not have to choose). But because they do not walk in lock step at every point with those before us, not on central doctrines but methodologically, some question their motives.
I know. I am one of them.
But I also travel across this great convention and hear a consistent refrain that things must change. And I run around in the most conservative of circles–evangelism conferences, the most conservative and evangelistic churches, etc. Just this past year I have preached in some of the largest and most effective churches in ten state conventions and in meetings of more then that many state conventions, not to mention at national agencies. I am not some fringe person in some parallel universe.
It is these leaders, these churches, and these gatherings where I preach, where I would argue some of the most passionate, Bible loving Southern Baptists are, and they so long for change.
Not because they have some problem with the CR.
But because they have a broken heart for a lost world.
Is it possible that is the motive? Is it possible the reason many of us call for the change we do is simply because we DO believe an inerrant Bible?
The answer is yes. Eric gets that. And others do. It is not the disagreements that bother me. It is the lack of trust.
What would it be like if those of us at different places on the spectrum from focusing mainly on BI on the one end to a GCR on the other disagreed from a posture of trust, as brothers in Christ who serve the same Lord? Now that might even get the attention of the Lord we all serve. And the lost might notice as well.

[...] Why Do We Need a Great Commission Resurgence (GCR)? by Robin Foster (June 18, 2008) [...]