We’re pleased to welcome another first-time contributor to SBC Today. Dr. Brad Reynolds is currently the Assistant Professor of Christian Education at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Reynolds holds degrees from Criswell College, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the College of William and Mary. He has been teaching at Southeastern since 2003. He has been serving as Senior Pastor of Oak Grove Baptist Church since 2005.
If you would like to interact with Dr. Reynolds concerning his thoughts, we invite you to visit his blog, Guardian Ministries.
I was asked by Tim Rogers to share my thoughts on the SBC. I am sincerely humbled by his request. My thoughts are inexhaustive, limited, and most likely erroneous because of my human frailty and subjective perspective. Nevertheless, I share.
Currently, I believe there are two competing views of who Southern Baptists (SB) are or should be. The first is ecumenical. It apparently desires SB to become a Baptist-Charismatic-Presbyterian-culturally accepted hybrid. Those who hold this view would have few issues with SBC employees teaching a private prayer language to new converts or teaching 3 offices in the church (rather than the two specified in the BFM 2000) or teaching that the consumption of alcoholic beverages for recreational purposes is not inappropriate behavior for a follower of Christ.
The second view is distinctively SB. We who fall into this camp would struggle with giving up our distinctives in order to increase our numbers. We find it arduous, based upon the Great Commission (GC), to release even the tertiary teachings of Christ. We would assert that the GC doesn’t end with leading others to Christ (something both camps affirm) but continues with “teaching them to observe ALL things I have commanded you” (not just the primary and secondary but also the tertiary). To distinguish between the primary, secondary and tertiary teachings of Christ and then to refuse to teach the tertiary seems difficult for many of us to swallow in lieu of the GC.
I acknowledge I seem to have conflated primary, secondary and tertiary “theological concepts” with primary, secondary and tertiary “teachings of Christ.” However, I would contend that our theological concepts are teachings from Scripture and thus the teachings of Christ. I think we can agree that not all “theological concepts” are clear in Scripture (i.e. tribulation views). Yet, through certain resolutions and doctrinal confessions SB have consistently voiced what they believe to be teachings of Scripture, however, tertiary they may be.
I further suspect many SB find themselves not so easily classified into either of these camps, nevertheless, I do believe these are the two diverging views. I am persuaded both camps share a genuine desire to reach the younger generation of SB who have been turned off both by the politics and the bureaucracy of the convention. I am even more confident all SB desire to see the lost reached for Christ.
I have encumbered myself to now explain how to reach a post post-modern generation of SB. I am of the opinion that they will not be brought in via another fight over what is and is not tertiary. I do believe, however they will be attracted to sincere (not pseudo) care for one another and a true passion for lost souls, as well as an opportunity to participate.
Thus, before restructuring our convention perhaps we might consider restructuring the convention schedule. I imagine a vast majority would enthusiastically welcome 2 hour slots for business. Give us time to debate, discuss, amend and vote. Railroading turns off this generation. They seem to disdain the concept of the major decisions of the convention being decided by a select few before the convention begins. Let them have a voice on the convention floor. Further, I believe 2 to 3 hours of open-mic testimonies and prayer requests would be loudly applauded by this younger generation. They are into the REAL. A spontaneous heart-cry is heard much more acutely than a rehearsed performance. Give them opportunities to share of those whom they saw come to Christ this year, give them time to brag on Jesus, give them a chance to ask for prayer. Then listen as they break into spontaneous worship and praise of our God. Watch as they wrap each other in love. And join them as they glorify our God with the passion of youthfulness.
Finally, I assert that seeking unity amongst SB is more important than “change” but less important than doctrinal purity. Thus, I would love to see a movement, which focused on the unity that those of us who affirm the BFM2000 share. While “Toward a Great Commission Resurgence” is a well-written and well-received document, one need not read far on the signature page to realize there are Resurgent and SB leadership names missing. Hopefully, through phone calls and meetings this can be resolved; however, without some defining (at least privately) I fear many may struggle to sign it (see BP News article: GCR: Tone, focus, clarity of declaration questioned by non-signers); and yet, if the defining is public, some may remove their names.
In light of this, I assert what is common knowledge: the Great Commission was not given to the SBC but to the local church. Thus, I believe a GC Resurgence will not begin in the halls of the convention center but in the hearts of local congregations. Therefore, I humbly submit some thoughts that might help unify our convention while solidifying a passion for the fulfillment of the Great Commission through our churches:
1. For both pastors and laity to purpose to pray daily for the salvation of lost souls, not just locally but globally (perhaps using a tool like www.operationworld.org).
2. For pastors and laity to pray for their neighbors and family members who may not know Christ. Asking God to open the door of opportunity to share the gospel of Christ.
3. For pastors and laity alike to become more purposeful in sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
4. For pastors to continue to call out the Called.
5. For pastors and laity to give sacrificially to missions.
6. For ALL convention messengers to begin praying as to how our convention could be better structured to help the local churches fulfill the Great Commission. Asking questions like: How could the IMB/NAMB be better structured to help local churches organize mission trips? How could state conventions be encouraged to distribute even more funds to our missionaries and church plants? How could our seminaries and the IMB/NAMB help local churches train and send out missionaries where the missionaries are led by God to go, rather than where we tell them God is leading them to go? How could the IMB/NAMB better assist local churches in planting churches both locally and globally? Perhaps a committee could be appointed to explore such and bring recommendations for discussion (appointing a committee seems very Southern-Baptistic).
At some point we will need an open dialogue as to the future of SB. Does it entail a blurring of our distinctions? And if so, how blurred are we to become? If, in the future, the convention leaves me, so be it. But, for now, I would prefer unifying like-minded SB (those who affirm the BFM2000) before discussing a convergent hybridization with non-Baptists. In other words, I would opt to get our house in order before we invite others to dine with us.
May our Lord bless us as we seek His Glory.
