Who is Spreading Myths?

I vowed to myself after my Acts 29 post to keep quiet about the Great Commission Task Force because they have not placed anything out that is concrete.  I asked a question in that post concerning Acts 29 and the response from many completely blew me away.  I wish Acts 29 well in their plants and desire to see the nations reached for the glory of God.

However, just the other day I saw the first post from Dr. Akin trying to do away with the “myths” purportedly being presented by many.  I do not mean this article as a rebuke to Dr. Akin in his assessment but one as to call on him to reconsider some of his statements.  I believe Dr. Akin should dispel any “myths” that may be spoken of by others that have no basis.  Thus I would like to offer an assessment of his “myths” and then present where some may be getting their information.

Myth #1-The goal of [particular members of] the Task Force to get more money to the nations is only a smoke screen to get more money to the seminaries. I personally have not heard anyone say this until I saw Dr. Akin’s post.  I have to admit that I do understand how some could present this as a possibility.  Why?  Daniel Palmer, Director of Financial Development for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary presented a paper that the Great Commission Task Force has as part of their “statistics” to review. In their first meeting in Atlanta, it was reported this paper was something the task force openly reviewed and discussed.  This paper was critiqued by Dr. David Hankins, Louisianna Baptist Executive Director. He stated that “it was not an efficiency problem that Southern Baptist had but a giving problem.” Something no one covered in this paper was tucked away in a postscript of the paper.  Palmer stated, “Southeastern, indeed all seminaries would stand to benefit and be in a much better financial position…” To be fair Palmer went on to say that if his plan was adopted he would probably be out of a job.

Thus, Myth #1, while it is not something that I have heard, may well have had a basis from which someone could speculate.  However, the myth itself is merely speculation because one would be judging the motives of Dr. Akin and others.  That is not something I do and I take his word that this was not even in his thought process as he presented the Axioms on a Great Commission Resurgence.  I believe he would be well served, at this point, to take this paper into consideration as he tries to further dispel this myth.

Myth #2-The goal of [certain members of] the Task Force is to turn North American church planting over to Acts 29 or to at least enter into a formal partnership with them. While I admit that as I looked at this myth I wondered if Dr. Akin was referring to my article that was picked up by Baptist Press.  I briefly considered that, but then thought better of it.  Why?  I believe that Dr. Akin has more important issues to concern himself than this small church pastor’s meanderings.  I recognize that his statement is quite similar to the question I asked.  Because of the similarity, and to give clarity to my question, I will present to you my thinking behind the question and the reason that others may be asking the same thing.

Dr. Akin has openly stated his reasons for following Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 was because his sons were telling him he needed to look at this ministry.  When he began to observe Acts 29 he apparently liked what he saw them doing thus he began to involve himself with them by speaking at a boot camp they sponsored  in Raleigh.  I believe that this ‘myth’, just like my above mentioned article, finds its genesis in the ties of some of our SBC leaders to this church planting network.  Dr. Akin, Pastor Greear, and Dr. Stetzer all have observable ties to Acts 29, the latter two in official capacities.  All of these men have ties to our entities and convention leadership: SEBTS, NAMB, LifeWay Research, and GCRTF.  Claims which have been made regarding the awareness, or lack thereof, of various entities and specific individual’s relationship to Acts 29 give rise to the present confusion regarding Acts 29 and our convention.  I believe that a more thoroughgoing, careful explanation would go a long way in making this concern go away.

Myth #3-The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is attempting to influence and even control the search committee process at the Executive Committee, the IMB and NAMB. If someone were to advance that the GCRTF was trying to control the search committee process involving the various entities, then I would agree that this myth is merely a myth.  I do not believe in a New York minute that anyone on the GCRTF is trying to control the process.  Dr. Floyd, as chairman of the GCRTF, is certainly not going to try and control any of these search committees.  But, by using the term “influence” mixed with “control” this myth becomes a partial reality.  Dr.Akin says the GCRTF is not trying to influence the various search committees.  However, a very brief perusal of various statements made and various vocational positions accepted would very clearly reveal an ‘influencing’ of the various search committees.  First, there is the statement made by Dr. Floyd in the Florida Baptist Witness, which Dr. Akin alludes to in his article.  According to the Witness article they asked Dr. Floyd on three different occasions if the task force had any recommendation regarding a major restructuring of the entities.  Each time Dr. Floyd “emphasized” (Florida Baptist Witness word) that the search committees should be “very prayerful and watchful of the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force”.  Dr. Akin needs to reconsider his statement that Dr. Floyd was calling on the members of the search committees to be in prayer for the GCRTF.  That was not the context of the article’s quote.  Second, let us look at the movements seen in the last few weeks.  For starters, we see that Dr. Frank Page has moved to the position of VP of Evangelization with NAMB.  It seems that the GCRTF did not take into consideration the suggestion of Gary Ledbetter with the SB Texan; “I suggest that the members of the task force commit that they will not, for at least two years, accept any vocational ministry position (job) or be paid for writing a book related to or growing out of the work of the task force.” Next we see that Dr. Ted Traylor was nominated and accepted the offer to be Chairman of the Search Committee that will ferret out the next President.  Both men are on the GCRTF and it is next to naive to think that this task force will not have influence on the search committee, especially with the chairman of the Search Committee serving on the task force.  Think what you will, the GCRTF has a huge influence on that search committee.  The other two search committees may be immune to such influence.  However, the entities may not enjoy such immunity.  According to Dr. Floyd’s blog he had a meeting with Dr. Chapman the morning before Dr. Chapman announced his resignation.  Did he influence Dr. Chapman’s decision?  I do not believe Dr. Floyd would do anything like that.  Also, remember the first entity head that was asked to come and give a report to the GCRTF?  It was Dr. Rankin.  Do I believe that the meeting consisted of the GCRTF speaking to Dr. Rankin about his retirement?  No, I do not.  However, what everyone on the GCRTF need to grasp is any discussion they do publicly and every move they make without a reasonable explanation will have every word parsed to the n’th degree.  Thus, they produce the fodder used in the “myth” mill.

Myth #4-The goal of the Great Commission Task Force is to dismantle if not destroy the Cooperative Program as we know it today. This myth is one that also has plausible statements under-girding it.  Dr. Akin refers to a Baptist Press article along with a rumor that he heard someone was saying about him.  If I stopped to battle every rumor that everyone said about me I would not have time to do what God has called me to do.  I am certainly not as busy as Dr. Akin so I would first encourage him to remember a word I am certain he has encouraged me with in the past.  Every person is not going to like everything that you do so do only what you sense God is leading you to do.  Dr. Akin then proceeds to produce facts about his commitment to the Cooperative Program.

I do not believe anyone on the task force questions the benefits of the CP.  Everyone can certainly see that the CP is a great source of funding and we have all benefited from this financial wonder.  I think what Dr. Akin misses is the statements that have been made by various task force members that insinuate a desire to return the SBC to a societal giving method.  For example Dr. Hunt made a point in Rogers, Arkansas to help people understand that his “CP gifts” were not just those that he gives through the Georgia Baptist Convention.  Dr. Hunt directs FBC Woodstock to invest huge amounts through a partnership with NAMB to plant churches in major metropolitan areas.  He considers that “CP Giving”.  Brother Al Gilbert stated that his “CP Giving” was not what defined him as being Southern Baptist.  I agree.  However, we have people serving on the CGRTF that bypass their state conventions and give directly to various entities.  That is their prerogative and their right.  However, that is not Cooperative Program giving as defined by the SBC meeting in 2007. It was not a resolution that made it through committee to the floor, it was a recommendation coming from the Executive Committee. (Found here on p. 60)  However, in May, 2009 Dr. Hunt was interviewed by Doug Baker, then Director of Communications for the North Carolina Baptist State Convention.  In Part Two of this interview Dr. Hunt replied to a pedantic scenario concerning funds bypassing state conventions and going directly to the Executive Committee.  Dr. Hunt described FBC Woodstock’s church plants and then spoke about his desire to see the task force make changes that would acknowledge his giving method as cooperative giving.  He said; “It has concerned many of us in recent days because of the various reporting.  It is almost as if we are penalized, though we are very missionary at heart, if we don’t give through a particular system”.  Dr. Hunt seems to forget that the SBC, as mentioned above, voted for this to be the system.

This “myth”, when examined closely, seems to have legs of truth.  Not that the GCRTF desires to dismantle or destroy the CP as we know it today.  I do not believe that neither Dr. Hunt, nor anyone else on the task force desires such.  However, it does appear that we are hearing from those on the GCRTF about a desire to move more to a societal giving platform–which will destroy the Cooperative Program as we know it today.

Conclusion

Here are the myths.  Do I beleive that Dr. Akin is wrong in his assessment of these being myths?  Not in the way he has worded them.  However a close reading of the myths he presents would give reasonable doubt to these being myths.  I would encourage Dr. Akin and the others on the GCRTF to examine his statements closely and then ask a question.  Are we, as task force members, saying things that may give reason for these anxious thoughts that SB are experiencing?  I want to support the GCRTF in their work.  I desire to see a Great Commission Resurgence.  I look forward to thoughts and ideas coming out of this committee that will allow Southern Baptist to “work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.”