Does this mean that I quit? No.  I will still advocate what I believe is right and best for our convention of churches.  I will still oppose what I believe to be detrimental as well.  It’s just that in so doing, I am willing to stand beside those with whom I disagree as my brothers in Christ. I know this puts me “on-the-outs” with certain segments of our state convention.  That’s fine.  I’m tired of trying to win the day on the method of personal demonization.  Maybe that tactic is employed when one is not certain of his own position.  I am not certain about why others resort to personal attacks or vendetta, but I am choosing to advocate or oppose based on the substance of the issue and not the personality of my opponent.

In the montage of pictures which follow, you see me with many different leaders within our convention.  Many of you will know most of them.  Some others are known to but a few…

Just because I am found within the Baptist Identity camp does not mean I ‘disown’ men like Dr. Alvin Reid or Dr. Ed Stetzer.  I have learned from them and respect their ministries.

Just because I am found within the Calvinist camp does not mean that I ‘disown’ Dr. Ergun Caner or Dr. Peter Lumpkins or Dr. Malcolm Yarnell.  I have been impacted by their ministries and am better for it.

All of the men pictured I respect greatly.  Many of them I am privileged to call friend.  None of them I agree with 100%.  To say that we here at SBC Today wish to have no fellowship or cooperative ministries with others unless they fall into lock-step with us is patently absurd!  To say that my convictions will only allow me certain levels of cooperation with other Christians is spot on.  I will never be able to plant churches with my Presbyterian friends, but you could well find me in attendance with them at a Together for the Gospel conference in the future…or at the next Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA!

I know I have been guilty of making broad-brushed comments about brothers in other ‘camps’ based on the actions of the fringe/radical elements of that group.  Those kind of statements are about as irritating as sweeping generalizations made by advocates of a position which work well in marginalizing any opposition to one’s position.  Statements like I feared might come about in the current discussion in the SBC… *Room fades out to that lovely harp music once again.  We are transported to Louisville, KY.  Eavesdropping on an example of numerous conversations I had while at the annual meeting*

One concern I have is that this whole debate could be maneuvered so that anyone who expresses reservations about or direct opposition to recommendations from the GCR Task Force would be labeled as ‘anti-Great Commission.’…. *Back to today.*

You might say, “That’s crazy!”  No one would ever say that. Really?  How about… “We have worked toward a report that will be eagerly embraced by every Great Commission-driven Southern Baptist”…?  Upon reading this statement from Pastor Ronnie Floyd, the Chair of our GCRTF, I drew the following conclusion:  Since this report WILL be eagerly EMBRACED by every GREAT COMMISSION-DRIVEN Southern Baptist, if I disagree with it in any part, then I will be labeled as not having the driving motivation of my life and ministry to be the Great Commission which our Lord has given to us.

Really??

I am not saying what my response will be to the recommendations of the task force (I could well become its greatest advocate!).  We will only have heard the final report next Monday.  I am hopeful and prayerful that much listening has been done by the task force since the progress report was given.  I am hopeful and prayerful that when we get to Orlando the discussion will be fruitful and that we make progress in renewing our commitment to cooperate as a convention of churches for the sake of the Gospel.

 Now, on the main things, we must agree.  On the main truths of the Bible, we must believe the same.  On those things that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, there must be conformity.  We must all surrender and yield our hearts and minds to the foundational truths of the Christian faith.  We must all believe the fundamentals of the faith.  Things like the virgin birth; the atoning death of Jesus; salvation by grace thru faith; the Trinity of God;  etc.  These are the things that would mean whether we’re even truly a Christian, or not.  If someone denied the foundational truths of Christianity, then I wouldn’t even consider them to be a true Believer.  But, those people that do hold to the main doctrines of the faith, I call my brother, or sister in Christ; even though they may not be Southern Baptist. 

And, as Baptists, we must agree to the doctrinal distinctives which we hold dear; that we believe the Bible clearly teaches; in order to really be considered a Baptist Church.  There are things that we must believe; doctrines that  make us a Baptist Church.  Theology that makes us a Baptist kind of Christian.   Things like Believers baptism by immersion; the Lord’s Supper being a symbolic act; once saved, always saved; congregational polity, or governance; etc.   If a Church can’t even agree to the BFM2K, is it really a Baptist Church?  Is it really a Church that holds to what we consider to be the clear teachings of the Bible?  that holds to the doctrines that would make us consider them a good, sound church?  I would contend that churches must…in the least…hold to the BFM2K, in order to considered a cooperatiing, Southern Baptist Church.

But, on many, many other things, we can disagree on them all day long; and still worship and serve God together.  My friends, there are many, many, finer points of doctrine that we can not see eye to eye on, and it’s okay.  We can just have fun trying to convince the other fella that we’re right!  Lol.  But, these minor things should not cause separation, nor should they cause us to divide.  They should not cause strife, nor should they be the source of contention.  On the finer points of the major doctrines, we should allow for freedom; even while not agreeing with the other person.  Amen?  Amen!

Anyone who dabbles at all in cultural observation has noted that sadly in the typical American home, the children set the agenda and dictate the values. This is of course due to the dysfunctional mindset that the goal for most homes is the absence of conflict instead of the glory of God. If a parent’s aim is the absence of conflict, it is only a little while until the kids have it their way, right away, keeping the parent from having to deal with tantrums and uncooperative attitudes.

Sadly, these dynamics are not just playing out in our homes, but at the denominational level of our Southern Baptist Convention as well. In our beloved SBC, the over 65s are the elders of our denomination and by and large have run their lap and are now passing on the baton to the 45-65s who are ready to run the next leg of the SBC race. Indeed, the 45-65s are already doing so as they lead more and more of our agencies and boards. And then there is my generation, the 25-45s, the convention “teens.” Some of us, to our shame, are acting like angry dysfunctional adolescents, thinking we know what is best for the family, throwing tantrums and offering uncooperative attitudes when things are not going our way.

But what surprises me is not the immature attitude of entitlement that has been common to youngsters for generations, but rather the credence given to some of the 25-45s by many of the over 45s. This response gives the appearance that the SBC is close to pursuing the goal of the absence of conflict instead of the pursuit of God’s glory. That we have reached a day where the kids are clamoring to rule the roost is Exhibit A of this focus-shift.

In my opinion, the ubiquitous analysis and discussions of the last few years regarding the dynamics of the under 45s in the SBC is making us dysfunctional and unhealthy. Granted, I don’t question the motive for seeking to reach and maintain contact with future Southern Baptist leaders-that mentoring and relationship work needs to take place-I am merely observing that the extent to which we have let such analysis occupy our time has not proven helpful.

In my estimation, there is too much panic among the 45-65s in response to the absence of the younger pastors at our annual meetings, their diminished emphasis on the Cooperative Program, and their apparent perceived lack of support for the International Mission Board. However, often it is the pattern of many youngsters to follow the way of the prodigal by first striking out on their own, against the grain of their parents’ wisdom, only to learn from experience that Dad did know what he was talking about after all, before returning home to the straight and narrow. I believe it is no different within the SBC. I say stop worrying about the trends and fads of 20-45s and start focusing on leading those who presently constitute the core of the SBC. To shift and focus on the prodigal few will only cause us to trip and fall. It is difficult to run one’s lap of denominational service with one’s head turned looking back at the youngsters. Instead we should run as hard as we can with an acute focus on reaching the finish line.

Here are some questions I ponder:
1. Why does it matter if some vocal 25-45s insist on learning the hard way by chasing strategies outside the SBC when our present-day network of churches and agencies are, by the grace of God, actually an incredible Great Commission machine of historic proportions? There are currently two generations serving the SBC in their prime leadership years, which means there is time for the prodigals to fail, come to their senses, and then return to the fold.

2. Why do so many over 45s worry themselves unnecessarily with the under 45s who are absent in body because, candidly, they lack humility and selflessness in heart? Why not mentor the under 40s the Lord has already provided? Just in Texas I can name off the top of my head 15-20 under 45s who are passionate about the SBC. A visit to any of our seminaries will reveal hundreds more, who, like the young David, are busy tending sheep in preparation for ministry. These, I believe, will be the ones to provide ample leadership for Southern Baptist life when their time comes.

What started as a helpful tool-discussion and analysis that centered on the trends of the younger generation-has, in my opinion, occupied the focus of the SBC for too long. I fear that the fads and musings of “younger leaders” have caused us to forget that the SBC belongs to the Lord and is his to increase or reduce in number as he sees fit. If the SBC belongs to the Lord, he will provide plenty of leadership as it is needed. He will protect our future.

Now, before you accuse me of being a 65-year-old in a 30-something’s body, I am not advocating that the SBC find satisfaction in the status quo. The SBC cannot continue as is and expect to be healthy for generations to come. However, this has more to do with the pursuit of need for congregation-wide personal holiness, faithfulness in evangelism, and the simplification of bureaucratic complexities than it does with the generational divide. While I do think we need changes, I also believe the SBC has among its current leadership the wisdom, discernment, and patience to bring about the needed changes for future health and growth.

I also do not believe the present generation of SBC leadership needs heavy input from 30-year-olds to help them make these decisions. My generation does not deserve, or has not yet earned, a voice in the conversation or a seat at the table. We are only beginning to run our lap of leadership service. Scripture is clear that those with white hair have the wisdom, patience and discernment needed to lead. The Lord has raised them up to lead at the current hour and I am thankful he has equipped them for such a time as this.

The SBC need not be intimidated by the attitudes of the immature. It is time to conclude the analysis and discussions about a few among the 25-45s and focus on making sure there is a healthy SBC for the rest of the 25-45s to inherit in 10-15 years. If we will stop looking back over our shoulders as we run the current lap and instead watch where we are going, when the present leadership makes their turn for the homestretch, we will see, by God’s grace, plenty of the next generation there to take the baton and run the next lap until Jesus returns. Perhaps there will be a few prodigals there as well.

Recently I was listening to the podcast of a presentation by Ravi Zacharias in which he shared lessons learned from the allied invasion at Normandy during World War II. One of the tactics the allies used was to drop, ahead of their advance on a particular town, a large number of rubber dummies in parachutes, rigged with explosives and firecrackers. The German defenders would often spend most of their ammunition on this ruse, shooting at rubber dummies while remaining completely unaware that the real enemy was yet to attack.

As I look around our convention today, I think we ought to consider the possibility that the real enemy of the Kingdom has gotten so many of us involved in shooting at rubber dummies. While there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist aisle, it is imperative that we recognize that these sides are, in fact, parts of a whole. The wisdom offered by Bart Barber in his recent post, The Barber Plan for Peace, is an excellent contribution to this recognition, and I commend it to our readers.

Another bit of wisdom that I believe can be helpful is an article we published in the wake of last year’s “Building Bridges” conference. The article, titled “Happy Southern Baptists and the Tricky Track,” was authored by Southwestern Seminary president Dr. Paige Patterson, and serves to remind us how necessary both parts are to the makeup of the whole we know as the Southern Baptist Convention.

Join me in my prayer that, through the wisdom God has granted to these men and to others, we may learn to save our ammunition for the real enemy, and ignore the rubber dummies that have occupied so much of our recent attention.

After having been asked numerous times why our church felt led to affiliate with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC), I felt it necessary to put our thought process into print for the benefit of those who are seeking direction for their congregation. After having participated in many hours of research, discussion, and observation, I have concluded that the SBTC stands closer to my view of what it means to be a Baptist, both historically and doctrinally.

My observation is that there has been a widening in the gap of like-mindedness and doctrinal unity between the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and LaJunta Baptist Church (LJBC). As two rivers flow what is seemingly a parallel path, time will eventually reveal if there is any degree of variance. The further they flow, the wider the distance between them becomes. The gap will eventually become so great that they both cannot be viewed from a common standpoint. It is my contention that this is what has happened with the BGCT and LJBC. When that is the case, it becomes necessary to choose one path or the other, for both cannot be followed.

In sum, our church felt that we needed to withdraw from the BGCT and to affiliate with the SBTC because it is the state convention that stands closest to the Biblical principles, missions support, and convictions that we embrace as a congregation. We are a Southern Baptist church because we believe in the work and message of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are convinced that the Scriptural interpretation and practice of the SBC is closest to our own. On the other hand, the continual drift of the BGCT away from the SBC has revealed a great chasm. Our study was one which began with what we understood Scripture to say, and then, which convention stood closest to Scriptural purity. Our study revealed that to be the SBC, and by extension, the SBTC. We found the BGCT to be sorely lacking in Biblical faithfulness as we understand it.

With that in mind, I offer the following reasons why I believe this to be so. The evidence that is offered is public and accessible for all. I have copies of all the original material on file. The congregation of LaJunta Baptist felt so deeply about the importance of these issues that we voted on August 12, 2007 to include this paper in our historical records and also to allow the distribution of this paper in its entirety to all interested parties. The comments are intended to reflect the personal convictions of the pastor and the people of LaJunta Baptist Church.

Please understand, though I fiercely oppose theological errors (those made by others and those errors of my own), I believe every individual to be of value to God, His Creation, and the work of His Kingdom. My ruminations are simply an attempt to contribute to the work of the Kingdom as we seek the edification of the saints, which occurs in fellowship, and often, in tension.

SCRIPTURE

Doctrine is part and parcel to what it means to be a Baptist. Baptists are people who believe what they do about God and the world because of what the Bible teaches about God and the world. The SBTC without reservation affirms the complete Word of God as being inerrant. However, after studying the BGCT’s stance on Scripture, I noticed a hesitancy to affirm “inerrancy.” In a document produced by the BGCT in 2002 for the purpose of comparing the SBTC to the BGCT, they stated, “most BGCT leaders and messengers in recent years have shunned that word as a politicized codeword more than a descriptive theological statement, while still affirming the complete authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.”

I do agree that the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy, but I must go further and say that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. I believe many entities are trustworthy and authoritative. For example, I personally would say that the police force and the military are authoritative and trustworthy; however, I would not say that they do not make errors. I do not hesitate in stating the Bible is inerrant, neither does the SBTC. The Bible is certainly trustworthy and authoritative, but it is much more.

Most BGCT pastors and churches would affirm inerrancy, yet interestingly enough, denominational employees of the BGCT and the agencies and entities to which they send Cooperative Program money may not be required to follow suit. That means that state convention employees may have a different view than the majority of the pastors and churches to whom they offer service. To the contrary, the SBTC has made clear that all employees must affirm their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. The resulting difference is best illustrated in an article that appeared in February 6, 2006 Baptist Standard which was written by Dr. Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Truett Seminary (a BGCT supported seminary). The title of the article is “Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter.”

In this article, Dr. Olson states that Truett professors “vary in their views of biblical accuracy while holding firmly to biblical authority.” He further states that Truett does not need to dictate what professors believe because inerrancy is one of the “secondary matters of doctrine.” Dr. Olson offers his conclusion by asserting that the Bible is “(often) infallible,” and even goes on to state that, in regards to a particular text, “the best approach is to admit that Paul made a mistake.” Biblical inerrancy is not a matter of secondary doctrine to me. It is of primary importance. Without a sure word in our hand we have no sure word for the people. I desire to give my congregation more than a ‘best guess,’ but rather to give them a rock solid word from God. This demands a perfect revelation from God that is both sufficient and inerrant.

Dr. Olson’s conclusion is highly concerning to me because this particular professor is teaching the pastors of the future, and is being supported by monies given by the BGCT. For the time being, the majority of pastors support inerrancy, but given a generation of theological education under men such as Dr. Olson, how far away are we from drifting down the river of theological liberalism? In most cases, as goes our seminaries, so go our pastors. As go our pastors, so go our churches. My concern is that if we remove the Bible from the pastors’ hands, we remove the message from our pulpits. I desire to be aligned with organizations that offer an unqualified voice to the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe this stance is more clearly articulated by the SBTC, not only in denominational documents, but more importantly, by denominational practice.

In sum, the BGCT has left herself without a solid foundation for theological exercise and doctrinal accountability because they have allowed a crack into the foundation upon which they have tried to build their structure. I reiterate, each and every individual is due respect, freedom of conscience, and opportunity to speak. However, where cracks creep into one’s foundation, we are demanded to warn others of the error. A failure to maintain a solidified doctrine of Scripture will inevitably leave one without a foundation capable of the task before it. I believe a failure to embrace a doctrine of inerrancy is to lay a foundation with cracks beneath the surface. These hidden cracks ultimately will be revealed.

Recent Southern Baptist Conventions have heard the repetition of the statement, “the battle for the Bible is over.” However, a keen ear and sharp eye will be quick to discover that the battle for the Bible begun in Eden when the word of God was first questioned, and certainly remains to this day as Satan continues his efforts to seduce Another’s Bride to commit harlotry by satisfying one’s own temporal hunger for self-appeasement. The battle for the Bible will not be over until the Word once again manifests Himself to the kingdoms of the world as the supreme King and Lord.

How will the success of the GCR be judged?

I believe the big picture is clear: it is a renewed passion for the pursuit and fulfillment of Matthew 28:16-20. I spoke specifically to this in a chapel message that also gave attention to the life and ministry of William Carey.

Dr. Akin presents a clear picture that he sees in the GCR.  It appears that he is placing a much increased emphasis on International missions.  Will this GCR be judged by increased international mission endeavors only, or will history record the GCR a failure or success based on increased churches being planted on North American soil also?  Will there be a push for a uniting of efforts between these two agencies as a way of judging the success or failure of a GCR?  One other thing about how the GCR will be judged.  William Carey is known as the “Father of Modern Missions”.  You can read a full report of how this group of Baptist preachers organized the Baptist Missionary Society here;

“on October 2, 1792, in a widow’s home where twelve ministers were present, the Baptist Missionary Society was organized, the subscription there and then amounting to £13 2 shillings 6 pence. Rev. Fuller was appointed secretary; Reynolds Hogg, of Trapstone, was made treasurer. Carey offered himself as the first missionary.”

While William Carey is known as the Father of modern missions, he was not the first modern missionary.  It seems the Moravians were the first to do what we know as modern missions. As reported here:

The first Moravian missionaries were a potter named Leonard Dober and a carpenter named David Nitschmann, who went to the Caribbean island of St Thomas in 1732.

While both efforts succeeded to some extent, they went about their task in very different ways.  It seems that the success of the Moravian Missions endeavor to plant churches was such that they divided their organization into colonies.  While William Carey arrived in Calcutta in 1793 his first convert came in 1796.  It seems that Carey was more inclined to translating the Scripture in the language of the people.  While the Moravian missionariew were more inclined to plant churches and change the culture.  William Carey, during his missionary life span:

Dr. Akin, obtaining the historical, theological, missiological, and other education he has knows that William Carey was not the first missionary.  He has not said Carey was the first missionary and neither do I imply he has said such a thing.  I point to these two different mission endeavors in order to present a basis for the question that I believe needs to be answered.  If we are to judge the success of the GCR will there be a standard by which we do this?  I know that we cannot do this by the baptismal numbers alone.  If that were so, William Carey would have probably been reassigned from India.  But I believe there should be some bench mark noted now that we are able to clearly point to, in order to term the GCR a success.  In other words, “numbers, noses, and nickels” are not always accurate in assessing church health, but they do comprise a benchmark that many point to in assessing the success or failure of a church.  What will be the bench mark that will determine the GCR’s success?

Will the GCR be wedded to or build upon the CR?

The Great Commission Resurgence, of absolute necessity, must be wedded to the Conservative Resurgence that was launched in 1979 with the election of Adrian Rogers as president of the SBC…

There is no disagreement among Southern Baptist that the CR was needed, as I do not know of any Southern Baptist that would say a GCR is not needed.  My main question hinges on Dr. Akin’s terminology and how that applies to these two movements.  Is the GCR to be wedded to the CR or is the CR a foundation for the GCR?  There is a difference.  If the GCR and the CR are to be wedded together then the foundation is Jesus Christ.  That is what binds us together.

Also, as the CR is identified by the election of Dr. Adrian Rogers then if the GCR is wedded to the CR we need to maintain the principles of Dr. Rogers that kept us together.  As Dr. Akin said; There can be no backtracking from the ground regained through the Conservative Resurgence. Further, there must be continued vigilance and even advance of the Conservative Resurgence. In a wedding there is articulated a clear definition of the purpose that brought the man and woman together.  In SB life that purpose was the inerrancy of Scripture, which was based on the foundation of Jesus Christ.  In expressing the standard of inerrancy Southern Baptist found out that many did not adhere to this standard.  When the standard was spoken of it revealed a divide between SB and resulted in a labeling of groups.  It was hard to understand the difference between these camps known as Conservative and Moderates.  Dr. Rogers clearly defined these terms for us in his 2005 book Love Worth Finding released before his passing.

The moderate is a person who may believe the Bible to be without error, but who also believes in inclusivism.  he is a person who maintains the position of accommodating the liberal view.  I believe the moderate to be more inclined to opinion than convictions. {Adrian Rogers, Love Worth Finding (Broadman & Holman, Nashville, 2005) p.166.}

For this wedding to have a chance this must be the wedding ring that should sparkle any time someone mentions the CR.  As we have always been told, the CR was about the inerrancy of Scriptures.  If this is the case, and I believe it is, then the core of inerrancy was rooting out liberalism and the way that had to be done was identifying moderate behavior, which Dr. Rogers accurately describes. If, however, the CR is a foundation then the principles of the CR are good to know and something we need to keep in mind.  As long as we keep these principles in mind then we can get along with anyone because we will not accentuate the principles, merely the accomplishment of the GCR.

My concern with the illustration lies with those that come behind us.  I believe Dr. Akin will build this GCR within the structure of CR principles and he will not back down from that.  However, if the foundation is the principles of the CR, those that come behind us may feel that the foundation is old and outdated and we need a new foundation.  If the foundation is Jesus Christ, no one will desire to rebuild that foundation.  But, if we are wedded together with the sparkle of that wedding ring clearly defining our standards we cannot divorce from that.

Do these bedrock essentials retain their exclusiveness in the biblical principles the SBC has identified as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?

Suffice it to say there must be a biblically informed, theologically balanced consensus for Southern Baptists to cooperate in a Great Commission Resurgence. So, what are some of the details or particulars that would accompany a Great Commission Resurgence, especially for those of us who are Southern Baptists?

Dr. Akin solidly states a standard and he also asks a very pertinent question.  His statement, while very forthright, comes at a place in the article after he has spoken about the BF&M 2000 being the highpoint of the CR.  With that statement I would presume that his meaning would be that we retain the biblical principles found within the BF&M 2000.  Such principles as baptism by immersion and that being connected to the Lord’s Supper.  He has spoken before that we should not partner with others outside the SBC to plant churches and the churches that we plant should only be biblical Baptist churches.  He issues a strong warning in the following statement:

Further, our national agencies and entities need continually to be held accountable to the vision that marked the Conservative Resurgence. This will be the very nature of things, an ongoing process. If we fail to build upon and stay rooted in the theological convictions of the Conservative Resurgence, the Great Commission Resurgence will be short lived and ultimately a failure.

With this statement, he seeminly defines any GCR movement within the SBC to be one, not tied down with, but yoked to the BF&M 2000.  I will look to more of an expansion of these ideas in future articles. Dr. Akin has done a great job in laying the groundwork for his upcoming series.  I am one who anticipates his future articles as he outlines the nuts and bolts of how the GCR will be a hand-in-glove approach of moving us into a fresh era.

I just think your questions about the GCR suspect some hidden agenda… I do not believe Brother Robin sees a hidden agenda, it is just that some who are promoting a GCR say one thing, but actions do not quite go along with what is being said. For example. Dr. Akin when giving his 5 steps to accomplish a GCR states, “We need a revival of authentic expository preaching that will lead us to be genuine people of the book Then he explains, Unfortunately we have a generation of preachers, good and godly men, who believe themselves to be expositors, when what they do in the pulpit betrays their confession.” These are statements to which I can say, “Yes, Amen.” But then he places on his faculty a preaching prof that is known for teaching preachers to preach a “storying” format. This format in its simplest form has for its thesis that Jesus taught in parables and we must just tell the stories and do so in story form. If I understand expository preaching correctly, when you preach parables you use that genre to exposit the text. When you deal with the poetic genre you present the message in the poetic genre. Not every sermon has three points and a poem. Expository messages are text driven not story-form driven. As I said, that is just one example from Dr. Akin’s paper that he promotes something and says that we must do this in order to have a clear GCR. But…

Please do not take the above illustration as a slam against Dr. Akin. I do not desire to do that. I respect him as my President as I am an alum of SEBTS.

The above statement was made in this comment thread.  Allow me to walk you through this statement and then tell you a true story.  As you look at the statement you will notice that no one has attacked Dr. Akin.  Yes, his name is used and yes he is painted, by me, as being inconsistent.  From his writings and apparent actions I saw what I perceived to be some semblance of inconsistency.  However, what these detractors do not understand is that Dr. Akin and I have since spoken personally about this issue and my assessment is not the same.  While I am not in total agreement with his assessment, he and I have arrived at an understanding and I am in support of his position.

I do owe Dr. Akin an apology for releasing information in such a way that would bring a wrong perception of his hiring practices and his commitment to expository preaching.  He has spoken to me and expressed that he has not hired a Professor on faculty that is committed to anything less than expository preaching. In fact he was clear that he never would.  My statement implied that the Preaching Department at SEBTS was not advocating expository preaching.  The prof that I referenced was not hired as a professor but will be used by SEBTS in a joint venture with the IMB in an adjunct role to instruct missionary students in the art to Chronological Bible Storying.  This particular teaching style is used where illiteracy is prevalent.  After a couple of conversations with Dr. Akin I would like to express publicly my apologies for anything that I said that may have placed him in a less than favorable light.  Dr. Akin has consistently beaten the drum for expository preaching. I certainly do not desire to muffle that drum beat by misrepresenting his position.

Now for the story.  I was surprised by a Friday afternoon phone call on my cell.  My cell phone rings on Friday afternoons, so that is not the surprise.  The surprise came by who was on the other end of the line:Dr. Danny Akin.  I must say that I am very impressed with his ability to find me.  I am honored when he speaks to me at various venues we attend and he is one of the keynote speakers, but was amazed that he would track down my phone number and call me.  It seems that he just returned to the country and was in an airport awaiting a connection when he discovered on his email some statements reported to him I had said.  We discussed various statements and were able to work through various areas to better understand each other.  This is what Christian brothers and sister should do for one another.  One area that I pointed out to him was various items that concerned me about the GCR.  He expressed to me that the basis of the GCR was the paper delivered at the Building Bridges conference.  This conference was  identified as a Southern Baptist endeavor.  He also expressed to me that the Building Bridges in his mind was within the SBC in order have a GCR within the SBC.  Of course if this GCR expanded outside of the SBC it would bring that much more glory to God.  However, he was quick to point out to me that he did not advocate and did not think it wise to form partnerships with others outside of the SBC for church plants.  We can learn from others, but our assignment is to plant biblically based Baptist churches.  I asked him about others using his language and advocating something different.  He expressed to me that he could not speak for others.  However, when he used this language that is what he believed.

I was elated when I got off the phone with him.  He is, I believe, trying to be consistent in what he says and what he does.  He also assured me that in the future if I had any questions concerning his words or positions, to feel free to contact him.  As busy as he is, I certainly will use that invitation sparingly, but will also make certain I understand his position before I present questions concerning it.

Tim Rogers has given us some thoughts on bridge building in the post below.  This seems to be the new buzz word for unity and it is being used by various people.  This post is one he recently had on his site and has now allowed us to publish it here.

My late father would always offer me sage advice when I was growing up. Whenever I would come home telling him about a deal that was too good to be true he would respond; “If it is too good to be true, usually it is.” Or he would say, “In this world, the only thing worth having that you get for nothing is salvation.” On every occasion I would come home with various ideas and run them past him, he would always interject wisdom into my thought process. On one such occasion I was home after completing my military active duty requirement and had the availability of a GI loan through the VA. I was part of a group of five trying to figure out how to open a junk yard business. Each one, it was agreed would put up $10K and with the total $50K we would begin our own business. Neither of us knew anything about the car business or the junk business. We did not have a business plan and we certainly did not know anything about purchasing land and the restrictions that would be placed on us in the early 1980′s concerning the environment. Neither of the five of us did any research other than how we could come up with the money. I talked this over with my father and he gave some wise advice to me at that time. I can still hear his words ring through my ears as I write this article. He told me; “Tim, before you jump on a band wagon, you need to know where it is heading.” It is these words that I want to echo in this article.

In 2007 at the Union University Baptist Identity Conference, Dr. Tom Rainer delivered a paper on “Evangelism and Church Growth in the Southern Baptist Convention”. In the follow-up to this conference he wrote an article entitled On Building Bridges. His thesis was on how we as Southern Baptist needed to build bridges, I believe, to each other within the convention. I never saw where he advocated that we build bridges outside the convention. I did see two things in the article that did concern me a bit. Dr. Rainer stated there were defined groups at the conference and implied, by a personal story at the conference, that these groups did not desire to mingle or exchange ideas. I was at the conference and I went to a bloggers reception where I exchanged greetings and ideas with Brother CB Scott, Brother Ben Cole and Dr. Dwight McKissic. I left there and went to a reception in the SWBTS area and exchanged ideas with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell along with Dr. and Mrs. Paige Patterson. To be fair to Dr. Rainer, there were more than likely some that were afraid to be seen with others, but I did not get that feeling. I hung out with Brother Wes Kenney and Brother David Worley, gave a ride to the conference to Dr. Ed Stetzer, and had great dialog with Dr. Dwight McKissic. The other concern I had from the article was this statement; “But it seems as if we just can’t stop fighting even though the battle for the Bible is over and won.” I believe we would all agree that the battle for the Bible will forever be at our door. If we ever concede this battle is over, we certainly will have a bridge from Neo-Orthodoxy that leads back into the convention defined as something other than what it is.

In San Antonio we were greeted with a packet of material that contained the booklet, pictured on the left, that advocated Building Bridges. These bridges I cannot comment on as I confess I never have read the booklet. I only present this picture because it is something that some of our leaders are advancing and advanced hard at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Rainer in his report, once again spoke about Building Bridges, but this time he referenced the foundation on which the bridge should be built. That foundation is something that we all can agree on. But, did he really need to advance the thought that we needed to build this bridge on the Bedrock of Christ? If, as he advanced in his previous articles, the battle for the Bible is over should we not presume any bridge built has as its foundation Jesus Christ? I am not questioning Dr. Rainer’s passion or his purpose. I want to be on that bridge that he desires to build. But, I believe there needs to be some reassessment from him as to his assertion that we throw caution to the wind because everyone in the SBC is a Bible Believing inerrantist. Dr. Rainer is a Godly man and each time I hear him in a presentation I am challenged and moved to seek more of God. He makes excellent presentations and does his research well. I would not be anywhere close to being able to carry his water. However, on this point of Building Bridges I believe he needs to reassess his position.

Enter the next Building Bridges stage. In November 2007 we had a Building Bridges Conference at Ridgecrest where Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and The Founders Ministry converged to make presentations concerning Calvinism within the SBC. This was a wonderful time and I enjoyed getting to meet new people and also interact with others I knew. It was at this conference that I renewed my acquaintance and began a friendship with Brother Travis Hilton. Dr. Ed Stetzer had jokingly referred to this conference as “The Revenge of the Nerds“. We had scholar after scholar making presentation after presentation. Some you could follow and some I still go back and listen to the audio, but to no avail. It seems that this conference advocated Building Bridges to the Calvinist within our convention. It was at this conference that Dr. Danny Akin introduced his new baby, The Great Commission Resurgence. Thus, if I understand this bridge that he advocates we build, thi bridge is extended to the Calvinist and it will lead us to a Great Commission Resurgence. If this is what Dr. Akin means then I am 100% on board. It was refreshing to see Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Dr. Bart Barber, and Dr. Tom Ascoll stand shoulder to shoulder to put some teeth in Resolution #6 at this past convention. I believe we cannot begin advancing the Kingdom of God until we stop fighting among ourselves. But if he means we build bridges outside the convention to join forces for planting churches because we want to plant more churches then I believe caution and clearly defined road signs need to accompany the traversing of this bridge.

Well, now we see another Bridge that a group of Baptist want to build. In the annual Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gathering, their platform is Building Bridges. What originality. Their bridge, I do not believe, will be built on the same bedrock as the other bridges I have directed us. According to this article a presenter at this conference has questioned the very Deity of Christ. I know that CBF has a statement that they do not promote ideas the individuals presenting promotes those ideas. CBF, for some strange reason, believes they share no responsibility when a presenter presents a heretical view. Smyth & Helwys has taken the BP reporter to task because he inadvertently presumed they were the publisher of the book. Why wouldn’t he presume such? Smyth & Helwys sponsored the workshop and promoted the book during the General Assembly. Smyth & Helwys also is hosting a book-signing for Killinger at its booth in the resource fair. All of this to ask; Where is this bridge going? Will this bridge intersect within the cloverleaf of bridges already being built?

It seems that everyone wants to build a bridge to somewhere, but no one is telling us where the bridge is heading. Neither is anyone telling us what we are trying to connect by building this bridge. Let me add that I do not believe these various bridges that I have presented will end up connecting. I do not want to believe that the bridge Drs. Ranier, Akin, Dockery, and George has pointed us to will be connected to the bridge the CBF is advocating. However, with all of this construction going into Building Bridges, we need to be very careful that the band wagon we are on doesn’t get mixed up in a cloverleaf of bridges and we get confused as to what road the bridge takes us down.