UPDATE: The website for The Gospel Project has been launched.

A little over a year ago, I transitioned out of pastoral ministry and took on the role of editor at LifeWay Christian Resources of a new small group curriculum for churches.

Beginning Stages

My first two months at LifeWay (November-December 2010) were primarily focused on helping develop the vision for the new curriculum. In conjunction with Ed Stetzer (general editor), I began mapping out what topics this curriculum might cover. We put together some different options – some focused more on systematic theology, others focused on a variety of approaches, etc.

We also began putting on paper the core values we wanted to keep at the forefront of this curriculum. “Theologically robust” (which we renamed “deep, but not dry”), “Christ-centered,” “Grand-narrative-focused,” and “Mission-driven” are the important elements we want to see in every quarter and (hopefully) every lesson. We took these buzz words and fleshed out how they might apply to a curriculum.

Advisory Council

Then we brought together an advisory council to speak into the project, leaders like D.A. Carson, Matt Chandler, James MacDonald, J.D. Greear, Eric Mason, Juan Sanchez, Collin Hansen, Kimberly Thornbury, Joe Thorn, Danny Akin, and Jay Noh. We met with members of the council in Dallas and Chicago earlier this year and received helpful feedback and great insight into this curriculum.

The meetings with the advisory council were very helpful. The group helped us refine the vision, make needed adjustments, and craft a three-year cycle that brings together systematic theology within the framework of the Bible’s grand narrative. After both meetings, we went back to the drawing board – affirmed in our general direction yet helpfully challenged in some of the particulars.

The Writing Begins

We went back and forth on a few different names for this new curriculum, finally settling on TGM (Theology, Gospel, Mission), a name that helped us crystallize the three components we wanted to have present in every lesson. Earlier this year, we began gathering writers for the initial quarters. The writers’ meetings have been wonderful. I can’t believe I get to meet and work with such great people!

Some of our writers include: George Robinson (professor of missions and evangelism at Southeastern Seminary who has done extensive work on the evangelistic tool The Story), Jared Wilson (pastor in Vermont, author of LifeWay’s Threads study Abide, and Gospel Wakefulness), Juan Sanchez (pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, TX), Halim Suh (pastor at Austin Stone Community Church), Jonathan Leeman (editorial director of 9Marks), Geoff Ashley (discipleship pastor at The Village Church in Dallas, TX), etc.

The curriculum launches in Fall of 2012. The second and third installments of the material will take people on a journey through the Bible in 26 weeks. George Guthrie (Union University professor and author of Read the Bible for Life) has been instrumental in helping us think through how best to accomplish this task.

Major Development – “The Gospel Project”

At the same time I was working on editing the adult curriculum, a student team and a kids team were working on similar products for those age groups. A couple weeks ago, Eric Geiger, the new vice president over the Church Resources Division at LifeWay, recommended that we bring these three curriculum options under one umbrella. This change shifted me from being editor of the adult piece to being managing editor of all three lines. My task is now to oversee the gospel-centered content development across all age groups. Ed Stetzer is now general editor of all three lines as well.

These changes also meant we would need to (yet again) change the name, so as to accurately reflect the emphasis for all age groups. We’ve settled on the name “The Gospel Project.” The new name communicates the ongoing nature of this curriculum roll-out. It also communicates that this isn’t just about creating Bible studies. The curriculum itself isn’t the project that’s most important; we are. We are the gospel project. Our prayer is that as small groups of all ages work through these studies, the gospel will work on us. The church is God’s gospel project.

I’d appreciate your prayers for me and for the teams who are working on this new product. We believe “The Gospel Project” has the potential to serve the church in a good way, as it provides a gospel-centered resource for children, students, and adults.

Last month, Southern Baptist Convention president Bryant Wright announced the formation of a committee to explore the option of changing the name of the SBC. Blogs quickly became forums for people to discuss the merits of the proposal. Some believe the name change represents a sell-out of our historic identity. Others believe that not changing the name keeps us stuck in the past (with racial connotations even!) and hinders our future growth and effectiveness. Still others are open to a name change, but don’t like the way the current president is going about things.

I don’t have a strong feeling one way or another regarding changing the name of the SBC. But I do have some thoughts on the subject, and a few people have asked me to make them public. So, at risk of making people on both sides of this contentious debate angry, here goes nothing…

1. We’re not as big or important as we think we are.

Much of the talk about changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention assumes that people have a terribly negative perception of Southern Baptists. It’s assumed that our mission work in many parts of the country is hindered because the term “Southern” is an obstacle. Or perhaps we’re afraid people associate our name with the backwoods Baptists of yesteryear.

I may be mistaken, and I am willing to be corrected, but I doubt that most non-Christians have a negative perception of Southern Baptists. Truth be told, most non-Christians don’t even know who we are. Right now, we look a lot like the wider world of evangelicalism, which also suffers from this navel-gazing, Everyone hates us! mentality that research has proven to be untrue. It reminds me of the teenage girl who goes home from a party crying about how everyone hated her outfit, when in actuality, no one even noticed it.

Still, the acknowledgement that “we’re not as important as we think we are” cuts the other way too. It’s true that we’re not universally panned in the way some of those desiring a name-change think we are. But neither are we too big or important to refrain from considering a name change. Those who resist any idea of changing the name tend to overestimate the Convention’s importance as well, but from the other side.

So, let’s keep this discussion in perspective and remember that changing the name of the SBC will barely register as a blip in the overarching scheme of church history. We’re not so big and important in the perception of others that we have to change it. Neither are we so big and important to reject any notion of change.

2. We shouldn’t caricature people who approach this issue differently.

Some of the more vocal opponents of changing the SBC’s name believe that historic Baptist identity will suffer if the name were to change. Unfortunately, they level an implied accusation against the proponents of a name-change: They’re not really Baptist. Meanwhile, some who want to change the name have given the impression that anyone who opposes the idea must be more focused on the past than the future, or worse yet, racist for wanting to keep “Southern” in the name.

Both of these lines of attack and argumentation are unbecoming and unworthy of the Southern Baptist Convention. It would do us all well if we would assume good and godly motives on behalf of each other, and then recognize that there are good points to be made on both sides. There may indeed be sound, missiological reasons for considering a name more representative of the Convention’s direction. There may also be good reasons to refrain from going to the expense of changing the name at this time. We need not resort to caricature and insinuation of the worst possible sort when it comes to this issue.

3. Our mission should be at the forefront in this discussion.

For me personally, the most attractive reason for changing the name of the SBC is that we better describe who we are and who we are becoming. It seems strange to think that church planters in Boston or Sacramento would be planting churches that belong to a Convention whose name is regional. That said, I doubt that any of these church planters are publicly advertising their churches as Southern Baptist. It’s quite possible to belong to the Convention and yet choose for missiological purposes to not wave the SBC flag.

If our name gets in the way of the mission, then by all means, ditch the name for something better! After all, as Southern Baptists, we are a missionary people, and the impulse to cast aside anything that hinders the mission is one that we should embrace. At the same time, in a time of recession, one has to wonder whether or not the amount of expense that would be generated by all the ramifications of altering the Constitution and by-laws would be the best use of funds. We’ve just had a major discussion (some would say battle) within the Convention over the need to get more money to the mission field. It’s not wrong to wonder openly if a name-change controversy could distract from the mission, or if our funds would be better suited elsewhere.

In other words, the missiological question cuts both ways. Missiology challenges those who resist the change out of nostalgia, but it also challenges those who promote the change, particularly when it takes into account the time and expense of changing the name. Either way we move forward, let’s make sure missiology is at the forefront of this discussion.

4. We can learn from other organizations who have changed their names.

In recent years, a number of groups and denominations have chosen to change their names. Campus Crusade for Christ is now Cru. The Baptist General Conference is now Converge Worldwide. If a new name is so vague or trendy that everyone has to repeat the old name after it, it probably isn’t working too well. I hope we don’t make the same mistake.

On the other hand, there may be an easier way to go about a name change – a way that avoids the exorbitant costs associated with changing the Convention’s constitution and yet still allows us to be Southern Baptists with a new moniker. We could adopt a fresh name that describes who we are, and still maintain “Southern Baptist Convention” for clarifying purposes. In a nutshell, a DBA (“doing business as”) is the name of a corporation that is different from the legal or true corporate name as on file. We could be the Southern Baptist Convention “doing business as Great Commission Baptist Fellowship” or something of that nature. This would give us the opportunity to avoid a bitter and public controversy. It would also keep costs down.

Conclusion

Whatever Southern Baptists choose to do with our name, I hope that we will keep missiology at the forefront of our thinking. The big issues are God’s kingdom and our representation as Christ the King – not our denominational brand and history. His name is what we must care about most passionately, not our own.

Today’s post is contributed by Jonathon Woodyard, family pastor at Oak Park Baptist Church in Jeffersonville, IN.

Every year the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) of churches puts out the Annual Church Profile (ACP).  This year, the profile shows that the SBC has experienced a decline in membership and baptisms.

When I take a look at these numbers I have mixed feelings.  Should we count?  Is it helpful to look at numbers?  Is it unhelpful not to evaluate our numbers?  I believe we should take an honest look at our numbers, but must also understand that numbers can tell a number of different stories.

I certainly do not want to be counted among those who never look at the numbers.  I evaluate numbers every week. I’m part of a church staff that pays attention to where we are in terms of attendance and growth (or decline).  By God’s grace, we hope to see more and more families and individuals becoming part of the landscape of our church.  Numbers that reveal a decline are numbers that represent individuals who are not being shepherded and are not a vital part of the body.  Increased numbers may encourage us to press on.  Simply put, numbers are helpful when viewed rightly.

Rightly looking at the numbers means that we acknowledge that there are times when simply looking at the stat sheet does not tell the whole story.  There could be more happening than the eye can see upon first glance.  Within our convention this can certainly be the case.  The decline in membership and baptisms may be a sign of unhealthiness or they can be a sign of healthiness (possibly a sign of neither?).  Decline does not necessitate us concluding our convention is unhealthy just as growth does not necessitate concluding that our convention is healthy.

With that in mind, let me suggest some possible reasons for our decline and some ways in which that decline in membership and baptism could potentially be signs of health.

1. Membership is Becoming More Meaningful.

Membership has been reduced to club status in many of our churches.  Come as you please, join if you want, and stay as long or as short as you like.  Take it or leave it, the club really isn’t essential to your life.

But, there are encouraging signs today that membership is beginning to be rightly understood and embraced.  Blogs, books, articles, and conferences are talking about what it means to be a healthy-member of a local congregation.  Churches are adding membership classes and making sure that doctrine, areas of service, expectations, and questions are addressed up front.  Membership may be becoming more meaningful!

How does this affect numbers?  When you can walk an aisle and join without having to articulate the gospel, give evidence that you have been born-again, and have followed the Lord in baptism, then joining is quick, easy, and…meaningless.  In other words, if all that I have to do is walk down front, have a quick conversation, and then have everyone raise their hand for me to be “in”, then sure, I’ll do that.  Multitudes have taken that route.  Our churches have grown quickly and pastors have patted themselves on the back.  It may be the case that our large numbers and continual increase for so many years was indicative of a denomination that was unhealthy in terms of membership.

With the recovery of meaningful membership, as we talk about doctrine, the gospel, and what it means to be part of a local body, we may be seeing those who claim Jesus as Savior but aren’t committed to Jesus as Lord, walking away.  Thus, the decline in membership may actually be a sign that we are doing a better of job of guarding the front door of our faith communities!

2. Baptism is Being Practiced More Carefully

As a convention, we believe in a believers-only church.  That is, we believe only those who have repented and trusted in Christ and subsequently followed Him in baptism can be members.

In the past, it would seem that we have been quick to baptize.  An increasing number of small children have stirred the baptismal waters within the SBC over the years.  It is common to talk to those who are not committed to the church (yet are members) who tell of their baptism at 6, 7, or 8 years old.  (To be clear, I believe God can save at any age and when He does, baptism should follow in a timely, yet faithful, manner.) Perhaps we ushered our children towards the baptismal prematurely in far too many cases.

Is there a move towards healthiness at this point?  Possibly.  In talking about family ministry, we are helping train our parents to discuss things like baptism with their children.  We see churches offering classes that are meant to teach kids fundamentals of the faith.  Churches appear to be making sure that those who come to faith later in life have counted the cost and are clear on what it means to follow King Jesus.  We are not rushing people to the baptistery without making sure the gospel is clear and embraced as far as we can tell.

Now, if it is true that we are being more careful in who we baptize then we would expect the number of baptisms to decrease.  But again, this can be healthy.  It means, or it could, that we are taking the time to ensure we are, as much as we can tell, baptizing only believers.

3. The Gospel is Being Preached More Accurately.

Over the past few decades, we have sometimes communicated the gospel in a way that leaves people thinking that believing a few historical facts will save them. We have reduced the gospel to a “get-out-of-hell-free-card” and failed to connect it to God Himself.

Today, there is a resurgent focus on the gospel message. We are proclaiming that without the gospel of Jesus Christ incarnate, sinless, crucified, buried, risen, and reigning then we are helpless and stand in a horrible condition.  In other words, we are letting the message offend.

When we fail to preach the true gospel, which is offensive, and preach nothing more than God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life, without talking of sin, hell, judgment, taking up your cross, hating father and mother, leaving your possessions behind, and bowing your knee to King Jesus, then we fail to communicate the message that saves.

When we preach the gospel accurately, the way Jesus did, we communicate a message that offends.  We talk about a way of life that is narrow and hard.  We call for people to make a choice that will not lead to an easy, trouble-free, comfortable life.  And when we preach that message, many will walk away.  They walked away from Jesus (John 6:60-66) and they will walk away from us. Thus, an accurate preaching of the gospel may repel more than it brings in.  It did in the days of Jesus, why not our day as well?

Conclusion

Maybe our numerical decline is due to unhealthiness.  I do not doubt that this could be the case. Some of our methodological approaches may not connect with this generation.  It could also be the case that our decline is due to the fact that we are moving in healthy directions in areas like membership, baptism, and gospel proclamation.  I pray the cause of our current decline is the latter, but in all reality it’s probably a mixture of both.

Another ACP will come in 2012 (unless Jesus comes back).  We will once again look at our numbers.  And we should.  The numbers can tell us that we are doing some things right and need to press on.  They can also tell us that we need to evaluate our ministries and methods because we are not reaching people with the gospel of Jesus.

I pray that God blesses our efforts as Southern Baptist.  May people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation come to faith in Jesus!  As we evaluate our current state, let’s take an honest and balanced look at the numbers.  Numbers can reveal healthiness or unhealthiness.  Wisdom and discernment will be needed to determine which is the case.

I can’t make sense of my Christian heritage apart from the independent Baptist movement of the last century. My father was born in Wheaton, IL, the city where my grandfather was employed as the printer for the Sword of the Lord, the premier fundamentalist newsweekly during the second half of the 1900′s. When John R. Rice, the founder and first editor of The Sword, decided to move the headquarters to Murfreesboro, TN in the mid-60′s, my grandparents moved with him. It was in Murfreesboro, at John R. Rice’s church, that my parents met each other and were married.

Rice died in the hospital I was born in. Though he died six months before I was born, I was raised in the shadow of his influence. During the earliest and most formative years of my life, I understood my identity as an independent Baptist. I was well versed in the fundamentalist distinctions that separated us not only from the world but also from “Christians who love the world.”

I’m grateful for my fundamentalist upbringing, particularly for the amount of Bible knowledge I received at church and in my Christian school. I’m also grateful for an important impulse that continues to shape me today: hold fast to precious truths. The old-school fundamentalists knew there were truths worth protecting, worth holding onto, perhaps dogmatically at times. I think they were right.

But while the independent Baptist movement succeeded in teaching me what to think, it failed in teaching me how to think. When our family joined a fledgling Southern Baptist church plant, I quickly discovered what it was like to be an outsider to the tight-knit community that had once felt like home. Many independent Baptists today would consider me a “liberal” for letting my wife wear pants, for reading versions of the Bible other than King James, or for listening to music with drums. But most of the world would still label me “fundamentalist” – if by that, they mean I adhere the core beliefs at the heart of Reformational Christianity.

I begin this book review with a personal story, because that’s how Andrew Himes begins his new book,  The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family. Himes is the grandson of the late John R. Rice, and his new book tells the story of his forefathers, focusing primarily on John Rice and the early fundamentalist movement. Though Himes has left his fundamentalist moorings, he still sees much to commend about the movement:

As a fundamentalist, I learned that it was perfectly all right for me to have an idea or outlook different from most folks, and to struggle for what I believed in the face of determined opposition. I learned that it was acceptable to be passionate about my values, and to care deeply about the consequences of my actions. I learned to view myself as an imperfect human who needs help from outside myself. I learned the faith and community are essential to life. (12)

The Story of John R. Rice

The Sword of the Lord traces the Rice-influenced version of fundamentalism back to the “myth of the lost cause” sentiment after the Civil War. Himes goes into great detail as he retells his family’s history, sometimes laboring over historical events that don’t move the story along. But once he gets to the portrait of John R. Rice, Himes hits his stride.

John R. Rice

The life of John R. Rice is the most compelling part of the book. The young evangelist began within the SBC, even going so far as to say in 1921, “I feel as never before that the salvation of the world lies heavily upon Southern Baptists.” (189) It was his relationship with J. Frank Norris that led Rice out of the Convention and into a more militant fundamentalist posture that demanded aggressive struggle against modernism.

At times, Himes demonstrates a sense of uneasiness with his grandfather’s legacy. He indicates his disappointment with Rice’s willingness to call out all sorts of sins (mixed bathing, adultery, lust, drinking) while never mentioning racism and mob lynchings. He writes:

“The focus on social and racial justice that strongly marked John Wesley, William Wilberforce, Charles G. Finney, Jonathan Blanchard, Charles Spurgeon, and other evangelical leaders in the 18th and 19th centuries was absent from the millions of words and scores of books John R. Rice penned during his lifetime.” (197)

The most fascinating part of the book chronicles the turbulent relationship between Rice and Billy Graham. For many years, Rice propped up Graham’s ministry, defending his methods against the more strident fundamentalists who had already disfellowshipped him. When Rice finally did turn against Graham, it was because separatism as the principle of fundamentalism had become more important than the doctrines of fundamentalism. Doctrinal purity wasn’t good enough. You could no longer associate with someone who even associated with the theologically impure. The split between Graham and Rice turned into a microcosm of the split between fundamentalists and evangelicals in the latter half of the last century.

Historically, Himes’ work is well-researched, but theological inaccuracies occasionally pop up. For example, Himes asserts that inerrancy is an extreme position that only appeared in the 19th century and was always literalist in interpretation (113). He writes:

“Although previous generations of Christians had believed the Bible to be inspired by God, few orthodox theologians had felt it necessary to insist on the absolute, reductive, factual flawlessness of the Bible.” (125)

That statement may be true on the surface, but the reason isn’t because earlier Christians didn’t believe in an inerrant Bible, but because they did. Why would they insist on what was always assumed? Himes puts forth an essentially static version of doctrine, unable to take in the complexity we see in church history that show new formulations arising (like the Trinity, justification, etc.) during the time periods these doctrines were under attack. He also equates premillennialists with Dispensationalists, though there are variations of premillennialism that do not fit his Dispensational critique. (115)

The conclusion of the book ends with a picture of a more gracious John R. Rice. In his last sermon, the 85-year-old Rice proclaimed his love for Billy Graham and urged his fundamentalist brethren to love like a Christian, meaning “you’ve got to love everybody Jesus loves.” At that event, Rice requested that the congregation sing the Gaither song “The Family of God.” Unfortunately, the new editor of the Sword of the Lord refused the request. Himes recalls:

“Rice sat in his wheelchair and wept with disappointment and sadness. He felt that his last public effort to leave a legacy of compassion to guide the movement he had helped to create had been defeated by the refusal. A spirit of discord, disdain, and disapproval that fundamentalists had incubated against liberals and modernists, in the end, and particularly on that day, boomeranged to poison the relationships among fundamentalist allies.” (290)

Lessons for Today

The story of John R. Rice offers several lessons for us today. First, we ought to be on guard against a Quietist gospel that would have us retreat from the public implications of the gospel. In Counterfeit Gospels, I write:

Fifty years ago, Southern Baptist pastors admirably preached against many forms of worldliness. But there was evil that many pastors never addressed. In small towns throughout the Deep South, outside the comfort of our sanctuaries on a Sunday night, there were African-American brothers whose bodies were swinging from the trees. And many pastors never said a word… Our preaching may have been loud, but it was all too quiet.

Preaching loudly against certain sins, while leaving massive injustice untouched and unspoken of should not be the norm for Christians who believe that Jesus truly did come out of the grave on Easter morning.

Secondly, we need to recognize and resist the fundamentalist tendency to exaggerate differences and distinctions in order to provide justification for our group’s existence. ”Holiness” is not defined by the doctrines that set us apart from other Christians, but the actions and beliefs we hold in common with other Christians that set us apart from the world.

Third, we must not reject everything about fundamentalism. The independent Baptists recognized that there were indeed hills worth dying on. It is possible to conceive of the doctrines and practice of evangelical identity so broadly that the “big tent” falls in on itself. I believe we may be witnessing that kind collapse today. The fundamentalists were wrong to major on minors, but we are often wrong to not major on majors.

Finally, we need to ask God to make us aware of our blind spots. Rice’s legacy was tarnished by his toleration of segregation and racial inequality. He thought he was putting forth a mediating position, but in retrospect, it’s clear that his mediation served only to buttress the existing social structures of the day.

Conclusion

I am thankful for men like John R. Rice. I’m thankful for their belief in truth and their willingness to defend important truths of the Christian faith. Apart from Rice’s ministry to my grandparents fifty years ago, I might not be a Christian today. I’m also thankful for my independent Baptist upbringing. The church folks who nurtured me knew the Bible well and wanted me to know it too. And although I can spot weaknesses in the fundamentalist movement, I admit that evangelicalism also has its fair share of flaws. Even so, I rest in the knowledge that God raises up imperfect people to serve imperfect people and that even through our weaknesses, God shines a spotlight on His magnificent grace.

I arrived home on Thursday afternoon after having spent several days at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Phoenix. 2011 marked my fourth time to attend a Convention (2007, 2009, and 2010 being the other three Conventions). The schedule was busy for me, as most of my time was taken up with meetings. Still, this SBC turned out to be my favorite of the four I’ve attended, and I’d like to offer a few reasons that explain why:

1. A Unified Convention

When it comes to SBC politics, the Phoenix convention was much quieter than last year’s meeting in Orlando or 2009 in Louisville. Everyone expected Bryant Wright to be reelected as president for another year. The drama stirred up by the GCR recommendations is now in the past, and the conversation has shifted to the how of implementation rather than the debate over the recommendations themselves. Furthermore, the attendance was lowest since 1944, an indication that points to harsh economic realities, the lack of intense debate this year, and the significant cost for many pastors to travel to Phoenix.

I wondered if there would be any debate about last year’s GCR report. A handful of SBC blogs have given the impression that the Convention is deeply divided over a number of significant issues. Some bloggers openly question the Southern Baptist credentials of people who don’t line up with the details of an unwritten, unspoken confession of faith (which goes well beyond the Baptist Faith and Message). The atmosphere at the Convention was, thankfully, much less rancorous than the comment streams on some blogs, where a culture of threat and intimidation appears to rule the day.

There are many types of Southern Baptists, and there are many views expressed by many Southern Baptists. But the Phoenix convention was an indication that, underneath our differences, we really are united by our confession of faith and motivated by our passion to fulfill the Great Commission. A highlight for me was the 9Marks at 9 event on Monday night, in which Paige Patterson and Mark Dever had a frank and open conversation that exhibited the way we as Southern Baptists should treat one another always.

2. The Pastor’s Conference

I was unable to attend most of the sessions of the pastor’s conference, as I had several meetings on Monday that precluded my attendance. Still, when I was able to spend some time in the Convention hall, I was encouraged by the variety in worship music and preaching. Not everything about the music or preaching was to my liking, but that happens to be the reason I liked it. The variety was a reminder of the expansiveness of God’s kingdom, the numerous ways that people express their heart to God in worship, and the power of the gospel that transcends our cultures and preferences.

The fact that a traditional pastor like Bob Pitman can bring us a Christ-centered message on Sunday night (and who will forget Pitman’s journey through the Apostle’s Creed – “Preach myself? I cannot preach myself!”) and a contemporary pastor like Rick Warren can challenge us toward church planting on Monday night is a sign of health. There are many types of Southern Baptists, and we heard from many of them in Phoenix. My personal favorite was the bold and gracious message delivered by Afshin Ziafat. I’m grateful for Vance Pitman’s leadership in putting this conference together, and I’m glad to see that all the Convention messages are available online.

3. The NAMB Luncheon

On Monday, more than 1,000 people gathered for a luncheon called “Send North America.” The luncheon served as the official unveiling of the North American Mission Board’s new strategy for church planting. The excitement in the luncheon room was palpable. Whenever I was in the exhibit hall, I saw people gathered at the NAMB booth asking for more information. I’ve never seen so much enthusiasm for the ministry of NAMB.

The new president of NAMB, Kevin Ezell, has his share of critics. There are some who question the legitimacy of doing anything differently than we have in the past. But considering NAMB’s history, how could we not try something else? I’m praying for Kevin Ezell as he leads, and that this ambitious new vision would succeed for the glory of God and the good of our continent. We need a resurgence of church-planting and church revitalization as we seek to take the gospel to our neighbors and to the nations.

4. Diversity

Despite the slump in attendance, I noticed a considerable amount of diversity in Convention messengers, especially in comparison with previous years. After attending my first Convention in 2007 (San Antonio), I commented to friends about how few young people and minorities were present. We still have a long way to go, but Phoenix was a sign of progress. I met more than a dozen young pastors who were attending the Convention for the first time. Many were saying, “It’s amazing what we have here!” It’s clear to me that the older generation has sought out the next generation, and I believe many young pastors are beginning to realize the great value of being part of this Convention of churches.

Ethnic representation is increasing too. At breakfast one morning, a pastor told me that as he traveled with his family to the Convention in the 1970′s, his family could easily pick out other Convention attendees – just by the way their cars looked and by how they were dressed. The SBC was culturally monolithic. Everyone looked alike. Things have changed today. He said, “Like it or not, there’s no going back to that cultural cohesiveness.” I understand that many Southern Baptists have nostalgia for those days, but I also understand that even the nostalgic Southern Baptists recognize the importance of the Great Commission and the need to diversify in leadership as we seek to reflect the increasingly multi-cultural society we live in. We were once monolithic in order to reach the culture of the late 20th century. We will have to be multi-ethnic in order to reach the culture of the 21st.

Conclusion

I’m grateful to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are a passionate people who are committed to fulfilling the Great Commission. I love – not only the Convention sermons and the proceedings – but also the ability to catch up with friends and fellow laborers in the kingdom. It’s encouraging to be part of a Convention that sends out thousands of missionaries every year. May we continue to seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness.

This week, I am in Phoenix, AZ for the Southern Baptist Convention. Though many of you who read my blog regularly are not Southern Baptist, I hope that you will be in prayer for our Convention. The SBC makes an impact in the wider world of evangelicalism and will continue to do so in the future. Our denomination is seeking to proclaim the gospel in a world that is quickly diversifying and fragmenting. My prayer is that we will be faithful to the Lord, obedient to the Scriptures, and united in Great Commission focus.

If you are on Twitter, read this article to find out how to follow the news and conversation by using the #SBC2011 hashtag.

Below, I have linked to some personal reflections on the SBC that I have posted here in the past, and which will give you an idea of the current situation of the Convention.

(By the way, I’m joining other Southern Baptist authors for a book signing today from 10:00-11:00 a.m. at the LifeWay store at the Convention Center. If you are a blog reader, or you’ve picked up a copy of Holy Subversion or Counterfeit Gospels, I hope you will stop by.)

The Future of the SBC

• Being Southern Baptist Among and For Evangelicals (my most recent article about SBC matters)
• Screwtape on the Southern Baptist Convention (my personal favorite of all the posts I’ve ever written on the SBC)
• Southern Baptist History for the Present – and the Future (a guest post by Robbie Sagers that includes a historian’s look at the SBC)

Previous SBC Meetings

• Reflections on SBC 2010
• The Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) Debate (providing an overview of the GCR in a nutshell)

Southern Baptist Discussion

• Calvinism and the SBC: A Review of Whosoever Will
• 7 Types of Southern Baptists

What Southern Baptists Can Learn from Romanian Baptists

• Romanian Baptists on the problem of SBC “Rebaptizing”
• Rebaptism: Diagnosing the Problem
• On the Baptism of Small Children
• On Catechism Before Baptism

In 1982, James Leo Garrett and E. Glenn Hinson debated the relationship between Southern Baptists and evangelicals. At the time of the debate, the SBC was embroiled in bitter controversy over the nature of the Bible. Luminaries in the evangelical movement – men like Francis Schaeffer, Harold Lindsell, and Carl Henry – were offering crucial support to conservatives in the SBC who were fighting for the inerrantist cause. Seeing that the convention was adrift, many Southern Baptists looked outside the SBC for energy and support in the “battle for the Bible.”

In the Garrett/Hinson debate over Southern Baptist identity, it’s not surprising that Hinson, a moderate Baptist scholar at Southern Seminary, would argue forcefully against linking Southern Baptists with the evangelical movement. According to Hinson, evangelicalism was a northern phenomenon that resembled fundamentalism more than mainline Protestantism. Garrett, on the other hand, saw Southern Baptists largely as evangelicals, albeit evangelicals with a Southern Baptist denominational identity.

Thirty years later, the situation is reversed. The neo-evangelical consensus is breaking down. A series of recent earthquakes over theology and ethics, Scripture and the gospel, have revealed fault lines that challenge the ability for evangelicalism to exist as a cohesive movement of like-minded Christians. When Phyllis Tickle can label Brian McLaren a “modern-day Luther” and still consider herself (and Brian) to be evangelical, it is clear that the word “evangelical” no longer means what it used to.

Evangelicals are facing an identity crisis, and even if most members in evangelical churches have not yet felt the aftershocks, many are already aware that the ground is shifting. Churches built more on pragmatic philosophy than biblical theology and confessional identity will soon be faced with significant challenges. As the earthquakes increase and the fault lines become more apparent, it is possible that a tidal wave of cultural capitulation will carry off a good number of institutions and churches that have historically flown under the “evangelical” banner.

Sensing the coming tsunami, many evangelicals have begun to rally with like-minded Christians in order to bolster their defense against the rising tide. Coalitions have formed. Church-planting movements are on the rise. New denominations have begun. Several publishers are reconsidering their role in the fast-changing landscape of evangelicalism. And of course, there is the Southern Baptist Convention, which represents a staggeringly large number of churches that are doctrinally conservative.

Thirty years ago, Southern Baptists needed help from evangelicals. Today, evangelicals need help from Southern Baptists. This is the time for Southern Baptist leaders to extend the hand of fellowship to like-minded evangelicals, to strengthen the growing number of coalitions, encourage gospel-proclaiming denominations, and cheer on various church-planting movements. Conservative evangelicals need strength and support in their efforts to reclaim the center of evangelical identity.

Unfortunately, some Southern Baptists feel threatened by what this sort of evangelical networking might mean for the future of the Convention. There are some who feel that the purity of Southern Baptist identity will be polluted if we join coalitions or encourage other networks. Instead of extending the hand of fellowship to like-minded evangelicals, we should pull up the drawbridge, hunker down on our hill, and refuse temporary shelter for the evangelical homeless. After all, new partnerships and networks may allow foreign methods and practices (not to mention unorthodox theological convictions) to seep into Southern Baptist churches.

At the heart of this discussion about the SBC is the question: What is the center of Southern Baptist identity? Many point to the Baptist Faith & Message as the confessional consensus that determines our cooperation within denominational boundaries. Others point to a number of traditional Southern Baptist markers of loyalty: giving to the Cooperative Program, style of preaching, or church practices, revival services, involvement at the association and state levels, etc.

Those who emphasize markers of loyalty rather than our common confession adopt a posture of being Southern Baptist over against other evangelicals. “This is who we are. Those outside our denomination are not like us. Therefore, Southern Baptists who network with others are suspect. Their Baptist credentials are called into question.”

On the other hand, those who emphasize our common confession adopt a posture of being Southern Baptist on behalf of other evangelicals. As the tidal wave looms over the horizon, the Baptist Faith and Message is a bulwark of confessional, biblical identity that unites Southern Baptists.

There are evangelicals who do not subscribe to our confessional distinctives and therefore cannot be part of the Convention. But if we as Southern Baptists are right on the gospel, then we should be free to strengthen others who are also right on the gospel. Evangelicalism needs a resurgence of attention on the evangel. Confessional Southern Baptists can and should play a key role in that discussion.

Now is not the time to water down our Baptist distinctives, seek unity at the level of ecclesiology, and pretend that all evangelicals are the same. Allies in WWII did not give up their sovereignty or their countries’ distinctive traits. But neither did they treat each other as opponents. They built bridges in order to see freedom advanced beyond their countries’ borders. Likewise, this is the time for Southern Baptists to maintain the bridges, not tear them down. We stand with evangelical allies. We are in a position to do for evangelicals what evangelicals once did for Southern Baptists.

So let’s be convictional, confessional Southern Baptists with a heart to get the gospel to our neighbors and to the nations. Now is not the time to close our fists and cast aspersion on Baptists willing to stand with those outside our denominational borders. The situation is too dire for infighting and turf wars. Let’s be Southern Baptist – not against other evangelicals, but for the good of evangelicals.

—–

For additional thoughts along these lines, I highly recommend David Dockery’s introductory essay in the recently-released Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism.

The cover story of this month’s Christianity Today is a lengthy profile of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The story is written by Molly Worthen, a writer and journalist finishing her Ph.D. at Yale. The article covers the history of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention as well as Mohler’s influence in the wider world of evangelicalism. After reading the story a few times, I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts.

First, I deplore the way that many evangelicals (particularly those in the conservative circles I run in) belittle Christianity Today. I’ve heard the jokes: Christianity Astray, Capitulation Today etc. Some dismiss CT as if the magazine never takes strong stands based on solid biblical reflection.

I have critiqued CT articles from time to time, but I don’t join the chorus of constant CT-critics. Generally speaking, the issues I sometimes have with CT’s coverage tend to be issues I have with the prevailing sentiments of evangelicalism. CT provides a snapshot of the para-church big-tent wing of evangelicalism, a tent that encompasses Christians with different views on a number of important issues. If I were to agree with everything I read in CT, I would no longer be reading the type of publication that CT seeks to be: an evangelical magazine that speaks from and to village-green evangelicalism.

Enough with that. Now, on to the cover story.

When I first heard about CT doing this profile, I thought, It’s about time! Albert Mohler is highly influential in a number of circles that are, in turn, highly influential for evangelicals. When you put these different circles together, you realize just how much influence Mohler exerts. Three circles stand out:

• The Southern Baptist Convention. (He is a denominational strategist who played an important role in the the Great Commission Resurgence, not to mention the fact that he casts the vision for the Convention’s mother seminary).
• The Religious Right. (Though he eschews the term “culture warrior” and is more nuanced than the typical voices in conservative politics, his cultural analysis is very popular. He has become a sort of spokesman for this wing of evangelical thought.)
• The Reformed Resurgence. (Through his leadership in Together for the Gospel, the Gospel Coalition, and his well-known Reformed theology, he has carved out a role as a guide to young Reformed types seeking church and cultural renewal.)

Looking at Mohler from the perspective of the Reformed Resurgence, the Religious Right, and the Southern Baptist Convention reiterates his status as a mover and shaker for evangelicals. In many ways, he resembles one of his mentors, Carl F.H. Henry. Speaking of Henry, the most ironic part of CT’s cover story is that it paints Mohler as being outside the mainstream of evangelicalism for his complementarian and inerrantist views when, in fact, it is Mohler (and not CT) who is carrying the mantle of former CT editor Carl Henry on these and other issues.

Worthen’s profile of Mohler is not condemnatory. She carefully presents his views on many issues. The best parts of the article are when Worthen is quoting Mohler or summarizing their conversations. She ably describes the building blocks of Mohler’s vision: for Southern Seminary, for the Southern Baptist Convention, for the conservative political movement, etc. Overall, Worthen’s article is neither a hack job nor a puff piece.

That said, Justin Taylor rightly described the article as “condescending.” The tone is negative at times, and Worthen’s condescension comes out in some of the offhanded remarks she makes in her reporting.

For example, when speaking of Southern Seminary’s current theological outlook, Worthen includes a parenthetical remark:

“As proof of the seminary’s current ‘diversity,’ some faculty protest that they are only four-point Calvinists.”

Her sarcasm aside, Worthen fails to understand the administration’s adherence to the Abstract of Principles, which ensures that all faculty fall in line as at least a moderate Calvinist. Her remark assumes that great theological diversity in a faculty is a virtue, whereas Mohler believes it is more virtuous for the faculty to be faithful to the confessional statement of the seminary founders.

Southern Seminary students aren’t portrayed nicely either. She describes the student visitors to Mohler’s personal library as “goggle-eyed” and gullible.

When it comes to Mohler, Worthen conveys respect for his accomplishments, but she wonders out loud if he is the intellectual everyone thinks he is. She writes of his personal library:

“A self-conscious air pervades the library, in the jumble of cultural artifacts intended to convey worldliness; in the shelves lined with a conspicuous number of Great Books, Harvard Classics, and other pre-packaged sets that seem the fruit of a single-minded mission to conquer a body of knowledge, or at least to give that impression.”

So the library may be part of Mohler’s attempt to come off as smart? As if the man, after all of his academic accomplishments, needs a big library to demonstrate his intellectual fortitude?

Later, she goes further, saying that Mohler is not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an “articulate controversialist.” She trots out two of Mohler’s controversial positions (though it’s hard to imagine that his creationist views are that controversial for evangelicals, most of whom fall squarely into the Answers in Genesis camp and not Biologos). Because of the space she devotes to controversies, Worthen leaves out Mohler’s more important view of  ”theological triage,” a concept that is very influential for conservative evangelicals seeking to uphold sophisticated theological distinctions and yet engage in partnerships with Christians who hold other views.

Worthen’s most perplexing comment is her charge of elitism. She writes:

“Mohler is just as elitist as the moderates of Old Southern: he is certain he has the truth, and those Baptists who protest simply are not initiated into the systematic splendor of Reformed thought.”

It appears that, for Worthen, elitism equals being certain one has the truth. Is that necessarily so? Cannot agnostics be elitist? What about postmodern theologians who revel in uncertainty and easily dismiss the “ultra-rationalistic” theological viewpoints of earlier evangelicals? What about journalists who are certain that certainty equals elitism? If Mohler comes across as an elitist in this article, a closer reading makes Worthen come across even more so.

In the end, Worthen gets a lot of facts and details right, but she puts them together in a way that makes her portrait of Mohler unflattering. Yes, the article could have been worse. But it could have been better too.

Al Mohler reflects on why he changed his mind regarding women as senior pastors:

It was in the mid 1980′s, and it was a time of tremendous controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention. The issue of women in ministry, women in the pastorate, was an issue of central controversy.

In 1984, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution (a very contentious moment) on women. It was the first time that this denomination as a whole in terms of its annual meeting in such an official way had made a declaration that the office of pastor was restricted to men as qualified by Scripture. That incited one of the most incredible denominational controversies in the midst of that great controversy of the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s that one could imagine.

Many people took umbrage at that statement. Many people were hurt and outraged and stunned that the Southern Baptist Convention would say that a woman ought not to be pastor.

I was one of them.

I was a student in this institution (SBTS). This institution at that time taught monolithically that women – just as men – could and should be called as pastors in churches. There was no CBMW , no book on recovering biblical manhood and womanhood. You talk about the influence that a preacher or a teacher can set a course of his or her own error leading to others… I can give firsthand testimony of that.

When the denomination adopted that resolution in 1984, I not only took part, I led an effort to protest it. We bought an ad in the Courier-Journal and made a statement about God as an equal opportunity employer. By the way, I did this while affirming biblical inerrancy, absolutely sure that the Bible was the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

There came a day when Carl Henry was here on campus. In the providence of God, it ended up being my assignment to be his host. Incredible privilege! He was already a mentor to me by his writings. I had been anchored in orthodoxy and in inerrancy as his books had had an influence on me.

At one point, it was my responsibility to get Dr. Henry from one end of this campus to the other. As I was walking him along, he brought up the issue of women in the pastorate. He asked me my position on the issue. With the insouciance of youth and the stupidity of speaking more quickly than one ought, I gave him my position. He looked at me with a look that surprised me and said to me, “One day, this will be a matter of great embarrassment to you.” That’s actually all he said. When Carl Henry tells you that on the seminary lawn, the effect of that embarrassment was instantaneous… The shock on his face was enough to arrest me. We talked more; we didn’t get close to that. We did talk about it many times thereafter.

What do you do when Carl Henry tells you, “One day this is going to be a matter of great embarrassment to you?” Well, I went to the library. I looked for every book I could possibly find on the subject. Frankly, the urgency on me was such that I didn’t think I could eat or do anything until I found out why I was going to be so embarrassed. The campus was full of people who appeared to be wonderfully unembarrassed about the issue.

I found very little. There wasn’t much. There was a book by Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ. It led me into, thankfully, some Scripture study. I ended up staying up until I could figure this out. Somewhere between Carl Henry saying what he said to me and the dawn of the next day, my position had completely changed.

Now… Carl Henry didn’t change my position, but he sure did arrest me. It was the Scripture that changed my position. I had to come face to face with the fact that I had just picked this up, I had just breathed this in, and I’d just capitulated it out without checking it according to the Scriptures. By the way, going to the Scriptures, it doesn’t take long. It wasn’t not like I embarked on a lifelong study to discover what Scripture says about this. It didn’t take long at all.

I realized that indeed Carl Henry was right. One day I would be very embarrassed about this. When I saw him the next morning, I was already in a different world.

Source: SBTS Chapel Message, September 14, 2010: Getting it Right, Getting it Wrong, Getting it Fixed, Getting it Done: Learning Ministry from Apollos

Guest Post by Robert Sagers

Change is afoot in the Southern Baptist Convention.

This past summer saw the adoption of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations and the hiring of a new Executive Committee president. Yesterday the Convention’s North American Mission Board announced its presidential candidate. The International Mission Board is still searching for the man to replace its outgoing president, who is retiring.

But for all the change taking place in the present that will affect its future, the Southern Baptist Convention has quite a past.

Today I’ve asked three of the Convention’s brightest young historians—Nathan Finn, Joshua Powell, and Jason Duesing—to address issues such as the importance of studying the Convention’s history, the relationship between Southern Baptists and evangelicals, and the need to learn from the past for greater fidelity to Christ in the future.

About the contributors:

Nathan Finn serves as assistant professor of church history and Baptist studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Nathan and his wife, Leah, have two children, and are currently expecting their third.

Joshua Powell is currently preparing to lead a new Baptist seminary and pastor training facility in southern India, and is in the writing phase of his doctoral dissertation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Joshua and his wife, Allison, have three children.

Jason Duesing serves as Chief of Staff and Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Jason and his wife, Kalee, have three children.

…

Robert Sagers: Who is one person from evangelicalism’s past who you think could provide wisdom for the way forward for Southern Baptists? Who is one person from the Convention’s past who you think could provide wisdom for the way forward for evangelicals?

Nathan Finn: One evangelical whom I think can help point the way forward for Southern Baptists is William Wilberforce, the famous British political leader. There is a discussion/debate right now among evangelicals, including many Southern Baptists, about the relationship between gospel proclamation and redemptive cultural engagement. While I mean no disrespect, it seems to me that many folks are talking past each other because of perceived fears about either “fundamentalism” on the one side or the “social gospel” on the other (however each is defined!). While there is no doubt there are extremes, and these must certainly be avoided, it seems to me that the answer to the question “Should we focus on evangelism and discipleship or engage in redemptive cultural engagement?” is “YES!” Wilberforce illustrates this balance with his wedding of a commitment to evangelism, missions, and general church health with gospel-inspired advocacy of the “reformation of manners” in British culture and vocal opposition to slavery.

A group of Baptists with whom I particularly resonate is a group of early 19^th century “First Church” pastors, many of whom died right before the formation of the SBC. These men were entrepreneurial leaders who were committed to orthodox doctrine, cooperation for the sake of missions and evangelism, and the need for sound theological education; these three priorities are the burdens of my heart. These brothers pastored evangelistic churches, founded state conventions and Baptist colleges, founded and/or edited Baptist papers, and longed for revival and spiritual awakening. Since I’m a native Georgian, Jesse Mercer is my personal favorite, though Richard Furman of South Carolina and Thomas Meredith of North Carolina also fit the profile.

Joshua Powell: I am reminded of an interview that I read in college from 1980. It was the last public interview of the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The person giving the interview was evangelical giant Carl F. H. Henry for Christianity Today. In the interview Dr. Henry asked Dr. Lloyd-Jones a question that pertained to summarizing his ministry of over 50 years, maybe a chance to leave his legacy in a statement. Lloyd-Jones answered pointedly, he would summarize all of his preaching ministry with the words, “Flee the wrath to come.” Again, Henry asked the question thinking that Lloyd-Jones did not understand it completely, only to have Lloyd-Jones reiterate, “Flee the wrath to come.” These words ring in my ear. We as Southern Baptists must always remember that this is the heart of our message. God’s wrath rests upon all who do not humbly submit to King Jesus, and our message must be proclaiming our King crucified as the only refuge for sinners. And we need to preach this urgently, for already the axe is laid at the root. We would be wise to follow the example of Dr. Lloyd-Jones in so many places, but here is one that I think is most important.

A person we could all learn from is an Indian Baptist pastor named Prassad. I have had the privilege of working with Prassad on many occasions. One of the several churches that Prassad pastors is located within a leper colony. The first Sunday I ever preached in India was at the church within this leper colony. Prassad was the pastor and my interpreter. As the service was starting I could not find him anywhere. I began to get worried. I finally looked out the door and saw him coming down the street. He was carrying upon his back a leprous man, a man who had lost his feet and hands. Prassad brought the man in and sat him down gently. He then walked to the front and stood beside me and said, “Now we are ready to preach.” This is a man who will never preach any Convention sermon, and has never even owned a suit (believe it or not). But he is a man of whom the world is not worthy, and we would all do well to know him, and those like him. The world needs humble servants who would look at any task, even washing lepers and caring for them, and say, “Jesus is Worthy.”

Jason Duesing: While I am not certain I can say exactly who Southern Baptists need to hear, I can mention a few of those who I, as a Southern Baptist and an evangelical, need frequently to hear.

First, I think William Tyndale provides immense wisdom and encouragement. Tyndale’s commitment to getting the Word of God into the language of the people, at whatever cost, challenges me to examine the level of faith in and priority I give to the Word of God. Does my life reflect what I say I believe about God’s Word? Do I regularly point people to God’s Word first or do I rely more on my collective wisdom and experience? Further, Tyndale was a man born ahead of his time. Had he arrived a few decades later after the arrival of the printing press and the mass distribution of printed materials, perhaps his life and the progress toward true Reformation in England would have been radically different. But Tyndale wasn’t born at the wrong time and neither are we. In eras of widespread darkness sometimes the brightest conduits of light are born.

Second, one little known person in modern Southern Baptist history whose story is not often told is Bill Wallace. A medical missionary with the then Foreign Mission Board, Wallace was used greatly in China in the decades prior to the “cultural revolution.” As the communist party advanced, Wallace was captured and murdered after years of faithful witness. The biography of his life recently republished, Bill Wallace of China, is one worth reading and has served to inspire many, Southern Baptist and non-Southern Baptist alike, to consider the call to take the gospel to those who have never heard.

RES: What is one historical moment or event from the Convention’s past that you think evangelicals would be wise to remember—both now and in the future? What is one historical moment or event from evangelicalism’s past that you think Southern Baptists would be wise to remember—both now and in the future?

NAF: Evangelicals need to pay close attention to the Conservative Resurgence. Many Southern Baptist denominational servants were tracking in several unhealthy directions: progressive theology, atheological pragmatic cooperation, affinity with mainline ecumenism, and a programmatic hubris. I sense some of these same tendencies among many evangelicals, though they sometimes manifest themselves differently than they did among Southern Baptists. A growing number of evangelicals are flirting with the same aberrant theological views that many pre-Resurgence Southern Baptists leaders embraced (problematic views of biblical inspiration and authority, soteriological inclusivism, egalitarianism, “mainline envy,” etc.). And these are in the conservative wing of the evangelical movement—many left-of-center evangelicals embraced these things during the same years Southern Baptists were in the throws of our Controversy (c. 1960-1990). Evangelicals need their own “Orthodoxy Resurgence,” though I couldn’t begin to suggest how that could happen in a loose-knit coalition of individuals, churches, and parachurch ministries.

Southern Baptists need to pay close attention to the post-World War II evangelicals who divided into Separatist Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals. From the 1940s until the 1960s, most folks in these two camps were in 90% agreement in doctrine, including total agreement on what I would consider foundational issues. But the fundamentalists incessantly anathematized the evangelicals over tertiary issues, and the evangelicals treated the fundamentalists like a bunch of embarrassing backwoods rubes. Both attitudes were unfortunate, and they helped push many post-1960 fundamentalists further right (KJV-Only, second-degree separation, etc.) and nudge many post-1960 evangelicals to the left (rejecting inerrancy, egalitarianism, etc.). I greatly fear the seeds of our own version of this type of division are already present in the post-Resurgence generation of Southern Baptists.

JP: An event from Southern Baptist past that evangelicals can learn from is the Whitsitt Controversy of the late 19th century. The heart of the controversy was over the control of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Whitsitt believed that the control should ultimately lay in the hands of the academics and not the people. After all, the academics were the ones qualified to run a school. But that was not the way the school was structured. The school belonged to the people of the Convention and was meant to serve them. Thankfully, Whitsitt lost this battle and the school remained in the hands of the people of the SBC. If Whitsitt would have won then the people would no longer have say over the control of the seminary, and quite possibly other entities would have followed suit. If that would have happened then there could not have been a Conservative Resurgence within our seminaries in the late 20th century. It was the people of the Convention that brought about the change within the Convention. Many other denominations in the 20th century simply split; there was no method of correcting the situation when doctrinal fidelity was lost. We should trust the power of God’s truth in the hands of God’s Spirit-filled people.

JGD: I will choose an overlooked Southern Baptist event—the 1987 SBC Conference on Biblical Inerrancy. Not to be confused with the earlier International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy that produced the “Chicago Statement,” rather, the 1987 Conference was a Southern Baptist event hosted by the denomination’s six seminaries in response to the findings of the two-year investigation of the elected Peace Committee. Taking place at the height of the conflict over inerrancy in the Convention, the conference was held in Ridgecrest, North Carolina and was attended by several leading theologians and representatives from both sides of the debate, including a few non-Southern Baptists such as J. I. Packer. The proceedings from the conference were published by Broadman Press and are very instructive both for the technical arguments made and as a historical reminder of just what was at stake as the Convention pursued its two-decade long course correction and “Reformation.” The exchange between Clark Pinnock and Paige Patterson alone is worth tracking down the volume for Patterson, once a student of Pinnock’s in the late 1960s, was placed in the position of debating the one who taught him all he knew about the craft of debate. One poignant quote that shows both the weight of the topic for the Convention in 1987, but also the height of the exchange between Patterson and Pinnock follows:

PATTERSON: Pinnock grieves over the state of disarray. But I probably grieve more than he. Not only must I grieve over the confusion, but also I must lament the plight of biblical inerrantists who endure discrimination, misrepresentation, and isolation. I must sorrow over the long history of denominational apostasy which rendered other Baptist federations impotent and now impinges upon our Southern Baptist Zion. I must bemoan the fate of millions of lost persons around the globe who remain oblivious to the message of Christ due to the inroads of universalism, liberation theology, and anemic evangelism which rests on a shifting foundation of historical-critical hypothesizing. Last of all I must grieve over my professor who has forsaken the prophetic pulpit of Luther for the indecisive desk of Erasmus and the certainty of Paul for the vacillation of the Athenians who must always “hear some new thing.” But Pinnock’s price for peace is too high. He would have us to support those who teach the exact opposite of what we hold to be sacred. He would have us stand at the judgment seat of Christ and try to explain to the enthroned Christ that in the interest of peace in the convention we supported either by silence or by resources those who say that His word errs. This we cannot and will not do! (93).

For a historical moment from evangelicalism, I would return to the basement of North Gate Hall in Oxford, England where a young J. I. Packer discovered a collection of old dusty books—some of which contained the writings of the Puritan theologian, John Owen. Packer’s literal “discovery” of the Puritans would start a movement that not only would bring great and good revived interest in these evangelical forebears, but also would help provide an anchor to the Word of God during the tumultuous 60s and 70s in the UK and abroad. One could argue, hypothetically of course, that had not Packer discovered that box of books, the tremendously influential and life altering works, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (1958) and Knowing God (1973), may never have appeared. While this would have been a tragedy for the UK alone, many Southern Baptists’ lives would be immensely different and perhaps the courage they found to stand for truth might have waned without Packer’s influence and significant works of theology for “travelers.”

RES: Why should younger Southern Baptists care about the history of the Southern Baptist Convention? Should non-Southern Baptists be interested in that history, as well?

NAF: Younger Southern Baptists should care about SBC history because it is their history—the good, the bad, and the ugly. This is true of church history in general. While being historically aware is certainly not a guarantee against heterodoxy or failure, the more we know about the past the better equipped we are to be faithful in our own context. Let me give two examples, one positive and one negative. On the positive end, Southern Baptists have always been firmly dedicated to cooperation for the sake of mission work at home and abroad. It would be a shame if the rising generation of Southern Baptists forfeited this enviable past. On the negative end, Southern Baptists have for most of our history had difficulty recognizing the difference between Christianity and Southern culture (and in the last 30 years, socially conservative American culture). It would be great if the rising generation of Southern Baptists were better at understanding what it means to be (to paraphrase Tullian Tchividjian) against the culture, for the sake of the culture.

Non-Southern Baptists should be at least somewhat interested in our history because it is part of church history. And there are likely some aspects of our history with which they should be more familiar than others (e.g., the Conservative Resurgence). But I don’t think they should have to be experts on our history, just as I don’t think Southern Baptists have to be experts on the history of other traditions. I think it’s enough for the average non-Southern Baptist to be familiar with the main contours, key figures, and most important events.

JP: The response of many when confronted with their own identity is to critique and abandon, or at least strongly consider it. The grass always seems greener. But, that response is almost always a short sighted knee jerk. While of course there are many things that we would love to change about our identity, both perceived and real, the truth is we have the root of the matter at heart. We have the gospel. Maybe some prevailing methodologies leave a lot to be desired, but no one can say that we do not have the gospel at heart. So don’t leave, with the gospel comes hope. The movements over the last year have been a testimony to that truth. I am a third generation Southern Baptist minister and I will no longer be a part of the SBC the day they turn from the gospel, but at that point I would not have left them, they would have left me.

JGD: Younger Southern Baptists should care about the history of the SBC because whether they grew up in Southern Baptist churches  or were adopted into them later in life, it is their history. As I sometimes mention in the Baptist History course I teach, there are many denominational ships that are seaworthy and are headed in the same direction, thankfully, in the Christian world. The SBC ship is the one, by God’s providence, upon which I have been placed. Sure, decks 3, 8, and 12 are taking on water and there are regular sections in need of constant repair, but God’s faithfulness has worked miracles on this ship and while it is no better than the others, it is where I have been placed. So, if placed there, then one should be a good steward and work to appreciate and value all he has been given in order to help the ship sail straight and with greater faithfulness and fruitfulness. We sail not alone and we would not sail if it had not been for the many who had sailed the ship before—some at great cost.

Non-Southern Baptists might have interest in this, to follow my analogy above, if they are also seeking to sail toward the same end of glorifying the one true God by spreading the news of His great name and great work through His Son to the ends of the earth through the witness of local churches until He returns.

RES: How can the study of the past fuel doctrinal and practical fidelity in the present, and in the future?

NAF: Understanding church history in general, and Baptist history in particular for our context, is critical for contemporary gospel faithfulness. For example, there is no excuse for contemporary Southern Baptists or other evangelicals to “waffle” on doctrinal faithfulness in some attempt to try and reinvent the theological wheel. In my mind, the 4^th and 5^th century ecumenical councils did a pretty good job articulating the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology; the 16^th century Protestant reformers did a pretty good job of articulating the biblical doctrines of sin and atonement; the 17^th century Baptists did a pretty good job of articulating biblical ecclesiology; and the 19^th century evangelicals did a pretty good job of articulating a biblical view of scriptural inspiration and authority (among loads of other examples). In these cases, our own articulations should strive for complementary contextualization of what others have done, not competitive reinventions for the sake of theological cleverness, intellectual creativity, or the accolades of mainstream scholars. The same principle applies as much to methodology as theology. The old G. I. Joe cartoons of the 1980s were right: “knowing is half the battle.” History is not infallible, but it is our friend.

JP: As my favorite professor, Dr. Gregory Wills, has often pointed out: Our history is both full of beauty and scars. May the scars be a reminder of the errors that we have made. We learn from them, and we grow. The beauty is when those scars are healed through fidelity to the truth of God’s Word. Where we have been faithful let us continue, where we have been unfaithful let the Word wound and heal.

JGD: I believe there are many ways the study of the past can fuel fidelity, but to choose one—and perhaps the most significant in my view—I believe the past, if studied correctly, should have an immense effect on the life of the one studying. Studying the history of God’s work through sinful people to exalt His name through the transformation of the lives of individuals is one of the best ways I know for cultivating deep, lasting, and sometimes even painful humility in one’s life. When the study of the past has this kind of effect one is made more like Christ, longs for the things of God, and is pointed toward His Word—such things like doctrinal and practical fidelity will then naturally take care of themselves!