Now that a few days have gone by, I’ve had some time to process the events of this year’s Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando. Here are a few highlights of this year’s meeting:

1. The Pastor’s Conference

Kevin Ezell did an outstanding job putting together a conference that would appeal to Southern Baptists across generational lines.

• We heard from Southern Baptists like Mac Brunson, David Landrith and Steve Gaines.
• We also heard from the seminaries (Danny Akin, Russell Moore, Al Mohler).
• We listened to pastors who are popular with the younger generation (Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, CJ Mahaney).

The final sermon, from David Platt, resounded through the Convention like a trumpet, uniting Southern Baptists around the call to sacrifice for the Great Commission (even if there were differing views as to the GCR Report).

2. Connecting Points

One of the benefits of the Southern Baptist Convention is the opportunity to connect with so many friends and acquaintances. It was fun to meet a group from my home church and to also catch up with people who attended seminary with me.

I did a book signing at the LifeWay in the Convention hall on Tuesday morning. I was humbled to sit next to David Platt – humbled not just because he is a man of God who I respect (though he is that!), but because he had 10 times more people waiting in line for him to sign books!

Two connecting points were a highlight for me: dinner with Matt Chandler on Monday night (in which we spent probably half our conversation talking about a favorite subject – the gospel!), and dinner on Tuesday night with a dozen young men – all in various sorts of ministry – with Dr. Rainer and Dr. Waggoner. I was encouraged to see great passion for the gospel and the Great Commission.

3. The GCR Vote

What will the results of the GCR vote be? It remains to be seen. Had the Convention not affirmed the recommendations of this Task Force, it would have been a devastating blow to those who believe that the Convention needs both systemic and spiritual renewal.

Overall, I was impressed by the level of respect in the Convention Hall during the discussion and debate over the recommendations. (Unfortunately, the same level of respect was often absent on Twitter.) The fact that Southern Baptists were debating how best to cooperate in fulfilling the Great Commission is in itself a blessing. If it weren’t for the Conservative Resurgence, we would probably be in a fight over an issue like blessing same-sex unions.

Overall Reflections

My first Convention experience was San Antonio in 2007. My wife and I remarked at how small the crowd was. I don’t know the median age of attendees in 2007, but I would guess it was 60.

In Louisville last year, there was a marked increase in participation from young people. It seemed like excitement was building for reuniting around our common mission.

This year, the crowd was much younger, much more diverse, and much larger than San Antonio three years ago. Though the numbers were not as great as some expected, it is clear that momentum is building. We may have reached a tipping point in which certain groups of Southern Baptists who have not always felt welcome (perhaps due to theological distinctives or methodological practices) now see the Convention as a help, rather than a hindrance, in cooperating to spread the gospel.

I was surprised by the attendance at the B21 Panel on Tuesday. There were 1300+ young Southern Baptists present (4 times as many as at the Louisville luncheon in ’09). I realize how difficult it is for many people my age to find the money and time to travel long distances for a Convention like the SBC. If the B21 lunch was any indication, it appears that a new generation of Southern Baptists has recently become re-energized around cooperating through the Convention.

This week, my wife and I are in Orlando for the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m looking forward to joining other Southern Baptist authors for a book signing on Tuesday 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, I hope you will stop by.

It’s always a tricky thing to write about the SBC here at Kingdom People, since I know that the majority of those who read my blog are not Southern Baptist. Still, the direction of the SBC does affect the wider world of evangelicalism. I think that much of what is written about Southern Baptists can apply to other churches and denominations too.

Here are some personal reflections on the SBC that I have posted here in the past. I hope that your perusal of these articles will be to your spiritual benefit.

The Future of the SBC:

• “GCR In a Nutshell“
• Screwtape on the Southern Baptist Convention
• The Future of Southern Baptists
• 7 Types of Southern Baptists

Conference Summary:

• Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism

Calvinism in the SBC:

• My Review of Whosoever Will
• Celebration and Concern about the Reformed Resurgence

History of the SBC

• Southern Baptists and American Culture
• From Boyce to Mohler: The History of Southern Seminary
• Documenting the SBC’s Conservative Resurgence

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

We’re just a few days away from the Southern Baptist Convention meeting this year in Orlando, FL. Here are some events I am looking forward to:

The Pastor’s Conference

My wife and I will be driving to the Convention after I preach on Sunday, which means we will miss the first night of the pastor’s conference. Still, I am looking forward to Monday’s speakers, especially Matt Chandler, Danny Akin, Russell Moore, and David Platt. It looks like Kevin Ezell and Highview Baptist Church in Louisville have prepared an outstanding conference for us.

Book Signing on Tuesday

I’m looking forward to joining other Southern Baptist authors for a book signing on Tuesday 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, I hope you will stop by. I look forward to meeting you face to face.

Baptist 21 Luncheon

For lunch on Tuesday, we’re joining other young Baptists for the Baptist21 luncheon. There will be a panel discussion with Danny Akin, Matt Chandler, Albert Mohler, David Platt, Jimmy Scroggins, Ed Stetzer, Johnny Hunt, and Ronnie Floyd. If you attend this luncheon, you’ll receive some free books, including Holy Subversion.

Participating at the Convention

On Tuesday and Wednesday, I look forward to the Convention proceedings. I am excited to vote for Ted Traylor for SBC president (reasons here).

I also look forward to the discussion and vote regarding the Great Commission Task Force report. (If you’re looking for a concise overview of the recommendations and debate, I’ve done my best to summarize the Report and the debate here.)

My Prayer for this Year’s SBC

• I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide and direct Southern Baptists as we determine the best course of action and strategy for our future.
• I pray that – no matter the outcome of the GCR – we will come together around the gospel and our common mission.
• I pray that we would resist the temptation to divide into factions: old vs. young, traditional vs. contemporary, Calvinist vs. Revivalist, Pro-GCR vs. Anti-GCR, small church vs. big church, city church vs. country church.
• May we be united by the cross of Christ, where all these labels fall away. May the only two labels that matter remain: lost and found. May God use the SBC to move more and more people from the Lost path to the Forever Found community of faith.

It’s easy to be confused about the recommendations of the Great Commission Task Force. Through state papers, blogs and websites, the conversation about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention has been going on at a furious pace.

Whenever two points of view become overly politicized, the rhetoric heats up. Hype can eventually obscure reality, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunication on the part of both camps. GCR supporters have sometimes spoken as if this resolution will be the spark of a worldwide revival which will send renewal through the SBC. GCR detractors have sometimes spoken as if these resolutions would end the SBC as we know it and destroy all our cooperative efforts.

In this article, I wish to cut through the hype by briefly summarizing the final GCR proposal and the contending viewpoints, providing clarity regarding these recommendations.

1. Getting the Mission Right

SUMMARY: In the first recommendation, the Task Force encourages the Convention to adopt the following mission statement: As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.

DEBATE: There has been no debate about this recommendation.

2. Making Our Values Transparent

SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that Southern Baptists seek a healthy culture within the Convention by committing to the following core values: Christ-likeness, Truth, Unity, Relationships, Trust, Future, Local Church, Kingdom.

DEBATE: There has been very little debate concerning these values.

3. Celebrating and Empowering Great Commission Giving

SUMMARY: The Task Force affirms the Cooperative Program as the central means of mobilizing our churches and extending our reach. The Task Force also encourages Southern Baptists to celebrate the total dollar amount given to Southern Baptist causes (such as the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings) . Churches will report “Great Commission Giving” by recording their gifts through the Cooperative Program as well as their gifts to other Southern Baptist causes.

DEBATE:

>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that the sum total of “Great Commission Giving” will dilute the value of the Cooperative Program by elevating designated gifts for specific ministries. The result will be a return to societal giving. By celebrating designated giving, churches will have less reason to support the Cooperative Program, leading to the dismantling of the current structure and the rise of special interests.

>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that the Cooperative Program is already weakened and needs to be strengthened, not by chastising churches for giving designated gifts, but by celebrating all Great Commission giving. Once churches become convinced that the ministries funded by the Cooperative Program are worth their Great Commission dollars, they will rise to the occasion and increase giving in all areas.

4. Reaching North America

SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that the North American Mission Board (NAMB) prioritize church planting in metropolitan areas and among under-served people groups. Currently, 2/3 of CP dollars are directed to 1/3 of the population. In order to penetrate the lostness in other areas of North America, the Cooperative Agreements between NAMB and the state conventions should be phased out within seven years so as to free up NAMB for a new pattern of strategic partnership and effectiveness in church planting.

DEBATE:

>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that national Southern Baptist entities will be pitted against state conventions and local associations, causing them to compete for funds. By withdrawing NAMB’s financial support from newer state conventions, many good ministries will be significantly weakened, if not forced to shut down – including work in the pioneer states where lostness is the greatest. The remaining state conventions fear their evangelistic efforts will also be weakened by the lack of resources.

>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that everyone – whether at state or national entities – must be prepared to sacrifice in order to get more resources to underserved areas and the gospel to the nations. Though good ministries may be cut or altered, supporters believe it is a question of good versus best. By shifting resources to the places with least access to the gospel, frontier ministries will receive more attention. The Task Force recommends new strategic partnerships, not severing of relationship between the states and NAMB.

5. Reaching Unreached and Underserved People Groups within North America

SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that the IMB be free to focus on underserved people groups wherever they may be found. Since large numbers of many of these people groups now reside in U.S. cities, the IMB should be free to work alongside NAMB in utilizing its linguistic skills and cultural knowledge to penetrate the lostness among these people groups, regardless of geographical location.

DEBATE:

>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that there could be significant overlap between the existing efforts of NAMB among underserved people groups and the IMB. Despite the claims that these two boards would work alongside one another, the possibility exists for one of the two boards to become irrelevant, which could eventually lead to one centralized board engaging in missions both at home and abroad.

>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that the IMB is better equipped to reach ethnic groups on American soil. Once the IMB’s personnel, trained in the language, culture, and religions of these people groups, begin to collaborate with NAMB and local churches, there will be a church planting movement among foreign people in North America’s urban centers. The SBC will then better reflect the truth that the gospel transcends socio-economic, national and cultural barriers.

6. Promoting the Cooperative Program and Elevating Stewardship

SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that responsibility of promoting the Cooperative Program among local churches be transferred from the Executive Committee to the state conventions. The Executive Committee would work with the state conventions in developing a strategy for encouraging churches to increase participation and giving to the Cooperative Program.

DEBATE:

>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that state conventions will be expected to handle this additional responsibility, but with fewer resources. Additional responsibilities might cause the states to retain higher percentages of Cooperative Program missions money. In order to keep the cost of promotional resources down, the Executive Committee should maintain a continued, though modified, role in stewardship education and Cooperative Program promotion.

>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that state conventions have carried out stewardship education effectively because of their proximity to the churches. Encouraging the president of the Executive Committee to work alongside state convention leaders to execute a strategy for promoting the Cooperative Program will strengthen the partnership between state conventions and the national convention.

7. The Call of the Nations and the SBC Allocation Budget

SUMMARY: Currently, 50% of all Cooperative Program funds received by the Southern Baptist Convention go to the IMB. The Task Force recommends that the Convention increase this number to 51% by decreasing by 1% the budget for Facilitating Ministries. The purpose of this reallocation is to make a statement about the need to reduce denominational infrastructure and strengthen our commitment to reach the nations.

DEBATE:

>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that the current allocation of 50% is sufficient if churches would be challenged to set giving goals to the Cooperative Program. The proposed reallocation increases the IMB’s budget by 0.62% while decreasing the Executive Committee budget by almost 30%. Transferring two million dollars from the Executive Committee to the IMB would be unnecessary if churches would reverse the trend of keeping more money under local control.

>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that the key to increasing enthusiastic support of the Cooperative Program is demonstrating that more funds are going to the mission field. The intention behind the proposed reallocation is to make a symbolic statement that the SBC is committed to reducing infrastructure and increasing missions giving, thereby providing local churches a Great Commission motivation to increase their support of the Cooperative Program.

CONCLUSION

At the fundamental level, the GCR Task Force recommendations are about how we can best cooperate in pushing back lostness. Some of the recommendations are missional; others are about SBC culture. Some are about ministry priorities; others are about stewardship and structure. Regardless of one’s point of view, it is our Christian duty to assume the best in our brothers and sisters, seeing in each another the sincere desire for Southern Baptists to be good stewards of God’s money.

I recently came across the initial reporting from Baptist Press on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Reading these documents made me so grateful for the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC.

The attorney who filed the initial lawsuit in Roe v. Wade was a Southern Baptist and member of Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas. (BP interviewed her for a Jan. 29 story, see below.)

The lead paragraph of a Jan. 31 news analysis about Roe says the decision “advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice.” The story also says the court was a “strict constructionist” court and not a “liberal” court. It also says there “is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion.” (See below.)

__________________________________________________________

January 29, 1973
Abortion Court Decision Interpreted by Attorney
By Robert 0′ Brien

A Southern Baptist attorney who activated the legal machinery resulting in the Supreme Court decision overturning abortion statutes in some 30 states said here the “Supreme Court decision does not absolve anyone of individual moral or religious responsibility.” Linda N. Coffee, a 30-year-old brunette sat in her Dallas law office and pondered the contrasting complexities of her stance on abortion – legal vs. personal.

It’s a stance which would legally allow more constitutional freedom for others than she would exercise as an individual, she said in an interview. She expressed fear “the emotional reaction to the ruling will result in failure to distinguish between the legal principle of the decision and the moral implications now left to the doctor patient relationship.”

“The abortion decision could be as widely misinterpreted as the Supreme Court’s prayer decision, but I hope not,” said Miss Coffee, daughter of Nellene Coffee, a secretary in the Texas Baptist Christian Education Commission. ”From my personal perspective as a Christian,” she said, “It would tear me up to have to make a decision on abortion except in the early stages. And I would have to have a compelling reason even then,” she emphasized, speaking as a person.

But, as lawyer, Miss Coffee authored a series of legal proceedings which led to the 7-2 Supreme Court decision. Crux of the pleadings, drafted originally by Miss Coffee for argument before a three-judge federal court in Dallas, centered on whether the state has a right to interfere in a doctor-patient decision.

The eventual decision, she explained, declared the state may not interfere with the decision to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus becomes “viable” sometime between the beginning of sixth and seventh months of pregnancy. ”But the decision does not say any doctor has to perform any abortion–or that any patient has to have one, Miss Coffee said.

She observed that the decision also denied the fetus status as a legal person under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. ”But the ruling does not relieve each individual of standing firmly behind his or her moral or religious viewpoint about what a person is or when life begins, she emphasized. Illegal personhood is separate entirely from a moral or religious view of personhood, added Miss Coffee, a member of Park Cities Baptist Church, Dallas.

Although “troubled” that few laws now exist throughout the country on abortion in the aftermath of the decision, Miss Coffee hasn’t decided “what laws, if any, should be drawn to cover the final three months of pregnancy. I tend to feel the state should be neutral on abortion because it should never appear either to sanction an abortion or to interfere improperly with a doctor-patient relationship.

“But I would have little personal sympathy for use of abortion as a contraceptive or to avoid personal responsibility,” she emphasized. Miss Coffee was originally retained to handle the case of a young, unmarried women in Dallas, who was denied an abortion because Texas law allowed it only in cases where the prospective mother might die. In early 1970 she agreed to represent “Jane Roe, ” who revealed her identity as Norma McCorvey in another Baptist Press interview.

__________________________________________________________

January 31, 1973
High Court Holds Abortion To Be ‘A right of Privacy’
By W. Barry Garrett

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision that overturned a Texas law which denied a woman the right of abortion except to save her life, has advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice. At the same time ‘the court struck down a Georgia law that imposed unconstitutional procedures, in getting medical approval for an abortion…

The two decisions raise numerous other questions which Baptists and others should seek to understand. Among them:

Question: Was this a Warren type or “liberal” Supreme Court that rendered the decision?

Answer: No. This was a “strict constructionist” court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.

Question: Did the Supreme Court violate religious propriety by its abortion decision?

Answer: The Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that the Supreme Court blundered by making an immoral, anti-religious and unjustified decision. It has vowed to continue the fight against relaxed abortion laws.

However, most other religious bodies and leaders, who have expressed themselves, approve the decision. Social, welfare and civil rights workers hailed the decision with enthusiasm.

The Supreme Court itself recognized “the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy. It said, however, that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus,” the court continued, “the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Thus, it appears to be the view of the court that it decided a constitutional question without attempting answers to the medical, philosophical or theological problems in abortion.

Question: What is the Southern Baptist position on abortion?

Answer: There is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion, or any other such question. Among 12 million Southern Baptists, there are probably 12 million different opinions.

Question: Does the Supreme Court decision on abortion intrude on the religious life of the people?

Answer: No. Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion it they so choose.

In short, if the state laws are now made to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, the decision to obtain an abortion or to bring pregnancy to full term can now be a matter of conscience and deliberate choice rather than one compelled by law.

Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.

The Southern Baptist Convention is divided on multiple issues, but Calvinism seems to stir up the most passionate debate. Some Southern Baptists would like to see the Convention properly Calvinized. Others would like to run Calvinists off the plantation altogether.

In their most entrenched forms, these two camps appear to vacillate between a martyr complex and a puzzling triumphalism. Non-Calvinists sometimes write as if the Calvinist resurgence is about to sweep away everything precious in recent SBC history, and yet they constantly remind others that the majority of Southern Baptists are decidedly not Calvinistic. On the other side, Calvinists often feel like a beleaguered minority within the Convention, and yet they marshal the Calvinist beliefs of many early Southern Baptists or the rising number of young Calvinists today as proof of their legitimacy.

Historians debate our roots, some pointing us to the Charleston (cerebral Calvinist) stream while others look back to Sandy Creek (emotional revivalism). Some trace our lineage back to the Reformation, particularly the Particular Baptists. Others see a direct line to the Anabaptists.

Being forced to decide which stream I belong to – Charleston or Sandy Creek – is like someone asking me to take sides in Grandpa and Grandma’s divorce. I’m an intellectually-inclined high church guy who loves aspects of Grandpa Charles, but I’ve been nurtured by Grandma Sandy’s distinct version of piety too. I love them both, and I want them to stay married. Keeping them together makes for a stronger Southern Baptist family.

I generally steer clear of the debate about Calvinism in the SBC, not because I don’t have strong opinions on the matter, but because most blog conversations that I have seen tend to produce much more heat than light, and because the tiresome nature of the debate can distract us from our bigger task of fulfilling the Great Commission. But I am making an exception today, in order to review a recent book that makes a contribution to the discussion.

In November 2008, First Baptist Church, Woodstock hosted several notable Southern Baptist leaders for a conference intended to critique Calvinism. I was largely unaware of what took place at the “John 3:16 Conference” because the audio and video were not made public online. (I have written elsewhere about the need for resources to be made public free of charge, so I won’t rehash my thoughts on that here.) Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism (Broadman & Holman, 2010) is the book of essays that resulted from the conference.

What can one say about Whosoever Will? For starters, the tone of the book was more conciliatory than I expected. That’s not to say that the contributors don’t take firm stands and make strong points. To the contrary, they do. But they do so in a way that doesn’t belittle the intentions and the piety of the Calvinists they critique. The book begins with a foreword, a preface, and an introduction – all before you get to Chapter 1. It appears that the editors spent much time up front seeking to set a positive, Christ-like tone.

The book itself is a mix of popular works and scholarly essays. For example, Vines’ sermon on John 3:16 and Paige Patterson’s essay combines interesting anecdotes, exegetical argument, and pastoral reflection.

For time’s sake, I will refrain from commenting on each essay, but I would like to make some comments on a few of them.

Land on Election

Richard Land’s contribution seeks to establish a middle way between unconditional election and conditional election by appealing to God being outside of time. This “congruent election” proposal is fascinating, but I still am not sure how it resolves the biggest point of contention between Calvinists and non-Calvinists – namely, is God’s choice of us the ultimate cause of our salvation or is it our response to God’s choice? The question of predestination and foreknowledge is less about time, and more about purpose.

Allen on the Atonement

Longtime readers of this blog know that I do not adhere to the doctrine of Limited Atonement, so it’s no surprise that I found David Allen’s essay to be helpful, primarily because of the way he uses Calvinist authors to make the case against the infamous “L” in Calvinism’s Tulip. Kevin Kennedy’s follow-up essay on Calvin’s view of the atonement’s extent adds to the preponderance of evidence that Calvin either did not promote the view of Limited Atonement, or that he was at the very least conflicted and unsettled in his view.

Still, I do not grant Allen’s conclusion that Limited Atonement necessarily causes problems in evangelism. Nor do I think it’s a major point of contention for groups like Together for the Gospel. There are plenty of Reformed-leaning guys like me who may not adhere to the whole system, but who are able to get along just fine with those who do.

Keathley on Perseverance

Kenneth Keathley’s chapter on perseverance of the saints makes a case for total assurance, arguing against Puritan introspection that can become pathological. It’s true that the Puritans were prone to introspection that could lead them to be as self-centered as those who never thought about their sins. But false assurance is also very dangerous.

Which is the greater danger we are facing today? I hardly think the evangelical church is suffering from too much introspection, whereas it appears we are drowning in a sea of false assurance and fruitlessness. Keathley’s chapter is helpful in some respects (though I still find the Schreiner/Canaday view of perseverance to be the most exegetically plausible), but it might have been boosted by acknowledging the excesses of those who take total assurance to an unhealthy extreme.

Yarnell on Calvinist Tendencies

Malcolm Yarnell contributes an essay that seeks to warn churches of the tendencies that accompany Calvinism. The first concerns an Augustinian view of the church, which can lead to a de-emphasis on the purity of the local church and an improper focus on the church universal. In my experience, Baptist Calvinists tend to be more preoccupied with church purity than non-Calvinists. Some non-Calvinist Baptists use Augustinian arguments (such as the Wheat and Tares) as an argument against church discipline.

Next, Yarnell warns about the possibility of aristocratic elitism, seen primarily in the presbyterian form of church government. While this polity may indeed be a tendency for some Calvinist Baptists, I’ve been encouraged to see Southern Baptist church planters countering the Acts 29 elder-rule polity by insisting on congregational authority. But Yarnell is correct to see elitism as a potential problem, though I believe it will be more likely in temperament than in polity. Some Calvinists are elitist theologically, acting as though the people who disagree with them simply have less theological expertise.

Finally, Yarnell focuses on the possible antinomian (lawless) tendencies within the resurgence of Calvinism. I believe this warning is perhaps the most relevant to the discussion. As the younger generation reacts strongly against the moralistic excesses of our past, we should indeed be on the look out for a rise in antinomian tendency. This is why it is helpful to listen to those who are not in our theological camp. Others may see warning signs that we are oblivious to.

Streett on the Invitation

R. Alan Streett devotes a chapter to the public invitation. I was disappointed that this chapter didn’t make any distinctions between invitations and altar calls. While I believe whole-heartedly in calling people publicly to faith in Christ, I do not believe that an altar call is the only legitimate form of issuing this invitation. (By the way, this is not merely a Calvinist discussion. Plenty of non-Calvinists in other parts of the world have no experience with the altar call, either because they are unfamiliar with it or uncomfortable with the American excesses they may have witnessed.)

Conclusion

In all, Whosoever Will is a helpful addition to the discussion on Calvinism within the SBC. The book would have been stronger had the contributors engaged in some healthy self-criticism of the pitfalls and tendencies of the non-Calvinist position. But even as it is, it deserves a hearing from Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. You may disagree with the point of view presented here, and that’s fine. But at least you will have listened to the arguments from others who love the Lord and seek the good of his church.

According to the Florida Baptist Witness, Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, will be nominated president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the June 15-16 annual meeting in Orlando.

I’ve known Bro. Ted since 2002. I was a first year theology student at Emanuel University in Oradea, Romania. Bro. Ted visited the campus, and my group benefited from several classes with him.

I remember thinking then, What kind of pastor is this who, even though he has a large church to tend to in the States, would come all the way to Romania to pour himself into young Romanian seminary students? His visit in 2002 wasn’t his last. Every year after that, Bro. Ted returned. In 2005, he spoke at the my class’ graduation.

That’s the kind of man Ted Traylor is. He is passionate about the next generation. He loves the church. And he has the heart of a missionary.

Johnny Hunt’s leadership as president of the SBC has been rejuvenating for many in the Convention. I have never seen so many young people fired up about what the Lord may be doing in our midst. I believe the man that follows Hunt needs to have a heart for missions, a heart for the younger generation, and a heart for unity for the sake of the gospel.

As long as the Lord has given me the privilege to know him, I have seen these qualities in Ted Traylor’s life and ministry. People do not travel all the way to Romania to pour their lives into young Romanian seminary students unless they have a passion for global missions and for a passion for the next generation.

I also believe that Bro. Ted would continue in the footsteps of Hunt who has succeeded in bringing together people whose theological and methodological differences would normally get in the way of Great Commission focus. I believe he will be a uniter who will lead Southern Baptists to take the high road with regard to secondary issues and to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus.

Anticipating the future, Traylor said his goal is “to serve and lead the Convention I love into a revival of the Great Commission in the days ahead.”

May it be so! I’m proud to support Ted Traylor for president of the SBC.

It has been several weeks now since Ronnie Floyd unveiled the Progress Report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention. I posted a few initial questions about the Report earlier this month. As I’ve thought about the Report, I have noticed another area that could use some clarification.

(Again, let me express my gratitude for the hard work of this Task Force in considering and bringing these recommendations. I’m excited about the future of the SBC, and my question is only intended to help move the discussion forward regarding some areas that might need further explanation.)

Components 2 & 3: Reinventing NAMB and Breaking Down Geographic Barriers for the IMB

I mentioned before how excited I am about these two components of the Progress Report. NAMB would focus on church planting in cities, and the IMB would be allowed to minister to ethnic groups here in the United States.

My question concerns a potential overlap in ministry. One of the goals of the Task Force has been to reduce the “duplication” and “triplication” of ministry efforts that sometimes take place between NAMB, local associations, and the state conventions.

But it’s possible that we might wind up with overlap between the IMB and NAMB if the direction of these two entities is not clearly defined.

Consider the vision of the Task Force for a reinvented NAMB:

This reinvention of the North American Mission Board that we envision will implement a direct strategy for planting churches in North America with a priority to reach metropolitan areas and under-served people groups.

If I understand the Report correctly, the vision is for NAMB to plant churches in major cities, targeting ethnic groups. Sounds like a plan.

But notice the change in the IMB once we do away with geographic barriers:

This means we are unleashing the International Mission Board upon American soil to reach the unreached and under-served people groups without regard to any geographical location.

So the possibility exists, at least in theory, for NAMB and IMB to be involved in the same ministry: church planting among ethnic groups on American soil. The Task Force Report anticipates this question by stating:

We are confident that the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board can communicate with one another effectively about their respective work and communicate with our state conventions and local associations about what God is doing in their gospel work. This will alleviate any duplication…

I agree with both these components, that NAMB be reinvented and that the IMB be allowed to work on American soil. But I am not convinced that mere communication will keep these two entities from overlapping. After all, communication hasn’t stopped state conventions, NAMB, and other entities from duplication and triplication.

When it comes down to specifics, it appears that NAMB and the IMB could wind up prioritizing some of the same ministries: ethnic church plants on American soil. If that’s the case, we might be having a discussion in 15-20 years about how NAMB and the IMB are doing the same thing in the same areas, making one or the other irrelevant.

I hope that the Task Force will consider this potential overlap in ministry and ask the IMB and NAMB to clearly define their respective and distinctive roles on American soil.

It was a privilege to attend last week’s “Progress Report” delivered by Ronnie Floyd on behalf of the Great Commission Task Force of the Southern Baptist Convention. (You can read the Progress Report here.) I am grateful to the Task Force for their hard work in putting together this report. One can sense the amount of prayer and work that has gone into these deliberations.

The discussion in the blogosphere leading up to the Report indicated that the recommended changes were massive. The hype was much more controversial than the reality. These recommendations make good sense. (And Johnny Hunt is right when he says that most Southern Baptists probably think the denomination is already working according to the proposal.)

Still, I have a few questions that are not addressed directly in the report. These questions should not be taken as criticism of the Task Force or their report. I am excited about what they have proposed and look forward to the future. I am merely putting forth a few questions (about Components 1, 2, 3 and 5) that I hope will be answered in coming days.

Component #1: Toward a Missional Convention

Would that the churches and entities be motivated by this mission and committed to these core values! My question is practical: how will we rally our churches toward the missional vision being proposed?

In the past, Southern Baptist entities offered new programs and emphases to the churches. In this way, they sought to rally Southern Baptists around a common vision. But as the variety and style of our churches grows, programmatic methodology tends to lose its effectiveness.

I hope and pray that our churches and the Convention entities will embrace the missional identity outlined in the Progress Report. But if this means we will wind up with simply another program, I worry that the vision will not catch fire.

What are practical ways that pastors can work to instill this identity in their congregations? What are practical ways that the Convention can instill this identity in pastors?

Component #2: Reinventing the North American Mission Board

Those familiar with NAMB understand that serious issues are currently impeding the progress of our home mission board. The Task Force’s recommendations will free NAMB to focus on the areas of great lostness in North America and to hold church planting missionaries accountable.

Here is my question: Who will be planting churches in the South? In order to maintain growth in the South (where the SBC is currently most populous), we will need to continue to plant churches. I assume that the Task Force is giving Southern church planting back to the States and local associations. I hope that this is the direction being proposed.

State conventions will focus on church plants in their respective states. NAMB will focus on the unreached in metropolitan areas. Sounds like a plan.

Component #3: Breaking down geographic barriers for the IMB

The world is flat again. The people groups of the world are no longer “over there.” They are immigrating here. By freeing up the IMB to work within the U.S. with unreached people groups, the Task Force is preparing the way for a new synergy in international missions.

This recommendation is long overdue. Letting the IMB focus on people groups, regardless of their location, is a major step in the right direction.

Question: Does this mean that missionaries serving unreached people groups in other parts of the world may be brought home to serve the same people group here?

Let me put it another way: Are we focusing on people groups in the U.S. in addition to our focus on the same groups in other parts of the world? Or are we shifting emphasis and priority, planning to choose between going to Africa to the Wolof people or going to New York to the same group?

Question about Component #5: Celebrating Designated Gifts

The Task Force recommends that a church’s designated gifts be considered “Great Commission Designated Giving.” Churches are doing this already; the Convention is merely catching up. Our church gives 10% to the Cooperative Program and 1.5% to our local association. It’s good that the 1.5% given to the local association be considered “Great Commission” giving, even if it is not directly related to the CP. I am also happy to see the Task Force’s insistence upon the Cooperative Program as the main engine for funding.

Question: How will we keep the Cooperative Program as the main funding machine? Take my church, for example.  If we want more money to go to missions than to our State Convention, we could lower our CP percentage to 6% and give 4% directly to the IMB. As more and more people catch the “missional vision” promoted in Component 1, what will keep the CP going as the central means of giving?

Those who are for and against the new recommendations have one thing in common: both groups care deeply about maintaining the Cooperative Program. Some believe that if we change our categories of giving, we will hurt the CP and wind up losing it. Others think that if we don’t change our categories of giving, our churches’ support of the CP will continue to decline.

So, one group says, “If we change it, it dies.” The other group says, “If we don’t change it, it dies.” I line up with the second group. We’re going to have to make adjustments for the future. But I wonder how the Task Force will lead us to a thriving Cooperative Program in the 21st century.

If you’re looking for a topical, detailed resource that lays out the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, you ought to pick up Jerry Sutton’s book on the controversy. Sutton documents in painstaking detail the debate between conservatives and moderates in the SBC in the 1980′s and 1990′s.

The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (Broadman & Holman, 2000) is clearly written from the conservative point of view, but Sutton seeks to fairly represent the moderate position. By using terminology preferred by both sides of the controversy, he ensures that the tone is polite instead of inflammatory.

The book begins by showing the problems that worried conservatives in the SBC. Sutton points to perceived theological error being taught in the seminaries, a deficient view of Scripture, and an institutional bureaucracy that stifled the voices and desires of ordinary Southern Baptists.

Next, Sutton explains how the Convention changed. The bulk of the book leads the reader chronologically through the Southern Baptist Convention from 1979-2000. Each chapter is devoted to the successive conservative presidents whose leadership brought lasting change. SBC presidents are empowered to make appointments to the committee that nominates people to other committees. By changing the leadership at the helm, the Southern Baptist ship slowly turned around.

The last part of the book is topical. Sutton shows readers how particular institutions changed. He analyzes the missions agencies, the Sunday School board, the seminaries, and the executive committee.

For most of the book, Sutton describes the Conservative Resurgence from the air. Then at the end, he dives down and shows how change took place at the local, institutional level.

The book ends with Sutton’s reflections on why the Convention changed. He gives a compelling conservative interpretation of the Resurgence.

The Baptist Reformation is an important book for Southern Baptist historians. Sutton observes the controversy from the inside. He is not an impartial observer, but he seeks to report fairly and accurately what took place. This book is a valuable reference for anyone interested in seeing how the Southern Baptist Convention changed direction in the last twenty years of the twentieth century.