Here is something rarely heard, and concerning which mainline church leaders may struggle to accept.  The most ethnically diverse churches in America are found in these three bodies---the Roman Catholic Church, the Assemblies of God and...

Hence, when it comes to racial diversity, Southern Baptists are seeing a healthy amount of success.  From 1998 to 2007, racial diversity doubled in the SBC (//link). 

It goes without saying, there is more to do.  Nonetheless, we thank God for what He's done and doing in ethnic diversity in the Southern Baptist Convention.

With that, I am...

Peter

 SEBTS is my seminary.   Not because I graduated from there.  I am a NOBTS graduate. My wife and I visited Wake Forest and toured the campus.  Alas, it just wasn’t us. What was us at that point in our journey was the whisper of God in a strange new tongue--Cajun! 

So we packed a U-haul with what we could carry, and she and I, with our three little ones, took the long, hot journey to a foreign land. Looking back, oh yeah…it was God’s will.

Back to Southeastern.

Southeastern is my seminary.  It’s my seminary because it belongs to my people—Southern Baptists.  We own it.  We run it.  Millions of us.  At least by proxy as our duly elected trustees do. 

Trustees we approve. 

And, while the dozens of trustees do not get into the daily affairs of the seminary—Lord help us all if they do—the trustees are the bottom line.

That’s one reason I love being a Southern Baptist. 

Some have implied I love being a Southern Baptist because I’m a man of the south, a man stuck in southern ways, a man bent on remaining southern.  In other words, I love being Southern Baptist because of Southern more than the Baptist ( I do love buttermilk and cornbread, I lie not).

But, then again, some people just have a fatal dose of dumb.

My critics may be surprised to know I’ve lived in metropolitan Chicago, downtown St. Louis, and Louisville.  Well, forget Louisville.  It’s probably too southern and doesn’t count.  But trust me:  Louisville is a long way from Nashville even if it’s only a three-hour drive.

Back to Southeastern again.  It’s my seminary.

And, because it’s my seminary, I think it’s good to keep up with what’s going on there.  Not in a bad way, obviously.  Why?  Because I love my seminary…all of my seminaries.

I’ve gained a fairly reasonable reputation in the last few years as being an advocate of denominational concerns.  Some have derisively called me a “company man” who but relays a “company line.”  For a response to that label, please read the ninth paragraph again.

What is true to my soul’s core is, I take no pleasure whatsoever in publicly criticizing the institutions I love.  Remember:  they are my institutions.  Therefore, why would I enjoy such an experience?

Even more, I fully expect to be criticized back.  You know…from the “company men” who relay a “company line,” but only for an institution for which they especially love and possess a deeply, invested interest. I know because I’ve traveled this bumpy gravel road before (//link).

So be it.  Here goes nothing.

Dr. Danny Akin, president of SEBTS, recently published his well-written reflections on the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville, KY.  Between the Times, the official blog of Southeastern professors, hosted his remarks (//link).

Several things Dr. Akin mentioned were very positive and helpful in understanding him.  No one can listen to this man or read his material and not deeply appreciate the giftedness the Lord has given him.  God blesses Southern Baptists with men like Dr. Akin.

Dr. Akin closed his talk by addressing the controversy concerning Mark Driscoll, Acts 29, and their relationship to Southeastern.  I suppose Dr. Akin felt he needed to address the issue since at least three motions came to the floor of the SBC concerning Mark Driscoll, none of which flattered his ministry.

In fact, this issue appeared so significant to Dr. Akin, virtually half of his entire reflection positioned itself as a defense of SEBTS’s unofficial relationship with Driscoll and Dr. Akin’s support of Driscoll’s ministry and their friendship:

Among those things concerning which Dr. Akin does not agree included Driscoll’s notorious potty-mouth (which Dr. Akin places in those things which Driscoll has forsaken), and Driscoll’s straight-forward advocacy of imbibing alcoholic beverages.  This is not something in the past. 

In fact, Driscoll allegedly was an abstainer from alcohol but, after studying John 2, “repented” of his abstinence position by beginning to drink as did Jesus.  Also, mentioned was Driscoll’s tendency to employ over-the-top language to get a point across.  Concerning Driscoll’s series on sex talks, Akin said Driscoll could have addressed “sensitive sexual issues in a more careful manner.”

Southern Baptists should appreciate Dr. Akin’s openness concerning his defense of Mark Driscoll and his ministry.

Now the comment thread.

Only 22 comments registered as of this writing, including the “pings.”  And, of those 22, only one questioned Dr. Akin’s defense of Mark Driscoll, a man named “Sam.”  “Sam” had no link with his name so we don’t know who “Sam” is.  Perhaps “Sam” is a “Samatha” or a famous “Sam,” like “Sam Cathey” or “Sam Walton” (no wait, he’s dead) or the guy who made a motion on the floor of the SBC to ban all Driscoll’s books.  We don’t know.  What we do have is his question to Dr. Akin, a question which ultimately is all this little post is about!

“Sam” logs (please read it carefully):

Before we move on, it’s helpful to watch precisely the example “Sam” mentioned to Dr. Akin about Mark Driscoll’s preaching style:

Dr. Akin’s response to “Sam” was swift and, at least in my view, enlightening.  He wrote, “I do appreciate his strong and direct challenge for men…I would not nor have I used the “who in the hell…” type of rhetoric in the pulpit and would discourage it. However, I did not allow it to get in the way of my hearing and the thrust of what he was trying to say.”

About this defense, I’m wondering the response a student in the preaching department at Southeastern would receive from his professor if he used the “who in the hell…” rhetorical device as he preached in class (assuming they still "student preach" nowadays). Assuming a student employed the "who in the hell..." rhetorical device he learns from Driscoll, I wonder if the professor would not allow it to get in the way of his hearing the thrust of what the student was trying to say. 

Even more, I wonder if, during a trustee meeting, the Chairman stood and began experimenting with the “who in the hell…” rhetorical device to Dr. Akin and his administrative team over a budgetary shortfall or some other matter, would Dr. Akin allow that to get in the way of his hearing the thrust of what the chairman was trying to say?

Yet such wondering is really not what was so enlightening in Dr. Akin’s response.  In fact, it was Dr. Akin’s very first statement to “Sam” after Sam asked his question.  If you forgot “Sam’s” question, scan it again.

Dr. Akin said to “Sam”:  “Sam, thank you for writing. Your questions could be stated in a more gracious and respectful manner with a brother in Christ, but I appreciate you writing just the same” (emphasis mine).

Did I miss something?  What is remotely ungracious or disrespectful in “Sam’s” question to a brother in Christ?  Actually, there’s only one question.  The latter part of “Sam’s” comment is an observation of irony.

Nonetheless, “Sam” was publicly corrected  by Dr. Akin for a comment which gave absolutely no explicit overtones of disrespect or lack of graciousness whatsoever.  At least, as I can tell.  The reader can make up his or her mind on it.

What's more, "Sam" got a whopping “what for” from Dr. Akin’s admirers for his supposed lack of grace and respect for a brother in Christ:

Our Lord stated a proverb, one so pithy and effective I'd wager, He undoubtedly stated it often.

Contextually, the proverb comes from an extended passage that many young, Southern Baptist leaders quote quite often to express their frustration for religionists (unfortunately a code word for many southerners like me).

To the scribes and Pharisees, our Lord said:  “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24).

For my part, the repeated defense of Mark Driscoll on one hand, being careful to express disagreement with all Mark does but nonetheless making it definitively clear we should look past those highly questionable antics to the larger thrust of his ministry, and on the other hand, swiftly and publicly correcting a brother for asking a question believed to be less gracious and respectful due a brother in Christ, must, if words mean anything, fully qualify, I am not proud to say, as straining gnats but swallowing camels.

With that, I am…

Peter

Samuel Huntington, author of the bestseller, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, concluded of West’s demise:

The overriding lesson of the history of civilizations, however, is that many things are probable but nothing is inevitable.  Civilizations can and have reformed and renewed themselves.  The central issue for the West is whether, quite apart from any external challenges, it is capable of stopping and reversing the internal processes of decay.  Can the West renew itself or will sustained internal rot simply accelerate its end and/or subordination to other economically and demographically more dynamic civilizations?” (//booklink).

Not because of repetitive assaults from without does the West slowly sink into the quicksand of cultural oblivion, Huntington maintains.  Rather because of massive hemorrhaging within, America’s heart bleeds dry, leaving but a crusty social vascular system in tact. 

Our obscene addiction to the culture of death, coupled with an obvious loss of ethical absolutes and the non-stop warring of political factions, together forge the suicidal alliance bringing Western civilization to its untimely grave.  Though Huntington may not say it precisely this way, I do not think I am far from the root of his thesis.

Could it be Huntington’s query of Western civilization may very well apply to Southern Baptists’ own cultural-denominational demise?  Quite apart from the external waxing and waning of modernity/postmodernity’s assaults against evangelicalism proper, could the central issue for the Southern Baptist Convention be the internal rot of her commitment to a long-held biblical heritage? 

Is it possible the smoking lament rising in every sector, wailing the waning of Southern Baptist fire, be not because we have disconnected from current culture, consequently becoming irrelevant to culture and ineffective in culture, but instead because we’ve disconnected from Christian conviction, consequently joining culture, becoming irreverent with culture and indistinguishable from culture? Is it lack of better structure or biblical separatism? Is our issue mainly methodological or is it mainly moral? These questions are not pretentious, I assure, but questions I feel very much need to be asked. 

A mere quarter-generation ago, Thom Rainer rightly observed, “methodology of the late twentieth century benefits churches and God’s glory only if it is anchored to the rock of biblical theology*.”  Is there a single voice among Southern Baptists who dares question his prima facie wisdom? 

Up until neo-conservative resurgence lights began shining their low-watt, Baptist bulb, Southern Baptists believed their theology—that is, baptist belief—could be more or less equated with biblical belief. Not that Southern Baptists hold or ever held they constituted the Kingdom of God on earth.  Nor that any other non-baptist church body was not a church. 

Just the same, Southern Baptists held the Word of God high in the air and pronounced “thus saith the Lord.”  And, unlike the magisterial Reformed fathers whose reformation was but partial, remaining hopelessly wed to Rome in their lustful conjugation of church-state matrimony, Baptists, in courageous but humble demonstration of their biblical commitment to universal soul competency and unequaled freedom of religious experience, pooled their blood and delivered it up for the identical rights of every human being to pronounce, as did they, “thus saith the Lord.” Baptists ferociously fought for the civil human right  of  the entire race to be religiously wrong. 

In light of this standard, what do we make of the new language of “primary, secondary, and tertiary issues” on the one hand, and "styles, traditions, legalisms, moralisms, personal preferences, or unhelpful attitudes” on the other? (//link). Those whose voice was raised and to whom Southern Baptists overwhelmingly responded in Louisville, are speaking, in large part, strange new tongues overall.

Presumably, since the “BF&M 2000 will guide us in our cooperation”—that is, it stands as “a sufficient guide for building a theological consensus for partnership in the gospel”—the cataloged inadequacies above constitute a part of the secondary, tertiary issues. In other words, the styles, traditions, legalisms, moralisms, personal preferences, and unhelpful attitudes remain unaddressed by our “sufficient guide” for “theological consensus” and, hence, cannot be counted as criteria concerning cooperation in the gospel. How,  we wonder,  we're supposed to be guided through the ever-thickening goop of “secondary, tertiary issues” no soul can know. 

What is more, it’s bad enough the BF&M morphs to a multi-layered document upon which different degrees of theological significance are assigned.  Yet when we proceed full throttle, tampering with the whole counsel of God—i.e. the entire Word of God—imposing upon it layers of varying significance for belief, is this, in its naked state, any different, in effect, from the old Liberalism of roughly a century ago?  For them, as well as their grandchildren such as Rudolf Bultmann, the stripping away of the supernatural as the secondary, tertiary hermeneutical layer in order to get to the primary “kernel” of truth found within, was a move soundly rejected by evangelicals generally and ultimately, Southern Baptists particularly.

Now, however, we vote on a committee birthed from a womb which includes strange, foreign language for a people wed to the entire Word of God.  For me, making out our Lord’s commands as if one command takes priority over another command, when there is no moral conflict**, cannot long survive in a poisonous atmosphere of depraved--albeit even redeemed--human creatures.  Each divine command stands in danger of being peeled away, one generation at a time. Always, a new generation evolves who knows not Joseph.

Those today who are the “young,” “up and coming” leaders are tomorrow’s old people stuck in the early 2Ks. For some reason, Jeremiah's proverb seems appropriate:   "If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?" (12:5).

One reason Southern Baptists may generally overlook the subtle nuances of the full GCR statement is its cryptic language of “gospel-centeredness.”  On prima facie reading, one would have little reason to question its use.  After all, who would not desire a “gospel-centered” fellowship, a “gospel-centered” church, a “gospel-centered” message, a “gospel-centered” movement?  Surely no dissent exists within a people who for their entire history have been about the gospel.  On the other hand, little, if any usage, does this phrase have in Southern Baptist culture.  Indeed perhaps embracing the “gospel-centered” vision suffers less homesickness in Reformed circles (//link, //link).        

 Our vote on the Great Commission Resurgence task committee in Louisville set in motion a quest, a time for self-evaluation to see if we could do better what we’re already doing well, according to the estimations of other Great Commission Christian bodies.  As Al Mohler so pointedly asked, “What are we so afraid of?  Why can’t we ask questions to see if we can do things better?***” 

Yes, Dr. Mohler, let’s.

Disclaimer:  Self-evaluation is a good thing, but good only if we’re looking for satisfying answers to preconceived questions we may ponder, not satisfying questions for preconceived answers we already possess.  If it is the latter in this case, not only is self-evaluation a colossal waste of time, hell’s throat will swallow up another unreached people group who fail hearing the gospel.  Self-study then comes under the unbridled judgment of God, the unevangelized victim's blood of which we all share a sad part.

Unfortunately, far too many have already posed answers concerning which no questions have yet been pursued by the task committee.  Indeed the GCR document itself is a series of ten answers in ten articles.  But what are the questions?  Will the task committee seek their own questions, securing independent answers?  Southern Baptists hope and pray so.

Orlando 2010 proves to be another monumental year for Southern Baptists. Not without reasons we’ll keep to ourselves, we may anticipate Ted Traylor to be the next SBC President.  In addition,  do not be surprised if Tom Ascol ascends as either 1st or 2nd VP. 

Those who naively thought Founders were folding shop when the annual meeting was canceled celebrated far too prematurely.  Founders Calvinism may now be so deeply embedded in the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, Huntington’s maxim is decidedly proven wrong:  “many things are probable but nothing is inevitable.”

The Southern Baptist Convention, I fear, is but a gnat’s breath from being lost. If indeed Southern Baptists have lost the gospel, what we’re recovering is definitively not that which we  allegedly misplaced.  Like the proverbial frog in a kettle, our Southern Baptist  heritage is  slowly boiling to death in the Founders waters of highly-aggressive Calvinism.  And, antinomianism, its hedonistic twin sister, lingers not far behind.  The "quiet revolution" Ernest C. Reisinger envisioned for a definitively Reformed Southern Baptist Convention may be closer than we think (//link).

Again, a quarter-generation ago, rather than focusing so much on denominational structures, Thom Rainer was rightly prophesying concerning what ails us.  For him—and I dare say, up until recently, most every Southern Baptist—our regenerative hope would come not from study committees formed to ask questions but only on our faces before God in answer to prayer:

"Evangelistic Churches are Praying Churches.   Prayer was mentioned as the second most important methodology for reaching people for Christ in these evangelistic churches.  But even that statistic may be understated.  In every methodology—preaching, Sunday School, ministries, etc.—prayer was the underlying strength to the methodology" ****

Rather than primarily asking questions of ourselves, we determined to lay quietly before Him, asking God for His mind. 

Thus, in the midst of all the ongoing conversation concerning methodology, tertiary issues, and denominational bloat, where is the ongoing conversation concerning spiritual orthopraxy?  That is, old-fashioned intercession?  Some would say, the Fifties’ kind of prayer.

[WITH EXCITEMENT I ADD THIS WORTHY UPDATE](//LINK)

With that, I am…

Peter

*Thom Rainer, Giant Awakenings, p.44

**there is a moral theory which deals with conflicting moral absolutes called "hierarchicalism" concerning which the “tertiary” principle has no relation

***Paraphrase of Dr. Mohler’s defense of his motion

****Thom Rainer, Effective Evangelistic Churches, 1996, p.79

I apologize in advance.  I have little time to write.  Know, however, it takes only a little time to assess the guffawed views of some otherwise intelligent people. 

Two such views come from Ed Stetzer, the neo-numbers guru of those who appear to think culture should be the conscience of the church rather than the church the conscience of the culture, and IMonk, A.K.A., Michael Spencer, the exclusive, independent voice among bloggers who possesses no bias, no agenda, and no monkey business.  In other words, "Imonk says it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

First, Stetzer.

Of the exchanges yesterday on the floor of the convention and on the woes of the SBC at large, Stetzer told the Courier Journal, "The question, Stetzer said, is whether 'we can have similar beliefs but simultaneously have, within certain parameters, different ways to engage culture, different ways to worship on Sunday morning...I think we can.'"

Eureka!  Stetzer has just articulated all the woes among Southern Baptists today!  It's about "similar beliefs" and "different worship" styles.  Who would have thought some of us in the SBC could not have seen what is so very plain? 

My, oh my, Dr. Stetzer. 

Let me get this straight:  folk like me want to dictate the way other Baptists worship. 

I challenge you, Dr. Stetzer.  You're the numbers guy.  Where is the research for such an irresponsible assertion? 

If you cannot produce the data, I suggest you stop pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Nor is your assertion any more profound which states, "The question...is whether 'we can have similar beliefs but simultaneously have, within certain parameters, different ways to engage culture."  The question begs to be answered is, what is the content of the "similar beliefs" and "certain parameters'? 

If one is speaking about working interdenominationally, I think that's a pliable principle by which to operate.  The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has for years used a principle close to that one in partnering with various denominations to get the gospel out .  However, planting churches proves far too demanding for such a loosey goosey maxim.

And, as far as "engaging culture," I think you mean, "accepting culture" do you not?  You know, a Driscollian Paradigm where we "Puff, Preach and Partake," or "Who's 4 Brews?" or "Sexcapades," etc. etc.  Well, brother, I don't think you'll get too many Southern Baptists agreeing with your idea of "engaging culture."

 As for Imonk, what can one say?  He says "The younger leaders of the SBC are taking on power in a denomination that has been, for the most part, attempting to lock the doors and hope they would go away. Well, they didn’t" (//link).  Uh, excuse me.  No one said they needed to go away, Michael.  Get you facts straight.  We said they needed to grow up.  There is a difference, you know.

And, may I ask just what you mean by "the Jerry Vines version of the SBC"? You failed to say.  You assumed everyone knows.  Perhaps you do not like Vines because he built a successful, mega-church in Jax, Florida.  But that can't be it because you probably cite building a mega-church as a reason to embrace Driscollian vulgarity. Oh, but wait:  Driscoll engages culture but Vines did not.  How stupid of me.

You further state:  'This is now a denomination that has given itself clear and simple instructions: Get to the task of world missions, not the task of building a denominational culture."  Uh, I don't think that's what we voted on yesterday, Imonk (I was there and I *voted for* the President to appoint a task committee).  We voted to "study" ourselves...to become official and duly elected navel-gazers for an entire year...to add another piece of bureaucratic armor to study whether we need our present bureaucratic armor for future bureaucratic endeavors. Any other time, we'd be plastered to the wall by 'objective' critics like yourself for wasting time with study committees while the world needs the gospel.

I guess you were probably thinking we could live awhile off the fruit of Founders** since Founders has been so successful with their "patient teaching of the Gospel and church-centered theology."  Absolutely! 

And I bet those innumerable churches who've been decimated because of Founders' "quiet revolution" in transforming Southern Baptist churches into "Reformed" fellowships promoting "the doctrines of grace" stand as further evidence of their "patient teaching."  Of course, I'm unsure many of those churches who've been the receiving end of their "fruit" would agree with you on precisely what constitutes "patient teaching of the gospel."  One can surely sympathize with them since their church was gutted of its leadership, however. Surely.

Also, know we are impressed, Michael.  Your prediction that "Thousands of churches will die in the next 2-4 decades" is reminiscent of another Michael, Michel de Nostredame, (A.K.A., Nostradamus) who continues to dazzle modern culture with his pinpoint prophecy!  Perhaps somehow his 17th C prophecies can be incorporated into Stetzer's "similar beliefs" within "certain parameters" so that we can "engage" modern culture.  I'll see if I can make something work.

Finally--and it really saddens me because I want to go on but don't have time--you assert "Johnny Hunt has chosen to support the future of the SBC and the Gospel. He has laid aside the questions of style, culture and methodology- even the questions of Calvinism- and chosen to side with those who want the Gospel itself to be our unity."  Really?  Really?

Not only is this statement amazingly ignorant of the issues surrounding the divide, it is amazingly ignorant of who Johnny Hunt is.  If you think Johnny Hunt will sell his birthright for a bowl of emergent-like stew, you may be two quarts lower than some people think you are. 

Got to go.

With that, I am...

Peter

**Imonk also cites 9Marks about which I have no workable knowledge