Recently Doug Baker, Executive Editor of the Baptist Messenger of Oklahoma interviewed Dr. David Dockery, President of Union University and member of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force for both a print and pod cast publication.  As I have come to expect, both of these brothers handled themselves exceptionally well.  Doug asked intelligent and pertinent questions.  Dr. Dockery answered them in a humble and statesman-like manner.  The transcript and pod cast are available at the Messenger website; you should give it your time.

During the interview Baker pursued a line of questioning that brought forth Dr. Dockery’s great knowledge of Baptist history.  Not only was Baptist history examined in an interesting way, relevant commentary was given in light of who we have been as Southern Baptists.  Highlighted in the exchange were stories of the early days of our convention, the purpose for which we joined ourselves together on a large scale and the missions heart of our forefathers.  The interview continued to track the development of our national polity and the ways we sought to work together, ultimately culminating in the development of the Cooperative Program.

Baker moved the discussion along to the present day and queried Dockery about the current state of the convention in light of the Great Commission Resurgence and the ensuing Task Force that he serves.  Dockery discusses much of the context of the Task Force indirectly as he works through the thorny issues of state convention CP distribution.  Dockery fairly describes the rationale for the various distribution levels that currently exist today by relating the levels to the early days of the CP discussion and the needs that existed and continue to exist for state conventions in the SBC.

As I have already commended this interview to you I want to do so again; it is good and I think it will help the vast majority of Southern Baptists understand their history more clearly.

Part of my job as a DOM is to work with pastors on an almost daily basis.  There is more to my ministry than that, but I would rank my relationship with the pastors of NWBA and outside the association at the top of my ministry priority list.  I visit regularly with pastors both inside my association and across our state, and often the topic of conversation, at least since the convention in Louisville, has been the GCR and the Task Force convened by President Johnny Hunt.  In all the conversations with pastors that I have had I cannot think of one time, truly, not one time when a pastor asked directly or indirectly one of the two following questions:  “Are we doing what we organized ourselves to do in 1845?” or “Are we cooperating together today according to the vision of the CP as created in 1925?”

Now please do not misunderstand, I do not believe that either of these matters are small or unimportant.  I stressed above the importance of Dr. Dockery’s historical assessment of the SBC.  What I am pointing out is the very current reality that who we were in 1845 or even 1925 is not a pressing concern for most pastors or their churches.  It has been said that the past is prologue and with this I would agree.  We have also heard that the person who does not know his history is destined to make the same mistakes.  Agreed.  One strategy for determining how we make decisions today about our future heavily emphasizes who were have been and the direction that leaders in our past have charted as a kind of organizational compass to guide our future.  This is not a bad strategy, but in my estimation it is out of step with the pastors that I talk to on a regular basis.

These pastors seem more concerned with determining our future based on two primary principles, Scripture and cooperation,  that I will illustrate through two questions. 1) What does Scripture call the church to be and do in the name of Christ, His gospel and the Kingdom? and 2) What sort of cooperation will help us move toward the future work that we desire to accomplish in Christ’s name and for His glory.  Please note that this second mode of determining how we move forward as a convention of churches is not truly in contradiction to the former.  This mode simply looks to an alternative starting point for the discussion and moves out from there.  One assumes the broad history of the SBC as a people, movement, convention, and denominational powerhouse and the other looks more simply to Scripture, theology, ecclesiology, culture and the reality on the ground in their churches and their personal networks of affinity.

My purpose is primarily to understand where different voices in our convention are starting as they look to the future and our shared life together in cooperation.  One group looks back for a kind of conformity and integrity to who we have been and the best parts of our history.  Another looks more narrowly at the present culture, Scripture and their experiences in Evangelicalism and seeks a way forward that is nimble and quick to respond to a rapidly changing world.  I would advocate a merging of these two perspectives.  We ought to start with our present situation, our best understanding of Scripture and the movement of the Spirit in our midst and begin to explore how we would live out faith and serve Christ effectively in the coming years.  With this as our primary line of reasoning we should regularly look to our past to learn our best lessons and glean the truth that the Lord has revealed to His people over the years.

In summary I want to hear from our past, but I believe that is the wrong place to start.  Most leaders I talk to are not asking where have we been.  They are asking where should we go.  They are not asking “Is my church doing what the churches who began the CP in the early parts of the 20^th century were doing?”  Rather, they are looking high and low for ways to be effective today in a world that will not wait for them to catch up and is not asking their permission to change.  They are seeking ways to embody the eternal, unchanging truths of Christ and His Word in a world that has largely ignored our best efforts to share Christ.

I would encourage everyone to read Dwight McKissic’s post of April 7, 2010. One excerpt:

Dr. Danny Akin prophetically, positively, and profoundly addressed the race issue in his signature message in chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, concerning the Great Commission Resurgence. Rarely, do we hear of this type of statesmanship and leadership on this issue from anyone in SBC life. Much respect to you, Dr. Akin. I wish the GCR report to the annual meeting in Orlando would include Dr. Akin’s initial remarks on this subject.

For years I’ve asked many of my Black Baptists and evangelical Pastor friends, who would not question one word of the B, F, and M, 2000, why won’t you join the SBC? Their response would be, because it is “southern and racial”. Note: not racist, but “racial”- meaning, the DNA of the SBC is White, and geographically and culturally southern oriented. Therefore, it cannot comfortably or willingly accommodate or assimilate as equals, African American Baptists input, involvement and influence. For years I’ve disagreed with my friends’ analysis. But I’ve since reached the conclusion, they are right.

The entire post can be read here.

Oklahoma can be a dry place in August. Back in college a few of us would get away and play at Fire Lake Golf Course. Before an adequate sprinkler system had been installed on the back nine the dry ground would begin to crack. From a distance you could not tell just how severe the fissures were until you went to track down your golf ball. If you can imagine it, you could hit a great drive down the fairway only to lose the ball to one of these unforeseen crevices.

We near the final report of the GCRTF and Marty reminds us of the quiet work of another committee. Yes, how could we have missed the search to fill the highest “unelectable” post in the SBC? Maybe the committee has been glad the interest has been placed on the GCRTF. Their work has been done in relative quiet. The nexus of these two decisions – the Final Report of the GCRT and the recommendation to fill retiring Morris Chapman’s post may reveal deeper fissures at one time apparent. Read more…

Overshadowed by the GCRTF report and progress, perhaps deservedly so, has been the search for the President of the Executive Committee of the SBC. The position held by Dr. Morris Chapman for as long as most of us remember will be vacated soon.

With the resignation of Jerry Rankin from the IMB and the opening of the presidency at NAMB, the trifecta of opportunities has been acknowledged as a defining moment for the future of the SBC. I’m thinking recently that, while the two mission agency positions are viewed as extremely important, the lynch-pin may well be the X-Comm position.

Consider a person who gets to give a lengthy address to the X-Comm each time they gather, a lengthy message to the convention every single year, participates in the budget planning for the entire convention and, essentially, leads the committee charged with running the convention 362 days a year. Arguably that person would be the most influential or powerful person in the convention. The president of the IMB might be, to quote Paige Patterson, “the most important person in the world,” but I’m not sure he’s the most important person in the SBC on a day-to-day basis.

If the most important position being filled is the X-Comm president, for what type of person should the search team be searching? A few thoughts:

1. Someone not antagonistic toward any part of the convention’s disparate parts. We have had a few years worth of younger leaders, emergent churches, Acts 29 and Calvinism. If there is one thing true about the convention it is this: there are different groups many of whom are on opposite ends of varied spectrums. The next president of the X-Comm must be one who is able to bridge gaps, not expand them or create them. The polarizing effects of those friendly with the Baptist Identity group need to be kept from this office.

We have had a pretty consistent firing of salvos across the convention toward any who are self-identified as (or suspected by others of being) Calvinistic in their theology. Most recently a paper has been circulated through some southern states detailing how to tell if your pastor is a Calvinist. One or two pastors have even lost jobs as a result. This type of antagonism toward any convention sub-set simply cannot be a part of the leadership motif of the X-Comm president.

2. Someone who is above board and not a subversive. To be in a key part of convention budget planning is to be charged with a huge responsibility, one that requires an ability and willingness to remain free of leadership slight of hand.

People who are involved in manipulative, behind the scenes scheming don’t have the kind of character needed to lead. This position requires engagement with the other members of the Great Commission Council, the convening of SBC entity heads which as been as historically dysfunctional as an episode of Wife Swap. All of the new voices must be able to work as part of a team for the good of the SBC. The X-Comm president needs to be a proven voice of honesty, integrity and openness.

3. Someone with experience. This one might sound odd coming from a person who railed against recycling trustees and for creating opening new opportunities for new people to be involved in convention activities. This particular position needs some amount of convention experience and, I think, more than either of the other two entity openings.

The question is, “How much convention experience is necessary?” Must a person have served at every single level from associational moderator through state opportunities to the SBC Executive Committee? Must he/she have lived and breathed the convention for most or through his/her adult life? Been born with the CP spoon in their mouth? Surely not. Though familiarity should be expected, a DNA strand encoded with the letters “SBC” should not be required.

Rather than simple convention experience, I think the more apt question is, “What did the person do with the opportunities he/she had?” Was it a simple “keep on keeping on” or was vision part of the equation? Were new ideas and strategies introduced to demonstrate real leadership?

It also might be worthwhile to consider what type of outside experience or influence the person has had. Do those outside the SBC recognize his/her influence and value? Is the right person one who has been living in an SBC box? Doubtful.

4. Someone who is more inclusive than exclusive. Related to number 1, but, even more than not being antagonistic, this person must have a record of being welcoming to the widely differing range of styles now represented across the convention. Back in the day we would have said, “Not a person for narrowing the parameters of cooperation.”

I don’t know Troy Gramling. A week or so ago when Nathan Finn tweeted

I hesitate to be so pointed, but I do not think Troy Gramling should be president of the SBC Pastors Conference. We need another candidate

Gramling’s name crossed my plate for the first time ever.

Apparently I’m alone in my ignorance.

Former president of the Georgia Baptist Convention and former SBC presidential candidate, Frank Cox, also had something to say. It was similar to Finn, but I think much more telling. Emphasis is mine:

I think it is time we Southern Baptist [sic] stand up. We are about to lose the whole thing. We need another candidate for SBC Pastors Conf.

What “whole thing” is who about to lose? Surely the Pastors’ Conference is not the “whole thing”? If not, what is? What should Southern Baptists be standing against? A pastor who is too innovative? Any kind of progress?

Perhaps it was simply because Gramling’s church gives a paltry amount to the SBC and is barely considered cooperative, but, honestly, it sounds like the same kind of chicken little “the sky is falling” rhetoric that we heard way back when the Younger Leaders movement started gaining traction in the SBC, for which Jimmy Draper was often castigated by some in convention leadership while the younger leaders themselves were ridiculed as power hungry, impatient, unappreciative or liberal.

5. Should be someone who is known for leading change or leading in a time of change. The X-Comm presidency will set the tone for how and if many recommendations from the GCTRF are implemented with enthusiasm and kept a part of X-Comm’s agenda (as far as that goes). This is a strategic time in the SBC. The nominee cannot be “star-struck” by the opportunity, but needs to be effective in a time of constant change and shifting landscape.

In this writer’s opinion anyone who is thought of as “Mr. Convention” probably is not the person. The last thing the convention needs right now is conventional. I’m not necessarily advocating someone who will push every single boundary–even though that type of person might be my personal choice–but a person who knows which boundaries to push and when as he or she reaches out to build and sustain relationships across the convention while, perhaps, creating a few outside it.

May the search team have wisdom in this process.

Movements are what they are, of that we can be sure.  Some are good, some are bad, some are forgettable, but in the long run, movements change things.   Key leaders in our convention have spoken about the need to transition from institution to movement.  They say that only in the movement will we find the needed power to live out the gospel of Jesus well. Movements are what they are—nothing more, nothing less.  They are not manufactured, not real ones anyway, and they have a sustaining power that enables those in the vanguard and the wake to do mighty things.  In another day we talked about movements regularly; we called them revivals.  A revival in its most basic sense is the movement of God to stir the heart of the believer and those outside of Christ to repentance and gospel renewal.  Though we see bright spots of gospel ministry in our convention of churches, overall we are a group in decline.  How did we get here?  We planned to get here.  No?  Take a moment and think it through.  Nothing in the world or the kingdom of God is static.  We are called to live active, missional and engaged for Christ.  We planned to get here, and we need to own that.  We need to realize that even the lack of a plan is a plan, and the lack of an intention is an intention deeply held demanding that we continue what we do writ large.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point.  Read more…

The major problem with our churches, as Paul stated in his previous post, is the (potential) unhealthiness of the churches. If this is true, there is a maxim you can count on: unhealthy churches, left unchecked, produce unhealthy pastors and ministers. People who grow up in unhealthy churches will carry that unhealthiness to other churches as they serve on staffs, pastor churches or serve in other capacities. Also, unhealthy pastors make unhealthy seminary professors and presidents. Unhealthy professors and seminaries make unhealthy pastors who then make unhealthy churches. Dysfunction breeds dysfunction. It is a horrid cycle. How can we change that?

Change theological education
Seminaries claim that their role is to train people for ministry. They train people to do: teach, preach, evangelize, education, counsel, parse verbs and uncover systematize theology. These are not unimportant. We should consider Christology and Pneumatology. However, Jesus trained people to BE: followers, disciples through relationship. One is functional and pragmatic. The other is ontological. Since you can only act out of who you are (the ontological), which one do you think is more important?

• Seminaries teach knowledge. Jesus modeled a relationship with God and others.
• Seminaries impart information. Jesus mentored.
• Seminaries embraced an enlightenment-based modernity that transitioned teaching from investment and mentoring to imparting knowledge. Jesus did theology in relationship or theology in mentorship rather than theology in lecture.

Seminaries need to focus more on spiritual formation within theological education. More emphasis needs to be placed on helping those that come through their $5 million seminary entrances become whole and healthy Christians than simply imparting systematic theology. Those students from unhealthy churches need mentors to walk along side them and speak into their lives, to invest time and energy with them and help them see areas that are lacking in wholeness. Unfortunately, we assign that to a class or two and expect them to get it.

The church has adopted a seminary-like format. The church has educational systems not formation systems. We lecture. We impart knowledge. And we call that discipleship. The church needs mentors, not lecturers. The church need coaches, not teachers. The church needs relational disciples, not professors.

The church is not as much functional as it is ontological. It is a community of faith. It is the bride of Christ. It is the body of Christ. It can only do out of who it is. But we expect the church to do, and in doing become. We have our doing and our being backwards. Even the language of the GCR is frame through doing language, not a being. The GCR is framed a something to be done. The failure of even the language is that we cannot do apart from being formed by God. We cannot love others with a white-hot passion without loving God with that same passion.

Change the scorecard for success
I have been writing on ministry success since 2008. I wrote a whole series of posts about. I have written an ebook about it. Success isn’t about the numbers. It’s about 3 things: obedience, investment and reproduction. Unfortunately, the SBC measures success in numbers, specifically attendance, money, and baptisms. This is a false measurement of success. Let me demonstrate.

One of the recent presidents of the Pastor’s Conference pastors a church that, when this man was nominated, was hailed as a great evangelistic church. The previous ten years they had averages 140 baptisms per year. In those same ten years, their attendance grew from 700-1100. Does anyone see a problem with that? This church, over a ten year period, baptized 1400 people but their attendance only grew by 400. Where are the other 1000? Maybe they started 5 churches out of that growth. Maybe they counted baptisms from their multi-cultural church partners. Maybe this is a huge transient area and all those people moved. But if those maybe’s aren’t true, this church is not a success. In fact, it is a failing. Yet that is who we celebrate. And who and what we celebrate gets repeated. What we celebrate gets emulated.

If we want to be successful pastors in the SBC we have to pastor large churches. That is what is celebrated. That is what is modeled. No wonder we have pastors hopping around and moving up the ladder, hoping to find that one church where they be celebrated as successful. Why? Because we have unhealthy pastors seeking an unhealthy standard of success.

Success comes as a result of being formed by the Spirit into the imago christi, the human we were created to be. That means success is found through obedience, investment (mentoring), and reproduction. That’s success – being formed by the Spirit, leading to obedience. We then invest in others and see the imago christi reproduced in others through our obedient investment and partnership with the Spirit. It has nothing to do with numbers.

If we want to bring change to the local church we need to celebrate obedient, Spirit-formed people who are investing in others. And we need our theological education to help people become, so they can do. Otherwise, the church will continue to be weak and unhealthy.

…and our greatest (potential) strength.

When I look at the local church I’m both aghast and amazed. Reading about the church through the last 2000 years I’m aghast at some of the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived lo these many years. Shoot, reading the New Testament I’m aghast at the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived. Even our heroes, like the belching, flatulating curmudgeon Martin Luther, will make one scratch one’s head. It truly is a wonder that the church has made it this far. But made it she has.

She’s made it not because of her resiliency. Not because of her determination. Not because of her moral purity. Not because of her shining example. She’s made it because of whose she is. God is simply doggedly determined to have a people, however imperfect we may continue to be. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

However, as Scripture and history demonstrates time and time again God often leaves his people (or at least some/most of them) to their own devices when they choose to go their own way. Read more…

Ryan Hutchinson describes the role inflation plays in theological education supported by the Cooperative Program. Despite an increase in CP receipts inflation has affected the “purchasing power” of those dollars thereby affecting our seminaries.

In a day where technological advancements could make theological education more accessible, we find our seminaries takings steps to make their campuses more accessible, read “attractive,” with a new entrance at Southern Seminary at a reported cost of $5,000,000. And, if we are not beautifying the campus with a new chapel or dressing up Pecan Manor, we are acquiring fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is not that these two investments are reckless. The question begging to be asked is just when cuts are being made and dollars are scarce, what about doing theological education? It is a bit like major insurance companies resisting health care reform then announcing ahead of the vote they will increase premiums by as much as 30%.

Hutchinson believes we need more money for theological education. The SBC Outpost reported in the past how a number of the seminary presidents were pushing for an offering akin to Lottie and Annie. Perhaps if some of our seminaries took a more aggressive approach to a new kind of theological education they would find more support for this idea from churches and not have to lobby the Executive Committee.

Donors like their names attached to large projects. How may we help them attach their dollars to students desiring theological education? That may be a good place for Hutchinson to put his energy.

And what seminary is he writing from?

We need health care reform. The problem is we do not need health care reform earned with sweetheart deals that have nothing to do with said reform but more to do with garnering votes. Some of my friends chide Christians for being against health care reform. And, there are some who may well think the system is fine just as it is. It is not. On the other hand in an attempt to get “something done” we may end up with a poor “ship” to borrow from Godin’s new book Linchpin. In other words in Godin’s description of leadership and projects, the thrashing seems to be coming too late. Should have begun much earlier. The result will be a poor product. Now the problem at this point is that we begin to panic and think we should do nothing until we are sure of something. That gets us no-where either.

In the spirit of interesting analogies, Missioscapes contributor and former SBC Outpost contributor, considers the parallels of the health care debate and the current GCR Task Force Preliminary Report and its implications.

March 18, 2010

Similarities Between Health Care Reform and the #GCR of Southern Baptists

It is really pitiful when a person has to come out of retirement to say things that must be said, but I now speak the truth in love as one should always do:

Needless.

Baseless.

Pointless.

Vacuous.

Void.

Unhelpful.

Bottom-feeding.

Inane.

Imbecilic.

Moronic.

Incomprehensible.

Nonsensical.

Mythical.

Useless.

Idiotic.

Unintelligent.

Self-aggrandizing.

Ego-stroking.

Unloving.

Unnecessary.

Thoughtless.

Worthless.

Small.

These are the most charitable terms I can find to describe the writings of Peter Lumpkins.