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.

Our interest here in recent posts is not to exaggerate the divide but to serve a reminder that nothing has really changed. If anything positions have been calcified. When was the last time you heard any word on IMB policies. Yes, we have heard and read the recommendations in the preliminary report of the GCRTF. But consider this.

Let’s say the IMB assumes the role of leading the way to reach un-reached people group populations now living as immigrants in the U.S. We still have policies that will exclude those we may believe God intends us to send from our churches. Only this time the matter won’t be so far away – on the field in another country. No, right here in a church’s own backyard will our sending entity still be following guidelines excluding recommended personnel out of fear of “pentecostal” sympathies. James K.A. Smith asserts a “pentecostal spirit” really reflects an acknowledgment God may really do anything. And though not SBC, he is Reformed in his theology and offers an interesting perspective on the sovereignty of God and the need to be subject to the Spirit of God to do whatever the Spirit may do in exalting Jesus.

It seems the BI group holds sway on this subject. Two years ago it was Frank Cox who firmly believed these policies to be appropriate. In fact, if you want a recap follow the links in the compilation post offered by Timmy Brister last year. While everyone’s attention has been on what will come from listening sessions and reports from the GCRTF, what kind of vetting is taking place for the post now held by Chapman?

For instance, the outcry by some to renounce the announced nomination of Tony Gramling is quite ironic. Where was the outcry when CR leader Charles Stanley’s church gave a small percentage to the CP? He was on the right side so it did not matter. Why have we forgotten the late Adrian Rogers who suggested, “Percentages don’t feed missionaries, dollars feed missionaries?” It was noted that Johnny Hunt’s church gave 2% directly through the CP when he was elected President but gave $3 million to SBC causes. So, those who starved out the opposition when they were in charge now have some in their crowd fearful they are “losing the whole thing.” (Frank Cox)

The issue is not for or against the CP. Don’t miss the issue – what appears to be only slight fissures in the competing visions for the SBC is much wider than it appears. And you can be sure some working quietly are well aware. Chapman’s successor will either lead us forward or take us back. Maybe it would be good to re-visit Marty’s reminder of the import of this decision, circulate the post, email it as Marty does a good job outlining important considerations for this important selection.

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?

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

I would venture a guess that most who have used the word never read the book by Guder titled, The Missional Church. Even fewer will have read his book, The Continuing Conversion of the Church. In the best sense of semper reformanda, Guder contends that the church in every context and age must experience conversion from the barnacles it attracts as it passes through culture. He never suggests there is a pristinated version of church but opens the reader up to understand that when the church becomes complacent in its self-criticism it eventually loses its voice as it takes on the worst characteristics of the culture in which it finds itself.

Yes, Ed Stetzer regularly tweets in love and favor of the church. What he does not do is suggest it is perfect, just not worth bashing.

Monday I spent the day at a conference hosted by our contributor John Elam and the Northwestern Baptist Association in Woodward, OK. That’s right one of the smallest associations in the SBC hosts a conference titled, For the World. (Oh that our larger associations would consider these kinds of regular events.) Applying the best sense of the word missional the conference sought to encourage pastors to lead their congregations to live out the mission of God “for the world.”

SEBTS professors Nathan Finn and Alvin Reid offered two sessions each. Dr. Anthony Jordan, Exec. Director of the BGCO was featured for another session. The three combined with John Elam for a panel discussion moderated by Douglas Baker, new Executive Editor of The Baptist Messenger.

The point of this piece is not to offer a review or necessary critique. I would suggest you listen to the sessions. The discerning ear will hear some surprises. For instance, what would it mean if we really grasped Finn’s description of Baptists as an “ecclesiological reform movement?” Let that sink in a bit you who want desperately for Baptists to be a “theological reform movement.” Finn does not suggest an a/theological move for Baptists, instead he outlines historically what it means when we talk about the “five Baptist distinctives.” One must confess they are all ecclesiological in their affirmations.

Maybe you would find Reid’s attention to the 120 in the early Acts narrative compelling. Regularly we pay attention to the extraordinary “move of the Spirit” in Peter’s preaching. But, would we concede that contextually the 120 likely had as much going on in that fast movement of Gospel embrace? Or with all the bantering about “contextualization” would you be willing to accept the methodological adaptations evident in the growing story of the church?

There is little doubt a firestorm could swirl around Dr. Jordan’s contention that we make second order or tertiary confessional commitments matters of collegial cooperation. Recent moves to attach secondary issues to first order matters in an event to tighten the circle for cooperation would surely resist that the BFM article on the family does not rise to the level of the deity of Jesus. What’s more, will we ever concede unity does not of necessity mean uniformity? And, can that apply to more than our preferred music or governing polity?

Take some time to listen to the sessions. Come back and engage a conversation.

The Kingdom Principle

Several years ago I accompanied a friend on hiking trip. Our objective was more than just spending a few days in the great outdoors. The location was a restricted-access country in Asia where mission work is forbidden. My friend, a strategy coordinator for an unreached people group, asked me to join him on the trip high in the mountains to locate and mark with a GPS villages previously untouched by Westerners. His desire was to count doors, do a needs-assessment and hopefully encounter men of peace through whom he could introduce the Gospel to a secluded people. As a journalist, I planned to do a feature package on the people and the challenge of bringing the Gospel to them.

We spent our first day navigating dusty trails and narrow goat paths straight up a mountain nearing 10,000 feet. At one point, having run out of water, we resorted to drawing and filtering from streams that were no more than mud puddles. Periodically, we encountered people living on the mountain; villagers tending to crops on semi-flat fields or goat herders on patches of mountain grass. At one rest stop, two members of our team engaged a couple of farmers in light conversation and gave them tracts in their language.

In our ignorance, we didn’t realize those farmers were heading down the mountain to a village at a lower trailhead. I can imagine their report to the local officials: white devils were on the mountain handing out (illegal) materials. To our dismay, as we broke camp the following morning we saw coming up behind us a trail of military vehicles. Needless to say, the language barrier didn’t mean much as the officials angrily interrogated our leader and hauled us all off the mountain.

We were held for several hours in the village headquarters. Our team leader received the brunt of their wrath since he knew the language, but after a time we were left under the watch of one of the armed guards. As we sat in the sparse room, our team leader sat at the doorway engaged in conversation with the guard.

After several hours a bus arrived. We were told we would be taken down the mountain to the provincial capital and expelled from the country. As we loaded our gear on the bus, I noticed our team leader place both of his hands on our guard’s shoulders and speak to him. The guard’s head lowered. He nodded, seemingly with resignation.

I knew my friend was telling this man about Jesus. I couldn’t wait to hear the whole story.

The guard had continued to tell our team leader that what we were doing was illegal. But “I put my hands on his shoulders and looked him the eye,” my friend shared. “I told him: ‘You know that the Kingdom of God has come near to you today.’” The guard nodded his head and said, “Yes, I know.”

It was a simple statement, but it reflected our marching orders. Before our hike we were told we were operating under the “L.K. 10 principle” just as Jesus had instructed the 72 as He sent them out – to proclaim the Good News; to speak to those who would listen; to pray for the sick; to proclaim the Kingdom of God.

While this story is digestible in the context of being overseas in a country resistant to the Gospel, I feel this basic principle is one that is too often overlooked in the safety shell of our American church. Most understand the mandate to be the hands and feet of Jesus, but do we take seriously the mandate to intentionally intersect the lost, the questioning, the maligned, the people all around us; to look them in the eye and proclaim the truth, challenging them to understand through our actions and words that the Kingdom of God has come near to them? How have I brought near the Kingdom of God today? Did anyone even realize it?

What does “L.K. 10” look like in the missional context? Is it enough to hope that the waitress serving us thinks we are “different” because we smile and leave a decent tip? That the store clerk is impressed that we don’t get aggravated in the long checkout line like those around us? That maybe we give a sandwich to the homeless vet on the corner? These things are good and should be expected of Christ-followers. But isn’t there more?

There is intentionality in the series of instructions given to the 72: Ask the Lord…Go!…Speak peace…stay…eat…drink…heal…tell them: “the Kingdom of God is near you.”

I’m not suggesting you grab someone on the street and say, “The Kingdom of God is near you!” That could get ugly. But why are we afraid and intimidated to ask about the needs of someone’s heart and explain how every desire and broken promise they have been harboring can be found in the person of Jesus? Is it because we know it’s been attempted so many times in harmful “turn-off” ways that we’re fearful of being lumped in with the offensive kooks? Is it because we really don’t have a clue how to effectively translate God’s story into someone’s context and language? Is it because we ourselves don’t know it well enough? I wonder.

By the way, we created a second chance for ourselves that day on the mountain by giving the bus driver the slip and trekking back into our targeted territory. God’s story was communicated to a people for the first time. May His Kingdom come.

———-

“Through a Glass Darkly”

With these words St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) contrasts the limitations of our present spiritual vision and understanding with the fullness of knowledge that will be ours at the return of the Lord.  This metaphor may be helpful as we consider the last of Biblical Seminary’s theological convictions.

The Necessity of Cultural Engagement

We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.[1]

There are three points I want to make about this statement:  1) culture as the context for mission, 2) culture as a way of seeing, and 3) the need for cross-cultural learning.

1.    Culture as context

By “culture” we refer to the traditional ways of thinking, speaking, and acting that characterize a particular group of people. In our highly mobile Western world, we must think of culture not as a single entity but as a complex interplay of contrasting and even competing ways by which different groups construe their world.

This diversity of cultures is one reason the church in North America must now think of itself as a missionary church. We are surrounded by groups of people who do not share our way of viewing the world. To bring the gospel to our world we will need to engage in the missionary task of translation.  We must communicate the truth about Jesus in ways that are faithful to Scripture and effective in crossing cultural boundaries.

Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, understands this challenge better than most. “When Paul spoke to Greeks, he confronted their culture’s idol of speculation and philosophy with the ‘foolishness’ of the cross, and then presented Christ’s salvation as true wisdom. When he spoke to Jews, he confronted their culture’s idol of power and accomplishment with the ‘weakness’ of the cross, and then presented the gospel as true power (1 Cor. 1:22-25).”[2] In affirming one gospel, Keller nonetheless argues that different “forms” of the gospel are appropriate to people of differing cultural backgrounds.

So, in the context of his own ministry in New York City, Keller recognizes that people with religious backgrounds understand the concept of sin as an offense against the law of God.  These people can therefore be reached with the more traditional evangelical summary of the gospel which presents the cross as divine provision for human sin and guilt.

But Keller notes, “…Manhattan is also filled with postmodern listeners who consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed. If you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine.’ If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.”[3]  For this audience Keller finds it more effective to speak of sin not as guilt but as idolatry.

My point is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of Pastor Keller’s specific approach to preaching, although I agree with much of his article. The point is rather to emphasize the missional challenge we face. Careful interpretation of Scripture must now be combined with careful interpretation of culture(s) if we are to witness faithfully to our generation.

2.     Culture as a way of seeing

Paul talks about seeing in the mirror “dimly” or “obscurely.” This is due both to our finiteness and our fallenness, and both play out in the influence of culture upon us and upon those to whom we bring the gospel.  Culture allows us to see certain things while it makes other realities opaque.

Here’s another way of saying this: None of us perceive reality (including the Bible) in a purely objective way. We are all imbedded in our culture. We observe from a limited perspective.  No one enjoys a God’s-eye view of the world except God himself.

When I was a beginning student in theology, most evangelicals were objectivists. We saw ourselves as people who could simply observe the world and the Bible without being impacted by our cultural surroundings. Perspective (bias) was not a problem, at least not for us! Abstract scientific induction was our model for the study of the Bible and the articulation of theology: begin with the pure data and by careful, logical process craft your sermon or build your theology.

But now postmodernism has powerfully critiqued that type of naïve modernism. There is a growing convergence among evangelical scholars that objectivism is not workable. No less a conservative than D.A. Carson now says that “… human beings may know objective truth in the sense that they may know what actually conforms to reality, but they cannot know it objectively, that is, they cannot escape their finitude and (this side of the consummation) their fallenness….”[4] Similarly, John Franke writes, “We simply cannot escape from our particular setting and gain access to an objective, transcultural vantage point.”[5] The result, says Carson, is that we are all perspectivalists.

This has both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, culture may function in a positive way to help us see particular dimensions of our humanity or of the world that may otherwise escape us. Our conviction statement reads:  “It is also true that God can work in a culture to surface issues of justice, equity, or mercy that the church has neglected.” Clearly the civil rights movement of the second half of the 20th century surfaced a glaring inconsistency in the theology and practice of many white Christians in North America.

On the other hand, culture can impact the church negatively as well. In this case it blinds us to truths that may be obvious to those of a different cultural background. For example, the narcissistic individualism[6] of the West has left American Christians with an anemic understanding of the church.  As a result many of us would summarize the gospel with no reference to the centrality of the church in God’s purposes, and many of us live as if salvation were merely a private affair between Jesus and me.

3.     Cross-cultural learning

So, any particular culture both illuminates and obscures aspects of reality. To quote Carson again, “…every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we were made in God’s image and shows itself to be mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God.”[7]
How then are we to live out Christian faith without being co-opted unknowingly by the most dangerous elements of our surroundings?  The primary answer is that we must be willing to bring our most fundamental assumptions back to Scripture in the recognition that a fresh hearing of the Word may yet disclose points of correction or expansion in our living of the gospel.

However, our convictions statement speaks of the need for “continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.” The way we understand and live out the gospel needs to be compared with the ways brothers and sisters in other places hear the same message. In the process we will find elements of similarity and difference; the commonalities will confirm our faith and the plurality of views will humble and perhaps instruct us.

The growing weakness of the church in the West and the explosion of the church in the two-thirds world should make us teachable. Wheaton College professor Kevin Vanhoozer says, “Those who cannot see their own cultural conditioning are doomed to repeat it. It is just here that Western sytematic theologians have much to learn…. It is ultimately for the sake of better biblical interpretation that Western theologians need to attend to how the Bible is being read and practiced in the non-Western world.”[8]

************************

In summary, none of us can escape culture. It is the context in which we understand, embody, and communicate the gospel. The church’s missional challenge in every particular cultural setting is to incarnate the message faithfully. At Biblical Seminary we believe the best hope for carrying out that mission is a fresh listening for the voice of the Spirit as we read Scripture together with the global church.

[1]The full text of our Convictions is found here:  http://www.biblical.edu/images/discover/Convictions0808.pdf
[2] Tim Keller, “The Gospel in All Its Forms,” at http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/9.74.html?start=1
[3] http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/9.74.html?start=5
[4] D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Eerdmans, 2008), p. 101.
[5] John Franke, The Character of Theology (Baker, 2005), p. 90.
[6] See my earlier Missional Journal on Narcissism:  http://www.biblical.edu/images/belong/PDFs/Vol1No11.pdf
[7] Idem, p. 49
[8] Kevin Vanhoozer, “One Rule to Rule Them All?” in Globalizing Theology edited by Craig Ott and Harold Netland (Baker, 2006), pp. 116-17.

If we were the GCR Task Force we would avoid “watergate.” You see, we are familiar with “leaking computers.” Well, maybe not leaking computers, but leaking sources. During our time with the now defunct SBCOutpost, read SBC Drudge Report, there were many willing to “blow the whistle” on questionable tactics yet they feared reprisal. Over and again we bantered back and forth about “anonymous sources.” Some pontificated with erudition. In the end the atmosphere was the problem. In an organization, institution, intending to bear the Gospel of Jesus to the world one would assume ethical decisions would run through the ethic of Jesus. In order to move us from the pragmatic and narrow agendas of a few, we would declare an end to secret meetings from the outset.

Rather than offer an expose’ on the countless secret meetings held over the past 30 years, we would schedule all meetings inside a local church building. From the now famous or infamous meeting at the Cafe du Monde to the present hour our history is full of examples of these private meetings. The stakes are too high to undermine the process behind the cloak of secrecy. Sometimes symbolism is as important as substance. We hear much about the Great Commission being given to the local church, then we would plan to meet there. Our history is full of meetings held at airports. Sometimes the outcome of those meetings has been less than profitable.

Not only would we declare an end to secret meetings, we would open ours. We would lead by example. Marty noted in our opening post how we would offer Town Hall styled listening sessions. One is already planned in Arkansas. We would report after each meeting the pertinent details of the discussions. Our goal would be to engender trust where it has obviously been called into question.

Since the horse is out of the barn, we would have selected all members of the Task Force without respect to our friends, we would work tirelessly as co-chairs to listen to input from every member regardless were they among the first group (18) selected or the last (4), whether they served one of our entities and exhibited brilliance or served as pastor of one of our smaller churches and demonstrated common sense, whether we had known them a lifetime or just met. We would hold the floor for those who we selected not showing deference to another who made the GCR motion or was the representative figure head of the “movement.” We would risk underplaying the role of those more prominent members of the Task Force. Too many have made meetings only to discover the decisions were in the bag before the car ride or the plane trip to the appointed destination. Everyone must be valued in the process.

The USA Today article carried a reference to “cronyism.” That should not have been a word Ronnie Floyd or Johnny Hunt need look up in the dictionary. In fact, it is quite humorous we are calling attention to cronyism in the USA Today article but have seen few references to such in our state newsletters newspapers. If there is one thing we know something about in the SBC is cronyism. I was once told to “get a group of my friends together” and “do what we did” when I suggested things seemed our of whack. We cannot do without friends. But, in the task at hand, we need more than friends. We need someone who would draw attention to our shortsightedness, our narrow perspectives, and call us on the carpet when we use our power or position to exert undue influence into a process on which many have staked their future SBC hopes. And, do not begin to think that an overstatement.

We would avoid manipulating the moment. Politicos understand the necessity of trial balloons. Already some form of consolidation between NAMB and the IMB has been broached as a topic du jour. We confess it seems all to coincidental this news comes out now when as noted it is nearly a year in the making. Surely you would understand the NAMB BoT wanting to go above and beyond so as not to be seen as “the problem” with two successive firings. This is not the time to capitulate to the pragmatic, which is our general penchant. We have had far too many instances of entities dabbling in other entities affairs. We need not continue the practice with the GCR Task Force. After all, the Task Force may only make recommendations. NAMB will need leadership, and solid leadership, long before recommendations may be parsed and evaluated by the Convention. We would need to maintain focus on the larger picture of empowering our churches to more effectively, and with resourcefulness, carry out the Great Commission.

We would seek to live out the Great Commandment as we consider carrying out the Great Commission. The Nixon administration went off course. Cover ups became necessary. We must admit running off course began before statistics demonstrated a decline. Our issues run deeper than bus tours and development of more creative witnessing tools. We would certainly want to pray for the process and encourage others. Even more, we would call on each Task Force member and the sum of the SBC to practice Jesus’ call to love one another. Recently SBC provocateur Wade Burleson remarked that he must learn to love the liberal, moderate Baptist among us before he could possibly be considered to know how to love our Muslim friends. And, if that is not enough for some of you, Jimmy Allen has long contended that our love for each other must reach beyond our theology. We have pushed out, preached out those who did not draw our narrow lines. We remain in danger of continuing this practice. Only by committing to the Great Commandment do we have any hope of fulfilling the Great Commission.