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 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.