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.

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.

As we draw to the end of this series, we feel compelled to point out what all of us felt was an obvious point. It has been reported that some who read this blog have the mistaken impression that we do not support the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. This entire series was written by seven guys who are offering suggestions as to what we see are necessary changes that the GCRTF could recommend. To suppose or pre-suppose that, despite our clear words, we are somehow against the GCRTF demonstrates a failed judgment of our motives and a EPIC FAIL in the evaluation of our writings.

For those who are newcomers to this blog and may not be as familiar with our past involvement with “The Dark Side,” the men listed on the Editors page were, for 2-3 years, avid (some might say “rabid”) critics of the SBC and, often, some in its leadership. Though motives were questioned then as well (both by us and toward us), to a person our goal was to try and instigate some type of reform that would address the backroom politics, good ole’ boy nomination processes and bureaucratic redundancies all of which we felt were suppressing the SBC’s creative talent and innovation, disenfranchising younger leaders and threatening the long term viability of the Southern Baptist Convention. While we were critical of some of the entity heads within the convention, we also recognized that any lasting change would have to come as a result of the “blog conversation” moving into the arena of official leadership. On June 18, 2007, on the last “SBC” commentary on my (Marty) first blog, SBCOutpost, I wrote that “change must come from Frank Page, Thom Rainer, Geoff Hammond, David Dockery, Timothy George, Danny Akin and others of their tribe.” Sans Geoff Hammond, each of these leaders is involved at some level of driving change in the SBC. Knowing that these men have stepped up to the plate does not make us mad; it gives us varying degrees of hope from fleeting to great.

Having said that, anything that appears to be criticism from our end should be read as a hope that the GCRTF will go the distance and not be, to use biblical phrasing, “of those who shrink back and are destroyed,” but will press to the farthest extent and let the convention itself decide. In other words, we believe the GCRTF should bring “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” to Orlando and let the assembled messengers determine how to proceed from there. We do not want them to “shrink back” out of fear, uncertainty or concerns about walking on the toes of feudal lords.

Therefore, if we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, we would make the following recommendations:

1. That the Southern Baptist Convention intentionally downsize is structural complexity by recognizing the series of autonomous relationships that exist between churches, associations, state conventions/fellowships and the national body and that the local churches must take the lead in re-shaping this autonomy to all extremes in each direction.

2. That the Southern Baptist Convention re-focus NAMB’s ministry tasks, retaining only on those areas that empower the churches through national coordination and facilitate the planting of churches in frontier areas. This would be best accomplished through decentralization. NAMB should begin to act as a true missionary sending agency while funding those missionaries accordingly.

3. That the Southern Baptist Convention cease from the practice of voting on “Resolutions.” The purpose of resolutions in theory makes sense, but in practice they are great tools for making Southern Baptists look like fools. We have long passed the point that our society cares at all what we think about its ills; resolutions have become points of disparagement for our host culture, another stigma that must be overcome by Southern Baptist churches and do nothing to help us fulfill the Great Commission.

4. That the Southern Baptist Convention focus its coordinated efforts toward only what local churches, associations, or state conventions cannot do alone or by voluntary networking. By definition this implies the closure of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

5. That the Southern Baptist Convention instruct the International Mission Board to implement strategies that empower national believers rather than seeking to primarily deploy western missionaries and make those stories a focus of all promotion.

6. That one-third of the trustees on Southern Baptist Convention entity boards be comprised of men and women younger than 40 years of age and that the total number of years that a single person shall be able to serve on all boards combined is twelve.

7. That churches be given the option to direct their Cooperative Program funds through their local association consistent with the mission of the local church and the accountable practices at all levels of our cooperative effort toward fulfilling the Great Commission.

8. That all bodies within the SBC–local churches, associations, state conventions and fellowships, and all national entities–strive for absolute accuracy in reporting of statistics and that a differentiation be made between what is accomplished by our own direct ministry efforts and those of groups with whom we partner both in North America and internationally.

9. That the Southern Baptist Convention explore alternative methods of theological training that retain an emphasis on conservative, classic theology, but are local church-centric and host culture specific. A new educational paradigm should be introduced which places Missiology on the same plane as Theology proper, Christology and Pneumatology and staffed accordingly.

10. That funding the Cooperative Program not be considered as the basis for being a cooperating church. The basis for cooperation should be missional engagement as the local church furthers the stated goals of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Cooperation” should not be reduced to money.

If we were the GCR Task Force, we would wear camel hair suits and eat bugs.  Like John the Baptist, the Task Force is charged with the task of issuing the clarion call to leave that which is and conform to that which is best. That which is no longer the religious routine but that which is the Missio Dei, the very Mission of God:  the redemption of His creation.

We understand that this is the most powerful role that the GCRTF can fulfill.  I say this not because of the prophetic image that John the Baptist casts – and let’s just admit among ourselves that all preachers fancy themselves a modern version of the second Elijah.  At least a little.

No. It is not the simple image of John that creates a powerful role for the GCRTF, but it is because they can fulfill no other role that they must become John.

Tasked with calling the bureaucracy of the SBC to a powerful move to fulfill the Great Commission, the GCRTF is the fruit of that same bureaucracy.  Calling for the various entities to move, restructure and reform is all that the GCRT can do, since the Boards of Trustees run their respective entities and do not have to conform to the reports, resolutions or votes of the convention.

So the prophetic call is what must come from the GCRTF.  There is nothing else.

And it must issue that summons with power and conviction.  It must do so with such force that the SBC heeds the call because to not do so would be tantamount to rejecting the Great Commission itself and no Christian should be able to do as much.

With wild hair and a burly countenance, the GCRTF must look the established processes, organizations and people in the eye and expose the semblance of an organization that claims to be about the business of God for all its many failures to actually be so.

More specifically, the GCRTF has to expose the deficiencies of the Cooperative Program and call the masters of the CP to realign it and the organizations it feeds to weed out redundancy, inefficiency, mismanagement and, sometimes, cronyism mixed with nepotism.

I’ll give you just a couple real life examples.

Take, for instance, this graph of the Cooperative Program Distribution of an Oklahoma Church using the CP to partner together for missions.  (I use OK, because that is where I pastor.)  This graphic was provided to us in our past annual meeting on the book of reports and is available through the BGCO website.

As you can see, for every dollar my church sends to the CP, less than 30 cents makes it to the mission boards.

Assume that half of the IMB’s budget goes to administrative costs, including of all employees’ salaries, benefits, travel expenses and then the exorbitant cost of the Trustee Board meeting 6 times a year.  (You could take that money, buy a new laptop for every member of the Board, staff the IMB with an IT team exclusively dedicated to facilitating communications among board members and still save the IMB a couple million dollars annually, I suspect.)

Read more…

Something is leaking. According to an article in the USA Today dated August 6 (taken from The Tennessean), someone’s computer sprung a leak. That is, an email was leaked which altered the course of the upcoming NAMB Board of Trustees meeting. Someone left the gate valve open and water sprung from a circuit board inviting unintended readers a look-see into upcoming discussions by the “executive committee” of the NAMB BoT. In an environment of trust in people and process “leaking” would not be necessary.

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.

Read more…

Following the “Twelve Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence” chapel message by SEBTS president, Dr. Danny Akin, a movement was born. In June’s SBC meeting in Louisville, KY, president Johnny Hunt recommended the formation of a GCR Task Force to explore how the convention might respond to the ideas presented (reduced to ten from the original 12). Eighteen people were appointed to the task force initially with 4 others being added later (Hunt himself makes the twenty third). Chairman Ronnie Floyd has announced that the first two meetings, both this month, will be held in Atlanta and Rogers, AR. Great things are expected by some, the same old thing is expected by others.

Out of the 4 million committed members of Southern Baptist churches (not the supposed 16 million on rolls), there are 3,999,977 who have not been asked to be GCR Task Force members. Count us among the masses, as none of the writers on this blog are among the chosen. Just for fun, though, we asked ourselves this question: What if we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force? Or, at least, what if we were on it? Rather than waiting for task force decisions to be made and follow them up with critique, we decided to put ourselves in their place and see what ideas might be generated.

Our attempt is to be careful to only address what we feel is within the purview of the task force, rather than what only the convention itself can do. This is also something that the convention peanut gallery might do well to remember. The GCR Task Force can only make recommendations; it cannot implement a single change, be it structural or ideological. It can only study, review and recommend to the gathered convention next June at Disney World Orlando.

First, we would read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team before our initial meeting and take its lessons to heart. Patrick Lencioni’s seminal work on the causes of team malfunctions lays a framework that cannot be overlooked. It will not be enough to pray and ask God for things to go well. This team of eighteen have never worked together; some have (or had) never even met each other, yet the expectation is a report that will be nothing short of revolutionary. Without a specific plan to create teamwork on short notice, a lot of time stands to be wasted and the end product could be in jeopardy before the first gathering in Atlanta.

Lencioni argues that the foundational component of any effective team is trust, ergo its absence is the root cause of dysfunction. When the team members cannot have absolute trust in each other’s abilities, motives and efforts it creates a mental morass where healthy conflict cannot take place. The atmosphere becomes, “Oh, that’s a good idea” or “Yeah…,” followed by awkward silence, rather than, “Uhm, that sounds good, but here’s why I don’t think it will work” or “Now that you have trotted that out, I’m going to shoot the legs off of it.” Lack of healthy conflict further manifests itself in a lack of commitment to the end result (which could result in members resigning or being less than enthusiastic about the outcome), an unwillingness to have true accountability and then carelessness about results. When you are not in for a dime, who cares about the dollar?

Trust can be quickly gained if there is a level playing field where no attention is given to ranks, positions and titles. The freedom for meaningful conflict will come when those with “power” (Floyd, Hunt, Mohler, Akin, et al) make it clear that there is no advantage gained and that all ideas will be judged on merit, not on the prestige of the presenter. It will be crucial that Ronnie Floyd and Johnny Hunt facilitate this and we would insist on it.

Second, we would remember just why those calls for live streaming or open meetings exist. There is a trust factor across the convention that the mere reading of a book cannot fix. For the last 30 years, whether valid or not, there is the perception that too many decisions in SBC life have been made in “smoke-filled” rooms, midnight phone calls, or by improper pressure and influence being placed on convention processes. Already there are whispers in the wind that some decisions are set in stone before the task force has even met. Because of these issues, many people now want the GCR Task Force to have completely open meetings and perhaps even live stream the proceedings.

We would not do this, but would proceed in this fashion: we would schedule three meetings that are completely open to any Southern Baptist who wants to attend. (One meeting of this “town hall” style has already been planned.) At these we would schedule 1- 2 hours of open mic with a two minute limit for any attendee to voice concerns or ideas. The task force will have to determine whether any usable ideas are generated, but at least there is a process in place for input. These three meetings and these three only we would live stream for anyone interested in watching online.

The other meetings would be closed. At the conclusion of each we would issue a press release summarizing the topics discussed, but not solutions to be recommended. This would allow the group to have confidence in their ability to have open, honest discussion without being sniped at for every comment made. It would also keep the convention up to date with the process as it unfolds. The final step we would take to help ensure integrity in the process would be to publish the name of every person who attempted to unduly influence the process and the higher up the denominational ladder the person was that tried, the bigger and bolder the font would be when we published the name.

Third, when encountering #IX of the GCR Declaration (A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure) there will be inevitable talk of consolidating or closing seminaries. We would insist that Al Mohler (SBTS) and Danny Akin recuse themselves from those discussions. No matter how diligent an effort is made to avoid undue influence, the issue will not be with the men themselves, but with the impressions given and friendships made among task force members. While in these discussions, it will already be difficult for task force members to avoid thinking, “We need men like this leading our seminaries” and perhaps they will be right in thinking so. That, however, creates an out of balance situation for the other presidents, and thus the other seminaries. Certainly at the drop of a hat a hundred graduates, trustees and supporters could speak as to why the other four presidents are the kind of men to lead those respective seminaries in addition to these the two on the task force. In fairness to the other four and to protect the process, Drs. Mohler and Akin should not be allowed to participate in seminary discussions. Any and all enrollment information, CP support, etc, can easily be gotten from the SBC Executive Committee or the offices of the various seminaries.

Potentially making this matter even more complicated is the Council of Seminary Presidents, the name given when they convene to discuss theological matters concerning the convention. This council has an agreement that when they deal with any matter that requires their involvement, after debate and discussion, they put forth a unified front with whatever decision is made. Our concern would be that the presidents not involved in the discussion might be forced to choke down a cyanide pill under the guise of presenting to the convention a bill of health.

(We do not see as large a concern regarding the IMB and NAMB, since each has a representative on the task force who can provide concurring or contrasting opinions.)

Fourth, we would seek statements from the president of each SBC entity and the chairman of its board of trustees to the effect that, no matter how far reaching any task force recommendation might be, there will be no public criticism or disagreement. This is a matter for the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to decide, not those who work for us. If this or that entity head or trustee board start making statements or fighting the process, it will create fiefdoms that will make medieval Europe look positively communistic by comparison. The politics of the convention are filled with an inglorious history of manipulation and improper influence; the GCR effort is an opportunity to put all of that aside for the furtherance of the Great Commission.

(Further, we would ask every state convention or state fellowship executive director for a similar statement of agreement.)

Fifth, we would do our best to ensure that these discussions are guided by mission, not by dollars and cents (although sense would be just fine). After all, this is about the Great Commission, is it not? But, because so much talk has been generated about “efficiency” there is a danger that many decisions will fall under the domain of “cost cutting” turning the SBC into the denominational equivalent of Big Lots or Goodwill. What should guide us is the missio dei and all decisions should be subservient to that. The mission of the SBC, whether you call it a “Great Commission Resurgence” or something else, should be seen as within the mission of God, not separate and distinct from it. We would be hesitant to make any recommendations that we could not reconcile with the missio dei.

Finally, because there has been concern about #IX becoming the focus of the entire work of the GCR Task Force, we would make sure that every recommendation concerning restructuring was tied into at least one of the other nine points of the declaration, since, arguably, the other nine stand head and shoulders above it in relation to the gospel.