I got involved in blogging several years ago because I was concerned about what was happening with some of our SBC leaders. I am a big fan of Jerry Rankin and I did not like what I perceived to be an orchestrated move to push him out with the new (and silly) policies that were adopted there. There was a momentum for change among some of the young pastors and leaders in the convention. I do not qualify as young but I supported the need for reform in the SBC and the need to oppose the wrong direction many were forging - what has come to be known as Baptist Identity. There are noble proponents of that philosophy (as well as some stinkers) but I am convinced their direction is wrong for our convention.
The problem is that the "reform" movement didn't really have a noble leader. When it was time for the Conservative Resurgence, God raised up Adrian Rogers to lead us. He was neither perfect nor divine, but he was a statesman, a leader who seemed to have more than building a name for himself at heart, a leader who inspired others to follow, a leader who remained relentlessly gracious in the face of opposition. The reform movement had no such leader. It fractured and dwindled.
The biggest problem with the reform movement was that some of its leaders quickly subverted the conservative resurgence. I (and I think many others) wanted to reform the conservative SBC. However, many of the reform leaders have rejected the CR and denigrated its purposes and effects.
I will always be thankful for the leadership of Dr. Patterson in the CR. I think his leadership at SWBTS has been questionable at best. I think there are a lot of us who have this nuanced view - that we appreciate the CR but are suspect of the extremist views of some BI proponents. We want a conservative, but not rigid, legalistic, landmark or extremist denomination.
The reform movement floundered because there was no inspirational, motivational leader to rally us.
But, in recent months, there has been a new awakening. I read Alvin Reid's article "Tipping Point" on Between the Times. I can only hope and pray that the vision he articulates will win the day in the SBC. It seems that Southeastern Seminary is being raised up as a place for those of us who do not want to reject the CR but also do not want to buy into the BI movement. Instead of railing against each other about Calvinist/non-Calvinist idealogy, they did something unique. Nathan Finn and Alvin Reid wrote a series of articles on how a committed Calvinist and a committed non-Calvinist could co-exist. Southeastern is living that. They do not have a hard-core Calvinist Abstract, nor the militant anti-Calvinism that Dr. Patterson sometimes seems to exhibit. They are living together, modeling how it can be done.
Dr. Akin has spearheaded the "Great Commission Resurgence" movement which is providing some direction for our denomination as it faces the future.
My hope is that this movement to reform the SBC along committed conservative lines will continue to gather steam. They are committed to building up the SBC, not tearing it down as some blogs seem committed to doing. They are committed to focusing on reaching the lost, not on replicating one view of Baptist Identity.
I wish I was younger and could attend SEBTS. What a blessing that would be. I am so encouraged that God is raising up men such as these I have mentioned, and several others, who may be putting the SBC back on track to being the noble Great Commission denomination that it can be.
I am more hopeful about the future of the SBC than I have been in a long time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Dave,
I think an aspect that has not been discussed is what has made our churches "ineffective" or "irrelevant" in/to our culture.
I think many pastors in the SBC are struggling with "how" to reach people with the gospel. The teenagers and twenty-somthings have a completely different mindset and worldview. And it is just my opinion, but I think 90% of our churches are still reaching out to an '80s worldview in culture that has a new millenium worldview.
Thanks for the kind words my brother. Know that our desire is to lead a Great Commission Resurgence, nothing more, nothing less. Pray for us. Pray for the convention. These are critical days.
I hope to visit face to face one day, God willing.
Thanks for the kind words my brother. Know that our desire is to lead a Great Commission Resurgence, nothing more, nothing less. Pray for us. Pray for the convention. These are critical days.
I hope to visit face to face one day, God willing.
I am excited that my son is graduating Liberty soon and intends to head to Southeastern. I hope to get to spend some time out there.
Mr. Hyde,
I sympathize with your frustration that the Christian world is often tied to 50's culture or Southern ways.
On the other hand, I remember the words of Ecclesiastes, "there is nothing new under the sun."
People are people. Our viewpoints and culture change, but people are essentially people.
So, with a small caveat, I agree with what you are saying.
Dave,
I didn't know how to email you, but after reading this post, Alvin Reid's, and the latest at SBC Today I felt compelled to write my own response. Take a look and tell me what you think--am I completely crazy?
David: I was not part of nor a spectator to the CR, so I want to be careful of painting with too broad a brush, but this is my impression after following SBC blogs for some time now. The leaders of the CR saw what they perceived to be a need for change and acted to effect that change. My impression is that their methods left a lot to be desired but I'm not an expert on that.
Those calling for a GCR are in the same position, but whereas the predecessors of the CR where "liberals" (and therefore evil) the predecessors of the GCR are the CRers.
And so (and I don't speak for anyone but myself) my impression is of the CR folks crying foul, saying either that no change is really necessary, or that any change needed is simply the continuation of the CR. They can't seem to let it go.
Bill, if you read some of my earlier posts on this site, I think you would see that you and I are not too far apart.
First, I think the CR was a blessing and grace to a denomination headed for the same spiritual impotence that has come to other leftward-drifting denominations.
Second, I believe that the CR had (mostly) noble aims and purposes, but that it too often bought into the ethic you see on blogs - "I'm fighting fire with fire." I justify saying something bad about you because you have said something bad about me (Wade vs. BI guys for example). I was not always proud of the behavior of my side in the fight.
Third, I think there is a natural tendency for a "reform" group to change in time when it takes power. When the CR succeeded, the leaders who fought the entrenched bureaucracy of the moderates became an entrenched bureaucracy of their own. A few leaders became especially enamored of their own power and place.
Fourth, I think the GCR is a corrective to the CR. The CR was hijacked by extremists and powerful men, and the convention has felt the effects. The GCR is a corrective to restore the CR to what it was originally intended to be.
I know you probably do not agree with all of that, but I don't think that I am looking at the CR through rose-colored glasses There were some amazingly noble leaders (Adrian, etc) and a few who said and did things that often embarrassed me (a name comes to mind, but I will not say it).
I know you probably do not agree with all of that,
I see no reason to disagree. You seem to have a more balanced view of the CR than many. With others I see a definite "ends justify the means" mentality.
Bill,
You hit the nail on the head. While I am in full agreement with the aims and purposes of the CR, I think that many leaders of the CR (like many bloggers today) have adopted that "ends justifies the means" ethic you mentioned.
As Christians, we must commit ourselves to both noble ENDS, and godly MEANS.
Ron, I answered you - but focused a whole post on it.
Post a Comment