I have never been a fan of church splits. I have argued often for bloggers to seek unity rather than division in our discussion (and violated my own rules from time to time). But I think the current discussion and even disagreement among our convention leaders can be a healthy thing.
Press reports recently have showed that while Danny Akin, Al Mohler and most other leaders in the SBC are gung-ho behind the Great Commission Resurgence, Morris Chapman and several other denominational leaders are either opposing it or raising serious questions about it. My own state exec (Jimmy Barrentine - best exec in the USA)sent a letter that was critical of much of the rhetoric surrounding the GCR declaration. I am fully supportive of the GCR, but those who are not should have their say and be heard by all of us.
Put me down as someone who believes this is all healthy. I don't want the executives or denominational servants marching in lock step or having secret discussions behind closed doors. If Danny Akin is for something and Morris Chapman is against it, lets have a healthy debate! If the GCR is of God, as I believe, the Spirit will guide us through the discussion to a healthy and unified conclusion.
The last thing we need to do is stifle dissent in any way, even amongst our leaders.
As long as we keep our conversation godly and our spirits in check, that discussion is healthy. As long as we do not slander, backbite or treat one another disdainfully, the discussion will provoke us to love and good deeds.
I just hope it doesn't become another us against them thing. Jimmy Barrentine and I do not see eye to eye on this, evidently (haven't talked to him about it). But he is an "us" not a "them." Morris Chapman is "us" - even as a Calvinist I can say that.
So, I say, let the debate continue. I think it is healthy for all of us.
