There is one major difference between the Conservative Resurgence and the Great Commission Resurgence. The Conservative Resurgence made the Southern Baptist Convention inward focused while the GCR is making the SBC outwardly focused.
First, I must show my gratitude for the Conservative Resurgence. The fact that the CR made the SBC more inwardly focused is not a bad thing. We could of easily continued to be outwardly focused under the name of “missions” while out convention withered away into liberalism. The need for the Conservative Resurgence was and is obvious. If it were not for the Conservative Resurgence the SBC would have little to know influence and we would indeed be wasting our time with talk of missions. How about this, look at the PCUSA and put the name SBC on it… That is us without a Conservative Resurgence. The SBC needed to become inwardly focused in order to fix the problems we had at home.
Now is a different time. We have fixed a majority of our theological problems, there are differences yes, but we are no longer asking if the Bible is indeed authoritative. Now that the inward problems have been addressed it is time for us to return to our outward focus, which is exactly what the GCR is poised to do. I am greatly encouraged that the GCR has been passed. I certainly don’t know what exactly will become of it or what a restructuring will look like, but I do know that this is the Resurgence we needed in order to become outwardly focused once again.
Not one Resurgence is better than the other. Both came at a crucial time for the Southern Baptist Convention. Let us rejoice at the work of the generation that went before us. If it were not for them and their work with the Conservative Resurgence the Great Commission Resurgence would be completely meaningless. In my opinion, the GCR is a sign that the SBC is again reestablishing its identity after years of battling for theological integrity. It is also a sign that the younger generation is poised and ready to begin to lead the SBC into the future. By both of these things, I am greatly encouraged.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 55 comments }
Don’t you think that correct theology should result in correct missiology? I think the downfall of the CR was that it never moved us to be on mission. We were so concerned about being on the same page on every issue that we turned inward and lost our mission.
The CR brought radical change do you think the GCR will result in the same “much needed” radical change related to restructuring?
.-= Grady Bauer´s last blog ..What if we lived like Michael Jackson? =-.
Grady,
I believe the answer to your first question is no, correct theology does not necessarily result in correct missiology. I say this because missiology cannot be driven simply by knowing the Bible. You must also know the culture. That is why the traditional “Church as bomb shelter” mentality that has reigned in much of the SBC over recent years has been successful at producing theologically conservative Christians, but it has not been as productive in making culturally saavy missiologists. Now, correct theology does inform a correct missiology by letting us know what is appropriate to do from a biblical point of view, so it is not the case that a correct missiology can exists apart from a correct theology, only that a correct theology is not sufficient in this process.
Of course, there are some who would say this is not important, but that’s another debate.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Summary of Posts on BF&M2K =-.
Todd,
I agree with you….I should have asked….does correct theology lead to a desire to be on mission?
I would think it should…if we really believe man is sinful, Christ is Holy and is the source of redemption, and hell is for the unforgiven….shouldn’t all of this create a passion to reach the lost, whatever it takes? You would think it would….but it apparently didn’t. Maybe the original CR was more about certain people “being right” and defining who we are as Baptists then it was about God receiving Glory through the SBC as we reach the lost.
.-= Grady Bauer´s last blog ..What if we lived like Michael Jackson? =-.
Matt,
You wrote, “ I am greatly encouraged that the GCR has been passed.”
I’ve noticed a couple of other instances where you’ve expressed similar sentiments, and I just have to ask, to what do you refer when you make such a statement? I’ve talked to several folks who weren’t present in Louisville who have assumed that the entire GCR document was put before the messengers in some form, debated, and adopted overwhelmingly. As you know, that’s not the case, and I think it may be partially due to imprecise statements such as the one quoted above that people have this false impression.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..2009 SBC Annual Meeting Review, Part 2 =-.
Like Wes said, the only thing that passed at Louisville was that a task force be put to work studying the SBC….in order to possibly make changes. Right?
Also, Todd and Grady, the SBC has not been sitting on it’s hands thru the CR and after the CR. The SBC is one of the greatest mission sending forces in the world. God has used the SBC to do more mission work than any other Church or denomination has ever done. And, this work was being done during the CR…after the CR….and it’s still being done today. I would bet yall that there are not many, if any, groups out there who are starting more Churches in N. America than the SBC. And, the same goes for international missions as well.
So, when yall talk like the SBC was so focused on theology that missions weren’t being really being accomplished…but they were and they are. I really get disturbed at all the talk that makes it seem like the SBC is about to die….and we arent doing that much for missions…when the opposite is true.
Who out there does more mission work than the SBC??????
David
David,
I do acknowledge that we’ve been on mission. But I would argue that our focus on correct Baptist theology or identity (both the continual redefinition and calling out of those who don’t agree 100%) is part of what has put us in the place where we are….decline in baptisms….apparent loss of -40 leaders, apparent sucking of funds by every possible state level organization, decrease in mission force because of lack of funding.
So my thing is…we’ve redefined many times what it is to be a true biblical baptist…one would think this would cause us to see unbelievable growth as people from around the world, both in the church and outside the church would want to flock to us. Instead we have infighting, John 3:16 conferences anti-Calvinists and anti-anti Calvinists….and both the world AND believers young and old walk right on by. And they’re flocking to networks because they can work with people that think and do ministry the same way without having to argue about everything.
I’m not sure if the GCR can fix what ails us.
.-= Grady Bauer´s last blog ..What if we lived like Michael Jackson? =-.
David,
I did not say that the SBC does not do missions, what I said was that the SBC does not always do missions correctly. Having a correct missiology means being able to appropriately engage the culture in an area to most effectively spread the name of God and the church. The reason I want to stick with the SBC is precisely because it has such a great missions focus. However, the reason I want to attach with groups like Acts 29 in church planting is because they have a much better missiological bend. My biggest beef with the SBC on missions is (1) they largely think that a single formulaic approach will be effective with all people in all places (a la Billy Graham and other old revivalists), and (2) most are bent on exporting the convictions of the Old South as biblical truth across the world. This may be a point of disagreement b/w us, but when I say that their missiology is poor, this is what I mean.
I hope this distinction is clear, as it does not appear it was originally.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Summary of Posts on BF&M2K =-.
I believe correct theology should motivate one to correct missiology. I mean this in the sense that James writes about dead faith vs. true living faith. Correct theology should cause one to live out their faith or else it becomes similar to what James wrote. That is, it becomes intellectual assent which is really no theology at all.
The big picture of the SBC from the CR til now is not really about being “missional” as we might say today. The SBC was and is on mission, sending missionaries, etc.
However, what we are seeing today with the GCR is some push back to the local church i.e. we individual Christians that make up the local church. The GCR in a sense is looking to motivate pastors to equip and motivate their congregations for their lives.
I would say the focus of the CR vs. GCR is slightly different, but with the same goals in mind.
-The CR to get key entities and their leaders adhering to good, conservative theology so as to not lose our historic, biblical grounding to “save” the generations to come.
-The GCR to take what the CR had done in SBC instituations and leadership and grow it organically within the SBC congregations.
The GCR, like resolutions, is only as good as the autonomous local churches and pastors will actually motivate and utilize within said local churches.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Logos Bible Software Giveaway July =-.
I have a question. Do we really have a Great Commission Resurgence *yet*? A tasked force was formed but what does that really mean?
Here are the numbers so far:
There are over 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Less than 10 thousand showed up to Louisville. That means approximately 0.0625% represented the whole SBC. Are we happy that 95% of 0.0625% agreed to vote yes for a task force?
As it stands, even on the GCR website, there is listed only 4318 signatures. If that number is correct, then we really only have 0.026987499999999997% (approximately) that even care about it. You would think people would have signed the website to show their support even if they couldn’t show up to the meeting.
Does the task force have a website so we can keep up with what is going on with them? Also, do local churches who are on the front lines even care about another “committee”?
I guess the way I see it, the churches who have always been about kingdom work will still be about it whether there is a task force or not. And the ones who are about numbers and filling pews (even if it is only with seat warmers) will still be about numbers and filling pews. A task force can’t change the heart, no matter what it reports in the end.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Peacemaking =-.
Matt,
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
I have a couple of comments. First, I don’t know that we can call the GCR an outward focused movement yet. Only time will tell. Right now, the SBC has only passed a motion for a task force to offer recommendations of possibly restructuring the SBC. Sounds like we’re still inward-focused to me. Of course, the motivation behind this is that we be more effective in our structure in order to give more money to missions (outward focus). So I am all for the task force and was happy to vote “yes.”
It appears to me that the SBC is at a pivotal moment in which we are looking inward again with the hopes of turning outward.
But although I am hopeful for the GCR, I am in no way pinning my hopes for the denomination on a restructure. As good as a streamlining initiative may be, true and lasting change will occur only when a great number of our churches become outward-focused. The major temptation for any church is to go into huddle/survival mode instead of mission/advance mode. Until a great number of churches begin planting churches (and stop relying on our organizations to do all that heavy lifting), we are unlikely to see a major shift.
.-= Trevin Wax´s last blog ..A Blog Sabbatical =-.
Trevin,
Thanks for dropping by. I agree with you as far as any actual action on the Convention level and the task for motion in particular. However, from my perspective, a Great Commission Resurgence is dependent on all 10 axioms not just #9. To the extent that Southern Baptists are genuinely committed to the principles laid out in the GCR document, I think that the Great Commission Resurgence will be an outward-focused movement.
Whether we actually experience a resurgence of this kind, as you so rightly suggest, is not at all dependent on any vote at the annual meeting or even whatever ideas for restructuring that may come out of the task force. The real evidence of a resurgence will happen when we see individual churches taking the Great Commission seriously enough to make needed changes for the advance of the gospel.
I’m hopeful. I see signs of a resurgence on the horizon. I will do all I can to lead my church in Great Commission work and be part of it.
Blessings,
Todd
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Trevin said
Exactly right. This would (hopefully) motivate those in the local church to live more “missionally” as they are directly involved or atleast directly seeing the Gospel in action via local missions via church planting.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Logos Bible Software Giveaway July =-.
Trevin is right, as is Wes, David, Sallie, etc. Here is what happened in Louisville: The GCR was equated to the Great Commission itself (who’s against the Great Commission) and a motion was made to appoint a task force to investigate what could be done to help us restructure for effectiveness, i.e., Article IX. Do you really think that more than 20-30% of messengers knew what was really going on? Some are acting like the SBC has been saved from irrelevancy by a vote on a task force. That’s pretty inward focused if you ask me. Check out who is on that task force. Vast majority are megachurch leaders or denominational employees. All from the South. One ethnic minority who works for a denominational entity.
I have great hope for the GCR, but a vote on a task force does not a resurgence make. We have a long way to go and it has to be a grassroots refocusing. For all their best efforts, nothing much will happen from the top-down that will have a great effect. We need a heart change.
.-= Alan Cross´s last blog ..Encouragement, Comfort, Fellowship =-.
I must agree with Alan…
“a vote on a task force does not a resurgence make. We have a long way to go and it has to be a grassroots refocusing. For all their best efforts, nothing much will happen from the top-down that will have a great effect. We need a heart change.”
The question that the task force must answer is “How do we EMPOWER the local church?” Anything less will be a tragic wast of this great opportunity for real change in the SBC.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
The GCR is not something that can be voted at a convention (and, as others have said, it has NOT been voted yet – just a study committee). It is a resurgence of focus on our mission and is the job of churches and individual Christians.
The denominational GCR will probably focus on restructuring for greater effectiveness.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
I hate to say something off-topic but I don’t where else to say it. What happened to the Calvinism post? Why did you take it down?
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..Attributes of God Material? =-.
Les, it’s still up, just no longer on page one because of the numner of newer posts. You can find it in previous posts or direct link here: http://sbcvoices.com/calvinism-the-new-racism-in-the-sbc/
Matt,
Please point me to evidence of this great numerical growth that Southern Baptist churches have experienced since the Conservative Resurgence seized control from those evil liberals.
You know, the moderate churches that for all real purposes left the SBC – mostly the churches that now comprise the CBF – have not declined at a rate greater than conservative Southern Baptist congregations.
We’re still around. As much as you wish it were so, we’re not dying off.
The PC-USA comparison is junk. Heck, even your ethics guru Richard Land mentioned just a couple weeks back that there really weren’t that many liberals in the pre-CR Southern Baptist Convention. Back then, according to Land, “In the very large Southern Baptist pond, there weren’t very many liberal fish.”
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
BDW,
Did I ever say the CR caused “great numerical growth? I don’t believe I did. I care more about pleasing God than having “great numerical numbers.” Even though I do believe that even with decline the last three years the SBC is still quite a bit larger than it was in 1985.
Hopefully you and every other Christian would prefer theological integrity and faithfulness over “great numerical growth.”
Could you just explain to me why the PCUSA comparison is junk? Anyone can just make that statement, but when you don’t even give it a one sentence reason as to why it is hard to take the statement seriously. An explanation would be nice. Saying “there were’t even that many liberals back then” is not an explanation. There were obviously enough to take control of the Convention for a time.
Hopefully you and every other Christian would prefer theological integrity and faithfulness over “great numerical growth.”
Actually, I would prefer both. The gospel is meant not only to be proclaimed, but to be received. I believe that where theological integrity and faithfulness are present, we will see numerical kingdom growth.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
CBF will die off. I have no doubt in my mind. Look at history; Spurgeon and the Downgrade Controversy is a great example. Spurgeon said that he would be redeemed, and he was, a few decades later when the association died because they did not have theological integrity and fell deeper and deeper into liberalism, which is what led to their death.
The PC-USA comparison is junk because here we are, almost 20 years since the birth of the CBF and numerically the organization is no better or no worse off than it was in the 1990s. There has not been a numerical decline among affiliated churches.
Your point with PC-USA is that liberalism has killed mainline denominations. At least that is the point most often made. However, as Richard Land noted, there weren’t many liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s. Comparing the CBF to PC-USA is not an Apples to Apples comparison. It’s not a fair comparison. It’s not an intellectually honest comparison. Moderate theology and liberal theology are, um, different.
Your assertion that the CBF will die off is just an assertion. What Spurgeon has to do the with the CBF, I have no clue. Whether the CBF as an organization – an organization that is VASTLY different than the SBC in function by the way – continues to be funded at the same rate is really beside the point. We’re in a post-denominational era. The point is that the moderate Baptist churches that for all express purposes left the Southern Baptist Convention after the Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover are still alive and doing well. They have not seen some hugh decline in membership much like PC-USA congregations or other mainline congregations have over the past 20 or 30 years.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
BDW,
You are quite funny. The CBF hasn’t even existed for 20 years and you are pointing to that to prove your point? In 50 years it will be dead or clearly on its way.
You should do some research on the Downgrade Controversy. Spurgeon urged his association to not become “moderate”, but he lost the battle. He then said he would be redeemed and a few decades later when the association died because they fell deeper and deeper into liberalism he was indeed, redeemed.
Give it time, history has a tendency to repeat itself. You can call it “moderate”, it might be, for now. Although, I am in no way convinced the CBF is only “moderate.”
I hope that the language we use doesn’t belie a fallacy about the Great Commission, and the recent denominational actions it has encouraged.
We speak of some actions being “inward” — such as the Conservative Resurgence — and of others as being “outward” — such as the Great Commission Resurgence. We speak of some things as being “missional” — such as GCR — and of others as being “local” — such as emphasis on the congregation.
Yet the Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:18-20 doesn’t seem to draw those distinctions, and certainly doesn’t support the “inward-outward” dichotomy that seems to be presumed in these discussions.
Jesus commissions his church to “make disciples.” These disciples are made in the local church, and disciples made in the local church are ones who make other disciples. Truly, when disciples are taught to “observe all that I [Jesus] commanded you” they will behave as disciples. As earlier comments mention, biblical doctrine leads to a desire to biblical obedience. Orthodoxy produces orthopraxy.
Some have suggested that when we are too “inward”, “missions” is neglected. This may be true, but not for the reasons suggested. At the same time, if we play into this supposed dichotomoy and focus instead on the “outward”, disciple-making is neglected.
The reason, perhaps, that we see either the “inward” or the “outward” being neglected at various times is that we act on a false dichotomy. “Disciplemaking” requires both in balance. Let us not forget that Jesus does not divide the Great Commission task into “inward” and “outward” elements, but simply commands us to “make disciples.”
The interest shown in a Great Commission Resurgence is encouraging, but my hope is that the SBC’s exploration of the matter will address this perspective.
After all, if we were truly making disciples, lamentations over the lack of evangelism would be moot.
.-= Rob Faircloth´s last blog ..Church Health: Catching the Summertime Blues =-.
Matt,
Do you have a college degree?
Just trying to gauge how much “research” the 21 year-old? who is offering research advice has actually done…
How familiar are you exactly with the CBF?
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
haha.. thats funny.
I’ll have one in 3 months!
How does that help?
Can a person only learn history if they have a degree?
My point Matt – a point that you don’t seem to “get” – is that if in 50 years, moderate Baptist congregations have gone the way of the dodo bird, it is probably the case that Southern Baptist congregations have experienced the same fate.
As a Baptist historian, I don’t expect the Southern Baptist Convention to disappear nor do I expect those former Southern Baptist congregations to disappear either. Not in 20 years, not in 30 years, not in 50 years.
Given that the CBF refuses to dialogue on divisive issues such as homosexuality, I really don’t see what exactly CBF has in common with PC-USA. Again, a bad comparison…
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
BDW,
I for one pray the CBF indeed sees both a conservative resurgence and a great commission resurgence. But, this blog is not “CBF voices” and neither Matt nor anyone else has any impact on what the CBF believes or does. My suggestion to you is to encourage your own denomination to unite around the message that Jesus “died for our sins according to the scriptures” and faithfully proclaim Him as the “only name under heaven by which we must be saved”. If you’re doing that, why do you care what Matt or anyone else thinks of you? If not, who cares whether you’re around in 50 years or not.
–Todd
Todd,
If this blog isn’t about CBF Voices, perhaps the contributors to this blog shouldn’t take shots at the CBF. Or, if a person is going to take a shot at the CBF, they should be ready and capable of defending their remarks and junk comparisons. I welcome criticism. But I, as a good moderate Baptist, will defend my organization against these type of comments, comments that are made for all to read.
My suggestion to you is to try to engage the points/arguments made in this comment stream instead of trying to monitor who can say what to whom. Matt is a big boy. He admitted in a recent post to enjoying adult beverages so I guess he’s at least 21. He probably doesn’t need you trying to lay down ground rules on who can respond to his blog posts.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
Not suggesting you shouldn’t respond, but YOU are the one who brought up the CBF, not Matt. CBF was a bi-product of the conservative resurgence in the SBC, not the cause of it. Our “inward focus” had to do with standing on theological orthodoxy. And yes, if our seminaries continued to teach liberal ideas like open theism and inclusivism, our denomination would have slipped into the decline of liberalism — if not in number than it least in significance. So you are welcome to respond away, but I’m not inclined to argue about the CBF.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Thank you Todd. You are right that I did not bring up the CBF and I never intended to do so. All I said was that without the CR the SBC would be going the same direction that the PCUSA has.
Clearly, there is nothing there about the CBF.
Also, BDW, the fact that you don’t understand my bringing Spurgeon and the Downgrade Controversy into the conversation proves that you are the one lacking in history, not myself.
Todd,
This is what Matt wrote:
“How about this, look at the PCUSA and put the name SBC on it… That is us without a Conservative Resurgence. ”
That statement was not directed at the moderate Baptists, the former Southern Baptists that now comprise the largest moderate Baptist organization known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship?
Would you really have me believe that? Matt follows that up with this ridiculous assertion: “CBF will die off.”
I’m sure, Todd, that you believe moderate Baptist seminaries comprised of former SBC professors do in fact teach inclusivism and open theism. Granting your assumption for the sake of argument, perhaps you could explain why moderate congregations are not declining like PC-USA congregations? In fact, could you explain why moderate Baptist churches led by young moderates who earned degrees from these supposedly liberal institutions are pastoring growing congregations?
And let me respond to your previous potshot which I’ve reposted below:
“My suggestion to you is to encourage your own denomination to unite around the message that Jesus “died for our sins according to the scriptures” and faithfully proclaim Him as the “only name under heaven by which we must be saved”.
Is that really encouragement? We’re already united around the message of Jesus. You really should get out more and visit with some moderate Baptists before you go putting the liberal label on us.
One more thing about our seminaries: Moderate Baptists tend to value academic freedom. My father – who teaches at Truett and in the Religion Department at Baylor – does not spoon feed his students. He doesn’t tell them what to believe and what not to believe. Sure, he’ll share his convictions over the course of the semester. But, as a good teacher, he presents the material and helps facilitate good academic discussion concerning the diverse viewpoints.
Matt,
Lacking in history? So says the 21 year-old to the actual historian. I’ve come across many young and Reformed folks like yourself. You’ve read some Spurgeon, probably have read a little from the Institutes and everything ever written by Piper/MacArthur/Dever/Driscoll. But that’s about it. And how could you have read more? You’re 21 and still in college.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
haha… BDW, your mocking of age has no significance, at all. You are the one that stated you dont understand how Spurgeon and the Downgrade Controversy relate to this, not me. Also, I only talked about the CBF after you did. Which means you are still the one who brought it up, not me.
BDW,
“One more thing about our seminaries: Moderate Baptists tend to value academic freedom. My father – who teaches at Truett and in the Religion Department at Baylor – does not spoon feed his students. He doesn’t tell them what to believe and what not to believe. Sure, he’ll share his convictions over the course of the semester. But, as a good teacher, he presents the material and helps facilitate good academic discussion concerning the diverse viewpoints.”
Great, so do our seminaries. Do you have a point?
Matt,
Sure thing.
Lots of academic freedom at SBC seminaries.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Videos from CBF General Assembly =-.
I don’t know you. I don’t know what the CBF is doing or not doing. I don’t know what CBF seminaries are teaching or not teaching. I don’t know what you are doing and it’s not something that consumes any of my time. I have known CBF members whom I love and would be happy to call a brother or sister in Christ, even if I disagree on some issues.
At the same time, I believe that our denomination should embrace the view that the Bible is the word of God nor merely a record of the word. I know that professors at my own seminary (I sat in their classes) taught both open theism and inclusivism, doctrines which in my view are dangerous and undermine the gospel. I am glad that in a post-CR SBC, our seminaries teach exclusivism and that God is omniscient. I’m glad we revised the BFM to remove the criterion clause. I’m glad we do not have a wide umbrella that tolerates aberrant views on vital biblical issues. And, by the way, I have no idea how any of these statements relate to the CBF today. The point is, I am concerned with my own church and the churches whom I choose to partner with through the SBC. I am concerned that we are not only biblically sound but missionally obedient. The present conversation at SBCVoices is about us Southern Baptists thinking through how we can be “outward focused” and more effective in our partnership in kingdom work.
And, btw, I don’t know if you’re liberal or not nor did I call anyone a liberal. I did, however, intentionally word my “encouragement” as I did and not merely as the “message about Jesus” so there would be no confusion by anyone reading this of what message about Jesus I encourage you to proclaim.
Todd,
If you had called BDW a libleral it would have been completely accurate as would a few other adjectives. Actually, I’m glad that overbearing, know-it-all blowhards like him are as vocal and open about their liberal, unbiblical beliefs because seeing people like him is a good reminder that the CR was a good thing and that it was desperately needed. The fact that there are still churches like FBC Decatur and that Broadway until recently was a member of the SBC is proof that there is still work to do.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
“overbearing, know-it-all blowhards”
That made me laugh.
As for the rest of the comment I agree wholeheartedly.
Don’t front like you weren’t thinking it to, yo. Haa
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
Matt,
Did you, are anyone else, notice that BDW twice referred to himself as “the actual historian” This actually made me smile… I think that BDW must stand for “Big Dallimore Wantabe”.
Sorry about that… I just had to say it
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg,
I know you dit’nt!!
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
Also, only someone with a screw loose or who had an elevator that didn’t quite make it up to the top floor would argue that numbers are a guarentee of God’s blessings or of theological faithfulness. The mormons call themsleves “Christians”, have a huge cult following (pun intended), but even Big Daddy Wannabe would stop short of calling their doctrine biblical. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how large the Cooperate-with-anyone Baptist Fellowship is. What matters is that churches that openly affirm homosexuality, deny the clear teaching of different roles for men and women, and claim that the Bible “contains” the word of God rather than it is the word of God are part of the CBF. Everyone knows why they broke off from the SBC and we’re grateful they did.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
Amen and Amen.
Greg,
For what it’s worth, I am a historian. According to your profile, you are both a pastor and a computer programmer. I am not a pastor. Nor am I a computer programmer. I am a historian. Those are facts, my friend.
Typical stuff from the always classy Joe Blackmon.
Historian,
I believe that it doesn’t take a degree to study history. Am I wrong? Or can I and anyone else study history and draw conclusions? Pulling out the “the fact is I am a historian” means nothing, at all.
It is quite arrogant actually. In three months and I have a degree in theology and someone who doesn’t have a degree in theology disagrees with me about something do you think I am going to respond, “Excuse me, do you have a degree? Because I do, I am an “actual theologian.” Do you see the pathetic arrogance in this?
Pot/Kettle
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
Just to make sure it’s clear, my “Pot?Kettle” reply was to the always Christlike and humble BDW. Didn’t want Matt thinking that was directed at him.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
BDW,
Reading history books makes you no more a Historian than setting in a henhouse and cackling all day long makes you a chicken. Now if you start laying eggs… now that makes you chicken. Now just how many historical works did you say you have published?
Perhaps “History buff” would be more appropriate… but “Historian” is a word we reserve for published authors, and perhaps retired history professors.
Grace Always,
Greg, I never questioned whether you’re truly a computer programmer. But since you asked. I’m going to quickly answer.
-3 published book reviews, 2 forthcoming book reviews
-2 published journal articles
-1 forthcoming journal article
-2 forthcoming peer-reviewed journal articles
-1 forthcoming book chapter (University of Tennessee Press)
4 paper presentations at academic conferences with at least 3 more scheduled presentations for the upcoming 2009-2010 year.
My first book in the near future will be the publication of my thesis on James Dunn.
That’s just my scholarly historical material and does not include any essays that have been published by various Baptist papers/organizations/etc or proposed projects with my father, also a Baptist historian.
That’s not a terribly bad resume for a young historian entering the dissertation stage. But, I’m out. Thanks for the chat.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Baptist Editor Calls For Conversation On Homosexuality =-.
Sorry BDW… that’s still a little thin for me to call you a Historian. Writing a couple of book reviews and journal articles does not make the cut… and it certainly make you no authority to be disrespecting Matt the way you did.
Hey, I sing along with the choir on Sunday mornings and it is recorded… does that make me recording artist?
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Sure thing, Mr. Programmer.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Baptist Editor Calls For Conversation On Homosexuality =-.
Matt,
Pause for a moment and remind yourself that these most recent exchanges stemmed from your assertion that I’m “lacking in history.”
If an undergraduate degree in “theology” makes one a theologian, I guess that makes me both a theologian and a political scientist.
And no, it doesn’t take a degree in history to study history. But one must study history in order to get a degree in history.
Were you being a bit pompous then? Yep. Am I being a bit arrogant now? You betcha.
.-= Big Daddy Weave´s last blog ..Baptist Editor Calls For Conversation On Homosexuality =-.
Were you being a bit pompous then? Yep. Am I being a bit arrogant now? You betcha.
I agree with both of these.
The reality is, Aaron’s approved thesis on James Dunn (I did a little research myself) does qualify him, in my opinion, as a historian. Still, despite his age and stage in academia, Matt is certainly qualified to make historical observations. Matt and Aaron are bound to interpret history differently given their respective biases and, with all that said, this post was still not about the CBF.
It is also a sign that the younger generation is poised and ready to begin to lead the SBC into the future.
Matt, can you elaborate on what you mean here?
Todd,
What I meant there was that I believe the GCR and its incredible support from the younger generation is a sign that the younger generation is ready to move the SBC to the next era. As in, they are progressing from the CR to the GCR. I think the GCR is going to become the next “big movement/era:” in the SBC. While Hunt, Akin, Ascol, etc. are starting the charge it will be another couple decades before we see thee fruition. By that time it will be the Platt’s, Redmonds, and others who will be leading.
If it were not for the younger generation I dont think the GCR would come to much. But this important stage in the SBC is going to continue to be carried by the younger generation for years to come, thus, showing that the younger generation is poised and ready to lead the SBC into the future.
Does that clarify?
Comments on this entry are closed.