Now that the GCR has passed, the Task Force has been established, and the SBC begins to look at how we can better fulfill the Great Commission, we are going to look at what the GCR might end up becoming, the form it might take, and how it will effect the convention as a whole.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Axiom IX has received the most attention. This is probably because some people are worried about their state jobs and a restructuring of the convention could change a lot of things. We are Baptist, we do not like change. Axiom IX could prove to be the most important piece of the GCR.
So, what might a restructuring look like? In President Obama’s words, “That’s a question that is above my pay grade.” Although, I do have a suggestion. My encouragement to the Task Force is to keep in mind the very reason why we exist.
It is not Evangelism, not Missions, and not Theology.
The Southern Baptist Convention exists because of the local churches. More specifically, the SBC exists because of the local churches that choose to come together for missions, while they are bound by Baptist and other theological distintives. Yet, we seem to structure the SBC around why the churches come together rather than the churches themselves. The Southern Baptist Convention needs to be structured in such a way that best emphasizes and supports the local churches themselves and not what the local churches do, which is coming together for missional and theological reasons.
The single most important question that the GCR forces us to ask is simply, “What can we do to better equip and serve the local churches within the SBC to fulfill the Great Commission?” The GCR is not a document that should empower the Convention itself, but ought to look at how to empower and equip the local churches that make up the Convention. Often times it seems that people look at the SBC as an entity in and of itself. This is dangerous because is often over looks the local church.
We do not need to be paying people that travel around to local churches to encourage them to give to the SBC. We need to be paying “task forces” who go into local churches in order to help teach them to train missionaries and church planters. Our current structure seems be hindering our churches in fulfilling the Great Commission. How? A high percentage of the money our local churches give for missions gets “stuck” in the State Convention. Also, when a person chooses to go to the mission field it is not the local church who trains him, no, the local church merely sends the check. Would it not be more productive to train our churches to train missionaries rather than having them ship them off in order for the convention itself to train them?
As I said before, I do not have all the answers when it comes how we should restructure the SBC. I am merely trying to make some observations. My very first observation seems quite simple. It would be much more productive in the long-run, in fulfilling the Great Commission, if we train our churches how to train missionaries and church planters rather then have them merely send the check in order for the convention to train them.
Thoughts?
Good thoughts, Matt, especially regarding the local church. I sometimes wonder (and I know this is going to be controversial) whether seminaries have actually usurped the role of the local church. The NT church seems to have done a better job than we are training pastors and missionaries, all without a single seminary.
.-= Barry Wallace´s last blog ..The Power of His Resurrection, The Fellowship of His Sufferings =-.
Barry,
I have always said(with my extensive amount of years), that if seminaries correctly fulfilled they are to do than they would cease to exist. It is certainly not a sign of health when our local churches cannot train pastors.
Matt,
Our churches do train pastors… right after the seminaries get through with them. 🙂
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
I must agree with Greg (I think): the reason why we have churches is because most of the people at our churches are not spiritually mature…I think I remember something in Hebrews (5:12) about that, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.”
Sure, I would love for every church to be like Spurgeon’s, with an in-house seminary, but we have a lot of work before we get there!
Yes, we have a lot of work before we get there. But we are not even working towards that goal. My prayer is that that IS the goal that the GCR works towards.
Matt,
If the Southern Baptist Convention ever bumped its collective head and elected me “OVERLORD”; I would require every student graduating from Seminary or Bible College to serve a 2-4 year internship under the watchful eye of the senior pastor of one of our local church before they were allowed into the pastoral ministry.
But that’s just my opinion and I’m not going out to buy my Overload’s black cloak and staff anytime soon.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Matt,
One thing, Brother. When you said,”More specifically, the SBC exists because of the local churches that choose to come together for missions, while they are bound by Baptist and other theological distintives.”
First of all, the SBC exists due to local Churches being bound by Baptist Distinctives to do missions. Theology and missions and fellowship are why the SBC exists.
Secondly, what are the “other theological distinctives?”
Just curious as to what you meant by that.
David
David,
To your first point, my point is that the SBC is not an entity within itself, but rather it exists because of the churches that make it up.
I meant doctrines that the SBC holds to that aren’t necessarily Baptist, but that we Southern Baptist have still made them a priority. Best example: complementarianism.
Structure for purpose is key. If there’s anything Rick Warren should be praised for, it’s introducing that idea to churches. Purpose Driven Convention isn’t a bad goal.
And I agree that we can’t pay off someone else to do our soul winning. But what productivity gain is there from having each church train missionaries, rather than a jointly paid enterprise? I take it you’re talking spiritual productivity, not efficiency?
I am actually talking about both. Could we not train more missionaries more quickly if our churches were doing the training? It is like having 1,000 sites to train missionaries rather than 1.
I am going to a follow up post in the future that will give you my idea of how this could be done.
I’ll give you a brief look. Say we had “approved churches” for training missionaries and church planters. A “one in every town” concept. Obviously, places like Atlanta would have ALOT more. These would be larger churches just because of resources and personnel. But, it would not just be left up to these “large churches.” Hopefully, some of the other SBC church pastors, even pastors of 50!, would join with these “approved churches” to train the missionaries and church planters. In this way, all the weight isn’t on the one church in the area and all the SBC pastors in the area that want to be involved could be!
In my post I will talk about how to “find and approve” these particular churches, go in more detail, and open the comment thread for questions. I do not have all the answers… I dont even know all of the questions. But that is why a blog is great. The right questions get asked.
Quickly, yes; efficient, I don’t know. Let’s say you’re going to be a missionary to Iran. FBC Smallsville should be able to give me the theological underpinning for missions, but it would be rare for it to give me the tools to avoid immediate martyrdom in-country.
It would be great if there are resources to pay for Iranian culture and missions experts in each good-sized town, or even state. But I wouldn’t save money putting them in 50 states, instead of four or five. The geography would trump the efficiency. Or am I missing the source of the efficiency?
Jon,
Instead of paying guys to travel around to talk churches into giving more to the CP we could pay “task forces” to travel around and train these missionaries in the cultural aspects. The local church would do 95% of the training, but then they would receive help with the cultural and language aspects.
I’m all for grounding the CP LearJet, if such a beast exists. One of the original goals of the CP was to stop the traveling roadshows for each entity that turned agency heads into salesmen.
But putting the IMB trainers on permanent tour can’t be cheaper than what we’ve got now, can it? It seems to me that in-church training would end up with experts at a home base, webcasting to local churches big and small.
“Also, when a person chooses to go to the mission field it is not the local church who trains him, no, the local church merely sends the check.”
I will agree that it is a problem that our local churches feel they must send their would-be pastors/missionaries off to be trained, etc., I don’t think that was ever the main intent in the present structure of the SBC. More so is the reality that the majority of our churches for better or for worse are small churches. Now while this doesn’t necessarily inhibit the possibility of good training, it puts a strain on individual local churches supporting missionaries (or even a lot of times, pastors for that matter). Hence the reason we come together to pool our resources.
Even if we were to go to a model where we pay “’task forces’ [to] go into local churches in order to help teach them to train missionaries and church planters,” many churches will still face the issue of support. I don’t know…maybe that should be the purpose of our local associations: to bring together the resources of a smaller group of local churches that are training missionaries in order to raise support and send them out into the world…?.
.-= Mike Bergman´s last blog ..Truth. Community. Mission. =-.
Mike,
I think pulling in Associations is a great idea. Maybe instead of talk of getting rid of some of our local and state conventions/personnel we could just drastically alter their roles.
I think that everyone is on-board for re-defining roles and streamlining efficiency, but the politics of bureaucracy (not to mention the legacy of past initiatives now institutionalized–e.g. children’s homes) tends to push for expansion, not reduction.
I do not envy the GCR task force’s job…I only hope that they will be willing to cut much fat and we would be willing to swallow the losses of our pet projects/departments
.-= Andrew´s last blog ..Convention Countdown: Day -2 =-.
Matt,
My hope for the GCR is that out of it will come a clear definition of what it means to be a “Convention” of autonomous Baptist Churches in cooperation together for missions, as opposed to the slide toward a “Denomination” that we have witnessed over the last few years.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
David,
You wrote, “the SBC exists due to local Churches being bound by Baptist Distinctives to do missions.”
Do you have a historical statement (something from the 19th century when the SBC was formed) to that effect to back up your statement? If so, I sure would like to read it.
Also, would you please give us a list of these “baptist distinctives” which you continually bring up?
Thanks.
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..Encouraged To Endure Conference *FREE* =-.
I would like to hear the answer to Les’ question as well.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..How To Overspiritualize Everything =-.
David,
Allow me one additional point lest you think me unbaptist (is that a word?). The only “baptist distinctive” I know that I hold to is “believer’s baptism.” Is that enough to make me a baptist in good standing according to your definition? Of course, I hold to the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity, but “believer’s baptism,” is, as far as I know, my only baptist distinctive. Perhaps I would hold to others if I knew what they are.
Looking forward to your response.
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..Encouraged To Endure Conference *FREE* =-.
I would say that the BFM2K is a good place to start with Baptist Distinctives in our day and time.
Les, are you saying that you do not hold to the BFM2K? I mean, really, believers baptism is the only Baptist distinctive that you hold to??? What about immersion? What about the Lord’s Supper being for baptised believers only, and that they are symbollic and have no saving power to them? What about women Pastors? what about the Trinity? What about salvation being by grace thru faith, and that it lasts forever…there’s no losing your salvation? There are more, Les, that I could say… but these ought to be enough to get this party started.
Concerning history, you’d need to ask Bart Barbar. But, from what little I know, and from what little I can remember, I do believe that Baptist agreed on a little more than believers baptism.
David
Baptist Distinctives are those beliefs or practices that set Southern Baptists apart from all or some other Evangelical Denominations.
Examples of Baptist Distinctives would include: Eternal Security, Believers Baptism by Immersion, the two ordinances (not sacraments) of the local Church are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, elements of the Lord’s Supper are symbolic, religious liberty, regenerate church membership, abstinence from beverage alcohol, missions and evangelism, two biblical offices of the church are pastors and deacons, Cooperative Program, pro-life.
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Alcohol Condemned in the Bible =-.
David R. Brumbelow,
You just described some “Fundamental” Baptist Churches I know, but you sir did not describe my cooperating Southern Baptist Church.
And in this lays the whole fight that many of us have with the Baptist Identity guys… “You don’t even recognize us as Baptist.”
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Matt,
BTW, are you a Southern Baptist? And, if so, when did you become one?
I see a Matt Svoboda on a website that is the founder of a Evangelical Free Church…is that you?
David
Yes, I am Southern Baptist. I have been SBC since I was saved in an SBC church at the age of 14. I was saved at First Baptist Church in Mountain Home Arkansas and then when I moved to Louisville to go to Boyce College I went to First Baptist Church of Mount Washington, which is Paul Chitwood’s, chairman of the board of trustees for the IMB, church. That was until I started interning for Dr. Hershael York. All in all, I was raised Catholic until Jesus saved me, since then, I’ve been a Southern Baptist.
So no, I am not the Matt Svoboda that founded an Efree church. I am Amillennial, I couldnt be Efree if I wanted to!
Matt,
Ok…I was just wondering.
David
Matt,
Forgive me, but David has raised my curiosity here, and at the risk of raising the ire of Les, I just have to ask. The site that clicking your name takes you to has a “Who We Are” page, and on that page under “Matt Svoboda,” it says that Matt serves at an Evangelical Free church. Are there two Matt Svobodas associated with that site?
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..Logan Resignation Forced =-.
haha… no there is not.
I knew this would come up eventually.
I am in exile. My wife and I are living in Nebraska at the moment. There is not 1 Southern Baptist church within 50 miles of me. If there were, I would be there. So I am currently serving at an Efree church, even though I dont have the desire to or never could be ordained in the efree denomination. I graduate with my bachelors in December and at that point my family will be moving back to Louisville so I can get my MDiv at Southern. Which means I will no longer be in exile!
Clear things up?
BTW, Matt, my email to you this week with the same question is purely coincidence. I guess I’m not the only curious person…enquiring minds want to know. 🙂
I too was in “excile” for several months between college and seminary. I attended, but did not join, an non-SBC Baptist Church under a kind of “watchcare” situation. It all turned out well…I met my wife there!
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
It does. Thanks, Matt.
By the way, what about the Kearney Crossroads Church? It’s small, recently planted, and SBC. They could probably use the help.
Again, just curious.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..2009 SBC Annual Meeting Review, Part 2 =-.
No one would ask you to drive 40 miles to Lexington NE for an SBC church. That would be hypocritical of most of us to expect you to do something we wouldn’t be willing to do ourselves.
Here on this post you say you are in exile but would be in an SBC church if there was one, and one of your other SBCVoices articles asked what it would take for the SBC to reach the midwest… this is only a volunteer position but maybe this is your opportunity to be a “doer” at least for the time you are still there:
From the namb website:
Project #H519107002
Kearney Church Planter Strengthener
This position will assist the church planter in Kearney, Nebraska to plant a church in Kearney, Nebraska and Grand Isle, Nebraska. These are the 4th and 5th largest cities in Nebraska and both do not have a functioning Southern Baptist church. The incumbent will be expected to reach people for the Lord through witnessing, door to door surveying, church starting events and other means that are appropriate for the setting. This position is intended to exist until the churches are functioning.
Good luck in Louisville. It’s my hometown and I miss it a great deal! Can’t wait until we make it back there after USMC retirement 🙂
God bless,
Sallie
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
David Worley,
Stop witch hunting on Matt.
All of the things you mentioned plus David Brumbelow’s comment, are held by many other non-baptist denoms. As you know, I agree with BFM2K, but the only true “baptist distinctive” in there is “believer’s baptism” and maybe perhaps religious liberty but only because baptists pioneered the concept of religious liberty. Now most everyone else holds to that too.
BTW, David, the term “believer’s baptism” includes immersion as the only biblical form of baptism, or so I was taught at Seminary. Surprised you didn’t know that.
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..Encouraged To Endure Conference *FREE* =-.
Les,
Aint nobody witch hunting. I was Matt hunting. 🙂
Also, about the believers baptism thing….well, you just cant be too sure nowadays.
And, also, if some Churches hold to the BFM2K, then I would have no problem joining with those Churches to do whatever… because they believe Baptist doctrine…which is Bible doctrine… no matter what name they have. It doesnt really matter to me what they call themselves as long as they are sound in their doctrine.
David
What if they held to BFM’25 or 63?
Les,
A Baptist Distinctive does not mean that no other group holds to that view. As I mentioned above, these distinctives just set us apart from all, some, or most other Evangelicals. Even Believer’s Baptism by Immersion is not exclusive to Baptists. But all of the distinctives I mentioned above – it can be demonstrated that Southern Baptists have officially spoken to them and believe in them.
Take the fundamental / basic doctrines of the Christian faith, add the mix of Baptist Distinctives, and you get a good idea of who Baptists are.
By the way, I left out an important distinctive in my previous comment – local church autonomy.
But if you disagree, we will just disagree. That is probably another Baptist Distinctive.
David R. Brumbelow
But if you disagree, we will just disagree. That is probably another Baptist Distinctive.
Since when? 🙂
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..How To Overspiritualize Everything =-.
Debbie,
Since when?
Since I said so. Got any questions? And if you don’t like it….
Just kidding! The real definition of a Baptist Distinctive is anything I say it is :-).
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Alcohol Condemned in the Bible =-.
This is sad. Instead of focusing on the topic at hand, we are sidetracked by a completely useless and irrelevant topic. David, you had to dig pretty deeply to even find this mysterious “Matt Svoboda” who you conveniently don’t share the link to. I still can’t find it. Shameful whispering about people won’t cut it. This is why many younger Southern Baptists are disgusted with the whole process.
Now, can we get back to what really matters in this post?
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com! =-.
Stephen, I would suggest you follow the links I mentioned in comment 27 above, but since I wrote that I’ve discovered that the line stating that Matt currently serves the “Kearney Evangelical Free Church” has been removed.
I don’t deny anyone their right to express their opinion. I just thought it would be curious if the person essentially in charge of a website called “SBC Voices” actually turned out not to have one.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..Logan Resignation Forced =-.
Interestingly enough, I edited that before I ever saw you ask me anything. If its any consolation, I am still a student at an SBC school. 🙂 And I am praying desperately to come back to civilization. Although, it is quite sad that there isnt an SBC church within 50 miles. Does the SBC know the Midwest exists???
I hope my other comment clears things up.
Your problem is that you’re in Nebraska (nothing wrong with that state, Cornhuskers, just not a big SBC locale!)
Cross the border to Kansas, but mianly Missouri, and you’ll be back with the home folks
Stephen,
Dont you want to apologize to me now? The Matt Svoboda of the Kearney E Free Church is the same Matt of SBC Voices!!!! I saw this in his link..when you type on his name in SBC Voices. I just wondered if he was serving in an E Free Church and head of SBC Voices! I just thought that this was ironic that the main editor, or a contributing editor of an SBC blog was not even SB!!!!
Nothing against Matt. And, he can talk about SBC issues all he wants, as far as I’m concerned….but it does kind of put it in perspective.
Also, the info in his bio strangely disappeared after I asked this question.
Oh well….Stephen, looks like folks like you look for any excuse to jump on the “this is why the young pastors are leaving the SBC” bandwagon. It’s really getting kind of old.
Besides all that, why do yall think that I was “after” Matt anyway??? I mean, you and Les act like I was out there trying to dig up dirt on Matt. Why? Why would I? I like Matt. So, what motive were yall trying to assign to me?????
David
David,
I like you as well..
To all,
Admittedly it is a bit ironic that I am not currently at an SBC church. But remember, this is not by choice!
I am a bit curious why so many people were searching me… Should I be worried!?!
Matt,
Plain old curiousity, Dude. Curiousity. And, clicking on your name…in the link given on this website…led to Evangelical Village, and your name was right there at the top….with serving at Kearney E Free Church right there. Not really that hard to find.
Also, dont you find it a bit ironic that you are one of the main Dudes on this blog, and you dont even belong to a SB Church?????
Also, I really hope that you are not a Huskers fan.
David
Yes, it is ironic. I was at an SBC church when I started contributing here. Circumstances changes in the midst. Like I said, this is a short-term exile.
Husker fan through and through. BO UP!
In all of this restructuring of the SBC talk, I just want to ask a “what if”.
What if – the local associations, which often struggle to find their purpose in the SBC, became the missionary sending arm of the SBC. All the local churches of said local association could send their CP dollars to the local association which would be task with calling, equipping (with help from our seminaries if needed) and sending the missionary/s from the local cooperating churches.
This would cut out a lot of overhead, it would give control and purpose back to the local associations, and it would get more of the local churches involved in missions work as it would give them a personal stake in the success of their local missionary.
While we are dreaming, I am just asking “what if”…
Grace Always,
David Brumbelow,
I agree that local church autonomy is a baptist distinctive. So now we have two: 1) believer’s baptism, and 2) local church autonomy.
Distinctive = unique charateristic
Les
.-= Les Puryear´s last blog ..Encouraged To Endure Conference *FREE* =-.
This is purely an attempt to get the comment thread back to talking about the post.
Still no apology from Stephen Newell….oh well.
David
That might be because I am bi-vocational, work third shift and Wednesday is an office day at my church, and I have better things to do than sit on the edge of my seat waiting for people to reply to a blog comment. See, I have 2 jobs, a wife, and 2 kids and don’t live with my parents blogging in my underwear.
All of which you can find out with a simple Google search which actually does tell you something about me. 😉
Now, instead of playing this pity-poor game of “I’m hurt, apologize,” can we do as Matt suggests and actually discuss the post? If not, I ask that the comments be closed.
.-= Stephen Newell´s last blog ..Welcome to stephennewell.com! =-.
Stephen,
You’re the one who picked an unnecessary fight over a legitimate question (the blog is named “SBC Voices” after all). If you have such little time to blog, then why do a hit-and-run on David and then complain when he calls you on it?
— Todd
In writing my thesis for the M.A. in American Social & Intellectual History on the subject, “The Baptists & Ministerial Qualifications from 1750-1850,” I found that the doctrine is basically two-sided and apparently contradictory and that is the genius of why and ho it works. The doctrine is that God qualifies a person for ministry by a call that involves both illumination and/or education. The best is a both/and as the two tend to be complementary. Their apparent contradiction sets up a tension in the human mind that enables the person to be balanced, flexible, creative and magnetic. When the individual polarizes on one or the other position, that person loses the sense of balance, becomes inflexible, basically destructive, and repelling in teaching and method. The reason why our churches are not seminaries is that the truth of how Sovereign Grace works has been lost. The truth of the Faith is like dominoes. Knock one down and the rest seems likely to go…except truth is a lot more resilient than that. In fact and especially, when one is able to preserve a two-sided truth in one instance, e.g., scripture as both human and divine, God as trinity and unity, Christ as both God and man, then, sooner or later, the other truths return in their two-sided nature and then a Great Awakening follows -if bathed in prayer. Think of Predestination as an invitation. Think of Total Depravity as an invitation. Think of Unconditional Election as an invitation. Think of Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption as an invitation. Think of Irresistible Grace as an Invitation. Think of Perseverance as an invitation. Think of Reprobation as an invitation. DID JESUS EVER TEACH THESE TRUTHS AS INITATIONS TO BEGIN ONE’S SPIRITUAL PILGRIMAGE, AS INVITATIONS TO BE SAVED? Reflect on Luke 4:18-30 & Mt. 15:21-28. Selah.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Now for a history lesson on the structure of the SBC. A recent program on the history channel made the point that the government of the US is a federal structure, copied from the way the masonic lodges are set up. What the masons did was to recap their lodge structure (federal) in the US government. But the government, as George Bancropt a noted historian of the past called it, is a calvinistic republic. The calvinistic republics were the the governments of Geneva, Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, and the America. Look at the Convention structure; it is a federal type structure. Was the Baptists copying their nation’s government or were they implementing the masonic type structure or were they establishing a calvinistic type of church government? Probably a little bit of all three. Actually, secret societies and the Baptists (or Baptist type predecessors in England, e.g., the Lollards) were cooperating before the first lodge was publically established. After all, you could neither be a member of a secret society or a member of a group the state church regarded as heretical. For protection and survivability the two appeared to work together. That is why, perhaps, the lodges and the Baptist and Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches got on together so well. In fact, they got on so well until the 20th century especially (with a bump or two in the 19th), when alien views really began to be imported into the lodges, views inimical to the Christian Faith altogether as in when some lodges started putting the quietus on praying in the name of Jesus, all in the name of not offending those who did not want to hear His name and even at the risk of offending those who do want to pray in his name. Now it is beginning to be enforced in the US military and in state legislatures with the attitude that it is too bad for those who want to pray in His name and are required to do it. Now the structure of the SBC is coming under great strain as the folks who really run things find it a hindrance to their having a free hand. They want the last large bastion of Protestant supernatural Christianity off the scene so they can promote their religious pabulum of pluralism. Few realize the power Baptists exert. And remember, where there is 1-2 Baptists in practice, there might well be 3-4 more who incline that way. What Baptists need is a better structure, one founded upon a better knowledge of what the Bible allows in the way of cooperation and working together as well as the theology which actually enables and empowers a liberal, open-handed, open-minded, receptive and yet faithful, dependable, orthodoxy and orthopraxy which has a built in ability to handle change without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We have had that secret for over two hundred years. Just think: How did Regular Baptists persuade General Baptists to adopt a particular redemption point of view? And how did the Separate and Regular Baptists manage to unite and make all participants feel like they were the gainer by the compromises? I wish some of you folks would get really excited about the past and how we might bring some of that approach to our present situation. Christian/biblical doctrine is so constructed as to make the believer balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic, and, I rather suspect, so are the scriptural precepts for larger structures of cooperation and commitment of forces to the tasks of missions and evangelism. Think, friends, think. The Bible is an intellectual book, the most intellectual book ever written, becaue it is inspired by the omniscient God. Such being the case, then it must reflect the depth of wisdom commensurate with that reality. That wisdom will help us to cope with our present unpleasant situations and win the day for the glory of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.