In 1979, Conservatives within the Southern Baptist Convention united to return the SBC and her entities to Biblical inerrancy and\u00a0doctrinal fidelity.\u00a0 For 27 years, the\u00a0Conservative Resurgence\u00a0(as it came to be called) brought together disparate groups — Conservatives\u00a0of all stripes and varieties\u00a0— to successfully re-establish the Southern Baptist Convention upon a solid, Biblical foundation.<\/p>\n
But, that foundation is beginning to crack.\u00a0 And, with each new radical reinvention\u00a0that the\u00a0current establishment leaders implement (NAMB\u00a0comes to mind), those cracks are becoming more\u00a0noticeable.\u00a0 The solid foundation — so carefully laid with the blood, sweat, tears, and prayers\u00a0of so many CR “foot soldiers” — is in real danger of not only cracking, but ultimately collapsing.\u00a0 The collapse\u00a0will not happen because of\u00a0disagreements over\u00a0Biblical inerrancy or doctrine, but rather over disagreements about vision, methodology, and money.\u00a0 Not to mention a dose of good old-fashioned politics.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The first cracks in the foundation\u00a0began to appear shortly after the death of long-time SBC leader and elder statesman, Dr. Adrian Rogers.\u00a0 Dr. Rogers was one of the most respected leaders of the Conservative Resurgence.\u00a0 When Dr. Rogers talked, people listened.\u00a0 Looking back, I\u00a0believe that the death of Dr. Adrian Rogers may prove to be a seminal moment in the life of the\u00a0Southern Baptist Convention.<\/p>\n
With his death on November 15, 2005 (which happened to have been my 39th birthday), it appears that some of the younger leaders in their 40’s and 50’s\u00a0— 2nd Generation Conservative Resurgence types — began to fill the void left by Dr. Rogers.\u00a0 (Maybe Dr.\u00a0Rogers, before his death, was able to exert a calming and restraining\u00a0influence\u00a0on some of the more outspoken leaders\u00a0within the Convention.)\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The cracks began to expand at the annual meeting of the SBC, held in June 2006 in Greensboro, NC.\u00a0 Thanks in no small measure to the nominating speech of Forrest Pollock — which emphasized the importance of the Cooperative Program and\u00a0Dr. Frank Page’s\u00a0support of CP (in contradistinction to Ronnie Floyd’s anemic support of CP) —\u00a0Dr. Page, in what can only be described as a stunning defeat for the establishment candidates, was elected on the first ballot (in a three-way race).\u00a0 Some in the establishment were in a state of shock and disbelief at the unexpected turn of events.\u00a0 At least one leader was overheard saying that this (i.e., the defeat of Ronnie Floyd, the establishment candidate) would never happen again.<\/p>\n
By the end of the Greensboro Convention, the cracks in the foundation were growing larger, but many did not realize just how\u00a0deep and wide the cracks had become.\u00a0 While I have no first-hand knowledge of conversations that took place among establishment leaders following their\u00a0setback in\u00a02006, it did not take long for a new strategy to be devised for overcoming what appeared to be folks clinging to\u00a0such past-their-prime relics\u00a0as CP, State Conventions, and local Associations.\u00a0 That strategy:\u00a0 The Great Commission Resurgence.\u00a0 After all, who could be against the Great Commission?<\/p>\n
What had heretofore been a\u00a0conservative resurgence\u00a0supported by\u00a0rank-and-file Southern Baptists\u00a0and led by men like\u00a0Adrian Rogers, Jim Henry,\u00a0Bobby Welch,\u00a0Morris Chapman, and others would\u00a0morph into a “Great Commission” Resurgence\u00a0envisioned by those in power and dictated to the rank-and-file\u00a0by the establishment.\u00a0 The first was a recipe for\u00a0unity and growth.\u00a0 The second is a recipe for disunity and decline.<\/p>\n
With the establishment re-exerting its influence through the election of Johnny Hunt (who delivered\u00a0the nominating speech for Ronnie Floyd\u00a0just two years prior)\u00a0as SBC President in 2008, the\u00a0stage was set for what would become the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR).\u00a0 Enter stage right Dr. Daniel Akin, President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, who delivered a chapel sermon on April 16, 2009 titled, “Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence.”<\/em>\u00a0 <\/a>As the official website for the GCR clearly states, there were other “actors” who were still off-stage, but who would make their presence known:<\/p>\n “It is important to note the address was not produced in a vacuum. The content of the sermon received input and affirmation from SBC leaders like Johnny Hunt, James Merritt, Al Mohler and Thom Rainer.\u00a0 It was something of a response to a ground swell of hopes and concerns being echoed throughout the churches of our Convention.” (see here<\/a> for full article)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Looking back, one has to ask, “what ground swell?” and “what churches?”\u00a0 It is becoming more and more evident that the size of the ground swell and the number of echoing churches has been vastly overstated by the establishment\u00a0<\/a>while the number of those (including entire State Conventions)\u00a0who continue to voice concerns about the GCR’s\u00a0implementation has been badly underestimated.\u00a0 While initial support for the creation of the GCR\u00a0Task Force was near 95% in 2009, the Task Force’s Final Report and Recommendations could only muster 75%.\u00a0 Given what has transpired in the months since the Orlando Convention, this year’s annual meeting in Phoenix could be quite divided.\u00a0 So much for the GCR keeping Southern Baptists unified.<\/p>\n Why do establishment leaders continue to push for a radical re-prioritization\u00a0of the entire Convention, particularly at NAMB?\u00a0 And, why the rush on new partnership agreements with the State Conventions?\u00a0 According to the Baptist Press report of the recent NAMB\u00a0Trustee meeting where the changes were approved, Dr. Ezell<\/p>\n “indicated NAMB hopes to have new integrated strategic partnership agreements signed with each state convention by the end of March.” (full article here<\/a>)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n March of what year?\u00a0 Didn’t the GCR Final Report call for a phase-out of the existing partnership agreements within seven years (changed from four years in the interim report)?<\/p>\n “We encourage NAMB to set a goal of phasing out all Cooperative Agreements within seven years . . .” (GCR Final Report, page 11 of 27)<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, nine months is within seven years.\u00a0 I stand corrected.\u00a0 I guess seven years, like 90 days, sure goes by fast at the new NAMB<\/a>!\u00a0 I suppose that if the Task Force can ignore its own recommendations for transparency and openness (here<\/a> and here<\/a>), then the new NAMB can certainly ignore the timeline for phase-outs!<\/p>\n Words have meaning, even if a former President of the United States does not know the\u00a0meaning of the word “is.”\u00a0 The GCR\u00a0is currently being implemented according to the clear words of the Recommendations and Final Report, as interpreted by the ruling elites who control the entities of the Convention.\u00a0 The Recommendations\u00a0are the law.\u00a0 The Final Report\u00a0— as interpreted — has become the guidelines (rules and regulations) that\u00a0leaders will use to\u00a0ensure\u00a0that the GCR is fully implemented.\u00a0 For those who have doubts as to how this implementation will occur and what it means for State Conventions and local Associations, please refer to the “legislative” history (particularly Section VIII), known as the “Axioms for a Great Commission Resurgence.”<\/em><\/p>\n What NAMB\u00a0and the other establishment leaders (Dr. Page excepted) are doing is exactly what the GCR\u00a0calls for them to do.\u00a0 That’s why some pastors, like Dwayne Milioni, writing for Baptist21<\/em><\/a>, can say:<\/p>\n “Being\u00a0directed by\u00a0our recent convention to promote the GCR\u00a0(the Great Commission Resurgence), president Ezell has begun his work\u00a0as a ‘man under authority.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While pastors, entity heads, and Christian leaders are under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the\u00a0GCR\u00a0has become the authority by which\u00a0Dr. Ezell\u00a0and other establishment leaders operate under in their effort to radically re-prioritize\u00a0the Southern Baptist Convention.\u00a0 It bears repeating that\u00a0the GCR\u00a0— if fully implemented as written and envisioned — will radically alter what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist.\u00a0 One need only read\u00a0Pastor Milioni’s\u00a0words about\u00a0the positive and exciting changes that Dr. Ezell\u00a0is making at NAMB\u00a0(I’m quite certain that he is not alone in his enthusiasm for the reinvention of the entire Convention) to understand the direction that the\u00a0SBC is headed.\u00a0 One area of excitement concerns the new direction that NAMB is taking regarding church planting:\u00a0<\/p>\n “After asking Dr. Ezell\u00a0what he wants the \u201cNew NAMB\u201d to\u00a0look like, I was excited to hear his desire to see millions of dollars diverted to\u00a0church planting.\u00a0He also wants to\u00a0partner with key churches\u00a0to plant churches\u00a0in critical areas of North America.\u00a0I asked how a local church that has been planting churches\u00a0apart from the traditional path might\u00a0get\u00a0involved and he said that what we are doing\u00a0at Open Door through\u00a0our North American Church Planting Foundation\u00a0will\u00a0serve\u00a0a model for church planting within the cooperative program.\u00a0This comment really encouraged me, not just because it came from our NAMB president, but for first time I felt that our approach to planting churches via a network rather than\u00a0directly through\u00a0a local association and state convention was acceptable. I left feeling hopeful and more a committed Southern Baptist.” (emphasis added — full article here<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If Dr. Ezell’s\u00a0encouragement to Pastor Milioni continues apace, then we will witness the collapse of the Southern Baptist Convention as we now know it.\u00a0 To be a “cooperating” Southern Baptist will no longer include the local Association or State Convention.\u00a0 Indeed, one can be a more committed Southern Baptist without ever having to cooperate at the State or local level.\u00a0<\/p>\n And NAMB\u00a0will partner with local churches outside of Associations and State\u00a0Conventions entirely, planting churches without the need for any\u00a0help or input from those in the local fields.\u00a0 Oh, the regional VPs might talk about “partnering” with the States, but I guess it all comes down to what your definition of\u00a0“partner” really means.\u00a0<\/p>\n