Friday, March 5, 2010

How To Resurge

This is the last of three posts in response to the GCR Task Force progress report. The other two posts are here and here. In the previous two posts I stated why I will be voting in favor of these proposals, obviously hoping that you will join me in doing so this summer in Orlando.

The name of the task force and of the vision that it represents (The Great Commission Resurgence) obviously hearkens back to the Conservative Resurgence. It seems to me that, whatever similarities exist, there is at least one profound difference between the Conservative Resurgence and the Great Commission Resurgence: The Conservative Resurgence addressed a situation in which the Southern Baptist people, generally not proponents of leftish treatments of the Bible, stood up and used their voice to bring the denominational apparatus back to the position (biblical inerrancy) that they already held on that question. The Conservative Resurgence therefore didn't really require of Southern Baptist individuals (broadly considered) that they change, but merely that they assert themselves. The present situation with regard to the Great Commission, on the other hand, presents a reality completely different from that. Individual Southern Baptist Christians must find the nerve (or whatever it might be that is lacking) to walk across the street and present the gospel to their neighbors, as they presently are generally not doing. Individual Southern Baptist churches must become evangelistically passionate, as they generally are not (sufficiently) now.

We must do more than vote; we must submit to and obey the Lordship of Christ. The Great Commission is, first of all, a command. Obey or disobey—those are our choices.

This is the most important post in this series. It is not that I know for certain that I have all of the right answers that makes this post the most important; this is the most important post because I know for certain that these are the most important questions. I have concluded that, in order for their to be any sort of a real Great Commission Resurgence, I and Southern Baptists like me must do more than vote. Our leaders can do some things to help us, and I will indicate some recommendations, but make no mistake—it is you and I who must resurge.

The progress report seems to acknowledge this concept, referring to last year's vote in Louisville as the beginning of "a grassroots spiritual movement." The report then moves to a call to repentance from Joel. Specifically, the task force identifies pridefulness and cynicism as hinderances to our Great Commission effectiveness. Although the task force has neither the authority nor the ability to address these problems, they obviously wish to motivate the rest of us and to point us in the right direction. They acknowledge in the report that Southern Baptists "expect the leaders in our convention to lead us towards the changes that are needed." So, let's consider how our leaders can lead, and then let's look at what we all can do.

Things Our Leaders Can Do

Ronnie Floyd and his task force are spot-on when they identify a "caustic cynicism" in the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm sure that they speak from experience, having likely been the focus of a great deal of cynicism in our convention. Yes, our cynicism is unhealthy. Also unhealthy would be any sense among our leaders of entitlement to unquestioning, prayerless, mindless submission to whatever they desire or recommend. The replacement for cynicism must not be anything like this. Rather, we should replace both cynicism and entitlement with mutual submission and respect under the Lord.

Let's not be in denial about the cynicism in the Southern Baptist Convention, but let's also not be in denial about the causes of that cynicism. The GCR Task Force has brought forward a very good progress report. I sense that it is building a positive enthusiasm among Southern Baptists. I believe that we will come together in a healthy sense of unity and optimism in Orlando. The Task Force, obviously desiring to accomplish these things, is (in my estimation) succeeding.

Hallelujah!

As exciting as this moment is, the Task Force still needs to learn a lesson from the story of President Obama: When you cause people to embrace optimism and hope, the higher that you lift people, the further you can cause them to fall if you disillusion them. If, as I hope and pray, the level of cynicism in the Southern Baptist Convention will decrease, then the GCR Task Force must be very careful not to do anything to cause a resurgence of cynicism among Southern Baptists.

I would encourage the members of the Task Force to consider carefully the words of Gary Ledbetter. It is critically important that the members of this GCR Task Force not move from the Task Force into denominational employ. Two facts make this requirement all the more relevant today.

First, consider the similar movement of Bob Reccord from a previous task force to the helm of NAMB. Whatever the realities of this move, very many Southern Baptists were made more cynical by their perception of the move as an instance of inside dealing within our denomination. If the Task Force members wish to inaugurate a new day in Southern Baptist life, then let them show it by demonstrating to us new patterns of behavior. I can think of no better manner for us to show by our actions a break from the past.

Second, this concept is made more relevant by the quantity of high-profile denominational posts that are presently open and by the quality of the candidates who are members of the Task Force. The temptation to the Task Force members could be intense. The fact that some task force members would do an excellent job at some of the presently open positions is somewhat beside the point. The individual members have to decide which is more important, abating ongoing cynicism about their work and preserving a fresh wind in the SBC or securing influential denominational employment.

Our leaders can also covenant with us that "Great Commission Giving" will not be promoted at all in denominational publications, media, or events. In my mind the differentiation between Cooperative Program and "Great Commission Giving" is clear—we encourage people to give through the Cooperative Program; we thankfully acknowledge that people sometimes designate their giving.

It isn't that it is morally wrong to promote another giving plan; it's just foolish. A church survives on undesignated gifts. All we pastors know this. So does the SBC. We need increased promotion of the Cooperative Program (not diverted one iota to the new category of giving) or the heyday of the SBC is in our past. Anybody who promotes "Great Commission Giving" is hurting the future of the SBC to help the image of someone else.

These reasons have been enough for some people to oppose the Task Force recommendations, but I do not believe it is necessary to do so. We track, report, and celebrate designated gifts already. I have in my office awards reflective of designated gifts that FBC Farmersville has given to the IMB (Lottie Moon), NAMB (Annie Armstrong), and SWBTS. The only difference that I can see inaugurated here is that a new name has been given to this collective category of giving that we've had all along.

Our leaders on the task force tell us that the Cooperative Program is still the giving plan that we will promote as Southern Baptists. This cannot be a "wink is as good as a nod" situation. They must keep firmly to that promise. I believe that they will, and so long as that remains the case, I see nothing unprecedented here. Perhaps I've missed something. I'm open to enlightenment.

Things We Can Do as Individual Southern Baptists and as SBC Churches

Help Your State Convention and Association Figure Out Their Roles: We're going to have to help to sort out the implications of these changes at every level of SBC life. In the long run, it may prove to be more important that you attend your state convention's annual meeting this year than that you go to Orlando. Don't get me wrong—you should be in Orlando. But the state convention meetings for the next few years will be the place where difficult decisions will be made in the aftermath of these changes. We will all need to pull together and work hard to make those decisions.

It will be helpful, as more of the details emerge about the Task Force's work, if the Task Force were to provide their specific ideas about how state conventions should adapt to the changes that they have proposed at the national SBC level. I'm confident that they have given full consideration to these questions before making those recommendations. It would be far less helpful to tell the state conventions, "We've made our decision, now you adapt to it," than to join the state conventions as brothers and say, "Let's work this out together as brothers—we've had some ideas about how to make this work. . ."

One or two of the state conventions will probably leap at the justification to reduce further their already paltry support of national and international causes, but I'm really speaking only of those few conventions that are really bad-faith participants in the SBC system already. Some other state conventions that really do have their hearts in the right place may have no choice but to make difficult decisions with regard to their own budgets and their CP allocations, particularly if they are located in pioneer areas where the changing role of NAMB may have the most profound effect.

I'm involved in the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention—the leading state convention in terms of the percentage of funds forwarded to the SBC. I hope to help our convention to look for ways, if it is possible, that we can move forward after the NAMB cooperative agreement reductions without reducing at all the percentage (55%) that we forward to national and international missions. Each of us needs to be involved at the state convention level to help to determine state policies that will maximize Great Commission effectiveness by keeping the SBC base strong while sending all of the resources that we can send to the areas of greatest need.

It is your right as a member church of your state convention to send messengers to state convention meetings and to make those decisions. No matter who else in the structure of your denomination makes statements about the GCR Task Force, they do not have the authority to decide how any state convention will react to changes at the SBC level. Your church and churches like yours will make this decision.

The bright hope of this moment is really not found in any of the specific recommendations from the Task Force, but in the thought that individual members of individual Southern Baptist Churches will take a moment to re-think how each tier of Southern Baptist life contributes to the work of your church in carrying forward the Great Commission. I call for us to "re-think" this not because I believe that the old answers are wrong, but because I believe that they are largely forgotten. Cooperative Program giving has become, for some of us, as reflexive as paying the Electric bill. What we greatly need is for every local church to have clearly in its collective mind:

  • We have a church because Jesus Christ founded the church.
  • We have a local association because?
  • We have a state convention because?
  • We have a Southern Baptist Convention because?

I believe that there are good answers for every one of those questions. I also believe that the existence of those good answers is a reason to ask the questions and to ask them forcefully, not a reason to refuse to ask them. The questions further need to be asked of every entity supported by these conventions and every line item of their budgets. Are there any cases in which we will conclude that the answers are not good enough? I think so. For example, I believe that there are universities historically affiliated with Southern Baptist life that are no longer good investments of Cooperative Program funds—that really no longer essentially see or conduct themselves as Great Commission entities. On the whole, however, I believe that the value of asking the questions is not found in the rooting out of such entities (although that would be a virtue), but is rather found in each of us clarifying in the strategies of our churches what is the purpose and vision for each of these institutions as it relates to Christ's mandate upon our churches.

What the GCR Task Force has attempted to do with regard to the national Southern Baptist Convention, we need to do with regard to our churches and with regard to every other tier of Southern Baptist life. Let me be perfectly clear—you need to attend your state and associational meetings and assist in the work of determining how to redouble our efforts and our effectiveness right now.

Lead Your Church to Pick Up the Slack. Commit as a church to give more through the Cooperative Program. Commit to be more interactive and supportive with your sister churches. Our historical myopia leads us to forget that, for quite some time, Baptist churches had robust associations on shoestring budgets with virtually no employees. How did they manage that? The churches pitched in and made it work. The churches WERE the associations and conventions, and they did not regard "the denomination" as consisting of an executive and a headquarters building. The work that needed to be done for the denomination? They just did it.

Just do it.

Don't just pick up the slack in your own back yard. Help to plant a church far, far away from yours. Go to Montana or Massachusetts. This goes just as well for those of you who do not favor the NAMB church planting proposal. Do you believe that local churches ought to be planting churches in pioneer areas and major cities? Go plant one, then. I promise you, no NAMB church planting missionary is going to firebomb your church plant in an effort to drive you out. The church that you plant will be one that no NAMB missionary will have to plant, and there will be plenty of work left to go around.

The more that our local churches focus on what we can do, the more that the NAMB will be able to focus on what we cannot do. My church cannot afford to plant a new church in Manhattan. Yours probably can't either. Meeting space is prohibitively expensive. Cost-of-living for church planters in the area is ridiculous. We simply don't have the budget to swing that kind of a plant.

But the Southern Baptist Convention does have the budget. We have the access to budgetary funds that exceed what most religious groups could dedicate to such projects. I firmly believe that the NAMB's best role is to dedicate coordinated strategies toward making bold moves in those high-cost, high-population-density areas—to do the things that few individual churches have the resources to do alone, but that we can all do together through the SBC. They'll be better able to do the things that we can't do if we will take up the yoke of the things that we can do.

Pray for Spiritual Awakening.

Samuel Morris was a farmer, not a preacher. I'm not merely asserting that Morris was not a particular good preacher; he was no preacher at all and did not attempt to be one. Perhaps, precisely because he was not a preacher, he easily deduced that neither was the minister at St. Paul's Anglican Church (Rev. Patrick Henry, uncle of the famous patriot named after him). Morris and a number of his fellow parishioners at St. Paul's decided to shirk Henry's ministrations and seek better spiritual sustenance on their own.

There being no preacher among them, Morris determined to build a little shack on his farm and invite people therein to listen to him as he read aloud from religious works. The first item on the menu at Morris's Reading House was Martin Luther's Galaterbrief, followed by such works as John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and the sermons of George Whitefield.

Morris is the father of the First Great Awakening in Virginia. Other people began to build reading houses, and they clamored to invite Morris to come and to read at their reading houses. No other person in all of Christian History comes to my mind who had built a ministry not of itinerant preaching but of itinerant reading!

If God can birth revival among disgruntled Anglicans by the means of an "itinerant reader" offering up selections of German Bible commentaries, then God certainly can move through you, no matter what size your church is or how good your preacher (who might be you!) is at preaching. Why not ask Him to do so? Like Samuel Morris, why not find whatever you can do to carry forward the Great Commission, jump in and do it, and then see how God might bless your obedience? We were not too small for God to work through us in the past; we are not presently too big for Him to do so today.

Perhaps one good thing you could do to facilitate a renewed prayer life as regards spiritual awakening here in our own backyard and to assist in your own evaluation of our Southern Baptist efforts to pursue the Great Commission would be to reacquaint yourself with the text of the Great Commission itself. Jerry Rankin has asserted that "[Great Commission] is not a biblical term" and therefore that it needs to be defined for us. With all due respect, every fifth grader in my church could tell Dr. Rankin what the Great Commission is. It is not some theological abstraction open to various definitions; it is the name we use to refer to Jesus' instructions recorded in Matthew 28:18-20.

Open that text once again. Meditate upon it. Pray about it. Do you remember that it is about teaching ALL of Christ's commandments? Do you remember that it is about baptism? Yes, the Great Commission includes a great deal that needs to be done in the People's Republic of China, but it also includes a great deal that needs to be done in the pulpit of FBC Farmersville. Listen for the Commissioner's voice. Embrace the Commission. Pray. Obey. God blesses such things.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bart:

These are excellent thoughts.

I have no idea how things are in Texas, but in my home state and association, being realistic, there is very little participation from a large percentage of the churches, and it has been that way for many years. I don't know how it got that way (or if it was ever really different).

It may be a factor of time or philosophy. I don't know.

But I observe that the more dynamic churches in the area (small and large) are less likely to go to associational meetings or the state convention. But the people and pastors in those churches will attend other types of local or state wide meetings to hear speakers, pray etc.

These structures exists, so I am not advocating for a change or anything. I just wonder to what extent heavy state or associational participation is a train that has left the station. I don't know.

Finally, what is giving that is sent directly to Nashville, rather than through the states? It is not "designated" and is part of the allocation budget of the EC. Is that "Great Commission Giving" as defined by the GCR report?

Thanks, again, for a good summary.

Louis

Andrew said...

Louis:
"what is giving that is sent directly to Nashville, rather than through the states? It is not "designated" and is part of the allocation budget of the EC. Is that "Great Commission Giving" as defined by the GCR report?"

I plan to address this issue in a future post...since you asked, I'll do it this coming Monday.

Quick answer: in 2008, a little over 6 million dollars was sent directly to Nashville for the CP budget. That is about 3% of the total national CP money collected. Depending on CP allocations, and entity's budget, that can comprise anywhere from 0.84% to 3.02% of the entity's budget. (Total direct giving, through national designated or direct-to-entity made up 2.51% to 24.01% of the 2008 budget).

Bart:

As with most of the time, you are exactly on-the-money with "how now shall we live?" in response to the GCRTF report!

Tim G said...

The "how to" is indeed the task and the "moving up the ladder" issue will tell much.

Clear thoughts here!

Anonymous said...

Andrew:

Thanks. Will you post that here or somewhere else?

Sorry I don't already know that.

Louis

Tom Parker said...

Bart:

The CR did not work and neither will this.

Bart Barber said...

Tom Parker:

The CR worked great. One suspects that very fact is why it continues to be so troubling to so many.

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: ... to bring the denominational apparatus back to the position (biblical inerrancy) that they already held on that question.

bapticus hereticus: Given the voting record of SBC during the years of highest contention, this cannot be a statement meriting serious attention by professional historians. While 51 = 100 and 49 = 0 may be the operative mechanism for social change, it, nonetheless, ignores a boatload of truth. No surprises, however. To control the outcome, control the narrative among a sufficient number.

Bart: ... to walk across the street and present the gospel to their neighbors ....

bapticus hereticus: Granted, not a problem that SBC can claim exclusive rights, but the emphasis of the GC report places an emphasis on Matthew 28 at the expense of Matthew 25.

Bart: As exciting as this moment is, the Task Force still needs to learn a lesson from the story of President Obama: When you cause people to embrace optimism and hope, the higher that you lift people, the further you can cause them to fall if you disillusion them.

bapticus hereticus: On health-care and financial reform, I am a bit disappointed in Obama, for I think he is pandering to the right for a bi-partisanship that will not develop, notwithstanding conservative input. Moreover, given the Stanley pronouncement concerning the vitality of SBC if purged of non-inerrantists, how does one reconcile it with the perceived need for a GC task force (and repeatedly other SBC calls for increased evangelism)? Seems Stanley is a lesson to learn from as well. One might argue that with non-inerrantists actively involved in the SBC the situation would be worse, but the only data we have consist of an SBC that is absent non-inerrantists sharing leadership in a situation that is worsening. While one may speculate about the former, the latter may be empirically assessed.

Steve Young said...

Bart,
I am thinking about the comment that "this will not work either." On one hand, that is a correct statement. "IT" never works. I am not looking for "IT" to work. God works. I am expecting God to work. God works in response to the prayers of His people. God works His purpose through the prayers of His people. The Great Commission is His purpose. The task force can help us to refocus on the purpose of God and make it our serious prayer.

This past week in Montana we had a State meeting called "M-Pact Montana." I had no magic formula given to me in the meetings, workshops, and messages, but I was challenged to evaluate where I have been leading South Hills and refocus our vision. I was challenged in a workshop to practice good, old fashion, soul-winning. (That was an encouragement after spending time with some who were against altart calls and had snide remarks about F.A.I.T.H.) I was challenged to teach the people I serve how to share thir faith. I was challenged to use events, revivals, VBS, etc. for the explicit purpose of evangelism. I believe that is what the Great Commission Resurgence can do, needs to do, must do. I am hopeful. At the end of our meeting we filled out a survey. In the comments section I said - "Thank you for challenging me about evangelism. I want you, as my State Convention, to constantly challenge me about the main thing."

Thank you, Bart, for your thoughts on this subject.
Steve in Montana

PS - If the history of mainline denomonations is any indication of where a low view of Scripture will lead a denomintaion evangelistically, the CR did work. Others are not even having this discussion today.

bapticus hereticus said...

Steve: ... [A] If the history of mainline denomonations is any indication of where a low view of Scripture will lead a denomintaion evangelistically, the CR did work. [B] Others are not even having this discussion today.

A curious comment to follow. ‘B’ concerns a conversation about a need for greater evangelistic efforts, to which it is asserted the mainlines are not having. But, why would such conversations be necessary if said efforts were of the level that merits praise (and for which mainlines are criticized in ‘A’ for its lack)? Given ‘B’ and the perceived need for such in the SBC, apart from having conversations on being an effective evangelistic entity, the SBC with its ‘high’ view of scripture also finds itself deficient, as it does the mainlines with their ‘low’ view. Thus, as long as SBC talks a good game, it can claim a spiritual advantage?

Bart Barber said...

BH: Your statement about the convention voting margins during the Conservative Resurgence as an indicator of public sentiment reflects, it seems to me, presumptions about the relationship between SBC messenger opinion and grassroots SBC public opinion that I do not share.

Our messenger system is as good a system as I know, but its fundamental flaw is the highly disproportionate manner in which it over-represents denominational employees while under-representing grassroots Southern Baptists. I will gladly stipulate that liberalism was popular among SBC denominational employees.

As evidence of the unpopularity of liberalism among grassroots Southern Baptists, I will rely upon two carefully documented facts. The first is the fact that vast and passionate grassroots support is necessary for any grassroots initiative to overcome the incredible pro-denominational-employee bias of the SBC messenger body. The second is the "doublespeak" phenomenon named and highlighted by none other than Ralph Elliott. Even denominational liberals knew that the SBC grassroots affirmed a high view of the Bible, and this is why they were careful to disguise their low view of the Bible when interacting with the grassroots of the SBC. Or do you disagree with the analysis of Elliott, a man in a position to know whereof he spoke?

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: [1] relationship between SBC messenger opinion and grassroots SBC …. [2] … messenger system … over-represents denominational employees while under-representing grassroots .... [3] …The second is the "doublespeak" phenomenon named … by … Elliott.

bapticus hereticus: [1] Having an opinion is one thing, Bart; having facts to support it are another. Findings from the, then, HMB, did not support wide support for the “conservative resurgence” [sic], nor did Ammerman’s research, both of which used methodologies to tap SBC rank and file perceptions. [2] If denominational employees of today represent the SBC, why is it that they could not represent it in the past? Even with a changing of the guard, was there a complete change in how networks typically operate? While specific beliefs may separate the groups in question, it is less doubtful that human nature is qualitatively different among them. Second, were denominational employees granted the right to vote, or did they first need church approval to be a messenger to the meeting? Did they not have as much right to vote as pastors that opposed the, then, present leadership? And given the voting was nearly 50-50 and extant data did not support a preference for a “conservative resurgence” [sic], it appears more logical that over-representation was on the side of fundamentalists, not moderates. [3] I spoke to ‘grassroots’ above in [2]. Will I affirm doublespeak? Yes. But I will affirm it for both sides. Recall “parity?” Thus you get no points for pointing to the sins of others while ignoring your own. SBC, like the greater culture of which it was a part, was experiencing change and was attracting a more educated laity and clergy, whom after reasoned study of scripture were able with integrity to embrace various critical tools and the outcomes of their usage. Not wanting to push people beyond their comfort, said tools were largely kept from the laity, and such was largely missing in Sunday School material. I blame the BSSB and its varied leadership for its parental approach to study material, that for generations attenuated the spiritual development of a good many of its people. When some people were subsequently presented with obvious demagogic rhetoric and half-truths, via the highly participative nature of the SBC, it sowed the wind and in time fueled by ignorance, reaped a whirlwind, to which even today you are trying to revitalize via a GC task force. Some said take it slow, others said treat them like adults. The paternal nature of religion practiced in the south, left no doubt as to how the situation would be resolved. It had to be either/or; it could not be both/and. The chosen decision itself reflected a lower-order moral and cognitive position that is operative today. And even today, among current SBC pastors and professors, there are likely some things that they will not broach with the rank and file. So yes, doublespeak was and is operative. It is normally distributed. Nonetheless, the facts are, as attested by Ammerman and HMB studies, with data that were available at the time, the people in the pews were not in general or even moderately in favor of the “conservative resurgence” [sic]. Even with convention data, fundamentalists only mustered a simple majority. Thus to dismiss the former (Ammerman and HMB findings) and the latter (i.e., 49% votes) as not being a valid aspect of the SBC is to ignore a large portion of reality and history. Neither of which are something a professional historian is apt to or should ignore. Elliott was right. And because he is right, the present SBC will have problems for the same reasons. For talk of freedom as a hallmark of baptist thought, whether it be on the left or the right in baptist circles, neither group tolerates much outside its preferred way of being, even when it makes sense to do so. And no, the moderates are no better.

Bart Barber said...

BH: The popularity of the "conservative resurgence" is an item discrete from the popularity of biblical inerrancy. As I said, the challenge in the Conservative Resurgence was to get those who already embraced a high view of the Bible to assert themselves in that view (i.e., to embrace something akin to the Conservative Resurgence). There were then, and still are today, people who themselves hold to conservative theology but disapprove of the Conservative Resurgence's having done anything about it.

As to the denominational employees being representative of the SBC grassroots, I have never asserted that they are any more representative today than they were in the past, nor do I believe that they are. The representational imbalance remains, represented by three categories: (1) Those whose jobs require them to attend the annual meeting, nearly all of whom are present and who vote; (2) Those whose jobs permit them to attend the annual meeting (and perhaps even fund the voyage to varying degrees), a dwindling number (compared to the days of the CR conflicts) of whom are participating; and (3) Those who must take time away from their jobs/lives and provide their own personal funding in order to attend, very few of whom are present in any given year.

Conservatives did not have to practice doublespeak with regard to the central issue of the conflict, biblical inerrancy. Liberals did. The reason for that is simple—biblical inerrancy was the safe grassroots position.

To say this is not to assert that no conservative ever practiced doublespeak with regard to any OTHER issue. It is merely to assert that those who denied biblical inerrancy had to mask their denial of biblical inerrancy from the grassroots people in the pews. I further assert that their reason for doing so was simply because they were intelligent to know the truth that I have asserted here—that grassroots public opinion lay in favor of biblical inerrancy.

Anonymous said...

Bart:

You are right on this.

Btw, do you ever tire of writing a post about topic A, only to have some people (usually the same people) keep showing up and want to fight about the Conservative Resurgence. All roads lead to the CR!

There's no changing minds on this. We would have better luck convincing Iran to give up their nukes than to change some people's minds on this.

Roger Simpson and I discussed one time having a reinactors group stage the CR. He said that he would play Paul Pressler and his friend trying to get on an elevator to the sky boxes at the convention center in Houston, and I agreed to play Russell Dilday (maybe you or Malcolm could put on a wig and play his wife), and we would chew him out and ask his friend why he had a right to vote what would happen in "our Baptist schools" if he had not attended them.

That would be more fun than all this discussion.

Tom Parker could be Randall Lolley.

BH could be Llyod Elder.

Louis

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: The popularity of the "conservative resurgence" is an item discrete from the popularity of biblical inerrancy. As I said, the challenge in the Conservative Resurgence was to get those who already embraced a high view of the Bible to assert themselves in that view (i.e., to embrace something akin to the Conservative Resurgence). There were then, and still are today, people who themselves hold to conservative theology but disapprove of the Conservative Resurgence's having done anything about it.

bapticus hereticus: I don’t see how you can separate the two, although in light of the 2KBFM it makes sense. For all the heat generated with inerrancy rhetoric, the current confession is ambiguous concerning it, which allow such statements that “’inerrancy is discrete from the conservative resurgence,’” but inerrancy is necessary to hold an SBC position.” This is, well, what Elliott could refer to as doublespeak.

Bart: As to the denominational employees being representative of the SBC grassroots, I have never asserted that they are any more representative today than they were in the past, nor do I believe that they are.

bapticus hereticus: Still, if it is appropriate for current denominational employees to vote (and to determine what is to be voted on) in SBC elections, why would it be suspect for such to be the case 30 years ago?

Bart: The representational imbalance remains, represented by three categories: (1) Those whose jobs require them to attend the annual meeting, nearly all of whom are present and who vote:

bapticus hereticus: Are they voting as messengers from a particular church? If so, although they surely have career interests (and NOT unlike pastors who also vote a particular way!), they are still voting as messengers, not employees.

Bart: Conservatives did not have to practice doublespeak with regard to the central issue of the conflict, biblical inerrancy. Liberals did. The reason for that is simple—biblical inerrancy was the safe grassroots position.

bapticus hereticus: The doublespeak was that liberals/moderates/conservatives, as opposed to conservatives/fundamentalists was present on both sides. I have spoken to such about moderates et al. in the previous comment. However, when confronted with textual criticism, even fundamentalist scholars had to admit problematic passages and then appeal to the Chicago Statement, which largely took the sting out of their rhetoric and complaints. When one speaks of inerrancy, yeah even the conservative scholar, one speaks in heavily qualified terms (and the problem with the theory of inerrancy as practiced by conservatives is that it can never be falsified even when confronted with disconfirming data [albeit said data denied as such]). When in throwing meat at potential votes, what was known by conservatives as true and what was stated as true did not always coincide. The point: if you wish to speak about doublespeak being a one-sided phenomena on the central issue, try it out on another. I know better.

Bart: To say this is not to assert that no conservative ever practiced doublespeak with regard to any OTHER issue. It is merely to assert that those who denied biblical inerrancy had to mask their denial of biblical inerrancy from the grassroots people in the pews. I further assert that their reason for doing so was simply because they were intelligent to know the truth that I have asserted here—that grassroots public opinion lay in favor of biblical inerrancy.

bapticus hereticus: Again, apart from convention votes (which other data suggests were disproportionately fundamentalist) in which barely a majority was achieved by fundamentalist, extant data do not support your assertions. You may be right, but your belief is not justified. I may be wrong, but extant data is more supportive of me than you.

Bart Barber said...

BH, let me explain it to you. Public opinion with regard to biblical inerrancy is discrete from public opinion with regard to the conservative resurgence. It is discrete because of two categories of people who will hold a positive opinion of biblical inerrancy while holding a negative opinion of the Conservative Resurgence. Those categories are:

1. People who affirm biblical inerrancy but who have a general distaste for political action or for the termination of anyone's job, no matter what that person believes or does.

2. People who affirm biblical inerrancy and who might affirm the idea of acting politically to defend biblical inerrancy but who object to specific personalities or tactics employed in the particulars of the Conservative Resurgence. In other words, people who might be supportive of A Conservative Resurgence but who are not supportive of THIS Conservative Resurgence, for whatever reason.

Both of these categories (and perhaps there are others that I have not anticipated) consist of people who, when polled with regard to the Conservative Resurgence, will respond negatively, but who, when polled with regard to the idea of an inerrant Bible, will respond positively.

Thus, because of the existence of at least these two groups, data regarding people's opinion of the Conservative Resurgence is not indicative of people's opinion of biblical inerrancy.

bapticus hereticus said...

Bart: ... let me explain it to you. ... Those categories are: 1. People who affirm biblical inerrancy but who have a general distaste for political action or for the termination of anyone's job, no matter what that person believes or does. 2. People who affirm biblical inerrancy and who might affirm the idea of acting politically to defend biblical inerrancy but who object to specific personalities or tactics employed in the particulars of the Conservative Resurgence. In other words, people who might be supportive of A Conservative Resurgence but who are not supportive of THIS Conservative Resurgence, for whatever reason. Both of these categories (and perhaps there are others that I have not anticipated) consist of people who, when polled with regard to the Conservative Resurgence, will respond negatively, but who, when polled with regard to the idea of an inerrant Bible, will respond positively. Thus, because of the existence of at least these two groups, data regarding people's opinion of the Conservative Resurgence is not indicative of people's opinion of biblical inerrancy.

bapticus hereticus: OK, Bart, but when you are done, I’ll be happy to complete the model for you. In essence your model consists of inerrancy + and political posturing – (1). Missing is inerrancy + and political posturing + (2) and inerrancy – and political posturing - (3) and inerrancy – and political posturing + (4).

Let’s label a few groups, shall we? In quadrant 2, we likely have most of the, at the time, SBC fundamentalists. In quadrant 1, we likely have a few fundamentalists and a bit more of the fundamentalist opposition. In quadrant 3 we probably have most of the fundamentalist opposition. And quadrant 4? The opportunists. Verily, I say unto you, those from both sides of the aisle that disappointed those on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps there are more in quadrant 4 than might be expected?

If I might correct your comment a bit? “Opinions concerning the Conservative Resurgence are a bit more complex than the originally asserted model.” If you want to have a little fun, introduce an indifference term in either or both dimensions. As such, it will help you make your case, but it will not, however, find much support from extant data. In the aggregate, the people in the pews had noticeable opinions on both dimensions, which were contrary to your assertions in this thread.

Andrew said...

Louis:

I'll post to my own blog ( adubhigg.wordpress.com ) probably tonight...and I'd buy a ticket to your re-enactment!

Anonymous said...

Andrew:

Thanks.

I'll check out your blog.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Andrew:

I could not get into the blog.

Suggestions?

Louis

Steve Young said...

Bart,
You are a patient and gentle man. I appreciate your efforts to provide a framework to those who ask, but I really am looking for answers to "HOW TO RESURGE." We can spend lots of time discussing how we got where we are, the pros and cons of the CR, etc., but I know you are looking mostly at "How do we move forward." And that is what I need.

Refocusing and restructuring and resurging does not mean that the past was all bad, but it does mean we need to do our best, be at our sharpest to impact the world in which we now live.

Steve in Montana

Andrew said...

Louis (and Bart or anyone else!):

I have finally posted my thoughts on Component 5 (Great Commission Giving) of the GCRTF report.

If you can't access the post or the blog, I can send you the text if you provide me an email address to send it.