Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing by R. L. Vaughn

No, I'm not talking about a book on personal hygiene.

Robert L. Vaughn, who comments sagaciously around many of the blogs that I frequent, has written a book on the practice of foot-washing as a Christian ordinance among Baptists. I've asked him to prepare a blurb to place here. In my experience, these sorts of studies are fascinating. One of my favorite papers that I wrote in seminars dealt with the laying on of hands among early Baptists. Really intriguing (at some points, even bizarre!) stuff. So I offer my recommendation for R.L.'s book, even though I have not yet held it in my own hands.

This weekend we make the first presentation of our proposed Constitution and Bylaws. As you all know, this is a process that has been ongoing at FBC Farmersville for quite a while. Count on me being hard to find around this blog for a good while.

And now, I give you R. L. Vaughn:

---

Allen Matthews "...donated land for the Hopewell Meeting House (Church) in Copiah County...He donated land for the Palestine Baptist Church...He was a very religious man. When his church he went to in Copiah County decided they were going to do away with the practice of ‘foot washing’, he got his towel and washbasin and walked out. They started another church on the other side of the Pearl River, in Simpson County, called Palestine..."

Don't trace your ancestry if you're afraid of what you might find. That holds true of human genealogy and Baptist history. In Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing among the Baptists, the author traces his history and finds feet washing was practiced not only by Free Will Baptists and Primitive Baptists, but also by the Missionary Baptists. The book compiles data on the relationship of the rite of feet washing and Baptists, particularly as practiced in Missionary Baptist churches. Arranged in a chronological and geographical format, Materials allows the reader to see records, controversies and variations of washing the saints’ feet in Baptist churches.

What Others Say

Vaughn did an excellent job researching an obscure subject of which contemporary Baptists have little knowledge. This book is a needed contribution to Baptist historiography. I know of nothing like it. – C. B. Anderson. Retired Chairman, Department of Social Sciences, Jacksonville College, Jacksonville, TX

The volume by R. L. Vaughn, Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing Among the Baptists, is an exhaustive compilation of source materials on feet washing as practiced by Baptists and even others. The work covers practically every aspect of the subject, including definitions of the rite, its biblical and historical roots, its manner of observance past and present, its practice by group and geographical location, and even arguments of those opposed to it. Although the work focuses on Missionary Baptists in the USA and abroad as over against Primitive Baptists, it nevertheless includes all Baptist parties and even bodies outside the Baptist fold. An extra bonus is its appendix that includes a listing of Baptist groups and subgroups in the USA and British Isles , a comprehensive and detailed listing not found elsewhere. This work is an excellent study, providing a most valuable list of sources on a practice, although bypassed by a great many today, that is observed by others as an observance with a biblical mandate. – Albert W. Wardin, Jr., Professor Emeritus of History, Belmont University, Nashville, TN; author of The Twelve Tribes of Baptists in the USA: a Historical and Statistical Analysis

A couple of excerpts

"Even those churches that do sacramentalize and enact foot washing try to mitigate the intimacy of the act...But it is precisely the scrupulous toenail clipping and pre-church scrubbing of feet that points to the real gift of foot washing. For our attempts to have clean, sweet-smelling feet to offer betray the many ways we are rendered vulnerable by our bodies." – Stephanie Paulsell in Honoring the Body: Meditations on a Christian Practice

"Rather than teach a disrespect for any part of God's words or examples, or a lack of confidence in his wisdom as to what was needful to be taught and practiced by his disciples, for God's sake, if for no other, stay off of the question if you will not accept the example of being worthy of following..." – A. T. Green in The Lord's Supper and Foot Washing

For more information, e-mail Baptist.waymark[at]gmail.com or write:

WAYMARK PUBLICATIONS
3528 CR 3168 W
MOUNT ENTERPRISE TX 75681

Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing among the Baptists, consisting of Historical References to the Practice among the Missionary Baptists, including miscellaneous notes on other groups. R. L. Vaughn Mt. Enterprise, TX: Waymark Publications. 2008. 978-1-60458-249-9 pb. 232 pages. $21.99

What Would You Do?

For the next time you wring your hands over an upcoming business meeting, I recommend that we all take the time to read this.

George Carlin and J. Howard Pew

George Carlin is in Hell right now, or Jesus is a liar.

Kinda blunt, huh? But we need to be blunt. Analysis released today by Pew Research reveals that 60% of Southern Baptists responded affirmatively to the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." (HT: New York Times) We're in trouble, and our only hope for a Great Commission Resurgence is a continued shoring up of the theological foundations of our convention.

We don't like the thought that George Carlin is in Hell right now. We don't like the way it makes us sound to say it. We don't like the way it makes us feel to contemplate it. We don't like the way it makes God feel that we did so little about it, now that it is too late.

So, we skirt the reality of damnation. When faced with the funeral of that wandering soul, we grade on a pretty easy curve. Who knows but that he trusted Christ in his final moments? Maybe that walking-of-the-aisle when he was nine, although it produced no visible impact upon his life for the following seventy years, was genuine. Let us not face the ugly likelihood that he will suffer for all eternity. Or we make some too-little-too-late overture to pray for him now that he's gone.

Such speculations seem benign enough at the moment—even noble when they relieve the grief of believing family members left behind. But I wonder whether we have considered the cost of our too-often de facto hem-hawing on the fate of the deceased lost?

1. We undermine a powerful biblical motivation for receiving the gospel. Part of what was going through my mind when I became a Christian was the love for God that had been cultivated in me since birth. But another part of what was going on was the fact that I did not want to roast in Hell for all of eternity. I'm convinced that the Holy Spirit still uses fear of Hell to motivate people to come to Christ.

2. We undermine a powerful biblical motivation for sharing the gospel.I'm convinced that not wanting my colleagues, my friends, or my family members to go to Hell—Wait a minute! I don't even want people whom I DISLIKE to go to Hell—is a powerful motivation for evangelism. I'd say that a 60% embrace of universalism might be a noteworthy factor in our lessened faithfulness to witness as Southern Baptists.

   Two uncertainties about that figure in the Pew Research data: One, I wonder whether, when speaking of "many religions," any of those Southern Baptists were thinking about Methodists rather than Muslims? In my mind, there's a difference between a "religion" and a "denomination." Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc., are "religions." The SBC, UMC, PCA, PCUSA, ABC, etc., are "denominations" of the "religion" Christianity. But did all of these respondents have that differentiation in mind? Second, how many people "self-identify" as Southern Baptists who haven't darkened the door of a church in ten years? Nevertheless, those potential statistical problems are very unlikely to account for 60% of Southern Baptists surveyed.

3. We contribute to a doctrinal confusion among our people. The people in our pews might interpret our timidity in speaking frankly about people bound for Hell as courtesy, but they are likely further to infer a lack of confidence in the doctrine of eternal judgment. Jesus spoke plainly and directly about Hell, and we should do no less. And if we are not confident in Hell, why aren't we?

   The Bible is not equivocal on the existence of Hell nor on what it takes to wind up there. Even if somebody somewhere wants to host an ongoing debate about the fate of some noble savage on an unreached island somewhere, how much doubt can there be regarding a comedian who made his career by sneering at God and ridiculing God's followers? Does the Bible breathe a word of hope anywhere for a person who persists in such an attitude until death? Not that I can find.

   We squirm at the doctrine of damnation for one reason, and only one: We don't like that doctrine very much. And if the message that we send to our brothers and sisters in our congregations is that we can skirt around the Bible doctrines that we don't like, then they're going to take that message and run with it in a thousand different directions. Indeed, there is every indication that a great many of them already are doing so.

The solution is not to go out of our way to tell grieving loved-ones of the torments of Hell. But I perceive a number of temptations that I must avoid having to do with this topic:

• When directly asked whether someone is in Heaven or Hell, I need to give a clear, unflinching testimony to the gospel without minimizing the fact that denying the gospel means eternity in Hell. I think it is fine to indicate that God will judge, and not me, but I need to make clear also that God has already revealed to all humanity the precise parameters by which He intends to make that judgment.
• When preaching I need to make certain not to minimize the biblical witness to Hell. If I'm going to talk about the gospel, the escape from Hell provided thereby is an integral part of the gospel, and I ought to be talking regularly about Hell, too.
• I need to show people pointedly and repeatedly that every other "religion" leads straight to Hell for each and every one of its adherents.
• Because the effort that I mentioned in my last bullet will not be 100% effective, we need to continue our work to recover regenerate church membership. I suspect with great sadness that the vast number of those 60% who believe that many "religions" lead to eternal life are people who have not yet found eternal life themselves. After all, unless some sort of polling confusion has broken out here, these are people who have just affirmed the "other gospel" of universalism—a damnable heresy. If we cannot, after serious effort to do so, convince them of the truth of the gospel, we ought at least to clarify for them that those who believe thus are not Southern Baptists…for the sake of combatting their own confusion as well as for the sake of clarifying the public witness of the church.
• In my speaking about Hell, I need to achieve an admixture of the tone of Billy Sunday ("You will not be in Hell five minutes until you believe that there is one.") and the caution of Lee Scarborough ("When we preach on the wrath of God, on the burning doctrines of an eternal Hell, we must do it with heart compassion").

And Then There's What Awaits You at Wal-Mart!

Yes, folks, this entire truck has been painted as an advertisement for "Psychic Readings by Nancy." Nancy apparently has forty years of experience, a phone number, a web site, and is available for your next party.

And yes, folks, hidden away up in the back windshield, that's a proud sticker from my alma mater, Baylor University.

Your Cooperative Program dollars at work. :-)

You Never Know What Awaits You in Your Local Chick-Fil-A

Friendly, extroverted preschoolers are God's gift to those who wish to "do the work of an evangelist." God certainly gave us an extra helping of that gift in Jim, and I was thanking God for that as I sat in the Chick-Fil-A playground in McKinney, TX, yesterday. Her two preschoolers were alongside mine, trying to survive a throng of vulgar, abrasive nine-year-oldish boys who had summarily and individually assigned to every person, implement, and appliance in the Chick-Fil-A either some label depicting human waste or (apparently a worse fate) the sobriquet "Hannah Montana." When the Mongols came to blows for the umpteenth time, parent-stormtroopers finally arose from their meals, entered the play area, and drug the older children out of the House that Truett Built amidst weeping and wailing.

I decided that her accent was my conversation-starter. With my friendliest face I opened with my best Gomer-Pyle-meets-Inspector-Clouseau rendition of "Êtes-vous française?" She wasn't, although I could have sworn that I heard her muttering French to someone on a cell phone a few minutes earlier. But she wasn't French; she was Albanian. Nonetheless, she was obviously delighted that I was making efforts at a conversation.

"I knew a college student from Albania. My brother-in-law brought him home from Thanksgiving for a couple of years." (There's my hook. He was a Christian, sent here by missionaries. Ask her why she's in the country, tell why he came here, and then straight into the gospel.) "Did you grow up in Albania?"

"Yes."

"How on earth did you wind up in McKinney, Texas?"

"My husband is in school here."

"Oh, really! To study what?"

"He's completing his Th.M. at Dallas Theological Seminary. We're missionaries to…" OK, that part I can't tell you, except to note that her response makes the remainder of the conversation very interesting.

"Well, then, I'm guessing that you're not going to let me get very far in presenting the gospel to you, are you?"

We both chuckled over that, and a delightful conversation ensued. I told her about the Moslems who have come to Christ through our ministry at FBC Farmersville, where they are now, and how much I worry about them and pray for them. She spoke of the difficulties and struggles of their ministry.

I couldn't resist myself: "So, have you ever heard of the Camel method?"

She hadn't. "Can you describe it to me?"

"It is a method that uses the Qur'an to try to lead people to Jesus."

Her brow furrowed a bit. "Yes. I know about such things. We know somebody at DTS who is constantly pushing something like this. We think it is a bad idea. We spent our first two years trying to build relationships and work indirectly at finding an opportunity to share the gospel. We accomplished nothing. Then we started just presenting the gospel to people openly. They appreciated our honesty, and we saw six people accept Christ in one year. What do South Baptists [her English was pretty good, but she labored a bit at times] think about this 'Camel'?"

"Well, I think it is a bad idea, too," I replied. "And a lot of our missionaries think it is a bad idea. But it receives very favorable promotion from our mission board administration."

"What people don't understand," she said, "is that these people think we have some sort of hidden agenda all along. When we pretend to be something that we're not, then later, when we reveal ourselves, we confirm their initial suspicions and they wonder why they came to trust us. Better to be honest all along and let the power of the gospel do its work."

I couldn't have agreed more.

Before long my Sarah had done everything that an almost-two-year-old can do in the Chick-Fil-A playground, and we found ourselves on the way to Wal-Mart and Sam's.

Every new person is an adventure when you live your life on-mission for Christ. I didn't get to witness to a lost person in Chick-Fil-A yesterday, but I did get to meet a sister in Christ and I do now have the opportunity to pray for her dangerous ministry in another part of the world. And I also got an opportunity to confirm what I knew all along: My opposition to the Camel doesn't have a doggoned thing to do with being an American, with having been called to be something other than a foreign missionary, with being steeped in some kind of SBC subculture, or with not being "broad" enough in my experiences.

It just has to do with knowing a bad idea when I see it.

In Pursuit of Biblical Literacy, Part Two

If I bring my children to your church every Sunday and Wednesday from birth until they leave home for college, what specifically ought they to know when they leave? And when I say "specifically," I mean items so specific that you could develop a standardized test (not that we ever would) with precise questions regarding items that you meant to teach.

I think that's a pretty important question. In my mind, it raises several other thought-provoking points to ponder, so I'll pass them along to you in the hopes of launching a conversation:

1. Whose job is it to ask this question? For many years I operated on the assumption that I didn't have to ask this question because somebody, somewhere in Nashville was asking and answering that question on my behalf. All I have to know is that I'm purchasing Lifeway literature, right?

   But now I'm convinced that it is my job as pastor to ask and to answer that question. It isn't Lifeway's fault that I had that false impression before—Lifeway's own mission statement clearly states their role as a helper to churches, not as some sort of vicar for designing and implementing our discipleship responsibilities as a church. It is my job to know what our church is trying to teach and Lifeway's job to provide biblical solutions to help me lead our church to accomplish our goals.

   The sort of thoughts that I posted in the first post of this series have arisen in my mind because I've been thinking more and more about the question at the top of this post and relying less and less upon other people to do this thinking for me.

2. How, specifically, does the work of the church dovetail with the work of parents and school in discipleship of children? As big a fan of church as I am, all of my "train up a child" eggs are not in the church-program basket. Most of them aren't there. My children are receiving deliberate biblical and devotional education at home. I regard such things as Sunday School and AWANA or TeamKid or Upward as resources in this overall task.

   But we have kids here whose parents are lost. And I'm not sure that we can assume that every family attending here has any sort of deliberate spiritual education ongoing for their children. How does the program of spiritual equipping in our church programming dovetail with home, or at least, how ought we to plan for it to interact with things going on at home as a basis for our church planning?

   Tracy and I are homeschooling. We have a lot of homeschooling families in our congregation. We have a lot of children in private Christian schooling in our congregation. We have a lot of children in our congregation who attend public schools. Each of these methodologies takes a slightly different approach toward spiritual education.

   And church programs do interact with a child's schooling. It may be as subtle as the fact that we start to presume at some point that the students in the classroom are able to read. One factor that impacts the design of most youth ministries is that assumption that youth are facing a barrage of temptations facilitated by their schoolday interactions. When you start to have a significant number of students who are studying the Bible in a structured daily curriculum, that impacts what you can expect of students in Sunday activities.

   So, when I ask myself what students ought to know when they go off to college, how much of that is the church supposed to accomplish, how much of it are the parents supposed to accomplish at home (ideally), and how much of that ought students to pick up in their formal education (however it is accomplished)? And how can the church communicate with these other institutions so that each of us knows what we're trying to accomplish?

3. Is attendance a large enough goal for discipleship? I don't think so. But I confess that it is easy to obsess over attendance. When our Sunday School directors meet to evaluate our Sunday School, we largely evaluate it on the basis of attendance. Johnny Hunt's poignant sermon at the Pastor's Conference in Indianapolis described a crisis in his own pastorate and his church over the fact that their attendance experienced a slight decline.

   But once we get those people to come, what are we doing with them? Do we know? Are we doing a good job at it? What's our goal? The question at the top of this post points in the direction of these other questions, and leads us not to stop looking at attendance, but to see attendance as something more important than a means toward self-aggrandizement—these are the people taking part in this marvelous journey of discipleship to which Christ has called us, which we have embraced, and which we are tackling in these specific ways.

4. Since we don't test, how can we measure our performance? Our state employs standardized testing not only to measure the performance of students but also to measure the performance of teachers and schools. Debate exists in the public schools as to whether this is the best way to evaluate teachers and schools. What about at church? Are we going to ask ourselves whether we're doing a good job? And if we will, how will we answer that question? And I mean not just the questions of whether this teacher is well-prepared, interacts well with parents and students, is doctrinally sound, shows up dependably, and all of the other things that we must watch and measure. Eventually, we have to ask the big question—is it all getting through to the students like we hoped it would?

5. What about those who show up in the middle of the process? Remediation is a big factor in determining a church's goals for spiritual education. How big of a factor ought it to be? Ought the church's programming to be "dumbed down" and designed especially for novices to the detriment of those I mentioned at the top of the post, whose children will be here weekly throughout their childhood? On the other hand, if your faithful core are going to be effective witnesses, isn't it going to discourage the fourteen-year-old friend whom they lead to Christ when that new convert perceives that he's in a decade-plus deficit that will take him years to overcome? Does he go into a different track? Or can the church achieve something of the ideal of the one-room schoolhouse, where we all mingle at different stages along the way, interacting with and helping one another? I think we can—that sounds pretty biblical to me. But it affects the way that we design discipleship, doesn't it?

I confess that I come to these questions with opinions the prejudice me. I found a great deal of my childhood at church to be unduly repetitive and boring. It seems to me that, since then, we've accommodated by adding glitz rather than substance. There are things that I didn't learn until Ph.D. studies that I think I could have (and should have) learned in Junior High. The Southern Baptist Texan published a special report two years ago on Biblical Literacy, and I am convinced that our efforts in biblical education for the past few decades leave room for improvement, not in sincerity or in the dedication of those involved, but in effectiveness.

And now I'm curious to hear from you. To get the conversation started, I pose a few pointed questions to guide our comments:

1. Does your local church have a detailed goal that defines what you're trying to teach and accomplish in the lives of students?
2. How does your church evaluate its progress in discipling students?
3. If you are a parent, what part do you see church programs playing among the other resources contributing to the spiritual development of your children?
4. How easy or hard do you think it is for new believers to "catch up" with more mature believers in your children's and youth programming?

UPDATE: My VBS-related workload has increased toward the end of this week. I may not get to participate much in the discussion, but I'm confident that you all can carry on well without me until I get back to it.

On the Conservative Resurgence and the Great Commission Resurgence

Three of the blogs I regularly follow (Nathan Finn, David Worley, and SBC Today) have posted this week on the theme of a Great Commission Resurgence. The Great Commission—one of the categorical imperatives of Christianity and certainly of the SBC. Who could argue, right?

Southern Baptists, as it turns out. And that's because, like most public actions in Southern Baptist life, there's as much subtext here as there is text.

First, the positives of the GCR, expressed in the negative things it addresses. Clearly Southern Baptists are less faithful than once we were about presenting the gospel to lost people here at home. We need a resurgence in our living out of the Great Commission. Clearly the North American Mission Board has been through a few years of turmoil while we are losing to paganism the large urban centers of our nation. We need a resurgence in our living out of the Great Commission. Clearly there are doctrinal problems with an International Mission Board that has so lost its confidence in the Bible as to become convinced that the Qur'an is the key to winning Moslems to Christ. We need a resurgence in our living out of the Great Commission. The very phrase "Great Commission Resurgence" scratches an important and palpable itch in the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe that it is helpful language, and I would be pleased to go to my grave thinking that I had contributed at all to seeing a Great Commission Resurgence take place even only among my congregation, much more among Southern Baptists as a whole.

But here's the problem, in my view, that generates some controversy. The proponents of the Great Commission Resurgence are constantly presenting it as the Post-Conservative-Resurgence Resurgence. Either they declaratively (seemingly authoritatively) state that the Conservative Resurgence has ended, or they proclaim that it needs to end right away. They have the "Mission Accomplished" banner painted and packed, and they are on a desperate search for the appropriate aircraft carrier on which to erect it. As the SBC Today article points out, one reads very little effort to expound upon Matthew 28:18-20 to define the GCR, yet as the article fails to point out explicitly, the one universal constant in the speeches, posts, and briefings given on the GCR is that it is defined as not being the Conservative Resurgence.

I hold out hope for a reconciliation of the Conservative Resurgence and the Great Commission Resurgence.

Why The Conservative Resurgence Is Not Over

The two need to be reconciled because we need both a follow-through of the Conservative Resurgence and a Great Commission Resurgence. We need not sacrifice one for the other. Several factors in Southern Baptist life demonstrate for us the continuing need for a vital Conservative Resurgence.

1. The very issues (and indeed, many of the very people championing those issues) that provoked the Conservative Resurgence are still active and influential in the Southern Baptist Convention at the state convention level. The great failure of the Conservative Resurgence has been its inability to translate into state convention contexts, where intimidation of pastors by denominational bureaucrats has been much more effective in shutting down conservative movements. The severity of the problem varies from state to state, but a great many leading churches in the CBF are also leading churches in their respective state conventions.
2. But for a few noteworthy exceptions, the network of traditionally-Southern-Baptist colleges and universities remains entirely unchanged by the Conservative Resurgence—even are more resiliently liberal in its wake. Consider, for example, GCR proponent and recently minted Church History Ph.D. Nathan Finn. An alarming number of state colleges and universities in Baptist life would go out of their way not to hire Dr. Finn simply because he holds a terminal degree from a Southern Baptist seminary. That's ridiculous. What's more, the same universities are actively counseling their ministerial students not to attend Southern Baptist seminaries for ministerial training. University after university has successfully amended its charter for the express purpose of remaining untouched by the Conservative Resurgence. Walk onto the average "Southern Baptist" university these days any you'll be disabused of any notion that the Conservative Resurgence has reached "Mission Accomplished" status.
3. The past two years of blogging have revealed more than one troubling indicator of doctrinal weakness in our convention, from speculation of autoeroticism in the life of Jesus to a wink-and-nod "caveat" system in place among our trustees and employees to an aversion toward ecclesiology (among adherents of what is essentially an ecclesiological movement!) to an out-and-out advocacy of feminism in the SBC to a denial that life begins at conception…I could go on and on. The transparency afforded by blogging—something that some people hoped would put an end to the Conservative Resurgence—has actually pulled back the curtain to demonstrate how much work remains to be done.

A Plan for Reconciling the Resurgences

First, we must note that not all who are calling for the Great Commission Resurgence are doing so from the same place. I've read some analysis that seems to regard the GCR as the anti-CR. Having opposed the CR all along, but having been unable to defeat it, people in this camp apparently see in this moment a good opportunity to employ the sacred status of the Great Commission as a dodge to supplant the CR indirectly. Such a strategy can be effective—this is exactly the way that Landmarkism was largely set aside in the twentieth century, not by articulating another ecclesiology but by changing the topic of conversation away from ecclesiology altogether. For any people who might harbor these sentiments, the reconciliation of the resurgences would cause them to abandon the GCR, since it would no longer serve their purpose of bringing an end to the CR.

A second theme arises from those who did not oppose the Conservative Resurgence, but who have tired of it or have grown disillusioned with it. They may not want to overturn the CR, but they surely would like to get it over with, already. This mood is one of impatience, typified by Ed Stetzer's comments last year in San Antonio: "Wasn't the promise of the conservative resurgence that we would get to the point that we agree on enough that we can now reach the world for Christ? When will that come?" For such impatient folks, the need is (a) to reiterate the needs that remain to be addressed by the CR and (b) to show that the CR and the GCR are compatible and can proceed alongside one another—that the CR can continue without being the only thing that Southern Baptists are doing. I think there is hope for the reconciliation of the two resurgences in this group.

A third theme arises from those who are ambivalent about the Conservative Resurgence ideals, but who regard the whole thing as a negative influence upon public relations. These are our Madison Avenue Baptists. They're terribly concerned that people "know what we're for, not only what we're against." The world for which they hope is a pipe-dream. If tomorrow the SBC were to enact a thousand strategies for feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless but were to pass one resolution against same-sex marriage, guess which one makes the news that night? And here's one important factor to note about such things as same-sex marriage—it's not the Southern Baptist Convention who is bringing these issues to the forefront of public discourse. Organized movements exist for the sole purpose of making Gomorrah of the United States of America. We can choose either to roll over to them or to take a stand for Biblical righteousness. Wherever we draw the line to take a stand, we're going to be castigated in the press for our intolerance. The Madison Avenue plan for appeasement will only lead us to our own Münich. Folks who want a kinder, gentler SBC need to be pointed to Christ's own testimony about the certainty that we will be persecuted, misrepresented, and slandered when we stand up for the truth. We need more preaching on these themes. And we need a resolve not to be what the Apostle Paul considered "men-pleasers." We need to do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.

A fourth theme arises from those who see "Great Commission" as a calling for us to forget our Baptist convictions. Within the IMB the phrase "Great Commission Christians" is code-language for evangelical ecumenism. A renewed rigor in biblical studies and in historical theology—a renewal fueled by the Conservative Resurgence and, to some degree, by renewed intensity in Southern Baptist discourse on the subject of Calvinism—is giving rise to what Malcolm Yarnell and others have rightly termed a "Baptist Renaissance." If any see the Great Commission Resurgence as a mechanism for blunting a resurgence of convictional Baptists, they are likely to be disappointed. Historically a faithfulness to carry forward the Great Commission has been quite compatible with vigorous maintenance of the Baptist distinctives, for Baptists have been among the most faithful to pursue obedience to the Great Commission.

A fifth and final theme arises from those who are concerned about flagging evangelistic zeal among Southern Baptists. As I opined some time ago, this category includes almost everyone in the SBC, and some overlap occurs between this category and each other category listed above. Yet for some this is the primary motivation, or even the exclusive motivation, for championing a Great Commission Resurgence. Some folks calling for a Great Commission Resurgence are really only saying, "We've got to become more faithful to share the gospel around the world." Granted. Such folks need to understand that, although the successful continuation of the Conservative Resurgence is not a guarantee of a Great Commission Resurgence, it is nonetheless the sine qua non of a Great Commission Resurgence. The current direction of our state Baptist universities will not contribute to a Great Commission Resurgence. No Great Commission Resurgence is forthcoming from the New Baptist Covenant any more than it is to be expected from the Unitarian-Universalists.

Not all of these themes are equally sympathetic to the Conservative Resurgence, but enough are sympathetic for us to see a consensus achieved in the SBC. Here's a plan for demonstrating the compatibility and confluence of the two resurgences:

1. Leading advocates of the Great Commission Resurgence need to state plainly that the Conservative Resurgence is not yet complete.
2. Leading advocates of the Great Commission Resurgence ought to develop a joint definition (platform, statement, whatever you want to call it) of the Great Commission Resurgence together with identifiable key historical leaders of the Conservative Resurgence in order to demonstrate not only the compatibility but also the solidarity of the two movements.
3. The Great Commission Resurgence needs to be focused explicitly upon the planting and strengthening of Baptist churches as the specific task that the Great Commission presents to us.
4. Southern Baptists need to underscore the fact that the powerhouse of the Great Commission is not to be found in contextualization, strategies, programs, bridges, the Qur'an, marketing, seeker-sensitivity, music, tiptoeing around ethical issues, pandering to cultural hotbuttons, or any other such man-centered locus, but arises solely from the gospel power of proclaiming Christ and Him crucified. This concept is a clear and solid link between the Conservative Resurgence and the Great Commission.
5. Southern Baptists need to beware the potential that we might become fractured into CR and GCR camps. Each concept needs the other and will utterly fail if any divorce or separation takes place.