A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I regularly blogged about matters relating to the Southern Baptist Convention. After a couple of years of such writing, I retired from it and began to blog about other matters. I’m writing this particular post as a couple of friends, for whom I have great respect, have asked me to weigh in with a few thoughts on the proposed Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) in the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m not returning to the fray.
Though some, perhaps many, will take my writing as negative, it is only how things are viewed from my seat. I hope against hope for nothing but success for all those who are involved in this attempt and would be happy to be proven wrong.
Beginning at least as early as Dr. Jimmy Draper’s Younger Leader Initiative in the SBC, calls for major institutional, structural and Cooperative Program reform have been a part of conversation from the fringes to the center of SBC life and leadership. The Younger Leader discussion board that went online just before Thanksgiving of 2004 (now defunct) was flooded with concerns about the wastefulness of the current denominational structure and suggestions on how to address those issues. Those younger leaders ultimately divided into at least three branches: those who continued their path out of the convention, those who tried a concerted effort (ie, political) to effect change (I was here) and those who more or less eschewed the politics to focus on bringing change via their local churches. This is a simplification, I’m aware, but I think it holds up well enough for this post.
After two years of blogging multiple times a week and gaining insight into the mechanics, politics and personalities of the SBC, I came to the conclusion that attempt at denominational reform were hopeless and efforts to bring it about were futile, bordering on bad time management. (One can read those posts here, here, here and here. Independent of my own writing, Michael Spencer came to very similar conclusions regarding the collapse of evangelicalism Part 1 and Part 2.)
Recently Dr. Danny Akin of Southeastern Seminary issued a call for denominational reform under the name Great Commission Resurgence which term has been credited with coinage by Dr. Thom Rainer, president of Lifeway Christian Resources. This original 13 point message was distilled into ten points and promoted by current SBC president, Dr. Johnny Hunt, who, as I understand it, intends to make it a focus of the 2009 Convention in Louisville. As of this writing, the document boasts 3,346 signatures, which is less than the annual attendance of the SBC and .0002% of the claimed 16M SBC membership, but, to be fair, substantially more than movements of the recent past have garnered (ie, The Memphis Declaration and the Joshua Convergence).
Responses to the GCR document have been, shall we say, wildly varied. Shortly after Danny Akin’s message, Baptist Press published a subtle rebuttel from the normally far afield Dr. Malcolm Yarnell who did not disappoint. Dr. Hunt has taken flack for proposing such a thing as the GCR, accusations about base motives are swimming just under the surface. A document attempting to call the SBC back to a focus on the Great Commission has not been signed by 75% of the Executive Directors of state conventions/fellowships, who, ostensibly, are for the Great Commission, and there is suspicion within the ranks over who would be the president of a potentially combined IMB/NAMB mission agency. With the less than stellar performance of late at NAMB and the perennial candidacy of the SBTC’s Jim Richards, I do not know that much trust would be engendered by a search team, assurances of “God’s will being done” notwithstanding.
My thoughts are few and, sadly, are little changed from the thoughts that led to me abandon any hope of a true change in the SBC from a vestige of a nostalgic past to a rebirth as a missional powerhouse. Nevertheless, here are a few for what they are worth.
1. The SBC has ADHD. EKG, GPS, GCR. The SBC sounds like alphabet soup or the federal government. There is scarcely enough time to promote one program or idea before it makes way for the next one, none of which catch hold. There are programs that emanate from different offices and different entities (The Net and F.A.I.T.H. for example) giving the impression that some entities are actually in competition with each other. This is not even to get into different promotions within given states that alternately duplicate or ignore national movements (Promise Keepers becomes Legacy Builders in the GBC).
2. There is too much turfism. The local association, the state convention and the national convention are often at odds with each other over who is to do what, when and where. State evangelism offices and directors are at odds with NAMB. The entities are concerned about money and who’s getting it. For years at least one of the seminary presidents has been pushing hard for a “seminary offering” to be observed in the convention’s churches, but has been rebuffed. The states balk at the idea of sending a greater percentage of funds to X-Comm, though the IMB is now unable to send M’s who are currently trained and ready. Much of this is related to denominational protectionism or fiefdoms that must be protected at all costs, even kingdom costs.
3. The SBC’s greatest strength, autonomy, has become its greatest weakness. Since each level makes it’s own decisions independently of the other levels (though each claims to be the servant of the churches), there is not enough cooperation and often redundancy. When Dr. Akin mentioned “bloated bureaucracy” he was met with cries of “foul” from other areas. No one thinks that their own area is bloated only that others are. For that reason, as some have noted, passing a resolution on this document means little since the states and not obligated to do anything as a result (Others have noted that restructuring will not bring revival). Even if a study committee returns and makes recommendations for streamlining, each individual state would have to act independently and would be loath to do so for fear of another state keeping or receiving more CP money.
4. There is not enough trust. Everything that I learned in two years keeps me believing that there is ample reason for this, but this is a terrible situation. Adult men and women all of whom are assumed to be maturing Christians, but cannot trust that there are no agendas other than a kingdom agenda. There is not even trust on the upper levels of leadership; how is there going to be trust down the line? Anyone who has read Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team knows that trust is foundational to effectiveness.
5. There are too many viable options for education, fellowship and mission. Southern Baptists no longer need an SBC education. The proliferation of online education has made it possible to have more (and sometimes cheaper) alternatives. Not being forced to move in order to attend seminary may be a bane to the schools, but it is a blessing to the students. Not only that, but currently I’m in a degree program that is not offered by SBC seminaries and is a less expensive option even counting CP subsidies.
Networks such as Acts 29 and Glocal with discussions like ChurchAsMissionary have made it possible to have meaningful partnerships outside rigid SBC structures and, in many cases, individual churches provide more church plant money than all levels of the denomination combined. Fellowship is as readily attained in online communities and impromptu phone calls than at the Monday Morning Pastors Conference at Shoney’s.
6. God does not need the SBC. At least one SBCer, Jedediah Coppenger, has written a lament about the drop in Cooperative Program funds relating to international missions asking if the Great Commission is filing for bankruptcy. While I appreciate the concern, I cannot join the chorus of despair because I do not think that God is dependent on the SBC. Was there no fulfillment of the Great Commission before the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention? If not, how did the gospel get to our ancestors? Was the modern missions movement founded in Nashville? Did Adonirum Judson go through the International Learning Center?
A few years ago I sat in a room with 20 or so other men and ladies and we discussed the future of the SBC. My primary contribution to the conversation was this: “If we are not prepared to admit that God may be envisioning a future without the SBC, then we are not prepared to envision a future with it.” That is, the SBC must be willing to at least seriously and thoughtfully consider that God is done with the SBC before serious thought can be given to a potential future. Otherwise we think and act from a position of triumphalism–that God needs us to fulfill His plans, when, in fact, He does not.
7. There is more concern about job security than about soul salvation. Every time someone mentions b’cracy, downsizing, and streamlining, someone usually brings up the fact that people will lose their jobs. So? And? I see a commission in the Word to take the gospel to all the world, but see nothing about denominational job creation. This particular concern should never enter the discussion. It simply is not relevant to the mission. Glorifying God by getting the gospel to those who have not heard is the mission; everything about the SBC should flow from and into that.
8. There is no compelling vision. Still.
9. We do not need a Great Denominational Resurgence. In case you spend all of your time inside the SBC beltway, the GCR has already been pegged as such by some outside your circles and a few in them. I just don’t know anyone who is crying themselves to sleep at night because of the SBC. Over the condition of our world? Yes. Over the lost? Yes. Over the denomination? No. Pastors are leading churches to be involved in the Great Commission. I know scads of them who have adopted unreached people groups, have partnered with M’s and nationals, have sent countless teams and planted churches all without denominational assistance. Why spend so much time and energy trying to change the saddle on a dying horse? Pastors and churches should recognize the efficiency and effectiveness of channels that exist outside the bureaucratic structures of denominations and exploit them to the fullest.
10. Any study team will likely have the wrong people on it. The order of thinking that could get the SBC out of this mess will of necessity be a different order of thinking than got the SBC into this mess and that “different order” kind of thinking will have to come from different people none of whom will be asked to serve. Why? Because they are on the fringe. The fringe is where creativity happens. Revolutionary thinking scares the status-quo which is why it gets pushed out to the fringe.
One SWBTS professor wrote that the SBC is led from the center. This might be true when there is consensus, but is decidedly not true about leading a revolution. Revolutions always begin at the fringe because the center is inhabited by the status quo. Imagine a study group filled with fringe dwellers who bring back a bunch of wild ideas about streamlining, combining, restructuring…stuff that will actually work. Then it gets beat half to death by a bunch of turf protectors, before being subjected to everyone in the blogosphere, then it finally limps into the annual meeting only to be suffer 20 lashes and then pass the votes of not one but two consecutive June meetings.
And while all that energy has been expended trying to change a denomination, the fringe dwellers are out changing the world.
Alan (Cross),
I think that cooperation, as you said, happens when it is what you want to have happen. Our association, now Tulsa Metro Baptist Network, has a congenial and cooperative spirit, but I recognize we are not the norm across the country.
Still, I think it is a culture that is cultivated. Even in our group, the vast majority of churches and their pastors/staff don’t participate beyond the annual Christmas luncheon. In fact, I would hazard a guess that even that enormous group lacks a significant number of those who could attend.
The bottom line is that while a denominational connection might prove to be a link that facilitates cooperation, only people who want to work together will do so and they will do it through means that are available or they will create their own.
I return to your question, “How much cooperation really goes on…”
The point you are really making (I believe) is that cooperation that consists of sending in a check to a monolithic entity is not on par with riding on a plane with brothers and sisters who are not part of your local church, going to the other side of the world and sweating together to advance the Gospel.
You might spend the same amount of money on both enterprises, but which is really cooperation?
If that’s your point, it’s a really good one.
Comment by art rogers — June 11, 2009 @ 6:47 am
Art: no, I never applied that to you. Nor Marty. I said what he wrote “smacks” of an arrogant position which is another way of saying “sounds like.”
About the hypocritical stuff: I was wrong, you didn’t say that. My bad.
Marty: thanks for the answer. I took the time to spell out my missional definition for you. You can’t do something similar? Oh, and again, I never used missional in a way other than a shorthand reference to your position which, based on the title of your blog seems a fair choice. My mistake was in using a word that carried a huge cache for you that brought confusion.
Art: it isn’t about respect for you or not, it is about speaking with the guy who originated the post.
One more thing Art: I’ve obviously been annoyed with you in our back-and-forth. I realized last night that I let that annoyance be the biggest determining factor in our conversation and respond to you with snark. I’ve realized that the factor I should have in mind when “speaking’ with you is that you are a fellow believer. I want to apologize for reacting to you on annoyance rather than Christian fellowship. I still think you are dead wrong obviously but I should have done a better job of disagreeing agreeably. Again, I’m sorry.
Comment by Jeff Wright — June 11, 2009 @ 6:53 am
If you are picking up near the bottom, please revisit #44, Todd Littleton. His comment was sent to the holding tank for some reason and I just saw it.
Comment by Marty Duren — June 11, 2009 @ 9:04 am
In response to Todd’s assertion at #44 (thanks Marty) that anyone with the true gnosis about the SBC must necessarily join “the fringe” or “drink the Kool-Aid” (and certain of the category to which I will eventually be remanded in the thread):
Todd, I believe that you present a false dichotomy. Alan has noted that some agreement exists between Marty and myself on this thread. I think he is right; I think that we do see some of the same problems with the SBC. Not all, but some. Many of the same problems, perhaps. This fact, one would think from your comment, would make me a likely pilgrim to “the fringe.”
However, and here is the missing element, I think that much of what I have experienced of “the fringe” would eventually create structures with either the same problems or with worse problems. It is one thing to agree about the problems; it is another thing for me to think that you have the solutions.
And this little comment of mine has the great winsomeness of leading us back to the actual point of the OP: the Great Commission Resurgence. Specifically, with regard to Article IX, I see structural problems in the SBC. I have no real desire to protect the status quo. But color me very dubious with regard to the likely effectiveness of any of the solutions that I have examined (Akin’s, Hunt’s, Chapman’s, Duren’s, Littletons’).
Collective and cooperative work among sinful people can only rise so high this side of heaven. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to concede the fact that we will never perfect the structure, and we’re going to have to focus upon doing the best that we can with what we have. I remain convinced that our cooperative work through fallen imperfect structures is superior to what we would accomplish alone.
Comment by Bart Barber — June 11, 2009 @ 10:37 am
As a final corollary: Since it is the sinful condition of the people involved that inhibits our cooperative work, spiritual renewal in our local churches is likely to do more for our cooperative work than is any rejiggering of the organizational chart.
Comment by Bart Barber — June 11, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Marty,
I think you’ve nailed it about the GCR. I personally see the GCR as simply a way in which SBC leadership can ease their minds. With it comes no new vision, no real changes…just words. It’s typical SBC….the IMB just pulled the same stuff. New strategy that only consists of new titles, yet no real changes and no new vision.
We’re just like GM and other companies…concerned with ourselves….without a vision….and without compelling leadership. In regards to the recent IMB decision to cut field staff….where is the sacrifice among leadership. We’re told “it’s time to take off the gloves and support the IMB.” Ok, what does that mean? Are guys in SBC leadership (most of which are very well off financially) offering to go without salaries until this is resolved? Are guys in SBC leadership offering to send the next few weeks of their churches offering to the IMB to make up the difference? Are guys in IMB leadership offering to go without pay? No…instead we create a few sound bytes, sign a document that has no action plan attached and move on with our lives.
With that, I am not Jeff Wright.
Grady
Comment by Grady Bauer — June 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Not a member of the SDC. This blog was forwarded to me, and I found it to be quite interesting. Then I read through the comments as they devolved into the exact kind of squabbling referenced in the original article.
It’s almost as if Jeff Wright is trying to passively aggressively prove all of Marty’s points.
Very fun to read. Keep it up you crazy kids.
p.s. Marty, I don’t know you, but I found it helpful to picture you writing this on an old typewriter, world weary (is that the appropriate type of weariness when you are actually weary/wary of the SBC) and in a smokey room with a glass of Scotch. I suspect that none of this happened except for the weariness, but it does make it more fun to read.
Comment by Will Bilyeu — June 11, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Yes, Art, that was my point. It is silly to say that the SBC is about cooperation and fellowship when the truth is that we do little of either in biblical ways, even on a local level. I consistently look for real cooperation opportunities, but they are seldom found. Every level of the SBC just wants my churches money (and sometimes volunteers, but usually money) so that they can run their programs. When I show up with ideas or interest or a desire to participate in something worthwhile, people get “busy” and not much actually happens.
Personally, I think that we are a bunch of talk as a Convention of churches. But again, that’s just me. Like Art, I don’t have much SBC street cred. Sorry, Art. You’re just a novice. :)
Comment by Alan Cross — June 11, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Bart-
Thanks for your interaction and of course you’re a “Kool-aid drinker.” Just thought I’d would go ahead and fulfill expectations ;^)
You wrote @ 54
Way up near the top, Todd correctly noted that those that are currently on the fringe (which is where I was, I’m not even on the field now) were forced there after attempts to participate in “normalcy” were either rebuffed, ridiculed or ignored. There is manifold evidence for this (some I saw firsthand and some happened to me). For you to even remotely consider yourself on the fringe is humorous to the point of laughable to me.
Remember that the YLI Dr. Draper started was a result of a conversation with a younger pastor who said, “I don’t even feel at home in the SBC any more.” When Draper started the conversation there were thousands of people who responded (ultimately) at some level about the level of disconnectedness, but here’s the kicker: they were all ages, not just younger leaders. Surely you have heard the refrain, “All they [denominational leaders] want is for us to keep sending the money.” When months of proposed solutions were finally accumulated in the YLI what was the response? Draper was attacked by some of his own brethren for even trying (personal conversation) and half of those who participated were branded as liberals. Cooperation indeed. This is old news.
While I’d agree that human structures are necessarily fallen, it does not mean that they should not be changed. The SBC is practically using telegraph (compared to the possibilities) with a process that dates (seemingly) to the industrial revolution and is ill suited to a digital age. While I agree that changing a flow chart will not bring revival, it might give a few people hope enough to pray for it. Until then, disconnectedness will continue as will attrition.
Also, don’t forget Patterson’s plan. His has just never been made public.
Bart, my family prayed for yours during your recent crisis. I hope that the mental and emotional anguish has subsided and that God’s peace and grace has been continually a part of your life.
Will-
Thanks for stopping by! All your observations are spot on. Well, it was more sleepiness and a cup of coffee than weariness and Scotch, but if the mental picture helps…
Grady-
Which is why I remain on the outside.
Comment by Marty Duren — June 11, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Bart,
Surely the end is near. We agree. There is very little we discuss that does not at some point turn into a false dichotomy. We may hope for a dialectical turn where we may move beyond both limiting extremes. I have no great plan for the SBC – i.e. the Littleton’s plan. Revival, revolution, whatever comes to the SBC as you well note will move from the local church level. I will caution that at some point if the larger, more well-positioned refuse following what the rest of us experience as the move of the Triune God then it may mean departure rather than pointless head banging. That simply represents reality not any kind of implicit threat. We will at some point move to self-preservation and opt for the sense of contribution to the Kingdom work even if it means leaving some former connections behind.
I returned to the top of the page to be sure my old memory had not failed and saw my name; the first to applaud this post. With every comment I have hoped to help along what I see favorable in Marty’s critical (in a healthy way imo) post. The comment to which you object was a playful attempt to remind at least one young man we are replaying our own history, as you could ably demonstrate. We do not do well with spectrums – give me one choice or the other and so I did. Surely you think me a little smarter than to think the lines are so easily drawn.
The idea of the “fringe” is not a negative by those who wish to dwell there and should not strike fear in those who don’t. Fringe still implies being a part it is simply a matter of degrees. You choose to see the level of cooperation from one vantage point, I may choose another. But, we are still part of the whole until either you redraw the lines or I choose to opt out. We may need to agree that these two things have been happening along the spectrum rather than in extremes.
Comment by Todd — June 11, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Yes, Alan. Clearly I am an amateur. ;) Your point re: cooperation is well made, in my naive opinion.
Well, for my part I apologize as well for devolving this thread.
Jeff, thanks for the apology. I hope you receive mine. And like your perspective, I think I’m right and you’re wrong, but that’s pretty much the way it works.
I’ll let Bart, Marty and Todd play longer if they choose, though they seem to do it so much nicer….
Comment by art rogers — June 11, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Marty,
I have erred greatly somewhere in my typing. I never meant to communicate myself as any portion of “the fringe.” Truly, as you note so well, that would be a laughable statement. That’s why I didn’t mean to make it.
I would be glad to clarify my words, but I’m not sure by precisely which words I misled you.
The best candidate that I can find is where I hypothetically identified myself as a likely “pilgrim” toward the fringe. My point was simply that I have been where Todd indicated. I have taken a careful look at the SBC, and from a position close enough to see it truly, at least in part (we’re all feeling our way around the elephant somewhat, aren’t we?). My point was that I understood Todd to be saying that these are the people who inexorably either go to the fringe or deny the existence of the problems (my understanding of the Kool-Aid in question). It was by having met what I understood to be Todd’s qualifications that I posited myself as the “pilgrim.”
Of course, I’m not on the fringe. And that was the point that I obviously failed in making…that I perceive myself to have seen what Todd suggested that I should see, nevertheless I perceive myself neither to have become “the fringe” nor to have a conspicuous mustache of Red Dye #2.
Comment by Bart Barber — June 11, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Todd,
I’ll have my lawyer send you papers by which we stipulate to one another’s intelligence.
;-)
Yes, all of us think things more complex than we can type them. If, by our interaction, we get the more of it out there, so much the better.
Comment by Bart Barber — June 11, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Todd,
Good thoughts on the spectrum and how those on the fringe are still a part of the whole. That is where I find myself. It is interesting because I agree so strongly with conservative Baptist theology, inerrancy, et al. I just disagree with a few things and some methodology in the Convention and that pushes you, me, Marty, Art, Paul, David P., and others in this thread to the fringe. What happens when there are more on the fringe than at the center? Are we already seeing that? Is it 2-3 years off if the GCR fails? Just think how much has changed since Greensboro only THREE years ago!
The GCR will be effective only if local churches come alive and engage the mission. Since that is what we are all engaged in trying to do (Bart included), then technically the seeds of SBC renewal are already growing at a grassroots level all over the convention. We would do much better if the leadership would highlight what God IS doing through Southern Baptists instead of trying to funnel everything through the same basic structure develpoped in 1925.
Comment by Alan Cross — June 11, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Alan,
Without getting too far afield, I would suggest that base to Marty’s post is the inherent understanding ascent to certain positions invariably result in myopia. This is not a denigration of person but a reference to the corrupting nature of power. We are all susceptible. It may be why Marty has eschewed any attempt to draft him for leadership position. He knows what we all know and is willing to lead from the perimeter held accountable to a vision rather than a bequeathed position.
I would nuance further than words carry a bit of their own code so that often people sound the same but have entirely different visions. Read back through this thread and see how the word missional was/not used. Widen the birth and it will soon become apparent that missional, like emerging and even reformed, do not come with a unifying brand identity but share more of a similarity to language dialects. These dialects arise from colloquial locations and communal experiences. And, we cannot forget our individual wiring. Combine these things and it is easy to see how out of sorts we get when we lay claim to what is Baptist, much less what comprises the “whole Gospel” or the “whole counsel of God.”
The overlooked piece in Marty’s assertion is that neither has the Great Commission failed nor its success been dependent on the SBC. Such insidiously arrogant temperament keeps us far afield of anything close to cooperation. Albeit sacrilege to admit, it is an overstatement that the CP is the greatest invention of cooperation. Making such a point centers our agreements on money and not the Gospel. The greatest invention for cooperation is John 17 – love for one another that overrules your view and mine of God as “the” view. We still may make assertions but in the end they fail to apprehend the ineffable. Further it is idolatrous to say we can.
Who cares if the GCR fails? Can anyone really defend the CR as successful? We are as divided, if not more than we have been. Most of it on the backs of shallow, egotistical preacher types like us who think for some reason we have a cornered the market on God. Faithfulness will not be measured by the success or failure of some acronym. Obedience will be the mark. Chasing anything else gives us an overinflated opinion of ourselves that Holy Writ notes precedes great falls. Marty’s other recent post serves a healthy reminder.
Enough ranting from Littleton
Comment by Todd — June 11, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Ah, trips to Myopia and not even needing a passport.
Comment by Marty Duren — June 11, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Man, I wish Ben was here. It would almost be a class reunion.
Also, it is funny that things a few talked about in Memphis just a short time ago are now the talk of the whole SBC. Did not someone once say; “Bloggers have no influence”?:-)
cb
Comment by cb scott — June 11, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
CB, my brutha!
Indeed they did. Indeed they did. Something about “graffiti” too, as I recall.
Comment by Marty Duren — June 11, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Just so you know, Marty, I’m mad at your blog for eating my comment just now. It’s only because Todd is making me retype it that I’m having another go here.
In the spirit of cooperation I hereby nominate Bart as Executive Director and Jeff Wright as Grand Poobah for the LSSBCBSBCIWS.
But seriously, I believe that the SBC will change. Will reform. Yes, the cynic has officially died. Services tomorrow at 10. Now, I don’t think that reform will happen because those who are now at the center either see a problem or agree to a way forward. I don’t think it will happen because 90% of convention pastors and leaders sign a GCR Declaration either with or without caveats. I don’t think it will come as a result of a program emanating from the EC, a seminary or any other agency be it local, state or national. I believe it will come by virtue of necessity.
I’m confident that leaders see some of the problems that exist, even if they want to crucify Ed Stetzer for making them public thorough his nifty little statistical surveys. But eventually circumstances are going to catch up. CP trends are going to catch up with us. The scaling back of missions will catch up with us. The declining enrollments at traditional venues of theological education will catch up with us. The declining budgets at those institutions will catch up with us. We will no longer be able to bleed the turnip. Despite our best efforts to encourage churches to give greater and greater percentages to the CP we will eventually hit the point of critical mass and there will simply be no more to give – or too many will conclude that that sort of giving isn’t the best stewardship of their resources.
As fewer pastors support the traditional associational model for finding encouragement, support and cooperation and as more and more find those things elsewhere there will be little choice left but to change. As Southern Baptist church planters abandon NAMB as a church planting support and either go with an Acts 29, a Tim Keller or their own local church the denomination will (reluctantly, I’m sure) begin to abandon the things the local church is abandoning.
So renew your hope, my friends. Just do what you do as God leads you to do it in the ways he leads you to do it. In this day and age you will likely discover that there are many friends ready to do similar things with you (cooperation?). And if you still find yourself all alone, just legally change your name to Amos, or Joel, or Habakkuk, or some such. But whether the local church intends to reform the denomination or not, it will, simply by virtue of what it does and doesn’t support and do.
Comment by Paul — June 11, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
CB Scott, you old dog. I was half convince you’d dropped off the earth or that someone somewhere from your past finally found your hidey hole.
Comment by Paul — June 11, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
“convinced”
Comment by Paul — June 11, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
Paul,
Every time I try to drop off the earth, stinkin’ gravity grabs me and breaks my face on the pavement.
As far as the guys from my past; I am the only one left outside of a couple living in an assisted living facility in South America.
cb
Comment by cb scott — June 11, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
CB-
Until the Massad finds them…
Paul-
Apparently that has something to do with the high value of the comment being made.
Comment by Marty Duren — June 11, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Marty,
Point taken. Pbbbtbtpt.
Comment by Paul — June 11, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
[Just another high value comment that somehow slipped past the filters.]
Comment by Paul — June 11, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
CB would be glad I held a gun to Paul’s head to get him to give the comment another go. :)
CB, you are not behind the gun giveaway at churches are you? :D
Glad to see your handle here.
Comment by Todd — June 11, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Here is one just for old times sake boys:
All the Blogtown locals were sitting around in Local Cafe drinking High Test and eating ham and onion sandwiches.
Villa Rica said; “Can you guys believe that Ben Cole is now in Washington D.C. helping make policy for the United States of America?”
A long silence took over the room. Duren and Rogers rose up first and left the building. Slowly the cafe emptied.
The road out of Blogtown was suddenly packed with trucks and cars headed for the Canadian border.
After a while, Merle padlocked the Local Cafe, got on his Harley and left. The sign on the door read:
“ITS BEEN FUN, BUT I AM HEADED TO MEXICO
LOVE, MERLE”
Comment by cb scott — June 11, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Comment by art rogers — June 11, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Hey Marty-
Just returned to this to see if there were fresh comments and saw the end of your comment 38 for the first time. That really hurt ;>)
Comment by Mike Day — June 18, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Oh, no, MIke. You should be feeling the love.
Comment by Marty Duren — June 19, 2009 @ 6:17 am
Marty , Been away a long time and a friend told me to read this. Bingo, I agree with all you said. I believe you pegged it !
Comment by Ken — June 19, 2009 @ 8:28 am