Speaking of missional ...

... you ought to check out the new AOMIN feed at YouTube. If you want to preview the videos of Dr. White's debate history, check these out. There are only 7 so far, but they are all gems -- and if you like them, you can buy the complete debates in a variety of formats.

I'm fascinated by these.

Southern Baptist Interlude

I was about to go off in the meta on something johnMark said there – with which I agree – and I realized that it belonged here, so thanks for following along.

Markie said this

I've had points of disconnect when I've talked to people who've grown up PK's or their whole lives in the church. They don't understand where I've come from through the RLDS and the lostness in college, etc.

And you know what? He’s exactly right. That "lostness in college" is the authentic thing. And I'm not saying you have to have experienced it to preach to it: I'm saying that you have to understand it's there to preach to it. Somehow, you have to know something about it.

You know, to get through the cracks of (for example) an LDS guy, you have to find out what he believes about his own so-called faith and church. Because if you come at him with the Way of the Master -- which is 100% a legit method of evangelism and a clear presentation of the Gospel -- he'll tell you that he agrees in principle, and amen. Man should obey God's law, and when he doesn't, Jesus will fill in the gaps. (the sharper readers, of course, see the problem immediately) There's a context for the Gospel which must be approached in talking to the Mormon, and it's different than when you approach an atheist or a run-of-the-mill secularist.

That is missiology. That is how you reach people. And that's not about how many arguments you can memorize: it's about what the Gospel says, and how it contrasts to what the false religion of something else says. It is about engaging what is there, on both sides of the coin.

You know: iMonk is very bent out of shape that I have called most of these so-called "missionals" "dumb" -- and the irony is that he's mad because I didn't name names and he wants me to say that Joe Thorn is dumb so I can fit into his stereotype of a TR blogger.

Joe Thorn is not dumb; Joe Thorn is not who I am talking about. I'm talking about people who got whatever paper credential they got, set up shop in a "missional" venue, and then criticize a guy like John Piper for having an "ahistorical" view of the Gospel. I'm talking about guys -- and they exist by the gaggle -- like the ones Voddy Bauchman has criticized for being very entertaining and informed on young adult fashion, but completely vacant in terms of the Gospel. I'm talking about youth pastors who never open a Bible up in front of teens. I'm talking about Campus Ministry guys who spend a lot of time on "spiritual disciplines" but never seem to get around to Acts 2 or 1Cor 15.

Those things are dumb, and guys who do them are dumb for doing them.

Now, here’s one of the real integrating points of this matter: the truth is that this is how the SBC practices youth ministry right now. It’s missional in this dumb, superficial, non-practical, non-theological, non-scriptural way. And the truth is that the SBC recognizes – in theory anyway, and in statistics – that this methodology has not only not worked, it has backfired. This alleged “meet people where they are” strategy has created thousands of youth pastors and tens of hundreds of youth centers and teen satellite churches – and has resulted in more lost kids coming out of SBC churches than ever.

So when the rest of the missionals get together to form an intervention for the SBC and say, “dude, you have a problem,” the SBC says, “’dude’, you are my problem – and I want something else which actually works and in which I can have some confessional trust.”

In saying that, it doesn’t mean Joe Thorn is a jerk. Joe Thorn is not a jerk. But Joe Thorn is not representative of the movement. Sorry! I wish he was. I wish Tim Keller was representative of the movement. But factually, it’s the guys who think the Message is a good Bible to use from the Pulpit who are representative of this movement. It’s the guys who characterize Baptists as people who reduce the book of Romans to four propositions who are characteristic of this movement. It’s guys who want to call what they are doing a “reformation” when in fact they are undoing the work of the actual reformation who are characteristic of this movement.

Ed Stetzer’s point – that if the SBC is to have any influence in the 21st century it has to stop being mono-cultural (the subtext is that it is also mono-racial) – is over-the-top good. It’s Turkey with all the fixin’s. But his other point – that in allowing a multi-cultural mix we must still contend for the essentials and be counter-cultural rather than culturally-submissive -- carries equal force, and cuts deeply into both sides of this debate.

And for emphasis, you should read this post from a while back in which I make this point in another way as clearly as I can.

Have a nice Wednesday.

Southern baptist Identity

To follow this question, you might want to download the pdf of Ed Stetser’s talk here.

Quoth iMonk:

In this quote, Stetzer puts the challenge simply: can we cooperate with those who LOOK different? Not those who believe differently. Not those with a different confession, but those who simply look different.

I am reminded of how often I've read reformed blogs make fun of the physical appearance of twenty-something emerging type pastors, or how other non-confessional, non-gospel aspects of emerging churches will be mocked as being "trendy, faddish, etc."

I am one of those blogs, iMonk. I admit it, and I’m really not ashamed of it. Here’s why it’s an object of ridicule: while you might be able to find a handful of these guys for whom this “look” is missionally necessary, it is by-and-large a Seminar student fashion statement akin to people in MFA programs who keep hand-written journals, or music majors with black hair, or even SBC pastors who still wear corporate suits everywhere and have, as you have astutely pointed out, 1950’s corporate haircuts.

It’s a lemming mentality. It’s the idea – the impulse – to follow the outward appearance of some thing which is happening without actually pursuing the thing itself. If there’s any guy on the face of the earth which proves this doesn’t have to be this way, it’s John Piper.

Piper doesn’t show up at Passion dressed like, well, Louie Giglio – and I have a lot of respect for Giglio. But there’s Piper, speaking to thousands of college kids, dressed like he always dresses – like a 1980’s college professor. He’s 60 (more or less) and he doesn’t have to pretend he’s hip, or relevant, or cool, or informed. He opens up the Bible, and preaches exactly the same way he preaches at Bethlehem Baptist every single Sunday.

And I bring that up to say this: if that’s what was happening even 7 times out of 10 in so-called “emergent” and “missional” churches, I think there’d be almost no fight. There’d be some fight – but it would be far less anathemacious than what is happening right now.

Seriously: think about what is happening in SBC churches for the most part. Most of them have transitioned to some more-contemporary form of worship, or at least what is called a “blended” style. That’s more than half-way to a “missional” concession. Most pastors who have the facilities are using multimedia – Powerpoint, video, multiple sites receiving one pastor’s preaching via some kind of local media loop. Many, many pastors are streaming their Sunday message via church web sites.

Guys like me – and others who you would associate with me – aren’t wigged out about using the means at our disposal. We’re wigged out that some kid with a bible college degree, or maybe an M.Div., and about 2 years of understudy at some middle-sized church is going to go ahead and take on the trappings of a culture which neither you nor I would say is God-honoring and somehow, through his hair products and his skater layered look – and for the hard-core, a tat – teach people that Jesus commands repentance. You’ll excuse me for asking, but “with what?”

I have an anecdote which will be useful to demonstrate what I am talking about here. When I was working FT at the bookstore, one day this beater Pontiac pulled into the lot, and this biker guy climbed out – very ZZ Top after about 100 miles of dirt road. We greet everyone the same as they walk into the store: “How are you today?” I did exactly that, and he didn’t even look over at me.

He went straight back to the Bibles. I give everyone about a minute to get their bearings, and then I walked back and I asked him, “Anything I can help you with?”

He doesn’t say anything, but he’s looking intently at the Bibles. After about another minute, he asks me, “You work here?”

Well, yeah. “Can I help you with something?”

He commences to tell me that he was saved in prison, and that he just recently got out, and he’s now in prison ministry, and he needs “prison bibles”. I told him honestly (I was still a rookie) that I didn’t know what a prison Bible was, and he told me it was a Bible with a paper cover with big print. I had one by accident, and he swiped it up – and so I don’t forget this part, I gave it to him for free for teaching me what a prison Bible was.

Anyway, big, hairy guy, covered in tats, terrible teeth, hair like dirty rope – completely insane for Jesus. We spent an hour talking about his testimony and his ministry to prisoners and his approach to ministry. I didn’t count, but I remember thinking that he didn’t have any words bigger than 2 syllables, except “resurrection” – and he said it “res-RECK-shun”. He left with a free bible, and came back several time over the next year to get more Bibles, and to get equipment for the Lord’s table, and other books.

The question, as I think about this in the terms you have positioned, is whether this guy needed to get a haircut and a daily bath and shave to be an acceptable minister of Christ – and I think the answer turns out to be “no”. And that answer is really points at the question I asked above about the kid with the fashion statement. With what will this guy – the ex-con in prison ministry – preach the Gospel? With actual authenticity and not make-believe authenticity.

But if that is the right answer, should some middle-class kid who, after bible college and an internship at Respectible Community Church, grow out dreadlocks, stop shaving, stop bathing and “down size” to one set of clothes in order to follow a call into prison ministry because my anecdotal brother in leather is clearly OK that way?

See: it turns out to be a question of authenticity. I know the missionals get all “Annie Armstrong” at this point, but there’s a massive difference between being an indigenous missionary to a completely foreign people and being a transplanted person inside one subculture who speaks a common language.

If the legitimate example is Tim Keller – and he’s a brilliant example, the one everyone else ought to be studying – then open the other eye and look at him. He’s not a stinky bohemian even though he is ministering to the stinky bohemians of NYC. If the missional prototype is Tim Keller, then it seems to me that “authentic” doesn’t mean “clothes by Aeropostale”, a paper cup of half-latte decafe glued to your left hand, and the Garth Brooks wire mike stuck in your ear. It means being personally authentic rather than branded. And to bring this parenthetical to a close, someone who dresses like a biker but has never really lived that life is kidding himself if he thinks people will accept him as a biker when he’s obviously a middle-class kid trying to prove something. He’d be better off by far to wear his usual clothes and demonstrate the love of God and declare the Gospel to dying men.

Southern Baptists have long struggled with their reputation as a stereotypical Southern denomination, right down to the suits, KJV Bibles, Sunday School pins and hymnals. Stetzer is asking us to see that culture and set it aside as a norm or a stereotype. He brilliantly emphasizes that Biblical faithfulness, cultural relevance and counter-cultural are NOT opposing characteristics.

I agree with this. There’s no question that this is what he’s calling us in the SBC to do. None.

The question is if having some kid from North Little Rock dress like he’s from Compton will make him a credible witness to anything in actual Compton. See: if he’s willing to lie about who he is really, why wouldn’t he be willing to lie about his so-called “Good News”?

Is Stetzer right: a church can be faithful, relevant AND counter cultural? Or is he wrong? Does cultural relevance- even in an intentional counter culture- always mean compromise on the Biblical message?

It’s the last question there which intrigues me. I think I answered the other two, above, but if I missed something, please take a free redirect on me.

That last question – does cultural relevance always mean compromise on the Biblical message – is such a double-edged sword. There’s no question that it drops an anvil on the Wile E. Coyote of SBC stoginess – but it also drops an equally-weighted anvil on people who are doing the exact same thing on the other side of the fence. Because the question is not “should we be ‘relevant’?” The question is: in what way is the Gospel relevant? That is: in the 1920’s, man was still sinful and Christ still died for sins, but what was the context in which people would receive that?

Do I need to dress like Chappell for people to listen to me? Or maybe like Brad Pitt? Or maybe like Justin Timberlake? Is it really true that there’s no way to communicate with people unless you dress like them and hang out in the same dives they hang out in? Do you really need a beer to break out the Gospel – is the Gospel like asking someone out for the first time?

See: I think I get the Tim Keller thing – because Keller is on about answering the questions people actually have, not the questions we wish they would ask. Keller is on about demonstrating the results of the Gospel today to these people here rather than as if you were doing a set piece from the 1840s. But If Keller is the missional guy, why are so many so-called missionals not like him? Why are they so phony in their authenticity? Why are they plainly dumb (and for the sake of peace, I’ll not list any blogs I think are in that category on either side of the missional divide)?

I think it’s a fine point that in many cases, as Michael Horton said on this week’s WHT, people are afraid of “otherness” – and some of what is happening right now in the SBC is a fear of “otherness”. But the reality is that the so-called “missional” side of the bridge is simply awash in theologically-questionable people with non-transparent motives.

And let me close this answer with this, from your last response: you say you want trust to be the watchword in cooperation. Paul says, “it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy”. When he says this to the Corinthians, he is chastising them for elevating themselves above the apostles when they are themselves unworthy to be called stewards – they can’t even discipline a guy who’s sleeping with his step-mom. But in that, trust cannot be taken for granted: trust has to be earned and it has to be serviced in some way – there has to be a way in which trust can be fortified over time. It is not a given.

Given the state of the “emerging” movement – and that it is not filled with Kellers or even Driscolls but with fellows who are far less grounded and focused – the question of whether the trust can just be granted is a completely fair question.

Southern Baptist Identity

Quoth iMonk:

Two key bits from Stetzer:

1) Missional refers to the specific activity of the church to be a counter-culture, building the Kingdom in ALL settings where its members find themselves, not just to build the church and its programs, facilities, etc.

I agree. No question -- and we face a terrible problem in this because we live in a post-Christian culture. We are going from a place where the context of Christianity is evident in the culture to a place where Christianity is seen, in the best case, as having jumped the shark, and in the worst case, has been disproven by some quack with a couple of stone ossuaries bearing the most common names of the day.

So given that we need to be kingdom-building, what does that look like? Is it programs and daycare centers and baseball leagues and 10,000 member communities which are aping the external culture -- or is it something else?

2) There can be no doubt that any church that is true to its calling is thoroughly, consistently and unapologetically missional by the above definition.

I think that this is a relatively-new insight. Maybe that's the wrong word: this is a truth about the church which was lost sometime after the third century (paint with wildly-broad and careless strokes).

My widdoo heart went pitty-pat when Dr. Stetzer cited the letter to Diognetus -- because that letter was a foundational document for me to start blogging. When I read it for the first time, I realized that there was something mostly-wrong about how we, the Christians, view our churches. The idea that the people who changed the world for Christ -- who faced down Rome, and then saved the West from becoming a wasteland when it fell -- were people who, in the end, weren't trying to imitate the culture.

In fact, they were really trying to live without the culture yet inside the culture, if that's possible. All the things the culture held dear were wrong in the face of the cross and the Christians described in that letter behaved as if those things were wrong. They didn't picket them, or protest them, or try to stop other people from drinking alcohol: they lived as if Christ died for sin, and that this message was so important that it should change them. Stable marriages, love of children, unquestionable work ethic, kindness to strangers -- think of that: in an age when people couldn't make reservations at the Holiday Inn, and the rule of law was only applicable if you could find the bad guys quickly (meaning the bad guys worked hard to stay mobile and were usually strangers wherever they went), they were kind to strangers.

But in that, they were winning people over to what they believed because it was obvious they believed it.

And in saying that, let me agree and disagree with something you said in your last answer. On the one hand, I agree that the great reformed minds of the last 25 years, um, pass by the issue of missions and missiology in the way we are talking about it in this exchange. But I disagree that they were not missional at all: there's a context for what they did -- and frankly, they were fighting (and are still fighting) against the second or third generation of heresy and evangelical unbelief from the end of the 20th century. The missiology of that age was (and is) overtly polemical -- and frankly, I'm a child of that school. So I have a great degree of respect and sympathy for these men who have spent their lives on that mission field.

But the truth is this: that field, by their work, has changed. They have won some, and the terms of engagement have changed. Man has not changed; the Gospel has not changed; God forbid that we say that Christ has changed. But the people to whom we have to get this message to have changed.

In the same way it is not profitable to use the KJV anymore because people can't read it, it is not profitable anymore to start a fight in order to win a man to Christ. I'm not saying it never works, but I think it rarely works. Christ didn't die to win an argument -- and He didn't die to make us clever debaters who use words of worldly wisdom to win men to an argument. Christ died for sin, and, as Paul noted to the Corinthians, that puts all wisdom to shame, and catches the clever man in his own cleverness, but it also calls us to be saints, and enriches us in all our speaking and all our knowledge.

So to bring this back to your statement, I think we make a mistake when we try to downplay to roll of those who came before us -- even if they only came 5 years ago. They brought us the church we have, and frankly they brought us the Gospel. Now it's our turn to honor them by bringing the Gospel to the world we have, to treat them both like fellow workers and fathers in the faith. That doesn't mean we have to steal their schtick -- but it means that we will bring the Gospel with the same zeal to this world which is dying.

Is it possible to say that THIS aspect of missionalism is one on which we can (indeed, must) thoroughly agree, and whatever disagreement we have must be about methodology and not mission?

I think it cuts both ways, as I have said to some extent, above. It's somewhat stupid of us to demand that Dad allow us to have a beer (one beer, and maybe not finish it) when we are somewhat critical that he's willing to smoke a cigar or have extra gravy on his taters -- that is, if we want missional freedom, we have to agree that there is missional freedom for all the contexts, including the ones where (and it kills me to admit this) the megachurch seems to work, and LifeWay seems to work, and the Pastor-as-CEO seems to work.

But in that, these models don't work everywhere. In fact, there are a lot of places they can't work. And in those places, the Gospel is still needed -- not a satellite church with a Jumbotron to project the Pastor's face on the wall to save on ministerial staff, but the Gospel. The fact of a personal Christ who died for sin to glorify God and make disciples is far more important that whether it's 12 people on folding chairs in the back room of a bar or 30 people in a park or two families who meet in alternating garages and prayerwalk for their neighborhood.

And all of these are missional expressions. The question is if we can bank on only one of them. If we do, we better start reforming the IMB -- because they definitively still use more than one model to reach the lost in the non-English world.

Southern Baptist Identity

I thought Dr. Stetzer was quite kind to some people who need a smack up sida da head, frankly. So let me be blunter: One morning, the SBC denominational types woke up, and networks like Willow Creek, Rick Warren, Acts 29, etc had showed up uninvited to the party.

Those networks being effective, but not necessarily yielding a certain quality of results, if I may comment for the SBC.

These networks, unlike the SBC, don't insist on high levels of denominational loyalty, duplicate programs, a Director of Missions handing you a box of new materials every week or identical haircuts. These networks use technology savvily, [sic] focus their conferences on actually helping you do the job instead of asking you to support the denominational emphasis of the year, and so on. It's not hard to see why so many young missionals look at the majority of their interaction with the current SBC as something like a trip to the principal's office for a "talk," or why they relish and value their participation in these parachurch networks. These younger leaders are missionally focused, busy and looking for help now for their churches and ministries. The newer networks are helping them, and asking for little.

I think there’s some value in your view here, iMonk, and you’re right about something which you sort of point at but do not name here: there’s a big problem inside the SBC when it comes to how we view our internal culture.

The SBC sees itself as sort of having arrived, spiritually. It doesn’t see itself as needing any reform because, by Memphis, we’re the only denomination in the history of the world to recover after having a lapse on inerrancy (yourself notwithstanding). And in that, conventionally-speaking, it thinks it has a mandate to shape the culture in its own image – it’s a sort of non-Presbyterian, pre-trib knock-off of theonomy, except it’s somewhat short on “theo” and awfully full of “me”.

But there’s also the problem of the networks in many ways being “effective”, but that their “effect” is not really any better than the standard SBC megachurch. A lot of nice people gather in a place which grows to multiple campi (the plural of “campus”, not clones our favorite completely-Reformed worship minister), and they have a community which is, itself, a little insular. That’s true to a greater or lesser extent depending on the network you are being specific about.

And in that, the SBC would like a slice of the network pie – and in my less-cynical moments, I think its because they’d like to see a network develop which also demonstrates the ability to keep men who are pastors inside some kind of orthodox bounding box. Because, as you know, the SBC is the keeper of orthodoxy. Genuflect as you walk past.

But all of that editorializing said, yes: the networks have a model which allows young pastors to get resources at low- or no-cost, and allows them to focus on “ministry”, whatever that means. I will accept the premise at face value.

Does the current leadership of the SBC realize what happened?

In what way? Do you mean that they ought to diversify LifeWay to make it more Biblical and less rigid? I think that’s funny coming from a guy who likes the church calendar year of the more “high church” denominations.

I also think it’s a little, um, dismissive of the fact that (as examples I am informed about) Willow Creek and Saddleback produce their own curriculum. The major difference would be that there’s no “convention” leaning on anyone to use or not use those resources.

But that said, I think they “realize” what has happened in that it is impacting SBC growth. What I do not think they realize is that they are enablers of this migration away from the SBC.

Do they get the "network megashift" that has made Tim Keller more important than almost any SBC pastor?

I think the answer is “yes”, but it’s like understating US Football when you only have 40 years of European soccer under your belt. They involve having the same number of players on the field, and a ball, and two halves, but if you rely on kicking the ball in US Football, you’re probably going to lose.

I think that the SBC is accustomed to kicking the ball, and sees some ball-kicking, and thinks it’s able to step up. There’s a paradigm shift which they are going to have a hard time working through.

Will our leadership respond? Can it? Or is it just too late? Stetzer should have kicked the door down with this issue, but I'll bet he knows exactly what I mean.

They have to respond in some way. The irony is that Rick Warren, if you think Rick Warren is doing good, is SBC. And the SBC rolled out PDL and PDC – so in some ways they were in on the cutting edge of the “network” phenomenon.

I was interacting with Dr. Stetzer over at the Baptist Center blog a few weeks ago, and he had made some comment about what the BFM means to us, and whether we are a denomination. He said [I paraphrase here] he thought the distinction between denomination and convention was somewhat not important – but I disagreed for this reason: a denomination is a top-down hierarchy in which the confession is enforced and the real practical power lies at the top; a convention ought to be guided by its confession so that independent churches can agree to cooperate, and therefore the role of the convention is serving rather than mandating.

The SBC will have a hard time being a service organization in the sense I mean here.

iMonk's Q2 from me is found here.

Word of God, Speak

Last week's audio is finally up. This weeks will be delayed.

Well, roll it up ...

... turns out it's all a lie. We are the most pitiable of men.

Somehow the Jews in Jerusalem could never find this cave, but James Cameron did. Astounding.

JOHNNY ON THE SPOT:

James White, of course, has all the apologetic fire power to wave this one off. However, keep in mind that a lot of people will give you "waddabout" on this one. I'm sure Paul Owen will embrace this as a co-valuable tradition, but you should be of sterner stuff.

AND OTHER SOURCES:

iMonk emailed me this link to William Lane Craig on the resurrection, in case you want a non-Baptist opinion on the matter.

AND YET ANOTHER:

iMonk also finds this link at the Jerusalem post which called the "documentary" "complete nonsense". For the record, mind you.

JAMES WHITE TREASURE TROVE:

James White has opened up its own category on the topic of this so-called evidence. Worth bookmarking.

Natural Dam

Hey Natural Dam: who's reading my blog?

Check in in the comments ...

Southern Baptist Identity

I warned you earlier this week that you had better read up on Ed Stetzer's paper on missiology and SBC identity. Here's the punchline: iMonk and I are going to trade 5 questions each on this paper/talk because a lot of people need to listen up.

I'll be posting his questions here with my answers; he'll be posting my questions at his bloggy with his answers, so there'll be enough outrage for everyone.

I'd like to thank Frank for the opportunity to dialog over Ed Stetzer's significant contribution to the conversation regarding current developments in evangelical ecclesiology and missionary strategy, i.e. the "missional" church. If our readers don't know, Ed Stetzer is a missiologist at the SBC's North American Mission Board, has two earned doctorates, and is a respected author and speaker in missional, emerging and evangelical circles. I've long cited him, along with Tim Keller, as the "go to" guys for a reliable analysis of what is happening among conservatives church planters and innovators. Stetzer's talk at the Union University conference on Baptist Identity is, in my opinion, a great step forward in articulating what is happening in current Southern Baptist life, and I would plead with all of those who, like me, love the SBC to hear Stetzer's message, "Toward A Missional Convention."

Two things as we get ramped up:

[1] I am stunned to hear that iMonk loves the SBC. When did that happen?

[2] Since this is bound to be a long answer, let me address something briefly for those who will be inevitably creeped out over this chat. It is very rare to have an open and civil discussion with someone with whom you disagree about every other word -- and yet, in spite of the occational street fight, iMonk and I have the ability to discuss issues from what I consider pretty radically different points of view. So if you want to find out what a fan of Emergent thinks of the Stetzer thing, and then what I think of the Stetzer thing, and whether either one of us is completely off the chain, stay tuned. This thing will go back and forth for about 5 questions.

First Question: Stetzer boldly says that the current SBC leadership represents a leadership culture that has reformed the denomination confessionally, but failed to produce the expected corresponding evangelistic results because of their refusal to grasp and encourage missiological principles crucial for church growth in a diverse contemporary American culture. In fact, Stetzer says that only 11% of SBC churches are experiencing conversion growth and there are no reasons to expect a reversal. Can conservatives in the SBC accept and respond to the fact that their project of theological uniformity has only been half a reformation, and the problem is not a lack of conservative conformity, antimissionary Calvinists or innovating church planters?

I think Dr. Stetzer identified with gusto the problem (singular) the SBC faces -- which is the disaster which follows success. He also was pretty plain-spoken about what kind of self-deception is going on in the SBC (for example, the transition from inerrancy to sufficiency, as if you could have the first without the second and it mean anything).

But that said, I think he was also very hard on liberals. Because there aren't many in the SBC, he didn't dedicate a lot of bandwidth to the problems, but he was clear that one reason the SBC has the problem it has is that it doesn't want to be misunderstood as associating with disreputable people, theologically. In that, rather than robustly defending the right use of words (like "missiology"), the SBC tends to pull further into its shell, into its safe culture. While that feels pretty good, that's exactly wrong.

What happens when liberals (or anyone) start corrupting words like "Gospel" and "Trinity" and "Eucharist" -- not to mention "Marriage" or "I'll split a beer with you"? Do we just toss it in on those, too? Dr. Stetzer's answer is that we -contend- for those truths, and you know I agree with him. The question, unfortunately, is "how to do that and win brothers in Christ rather than create bogie men" -- because Dr. Stetzer himself admits that he's sick to death of the fighting. I'm a fighter and I'm sick of the fighting. But the fight must be pressed -against liberalization- without telling the lost people who are watching, "and you're next, bub. Know your roll!"

It's more than a gut check: it's a gut-wrenching fact that the SBC had better decide that it is really about missions, and missions means more than sending people to deepest, darkest not-America: it means (as I have confessed at my blog) going across the street to the trailer park and telling those people right there about Jesus in a way they can understand what I'm saying.

Can the status quo see this and admit that they have a problem which someone else has to help them fix? I dunno -- you think they can admit that they have demonized good men for no reason other than convention politics? I sorta doubt it.

two words: grass roots. It's still a convention, and on the floor eventually -- if people show up -- the majority has to win. And let's face it: I think the majority is a very conservative, very concerned "third generation" resurgence crowd who want the liberty to -- and I know it's shocking -- reach the people they have in their home towns without becoming pariahs in their Daddy's convention. With the Gospel, mind you: not with a program or entertainment or whatever. With the news that Christ died for sin, as Scripture said he would, and was buried and raised from the dead, just like Scripture said he would. But if they don't use a Gaither vocal band third-string team and a canvass tent with no A/C, let's not start checking confessions of faith and baptism certificates.

As a footnote, I'd like to eventually check some of Dr. Stetzer's math and stuff. For example, he cites Barna on church attendance -- but ironically Barna thinks people are dropping conventional church for some kind of revolutionary church model -- not becoming unchurched. Dr. Stetzer says the opposite in citing Barna, and that threw me for a loop.

I'll have your first Q in the mail today, iMonk, and you can mull it iver for the weekend.
iMonk's first answer is here.

Make it a double

Malkin reported that sharia-observant taxi drivers are being told to obey the law in Minnesota.

So you SBC taxi drivers who were thinking about this, you better choose your friends wisely. How close to the Gospel are you, really, if you can stand this close to Muslims and agree with them?

Do you find it somewhat troubling that Resolution #5 places us closer to these guys than it does to right-minded Presbyterians?

Add your own punchline or pointed question in the meta.