As a student at Southern Seminary in the early 80’s, I was blessed beyond measure to have a young, brilliant and engaging church history professor named Dr. Timothy George. I’ve long admired Dr. George and his teaching on the Reformation ranks as some of the most formative teaching I ever received. His books and talks bear all the marks of a true Christian statesman, scholar and ecumenist. He ranks among the foremost Baptist historians in the world.

Today Dr. George continues to serve as the founding dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham and a senior editor of Christianity Today. He is a participant in the project known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together and also serves on the International Baptist-Catholic Dialogue team.

I recently wrote Dr. George and asked for his comments on this question: “How can Baptists respond to Catholic and Orthodox Christians who challenge our view of the Lord’s Supper as having no deeper historical/Biblical roots than Zwingli?”

Dr. George was kind enough to send along this reply. I’m deeply appreciative of his generosity.

Among many Baptist Christians there is a growing awareness that the Supper of the Lord should have a more prominent (and frequent) place in the life of worship, as it certainly did in the early church. There is also the realization that a more robust doctrine of (what Calvin called) the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper is called for by the participationist language of the New Testament itself and is in keeping with the best traditions of Baptist life. No less a figure than Charles Haddon Spurgeon portrayed the Lord’s Supper as nothing less than an encounter with the living Christ himself: “At all times when you come to the communion table, count it to have been no ordinance of grace to you unless you have gone right through the veil into Christ’s own arms, or at least have touched his garment, feeling that the first object, the life and soul of the means of grace, is to touch Jesus Christ himself.”

For most of our history, Baptists have been more concerned with the externals of the Table—grape juice or real wine, who may preside, who may partake—rather than with the question of what actually goes on at this sacred meal. It is well known that Luther and Zwingli differed strongly, and actually broke fellowship with one another, over the meaning of the words of institution, “This is my body.” Historically, Baptists have belonged more to the Reformed (whether Zwinglian or Calvinist) side of that debate, but it is important to realize that all of the mainline reformers reacted against the displacement of the Lord’s Supper as the central focus of Christian worship in medieval Catholicism. They criticized the fact that the Eucharist had become clericalized (the service in Latin and only bread for the laity), commercialized (votive masses used as a fundraising scheme in much of the church), and scholasticized (the dogma of transubstantiation and the view of the mass as a sacrifice).

The reformers harked back to the teaching of the New Testament, the practice of the early church, and especially to the theology of St. Augustine. Augustine argued that in the sacrament the sign must be identified as a sign by a word spoken about it, thus making the sacrament itself a “visible word.” In commenting on John 6:50, Augustine wrote: “ ‘He who eats of this bread will not die.’ But that means the one who eats what belongs to the power of the sacrament, not simply to the visible sacrament; the one who eats inwardly, not merely outwardly; the one who eats the sacrament in the heart not just the one who crushes it with his teeth” (In Ev. Joh. Tract. 26.12). While Luther could speak of the manducatio impiorum, “the eating of the ungodly,” the Reformed tradition picked up Augustine’s distinction and emphasized the cruciality of faith for the proper reception of the beneficium of grace in the Supper. This same theology they found echoed in other pre-reformation figures including Ratramnus, Wycliffe, and Hus. What they rejected, in keeping with Luther, was an understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as an expression of works-righteousness, a theology which seemed to them to undermine the all-sufficiency of Jesus’s once-and-for-all death on the cross—where, as Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer put it, he offered “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.”

Since the sixteenth century, and especially in the liturgical renewal stemming from Vatican II, many of the changes called for by the reformers have been accepted in the practice of the Catholic Church. Yet important, church-dividing differences still remain and I think the Church of Rome is right to resist the kind of easy-going ecumenism that would ignore such differences in order to achieve a false unity. In our discussions with our Catholic brothers and sisters, we Baptists and evangelicals must learn to distinguish the unity we are called to affirm and the divisions we must still sustain. But this we should do in the spirit of Jesus’s high priestly prayer for his disciples in John 17—“that they may be one, Father, as you and I are one so that world may believe.”

Sources:
Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers
Steve Harmon, Towards Baptist Catholicity
Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology

Communion (Really) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.

A commenter in the previous post asks,

For those of us who live in pretty close knit baptist circles, give us a short run down – playing devil’s advocate- of the weaknesses you mention in the Baptist view…Other than the whole “real presence” argument, I’m not aware of any other complaints or criticisms.

This gives me an excuse to write about the Baptist and evangelical situation involving the Lord’s Supper, which I’m always glad to do.

For starters, it might do us good to consider what happens when the various traditions articulate a theology of the Lord’s Supper at their best. In my opinion, the primary difference isn’t the issue of “real presence.” Baptists and the Reformed can come up with language that’s so close to the language I hear in some Eucharistic prayers that the differences become matters for theologians. No, the primary differences, in my view, are transubstantiation, i.e. [I was going to offer a simple definition, but that's a fool's errand], and the issue of the nature of the bread and wine themselves, which in my view eventually becomes a discussion of some aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit, no matter what you believe. Of course there are other issues, but these two seem to stake out the largest differences on a practical level. I don’t see any real possible progress on either, so we should move on.

As to Baptists- well, it’s a mess and I challenge anyone to show me that it’s not a mess. Really, it’s embarrassing and quite a personal matter. If my tradition of Baptists had some kind of moderately serious approach to the Lord’s Supper my wife and I would probably not be looking at the reality of never communing together again. I place that painful disaster at the feet of the Baptist failure to understand their poverty in this area. Don’t get me started.

Even more grievous is the knowledge that this failure isn’t necessary. Baptists took the Supper seriously in Spurgeon’s church. The 1689 Confession takes it seriously. Our failure to do so is simply an example of gnosticism traveling in a Protestant disguise and sheer, unapologetic neglect. Most of the Baptists that I know who have thought about this have come around to Calvin’s view of the nature of the Lord’s Supper anyway (which is what you have in the 1689 Confession.) Most Baptists wouldn’t defend our practice of the Lord’s Supper if they were paid to do so. The sermon by Chanski- like it or not- couldn’t be preached in 95% of the Baptist churches I know because no one has thought that long about what’s going on.

The singular worst part is the mad rush to deemphasize the meaning of the Supper so as to not have a shred of sacramentalism anywhere in sight. Most pastors are afraid that anything other that constant assurances that the supper means nothing will lead to rampant fascination with magic. When someone suggests emphasizing the supper more, all these pastors see is problems: sacramentalism, Catholicism, high church liturgy, issues of church discipline, boredom, confusion. The idea that Christ is present and preached in the supper seems to be intolerable. Now if you said the highest possible sacramental things about the Bible, they would be all over it. But not the supper.

The current reign of church growth pragmatism has virtually killed the Lord’s Supper among many evangelicals. It’s a high crime, as bad as any liberal betrayal of the Gospel. If it were an innocent omission, I could understand. But it’s not. It’s been radical surgery, and if you said that our church is only going to do this once a year, you’d hear very little opposition.

Talk about your “Jesus disconnect.’ “Yeah, Jesus inaugurated it and commanded we continue to do it, but I think we need to be careful not to emphasize it too much or else it will mean nothing.” Follow that path for a couple of generations, and it will mean nothing. It gives me a headache.

So here are the weaknesses enumerated. Enjoy.

1. The historical problem. How do Baptists relate their view of the Lord’s Supper to the ancient church’s far more eucharistic, real presence language? Do we believe the ancient church was wrong until the Baptist reformation? Yes? No? What?
2. Articulation. Despite having helpful confessional resources that articulate the Supper beautifully, all Baptists can do is denigrate the supper as “not this” and “not that.” We need an entire revolution of the language- liturgical and confessional- we use with the Lord’s Supper.
3. Frequency. Four times a year or less. Insane.
4. Teaching. No one teaches on this subject in any depth or seriousness.
5. The theology of the supper itself. Our view should be far more open to the Lutheran and Reformed approach, but we’ve simply gone over the edge in refusing to come out of our bubble, so we have a lobotomized practice of the Lord’s Supper and we are the only ones who can’t admit it.
6. The elements themselves: Baptist Chiclets and shot glasses are not Biblical. One loaf. One cup. And lose the grape juice. Good grief. Can’t we do the simple things right?

Chanski doesn’t make the Lord’s Supper-Passover connection, which I think is absolutely essential to rightly understanding our view. Understanding that the Lord’s Supper is a Passover meal given a new focus is quite important. We also don’t get much of the Anabaptist emphasis on covenant community, which is also important to see how Baptists understand the supper in reference to the church.

I’m turning off comments so we don’t have a debate. I know we disagree on this. I am simply making available a resource that gives the Baptist view in the hope of greater understanding and more reasonable discussion when it occurs.

UPDATE: I posted this earlier, and was soon reading a steady stream of negative comments. For a moment, it rattled me, and then I spent a couple of hours writing, remembered why I blog and put it back up.

I’m well aware of the weaknesses of the Baptist view. I’m aware of the weaknesses in practice and in historical justification. I am aware that the first thing that appeals to anyone about a liturgical church is the Eucharist. It was for my wife. And the treatment of the Lord’s Supper by Baptists is a big reason some Baptists can’t stay on board. I truly and deeply respect that.

Someone said we should just admit we are restorationists. I suppose if we aren’t claiming to be identical in doctrine and practice to the apostles, then we’re all restorationists of some kind.

When I’m not writing a book, I’ll keep studying this subject. I’m happy with what the 1689 Second London Confession says. I’m happy with what Spurgeon did with the supper. I’m confident in my own reading of scripture. I’m in agreement with Chanski. (Sorry to disappoint, but you can’t have everything.)

I’ll do more research. If someone will send me Sam Waldron’s address, I’ll ask for an interview. If you want to write me an intelligent note on why Baptists are right or can’t be right, then I might publish it.

But here’s the thing: being in the blogosphere and having an audience of thousands isn’t going to put the integrity of my own journey to where I am or who I am up for compromise. Until I’m convinced, all the applause or derision in the world won’t move me. YOUR journey won’t move me, though I am happy for you to share it. I’m going to put this in its place in my quest for a Jesus shaped spirituality and I’ll change it when I’m convinced of another position.

NOTE: Jim Savastio of the Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville, Ky does a message on the Lord’s Supper as expounded in the 1689 Baptist Confession. Thank God for reformed Baptists who care enough to teach on the LS and to expound their confessions on this topic. It is incredibly frustrating to try and find resources on this subject from most Baptists.

I appreciate Mark Driscoll and Acts 29. Southeastern has no formal relationship with either, but I am thankful for many aspects of both ministries. I think there is much that our students can learn from them. Mark and I have become good friends, but I do not agree with everything Mark says or does. In particular, I disagree with some of the language he has used in the pulpit in the past (though not in several years!) and I am uncomfortable with his position on beverage alcohol. I do appreciate his courage to tackle the difficult book The Song of Solomon and to address sexual issues with the adults in his congregation who have serious and important questions needing answers. Many of you know I have had a similar ministry through Marriage and Family conferences for years. I also wrote a book on the Song entitled God on Sex. Now it is the case I have chosen to address these issues in a different manner than has Mark, and at certain points I think he might have addressed some sensitive sexual issues in a more careful manner. But, I believe we can learn from those with whom we differ, and on the whole I believe Mark has much to teach us about missional living, theology-driven ministry, and culturally relevant expositional preaching. I also think our students, and Southern Baptists in general, are mature enough to treat Mark Driscoll (and every Christian leader) with appropriate discernment.

I want to remind our readers that good seminaries continually expose their students to diverse opinions, including the opinions of those with whom we disagree. There are few textbooks, guest lecturers, and even chapel speakers with whom I am in 100% agreement! Several times in the last decade the SBC annual meeting has been addressed by speakers who differ with Southern Baptists, including Condoleeza Rice (a Presbyterian who describes her views on abortion as “mildly pro-choice”), James Dobson (a Nazarene who is egalitarian and consistently Arminian) and Bill Bright (another Presbyterian). Individual Southern Baptists also learn from others every time they read a book by Augustine, C. S. Lewis or John Stott and every time they listen to a sermon by John MacArthur or Chuck Swindoll. It is a healthy thing to interact with and appreciate fellow Christians with whom we have theological differences and even strong disagreements on secondary and tertiary matters.

Let me invite any of our readers who have concerns about Mark or Acts 29 to do three things. First, make sure your criticisms are up-to-date rather than rehashing issues that were settled several years ago. Second, acquaint yourself with the doctrinal convictions of both Mars Hill Church and Acts 29. Finally, please note that all of the Driscoll addresses are available online at our website. I would encourage you to listen to them as well as an interview David Nelson conducted with Mark last spring. I think you will be blessed and encouraged by what you hear. If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to email me or call my office. I would be happy to talk with you, listen to your heart, and hopefully put your concerns to rest.

The relevance to the debate between Frank Turk and myself is rather obvious. As in all things here at IM, think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I’m with Akin.

If Akin’s approval of Driscoll means he should resign as well, then you’ll have to find another blogger to defend that one. I’ve got a book about Jesus to research/write.

First of all, let me thank Frank for the opportunity to have a good discussion about the issue of pastoral accountability in the internet age (a very important topic) and for having such a constructive and positive dialog. Though I expect to be denounced to the lower reaches of the pit by a couple of commenters at his place, Frank’s been a first class conversation partner, and has said nice things about another post of mine to boot.

I have very little to say in response to Frank’s SECOND POST, available now at his blog, but I will say a bit.

Frank’s conception of a “global pulpit” or “addressing the global church” is a slippery, ultimately subjective concept that primarily seems to be meaningful in the minds of a small group of theo-bloggers. I think that a room full of non-internet using Christians, even conservative ones, would need considerable help working with Frank’s idea that the orthodoxy of the “global church” is presided over by an unelected jury of successful pastors such as John Macarthur and C.J. Mahaney.

In fact, as meaningful as the ministry of Piper, Macarthur et al are to me and many of us, I’d step to the microphone and have to stand in a long line to say that none of those men exercise any authority over me other than as brothers in Christ from whom I may receive a rebuke.

As many of you may know, in April of 2006, I was fisked for three days by James White at Alpha and Omega Ministries. (I am a big fan of Dr. White and benefit greatly from his ministry. I am not in any way disrespecting him with this illustration. For apologetics, he is the best.)

I was never contacted by Mr. White. I was never informed by his elder board or his ministry board that I was out of line with my influence on the “global church.” I had never mentioned Mr. White or contacted him. Yet Mr. White held me up before his audience for several days, working through a post I had written on the differences I had with some versions of being a “reformed Baptist.” It was a thoroughly public scouring.

Mr. White’s well known chat room crew apparently passed on my post as treading destructively on the subject of reformed orthodoxy, and someone must have said I was a rising liberal, emerging voice disguised as a Calvinist, who needed his wings clipped. Mr. White performed surgery on me, in public on his blog, for three days. I didn’t like it BUT IT WAS HIS PERFECT RIGHT TO DO SO.

In considering this incident of public rebuke from a brother- and that is what it was and that is what I evaluate it as- Mr. White was not dealing with me as a church member under his care. He has no covenanted authority over me to which I have ever agreed to submit. His place as an elder in a church and his position of respect and popularity still create NO FORMAL RELATIONSHIP to which I must respond.

What I must do is ask “Is God speaking to me through this rebuke?” If I judge that God is speaking to me, then- and this is important- I am not to go to Mr. White for further instructions on how to repent and what repentance is adequate. I am to go to those leaders to whom I am accountable.

Or- and this also is crucial- we might ask why Mr. White didn’t seek out my elders- I have three levels of authority over me- and inform them that I was disagreeing with the reformed faith. Of course, those to whom I am accountable would likely have heard all those rebukes with puzzlement because their theological commitments are different than Mr. White’s.

Now—I agree that my blogging put me on a larger stage, and I agree that once on that stage, others on that stage may rebuke, react or correct.

I agree that I must consider this as the possible work of the Spirit.

But there exists NO WORKABLE AUTHORITY STRUCTURE that involves Frank Turk or any other internet critic that can place these Driscoll issues out of the realm of rebuke and into the realm of specific accountable repentance, i.e. we know when he’s repented, how and if it was sufficient.

The only way we will know that Driscoll has repented is, apparently, when Frank says so, and as much as I trust and affirm Frank, I’m simply not ready to sign on to giving individuals- pastors, bloggers, etc- that kind of jury duty.

Frank has a standard of repentance in his mind that he derives from scripture and experience. I’m sure it’s wonderful. But I have not agreed to it, and unless Frank has contacted the Mars Hill elders, I don’t think anyone else has agreed to it.

Who has the last word on Driscoll? The blogger in the UK who says Driscoll is a Jesus rejecting apostate who teaches Jesus was a pervert? The people on the floor of the SBC who haven’t listened to or read a word of Driscoll? The mob with torches in Missouri who clearly loath Driscoll as a danger to the church? The major pastor who indicted Driscoll in 4 posts on his blog? Some assortment of bloggers and pastors?

If it’s the global church here, do we need to call a church council, or will the theo-blogosphere just have to do? Will we all get an email, telling us when Driscoll is all right?

I will say this again: Anyone can critique, rebuke or protest. When angry feminists protested at his church, he invited them in and listened. Blog away, Frank and Co. It’s MD’s responsibility to listen to you. But when it comes to what does adequate repentance look like, your opinions are going to be just that- Opinions. Only his elders can hold him formally accountable.

I made a list of factors that I saw as significant in bringing the SBC to its current situation. I am just going to list them without extensive commentary. If you aren’t Southern Baptist, feel free to ask a question, and I’ll try to give you a brief answer. If you are Southern Baptist, I’d like to hear your responses.

These are listed in broad chronological form. “Broad” meaning that I’m not good with dates and don’t have a good memory.

1. The rise of a second generation of conservatives in the newly “retaken” SBC.

2. The first “official” perception of a generational divide in the SBC by then Lifeway President Jimmy Draper.

3. The effect of the wired revolution in the SBC: grass roots embracing of the wired world by the younger leaders. Confusion/Rejection of the implications/uses of the wired revolution by the old line SBC.

4. The grass roots experience of the generational divide in local churches, particularly regarding worship and programing.

5. Impact of networked leadership church models outside the official denomination on the younger SBC: Rick Warren, Andy Stanley, Bill Hybels, Bill Hybels, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll.

6. Election of Frank Page as SBC President. First SBC President outside of and clearly critical of the ruling club.

7. Controversial standards adopted at the IMB: Baptism and Tongues. Grass roots reaction, especially among younger SBC leaders.

8. Resolution on integrity in reporting church membership statistics: a major crirtique of the megachurch model in the SBC and its perceived credibility for leadership.

9. Two years of declining baptisms.

10. Predictions of a declining SBC future: Frank Page and Ed Stetzer

11. The rise of new church planting over older church revitalization as a choice for younger leaders.

12. Baptist Identity movement vs. Gospel centered/Kingdom networked movement. Issue: How do we relate to non-SBCers? Can we learn from their approaches? Can we work together with other Great Commission Christians?

13. Rejection of the culture war emphasis of the official SBC by younger leaders.

14. The current missionary funding crisis and “freeze” in missionary appointments. Perception of the denominational bureaucracy as a problem, not an asset.

15. The development of the Great Commission Resurgence approach by Danny Akin: embracing diversity in the SBC, rejecting the “Great Denomination” model.

16. Johnny Hunt’s support of GCR/younger SBCers and their agenda

17. Official labeling of Calvinists as the enemy by Morris Chapman.

18. Adoption of the GCR study commission at the 09 SBC.

SBC International Mission Board Give now to the Lottie Moon Offering.
SBC North American Mission Board. Give to the Annie Armstrong Offering.

2. The younger leaders of the SBC are taking on power in a denomination that has been, for the most part, attempting to lock the doors and hope they would go away. Well, they didn’t. They came to the convention and voted in a mechanism to take an urgent look at what we are doing for the one thing that holds us together: a commitment to carry out the Great Commission. What you saw today was a serious changing of the power grid in the SBC. The vast numbers of obedient old-guard messengers are never again going to show up and make the SBC into a wholly owned subsidiary of the culture war or the Jerry Vines version of the SBC. This is now a denomination that has given itself clear and simple instructions: Get to the task of world missions, not the task of building a denominational culture.

3. It’s hard for many people to see how the SBC is a victim of its own success. In its heyday, the SBC built everything, started everything, produced everything, thought of everything and told you everything. They were, unlike any denomination in recent history, a self-contained evangelical empire. But that structure was not built for the future. It has become, to the younger generation raised on the Biblical, Gospel emphasis of the conservative resurgence, a collection of distractions and unwanted structures with little relation to the Great Commission. While every agency and entity will defend its existence, the fact is that the SBC’s overall structure is too large, and younger leaders will not support the vision of the “Great Denomination” that the generation of the 50’s and 60’s valued and created.

4. Changes in the SBC will happen quickly. Seminary education is changing before our eyes. Finances are going to change. Cooperative models are going to change. Relationships with the local and state conventions will change. A lot of people are going to find that the old rallying cries- be they rhetorical, cultural or denominational- are not going to get the same response. The younger generation SIMPLY ISN’T GOING TO BUY THE OLD SBC MYTHOLOGY. The sooner leaders come to grips with that, the better things will be. It is ridiculous to lecture the audience about Calvinism or throw fits about teetotalism or books in the bookstore. The number of people who care, who are being told by ANY pastor or leader they respect that these things matter, is small and growing smaller.

5. The motions brought from the floor did reveal what an utter waste of time the culture war has been for Southern Baptists. With a $40 million dollar missions’ shortfall, some SBCers still want to boycott Pepsi and harp about Mark Driscoll. Such rhetoric is an embarassment to the next generation. In all honesty, fellows….you’ve lost. Either give it up or find one of the few churches that care about being the moral police department.

6. The patient teaching of the Gospel and church-centered theology by the Founders Ministries and 9Marks has paid off in more fruit than can be put in a basket. Hundreds and hundreds of young people, hungry to hear how to build a Gospel centered, God honoring, missionary focused church. It is astonishing. It may not be revival, but it is a solid outcome that will make a huge difference for a small number of churches.

7. No, the SBC’s generational turnover won’t be averted. Thousands of churches will die in the next 2-4 decades. But hopefully, thousands of new and revitalized churches will live.

8. It is now time for the large churches and the state conventions to come to the plate and take leadership in making sacrifices and doing what is necessary to get those stalled missionaries on the field.

9. Morris Chapman should resign. His moral mandate is utterly finished. He has served well, but his address today was an embarrassment.

10. Johnny Hunt has chosen to support the future of the SBC and the Gospel. He has laid aside the questions of style, culture and methodology- even the questions of Calvinism- and chosen to side with those who want the Gospel itself to be our unity. This is still a stunning development, in my opinion, and one for which Hunt should be deeply appreciated as a man of principle. He is not my style of pastor, and megachurches are not the future in my view, but Johnny Hunt is playing for the team, not his church or his “boys.” He is a gift to the SBC.

11. Younger leaders: You won today. Now be mature. Be gracious. Be kind. Build bridges. Heed wisdom and heal rifts. Watch Danny Akin and do what he does the way he does it.

12. God is amazingly kind to our old ship. Born in a love of slavery. Arrogant. Blind to the Kingdom outside its own borders. Cantankerous and stubborn. But the ship still sails because the Holy Spirit says it will be so.

(My comments should be understood as the positive engagement of one Southern Baptist, and nothing more.)

I appreciate Dr. Kelley’s passionate engagement with the issues that are troubling Southern Baptists right now. He represents a constructive voice and I would encourage other Southern Baptists to listen to him.

I agree with some of what Dr. Kelley is saying in this message.

1) I agree that the SBC is in decline. By his own numbers 89% of our churches are not growing. Most of those churches are facing a generational horizon and many are not going to see 2025.

2) The task of growth by conversion evangelism and new church planting is paramount. It must be a priority at every level of Southern Baptist life.

3) Discipleship is a key component in repairing the breach and regrowing the church. I was effectively discipled by my Southern Baptist Church as a teenager. I am grateful for that investment in my life and Christian experience.

4) There is a spiritual crisis within the SBC, and we should pray that the Holy Spirit would revisit this great denomination. The lessons of the mainline churches should be on our mind.

5) In the past, the SBC did many things that were effective. We should learn from those things.

Having said this, I would like to take issue with a good bit of what Dr. Kelley says. I am supportive of his concerns, but I am concerned about his presentation of the SBC, both past, present and future.

A. The current SBC has the opportunity to leave some things behind that are not Biblical. No matter how much we associate those things with the “golden age” of the SBC, non-Biblical practices shouldn’t be looked back on as somehow important in our future.

B. Dr. Kelley seems enamored with an SBC that was more unified and evangelistic, but doesn’t mention that this same SBC was proudly segregationist, fundamentalistic in many quarters and arrogantly separatist toward the rest of the Christian world. If the Holy Spirit visits us, we will see that these things were not his work at all.

C. The SBC’s “golden age” produced larger numbers of baptisms, but it also produced a denomination with 8 million members no one can find, a complete disengagement with church discipline, “inactive members,” child baptisms, a continual stream of rebaptisms, a cabal of large church pastors running the denomination and an uncritical acceptance of culture as normative. God save us from all of this and all that brought these things upon us.

D. The success of the SBC in the post-war era was a mixture of factors. Sociology, church growth pragmatics, the configuration of economics and family, denominationalism and the growth of the rural south all played an important role. These factors won’t be duplicated. New factors will be in play in different settings.

E. Dr. Kelley is impressed with the SBC’s flagship programs of Sunday School and Discipleship Training. It is rather amazing, however, to hear that he believes a return to virtual duplications of these programs are the SBC’s best bet. I am thinking about those vast “education buildings” of the 60’s and 70’s, full of tiny Sunday School rooms, with organization, records and literature right down to the smallest detail. Training leaders and workers for the demands of these programs was endless. This corporate model of Christian education- with classes at the church for every age group every time the doors opened- is seriously out of sync with the culture around us.

Going backward only appears the right way to go when you are safely within the confines of the time machine.

F. Dr. Kelley claims that the SBC’s emphasis on personal discipleship and personal evangelism were the keys to its golden age. My own experience of Southern Baptists is that the windows of success for church-based programs like Church Training was small. By the 1970’s, I rarely saw any evidence that church training programs were effectively discipling more than a tiny minority in most churches. Such programs were “loyalty” programs that gave a few core members the opportunity to be “more involved” than others.

SBC Sunday School was the backbone of the denomination for many years and still plays a significant role. There is no reason, however, that everything we believe about those “small groups” can’t be incorporated into methods that are more flexible and appropriate for today’s culture.

I was always far more impressed with the potential of the SBC’s missions educations programs to actually “disciple” its participants in a holistic way, but that potential was very unevenly realized.

The most effective discipleship program I experienced in the SBC was preaching. The most influential program was a “What Baptists Believe” course for teenagers that surveyed a major doctrine or practice each month. I still have the book.

G. Dr. Kelley has an admiration for aspects of fundamentalism and revivalism that many younger Southern Baptists are never going to share. The ironic reason is that the conservative resurgence actually got these younger leaders reading the Bible.

H. It would have been good to hear something about the missional approach to evangelism and not hear a recommendation we return to door-knocking one night a week. Many younger Southern Baptists believe our approach to evangelism can no longer be synonymous with our approach to church programming.

I. We need a critical engagement with our past, not an imitation of that past. Dr. Kelley’s presentation leaves me concerned that non-fundamentalistic, non-revivalist, non-enculturated Southern Baptists wil soon be told they aren’t passing the “tests of loyalty” that come from a less than critical analysis of how we became what we are.

J. The issue for Southern Baptists is “What is the Gospel?” As this question has more influence on our future, our worship, our missional outreach, our discipleship and our prayers, the SBC will see better days again.

I agree with Tom Ascol that we are now seeing a fragmentation of rhetoric along the lines of “Great Commission Resurgence” Baptists and “Baptist Identity” Baptists. The issues are “believing” like us and “doing church” like us, or in shorter form, “us.” Who are “us” seems to be the question.

Who would have believed that the conservative resurgence would be followed by ecumenical anxieties between Baptists who would both check “inerrancy” as an essential? This takes talent.

Dr. Kelley’s message shows how these lines run through the heart of Southern Baptists. His great concern is evangelism on the largest possible scale….as done by Southern Baptists, of course. His anxiety is that Baptists no longer sufficiently stand out. While he mentions discipleship, more prominent in this diagnosis are the various external perceptions of Baptists as a denomination separate from other Christians.

The anxiety of Southern Baptists in this post-evangelical era are fully on display. How can we maintain denominationalism and its various kinds of security and certainty in the face of a growing consensus that the Great Commission demands ecumenical efforts with those who share a concern for that mandate.

It’s quite ironic that Southern Baptists, who pride themselves on understanding cooperation for the cause of missions, are showing signs of being torn apart by that very possibility.