Before I begin this post I’d like to continue the habit of recommending a few resources that are related to church planting:
Mark Driscoll, Seven Views of Culture
After working through the call to church plant, the question naturally arises: where am I supposed to go?
The question I get most often is “Why plant in Denver?” As we worked through the call to a location, we didn’t know where to start. Anywhere on the map was fair game. In the end, we decided on Denver for three major reasons: Need, Influence, and Community. The first two are self-explanatory, but the third is a less-discussed component of calling.
My wife and I wanted to think long term about where we would plant, taking the advice of Tim Keller that the best way to reach the cities is to have Christians plant their lives there for multiple generations. Therefore, we were asking practical questions such as: “what does it look to do life here?,” “what does it look like to raise children here?,” and “how well do I naturally fit into the already-established culture?” I don’t mean to overemphasize this to the point that if you don’t immediately gush at the thought of your grandkids playing in the city’s parks then you need to look elsewhere, but I do think it’s important to actually like where you live. My guess is your effectiveness is limited when you view the city as some dark, horrible, crowded place that you would avoid unless God had “called” you to it.
Below is an elaboration of our own calling to the city of Denver. This was written and reserached by another member of our team, Andy Metzger.
When answering the question, “Why Denver?” we like to focus on three categories: need, influence, and community.
Over the past 10 years, cities across our country have continued to experience a significant return—a return of people. Urban environments are being revitalized, residential life is booming, and all generations have shown interest in being a part of this movement. Young professionals, empty nesters, and retirees alike are migrating toward urban centers, and we can’t afford to ignore this.
Denver is no different:
After decades of decline (~1970–1990), the population of the Denver Metro Area has steadily grown to reach a record high of 2.8 million residents.
Studies show that anywhere from 90-97% of these Denver residents are unchurched
Denver is quickly emerging as a distinguished and prominent city within the western United States
So as Denver continues to grow—as people continue to come—we believe the need for gospel-centered churches rises tremendously. Because the number of churches being planted has not paralleled the growing population, there are millions of Denver residents that have not heard and been transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Fundamentally, we see a tremendous need for more gospel-centered churches in Denver because there are so many people who do not know Jesus as Savior.
Cities like Denver, however, are not merely homes to millions—they are centers of influence for the world. These urban centers continue to be the primary location where culture develops. Economics, commerce, arts, politics, philosophy, and technology are fundamentally shaped in the city and then flow into all other sectors of the world.
Where the cities lead, the world follows. What the cities love, the world loves. What the cities value, the world values. To evangelize the entire world, then, we see the cities as the strategic starting point and launching pad of our mission.
We look at Denver as a strategic city—one that influences culture and shapes the lives of millions of people. It is an energetic and welcoming metropolitan area—one of the most important cities of the Mountain West region—and serves as a gateway to West Coast life. Denver also boasts these amazing qualities:
12 four-year public and private colleges and universities with enrollments totaling more than 140,700
The latest U.S. census shows that over 70 nationalities and languages are represented in Denver
Denver is one of only two cities in America with ten professional sports teams
Denver is emerging as the leader in renewable energy research and “green-friendly” practices
Denver held the Democratic National Convention in August 2008 demonstrating the nation’s recognition of Denver as a leading city
The third primary reason we look to Denver as a strategic city is because of its amazing culture that we know we could quickly grow to love. Recognized by the Pew Research Center in 2008 as the “Best City to Call Home,” Denver has long been revered as the perfect place to live, learn, work and play. Mixing an urban sophistication, educated population, and dynamic culture with an adventurous outdoors, sunny climate, and affordable living provides just a glimpse of why Denver attracts individuals and families from all over the globe.
Ultimately, we desire to love the place where we live and its people. Denver has the progressive culture of a west coast town, tremendous diversity, natural beauty, and a hint of Midwestern hospitality that we can thrive in. We are excited about calling Denver home, raising families in Denver, building community in Denver, and restoring true joy and hope to Denver through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is the first post of the newest Baptist21 contributor, Bryan Barley.
Bio: Bryan Barley is Director of Evangelism at Promised Land Community Church in Creedmoor, NC. He has a BA in History from the University of South Carolina, where he also met his wife, Megan. They live in Wake Forest, NC where Bryan is pursuing a Masters of Divinity at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, while also coaching baseball at Franklin Academy High School.
With all the talk about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention, I’ve noticed a trend among some of those who express their opinions at conferences or the blogosphere. Before articulating their thoughts, they first detail their lifelong Baptist affiliation, complete with stories that include how their first words were “Lottie Moon Christmas Offering.”
I don’t doubt the sincerity of many who have done this. For example, I think of Jarrett Stephens, the young pastor who voiced his support for the Great Commission Resurgence motion at the convention. I am confident that he was not attempting to flaunt his Baptist pedigree but rather establish credibility to voice support for the GCR, and show that this is a not a rejection of his rich Baptist past, but rather the natural continuation of it. On the other hand, it appears that others sometimes drop these credentials to supersede the past over the present and where you’re from over theological aptitude, making one’s spiritual life at age eight a main qualification for holding an informed opinion about SBC happenings.
However, I have to warn you that this rising movement in the SBC consists of more than lifelong SBC’ers. In fact, there are many like myself who are very unlikely Southern Baptists.
I’m in no way a part of the traditional Southern Baptist constituency. I have never been an RA, played on a church softball team, or been on a committee. I grew up in the home of an ex-Baptist father who felt largely scorned by a moralistic church that concentrated more on right dress than a right heart. I was “sprinkled” as a baby in the Episcopalian church and was largely un-churched until the age of eighteen when Jesus saved me. As a Religious Studies minor at the University of South Carolina, Southern Baptists were the butt of many of my professors’ jokes. But despite their best efforts, I stepped into my first Southern Baptist Church at the age of nineteen.
The first time someone told me they were an “RA” as a kid I wondered how a ten year old could be a resident advisor in a college dorm. The first time I heard someone mention having a “quiet time” I wondered if this was similar to “nap time” and wished Google was nearby to help me decode this jargon. Last March, I heard the song, “Father Abraham,” for the first time. But somehow people like me have stumbled into this crazy party called the Southern Baptist Convention, and although we don’t know all the secret handshakes and songs that apparently everyone else learned when they were five, we care about its future and are unashamedly committed to its theological distinctives, which are what brought us into the SBC in the first place.
So I would like to bring you news that rings true for at least one unlikely Baptist who shouldn’t care at all about the convention: this GCR movement that calls for “embracing more intentionally” the centrality of the Gospel and the primacy of the Great Commission in conjunction with our Baptist distinctives is working.
There have been many unlikely (or likely) Baptists who have been yearning for a theologically-driven movement to rally behind for some time, and this one has energized us. Many of us have felt caught between a rock and a hard place-on the one hand agreeing with Baptist ecclesiology and appreciative of a commitment to biblical inerrancy, but on the other wondering if we’re even wanted in a denomination that has a distinct subculture which leaves many of us feeling uncomfortable. The challenge of this new movement, however, has been to refocus on the message and mission of God. The gospel is the great unifier and in light of its unparalleled worth, my own non-essential preferences grow “strangely dim,” and I’m ready to go on mission. You can wear two ties to church for all I care; if you’re about the true gospel, then we couldn’t have anything more important in common. Let’s get to work together.
All along we’ve wanted to be part of something larger than ourselves, and don’t have a desire to be lone-ranger pastors who only want to work with those who look and act exactly like us. We want to reach our cities, nation, and world, and we realize that this isn’t going to happen by planting non-denominational, non-cooperating churches that are filled with people like us. We want to be part of the missio Dei, and therefore have a vision that forces us to think about more than our preferences, generation, and geographic location.
This is all still so unlikely to me. As I look back on my own story-Episcopalian “baptismal” waters and all- I realize I’m the type of guy that should have “non-denominational” written all over me. I have no real emotional stake in the convention, no family ties, no connection beyond what I’ve developed since my time at Southeastern. In my flesh, I am uncomfortable in a traditional Southern Baptist Church. I’m a Gen Y Millennial who is supposed to be skeptical of authority and sprint in the opposite direction at the first scent of denominational politics.
Instead, I’m now writing for a Baptist blog as a student at a Baptist seminary. I spent the majority of June 23-24 in front of my computer with half the screen filled by a live-stream video of the convention, with the other following the #sbc2009 hash tag on Twitter, and texting my friends who were present every five minutes for updates.
You’ll see many more of us (including my wife and I) in Orlando next Summer. You’ll roll your eyes when we mess up Robert’s Rules of Order and we’ll roll our eyes when more motions are brought that try to ban our favorite Bible translation (in favor of the KJV), excommunicate a popular preacher (Mark Driscoll), and boycott a pretty good soft drink (Pepsi). And though we’re not clueless and appreciate not being treated as such, we recognize that we have a lot to learn and desperately need the experience of seasoned Baptists. We just want to be one more part of a rising Gospel-centered movement in the Southern Baptist Convention to reach the nations and our neighbors.
Recent decisions made by the leadership of the Executive Committee (EC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are causing many to ask what is going on with the EC and if this is the moment to call for the accountability of its leadership. These events include: 1) The EC “Report” at the 2009 SBC, 2) “Stories” in Baptist Press (BP), 3) the forced resignation of Clark Logan, 4) the EC’s opposition to the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR), and 5) the preservation of the status quo.
1. The EC “Report”
Dr. Chapman, the President of the EC, gave his annual report at the Convention on June 23rd in Louisville. You can read it online in its entirety. The report seemed to be more like a rant (that attacked almost every theological position) than an actual report of the EC’s doings. Dr. Chapman’s main point was that we do not need to concern ourselves with doctrine as much as we concern ourselves with mission, even as he appeared to concern himself with attacking (and mischaracterizing) doctrine.
Dr. Chapman stated that while controversy over Baptist identity raged among theologians in the states, Lottie Moon was boarding a boat to China in order to reach people. He continued, “The church did not—upon receiving the Spirit of God (at Pentecost)—write a theology text…or engage in idle arguments about the extent of the atonement or the nature of election.” This is simply NOT TRUE. The apostles wrote the Bible upon receiving the Spirit. Paul was on mission planting churches and writing the authoritative, inerrant words of the Bible at the same time. That is why Dr. Akin consistently says “Great theologians will be great missionaries like Paul, and great missionaries will of necessity be great theologians.” To divorce mission and theology leads to compromise and ultimately to syncretism. We cannot divorce mission and theology (see the article by Stetzer). The SBC historically has NOT separated them. We just celebrated the 150th year of SBTS, an institution with a confession of faith (The Abstract of Principles) that theologically trains ministers to advance the Gospel. The purpose of the SBC from its inception has been “the propagation of the Gospel,” but at the same time that we adopted a mechanism for more efficient cooperation in mission (the CP) we also adopted a confession of faith (the BFM). This call to “major on mission and minor on theology” sounds familiar. It was the rallying cry of the moderates during the Conservative Resurgence. This rallying point is what destroyed our seminaries and many of our churches that are even now devoid of biblical teaching in the pulpit and full of biblical illiteracy in the pew. This rally cry threatened to destroy our mission as well! Before we can share the Gospel we must know what the Gospel is.
When Dr. Chapman did delve into theology in his address, specifically on the issue of Calvinism, he mischaracterized the position. He said that there is in the Convention “a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.” Yet, Calvinism does NOT teach that men can be saved apart from repentance and faith. A tweet during the address from @drmoore says that he “has never met a single human being, let alone a Southern Baptist, who believes ‘sovereignty alone’ saves apart from faith.” This errant theological statement led Dr. Akin at the b21 panel later that morning to apologize to Calvinists, calling it a “horrible misrepresentation of your position.”
2. The BP “Stories”
BP seems to be in danger, at times, of becoming an opinionated blog rather than a news reporting service. There have been recent articles that either one seem to misunderstand the current trends of ministry or two do not do thorough research in reporting a “story.” BP, under the leadership of the EC, seems to have a political agenda. Here are a couple of quick examples.
First, BP is asserting that “everything is fine in the SBC.” It seems like the reason we should feel this way according to BP articles is that we are reaching as many southern Whites as we always have. Will Hall, in a recent series, took up the issue of decline in membership, baptisms, younger leaders, etc. in the SBC. He says the decline is not about outdated methodologies or a generation gap but rather “demographic changes in our country.” Our numbers are declining because of a declining birthrate among Whites and the suburbanization of America (80% living in major urban centers). He believes all that is needed is a slight “shift” in strategy. We need to plant churches in urban centers (though many Southern Baptist leaders have called for this for several years now, and this seems to be part of the call of the GCR). So, Hall concludes that we are “not necessarily” a denomination in decline. He even implies that we are growing and “thriving.” In this article he says, “if we are to continue to grow,” and in a recent interview with Christianity Today he says we are thriving. The fact that we are in decline is a matter of math, not opinion (see research).
Hall is calling for a minor course correction not wholesale changes. The remedy is not updating outdated methodologies but rather that “we abandoned some enduring principles of proven methodologies about how to plant and grow churches and reach the lost.” What are these proven strategies? Sunday School and Training Union! He says that Training Union “was an effective method of intentionally teaching our beliefs while also developing loyalty to Southern Baptist causes.” So, in order to address the supposed decline in the SBC we need to plant churches in urban centers that do Training Union? This seems a little naïve.
Second, BP has launched an all out assault on Mark Driscoll. The latest article deals with how Bott radio interrupted a show on its airwaves in which Driscoll was a guest. The interview was on the “Family Life” program hosted by Dennis Rainey, a very reputable program. The article implies that Driscoll said something in order to make the radio station interrupt the broadcast. However, nothing in the interview itself caused the cancellation. Rather the cancellation had to do with previous things the station had “heard” about Driscoll. Bott interrupted the show mainly because of Driscoll’s comments when preaching on the Song of Solomon in Scotland (Nov. 18, 2007). What was absolutely irresponsible on the part of Bott and BP is they do not show due diligence in researching the matter. The greatest disgust for Driscoll came over the comments about oral sex that he made in Edinburgh almost 2 years ago. Bott says, “I’ve seen what he said at that church in Scotland and as far as I know he’s never addressed it in any repentant way…” Then BP rehashes all of the same material from this earlier “story.” The fact is that Driscoll was lovingly confronted by an older pastor on this issue that led to Driscoll repenting and pulling the audio off of their website. Neither Bott nor BP mentions this.
This is part of a pattern which led Between the Times to publicly criticize BP for its coverage of the pastor. Increasingly, Southern Baptists are seeing BP as a biased and agenda driven source, and that does not bode well for the SBC’s confidence in the EC.
What makes it look like BP has an agenda in this matter is that it waited a month from when this “incident” happened on May 18th to report it on June 17th right before the annual meeting (for another example of BP’s agenda see the next point in Part 2).
Part 2 of this piece will deal with the remaining points of the outline.
Guest Blog by Steven A. McKinion
He is the Associate Professor of Theology and Patristic Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has taught Theology, Church History, Hermeneutics, and Historcial Theology classes at Southeastern Seminary. Dr. McKinion’s area of specialization is Patristic Theology. He holds the following degrees: B.A., Mississippi College; M.A., University of Mobile; Ph.D., King’s College, University of Aberdeen.
Second generation conservatives who have been addressing the trend of many 3gens to question the value of the bureaucracy of the SBC recognize that these 3gens are not asking for a seat at the SBC table, they are instead just leaving the room when they hear those around the table disrespect them, belittle them, or, even worse, talk about their own positions, power, or prominence. These 3gens think they have too much to do in their own churches to spend their time trying to earn some “right to have their voice heard” in the SBC.
Seeing the many current 2gen leaders are interested in keeping 3gen Southern Baptists within the SBC, I would like to identify four misconceptions about these 3gen Conservatives:
3gens want to run the SBC. It is a myth that 3gens simply want to run the convention. Such a misconception is the result of not only a misreading of what 3gens are saying, but a complete misunderstanding of the importance, or lack thereof, of the SBC in the weekly ministries of these leaders. While many younger SB pastors want to have titles in their state conventions or be invited to speak in revival meetings at other churches, the 3gens that I have been writing about could not care less about having a role in the SBC. Obviously, there are exceptions, but the 3gens I teach and hear from are not looking for positions or influence within the convention. In fact, the reason why so many 2gens have begun to take notice is because these younger pastors do NOT want a place at the SBC table. They don’t want to be trustees, revival speakers, or have meaningless titles in the state conventions. Instead, they are wondering what in the world their state conventions do that is of Great Commission value. The reason they are partnering with church planting groups like Acts 29, is because its networked churches actually succeed. The model of church planting, including on-going cooperation and partnership, works better to start biblical and Baptist churches than other models, including many of those within the SBC. Because many 3gens think the SBC bureaucracy is bloated, it is foolish to think they would want to run it. I think one cause for this misconception is that those who either already have power in the convention or the 3gens who want one day to have “earned” that power, fail to realize that not every one thinks SBC power is valuable. Such myopic thinking about the value of what one possesses often can lead one to project ones own ambitions to others.
3gens want their voice heard by SBC leaders. It is believed by some that younger SBs want a seat around the SB table where they can have input. This is a misconception, much like the former myth, that is based in the false belief that 3gens want their voice to be heard. They not only are not looking for a seat at the table, they are not even interested in being in the boardroom. Again, there are obvious exceptions, but the younger SBs who are the interest of 2gen leaders are not looking for a hearing. In their minds, the discussions in the SBC boardroom are about how to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic, quite useless. They do not have an interest of determining who the next president of the SBC will be, or what friends can be appointed to trustee positions, or how they can be invited to speak at another church. In the minds of 3gens, they want to be busy in their own churches rather than trying to control other churches. Now, whether their assessment of what 1gen leaders are doing is itself a misconception is another topic, and an important one. But to think that under 40 SBs are simply looking to have influence in the convention is a grave misunderstanding of what these 3gens are saying. Such a misunderstanding is often rooted in an arrogance regarding the positions one already possesses rather than any evidence that someone else is aspiring to that position.
3gens don’t love the SBC. What is the SBC? Technically, it is a brief business meeting once a year. Churches who pool their financial resources to support agencies, boards, and commissions (the IMB, NAMB, six seminaries, the ERLC, etc.) are allowed to send messengers (not delegates) to this business meeting for the purpose of appointing trustees to operate those agencies on behalf of the churches. But the SBC is more broadly the associative relationship of those churches that goes beyond fiduciary cooperation to a share set of beliefs, values, and distinctives. The SBC is a massive network of missional churches.
In my experience, the younger generation loves the mission of the SBC. The beliefs, values, and distinctives of the network of churches are shared among the various generations, including the 3gens. But at the same time, they question whether the bureaucracy of the convention is accomplishing its intended objective, which is to be a cooperative missionary effort. The 3gens I have observed love the seminary where they were educated and love the IMB and perhaps NAMB, but outside of those agencies they appear ambivalent. They may be mistaken to be ambivalent, but their love for the work of the convention should not be hidden by their lack support for all of the boards.
3gens don’t respect the CR or 1gen leaders. From observation it is more accurate to say that many 3gens do not know the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence. There may be practical reasons for this (e.g. Danny Akin and Johnny Hunt are on iTunes for free, while other sermons must be purchased), but it is also the case that many 3gens believe, perhaps mistakenly, that 1gen leaders do not value them as partners in the work of the convention. 3gens do not think their “forefathers” are not wise, they simply do not know them.
What complicates the matter vis-à-vis the relationship between some increasingly prominent 3gens and the SBC is the lack of direct influence by 1st generation leaders on 3gens. In part two of the series, I enumerated some ways I think the CR continues to influence younger SBs, but that influence has been indirect, mediated through leaders such as Johnny Hunt, Danny Akin, and James Merritt. There are exceptions; for example J.D. Greear’s PhD work was supervised by Paige Patterson. By and large, though, 3gens have sermons from Platt, Akin, Hunt, and Driscoll on their iPods, and not sermons from Vines, Patterson, and Rogers.
I don’t know all the reasons for this lack of exposure. Perhaps the second-generation influencers have been quicker to take advantage of newer media such as podcasting and social media. Many younger SBs, and their pastors, do not subscribe to tape ministries, but to podcasts. They rarely listen to over-the-air radio, and almost never to Christian radio. If they hear a John MacArthur sermon, it is because they downloaded it. John Piper was one of the first of their influencers to leave the expensive medium of radio for the relatively inexpensive one of the internet.
Perhaps 3gens have deliberately rejected the direct influence of 1st generation leaders for cultural reasons. They reject suits and ties as mandatory dress, and think the first generation places too much emphasis on certain apparel (fairly or not). They don’t think mandatory abstinence from beverage alcohol is fundamental to cooperation, and think the prior generation makes too much of this. From my experience, these leaders do not imbibe, but they also don’t think prohibition of such beverages is necessary. But cultural differences seem, in the end, to be of little consequence to the lack of direct influence of 1gens on 3gens. Culture seems to be a red-herring.
Regardless of the lack of direct interaction, in the end, the third generation is very much like the first generation. Theologically they are conservative inerrantists. They are committed to practicing Baptist distinctives, both broadly and more narrowly conceived. They preach the Gospel with fervor. They call sinners to repentance and faith in Jesus. They hate sin, but love sinners. They preach and practice missions at home and abroad. In all these ways, and more, they are the legitimate heirs of resurgence leaders.
So have the third generation conservatives who are enthusiastically supportive of the Great Commission Resurgence leaders such as Hunt and Akin rejected the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence, either consciously or unconsciously? I think they have not. Rather, they are the fruit of the CR. While 3gens may be a generation that knows not Patterson and Pressler, they are nonetheless the legacy of those great leaders. Some under 40′s will attend conferences where the speakers are predominately 1gen leaders. Other under 40′s will prefer conferences where 2gen leaders are the speakers. But both groups of younger SBs are the fruit of the CR.
Henry Chapin (for one generation) and Ugly Kid Joe (for another) recorded a popular song entitled, Cat’s in the Cradle, about a man whose busy-ness keeps him from time with his son. The failure of this man to be a good father comes back to haunt him later when his grown son is not interested in time with his elderly father.
An assessment of the breakdown in the relationship between 1gen and 3gen SBs would be fascinating, and is, I think, important, though beyond my scope here. But the lack of knowledge of 1gen leaders should not be read as a rejection of these men or the resurgence for which they fought. My paternal grandmother died a few years before my birth. I have no knowledge of her, obviously. But my lack of familiarity with her does not mean I disdain her. I do not invoke her name in conversation, but the older I get the more I become aware of her influence in my own life through my father. He doesn’t tell me to exhibit the positive characteristics from my grandmother’s life, I simply do so because he has influenced me. I never knew my grandmother, but her influence persists. Many 3gens have never met or even heard some 1gen leaders, but the influence of the CR persists in and through the ministries of 2gen leaders like Johnny Hunt, Danny Akin, and Thom Rainer (and many others). Although the legacies of certain men may not remain, the legacy of the CR certainly does.
Within the current call for a Great Commission Resurgence lives the legacy of the Conservative Resurgence. Young Southern Baptists who desire to see men, women, and young people around the world hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, become disciples of Jesus, and then grow to be disciple-making disciples are acting consistently with the ultimate aims of the CR. Even more importantly, the call of the GCR to organize the ministries of the SBC and her cooperating state conventions around the mission of the Gospel is at the heart of the call of conservative SBs who desired a renewal of the Convention for the sake of the Convention’s mission, not the Convention’s structure.
A topic of great love to b21 is the Primacy of the Local Church. We will write much about this in our vision series (“SBC21“) that is ongoing. A conference that will highlight this topic and feature world-renown speakers will be held in Durham, NC. We at b21 encourage you to attend and think this conference will be of great benefit to those who love the local church. We believe that we will learn much about a resurgence of the local church from this conference and these men.
What: Advance ’09 (Resurgence of the Local Church)
When: June 4-6th
Where: Durham Performing Arts Center, 123 Vivian St. Durham, NC 27701
Who: John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Danny Akin, Ed Stetzer, Bryan Chapell, Eric Mason, J.D. Greear, and Tyler Jones
Purpose: from the advance ’09 website
“Sadly, churches in America are in steady decline, with over 4000 closing their doors and 500,000 members leaving each year–never to return. This is not what the Lord desires…The local church is called to make known the Gospel and to be the vehicle of redemption for the world. Led by local churches, Advance09 is a conference committed to the resurgence of the local church for the glory of God. Our aim is to equip attendees with the Gospel so that the local church might become all that Jesus calls it to be.”
Switch to our mobile site