Archive for the 'Alan Cross' Category

Jun 12

Downshore Drifts into Hopeful Territory

Topic: Alan Cross, Indianapolis 2008, Weblogs| 26 Comments »

Some of us were unable to attend the SBC Annual Meeting in Indianapolis. We are grateful for those who Twittered (Ed Stetzer) and blogged (Tom Ascol and others). Technology allowed many of us to listen in from the outside (like Timmy Brister). Alan Cross may have watched the entire meeting from gavel to gavel. He offers his thoughts in the following piece re-posted here with permission. We offer this post as you anticipate the return of the flag waving Ben Cole.

June 11, 2008

Convention Finale: Does the SBC Have a Future?

I have written a great deal about the SBC over the past few days because I had a sense that what would be decided and discussed would have significance for the long term. I was pretty gloomy last night (Tuesday) about the overall tone of the convention, primarily because nothing was done about the IMB policies. But, after listening to Al Gilbert’s covention sermon, hearing from the other speakers, seeing the passage of the resolution on regenerate church membership, and hearing the idea of a Great Commission Resurgence mentioned again and again, I am of the belief that the SBC leadership is moving in the right direction. Here’s why: They are finally publically saying that they believe that there is something dreadfully wrong and they are taking steps to address it. As Dr. Frank Page said in his sermon, we have to see ourselves ae we really are and go to Jesus for change. On some levels, it appears as though we are doing that.

Apart from Dr. Patterson’s claims that the SBC will be rescued by swarms of Southwestern graduates beating back the vultures attacking the SBC, the triumphalistic tone that has marked so many of our meetings was missing. There was a great deal more humility and recognition that we are in trouble. There was an awareness that all biblically conservative, BF&M affirming Baptists need to be mobilized to reach a dying world for Christ. It was the tone that Dr. Frank Page promised us when he became president two years ago in Greensboro. He has delivered.

When I went to my first convention two years ago, I was a part of a small group of Baptist Bloggers calling for reform. I met up with guys like Marty Duren, Art Rogers, Todd and Paul Littleton, Ben Cole, Wade Burleson, Kevin Bussey, CB Scott, Micah Fries, Tom Ascol, David Phillips, and others who were saying that we were facing dramatic problems and that we had to reform and become missional or we would die. The reform group changed by adding new people and losing others, but the basic message stayed the same.  The small movement was initiated by the IMB policies that overstepped the BF&M, but it tapped into the truth that the SBC is losing members, young leaders, and ground. We are declining in baptisms and our churches are aging. We knew that something had to be done and so we hit on multiple fronts. My main focus was the IMB policies, because I felt that if they were rescended it would keep the door open for missionaries to get to the field and it would also send a message to the SBC that we do not need to narrow the doctrinal parameters of cooperation. My vision did not exceed that because I thought that getting the whole convention to move in a missional direction was a hopeless cause. Others, like Ben Cole, saw the main problem as being Dr. Patterson at Southwestern. Others, like Marty Duren, focused more on bringing a missional perspective to the SBC, and we all watched people like Steve McCoy and Joe Thorn who did more than talk about it. Then, you had the Calvinist perspective from folks like Tom Ascol and Timmy Brister. We never all agreed with one another and there were many parts of the reform movement that that some of us rejected. But, all of this came together to provide an unending, and I believe, God provoked push for change.  Unfortunately, those calling for change did not always do so in a God-honoring way and the movement sometimes struggled because of that.

It seems that the reform movement of bloggers, however it was defined, is dead. It ran out of gas and imploded upon itself, largely because it was constantly reacting against the problems of the establishment. And they were many. Few of the original most prominent leaders are blogging about the SBC anymore. I stopped writing on Downshoredrift.com on SBC issues almost a year ago, although I continued commenting on a few other blogs. But, even though the unorganized movement of passionate young pastors has died, it seems that many of the ideas that were espoused have made it from computer keyboards to the very platform and back room decisions of the SBC. No one can look at this convention and compare it to Greensboro in 2006 and not see the ideas and dreams of the reformers all over it. As Nathan Finn said when I called him for his impressions of the convention, “The Convention has come together in consensus around a Great Commission Resurgence.” Contrary to what many might think, this change in direction from triumphalism about how great the SBC is to an awareness that we are in trouble and either need to change or die, has nothing to do with politics. There has been no conspiracy. There has been no attempt to grab a seat at the table and control things. People are just beginning to wake up and see the truth. Statistics about declining baptisms, dying churches, and a large portion of pastors who disagree with the IMB policies/guidelines has caused many in leadership to begin to step forward. We had SIX people run for SBC president this year!  Four years ago, we only had one, pre-anointed “candidate.” Times have changed. Love for our churches, the lost, and the SBC has caused many who were willing to either ignore the obvious or stand silently by while others put their stamp on the future of the SBC to step forward and begin to lead.

In my opinion, the Baptist Identity movement has lost any significant influence in the SBC. The forces that stacked the trustee board of the IMB to deliver those horrendous policies are seeing the beginning of the end of their influence. The SBC is moving in a different direction and it is leaving them behind. This is happening because people all over convention leadership are able to see the truth of the challenges that we are facing and they are well aware that the Baptist Identity group out of Southwestern has no real answers. We need Biblical truth and Spirit given power for trying times, not extrabiblical restrictions that put us under the dominion of man’s tradition instead of God’s Spirit.

While I see a lot of good signs and I believe that the yeast of the reform movement has spread throughout the dough of the leadership of the SBC in an organic, unpredictable, and unexpected way, it is just a beginning. Recognizing that you have a problem is only the first step and it’s taken us a couple of years to get to this point. We need leadership who can now assess what needs to die and what needs to live. How do we begin to address the problems that we face? How do we reposition ourselves to quit fighting one another and turn to face a dying world? How do we reclaim a missional theology that leads us outside of ourselves to appropriately engage those who do not know Jesus? How do we reconnect our churches with the power of the Holy Spirit and intimacy with Christ? After we have addressed how to do these things, doing them is another matter entirely. That is yet another step. Then, we must actually come to the point of renewal and effectiveness so that we can bear fruit for the Kingdom. The leaders who have brought us to this point may be unable to bring us further. So many of our current leaders have compromised themselves because they have been trying to maintain what we already have and have served the SBC rather than serving God. But, what we have is dying. New leadership is needed to birth what God has for us.

Overall, I am more encouraged about Johnny Hunt as president of the SBC than I was Tuesday. But, his position really is irrelevant at this point. The change that is coming will not come from convention leadership. It will not come from our entities or denominational leaders. No, the change that is coming is going to come from the local churches. Many will die, but many will emerge to lead the way into this new reality. Pastors and churches networking together to become more effective in reaching their communities and world will be the future of the SBC. The large, top heavy, money sucking, bureaucracy that the SBC has become is going to begin to be dismantled if we are serious about a Great Commission Resurgence. This will happen because one of the biggest things that keeps the SBC from being relevant and effective is the SBC denominational apparatus. Effective leaders with more fidelity to Christ than the SBC will realize this. Churches are paralyzed because they are waiting for the denominational structures to tell them what to do. For Baptist churches to awaken, they have to become Baptist churches again - vibrant, autonomous, spirit filled, life giving outposts/communities of the Kingdom. Local churches do not exist to make the SBC strong. If the SBC is to exist at all, it must be to serve the churches.

So, does the SBC have a future?  I still don’t know.  The fragmented vision of the reformers is, in part, beginning to be realized. But, there is still a long way to go. I will predict that the future will likely be a mixture of all facets of Baptist heritage and life. A diverse array of churches, leaders, and common people will come together to define the future of the SBC if we are to have one at all. They will be biblical conservatives. That battle has been fought and won. But, if we are to truly believe the Bible, then we will have to be a people who care more about the expansion of the Kingdom of God than we care about our own size, strength, and glory. We must decrease and Jesus must increase. Positive steps toward that were taken this week. I hope we start running in that direction in the future.

Jun 03

Problems Within the IMB Caused by Restrictive Guidelines? Missionaries Say, “Yes!”

Topic: Alan Cross, Guest Author, IMB, Missionaries, Missions| 45 Comments »

I’ve gotten to know quite a few people over the past two-and-one-half years as we’ve discussed the IMB policy/guideline changes.  No one seems to express what I’m thinking better than my friend Alan Cross.  Recently Alan completed quite a bit of homework on our missions work and has written down his conclusions to the information gathered from a variety of first-hand sources over an extended period of time.

Over the past few years, I have been very active in the blogosphere opposing the policies regarding private prayer language and baptism initiated by the IMB’s Board of Trustees in November, 2005. I was very excited to see others take up the struggle against these extra-biblical and extra- BF&M policies as seen through the Time to Change Statement, which I quickly signed. Even though I am a stateside pastor, I have had relationships with missionaries on the field for many years now. I have been a big advocate for the IMB and believe that they are doing great work. As the current IMB BoT chairman, Paul Chitwood recently said, “The work of the IMB is the primary thing that brings us together.” I agree. That is why it is so important to all of us.

Recently, I have begun to hear about the disastrous effects that these policies are having upon our missionary force in the field. Read the rest of this entry »

May 08

Drinking Deep From the Well of Relativism

Topic: Alan Cross, Guest Author, IMB, SBC| 12 Comments »

One of the young pastors I have come to know over the last couple of years is Alan Cross. He blogs at Downshoredrift. Alan has led his church to partner in India. He takes an active role in his local association. And, Alan wonders about the SBC drift - a drift into relativism.

We seem to have a problem with agreeing about truth in Southern Baptist life. Over the past few weeks, we have seen information come out that tells us that Southern Baptists are in decline - and, we have argued over it. We have seen competing resolutions submitted on integrity in church membership - and, we have argued over it. Yesterday, Dr. Patterson released a First Person article that basically says that things are not that bad numbers wise, and what ails us is weak preaching and culture chasing. Dr. Page recently said that half of all SBC churches could vanish by 2030. I suppose we’ll argue over that as well. No matter how you look at it, Southern Baptists are in crisis, and we continue to argue over it. We are at each other’s throats and we refuse to listen to one another. Is God pleased? Truth on these matters seems to be elusive, or maybe it is just held captive to our own opinions.

On top of all of this is the resignation of Rodney Hammer, the Central and Eastern Europe Regional Leader for the IMB. Mr. Hammer tells a disturbing story of trying to speak to the trustees regarding the policies on baptism and private prayer language, without much success. Finally, he was allowed to speak with a group of trustees, but his concerns were dismissed. Hammer’s statements regarding the lack of a problem on the field related to charismatic practices dispute what former IMB trustee chaiman Tom Hatley said in 2006 when he said that, “we were receiving concerns from the field, from pastors and others returning from mission trips, and from trustees visiting the field. The concerns were varied, but the three greatest doctrinal concerns were the need for a consistent definition of a local church, a poor understanding of the importance of scriptural baptism and charismatic problems that would intrude into some of our mission work.” There were many statements made that these new policies were in response to problems on the field. Hammer says that there were no problems with charismatic issues on the field in his region and he seems to imply that that was the case in ALL the regions of the IMB. This was a big enough deal for a Regional Leader of the IMB to resign over. If what he is saying is true, we should all be very alarmed. Unfortunately, we continue to turn and look the other way, or, we just argue about what it means. So, how do we make sense of this?

From Mr. Hammer’s perspective, there were no problems with charismatic practices on the field. There were policies in place that forbid a missionary to advocate one spiritual gift as normative to all believers or to publicly practice speaking in tongues. These policies were sufficient to eliminate any problems. But, from Mr. Hatley’s view, there were problems anyway. Could it be that the problems that Mr. Hatley heard of and referred to were enlarged in his mind because of his predetermined prejudice or the prejudice of those telling the stories? Could it be that the IMB Board of Trustees, filled with people who feared anything that might resemble charismatic practice, were biased to begin with? If all of the Regional Leaders of the IMB told the Board of Trustees that there was no problem, then what justification do the trustees have in changing the policies to eliminate a non-existent problem? Could it be that their own theological bias was all the basis that they needed? Apparently, the problem was the mere existence of IMB missionaries who had a private prayer language or were baptized differently, whether they were a problem or not. It was a theological issue.

That is a somewhat defensible position logically, even if many believe that they exceeded their perogative as trustees because they created doctrinal policy that went beyond the BFM2000. But, the position falls apart when the trustees allowed current violators of the new policies to stay on the field. Basically, violators were grandfathered in. Under what basis was the “truth” of the trustees compromised? Hatley says that it was deemed to be “fair” to the previous missionaries who had a ppl to continue to serve as long as they did not violate the other policies about making charismatic teachings public. This is very confusing for a denomination that claims to be guided by “truth.” Either practicioners of ppl are wrong and they believe in doctrine that is harmful to the churches and thus, they should not be on the field, or, it is possible for them to faithfully serve as IMB missionaries while still holding to their convictions if they do so in a way that is not divisive. The IMB Board of Trustees is espousing both positions at the same time, but they seem to agree that practicioners of ppl can be good Southern Baptist missionaries, otherwise, why are they allowing them to stay on the field? To be fair? Truth is not always fair. If they want to be consistent, they should remove all of the IMB missionaries that have a private prayer language. But, there is no reason to do that, as Mr. Hammer has said, because there were no problems on the field. It becomes a theological issue that was important enough to tear apart the SBC for the past several years, but it was not important enough to currently protect our mission work from the dangers of missionaries with a private prayer language. If the trustees really believe both contradictory positions at the same time, then how can they adequately lead the IMB? The logical implications of such relativism causes the mind to swim.

Are the trustees liars? From their perspective, they are not lying. I would tend to agree. But, there is another issue. Mr. Hammer and the rest of the Regional Leaders say that there were no problems with charismatic issues. Mr. Hatley refers to some reports from trustees and mission teams returning from the field that says that there were problems. Who do we believe? The trustees or the Regional Leaders? For the trustees, it seems that their theological position has prejudiced them to believe what they already feared to be the case, despite the direct testimony of the Regional Leaders. So, what is truth? Is truth what can be confirmed and proven, or is it what is proclaimed relative to the perspective of the person speaking? Is truth verified outside of us by some standard, or is it established by those who hold power and can speak the loudest? The SBC after the Conservative Resurgence claims to be a denomination built on truth, yet again and again we turn away from the truth that can be verified and proven in our dealings with one another, to the truth that is proclaimed to by those in power relative to their experiences and presuppositions. That is the fallacy of postmodern relativism and it appears that our SBC leadership is eaten up with it.

Dr. Patterson told us in his First Person article that a weakness in the SBC right now is that we are in “hot pursuit of cultural adaptibility.” I agree. Since we live in an age of postmodern relativism, I believe that our leadership should repent of such sin and deal with issues in a way that affirms absolute truth instead of giving into moral relativism because it appears to be easier at the time. But, the problem remains: Whose truth? Who gets to decide what truth is on these issues? Apparently, whoever is in power at the time. And that relativistic state of affairs makes power more important than truth in today’s SBC. Will God bless this?

Aug 17

Covenant to Be Christ Like In Creating Edifying Dialogue

Topic: Alan Cross| 19 Comments »

I’ve been reading the comments the last several days as people have complained about the tone of SBCOutpost. In all things we should strive to be Christ like and honor the Lord in conversation, our thoughts, and our motivations. Jesus is Truth, and being Christ like does not mean that we ignore serious issues, sin, and compromise, but when dialoguing with brothers and sisters in Christ, we should all do so in a way that edifies and brings glory to Christ. I am far from perfect and I can get fired up like the next person (and I have before), but my desire is to engage issues that have to do with Kingdom living in a way that honors God and builds others up. Does anyone else agree?

The contributors to SBCOutpost, whether they be regular contributors or guest authors all write and own their own words. Their words are theirs and no one else’s. The same goes with those who comment. But all of us, even commenters, have a responsibility before the Lord to honor Him with our words, deeds, and thoughts. Dr. Thom Rainer, President of Lifeway agrees. He wrote a statement today criticizing the tone of the dialogue on SBCOutpost and regretting his previous endorsement of this site as a place of dialogue. Thank you for your leadership, Dr. Rainier. I hope that we can all heed his words and follow his Christ like spirit.

My question is, what will we do about it? I propose that anyone who is committed to engaging in positive, healthy dialogue on Kingdom issues like missions, evangelism, church growth, theology, culture, and the the state of affairs of the SBC leave a comment and explain how you think that can happen. What will you do to change the tone in the blogosphere? For those who are just lurkers and never comment, now is your chance to say something positive. If you would like to leave a prayer for the SBC and for the fighting to stop on both sides, you can do so as well. Don’t sign if you are not serious or if you do not intend to carry a Christ like spirit into all your encounters on other blogs and in other conversations as well.

If we care about accountability, let it start here.

Edit: If you would also like to make a commitment to be a Christlike voice in the blogosphere, even when dealing with difficult issues, you can make that pledge here in the comment section. If you don’t know what it means to be Christlike in word, speech, and thought, you can begin by reading Colossians 3:1-17.

Aug 16

Is Jesus the Only Way to Salvation? Pt. 2: Loving and Forgiving One another

Topic: Alan Cross| 11 Comments »

Yesterday, I wrote about seeing Jesus as primary in our affections and worshiping Him because of who He is, not just because of what He can do for us. It seems that many, while truly Christian, live as though there are other things that can ease their pain and give them purpose in life. We seem to propogate that mentality by promoting a gospel of tranquility, safety, prosperity, and personal happiness over a gospel that calls us to be one with Christ through true repentance and faith. The truth is, if we are really living in relationship with Christ, we are going to see things differently and this will affect all areas of our lives, including our relationships with others. We need a serious wake up call in this area in the SBC right now it seems. Read the rest of this entry »

Aug 15

Is Jesus the Only Way to Salvation?

Topic: Alan Cross| 14 Comments »

I guess the answer you get depends on who or how you ask the question. You also might want to adequately define “salvation.” Now, from an eternal life - go to heaven - be forgiven of your sins - be one with God perspective, of course, all Baptists would say that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and rightly so. I would agree as would John 14:6. But, what about our daily lives? It seems that we often live as if there is another way to daily salvation or contentment besides Christ. Do we see our biggest problem as our sin and selfishness or do we see it as a lack of self esteem and personal satisfaction or success? Do we really look to Christ for what He has for us, or do we look to methods, programs, steps, principles, and purposes to save us from our daily hell so that we can just be happy and comfortable in this life?

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 19

Golden Gate: The SBC’s Best Kept Secret? An Interview with Dr. Jeff Iorg

Topic: Alan Cross| 8 Comments »

A little over ten years ago, my wife and I packed up everything we owned and moved from Mississippi to the San Francisco Bay Area to attend Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, CA. It was one of the best decisions of my life. I was born in New Orleans and grew up in South Mississippi, so I had planned to go to NOBTS. But, after much prayer and reflection, I realized that God was leading my wife and me out to the West Coast. I was 22 years old and thought I knew everything. I had no idea what God had in store for me.

My experience was life changing. I learned to read the Bible holistically. I learned about the importance of Biblical community and God’s purpose for the church. I learned to think missionally (before missional was cool), and I learned how to exegete culture as well as Scripture. My professors were top notch, they caused me to think about the big picture of theology, philosophy, culture, and anthropology, and they did not leave me alone until I grappled with the fact that the vast majority of the people around me did not know Christ. The lab for our studies was the SF Bay Area and its population of 6.5 million people, of which only 2-3% claim to be evangelical Christians. We had to face a huge sea of lostness every day and it was important to wrestle with deep questions of our faith, like: How do I really know and follow Christ in every area of my life? How do we reach unbelievers? What kind of man do I need to be to embody the gospel and be a witness for Christ? Is Jesus enough for a lost world, or do we need to prop Him up? How does society and culture truly change? Where does Scripture end and tradition begin? Am I truly willing to sacrifice all and go to the ends of the earth to see people saved? I am unpacking the answers to those questions, and many more every day with the tools my professors gave me. While many find a need to go back to seminary to get a D.Min. within a few years of graduating, I have found that I still have not begun to scratch the surface of all that was invested in me in my three years getting an M.Div. I almost feel like a D.Min. at most seminaries would be remedial compared to the education in ministry and theology that I have already received. It was that powerful.

In considering all of the controversy in Southern Baptist life today, I felt that it was important to speak about something that Southern Baptists are doing right. GGBTS definitely falls in that category. I do not intend to denigrate any of our other seminaries, because I am not familiar with them from a first hand perspective. I am sure that they are all doing a great job in their own right. But, I know that GGBTS instills a heart for the nations and a perspective in her students that causes them to see God at work in the world around them, as well as provide a strong theological education based on the inerrancy of God’s Word. In reflecting upon my experience there, I wanted to see how my alma mater (I graduated in 1999) was still developing people for ministry. So, I thought I’d go to the source and ask Dr. Jeff Iorg, President of Golden Gate, a few questions about what GGBTS was doing to develop pastors, church planters, and missionaries for the 21st Century.

• • •

What are you doing to facilitate a missional witness for the global environment?

We train people in a multicultural and intercultural setting, particularly in California, that prepares them for global witness. Our faculty, across disciplines, has extensive international missionary and teaching experience – and represents many cultures and ethnicities. We make extensive use of adjunct faculty from additional cultures to further diversify our perspective.
Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 12

Is There an Unhealthy Hierarchy Growing in SBC Life?

Topic: Alan Cross| 5 Comments »

In my last post here, I wrote about a “Creeping Gnostic Creedalism” that seems to be engulfing the SBC. I said it then and I will say it again: I do not think that we have any Gnostics in the SBC in the sense of the historic heresy of the 2nd Century nor was my post about gnosticism. But, I do think that we have a case of elitism where a small number of people are setting the rules for the rest of us beyond our confession of faith.But, this phenomenon does not happen in a vacuum. It requires an environment for it to take place. Baptists have always been a fiercly independent people. Why do we seem to be blindly following our leaders, even when they take us beyond our Confession of Faith?

Here are a few possible explanations:

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 04

Is There a Gnostic Creedalism Creeping into the SBC?

Topic: Alan Cross| 100 Comments »

I use the word “Gnostic” here to refer to a secret knowledge known only to an elite, but not in the sense of the historical heresy. Recent events in the SBC show us that a secret or relatively hidden creedalism seems to be emerging amongst the leaders of our Convention under the phrase, “Clear Baptist Identity.” Allow me to explain.

When a new believer or a visitor from another denomination comes into our church and wants to know what we believe, I give them a copy of the Baptist Faith & Message. I use it to talk about issues such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the local church, salvation, the Bible, etc. It is a good confession of faith in my opinion, because it is specific where it needs to be and it gives room for differing interpretations in other areas. While it is not a creed, it is a good summary of Baptist doctrine and it is sufficient in detailing Baptist distinctives for those coming into our church. Read the rest of this entry »