Disciple Making and the Great Commission Resurgence

At the recent Southern Baptist Convention held in Louisville, the SBC voted to appoint a task force charged with examining if and how the axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence (Dr. Danny Akin) should be implemented in the denomination.

It seems that a primary concern of Dr. Akin and others is that the prior Conservative Resurgence in the denomination has not translated to an appropriate increase in emphasis on and success in evangelism and missions.

For Southern Baptist Christ-followers holding to the Bible as God’s revelation to man, it should go without saying that we should “content earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3) as historically understood by Baptists, an idea represented by the Conservative Resurgence. It should further come as no surprise that we should be concerned to understand and obey Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), an intent expressed in Dr. Akin’s Axioms and the Resolution passed by the SBC.

In many efforts to counter error or address inadequacies, however, there is a tendency in those efforts to distort the overall teaching of which the particular emphasis is a subset. For instance, efforts to counter teachings of works-salvation sometimes give the appearance of antinomianism. Efforts to counter cheap grace sometimes give the appearance of legalism.

While I do not suggest that Dr. Akin and other proponents of a Great Commission Resurgence have contributed to such a distortion – or that such a thing exists, at all – some of the language appearing in commentary surrounding this issue could lead to an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Great Commission (or serve to reveal that such a misunderstanding already exists).

Because the Conservative Resurgence was aimed at securing Southern Baptist doctrinal foundations, some characterize its focus as “inward.” And, because the Great Commission Resurgence aims to re-examine our denomination in terms of missions and evangelism, some characterize its focus, in contrast, as “outward.” Similarly, some denominational focus is characterized as being “local”, while the focus of the GCR is characterized as “missional” – addressing evangelism and missions across the globe.

Yet the Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:18-20 doesn’t seem to draw those distinctions, and certainly doesn’t support the inward-outward/local-missional dichotomy that seems to be presumed in these discussions.

Jesus commissions his church to “make disciples.” These disciples are made in the local church, and disciples made in the local church are ones who make other disciples. Truly, when disciples are taught to “observe all that I [Jesus] commanded you” they will behave as disciples, making other disciples, both near and far. Biblical doctrine leads to a desire for biblical obedience. Orthodoxy produces orthopraxy.

Some have suggested that when we are too “inward”, “missions” is neglected. This may be true, but not because there is such a distinction inherent in disciple making. And what is sometimes forgotten is that if we play into this supposed dichotomy and focus only on the “outward”, disciple-making is neglected.

The reason, perhaps, that we see either the “inward” or the “outward” being neglected at various times is that we act on a false dichotomy. “Disciple making” requires both inward-outward and local-missional in balance. Let us not forget that Jesus does not divide the Great Commission task into “inward” and “outward” elements, but simply commands us to “make disciples.”

The interest shown in a Great Commission Resurgence is encouraging, but my hope is that the SBC’s exploration of the matter will address this perspective.

After all, if we were truly making disciples, lamentations over the lack of evangelism should be moot.

Church Health: Catching the Summertime Blues

It seems to be fairly common practice for churches to cancel or limit services during the summer, the most common victim of this summer sacrifice being the Sunday evening service (for those churches that still have one).

I suppose the theory is that summer is the time when most church members are vacationing and attendance will be down.

But this cause/effect relationship leaves us with compelling questions. First, if lower attendance means eliminating services, then we should also cut the Sunday morning service and the Wednesday night supper/prayer meeting. After all, very few vacationers stick around for the Sunday morning service, and none come back from the beach for Wednesday's pot luck supper or for a progress report on Aunt Matilda's bunion.

If lower attendance is not the reason for cutting summer services, then perhaps it is too avoid offending the consciences of vacationers. One cannot feel guilty about missing church if there is no church to miss. But, alas, this also leads to other problems. If cutting evening services eases the beach-bound member's conscience, then why cut only one service? The conscience would be eased three times as much if all three weekly services were cut. Furthermore, if easing the conscience is the goal, why ease it only in summer? Why not cut Sunday morning services during hunting season? Why not cut them when a big golf tournament is going?

So, if neither low attendance nor easing the conscience is the goal, perhaps it is something as yet unconsidered. Perhaps we cut services during the summer because members need them less. Perhaps we've worshiped God enough during the previous nine months: we've built up a "worship credit" against which to draw while we absorb the rays. Or, perhaps we've fellowshiped enough with believers and need to spread joy among the unchurched on the beach.

Or, perhaps there is less need to feed the sheep and guard the flock during the summer months. Spiritual ignorance, indwelling sin, and spiritual warfare are, perhaps, inversely proportional to the number of vacations the congregation takes.

So, if our spiritual leaders are concerned about their members' collective conscience, unused 'worship credit', fellowshiping with the unchurched, and spiritual vitality, there is, really, only one conclusion to reach: more vacations means more spiritual vitality, and the deacon board should mandate that members stay away from church year-round, so that piety and church health can reach new levels.

Hypocrisy and Gov. Sanford

Many authors have documented that the image of religious people – particularly Christians – held by non-religious people is dominated by the idea of hypocrisy. Southern Baptists were stung a bit recently when an informal poll taken by Thom Rainer resulted in summary description of us as teetotaling-fundamentalist-legalistic-fried-chicken-eating-bingo-parlor-opposing hypocrites.

Governor Mark Sanford earned the “hypocrite” label when it was discovered that he was committing adultery with an Argentine. His “hypocrisy”? Having been married with kids while committing the adultery.

This is not new, of course, as Jesus himself pasted the hypocrite label on the religious leaders of his day.

But it seems that in many cases the label “hypocrite” is thrown on anyone who sins, and who has formerly said, in one fashion or another, that we shouldn’t sin.

But is that hypocrisy? Is Governor Sanford a hypocrite?

Southern Baptists are rightfully called hypocrites when we spend such time and energy on certain sins – gambling, liquor – while completely ignoring others – greed, materialism, idolatry.
Hypocrisy is NOT when a man believes, or even states, that adultery is wrong, and that his covenant with his wife is sacrosanct, yet then commits adultery. That is simply sin. Hypocrisy is not when one believes that false witness is wrong, but then lies about something. That is simply sin.

Hypocrisy is the idea that one can say something is wrong only for others. If Gov. Sanford had explained himself with the claim that what he did wasn’t really adultery (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky”), or that it was alright for governors to do but not citizens, that would be hypocrisy.

If Southern Baptists claim that because they don’t gamble or drink, they have no sin problem, that is hypocrisy. If Southern Baptists claim that liquor is wrong for everyone else, while maintaining a lifestyle of drinking, that is hypocrisy. If Southern Baptists claim that God is not concerned with gluttony, lying, materialism, or adultery (except when Gov. Sanford commits it), that is hypocrisy.