Hoping for a Movement

Movements are what they are, of that we can be sure. Some are good, some are bad, some are forgettable, but in the long run, movements change things. Key leaders in our convention have spoken about the need to transition from institution to movement. They say that only in the movement will we find the needed power to live out the gospel of Jesus well. Movements are what they are—nothing more, nothing less. They are not manufactured, not real ones anyway, and they have a sustaining power that enables those in the vanguard and the wake to do mighty things. In another day we talked about movements regularly; we called them revivals. A revival in its most basic sense is the movement of God to stir the heart of the believer and those outside of Christ to repentance and gospel renewal. Though we see bright spots of gospel ministry in our convention of churches, overall we are a group in decline. How did we get here? We planned to get here. No? Take a moment and think it through. Nothing in the world or the kingdom of God is static. We are called to live active, missional and engaged for Christ. We planned to get here, and we need to own that. We need to realize that even the lack of a plan is a plan, and the lack of an intention is an intention deeply held demanding that we continue what we do writ large.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point. I, like so many others, voted heartily for the GCR in Louisville. Like so many others, I cheered Pres. Johnny Hunt as he preached at the convention. I was struck by the sober reality painted by David Platt in the Pastor’s Conference. I was hopeful that a movement was underway. That is not to say that we do not have some good words working through the convention. Much of the rationale for the preliminary report given by Ronnie Floyd to the Executive Committee was great. Consider his call for a renewed emphasis on the local church and a recognition that the church is the true “headquarters” of our denomination. Wow, truly great words spoken by a great pastor and leader. The recommendations? They seem to be primarily concerned with the top level of cooperative life in the SBC. Some have said this is simply because the GCRTF can’t change anything else. We would do well to remember that they do not have the authority to change the SBC; only God can do that through willing hearts of faith. We need a movement of God.

Denominational tinkering makes not a movement. I was one who hoped the strong words of Danny Akin in his axiom sermon would start a movement in the SBC toward gospel-centered, Christ-exalting ministry. I had hopes to see a movement toward participating truly in the Great Commission by living out the Great Commandment. I had hopes that leaders would rise up and point our convention of churches toward Christ, His commands and His commission with great humility and great zeal. I still hold some hope…but it is fading.

Most of the firepower in the preliminary report has been aimed at “releasing” NAMB, as if there was lying dormant some latent power in this agency. Don’t get me wrong—NAMB does many good things, but we have no clear idea who will lead NAMB. There is also much talk that we might not need NAMB and a real lack of clarity about how the proposed changes at NAMB demonstrate that the denominational headquarters of the SBC is in the local church. This is not a movement.

There is little doubt that whatever the GCRTF brings forward will pass in Orlando. Some will take exception with that statement, but I have not met one person who has followed the GCR conversation who actually thinks the recommendations won’t pass. The problem is not whether what is brought forward will pass. It will. The real questions are: 1) How can we implement the recommendations in the current institutional environment of the SBC? and 2) How will these changes specifically lead the churches of the SBC toward the gospel movement that God is already at work supplying to some?

IF this is the best that we can do as a denomination, I will accept it and move forward with my brothers and sisters in Christ, in great hope that God will do mighty things through His people. I do have a pressing question, though. What will the leaders of the GCRTF do to demonstrate that these changes will in fact move us toward a resurgence of the Great Commission, a movement based in the gospel and carried out by transformed people? How, in particular, will the churches, seminaries and organizations represented by the leaders of the GCR model for us the means of a gospel movement through these and future recommendations? I would ask the presidents of two seminaries, “What specifically will be different in your strategic plan as key partners in training pastors and leaders in light of the recommendations?” To the pastors I would ask, “How will the church that God has entrusted to your shepherding care model for the cooperating churches of the SBC a gospel movement specifically by participating in the recommendations?” To the other leaders I would ask, “What will be different for you and the church you attend in light of the vote in Orlando?

I ask the questions for a very simple reason: I want you to be leading voices for gospel-centered churches in the SBC. I have the privilege of working with 20 Southern Baptist churches in my association. If you show me how you can be more gospel-centered, Christ-exalting and missional in light of these recommendations, I will join up and serve alongside you for the glory of God. This is a critical time in our life as a convention of churches GCRTF, please show us your hearts for the gospel and the specific work that we cooperate together to do. Provide clear calls to mission that other churches can join alongside. I still want to believe that the GCR is far more than a call to manage the denomination; I want to believe in the movement that might have been, is not yet, but still can be with God’s help and grace.

Originally published at www.missioscapes.com (Reprinted with permission) 

John Elam, DoM
Northwestern Baptist Association
Woodward, OK