There is quite a bit of talk these days about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention (or whatever it is we’ll be called by the time we get there). Much of it is negative. Some are worried about the number of SBC congregations that evidence declining membership and baptism statistics. Others are worried about the ongoing viability of the Cooperative Program. Some are uncomfortable with certain individuals in either real or perceived positions of denominational leadership and/or influence. Others are worried that a particular theological or cultural agenda will overwhelm and ultimately destroy the SBC. Some are nervous about younger leaders, while others are dissatisfied with more seasoned leaders. And some just pronounce a pox on all the houses within Southern Baptist suburbia.

I admit that I struggle with negativity from time to time. To be totally candid, it’s hard to study Southern Baptists for a living and not get discouraged on occasion. But I study American Christianity in general enough to know that every denomination has its peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Our denominational neuroses are particularly irksome because, well, they’re ours, but the grass isn’t that much greener in other groups—it’s just a different breed of grass. So rather than despairing over the cranky and delusional among us, I prefer to focus on the good. And there is a lot of good.

Back to graduation. One reason I refuse to despair about the SBC is because, as a seminary professor, I have a unique vantage point on the future of the Convention. Simply put, I’m personally acquainted with hundreds of (mostly) younger Southern Baptist pastors, missionaries, and other younger leaders. Their zeal is contagious. Their orthodoxy is robust. Their burden for evangelism and missions is inspiring. Their commitment to the local church is deep-rooted. They are a constant encouragement to me.

Some are worried because they perceive that these younger ministers lack commitment to the SBC. I confess that I’ve met a few for whom this is the case. But by far most of the seminarians and recent graduates I know are strongly committed to the SBC. They believe what we believe. They appreciate our approach to cooperative ministry and missions. They want to be Southern Baptists. Even those students who are “on the edge” are frequently those who were raised Southern Baptist and deeply love the SBC—so much so that the cranky and delusional voices gnaw at them and push them away. They are tempted to give in to the despair.

You need to know that I’m on a personal mission to do my part to prevent that from happening. We can’t afford to lose the next generation. And make no mistake about it—these aren’t denominational apostates who “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.” No, these are folks who want to remain part of us, but (understandably) bristle at some of the frankly outrageous things that some Southern Baptists say and do—occasionally even those who are, or have been denominational leaders. I try my best to convince students and others that the SBC is bigger than any single personality and better than the conspiracy theorists and frankly mean-spirited among us. Many on the ledge come to agree with me, and I’m thankful for every one.

Graduation is a biannual reminder that God is always at work setting apart a rising generation of pastors and other leaders. Among the people called Southern Baptist, he’s doing some exciting things, no matter what you might have heard from a misinformed denominational servant, a malcontent pastor, or a malevolent blogger. God isn’t finished with us yet, and I remain convinced that the course correction that began in the latter third of the twentieth century will continue to bear good fruit long into the future.

I’m thankful for our graduates and for their peers in our sister institutions. I’m thankful that almost all of them are convictional and committed Southern Baptists. I remain hopeful that most of the few who are convictional, but not committed will change their mind as they see the many good things that God is doing in and through Southern Baptists. And I remain very hopeful that our best days lie ahead, should God continue to desire to work through our Convention of local Baptist churches for his glory.

(This post was cross-published at Christian Thought & Tradition)

Question: What do you think stands as the main contributing factor in why many men today seem to be less mature than the generations of old? What do you feel are the spiritual applications?

Reply: (by Danny Akin and Alvin Reid): This is an excellent question and one that is quite relevant and extremely important for our times. When we see beer commercials mocking the immaturity of young men in our culture, we know that we have a problem!  More significant individuals have addressed this issue as well, including a recent article entitled “Why men are in trouble?” by William Bennett. One of the better articles written some time ago is “Wimps and Barbarians” by Terrence Moore.

Dr. Reid addresses this in every class and preached on this subject in chapel (Click here for chapel message on October 28, 2010). Dr. Akin deals with this topic on a consistent basis in forums on campus and elsewhere. He especially raises the issue in the context of female/male service on the international mission field where women serve in massively superior numbers to men. In June 2009, for example, there were 331 journey girls and 126 journey men serving among the nations.

We live in a day when the average purchaser of video games is a 34 year old male; a time of prolonged adolescence and delayed responsibility.  The root of this, in part, is sociological and goes back a few generations.  The rise of the common school which led to public school education, housing massive numbers of children with one another more than being integrated in society with multiple generations, child labor laws which protected children from working in factories (a good thing) while failing to give responsibilities they could handle (a bad thing), and the practical reality that the median age in the United States has grown from 16 in 1800 to 35 in 2000 all play a role.

However, more recent factors include the rise of adolescence as a separate category fueled by such literary pieces as “The Lord of the Flies” and “Catcher in the Rye,” both published in the 1950s; the movie “Rebel Without a Cause” in 1954; the rise of rock and roll and a growing juvenile culture have all accelerated the growing immaturity of young men. Where once upon a time young men trained for war or for industry, young men today train for video games and play fantasy football.

We have a generation of soft boys. We have had several generations of wimps!

Add to that the reality of the absentee father, what we would argue may be the most dire of all other factors, and you can see to some extent how we have gotten to the place we are today. For the first time in American history we have a generation today where close to 40% are growing up without a father in the home. As we look ahead, at least one estimate has 55% of Millennial children growing up without a father in the home (Parenting the Millennials, 7).

We believe one of the most fundamental challenges of the church today has to do with raising up a generation of young men who become men of God, not spiritual wimps on the one hand or boorish barbarians on the other. We simply have too many who can be described as BANs, or half boy, half man.

What is a man? More specifically what is a man of God? Paul addresses this in I Timothy 6:11f. Here is a great place to begin the construction process of a man of God. First, Paul says recognize who you are! We are men of God. “You, man of God.” This is indicative. If you are a man and a believer, you are a man of God, so be who you are!  Now, what are the marks of this man?

He is a runner: Paul says to flee and to pursue (verse 11). We are to run from the things listed in 6:3-10 such as false doctrine, slander, the love of money, useless arguments, etc. It is not the mark of a man of God to be constantly arguing over secondary issues. We are to run after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness.

Men of God respect authority. And, they keep their word! They persevere, even when it is hard. One of the marks of this immature generation of men is their inability to persevere. More young men that women drop out of Alvin’s workout group each semester. More young ladies than young men are heading to the mission field. This is pathetic.

Men of God are also gentle. Being a man does not mean you watch MMA or talk tough. That may actually demonstrate adolescent behavior. Grown men can cheer for their sports team with gusto, speak to a child with gentleness, and love on their wives with tenderness.

Men of God are runners; they are also fighters. We are to “fight the good fight of faith” (v. 12). Some things are worth fighting over. Let us fight against Satan and his kingdom. Let us wage war against heresy on the one hand and legalism on the other. Let us man up and take a stand when necessary. Shepherds of local churches do not only guide the sheep with gentleness; they confront wolves with ferociousness.

Men of God are also wrestlers: we are to “take hold of” or “grasp firmly” eternal life (verse 12). Men do not spend their time and emotions fooling around with insignificant matters. Men of God give their lives to matters of eternity.

Finally, men of God are guardians. In verse 14 and following Paul reminds us to guard the things God commands. We must stand on the message of God and live out the message of God in our generation.

One of our students fought in Somalia and was rightly portrayed as a hero in “Black Hawk Down.” He talks about the wimpiness he sees in churches and how effeminate it is!We are convinced that the quota for wimps has been met in the church! It is time for a “man of God revolution!”

So what can you do? Get men involved in the lives of younger men. Challenge them to go on mission assignments nationally and internationally. Get them into the Word. Teach them theology. Read Titus 2 carefully and put it into practice for both men and women in your church. See the prolonged adolescence of young men as an idol in our time that must be confronted by the gospel. Be the man God saved you to be. The time is now and the need has never been greater.

I confess I’m somewhat ambivalent about the name change debate. On the one hand, I have no personal qualms with the Southern Baptist name and seriously doubt that people are going to hell in Vermont or Oregon simply because they object, in principle, to new church plants that affiliate with a denomination that has the word Southern in its name. Furthermore, while the name Southern Baptist Convention is clearly regional in its origin, over time our name has come to mean far more than a group of Baptist churches down in Dixie. I also have some concerns about the timing—like it or not, a lot of Southern Baptists are still upset with either the agenda or the execution (or both) of the Great Commission Resurgence.

On the other hand, I can’t say I object in principle to changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention—no denominational name should be sacrosanct. Furthermore, we’ve been a national denomination since the mid-twentieth century and have what I believe is a godly desire to further expand our witness to those places in America that are most underserved in terms of the gospel—most of which are outside of the South and Southwest. I understand why many Southern Baptists think our regional name doesn’t accurately represent our national reality (or at least our national aspirations). Will the name Southern Baptist look silly in a generation if, say, 40% of our churches are located outside of the South and Southwest? Perhaps.

All that to say, I’m not enthusiastic about changing the name, but I’m certainly not opposed to it. I have nothing but respect for Southern Baptists with stronger opinions than mine one way or the other—I think there are good arguments on both sides. I suspect we’ll change the name at some point, even if not now. For what it’s worth, if we do change the name in the next couple of years—and I have serious doubts we will—I’d recommend something like the Baptist Convention of North America.

Having laid my own irresolute cards on the table, what I want to offer some thoughts on the manner in which we will have this family discussion in the coming months. I’m urging my fellow Southern Baptists (even those who don’t want to be called that anymore) to be as civil and Christ-like as possible. I seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who want to change the name are closet Presbyterians who are embarrassed of our Convention’s southern roots. I also seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who want to keep the name are redneck racists who don’t care about reaching all of America with the good news.

That said, I think it’s both inevitable and unfortunate that we’ll hear from some obnoxious voices on both sides of the debate. I’ve already vented via Twitter about anti-southern hipsters who love all things urban and are embarrassed by all things rural and southern and southwestern. Let me say now on this blog I’m also troubled by those who imply that the South and/or Southwest are somehow superior than other parts of the country because we have more Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and Republicans. I hope few voices will argue for or against the name change who represent even a close approximation to these two (admittedly exaggerated) extremes. But I suspect some will.

I want to plead with you, whatever your opinion might be on a name change, to call down the strident and unhelpful voices that share your perspective. Don’t let the mean or arrogant or irascible or elitist or ignorant tones dominate this conversation. For the sake of our collective witness, let’s mortify the name-calling, motives-judging, power-grabbing tendencies that appear almost every time we engage in some sort of public debate. Let’s agree to act like Christian grownups and love one another on the other side of this debate, whatever our name may be. And let’s agree to continue to cooperate together for the sake of the gospel, even if we don’t get our way when it comes to our denomination’s name.

(This post is cross-published at my personal website, Christian Thought & Tradition)

The Baptist General Convention is a conservative, evangelical denomination with, for a point of reference, well-known pastors like Leith Anderson and John Piper.  (For more context, I’ve blogged about them on my personal blog.)  Also, I wrote about them in my recent Baptist Press analysis of the low SBC church planting numbers.  As I wrote in the article:

Let’s look at a Baptist group with even more impressive results. The Baptist General Conference (also called Converge Worldwide) planted 64 churches last year in a denomination of 1,150 churches — a rate of 5.5 percent.

In the NAMB presentation at the SBC annual meeting, NAMB President Kevin Ezell announced that NAMB can say with certainty that 769 churches were planted in the SBC this past year. Since we have 45,727 churches, that means we planted at a rate of 1.68 percent last year. Therefore the SBC is almost a percentage point less than what the Assemblies of God does and about a third of what the BGC does. (Or, put another way, the Baptist General Conference planting rate is more than 300 percent that of the SBC’s.) The SBC is below the rate that most scholars think is needed for basic growth, which may contribute to our membership decline…

[T]he Baptist General Conference is planting churches at a much higher rate than Southern Baptists — and guess what? — they have almost doubled the size of their denomination in the last 20 years.

In case you are wondering, the SBC potentially would have 30 million members right now if we had that same focus. Can you imagine the implications of a giving, going and growing SBC with more than 30 million members? Friends, communities and nations would be impacted for the glory of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

In 2008, the BGC discussed changing their name and decided to do so.  So, what did they say and what did they do?  Here is the statement directly from their website:

Our Missional Name

Converge Worldwide has made several name changes over its history in order to address the changing composition of its church attendees. As the ethnic makeup diversified, the original Swedish Baptist General Conference of America became the Baptist General Conference. Toward the end of the 20th century, that name began to lose its cultural currency.

In the late 2000s, more than a fifth of all BGC churches had been planted within the past 15 years. In order to seek a receptive audience in their communities, a scant few wanted to identify themselves by the name Baptist. They held to Baptist convictions, but didn’t want to spend precious time refuting stereotypes of other Baptist leaders or groups. Meanwhile, the name Baptist was putting valuable missionaries and their national partners at risk in several countries overseas. Converge leaders saw the need to make a change.

In 2008 the board of overseers approved a new missional name, Converge Worldwide, while retaining the historic name Baptist General Conference in some settings and for legal purposes. Many church planters and missionaries find the new name helpful in their efforts to expand Christ’s kingdom. Our historic beliefs and values stand unchanged, but the new name helps new generations to continue the mission begun many generations before.

Now, for full disclosure:  I have consulted with Converge Worldwide on their denominational reorganization (though I was not involved in the name discussion) and their president and I will be doing their national church planting conference in 2012.

The statement speaks for itself.  As we consider the future, it’s best to get all the facts– and their experience is yet another one to consider.

The stated reason was the belief that the name might hinder the work in non-Southern areas.  Church planters and pastors in such areas largely assume that the name “Southern Baptist” is a hindrance to their work.  This is not a universally held view, but in the places I served (New York and Pennsylvania) this is assumed to be true.

When I led research at the North American Mission Board, I wanted to learn more.  Richie Stanley and I conducted research in 2006 asking the question, “How Do People Perceive Southern Baptists?” This is probably the most recent data, and I am sure it will be a part of the debate, but you can download the PowerPoint here. That summer the Center for Missional Research conducted a poll of 1,210 adults. Respondents were asked if their impression of Southern Baptists was very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable. Some respondents said they were not familiar with Southern Baptists and others were not sure of their impressions.

Here were some of our conclusions:

• Overall, Southern Baptists were viewed favorably (combining very and somewhat favorable) by 57 percent of adults interviewed.
• Southern Baptists were viewed more favorably than either Latter Day Saints (32% favorable, 32% unfavorable) or Muslims (27% favorable, 31% unfavorable) but had higher unfavorable ratings than Catholics or Methodists.
• Two of three respondents in the South expressed a favorable opinion of Southern Baptists, compared to 1 of 2 in the East and West regions. More than 1 of 3 easterners said they were not familiar with Southern Baptists.
• One of five respondents ages 18 to 24 expressed a “very unfavorable” impression of Southern Baptists, while another 4 percent reported a “somewhat unfavorable” opinion.
• Middle-aged adults esteem Southern Baptists most, with 66 percent of 55- to 69-year-olds reporting a favorable impression.
• When asked “If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church was Southern Baptist negatively or positively impact your decision?” only 31 percent of respondents said this knowledge would positively impact his or her decision to visit or join the church.
• The Southern Baptist identity simply does not resonate as well with adults age 18 to 24. More than 40 percent of respondents in this group said knowing a church was Southern Baptist would negatively affect their decision to visit or join the church.

Here is an excerpt from our report five years ago:

But it also should give us pause when our denominational label causes some not to hear the gospel in our churches. Too often, the stumbling block of the cross has been replaced with the stumbling block of the church.

This study does not answer some of the questions, “why?” Are Southern Baptists seen as intolerant because they believe that God’s best for marriage is one man, one woman, and one lifetime? Are they seen as harsh because they see God’s word as inerrant? Or, are there valid reasons why they have negative perceptions of our churches? The answer is probably some of both.

Regardless, there are major concerns here, particularly for long term ministry of our Southern Baptist churches. Many churches have now removed Baptist from the name of their church in the “name” of reaching the unchurched. The data would seem to indicate that is not the best choice in all areas but may have validity in some areas and with some segments of the population.

As you can see, the two most determining factors of the perception of our denomination are age and the region of the country in which they live. Bryant Wright made a good point when he said, “With our focus on church planting, it is challenging in many parts of the country to lead churches to want to be part of a convention with such a regional name.” That resonates with data we collected years ago.

The other issue of age is more complicated than it first appears. Age is a complicated metric because a person’s chronological age is so often taken for granted when it comes to maturity, perspective, and experience. Though it is often true that “youngsters” perpetuate the stereotype, we cannot afford to ignore their insight. Thom Rainer and his son (and millennial) Jess Rainer have demonstrated that the millennial generation (birth years 1980-2000) will (and already do) yield tremendous influence.

Many are concerned about the decline of the SBC. What will the SBC’s role be in the future? Bryant Wright says, “Second, a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century.”  Fair enough.

A group will study this and bring back a report, but like most of those who have served outside of the South (New York and Pennsylvania), I tend to think he is correct.  We need more data, and a study of “unchurched perceptions” is not enough.  For example, what do the missions staff of state conventions outside the South think?  Of course, even if every State Director of Missions and other church planting leader said, “Please change the name,” some have, regrettably, already made up their mind.

Let me add here that I am concerned about the tone of the early opposition to even asking this question.  I do believe there are good reasons to keep the name SBC: stability, theological reputation, history, finances, and the amount of change we have undergone as of late.  However, to say, “Regardless of how much this hurts our work in Boston, I care about my preferences in Birmingham,” is unhelpful and remarkably self-centered.

I say wait.  Let the committee do its job.  And, listen to the people who are there.  Jimmy Draper is “Mr. Southern Baptist,” so I think he can be trusted.  Paige Patterson is no pushover.  Al Mohler leads THE Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Yet, I trust they will listen to those from the newer regions of our work.  I know of Dr. Patterson’s love for New Hampshire– and I am glad he is on this study group.

It is easy to say, “In Texas, we know what’s best for Portland.”  But, I am just crazy enough to think that Southern Baptists might want to consider their name based on their mission.

Names are for common identification in a family, but they can be a blessing if they communicate well or a bane if they are misunderstood.  As a missiologist, I’m always asking, “How can we remove unnecessary barriers to engagement and understanding?”  My hope is that the only stumbling block Southern Baptists would die over is the stumbling block of the cross.

Is the name “Southern Baptist” one of those barriers?  In my experience, it has been, but I am not ready to say that my experience is the best way to determine the name of a denomination.  In other words, though I have an opinion, I don’t know for sure.  Actually, I don’t think anyone knows for sure—but that’s why you study these things.  I will be praying with this committee as they think through and consider the issue in the coming days.

If the committee comes to the conclusion that the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is a hindrance, I will not be surprised and it will reflect the realities I have seen.  If they don’t, I will say that God is still sovereign and churches will still be planted, people will be reached, and the gospel will be proclaimed.

I still believe that we can do more for the kingdom of God together than by doing it alone, and my hope is that our mission will matter above all.

But, for now, let’s all take a deep breath.

Below, you will find links to each of the individual posts in the series. I hope the series will help spur on further discussion among Southern Baptists about the relationship between the good news and healthy ecclesiology.

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Introduction

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: What is the Gospel?

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Pondering Baptist Identity

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Four Categories of Baptist Beliefs

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Covenanted Gospel Membership

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Confessor Baptist by Immersion

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Christocentric Congregationalism

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Cooperative Autonomy

The Gospel and Baptist Identity: Free Churches in a Free State

Himes, by his own admission, was the black sheep of the Rice family.  Though he made a profession of faith at an early age and surrendered to preach under the ministry of Rice, by the time he went to college in the late ’60s he had abandoned his faith.  When Himes graduated from the University of Wisconsin he was an atheist and a communist, and he spent the next decade as a union organizer.  By his own admission, Himes traded one fundamentalism for another.  By the time of Rice’s death in 1980, Himes had realized the futility of Mao’s and Stalin’s utopia, and was at the end of his rope.  In many ways Himes’ biography tells the story of how he went “from worshipping his famous grandfather, to hating him, and finally to loving him.”

Through the story of Rice’s life, Himes attempts to tell the wider story of Fundamentalism.  In broad surveys he recounts the influences that birthed Fundamentalism–the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings, Reconstruction, the Scopes Monkey Trials–with varying degrees of success.  But the best parts of the book are the portions which tell of Rice’s relationships with those who played such a significant role in the formation of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.  John R. Rice got his start in evangelism in no small part due to J. Frank Norris.  In turn, Rice would play a pivotal role in launching the career of Billy Graham.  Rice and Graham’s eventual falling out illustrated the larger break up between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.  Himes had a front row seat to many of events which shaped Evangelicalism in general and Baptists in particular.  You really want to read his account of having lunch with Jerry Falwell at his grandfather’s funeral (Falwell extolled to Himes, the communist, the Christian virtues of Ronald Reagan).

In many ways The Sword of the Lord is a very sad book.  Himes’ regret over the broken relationship between Rice and him comes through often.  This is no whitewash: Himes deals with Rice’s failure to deal properly with the race issue during the civil rights movement.  But his days as an angry communist ideologue are over.  Now approaching retirement age, Himes has come to admire his grandfather’s character and courage.  Without endorsing every page, I recommend The Sword of the Lord as an insightful work about a crucial person and his role in modern church history.

Numerous tributes have already been written about Stott; no doubt many more will follow. By God’s grace, he accomplished much for the kingdom during his long life. In this post, I want to focus on one aspect of Stott’s ministry that I hope continues to be replicated among my peers who are serving in pastoral ministry. John Stott was an exemplary model of a missional pastor-theologian.

Unlike his friend Packer, Stott  never served as a professor in a theological college or seminary. Stott was a Church of England clergyman who served for thirty years on the pastoral staff of All Souls Church, Langham Place, London. He became a model for consecutive expository preaching, and along with his older contemporary (and sometimes rival) Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Stott helped bring about a renewed interest in expositional preaching among evangelicals. His ministry was also marked by a healthy marriage of intentional evangelism and cultural engagement, along with a burden that the gospel be preached to the uttermost parts of the earth. These emphases are reflected in the many books Stott wrote and the ministries he launched in the years following his retirement from full-time pastoral ministry.

Stott was a prolific author who wrote or edited fifty-two books and contributed hundreds of articles to other books and periodicals. Among his better-known books are numerous biblical commentaries, each of which evidence the fruit of his own expositional preaching ministry. Most of his commentaries were published in IVP’s widely used The Bible Speaks Today series; Stott edited the New Testament volumes. Along similar lines, he also wrote an excellent preaching textbook, Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today (Eerdmans, 1982). No serious preacher of God’s Word should leave this book unread.

One of his most influential books is Christian Mission in the Modern World, first published in 1975. In 1974, Billy Graham convened a meeting of 2700 evangelical leaders in Lausanne, Switzerland for an International Conference on World Evangelization. Stott delivered a plenary address and chaired the committee that drafted the Lausanne Covenant, one of the most important documents produced by evangelicals in the past half century (read Stott’s commentary on the Lausanne Covenant). Christian Mission in the Modern World further expounds upon the vision of the Lausanne Covenant by arguing for a vision of missions that weds bold proclamation and sacrificial service, the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.

Stott continued to be a leading advocate of global missions in the years following his retirement in 1975. For example, he founded Langham Partnership International, known as John Stott Ministries in the USA. Langham Partnership is a ministry devoted to serving Christians in the Majority World through training pastors in expositional preaching, translating and distributing evangelical literature, and providing scholarships for gifted Christian scholars to pursue advanced theological training. He also continued to link missions with Christ-centered cultural engagement, especially through the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, which Stott founded in 1982.

Stott also taught two generations of Christians about the gospel. His book Basic Christianity, first published in 1969, is considered an evangelical classic. I’ve met several individuals who either came to Christ of were first taught the core beliefs of the Christian faith through this important book. Undoubtedly his most important theological book is his classic The Cross of Christ, first published in 1986. The Cross of Christ is a robust defense of penal substitutionary atonement, a doctrine that Stott well understood is at the heart of the biblical gospel. Stott challenges the ever-popular notion that alternative models of the atonement (some of which are also biblical) should replace the biblical truth that God’s just wrath against human sin was poured out on Jesus Christ when he offered himself as our sinless substitute.

John Stott was by no means perfect. I strongly disagree with his sympathies for annihilationism and I’m not convinced he was right in his famous debate with Lloyd-Jones on the question of whether or not evangelicals should separate from the Church of England (I go back and forth on the latter). Nevertheless, on the whole I believe Stott is an excellent role model for young pastors who desire to wed expositional preaching with a commitment to global missions and cultural engagement. I pray the Lord will raise up a new generation of pastors who will write books, articles, and blog posts that help the church reflect on these issues. There would be no more appropriate way to honor John Stott, a brother who was arguably the most important missional pastor-theologian among evangelicals in the last fifty years. Thank God for his life and ministry.

I found myself thinking, “Clark Pinnock did a much better job arguing for all this.”  

Pinnock, who passed away last August after a struggle with Alzheimer’s disease at the age of 73, was by far the most articulate and forceful recent evangelical voice for embracing inclusivism, annihilationism, and the possibility of salvation after death.  In his A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Pinnock takes basically the same position as Bell, but with arguments more cogent and well thought out.  When one considers where he was theologically at the end of his life, it’s difficult to believe that Pinnock started his theological career as an arch-conservative, inerrancy-affirming, 5-point Calvinist.  Pinnock’s theological journey was one of the more convoluted odysseys in evangelicalism.   

Years ago, when I was a theology student in the doctoral program at Southeastern studying under Paige Patterson, I was digging through Dr Patterson’s personal files which were located (at that time) in SEBTS’s archives. I stumbled across the class notes he had taken while he was a student at New Orleans Seminary (circa1969).  He took Clark Pinnock’s classes often.   As Dr Patterson explained to me, the conservative, early Pinnock played a formative role in his theological development; and in ways I am not at liberty to elaborate on a blog, Clark Pinnock rescued Paige Patterson from some very unfair treatment at New Orleans Seminary.

In those days, the liberal element of the New Orleans faculty viewed Paige Patterson as a “fundamentalist troublemaker,” but he and other conservative firebrands knew they had an ally on the faculty in Clark Pinnock.  Pinnock had studied under F. F. Bruce at the University of Manchester, and was recognized by both friend and foe as a brilliant scholar.    He presented a clear, logical framework for adhering to the Bible’s infallibility and defended the doctrine of the inerrancy in an environment where such views were ridiculed.  Bible believing students loved Pinnock while many of the other professors considered him a loose cannon. 

Perhaps he was a loose cannon; he certainly careened across the theological landscape.  I wish that Dr Pinnock had continued to hold to a consistent doctrine of biblical inerrancy through the remainder of his academic career.  Alas, he did not.  His early works, A Defense of Biblical Infallibility (1967) and Biblical Revelation (1971) are classic presentations of the historic doctrines of biblical authority, infallibility, and inerrancy.  However, though the 1970’s and 80’s Pinnock’s view of Scripture shifted, and he argued instead for what might be called an inerrancy of purpose. 

Other changes followed.  He moved from Reformed theology to classic Arminianism and eventually to Open Theism.  Pinnock advocated neo-Pentecostalism and third wave theology.  And as I said before, he embraced inclusivism, annihilationism, and post-mortem evangelism. For conservatives within the SBC that he had helped in the early days of the controversy and who had counted him as an ally, Pinnock’s theological wanderings were difficult to watch.

I would encourage anyone tempted to take Bell’s position to consider the sad twists and turns of Clark Pinnock.

For those who are interested, the proceedings of that conference are also now in print. Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism (B&H Academic, 2011) is a collection of essays edited by David Dockery, Ray Van Neste, and Jerry Tidwell. Between the Times contributors Danny Akin, Ed Stetzer, and yours truly spoke at the conference and contributed essays. You can see the full list of chapters and contributors below.

1. So Many Denominations: The Rise, Decline, and Future of Denominationalism – David S. Dockery
2. Denominationalism: Is There a Future? – Ed Stetzer
3. Denominationalism and the Changing Religious Landscape – D. Michael Lindsay
4. The Faith, My Faith, and the Church’s Faith – Timothy George
5. The Future of Evangelicalism (and Southern Baptists) – Duane Litfin
6. The Care for Souls: Reconsidering Pastoral Ministry in Southern Baptist and Evangelical Contexts – Ray Van Neste
7. Awakenings and Their Impact on Baptists and Evangelicals: Sorting Out the Myths in the History of Missions and Evangelism – Jerry Tidwell
8. Recovering the Gospel for the Twenty-first Century – Harry L. Poe
9. Emergent or Emerging? Questions for Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals – Mark DeVine
10. Reflections on 400 Years of the Baptist Movement: Who We Are, What We Believe – James A. Patterson
11. Southern Baptists and Evangelicals: Passing on the Faith to the Next Generation – Nathan A. Finn
12. The Future of the Southern Baptist Convention – Daniel Akin
13. Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism – R. Albert Mohler Jr.

If you are interested in the storied history and future prospects of Southern Baptists, American evangelicalism, and/or denominationalism in general, I’d highly encourage you to pick up a copy of this important new book.