the blessing of controversy

I am sitting at the Richmond Airport awaiting my flight home from our IMB meeting reflecting on the blessing of controversy.

I know that this is a strange thing for a pastor to say- we shepherd types tend to like the green pastures and still waters. But my life this far has taught me that really good things often emerge out of troubled waters.

On his last birthday, we showed our son Taylor the video of his birth. He got up and left the room when we got to the part where his mom starts screaming.

I had forgotten that part.

I thought about how much a pain my children have been, starting with their births. But everytime I look at them my heart wells up with such joy and love and pride. They bring me such happiness. Such turmoil. They are struggling through adolescence, often clumsy and naive, but I see wonderful young adults emerging from that struggle.

My daughter was born on one of my worst days of ministry. I fired an immoral and deceitful staff member in the morning and held my newborn daughter in the afternoon. The pain of both those events have taught me more than most painless experiences I have ever had.

So, here's to the trials of many kinds. Here's to the joy perseverance brings!

I and many others have struggled of late with issues of baptism, private prayer language and membership. I certainly have not sought out these controversies, but I am grateful for what I am learning.

I had a chance to visit with Dennis Newkirk and some of the other elders at Henderson Hills the other day. I told them I believe something really good will come out of their struggle. I for one am grateful for the thoughtful discussion that has come from the issues they have raised (courageous on their part, by the way). It has caused many of us to think with more clarity about the issue of baptism. I know that this has been very difficult on Dennis, the elders and the entire Henderson Hills body. I am praying every day that God would lead this great church to find the mind of Christ in this situation. They are a part of our SBC family and we have a responsibility to hold them up in prayer, support them, and seek earnestly to understand their struggle.

Their position makes a very good point about the meaning of membership. They are attempting to address the issue of candidates for membership who get baptized for no other reason than an initiatory rite. That is not scriptural baptism they rightly point out.

They have correctly put their finger on the fallacy of empty tradition, void of scriptural substance. Although I disagree with their proposed solution, I have no argument with their point. People who commit their life to Christ should be correctly baptized the way scripture describes. They should do it only once and it should be their public profession of faith. It should not be simply a physical act to satisfy a man made rule (for church membership or IMB candidacy for that matter).

But should we give people who are not ready to take this step full membership? I would say certainly not, that indeed there is enough scriptural evidence that their immersion is an imperative to membership.

But what do we do with those people who have been sprinkled in another church as a sign of their profession of faith in a Bible believing pedobaptist body? The truth is there are many pastors who will say to this candidate, "just do it as a requirement for this church, even if it is not really baptism to you, what does it hurt? After all, it is only a symbol."

That baptism is a sham. It is non biblical and it should not happen. The elders at Henderson Hills are absolutely correct in making this point.

So do we turn them away and not make them full members? Could something else be worked out for them short of full membership while they are working through the true meaning of baptism? I know the argument some will make here- "This is easy, just turn them away, the answer is no, sorry, find another church."

But is that the VERY BEST answer?

I don't know, but I am glad that we are struggling for it. It is a very real issue that should be given a lot of thought. Could there be another way to help people identify with the church without being a full fledged member? Many Baptist churches have this in place anyway in the form of "watchcare membership."

I really believe that some very strong ideas will be born out of this labor.

This issue is not just a Henderson Hills one by the way. As denominational lines are frayed, more and more people with varying theological backgrounds will seek membership in our churches. Baptists must figure this out. We need a reformation in our definition of membership, it seems to me.

Some strong minds and passionate hearts need to struggle through this and give us prayerful solutions. I believe Dennis is attempting to do this. There are many of us who are saying, "it's hard to embrace your ideas so far, but keep struggling."

There will be blessings from this controversy.

Maybe you wonder why I write so much of controversial issues. Why not stick to the quiet water stuff? Remember that the name of the blog is "The Road We Travel" and it's objective is to "prepare the road and remove the obstacles". Obstacle clearing is messy. The road is not always smooth.

One only needs to follow the life of Jesus to see the truth in this.

Last Sunday I taught on John 2:1-12 where Jesus changed the water into wine. This Sunday we will learn about John 2:13-24 where Jesus cleared the temple.

That's the way it goes, it seems, when you follow Jesus. Sometimes He is the Lord of the wine, sometimes He is Lord of the whips. Sometimes He calms the waters. Sometimes He stirs them up.

charles spurgeon on the necessity of baptism to the existence of the church

THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE,

NEWINGTON ON LORD’S-DAY EVENING,

OCT. 13TH, 1889.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." — Mark 16:16.

Why do you suppose that baptism is put into this prominent position? I think that it is for this reason, Baptism is the outward expression of the inward faith. He who believes in Christ with his heart confesses his faith before God and before the Church of God by being baptized. Now, the faith that speaks thus is not a dumb faith; it is not a cowardly faith; it is not a sneaking faith. Paul puts the matter thus, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

But why is confession so necessary to prove true faith? I answer that it is necessary to the very existence of the Church of God; for, if I may be a believer, and never confess my faith, you may be a believer, and never confess your faith, and all round we should thus have a company of men believing, and none of them confessing; and where would be the outward ordinances of the Church of Christ at all? Where would be any minister? Where would be the setting up and growing of the kingdom of Christ? For a hundred reasons, it is absolutely needful for Christ’s kingdom that the believer should openly confess his faith. Do you not see that? And hence baptism, being God’s way of our openly confessing our faith, he requires it to be added to faith, that the faith may be a confessing faith, not a cowardly faith; that the faith may be an open faith, not a private faith; that so the faith may be a working faith, influencing our life, and the life of others, and not a mere secret attempt for self-salvation by a silent faith which dares not own Christ.

Remember those words of the Lord Jesus, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me" (and in that place it means, "he who does not confess me") "before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

There is, therefore, no regenerating efficacy about water, or about immersion, or about baptism in any shape or form; but it is needful as the outward visible expression of the inward spiritual faith by which the soul is saved.

And, dear friends, once more, baptism is often the test of obedience. He who believes in Christ takes him to be his Master as well as his Savior; and Christ, therefore, says to him, "Go and do so-and-so." If the man refuses to do it, he thereby proves that he does not intend to be the disciple of the Master. "Oh!" says one, "you know that baptism is a nonessential." Have I not begged you to cease such idle and wicked talk as that? Have you a servant? Do you go to business early in the morning? Do you like a cup of tea at six o’clock, before you start for the city? The maid does not bring it to you, and you ask, Why have I not had my tea brought to me?" "Oh!" she answers, it is non-essential; you can do your business very well without that cup of tea."

Let such a reply as that be repeated, or let it be given only once, and I will tell you what will be non-essential, it will be non-essential for you to keep that girl any longer in your house; you will want another servant, for you will say, "Clearly she is no servant of mine, she sets herself up as the mistress of the house, for she begins to judge my commands, and to say that this one is essential, and that one is not essential." What do you mean by "nonessential"? "I mean that I can be saved without being baptized." Will you dare to say that wicked sentence over again? "I mean that I can be saved without being baptized." You mean creature! So you will do nothing that Christ commands, if you can be saved without doing it? You are hardly worth saving at all! A man who always wants to be paid for what he does, whose one idea of religion is that he will do what is essential to his own salvation, only cares to save his own skin, and Christ may go where he likes.

Clearly, you are no servant of his; you need to be saved from such a disreputable, miserable state of mind; and may the Lord save you! Oftentimes, I do believe that this little matter of believers’ baptism is the test of the sincerity of our profession of love to him. It would have been all the same, it may be, if the Lord Jesus Christ had said, "Pick Lip six stones off the ground, and carry them in your pocket, and you shall be saved." Somebody would have said, "That stone-picking is a non-essential." It becomes essential as soon as Christ commands it. It is in this way that baptism, if not essential to your salvation, is essential to your obedience to Christ. If you have become his disciple, you are bound henceforth to obey all your Master’s commands:

"Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."

Click here for the entire sermon.

interesting reads

There is an intersting discussion going on at Wes Kinney's blog regarding the baptism issue. Also, check out Kiki Cherry's post regarding "plastic Christianity".

why i am a dippest

This Sunday I will be teaching out of John 1:19-34, a study of John the Baptizer. There's an interesting prophet with a short career! Of course, a guy wearing animal skins, existing on a diet of bugs and sugar while screaming the need for repentance and baptism probably will not have a long life expectancy.

So let's ask the question, "What did his baptism mean?"

The issue of how to baptize has been a matter of debate for hundreds of years. One thing not debated, however, is the meaning of the word “baptizo”. All reputable biblical scholars agree that the word means “to immerse under”, or “to dip under” as a cloth maker would completely submerge cloth into dye. John the Baptist didn't sprinkle. You can just tell from his personality that the guy was a full submerger. He didn't drag people to the Jordan just to give em a little dab.

T.J. Conant states simply, “The Greek word ‘baptizein’ expresses nothing more than the act of immersion, the religious significance of which is derived from the circumstances connected with it”. W.A. Jarrel offers: “Greek literature shows that ‘baptizo‘ is used to indicate being put within and under, whatever the mode by which it is done—whether by an overflowing flood, by a sinking ship, or otherwise. But, whatever the mode by which the immersion is accomplished—always an immersion”. Interestingly, Wesley, Luther, Calvin all agreed on this meaning, in spite of the teachings of the churches they represent.

Another interesting side note of history is that the word “baptize” was not an English word until the 17th century. The translators of the King James Bible wanted to use the word “dip” when it came to translate the word “bapitzo”. But King James himself intervened and demanded that they create a new word, making the point that the word “dip” was not distinguished enough. My dad used to tell me, “we Baptists have a debt of gratitude to pay old King James, if it had not been for him, we would be called ‘dippests’”.

Some do not realize that the practice began long before John the Baptist. To understand this history one needs to trace Christianity to it's Jewish roots, as many of the early church practices came directly from Hebrew tradition. The early church sprang out of the culture of the synagogue just as the stage was set for the coming of the Messiah by the witness of the Old Testament prophets, the Davidic Kingdom and the teachings of the Torah. The early Hebraic traditions, in other words, were precursers to the worship and practices of the church.

David Dockery points out that “the noun form, baptisma, is not found outside the New Testament and is only found in the singular. The term implies not only the external act of baptism, but also denotes the inner meaning and force of the act” God is more interested in what is going on on the inside of a man than he is by what is happening on the outside. Baptism, a physical act, is a outward symbol of an inner reality.

So Baptism did not originate with John, it was practiced for centuries by the Jew in ritual cleansing. William Lumpkin states: “Some of the antecedents of the rite can be found in the Jewish religion. All of the Oriental religions seemed to have used ablutions, but in Judaism, this washing and dipping in water occupied an important place”. The most familiar and historically significant use of this practice was in “proselyte baptism.”

Lumpkin notes, “Before the Christian era, the Jews…employed solitary lustrations (purifications) to mark individual transition from one state of life to another, from pagan to true worship”.

So it is important to remember that in Jewish history, especially in the first century, it would have been very common for people who had experienced a conversion and repentance to be completely immersed in a ritual procelyte baptism.

So how is it that total immersion in Baptism soon became confused with the practice of sprinkling? The likely answer is that the further the church got from it’s Jewish roots, the less inclined the church was to remember her history embedded in Jewish tradition. Referring to the Church’s Jewish origin, G. R. Beasley-Murray explains, “So also ritual cleansing in water was practiced from immemorial antiquity, and if their history has been largely forgotten, their associations have shown an extraordinary tenacity for life”.

Reverand William Adams in an article for “Bridges for Peace” points out that even contemporary orthodox are familiar with the practice:

“Some very Orthodox men still follow an old practice of immersing themselves in a mikva [ritual immersion or place of ritual immersion] prior to the Sabbath and holidays. Scribes engaged in writing a Torah [Genesis–Deuteronomy] scroll immerse themselves before beginning the process. One must only go to Leviticus and Numbers to find ritual cleansing by immersion, which the most Torah–observant Jews practice to this day."

Dockery puts it this way, “The purification rituals of Judaism stressed cleanliness and worthiness to serve the Lord (Leviticus 13–17; Numbers 19)”. The New Testament writers, in Mark 7:1–5 and Hebrews 9:19–20, referenced the importance of this cleansing in the temple sacrifices.

Jesus asked the elders and leaders in the temple where John the Baptists baptism came from (cf. Matthew 21:23–27), was it from man or was it from God? Jesus did not give his opinion, but left it up to the hearer. Where did it come from? Of course, the answer is that it was in God’s plan. But how did that plan come about in Jewish history? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveals that there was community at Qumran, connected to the Essene sect of Judaism, that practiced a form of baptism for ritual cleansing outside of the temple courts. You can see the ruins of the those ritual baths to this very day. There is much speculation that John came from this group or was at least heavily influenced by them.

A connection to the Essene, who believed that Herod's temple was currupt, would be especially ironic for John, given his father Zecharia's association with the Temple (Luke 1). But what is certain is that God led John, the last Old Testament prophet, into the wilderness to demand repentance and to baptize people in preperation for the coming of Christ. People came from miles around to hear the prophet and to be bapitzed by him. It was to the baptizer's great surprise, therefore, that Jesus Himself stepped forward for this baptism.

John's baptism of Jesus sealed the practice into the hearts of his followers, and established the ordinance of the church. A practice that had a rich heritage within ancient Judaism, became in that moment the place where heaven and earth joined together and the Trinity was revealed; and Jesus, submitting Himself to baptism as He would submit Himself to death began His public ministry culminating in the cross.

Suffice it to say that when the early church emerged at Pentecost and the early disciples called on the new believers to be baptized, the practice was already familiar to all of those participating. Marvin Wilson explains a proselyte’s self-baptism: “The [naked] candidate…immersed himself in the waters, symbolically cleansing himself from the antecedent defilement. His past behind him, he emerged to take his stand with the people of Israel”. It was not an unusual leap for the early Jewish follower of Jesus to identify with the death, burial and resurrection and to the cleansing of their sin to the ritual baptism by immersion, taken from Jewish history and later modeled by John the Baptist and Jesus Himself.

It is not hard to envision that first baptism, since the mikvot (ritual pools) stood close by at the entrance to the temple mount. The difference in this new form of cleansing, however, was that the disciples entered the pools with them, baptizing them into the new Kingdom in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. William Lumpkin observed that “immersion was the proper mode of baptism the Church never doubted in the first thousand years and more of its history.”

This is why we Dippests can say with confidence that immersion is the most historically accurate and God honoring mode of baptism, and stands its ground in biblical study and Jewish heritage as the practice that best proclaims the transforming and cleansing power of the Redeemer as a symbol of His death, burial and resurrection; a covenant sign of a new reality, and entry into a new life as the first step of obedience and discipleship.

is baptism necessary for membership?

Many have asked my opinion of the pending decision of a leading Baptist church in our area to accept members who have not been immersed.

In light of my stand on baptism within the IMB, I think I should clarify my position regarding this one church. As I understand it, the elders in this church have indicated that they intend to ask their congregation to adjust their bylaws so that members can be recieved into the church who have not be baptized. You can find their position papers here.

Although I respect the autonomy of the local church in making decisions related to baptism and will stand strong for cooperation, the decision by this church goes way beyond the dabate about alien immersion. The church in question is not requiring any form of baptism for membership at all.

Let's be clear, the traditional Baptist belief is that baptism is a requirement for membership. If someone from this church came to the IMB as a missionary candidate and yet had not been baptized (I am sure that this church would insist on their baptism before they approved the application, but just for the conjecture that I am sure people are already making...), the candidate consultant would rightly tell them they should be baptized before they can be considered as a missionary candidate.

This church is going beyond the Baptist Faith and Message and readily admits that. Those of us who have protested the policy changes in the IMB have done so because we believe the new policies are more narrow than the BFM 2000. By the same token, I am in disgreement with this church because I believe they have stepped outside the agreed upon doctrinal position of Southern Baptists.

Let me explain.

We must first frame the issue for many Baptist churches. We often encounter people who want to gain membership in our church but who do not want to be immersed, because they were "baptized" as infants. "What is wrong with my baptism?" they will say. Some may view this as a stumbling block for good Christian people who want to be members of Baptist churches. Baptists have traditionally said that this is an issue that we must get right, because it is an issue of discipleship.

So first of all, let me just point out that there is a distinction between paedobaptist (churches that practice infant baptism) and credobaptists (those who believe scripture teaches only believers baptism) that has a very long theological history and is the most profound distinguishing factor that separates Baptist belief and Presbyterian. The paedobaptist view baptism as a rite much different than the baptism of their Baptist counterparts. It is acceptable to baptize infants as a part of the new covenant according to this view because Baptism is not seen as being a necessary requirement for obedience, but rather a sign of the covenant promise.

The paedobaptist would cite 1 Corinthians 7:14:

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

My Presbyterian friends would say that this is evidence that children in the homes of believing parents are under the same covenant promise as their parents, therefore it is only natural that they would be baptized as infants, as baptism is in their minds a kind of new circumcision (a sign of the covenant).

I am sympathetic with the issues that paedobaptists raise when they want to join a Baptist church. It is tempting for any church to lower the bar in order to accept strong Bible believing families who have a different position on the issue of baptism and have been baptized as infants.

As Baptists we respond that there is not one single bit of evidence of this practice in scripture, and that in fact the only baptism practiced in scripture is believers baptism. And besides, the passage in 1 Cor. 7 is referring to the terrible situation that occurs when a family is broken by divorce. It certainly is true that it is better for children to have their parents stay together. We know from experience that children from broken homes have more problems in general than children whose families are in tact. Paul was not speaking of the covenant promise, he was speaking of the practical situation that occurs in families as a result of divorce.

So, in our view, not all baptisms are equal. Scriptural baptism is immersion after salvation. It is done as an act of obedience to Christ, who set the example by his own baptism.

Consider this statement from William Cathcart's monumental Baptist Encyclopedia:

The Baptists of this country hold that the Word of God is the only authority in religion, that its teachings are to be sacredly observed, and that to religious doctrines and observances there can be no additions except from it; they hold that a man should repent and be saved through faith in the meritorious Redeemer before he is baptized; that immersion alone is Scripture baptism; that only by it can the candidate represent his death to the world, burial with Christ, and resurrection to newness of life; that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper; they hold the doctrines of the Trinity, of eternal and personal election, total depravity, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, progressive sanctification, final perseverance a special providence, immediate and eternal glory for the righteous after death, and instant and unending misery for the ungodly. They hold the doctrinal articles of the Presbyterian Church, and they only differ from that honored Calvinistical community in the mode and subjects of baptism, and in their congregational church government. They hold that all regenerated believers are saved, whether they are immersed or sprinkled, or lack both ceremonies; and they insist on the immersion of believers because Christ was immersed, and because he enjoins immersion upon all believers.

To be Baptist is to be credobaptist. Baptists down through history have given their lives for this belief. Charles H. Spurgeon, widely believed as the greatest preacher since the New Testament, was raised as a paedobaptist and surrounded by paedobatists his entire ministry and yet because of his strong conviction of the authority of God's word was baptized after his salvation and remained a champion of Baptist beliefs to the very end.

It is not a minor issue.

Some will say, "But the Bible does not explicitly teach that one must be baptized in order to be a member of the church. The Bible talks about membership, and it talks about baptism, but it never "hinges" the two together. It would wrong to go beyond scripture and make baptism a rite of entry."

That is like saying that the Bible never says that you must be a Christian to be a member of the church, why link the two together? In fact, there is no single passage in scripture that specifically gives us the requirements of membership into the church. But membership is certainly implied.

Speaking of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2, Luke writes, "Those who accepted their message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day". This is the first indication we have in scripture of a church roll. There is a number, and it is being added to.

In 1 Corinthians 5, writing of a man who is to be disciplined in the church, Paul states plainly: "expel the wicked man from you." Expel from what? Logic would say that unless you have membership in a church, you cannot expel people from it.

So although the Bible does not teach the specific entrance requirement into the church, it does teach that churches have members and by implication we can only deduce that members in the local church have identified themselves with Christ and that they have spiritual knowledge, spiritual gifts and are committed to the teaching of the apostles and prophets and the commission of Christ.

Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age (Matthew 28:19).

The New Testament makes baptism a normative part of becoming a Christian.

Jesus said, "Make disciples, baptizing them..."

Which could be stated: "I intend for the natural starting point of becoming a disciple to be baptism." And that is what the early church did. In Acts 2:41 it says that after Peters first Pentecost sermon, "Those who received his word were baptized." And years later, when Paul wrote the church in Rome he assumed that everyone who was a member of that church had been baptized.

He said in Romans 6:1-3, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death..."

In other words, Paul assumes that the believers he is writing to in Rome have without question or argument received baptism and he makes the obedience of that spiritual act the basis for his instructions to them about how they are to live out their faith.

So Jesus made baptism the norm for becoming a Christian in Matthew 28:19 and the apostles continued this practice in the early church. This is why baptism is a membership requirement at CRBC.

There is no question that baptism is the first step in our obedience to Christ and that obedience is the sign and signature of being a Christian. "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know Him", but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in Him."

The church is the Bride and Body of Christ, where people are challenged into discipleship. Making disciples is the primary role of the church, of which baptism is the first step. This is why we believe the paedobaptist is wrong in his interpretation of this ordinance, and it is why we believe no one should be a member of the church who has not taken this step of obedience.

adrian rogers and cooperation: a tribute by joyce rogers

One of the most powerful moments of the Pastor's Conference last week was the tribute of Joyce Rogers to her late husband Adrian and a challenge to young pastors. Listen carefully at the end as she shares her husband's feelings about cooperation and narrowing theological parameters.

thoughts on sbc convention

This past week in Greensboro was a mixed bag for me. I enjoyed very much hooking up with some long time friends and enjoyed getting to know some new ones. It was great to spend time with Wendell and Linda Estep, Wendells brother Mark and son Eric.

Also it was great to hook up with college buddies Jeff and Carol Young, to have lunch with Claude and Eric Thomas and to spend a few minutes with my old buddy David Leavell and to put faces to names of so many in the blogging community I have gotten to know but have never met in person. As always, I enjoyed hanging out with Wade, Marty, Ben and the gang.

The downside for me was leaving my family and church after such a long time away. But now that it is over and I am back to the comforts of home, I can finally say I am glad I went. The Greensboro convention will be remembered, I believe, for historic changes.

Let me just give you the highlights as I see them:

1. Many will say this was the best Pastors Conference ever. Kudos to Bryant Wright.

2. Substantive discussion on theological issues. The dialogue between Mohler and Patterson was very well attended and a great addition to the conference. I was especially impressed with Mohler.

3. Bobby Welch did an outstanding job as moderator and leader in the convention. I was impressed with his fairness, his good humor and the smooth way the proceedings were run.

4. The election of Frank Page on the first ballot was a big surprise to many, including me. Time Magazine has given credit to bloggers. I believe there were at least six factors:

• IMB. The Wade Burleson issue has created great interest. The attempt to remove him from the board has made Wade a household name among Southern Baptists. There were many who rallied around this issue and came ready to vote for change. Anyone who was associated with "the establishment" would be voted out.
• NAMB. To a lesser degree the problems at NAMB contributed to the already anti-establishment fervor.
• Cooperative Program giving. The issue of percentage giving to the CP has gained momentum as cumulative giving has decreased in recent years. The SBC needs real leadership in this area and there is concern that big time pastors who give small percentages aren't helping.
• WMU. The vote to make WMU an SBC entity right before the election only set things up for Frank Page. The WMU was there in force and they were prepared to vote for the candidate who was committed to missions giving.
• Nomination speech. The truth is, more people decide who to vote for on the spot than we might think. Forrest Pollock spoke from the heart and connected to the convention with his nomination of Page.
• Bloggers. Blogging has made an impact. Probably 8 of 10 speakers I heard mentioned blogging in some way. Even Al Mohler made a statement about them. The bloggers have kept the issues fresh and have created a great deal of energy in the convention. Love em or hate em.... they will be a fixture in convention politics in the future. Their impact, however dramatic, is unquestionable in my opinion.

5. Great IMB presentation on Wednesday night. The highlight of the week for me was the report and prayer time at the end the IMB presentation on Wednesday evening. Dr. Rankin did a wonderful job in rallying the convention around the needs of West Africa. Tom Ellif led us in a meaningful prayer time. I could not help thinking as Rankin was giving his report- this is what it is about! This is why we are all gathered here, from many different theological perspectives, churches and points of view- we are all here to rally around the need to bring the gospel to the nations.

I am hopeful and encouraged by what I observed at our convention. I believe there is a new day dawning in SBC life. My prayer is that this year will mark the beginning of a great revival of purpose and initiative as we work together for the cause of Christ.