Personal faith is organic. Not hereditary mind you. Christ invites each of us into a living, dynamic personal relationship that is fresh and exciting every day, bursting in the newness of personal growth, the incredible possibility of being transformed into his likeness from glory to glory, that is, every single day. The constant motion of this organism resists inertia. You see, if this relationship is real, it is new every day, throbbing and pulsating, the fearful and wonderful workings of new life. Unless, of course, there is dysfunction.
Then there are two. In actuality, two are always better than one, for all the practical reasons noted in King Solomon's memoirs (see Ecclesiastes 4:7-12). At the same time, two forms a cohort, thrusting the individuals into a collective, necessitating boundary lines, formal or informal agreements, rules to govern the new dynamic of "we". A good many of these rubrics, whether written or spoken, or not, are instituted to protect the "we", to insure the inviolability of the partnership. Thus, the institution is created, a set of structures or covenants or rulings to guide and protect the "we".
The Books of Acts records the formalization of the Christian "we". Yes, of course, the "we" was established at the foundations of the earth. As truly, Jesus talked about the "we" when he called out the apostles and taught them, and later when he said, "... on this rock I will build my church..." (Matthew 16:18). It is in the Acts, however, that the "we" was actualized. One of the noteworthy aspects of the church in the Acts of the Apostles is the flexibility of the "we" to accomplish the mission assigned by the Lord. All through the Acts the Apostles, then the various church leaders, adjusted the institution to the demands of their growing and spreading ministry. The Apostles of Jesus weren't threatened by these organizational shifts. They invited them for the sake of the Gospel.
Throughout history the Good News of Jesus has been hindered by the inflexibility of the institution assigned the share it, you know, the "we" part of our faith. And, here's the deal. Cut to the chase, as they say. One, there's nothing lacking in the Lord of the Church. Two, there's nothing lacking in the message of the church. Three, there's nothing lacking in God's plan for the church. So, in the face of all the declines defining the church in this part of the twenty-first century, what is the problem?
It's the institutional thing Dr.Chapman. It's what the younger guys are trying to tell us in their exodus from convention entanglements, the spoken words of low annual meeting attendance, mission dollars going elsewhere, and many other denominational ills. The institution is fixed and inflexible, weighted down by an ancient structure that just doesn't work any longer. It's what Axiom IX is about, the need not just for fine tuning, but organizational re-birth, structural change, organic transformation, something perhaps revolutionary, a total makeover.
In the Book of Acts, the leaders of the young church never felt compelled to protect the "we". They forged ahead under the promise of his power and presence, with a message that turns the world upside down. When the institution got in the way, they re-arranged, re-aligned, and re-shaped it to facilitate the mission, the spread the message.
That's the deal, and one of the reasons the GCR is such an inspired idea. Also, one of the reasons for the whiplash that the GCR statements created for the institutional people. You see, the structure we've created and sustained all these years no longer aligns with the mission it was designed to achieve. This explosive Good News, illustrated in Scripture as new wine, is just too effervescent and potent for the old worn out container we've used to package it. Oops! Spillage. Leaks. Something wrong with the wine? Not hardly, this life-changing message still bubbles with new life. Ruh roh! It's the container.
The thinness of our organizational fabric is nothing new. Younger Baptists, and a few of us geezer types, have been telling denominational leaders this for years through the unmistakable votes of fewer feet at meetings, conferences, and events, reallocation of financial resources at times, and out and out straight forward suggestions for organizational change. Recent events have substantiated the need for strategic thinking at the executive level of our denomination. You see, our assignment needs a sleek new structure to support and facilitate it, something equal to the times.
And, that's what impresses this geezer about Axiom IX. Of course, that's what creates the institutional Resistance too. Go figure!
The real question is...is all of this too late? Will the younger generation give the SBC another chance? We're signing the GCR...but the leadership is the same...will anything actually change?
Posted by: Grady Bauer | July 09, 2009 at 07:35 AM