Danny Akin, Mark Driscoll's Acts29, and the GCR Agenda: For the Record by Peter Lumpkins

Remember when Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote a series of articles on "myths" concerning the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force work?  Virtually a year ago to the day (October 6, 2009), Dr. Akin wrote:

"I am going to do a series of blogs that will hopefully help in putting to rest a number of untruths that are being bantered about. The list of “myths about the GCR” will not be in any particular order. I hope these blogs will be helpful in setting the record straight. There is too much mistrust that unfortunately characterizes Convention life at this time. We must be better than this. Jesus deserves better than this."

Following through, Akin wrote a series of blogs dealing with a total of eight "myths" (not including a postscript) which he believed was "putting to rest a number of untruths that are being bantered about." Though I offered my own commentary on the "myth-making" phenomenon which GCR advocates indicated were being exploited (my commentary beginning here), most found Dr. Akin's series enlightening and helpful.

I thought immediately of this series again only this week. The thing is, I thought of the series Dr. Akin composed--a series assuring all Southern Baptists myth-makers were hard at work, buzzing about matters that were simply not on the radar for the GCRTF (at least, that's surely the sense I got reading his blogs)--in the strangest place.

So, what made me think of Dr. Akin's blog series on "myths" about the GCRTF? The recent article in Christianity Today on Dr. Al Mohler, "The Reformer"!

Here's why.

On October 8, Dr. Akin logged "myth #2" in which he expounded on what he identified as his very favorite myth "because of the incredible imagination needed to come up with it!" And, while I offered several lines of reasoning why it took no imagination whatsoever to wonder about the GCRTF's posture toward Acts29 Network, Dr. Akin assured all Southern Baptists just how incredible this myth was. He confidently insisted:

The fact is that Acts 29 has never been an item on the GCRTF agenda.  In fact, I suspect a number of the Task Force members have never heard of Acts 29...Do I think we can learn from them?  Yes.  Would I support a formal partnership?  No.  Would I support turning North American church planting over to them?  Never!  I am quite confident my feelings would reflect the sentiments of the rest of the GCRTF were our discussions ever to turn to Acts 29...So, can we expect a future wedding between Acts 29 and the SBC?  Not likely, since they are not even dating!" (emphasis added)

Contrast this bold denial concerning consideration of Acts29 and the recent quote attributed to Dr. Akin in the Christianity Today article.  It reads:

Akin stresses that in an enormous organization like the SBC, no change happens quickly. But when asked which models of church-planting and evangelism the Task Force admired, his answer was telling. "We have looked at—we have no intention of emulating them at every point—Acts 29 and Redeemer Presbyterian [Church in Manhattan]," he says, naming two of the most prominent Reformed evangelical church-planting bodies in the country. "We are this big, monstrous aircraft carrier, and they're both speedboats, but we've been watching them" (emphasis mine)

Comparing the two statements, it seems to me, it's very difficult to explain how a "myth" was supposed to have existed, a myth, if you recall, took such an "incredible imagination" to spawn it, that, according to Dr. Akin, "The creative imaginations behind this myth deserve a medal." For my part, if I am reading these two assertions fairly, I find the tension disturbing.

What is more, Dr. Mohler gave no less an affirmation of  Dr. Akin's  open admission about  "watching"  Acts29 and Mark Driscoll when queried about church planting by Molly Worthen. Mohler answered rhetorically:

"When you're looking for theologically vibrant, healthy models that lead to growing churches, where else are you going to look [other than Acts29 and Mark Driscoll]?" asks Mohler."

Hence, supposing Dr. Mohler is correct and no other viable church-planting model exists other than Mark Driscoll's Acts29 Network (and perhaps Redeemer Presbyterian), it takes no incredible imagination to assume Mark Driscoll and Acts29 conversations would have been routine during the dialogs on church planting.  After all, unless I've misunderstood both Akin and Mohler,* all else would have been a grand waste of time.

With that, I am...

Peter

*another possibility is Worthen either misquoted or misunderstood either or both Akin and/or Mohler

Comments

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Do you suppose that she did not misquote them but merely misunderstood them? Have you tried to contact her to see if she misunderstood?

Blessings,
Tim

[Mike Bergman]

Just a couple of thoughts in comparing the two statements:

1. Isn't it possible in a years time they have come to look at and discuss A29, thus making both statements true?

2. And if that is the case, what he says in quote #2 fits perfectly with his comment in quote #1, that yes--they can learn from A29 but not partner with them.

Just sayin...

[mike]

So, are you against the SBC examining and learning from Acts 29? Perhaps that's the real issue here. I'm glad that some of our big wigs are looking at other entities that seem to know what they're doing. If you don't think the SBC should examine and consider what Acts 29 is doing, perhaps you could tell us why? Thanks.

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

I think one must leave open the possibility of either misquote or mistake on the part of even the most credible journalists. And, I have attempted to touch base with Worthen though I have not heard from her...

Mike (Bergman)

Thanks for the kickback. You're right. There is the possibility that, in the beginning, A29 was not considered, but only later. On the other hand, I possess no confidence, given the record, an edge toward probability that such took place. What we actually know goes against the probability the scenario you cite took place for several reasons. A) Akin had an ongoing relationship with Driscoll prior to GCRTF; B)One of the chief consultants of the GCRTF was Ed Stetzer, an obvious connection with A29; C) at least one member of the former TF (Greear) was/is a huge supporter of A29, pouring tens of thousands into the network, including church-plants; d) it remains unlikely the TF had dialogs on other church-plant mechanisms, since Akin said the TF was "keeping watch" on A29, not mention Mohler's unqualified assertion that no other mechanism works as well as A29; e) Mohler himself has deep connections with A29, only last year hosting a gathering at the Louisville mansion, the presence of whom were virtually all A29 guys (SBTS professors regularly teach for the organization, or in conjunction with the conferences it sponsors)

I could actually go on Mike. The caverns are just too deep and far too wide to posit the probability that conversations on A29 were absent except for only recently. But recall: the TF dissolved in June. Hence, one must ask, just what is "recently"?

One final thing: Dr. Akin wrote his denial that Acts29 was either on the agenda or being discussed in Oct. Just when did the TF start "watching" A29, with Mohler concluding there's no one else to consider"?

Thanks again.
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Mike,

Thanks. While you have a point about the "real issue"--or perhaps "larger issue"--may be better, I do not want to lose sight of the legitimacy of the point I made in the OP; namely, were there or were there not serious conversations about A29 and church-planting amongst the GCRTF members? I think it is a legitimate question, especially in light of the stern denial conversations did not take place.

As for the "larger question" my own reservations are well documented, one of the largest of which is the head of A29 itself, MD (I have several blogs on it. Just look in Peter's 'other stuff' and select either "Acts29" or "Mark Driscoll" and you'll get more than you'd ever want to read, I'm sure.

I know that's probably not what you wanted but honestly, Mike, there's no sense in me writing out here what's already there.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Rick]

Peter,

Perhaps Dr. Akin will now be forced to write a new series of blogs on the subject "Twelve Additional Myths About the Eight Myths Previously Espoused By All The Southern Baptist Myth Makers Who Must Continue To Be Better Than This Since Jesus Still Deserves Better -- A Retrospective."

I will read it in fourteen years and eight months, right after I finish reading the unsealed Task Force Minutes.

[boB Cleveland]

Is there anything surprising about any of this?

[Dr. James Galyon]

I honestly don't see any difference between Dr Akin stating on his blog that the SBC can learn from Acts 29 (without supporting a formal partnership) and his comment which was quoted by CT. He stated simply that the methodology, etc., of Acts 29 and Redeemer Presbyterian have been "looked at" and "watched."

Looking at the matter statistically (not theologically), one can see that A29 and Redeemer have been successful in church planting endeavors. Other denominations examine Keller and Driscoll, just as they once examined Warren and others. We must be willing to acknowledge as a denomination that we can learn from others, even if we don't agree with all of their theology/methodology.

[Darby Livingston]

NAMB church planting is broken. I see no story here beyond looking at ways of fixing it. I don't see an inconsistency in Akin's two statements. But then again, I'm sure no one is surprised to hear me say this.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby (and Dr. Galyon)

A raw contradiction does not have to be present for legitimate concern to be expressed. What we have, at least on the surface of things, is a agency head assuring SBs that no serious consideration is being given to a particular idea, even going so far as to call the thought of such consideration a "myth" based on "incredible imaginations" deserving an award! Come to find out, talks were being held on some level.

Coming in the context of Akin's proclamation that "too much mistrust" exists in the SBC and subsequent exhortation that "We must be better than this" cannot, from my perspective, be washed down the sink so easily. Could it not be reasonably concluded that this very scenario constitutes a perfect example of why there exists so much distrust? I think so.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Hale]

Darby,
You declare that "NAMB church planting is broken." Really?

So how is your Church Plant going? I'm assuming that it must be a glowing example of "How to do it".

Ken Weathersby [VP of Church Planting] at NAMB and the NAMB church planting team are outstanding leaders. They have produced some great coaching materials over the last ten years.

Darby ... how many lost people were reached and baptized at your church in the last three years?

When you make bold declarations ... then Brother, we need to know how you are getting it done. Thanks.

[Howell Scott]

Peter,

Long-time reader, first-time commenter. I think you are getting at the heart of the matter with your analysis of Akin's (and Mohler's) comments on Acts29. It is not that Acts 29 was discussed in the Task Force meetings (although we won't know any of the discussion for almost 15 more years). I don't necessarily have a problem with it being discussed. However, it is the perception, and perhaps even the reality, that the establishment leaders are saying one thing ("Acts29, Most of the Task Force never heard of it" and "We support CP"), but yet subsequent words and actions seem to contradict what was said earlier.

This is happening more and more. When the Task Force said they wanted transparency, but yet acted in a way that only the Obama administration could define as transparent, then we have major problems. And, grassroots Southern Baptists, contrary to what some might think, are very much aware of the contradictions which seem to be growing by the day. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[peter lumpkins]

Howell,

Thanks.  I read your pieces on 'transparency' being ‘redefined’ in the SBC, and you could not be more spot on.  If readers have not read them, I encourage everyone to read part I and part II. Something is screwy going on in the GCR elitist level.

Grace, brother.  In so much, we are thinking along the same lines (I realize that may scare you not to mention others!;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Peter,

To me the issue is that the Acts 29 thing seems to be gaining ground...about to happen; just as many of us thought it would. In other words, it wasnt as much of a myth as we were told it was. Many of us could see this coming during the GCTF promotion...talked about our concerns...and now we see what you're pointing out.

So, whether Dr. Akin and the GCTF were partners with Acts 29, or not, doesnt really matter. What many of us were concerned about...with the GCTF...seems to be happening now...just as we thought it would play out.

David

[Howell Scott]

Peter,

If you told me six months ago that we would be thinking along the same lines, that would have scared me!:-) Sometimes, we just have to be reminded that, although we may disagree on a few issues, most Southern Baptists agree much more than we disagree, especially on the major issues.

Thanks for reading my posts and linking to them. I agree that there is so much more that is going on behind the scenes that we are simply unaware of. For one, I can't wait to see who is nominated for IMB President. Things will certainly get more, not less, interesting. Thanks and God bless,

Howell