Tuesday, March 16, 2010

What Do You Think?

After listening to the Audio Conference with the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF)(Click Here to Listen), what do you think of the preliminary GCRTF report now? Were any issues clarified for you? What questions should have been ask as they impact associational ministry?

Click COMMENT and give your opinion


Glen Land said...

I heard some clarification and I heard some slight backtracking. And I think I may see at least one point where we have been talking at cross purposes regarding the concept of strategy. The word has its origins in the military where it speaks of the science of planning and conducting a military campaign. In business and in missions we have adopted the term to talk about devising a plan of action to achieve a goal or objective. A famous example of military strategy would be Operation Overlord, a very complex strategy developed by Eisenhower’s staff for invading Europe which including the landings at Normandy while at the same time deceiving the Germans into believing that Pas-de-Calais was the real objective.

But strategy has another use in military jargon, what is often called “Grand Strategy.” This is often shaped as much by political as military realities. The fundamental grand strategy in World War II was the agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill in the days after Pearl Harbor that was summed up in just two words, “Germany first.”

I will concede that NAMB has a legitimate roll in strategy at the grand strategy level. That would include such concepts as making church planting the priority, placing a premium on reaching the urban centers of the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast, and working with IMB to develop effective means for evangelizing unreached immigrant people groups. Where many of us have been pushing back on the GCRTF’s report is the fear of a national agency trying to meddle in strategy in the usual and more localized sense of the term.

Mike O'Dell said...

After listening to the audio conference and re-reading the full draft of the report I think I have a better understanding of where they are going. I don't think anyone will disagree with the vision for a more effective Great Commission Strategy, but I still have misgivings about how it will flesh out. Question: On page 22 of the report the statement is made"It is understood that state conventions will adjust thier budgets accordingly", How will that result in a higher percentage of funds going to SBC/Namb? Question: on page 28 of the report the statement is made"Great Commission giving includes Cooperative Program and designated to SBC causes in national, state and association", If all giving will be considered CP giving will it not lead to a devolving of total giving? If a church now gives 10% to CP and 3% to Association and 2% to other missions for a total of 15% but now all giving is considered CP then will it not be natural for churches to consider a goal of 10% total to be sufficient?

David Banks said...

I heard it said that cooperative agreements would not be done away with, but would look different. My question is: give us an idea what you mean by that? Alaskan churches depend greatly on the cooperative agreement we have with the SBC, unlike many churches in, say, Georgia (and I am from Georgia, so there is no criticism intended).