A Great Commission Resurgence End-Vision

I’d like to express deep gratitude for the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. They have demonstrated courageous leadership in helping us evaluate how we move forward with greater focus. I support each recommendation of the GCRTF Final Report and pray we will embrace the challenges.

I’d like to suggest our SBC family also consider adopting a “SBC 2020 End-Vision”. An end-vision can be called a picture of a preferred future. While not comprehensive in detail, such a picture revealed to us from the Lord could give us a target to know where we’re heading. I do not mean to suggest that the GCRTF does not include elements of such an end-vision. They recommend some immediate and phased changes and have hinted at some key future elements. I’d like to suggest a few others, including them in one package. Such an “End-Vision” would enable us to take the necessary steps together to arrive at a desired destination.

I propose an end-vision that depicts a “simple denomination.” What I hear most from SBC pastors and church members is a desire for a simple but effective denominational structure and strategy. They want a denomination that enables cooperative missions, ministerial training, and compassionate response to disaster on a large scale. They want their cooperative giving mission dollars to support these three areas. They support associational and state level ministries that they believe are effective and add value, but they also see redundancy. They want their 14 largest, old-line State Conventions to forward much more of their CP/Mission dollars to national and international ministry.

I hear from many pastors and church members that they don’t want an Executive Committee staff whose salaries are not transparent and who create their own ministry programs such as Empowering Kingdom Growth and a Global Liaison office. They don’t believe a political Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is a priority for our cooperative mission dollars.

In short, I believe most Southern Baptists want what the GCRTF wants…a leaner, more effective and efficient denomination that is reprioritized and refocused even more around the Great Commission. They want a denomination that has strategic mission priorities and works well with other evangelicals in the work of the Kingdom of God. They want a denomination that assists local congregations in doing whatever it takes to reach the unreached of the world with the gospel of Christ! I concur. Let us adopt the GCRTF Recommendations along with a “SBC 2020 End-Vision” in Orlando, June 15-16, 2010.

A “SBC 2020 End-Vision” would seek to answer the question,

“What would the SBC look like in 2020 if we were maximizing our resources and effectively pursuing fulfillment of the Great Commission in the 21st century?”

I propose the following end-vision or targeted picture of a simpler, even more Great Commission-focused SBC in 2020.

A SBC 2020 END-VISION

Without restating it here, the GCRTF Report contains a wonderful, biblical call to repentance and spiritual renewal we desperately need to heed. A concrete schedule of reviving and renewing “Promise Keeper” type rallies and solemn assemblies could be held around the SBC over several years to encourage spiritual renewal, along with the challenges presented in the GCRTF Final Report.

The report follows the call for repentance and renewal with an excellent vision statement and values with which to pursue it. The vision statement is well aligned with what Southern Baptists have stood for and rally behind. I wholeheartedly concur and urge adoption of their vision, values, and challenge statements.

A NEW NAME

We need a new name in the 21st century that reflects what we value and the scope of our ministry. We need a name that no longer reflects a regional conference of churches. We need a new name that is relevant, not misunderstood, and not a potential barrier nationally or internationally.

MULTICULTURAL LEADERSHIP

In 2020, we need our leadership and staffs of the newly named SBC and its entities to more fully reflect the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, and ethnicity of our churches.

A GLOBAL MISSION AGENCY

By 2020 Southern Baptists should develop a new global mission agency, replacing both NAMB and IMB. We need to recognize that our world has flattened, globalization is a given, and the Great Commission is already “from everywhere to everywhere”. We must internationalize our missionary force and remove old barriers to strategic advance no longer pertinent to our multicultural, interconnected world. It would certainly need regionalized, affinity group structure and strategies and perhaps different departments. But we need a common vision, macro-strategy, and creative synergy.

COMPASSION MINISTRY/DISASTER RELIEF

Disaster Relief is a great strength of SBC life already developed. While adjusting as needed to ongoing contextual changes, it can be carried forward by the Global Mission Agency in cooperation with other entities such as Baptist Global Response and regional resource networks of Southern Baptists.

A COLLABORATIVE NATIONAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR GREAT COMMISSION FULFILLMENT

A collaboratively produced strategic framework of shared vision and priorities for reaching all peoples and cities in the U.S. should be developed. Representatives of the new Global Mission Agency, LifeWay, Seminaries, States, Associations, and local church pastors could develop such a strategic framework proposal for denominational adoption.

GREAT COMMISSION FOCUSED SEMINARIES GIVING CUTTING EDGE THEOLOGICAL, MINISTERIAL LEADERSHIP TRAINING

Our six, Great Commission focused SBC seminaries would complement their residential training with further decentralized theological and ministerial leadership training delivered in partnership with local churches. I believe the Leadership Development component currently assigned in the report of the GCRTF to NAMB should be moved to the Seminaries in partnership with local churches and LifeWay.

ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION

We should reassign the development and publication of ethics and religious liberty materials and training to LifeWay and the Seminaries, eliminating the ERLC as a separate entity. The ERLC budget should be reassigned to the new Global Mission Agency.

A DIGITALLY EFFECTIVE LIFEWAY CHRISTIAN RESOURCES

LifeWay is already moving in the direction of a digital age resource. They will be tasked with providing biblically faithful, digital age deliverable resources and equipping in partnership with SBC Seminaries and States/Associations.

A FLATTENED DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE

We should consider how to flatten our denominational structure into a simpler, more efficient form. In the future it is highly unlikely that three levels of denominational work will be funded or relevant. There is already too much overlap in services and resources offered among association, state, national, and international SBC entities. Strategies and tactics for implementing A Great Commission vision and priorities should be developed and implemented as close to home as possible. Providing resources and expertise to local churches with local understanding is a must. Of course, the churches can and will draw on national and international resources as well. But we need to flatten our organizational levels to be more effective and efficient in assisting our churches.

Such a flattened network must be large enough for excellence, make sense strategically, and nearby/local enough for relationship, understanding, customization, and contextualization. There are already a few piloted attempts in the spirit of this proposal in Southern Baptist life. We could study and perhaps utilize or adapt these restructuring efforts, remembering that one uniform size or approach may not fit all contexts.

IMMEDIATE ISSUES IN 2010

I have proposed elements of an SBC End-Vision for 2020. If adopted, we need to work toward that preferred picture of the future while allowing it to shape our responses to current issues.

LEADERSHIP OF EXCOMM, NAMB, IMB AND SBC

One current issue is the soon to be selected leadership of the SBC Executive Committee, North American Mission Board, International Mission Board, and next SBC President. In addition to adoption of a GCRTF report and its recommendations, I believe the selection of these leaders to be the most significant decisions facing the SBC. Nothing will have more import and impact upon our collective ability to pursue a GCR than these new leaders. They must be God-called men in alignment with the priorities, convictions, and spirit put forth by Dr’s Akin and Hunt in their Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.

What kind of leaders do we need? I am in agreement with Mark Morris’ blog entry of March 1, 2010 on “Time for G.R.I.T.T.Y. Leadership in the SBC” at www.missionleader.com. He offers insightful encouragement regarding the need for younger, new wineskin, missional leadership for new times.

IMB

With such G.R.I.T.T.Y leadership traits in mind, the new President of the IMB also needs to be in alignment with the declarations set forth by Dr’s Akin and Hunt. He needs to be able and willing to lead the transition to a new Global Missions Agency. Additionally, he must be a capable missiologist, able to inspire and mobilize missionaries, a strategic thinker, capable of leading change and able to collaboratively develop a strategic framework for Great Commission fulfillment involving all levels of SBC life. IMB policies also need to be in alignment with Dr’s Akin and Hunt’s Great Commission Resurgence Declarations.

NAMB

Likewise, the new President of NAMB should have the above qualities. He should be willing to work toward a new Global Missions Agency. The retooling and refocusing of NAMB should be in alignment with the GCR. This should include a refocused Trustee Board that does not revisit us with another quick dismissal of a President. NAMB’s policies should also be in alignment with Hunt and Akin’s GCR Declarations.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Executive Committee also needs to be refocused. We need an ExComm to continue to handle administrative matters, financial processing, business plan oversight, and convention planning functions. However, we don’t need an Executive Committee that creates its own ministries and hides the salaries of its executives from its constituents. While good men head the initiatives created by the ExComm, the EKG and Global Liaison ministries should be phased out and their budget line items transferred to IMB and the new Global Missions Agency for the sake of the nations.

GOALS

Ultimately, why seek God for spiritual renewal? Why realign and reprioritize our convention efforts? We should seek a Great Commission Resurgence for the glory of God, the declaration of the gospel, and the making of disciples among all peoples.

To that end I propose three Great Commission goals. Our simpler, reprioritized convention and its end-vision should include goals of engaging every remaining unengaged, unreached people group with the gospel, a church planting movement for every global megacity, and annually sending 1,000 college and seminary students to serve 2 year terms overseas in compassionate gospel ministry and church planting.

I respectfully submit these thoughts with great appreciation for the GCRTF and for Southern Baptist leaders at every level. I am grateful for our heritage and positive about our future. I pray God will grant us guidance, vision and courage for His glory.

Dr. Rodney L. Hammer, Executive Director of Missions
Blue River-Kansas City Baptist Association

Current member of Missouri Baptist Convention’s Organizational Study Group

Regional Leader, IMB, Central and Eastern Europe 1999-2008; 18 total years of overseas service in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Europe;

SBC church planter and pastor prior to missionary service.

Thoughts On Recommendations From GCRTF

Messengers to the SBC meeting in Orlando this June will be asked to approve a body of recommendations from the GCR Task Force that will change the shape and function of the Southern Baptist Convention. I encourage you to read the report for your self before you go to the Convention. It is important that you give much prayerful consideration to this before the vote. You can find it at http://pray4gcr.com/.

As I read the Preliminary Report and now the final draft, I am left with mixed feelings but also with a definite conviction.

Mixed feelings because I fear what this could mean to our funding and yet I know in my heart that the need addressed by the GCR is real.

What it could mean to our funding? My association receives the equivalence of a little more than half of the salary and 98% of the insurance for our NAMB appointed Church and Community Missionary position as a result of the Cooperative Agreement the SCBC has with the NAMB. Add to that another several thousand dollars that we receive for each New Church Planted in cooperation with the SCBC. (SCBC New Work Funds are a combination of NAMB and Janie Chapman funds) The disruption of these two income streams represents a large deficit that we would have to make up from our churches if we are to continue the ministries that these funds represent. The GCR recommendations call for a 7-year phase out of the Cooperative Agreements so we would have time to figure out a solution. If the economy remains as is, it will take some effort to do this. If the economy comes back, it would not be as difficult. In either case, our churches will need to determine if these funds are necessary and worth the extra support to the Association it will require from them. At the same time, our churches will be considering their increased support of the local missions of the Association they will also be pulled in the direction of increasing their gifts to the Cooperative Program. Leaving us between that “rock and hard place”!

I have heard discussions about the need for the SC State Convention to down size so it can pick up the funding for the 20 or so Missionary positions in SC funded by NAMB. That will be difficult to do. Consider this, The GCR recommendations would require SCBC to shrink its share of the CP and increase the amount sent to the national SBC to 50%. That will mean shrinking the already stressed SCBC budget from 19 million to 16 million and then find another ½ million to make up the deficit from the NAMB Cooperative Agreement. Where will this money be found? Some say the SCBC staff is too large. Perhaps it could be leaner, but it has already been downsized considerably over the past few years. Others have pointed out that SC spends far more per capita on its institutions than other Southern States. So perhaps some could be trimmed from our funding to our colleges and the Children’s and Retirement Homes. Yes, and probably they are in a better position to find funds from fees and gifts that could make up the difference, but do you think the alumni and constituents of these worthy institutions are going to let that happen? I doubt it!

So, we are left with some very hard choices! Fund the Great Commission in the Pioneer and Metropolitan areas of North America at the expense of Great Commission work in the more established Southern States or find more funds so that more can be done without eliminating or downsizing these established ministries? Either way we will be called on to make greater sacrifices than we are comfortable with!

And yet, I am convinced that the need that the GCR is trying to address is very real and must some how be addressed!!! I agree that we must become more intentional about funding the IMB, we must become more practical and strategic in reaching North America, and we must call our church members and churches and associations and conventions to a greater focus on the Great Commission in these last days! Most of all, and I say this with fear and trembling, we must not remain as we are!

As fearful as I am of the impact to our funding that this GCR Recommendation may mean, I am much more afraid of what will happen if my denomination chooses to maintain the status quo. We live in an age that requires a Great Commission vision that calls each of us to a greater sacrifice than we have ever known before! I can proudly say that the SBC has been the brightest mission minded denomination in the Modern age! But we now live in a Post-Modern age that requires denominations to be leaner and more intentional about multiplying the Kingdom! God help us if we choose modern maintenance over a post-modern mission!

Mike O'Dell, Director of Missions
York Baptist Association
Rock Hill, SC

The GCRTF and the SBC Partnership Model

Recently the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF) released their initial report. Among other things, it called for dramatic changes in the funding and structure of state conventions and NAMB, including the elimination of the long-standing cooperative agreements between the two entities. My discussion here is not to debate the spiritual reputations of the men and women of the GCR Task Force. They are all talented brothers and sisters in Christ. However, their reputations are not going to be on the floor of the convention in June. It will be the six actual recommendations of their report and the long-term ramifications that will result if adopted.

The Bible tells us to thoroughly evaluate our plans before implementation. Before drastic changes are made, it is helpful to assess the current structure in a realistic manner. Our current SBC Partnership Model, which is the state and national convention, association, and the local sponsoring church working cooperatively together to plant new churches, should be evaluated carefully before hitting the reset switch.

Evaluating Effectiveness

In the secular world, an Industry Standard is the optimum criteria for any industry to measure effectiveness within the respective field of production. When evaluating any missional structure one of the critical questions that must be answered is, “What structures are you measuring it against?

For example, take the Ford Motor Company. Ford does not expect 100% of the population to drive their cars. Rather, performance is measured in how well it does in comparison to, say, Honda in terms of market share. If Ford were outperforming every other car company, it would be unwise to throw out their overall management plan. Improve yes, overhaul no.

It is, alas, unrealistic to expect that any agency will be “100% efficient.” To seek to “do more” without knowing the current levels of effectiveness will end in frustration. Undefined performance standards are unachievable and wastes resources (i.e. unending reorganizations) that should be invested in ministry needs. What is our “Ministry Standard” to measure our current effectiveness?

To what other ministry structures were our SBC missional efforts compared? If the GCR Task Force did any comparisons, they were not in the report.

Benchmarking Effectiveness through California Church Growth, 2000-2008

The American Church Research Project (http://theamericanchurch.org/), led by David T. Olson organized statistical reports from 305,000 congregations by state and county. This research allows us to compare the effectiveness of the SBC Partnership Model against ALL other Christian and Catholic church starting ministries in California for years 2000-2008. This data allows us to move beyond inspirational challenges to numerical measurements of ministry performance. Is the current SBC Partnership Model effective in California? This is key because many SBC churches across the country support this work as they contribute to the Cooperative Program. Are their resources well spent?

Unfortunately, church planting is falling behind the tremendous population growth of California; however, evangelical churches (this includes SBC churches) are the only group in growth mode. How many churches did the SBC model plant during this time period? According to the CSBC, statistical data 1,155 SBC churches were planted between the years 2000-2008. CSBC reports an 80% success rate in its overall church planting efforts. This means that the current SBC model is producing 96% of all church starting efforts in the California evangelical world! Even with its flaws, our current model dominates the church planting structure in California. Every SBC pastor should stand up and applaud this work of God!

If we want to do more to penetrate the darkness in California, I would argue that the last thing that should be done is to start a massive overhaul of this amazing model of partnership. That will take over a decade and cost millions. Invest heavily in what is working right now, the Cooperative Program and the local Baptist association!

Conclusions

The current SBC Partnership Model is highly effective and it is difficult to see what could be gained for the Great Commission in engaging in a complex reorganization of resources. Can we improve? Always! But, those who are calling for SBC structures to produce “more” should provide other efficient ministry models (with data) for Southern Baptists to carefully consider.

Dr. Mike Stewart, Director of Missions
Central Coast Baptist Associations (CCBA)
San Jose, CA

(CCBA is 100% funded by its own ministries.
CSBC and all other SBC ministries are valued partners of the CCBA.
The views expressed here are his and not necessarily those of the churches of the CCBA.)

Ignore the Boneheads and Obey the Great Commission!

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a 38-year old husband, and father of three. I am an imperfect, but growing disciple of Jesus Christ, meaning that I don’t love and adore Him as I should, and conversely love and adore myself way too much at times. In spite of that, I’m grateful that through Jesus’ death and resurrection, I have a relationship with God, the assurance of ultimate escape from sin and its consequences, and the promise of heaven. Because of all that my relationship with Jesus means to me, I am anxious to talk about it with others—especially in an area where 90% of the residents don’t know Him. Fortunately, I serve a great Association—58 churches in all as of the last one we planted just a month ago—that allows me to function as a missionary among the people of central Maryland. Over the past 5 ½ years, I have worked with our churches to plant roughly 30 congregations both inside our own area, and in other areas, partnering with other associations to help their work as well. Throughout our state, I have been privileged to work with others to see more than 100 churches started in the past 5 years. We did all of this because we believe Jesus wants the people of central Maryland to know Him, and we are excited about how the Gospel will be advanced through all of these new congregations. You see, I love sharing the hope of Jesus Christ with people who don’t know Him, and I love being a DOM in an association that plants churches, because I can’t think of a better way to get that message out.

Oh, and by the way, I’m also a Calvinist.

If that last line jolted you a bit after reading the first paragraph, then you probably feel exactly the same way I felt after reading a post on the NoBA website last week from a fellow Director of Missions citing the presence of Calvinism in the SBC as one major reason we are failing in our attempts to fulfill the Great Commission. While reading, I was well educated regarding what a few like this gentleman think of men like me. For one, I had no idea that I really believed that God doesn’t really love everybody, and that salvation isn’t offered by God to every person. Moreover, I was a bit rattled to read that people like me couldn’t be trusted—that the entire SBC is in an identity crisis because of folks like me. But, the real surprise came when I read that its folks of my ilk that are responsible for the splitting of churches all over our beloved denomination. I’m sure these folks wonder how on earth a guy like me could have passed NAMB’s missionary appointment process.

That said, if you are one of those suspicious of Calvinistic thinking and think this article is being written to defend Reformed theology, let me set your mind at ease. I’m not inclined toward debating things that have been debated for half a millennium and still have no resolution within the wider body of Christ. I figure if Luther, Calvin, Huss, Edwards, Wesley, Whitefield, and Spurgeon couldn’t all hammer out their differences, this native South Carolina redneck isn’t going to figure it all out either. At the same time, the recent practice by many on both sides of this debate of tossing mischaracterizing salvos toward the other side while claiming they have no interest in fighting seems disingenuous to me. It’s sort of like marching through a trailer park denouncing pickup trucks and green Astroturf while declaring that you didn’t come to pick a fight.

Discussions of this nature could be very healthy for our denomination, if we could develop the maturity to dialogue with each other in a way that was respectful, gave the benefit of the doubt, and did not detract us from fulfilling the Great Commission . . .together! The purpose of this article is to respond to my colleague’s apparent contention that Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC can’t work together, and in fact can’t even trust each other.

After nearly 18 years in ministry, I’ve run into a few Southern Baptists like my colleague who simply assume the worst about anyone identifying themselves as a Calvinist. Over the past 10 years in particular, a lot of vitriol seems to have been expressed over this issue. Most recently, an unnamed group in west Tennessee circulated a series of papers teaching “how to find out if any of your staff are Calvinists and how to get rid of them.” Apparently, the rabid non-Calvinist answer to the “troublemaking” Calvinists is to make more trouble, start a war, and then accuse the other side of firing the first shot. Nice.

And to be fair, the Calvinists have contributed their own share of fecal matter to this mess. Just two weeks ago, I was appalled to see many of my fellow Calvinists across the country using the internet to speak in degrading terms about Rick Warren—some even going so far as to say he didn’t preach the “true Gospel.” After speaking my mind to them regarding their immature and myopic view of the Kingdom of God, some of them turned on me, sending me private emails accusing me of enabling false doctrine, fraternizing with false prophets, and compromising the purity of the Gospel.

What’s weird about all this is that my experiences in Maryland don’t reflect the theological civil war that seems to be inevitably fought over this issue in some other parts of the Convention. Among our 58 churches, we have pastors who would identify as Calvinists and others who would never wear such a label. And, these men have planted churches together! (Oh, the shame of it all indeed!) These men differ greatly on the doctrine of election, and they hold their views with strong conviction. But they aren’t so angry about what they believe that they refuse to cooperate (now, there is a good Baptist word!) with others for the sake of making Jesus known among the lost. This is exactly what Ed Stetzer meant when he said that the SBC must “welcome young, Missional Calvinists.” Though I won’t claim to speak for Stetzer, I’m betting he would be OK with me saying we should welcome any Biblically-sound Christ-follower who is missional, regardless of their soteriology.

Additionally, I would guess that at least ¼ of the church planters we have put in the field in the past five years would—if asked directly—identify themselves as Calvinists. After seeing people saved who would likely not be saved if it weren’t for their new churches, they too would be shocked at how they are portrayed by some in our Convention. Conversely, the less-Reformed planters among us would also be shocked to know that some think they really don’t preach a “pure Gospel,” particularly that same group of Calvinists angry that Rick Warren and John Piper are actually speaking to each other and talking about [gasp] doing ministry together!

So, after all these experiences, here is one man’s take on this issue. The problem in our Convention is not the Calvinists, nor is it the non-Calvinists. The problem in our Convention is that we have entirely too many boneheads! We aren’t reaching North America and the world, to a large extent, because we are giving an inordinate amount of attention to people more committed to proving the other side wrong than they are to proving Jesus right to an unbelieving world. 165 years ago, our Southern Baptist forebears had differences over these same issues, yet still managed to work together to build what today is the greatest missions-sending delivery system in the world! Those saints who helped start our denomination would likely be ashamed of a few of their great-great grandchildren today if they knew how we were letting issues of this nature divide us and get us off mission.

The fight over Calvinism is but one example of a larger problem that we often find we have in the SBC—allowing the fringe on both extremes of an issue to dictate the subject and terms of the argument. Hyper-Calvinists afraid to witness for fear of sharing Christ with someone who is “non-elect,” Hyper-Fundamentalists afraid to sit down with someone that uses a translation other than the KJV, and Hyper-Dispensationalists afraid to fellowship with anyone who doesn’t have the Jack Van Impe program on their pre-set channel list are probably the least qualified among us to decide what are and are not important subjects of conversation.

Here in Maryland, we prefer to allow Jesus and His Great Commission to set our agenda. For the past 5½ years its worked pretty well, and is certainly appreciated by the folks who typically find themselves in the middle of all the arguments; all those good Baptist men and women who hold to varying views on a number of things, but who agree that men and women are fallen in sin, separated from God, hopeless and headed toward an eternity in hell apart from Christ. But we also agree that Jesus came into the world, lived a sinless life and thus became man’s righteousness, died as a substitute bearing the wrath of God in the place of sinners, and rose bodily from the dead. Best of all, we agree that anyone who hears this amazing story, repents of his or her sin and places all of their hope and faith in what Jesus did will have the same relationship with God, deliverance from judgment, and promise of heaven that I have now. To us, those truths far outweigh whatever secondary differences we might have with each other.

Of course, I recognize that many in our Convention would rather fight over this issue. Some have even suggested that the recent GCR movement is a clandestine plot by which Calvinists aim to take over the Convention (if so, someone should probably warn Johnny Hunt and Frank Page, both of whom serve on the GCR Task Force and neither of whom would ever claim to be a Calvinist.) Many have almost certainly categorized me and anyone else who shares my soteriology under “heretic” (I just hope they remembered to put Spurgeon’s name on that list too. Also William Carey. Oh yeah, and the majority of the folks who helped start the International Mission Board in 1845).

Others in the extreme Calvinist camp would also rather divide over how many petals are on one’s TULIP than to unite around the death and resurrection of Jesus. I can’t be responsible for their beliefs on the subject. What I can do is simply talk about Jesus. It’s the whole reason I came to Maryland in the first place. If you would like to join me in that effort, I’d love to have your help. There are lots of people out there who don’t know Him, and neither the Calvinists nor the non-Calvinists in our Convention have the ability to reach them without their brothers in the other camp. We need each other, and the world needs Jesus. That said, it’s time to stop fighting, ignore the boneheads, and do what He left us here to do.

Joel O. Rainey, Ph.D.
Director of Missions/Church Planting Missionary
Mid-Maryland Baptist Association
Eldersburg, MD

Great Commission, YES - GCR, NO

It is as though an outside consulting firm has been hired to do an efficiency study of the Southern Baptist Convention. In reading the progress report, it is obvious the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has made a very serious attempt to say something significant, while at the same time ignoring some harsh realities. The Chairman stated at the first listening session “Our commission is to reveal the honest and true status of this denomination.” Can it be that we have some family secrets we do not want everyone to know? We may have wasted thousands of Cooperative Program dollars on the GCRTF and the most tangible suggestion so far is to raise the International Mission Board budget by 1 per cent.

The first two components refer to trust as a part of our cooperative relationships. Trust may be hard to come by in the midst of an identity crisis in the SBC. A Director at Lifeway has said “If our confession is to have any integrity, we need to welcome young missional Calvinists.” I, for one, have a problem trusting someone who does not believe God loves everyone and does not believe Jesus died so that all people would have the opportunity to receive God’s gift of salvation. How can we build trust when an unsuspecting congregation listens to the recommendation of a denominational employee when calling a pastor, only to find out after the church is in turmoil and mission giving is down, that their pastor is a Calvinist? Thirty years ago we learned there does come a breaking point.

An outsider would think it makes sense for NAMB to save $50.6 million by eliminating Cooperative Agreements with state conventions. Of course, they would not understand the source of the $50.6 million and therefore would not equate the reduction of expenditures with the reduction of revenue. There is no simple solution but I suspect the outcome would ultimately be catastrophic in our pioneer mission areas.

The idea of removing the responsibility for Cooperative Program promotion and Stewardship Education from any of our organizations, at any level, seems to be a shallow attempt to make some kind of statement. Could this really be just fodder for a report? We are all in this together; the SBC, State Conventions, Associations and local churches. It is not a major part of any budget, but it is a vital part of every budget.

The statement given by a GCRTF leader in a listening session “A church ought to be judged on the dollars it is giving—rather than the percentage…” strikes at the very heart of Biblical stewardship and is contrary to where most Southern Baptists are. Large numbers impress some people but Jesus told us He is impressed by the large percentage given by the widow. To come up with a new name for non-Cooperative Program giving simply renames a line item already on the Annual Church Profile. Every year our churches report Cooperative Program giving and also Total Missions giving. Will we celebrate it more by calling it Great Commission Giving? Will we give more?

I am excited about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention, but we come again to a crossroads. Our best days are ahead of us as a denomination if we will reclaim our doctrinal integrity and commitment to the true Gospel. God will do a mighty work among us as we live out the Great Commission as Evangelical Christians. Or, we will embrace the doctrines of the Primitive Baptists and others and become just another ecumenical denomination in decline. The path we choose will determine the extent to which our churches will support the Cooperative Program.

Jerry W. Nash, Director of Missions
Harmony Baptist Association
Trenton, Florida

Hoping for a Movement

Movements are what they are, of that we can be sure. Some are good, some are bad, some are forgettable, but in the long run, movements change things. Key leaders in our convention have spoken about the need to transition from institution to movement. They say that only in the movement will we find the needed power to live out the gospel of Jesus well. Movements are what they are—nothing more, nothing less. They are not manufactured, not real ones anyway, and they have a sustaining power that enables those in the vanguard and the wake to do mighty things. In another day we talked about movements regularly; we called them revivals. A revival in its most basic sense is the movement of God to stir the heart of the believer and those outside of Christ to repentance and gospel renewal. Though we see bright spots of gospel ministry in our convention of churches, overall we are a group in decline. How did we get here? We planned to get here. No? Take a moment and think it through. Nothing in the world or the kingdom of God is static. We are called to live active, missional and engaged for Christ. We planned to get here, and we need to own that. We need to realize that even the lack of a plan is a plan, and the lack of an intention is an intention deeply held demanding that we continue what we do writ large.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point. I, like so many others, voted heartily for the GCR in Louisville. Like so many others, I cheered Pres. Johnny Hunt as he preached at the convention. I was struck by the sober reality painted by David Platt in the Pastor’s Conference. I was hopeful that a movement was underway. That is not to say that we do not have some good words working through the convention. Much of the rationale for the preliminary report given by Ronnie Floyd to the Executive Committee was great. Consider his call for a renewed emphasis on the local church and a recognition that the church is the true “headquarters” of our denomination. Wow, truly great words spoken by a great pastor and leader. The recommendations? They seem to be primarily concerned with the top level of cooperative life in the SBC. Some have said this is simply because the GCRTF can’t change anything else. We would do well to remember that they do not have the authority to change the SBC; only God can do that through willing hearts of faith. We need a movement of God.

Denominational tinkering makes not a movement. I was one who hoped the strong words of Danny Akin in his axiom sermon would start a movement in the SBC toward gospel-centered, Christ-exalting ministry. I had hopes to see a movement toward participating truly in the Great Commission by living out the Great Commandment. I had hopes that leaders would rise up and point our convention of churches toward Christ, His commands and His commission with great humility and great zeal. I still hold some hope…but it is fading.

Most of the firepower in the preliminary report has been aimed at “releasing” NAMB, as if there was lying dormant some latent power in this agency. Don’t get me wrong—NAMB does many good things, but we have no clear idea who will lead NAMB. There is also much talk that we might not need NAMB and a real lack of clarity about how the proposed changes at NAMB demonstrate that the denominational headquarters of the SBC is in the local church. This is not a movement.

There is little doubt that whatever the GCRTF brings forward will pass in Orlando. Some will take exception with that statement, but I have not met one person who has followed the GCR conversation who actually thinks the recommendations won’t pass. The problem is not whether what is brought forward will pass. It will. The real questions are: 1) How can we implement the recommendations in the current institutional environment of the SBC? and 2) How will these changes specifically lead the churches of the SBC toward the gospel movement that God is already at work supplying to some?

IF this is the best that we can do as a denomination, I will accept it and move forward with my brothers and sisters in Christ, in great hope that God will do mighty things through His people. I do have a pressing question, though. What will the leaders of the GCRTF do to demonstrate that these changes will in fact move us toward a resurgence of the Great Commission, a movement based in the gospel and carried out by transformed people? How, in particular, will the churches, seminaries and organizations represented by the leaders of the GCR model for us the means of a gospel movement through these and future recommendations? I would ask the presidents of two seminaries, “What specifically will be different in your strategic plan as key partners in training pastors and leaders in light of the recommendations?” To the pastors I would ask, “How will the church that God has entrusted to your shepherding care model for the cooperating churches of the SBC a gospel movement specifically by participating in the recommendations?” To the other leaders I would ask, “What will be different for you and the church you attend in light of the vote in Orlando?

I ask the questions for a very simple reason: I want you to be leading voices for gospel-centered churches in the SBC. I have the privilege of working with 20 Southern Baptist churches in my association. If you show me how you can be more gospel-centered, Christ-exalting and missional in light of these recommendations, I will join up and serve alongside you for the glory of God. This is a critical time in our life as a convention of churches GCRTF, please show us your hearts for the gospel and the specific work that we cooperate together to do. Provide clear calls to mission that other churches can join alongside. I still want to believe that the GCR is far more than a call to manage the denomination; I want to believe in the movement that might have been, is not yet, but still can be with God’s help and grace.

Originally published at www.missioscapes.com (Reprinted with permission) 

John Elam, DoM
Northwestern Baptist Association
Woodward, OK

What 1 Question Must Be Answered?

The second Audio Conference with the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force will be held on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM (EST).

WHAT ONE QUESTION do you feel MUST be answered before this team finalizes their report? Your question will be considered for this second Audio Conference in a few weeks.

To hear the first Audio Conference, go to http://NoBAsbc.org.

Submit your question under the comment section of this post. Please be concise.

Offer Practical Ideas for a Real Resurgence

The Great Commission Resurgence TF may be well intentioned, but I am afraid they have no idea what they are about to do to the majority of SBC churches, local associations and State Conventions. The first red flag should fly when two entities such as NAMB and IMB are looking to cover the same territory. Doing this will change the focus of both entities. The current focus of NAMB is cooperating with State Conventions and State Conventions cooperate with local associations. This is the best possible ministry direction in my opinion because the local associations know the area better than someone in a plush office with a substantial budget at their disposal. Associations are all about getting the most work out of volunteer churches all at the expense of usually one paid associational leader (who is often bi-vocational with partial salary).

What is the solution to our current situation. It is obvious we need to make some changes. I think the disagreement comes when we discuss the changes and where they must occur. I know firsthand the effectiveness of our local association and its cooperation with the State Board of Missions. Funding through NAMB has afforded pastors and church planters in rural areas opportunities that would not be possible without the current structure. The NAMB also makes possible the supplements to Associational budgets through State Board of Missions that will no longer exist under the proposed plans of GCRTF. If this comes to pass Associational leaders in some areas will be forced to go bi-vocational and in some cases resign and go to work. In some rural areas this will be a disaster to Associations that are now thriving because of the leadership of dedicated DOM’s.

If our voice is worth anything to the TF let’s offer practical ideas for a real resurgence and pray they will hear us.

Looking across the SBC landscape I see the people in the trenches. They are first of all DOM’s. TF, please invite DOM’s across the board to participate in discussions. Second, it would seem more appropriate to audit the functions of each entity to address the internal issues to get a better result before changing the entity completely. Most all entities have functioned well at some point in SBC life. Let’s not throw the good out with the bad. The churches that exist in remote areas depend on cooperative efforts.

Brett Clements, Pastor
New Bethel Baptist Church

Director of Discipleship and Family Ministries
Cherokee Baptist Association
Centre, Alabama

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

Word from the Lord before Presentation

As a former pastor in Montana my concern is for the pioneer states.The state conventions are as much as 80% dependent on NAMB for their support. If those who serve on staff are moved to NAMB how will or will an office be maintained? In ‘82 when I left Montana there were 54 churches and missions and I am sure there are not that many more now.There is no way these small churches can support a state convention alone. Some of our larger state conventions have literally millions in reserve while the pioneer areas struggle to keep the lights on. Why were there no leaders from the pioneer areas on the GCRTF? There is no way you can understand the difference between Great Falls, Montana and Springdale, AR, Woodstock, GA.or the DFW metro unless you have been there. Mega churches run 200 in these pioneer areas and they and others like them make the cooperative program.

I don't think it is right or Godly to ask 90% of our churches to up their giving when most are already at 7%-17%.When all the churches that consider themselves "MEGA" up their giving to at least 7% of their undesignated giving, I will beat the drum loudly to encourage the churches in the North Texas Baptist Area to up their %.

If the states had all the money they need that would not be the cure all. They would still need GOD CALLED pastors to come and plant. The last time I checked this was not happening. Is there going to be a calling out of the called to GO for His glory to reached the unreached in these remote areas where a mega church will never be built? Will we put our money where our mouth is? Planting is tough enough without having to work a full time job and we must realize that the number one reason for new start failures is $$$$$$$.

I trust you will have a direct word from the Lord before anything is presented.This is about eternity let's not be in a hurry,let's get it right the best we can for we may not have another opportunity.

Ed Ethridge

Systems: Key to Effective Reorganization of Spiritually Based Organizations

It seems to me that the GCR report had enough smoke in it that it is extremely hard to see what the lay of the land will look like when the air clears. My guess is that those who have written the report really don't know how it will all settle.

I understand that what we have been doing over the past 25+ years, at all levels of SBC life, from the church up to national entities, is not working. The systems (key word) that we have been using are obviously not working. When an organization is not getting the results it wants from any enterprise, you have to change the system. The previous reorganization from Home Mission Board to NAMB did not change the system--it just put a different face on an old operating system that wasn’t working. I think the system we currently have needs to be changed. Unfortunately many people do not understand systems analysis.

In the GCR document, there is an apparent change of system, although it appears cloudy at best. However, from what I understand from the report, I am not convinced that it is the right system. I have little faith that a group of pastors and denominational leaders (however intelligent and committed the group) can get together to discuss something this complex and come up with the right system---especially without some really significant professional advice (advice about systems management and organizational restructuring leading to increased effectiveness). SBC entities do not operate as a church. These organizations are different animals than the local church. I doubt that pastors of local churches (however large and influential) can effectively make decisions on how our complex SBC entity system ought to operate to get the Lord’s work done.

We all can probably get some general agreement of what kind of end result we want--certainly we ought to understand what God wants. That is clear from scripture. The Lord, however, seldom gives direction on the processes to get the end result. The "how" depends on context, which changes throughout history. The decisions to be made are not just "spiritual". The final system needs to be designed to produce the desired result that the Lord would be pleased with. It appears to me that much of the report is directed toward a reorganization of financial distribution. Proper money allocation is not the end result, but may be a means to the end result that we are all looking for. Relocation of NAMB staff from one location to six or seven locations is not a change of system--it is a simply a movement of offices from one location to another.

It seems to me that the GCR report needs to be a first step among several steps of thinking and action. Whatever the final report, I think it should initiate a comprehensive planning process where entities come together to work out the details before anything is ever put into concrete. I am sure that would not be an easy task. To ask the convention to adopt the document that was released is not a realistic option. When you embrace change, one cannot always see the end result. Decisions that are made along the way in the change process always impact the end result. But, the document released, to my opinion, does not give enough information for the convention to make a responsible decision. I fear that, if this report is something very similar to the final report to the convention, that it will have severe and adverse impacts to the cooperative program and the future of the SBC.

Is there a way for us to encourage this report to be a first step in a process of several teams working, over the next year or two, to give some structure for new systems to be adopted that will allow this huge sleeping giant (SBC) to be awakened to produce effective kingdom results?

Sorry but I must add this: It appears that many are convinced that our main problem is not allocation of resources or movement of people from one area of the country to another. Our main problem is spiritual identification with Christ. It is time we get off our own agenda (deny self) and get onto God's agenda (take up our cross). It seems to me that we have all not died to self.

It may be the best approach to start with a blank piece of paper (in reorganization of the SBC) rather than start with existing SBC structures (which seems that is where the GCR team started their thinking).

Dr. Larry Richmond, Director of Ministries
Gateway Baptist Association
Granite City, Illinois

My Reactions to the Great Commission Resurgence Report

Most people in Southern Baptist life would like to see us become more effective in evangelism. Most are not so selfish or such turf guarders that if you showed them how lost people could really be brought to the Lord - in our communities, in our nation, in the world - that we wouldn't grit our teeth and step up to the plate to get it done. Sometimes, we get a little lazy, sometimes we mistakenly use the wrong approaches, and sometimes, we just don't know what to do. But most of us want to populate heaven and depopulate hell. Just tell us how. Here are my reactions to what we have so far and a few thoughts about what we ought to deal with that hasn't yet been addressed.

CLICK HERE to read complete article on:

• The R in GCR stands for Resurgence, not Reorganization.
• Task Force Chooses Not to Recommend Merging Mission Boards
• Even Though We Do Not Need to Merge the Mission Boards, We Could Learn to Do a Better Job of Co-Laboring
• Cooperative Agreements
• NAMB should be asked to more fully fund the church planters they appoint.
• There should be a major effort to plant African-American Southern Baptist churches everywhere in the USA. Same people groups; different location.

Some More Ideas to Consider

• Provide More Quality Evangelistic Resources Made for the Full Range of the Diverse People We are Trying to Reach
• Something We Need to Do: Establish Some Standards or Benchmarks
• Establish a Standard for a Great Commission Association
• Establish a Standard for Great Commission Colleges and Universities
• The GCR task force should recommend we change the name from Southern Baptist Convention to something more universal.

Derek Gentle, Pastor
Tallassee Baptist Church
Tallassee, AL

2008 Moderator and current Pastor's Conference President
Elmore Baptist Association, AL

Cooperative Program Promotion, Stewardship Education and the SBC

On February 22, 2010, the Great Commission Task Force issued a “Progress Report” on ways it hopes to assist Southern Baptists to “work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.” The 32-page report contains a brief sermon outline, eight core values, and six principal “components.” This brief essay will evaluate its Component #4 in light of the 85-year history of promotion of the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Component #4 of the Progress Report states,

We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to move the ministry assignments of Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education from the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and return them to being the work of each state convention since they are located closer to our churches. Our call is for the state conventions to reassume their primary role in the promotion of the Cooperative Program and stewardship education, while asking the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to support these efforts with enthusiasm and a convention-wide perspective. (pp. 24-25, emphasis supplied)

In the paragraph following this challenge, the report states,

While the Executive Committee has held the Cooperative Program assignment since 1997, and later received the Stewardship Education assignment, history shows us that we have struggled with where to place both of these assignments in order to serve our churches most effectively. (p. 25, emphasis supplied)

Three phrases in this report are potentially misleading. One could infer that (read complete article HERE)

An Alternative GCR Plan?

I would be very interested in reading thoughts from the Directors of Missions, especially those in the newer convention areas, about an alternative GCR (Great Commission Resurgence) plan.

Whether it influenced the Task Force or not, it would generate new ideas that would end up being used somewhere somehow.

I have the same concerns as the guys I’ve been reading on the NoBA site. We don’t need restructuring for its own sake.

I think we all agree that we need a resurgence in evangelism (with new approaches to evangelizing effectively in our generation – and for resourcing our churches) and we would all love to see more missions dollars getting to foreign countries. We all want to see the gospel spread and more churches planted in the “pioneer areas” (what’s the new term for that?). I’ve given some thoughts from my Bible belt perspective, but I would really love to hear what you guys would suggest.

I would like to see an alternate plan, offered not in a spirit of divisiveness, of course, but constructively. And if there were one, I think it would influence the thinking of the convention.

Derek Gentle, Pastor
Tallassee Baptist Church
Tallassee, AL

2008 Moderator and current Pastor's Conference President
Elmore Baptist Association, AL

Critique of Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report

The initial report to the Executive Committee of the SBC from the “Great Commission Task Force seems exceedingly verbose and dangerously pernicious to our Baptist community’, since those, who ignore history, are bound to repeat its mistakes. In its present form the report may guarantee the failure of NAMB rather than improve it.

 

The Task Force spent such brief time in study it appears that the report is based on preconceived opinions. While its assignment covers the entire SBC organization, the neglect of LifeWay, the Seminaries and the other Commissions in the report is alarming. And expanding the IMB’s scope to include the United States will produce institutional conflict with NAMB, a part of the guaranteed failure, for SBC agencies have been known to engage in “turf war” in the past.”

 

If, as the Chairman says, our 50,000 Southern Baptist churches are missional, then why create missionary regions in the U. S. A.? Will that not undercut or conflict with state conventions? Would not the direct appointment of home missionaries also conflict with the state conventions as well as local churches? And is this not contrary to his declaration that Baptist headquarters are in the local churches?

 

And what about our 1,200 associations? There are 900 Associational Directors of Missions who perceive themselves as part of the Southern Baptist Mission program. (You can thank the Home Mission Board for that perception!) The Task Force seems ignorant of “turf wars” that arise between established churches and new missions.

 

Why does the Chairman demand that the NAMB be accountable to their trustees? Does he not realize that the trustees are the NAMB? The staff has always been accountable to the trustees who report annually to the SBC. What motivates this attack on the NAMB? He attacks the cooperative agreements between the NAMB and the state conventions as concentrating funds in the states. He does not seem to recognize that the multiple demands of local churches and other state institutions do not encourage state missions. The cooperative agreements allow HMB to increase state participation in missions, not just in Sunday school growth and summer camps.

 

When the Chairman calls for NAMB to be “reinvented and released” he simply echoes similar calls made in the 1950s and 1960s. HMB has does splendid work in responding to those calls. There is now a Department of Metropolitan Missions that focuses on the cities and has been for the past 50 years! Who has this Task Force been talking to? When the NAMB trustees elected a mega church pastor as President in 1980 (?), he curtailed the significant partnership between NAMB and Baptist Associations. When programming shifted from Associations to “flagship churches” church growth and baptisms stemming from NAMB leadership dramatically declined.“ Eloquent preaching may mask more mega-church prejudice.

 

Perhaps the problems that the Task Force recognizes may not begin with the agencies but with their source. When the Pressler-Patterson fundamentalist revolt began, they recognized that the SBC President appointed the Committee on Committee which in turn appointed the Committee on Boards. To achieve their ambition, criteria for membership shifted from competence in performance to loyalty to a doctrine. For the past 20 years there have been examples after examples of persons being placed on significant boards without qualification for service except allegiance to a theoretical position. If the Task Force wants to improve the agencies of the SBC perhaps they should investigate the fountain head, namely the appointment process.

 

It is obvious that this is not a comprehensive analysis of the report, only an initial investigation. For example, the fundamentalist controversy has so disillusioned many Southern Baptists that attendance to the annual meetings has dropped significantly. Perhaps the Task Force should investigate the cause for this loss of concern.

  

F. Russell Bennett, Long Run Baptist Association
Executive Director Emeritus
Louisville, KY

• Portraying the problem in pious puffery proliferates pernicious practices. A pretense of prophetic preaching prevents public perception of primary perplexities. Pardon this put-on! The italicized sentence says in essence that an exposition of Joel is no excuse for ignorance
• "The Task Force seems not to recognize that “all have sinned,” which includes denominational leaders, mega-church pastors and “yours truly, retired”.
• The above reference to the rise of the controversy and its consequence on the ministry of the SBC has been thoroughly demonstrated by Dr. Mike Stewart, an Associational Director of Missions from California, in his address entitled, “A Brave New World: Facing the Realities of the SBC” presented on January 8, 2006, to a national assembly of Associational Directors of Missions meeting at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Something I do not see anyone else thinking about!

I did a study of the history of the Missouri Baptist Convention and the Texas Baptist Convention (BGCT) to help me understand where we were in relationship to those two older State Conventions. I think they are both at about 150 years of existence.

The states the SBC entered after World War II are "celebrating" about 50 years right now! The MWBC had its first Church started in 1956. At 50 years into the work in Missouri and Texas they were about where our Pioneer states are now. Pioneer states are mostly weak, mostly still southern transplant in both the Pastoral Leadership (Denominational also) and in Church Membership. Both Texas and Missouri grew rapidly between their 50th and 100th years. I wanted to know what happened and how we here in BLBA could duplicate the results they experienced after their first 50 years.

Here is what I saw happen:

#1. They became more indigenous in Leadership and Membership. It takes time for the people who grow up in the state to take over leadership. Transplants tend to be better educated and better connected so the locals almost must run a coupe to become the Leaders who take the responsibility of winning their state to Christ. No one needs to convince the indigenous people to win their family and friends to Christ. They also stay after retirement which gives even greater stability to a state. Just a side note...I have NO retired Pastors in my association. We were, in 1993, 100% transplant Pastor's and about 85% transplant members. Today we are about 40% Indigenous Pastor's and about 75% indigenous Membership.

#2. They began schools to train the men who were answering the call to Preach. Texas started Baylor and Missouri started Wm. Jewel. We are working with Midwestern and Southern to provide Centers here to train-up the indigenous men who are answering the Call of God. The sacrifice of those who do the teaching is along the line of giving of themselves for the furtherment of the Gospel than any hope of a good second income. Again, with no retired Pastor's the weight of this is placed on Mission minded Pastor's and DOM's.

#3. It seems that when the decision making process was placed into the hands of the indigenous that the growth took off like wild-fire. They had to become ready and they had to be given the freedom of "Calling out their own". Today, I would imagine both Texas and Missouri have somewhere around 80-90% of their Pastor's and Leaders who are indigenous. I'm guessing that Pioneer Missions areas where this has not been studied have a higher % of Transplanted Leadership than does BLBA. Also, In my studies of Spiritual Awakenings; those denominations who centralized their decision making processes lost during the Awakenings. Those denominations who kept the decisions close to the field, where the "action is", gained significantly during the Awakenings. The Methodist centralized their "Governance" in the 1850. That is when they began their decline that continues even today.

Do you remember Lewis Drummond's little HMB book, "God's Divine Work", (he shared this at the SBC in Kansas City back in the early 1980's) Chapter 6, "The Revival at Ebenezer"? I believe we are at that point in History, where 1 Samuel 3:1 "Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord before Eli. And word from the Lord was rare in those days, visions [Lit no vision spread abroad] were infrequent."

"Much preaching, but no real word of the Lord. Many ideas and schemes and plans and programs, but no frequent vision." says Dr. Lewis Drummond on page 44.

The people of God became so desperate that they said; "Let us fetch the ark of the covenant...". Desperate people do desperate things to attempt to recapture what they once had and have of evidence lost. There desperate act brought on more destruction than any restitution. They made an Idol of God's ark, the ark that represented God's presence, His Shekinah Glory. After everything fell apart Eli's daughter-in-law had a baby that she named "Ichabod", meaning "the glory has departed". Israel had arrived at Ichabod and God moved His repentant, prayerful, sacrificing people from there to "Ebenezer", meaning "the land was healed".

Dr. Dennis Hansen, DOM
Bay Lakes Baptist Association
Appleton, WI

Time to Reflect on What Might Be: GCRTF Response

I have to say up front that as a fairly new DoM I probably ought to sit on the sidelines and simply embrace the wisdom of others with more experience in denominational life. Yet as I read the GCRTF report and then the comments on this site I am struck by the lack of attention to what this new arrangement in the Baptist mission landscape might accomplish if properly implemented. With that in mind I would like to offer two defenses and two suggestions on how we as DoMs might positively impact the future.

First, the dismantling of State cooperative agreements seems to me to be a necessary decluttering of the way we work in Baptist life. Right now NAMB’s sense of local needs is filtered through State Convention staff who are often themselves too distant from local contexts to respond appropriately on the field. Having NAMB work directly with field missionaries living and working in their areas of operation will force NAMB to at least see that the needs of mission personnel living and working in San Francisco are different from the needs of mission personnel living and working Miami. The current system shields NAMB from this reality through complex supervision and pay schemes that allows them to ignore what in the military we called “the reality on the ground.” Having senior level NAMB officials deal with daily supervisory questions and issues has the potential of creating awareness of local needs and a culture that may more readily affirm the need for local strategies.

Secondly, I find it ironic that an organization tasked by Southern Baptists to reach North America with the Gospel would need to be given permission by the GCRTF to do just that. The recommendations affirming NAMB leadership in reaching North America with the Gospel only illustrate how saddled with denominational politics NAMB is. In the same way that DoMs in local associations are charged with keeping an eye on the big picture within their associational areas (we work where our churches are not) NAMB has a responsibility to do that nationally. It is wrong of the convention to expect its mission boards to work for the Gospel of Christ and then place territorial limitations on where and how they work. The GCRTF recommendations seem to aim at allowing NAMB to actually do the job the convention has called it to do.

Now for the two suggestions. First, I believe we really need to embrace the Spirit of the recommendations and as associational leaders begin to envision the possibilities that direct communication with NAMB offers to local mission fields. Let’s begin now to champion localized mission strategies and be prepared as NAMB transitions to provide viable plans that our mission boards can implement at the local level. We need to do more than spout rhetoric about NAMBs inability to understand us and our needs. We need to fully engage as dialogue partners and come to the table over the next four years with actual plans and justifications for those plans.

Second, those of us in New Convention areas and hard to reach Metropolitan areas need to stop acting like “poor step cousins” and take control of God’s plan for us where we are. It isn’t up to NAMB to reach San Francisco for Christ, although they are welcome partners, that is the responsibility of the local body of Christ in San Francisco. If there is little talk of the association in the report I suspect it is because for too long the association has simply been the errand boy of other denominational entities. A reenvisioned SBC may well shift funds and personnel away from associational work but it may also free us from dependence on those outside our local areas and cause us to take ownership of our own calling and responsibility. It is too easy to simply become consumed by the uncertainties. Perhaps this is God’s way of getting us out of our comfort zones and putting the local community of Christ back to work reaching their neighbors with the Gospel.

I do apologize if these statements seem naive and I am the first to recognize I have a lot to learn about this new role God has placed me in. What I am convinced of is that at the end of the day if I looked around and there was no North American Mission Board or SBC my calling and my work would not have changed. I would still be busy about the work of my Father; reaching those in San Francisco who do not know the love of Jesus Christ.

Joe Caldwell, Executive Director of Missions
San Francisco Peninsula Baptist Association

Excited About the Evaluation

I am excited about the evaluation, review, and proposed changes to the SBC from the GCR. It is refreshing to know that our purpose for cooperation, namely the Great Commission, is causing us to take an honest evaluation of where we are and how we can improve our networks for a greater global impact. The future seems to be brighter and worthy of more involvement. I am hopeful this review will continue to display our motives and heart as Southern Baptists. Moreover, I am hopeful that Southern Baptist will continue to return the emphasis to the local church. Although the review and proposals will not be welcomed by all, the work is worth the sweat and pain. There is too much at stake and many that can be reached by a refreshed vision in our denomination. To that end, may we all labor and pray and vote. I am looking forward to a celebration at the annual convention in June.

One hope is that as the GCR evaluates giving plans and agency productivity, they will also remember the majority of SB churches that are small and currently exist in areas that need greater support in reaching their communities.

May God bless our work together.

Pastor Jamie Woodyard
Kingston Ave Baptist Church
Anderson, IN

More Reflections on the GCR Task Force’s Preliminary Recommendations

Distribution of and Accountability for Cooperative Agreement Funds

The Task Force Report contains a glaring statistical error based on inaccurate information that was given to them by NAMB. An article explaining this mistake can be found at: http://www.namb.net/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=9qKILUOzEpH&b=227361&ct=8062375. It includes this description of the nature of the error: 

Page 19 of the Progress Report depicts how Southern Baptist resources are distributed throughout the United States. That data indicates that at the end of 2008 there were 3,515 missionaries serving in the 14 states most often considered to be the area where Southern Baptists are the strongest and only 1,735 missionaries serving in the remaining states across the US. In the GCRTF report the 14 states are depicted in blue and the others in red.

In actuality, within the US there were 2,573 missionaries serving in the 14 blue states in 2008 and 2,733 serving in the remaining red states. This indicates a disbursement of 48 percent of NAMB missionaries serving in blue states and 52 percent serving red states. Another 133 NAMB missionaries serve in Canada. If Canada is included in the overall numbers, 2,866 of NAMB’s missionaries serve outside the blue states, making the percentage 53 percent in North America serving outside the 14 blue states.

The NAMB article adds this important note:

In addition to money from Cooperative Agreements, NAMB sends money to state conventions through missionary benefits and national ministry funds. When these items are added, more than three-fourths (77 percent) of the $62 million NAMB distributed throughout the US and Canada in 2009 went to areas where Southern Baptist church presence is the least. These are the 36 states depicted in red on page 19 of the GCRTF’s Progress Report, plus Canada. Less than a quarter (23 percent) of NAMB’s spending occurred in states where Southern Baptists are strongest. These are the 14 states depicted in blue in the Progress Report.

The corrected figures indicate that instead of the so-called new convention areas receiving only one-third of NAMB’s Cooperative Agreement subsidies, they actually received just over half of these funds plus addition financial assistance totaling over three-fourths of all NAMB funds distributed across North America. While even this allocation may be open to criticism, it is far from the shockingly lopsided picture presented in the Task Force Report. Since the error was NAMB’s, so long as the statistics are corrected in the final report the Task Force members should not be faulted for this mistake. However this reaction from Ronnie Floyd quoted in Baptist Press (3-9-10) seems to ignore the math:

Ronnie Floyd, GCRTF chairman and pastor of First Baptist Church in Springdale Ark., said the change in missionary numbers did not alter the major concern of the task force.

"[W]e spend 2/3 of the Cooperative Program dollars on 1/3 of the population and conversely spend only 1/3 of the Cooperative Program dollars on 2/3 of the population in the United States," Floyd said.

What is much harder to justify is the criticism that the Task Force Report levels against the current level of accountability by the state conventions to NAMB for Cooperative Agreement funds. On page 20 of the report it states that the Cooperative Agreements “have become complex and at times cumbersome, resulting in a lack of accountability.” This reflects an almost willful ignorance of reality. The current system includes the following accountability structure:

• 
  
  A Cooperative State Mission Plan is developed by the state convention partner and approved by NAMB’s strategy coordinator in conjunction with the input of NAMB’s cross functional team representing the different NAMB teams. This Strategic Mission Plan is an agreement of strategy and funding. It includes goals, action plans, and accountability for progress.

• 
  
  The Cooperative Budget is a fifteen page document that notes to the cent where NAMB money MUST be spent and the matching dollars required by the state convention partner. There are no nebulous monies available for discretionary spending by the state convention partner. All dollars are assigned to individual personnel or shared projects.

• 
  
  The State Convention partner pays for an annual audit that reconciles not only their financial affairs but the authenticity of how NAMB dollars are spent. 

• 
  
  The State Convention partner provides an annual performance review of all jointly funded missionaries.

In light of such rigid rules for accountability I can only read with incredulity the following statement by Task Force member Al Mohler:  

In the year 2009, about $50-million dollars was routed through these Cooperative Agreements. Many of these dollars were spent on the salaries of workers in the state conventions and associations. The monies are allocated and channeled in ways that are difficult to trace, much less to prioritize. (http://www.pray4gcr.com/2010/03/cooperative-missions-and-the-great-commission-resurgence/)

Anyone who has sweated through the tedious process of annually renegotiating Cooperative Agreement funding between NAMB and a state convention partner will readily agree that it is a complex and tedious business. A Presbyterian friend of mine, upon having the system explained to him commented, “I can see why most SBC people and pastors don't understand the state convention funding process. It seems to have been borrowed from somewhere in the Ottoman Empire.” Many of us would applaud any efforts to simplify and streamline that process. But if accountability contributes to the clumsiness of the current system, then one can persuasively argue that we suffer from too much, not too little.

Glen A. Land, Former State Missions Director

Minnesota/Wisconson Baptist Convention

GCR: Same Rhetoric

“I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger; then it hit me!”
The GCR report has the same rhetoric as the 1996-1997 reorganization report I remember. It is filled with admonitions for the things Bible-believing Baptists cannot argue; it is sprinkled with insinuations that if the institution were fixed, all would be right. The original intent of the GCR was to put us back on target for evangelism and baptisms. The GCR interim report started where it might have ended – Joel 2:12-17. Had the report stopped with calling the SBC to repentance, might not all the “functional fixes” become a response to a renewed heart in Southern Baptists? Where are the tools apart from reorganizations? Ted Knapp of California suggested the AIM missionaries watch Andy Stanley’s message on Systems; I suggest everyone get Andy Stanley’s DVD from http://www.catalystspace.com/store/products/Systems-DVD-Set,-Andy-Stanley.html. It applies to this context!

Bob Ryan, DMin
Mile High Baptist Team Leader
Arvada, CO