I confess. I am an optimist. I prefer to say I am a man of faith, but I am optimistic about the future in general. I believe in the plan of God, the mission of God, and the providence of God. And I believe He allows us to be a part of it all.
Any objective look at the current Southern Baptist Convention would make an optimistic car salesman buy a bicycle. We are in decline, not reaching people well, not impacting the nations as we could. It seems the one thing we are good at is sniping at each other like middle school boys. But the interim report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has me just about giddy.
I admit readily my prejudice for this group. I know many on it. I know them to be people of great integrity with a love for the gospel, who are open to learn and show wisdom in their judgments, and who are theologically capable to look carefully at needed changes for our time.
So I like many waited with baited breath for the report. I had no idea what they would issue. I knew it was not an easy assignment, for they had to be bold enough to offer courageous changes, but not so far ahead they might fail to build a consensus needed in Orlando.
This report is bold. And sensible. And wise. And spiritual. And structural. It well exceeded my already high expectations.
I am extremely excited to be a Southern Baptist today.
Three larger issues stand out in this outstanding report. First, one can see a genuine hunger for the hand of God on the entire process. From the call to prayer to the focus on repentance, such a call is always good. Related to that, the call to be in biblical unity, or to be more like I Corinthians 13 than I Corinthians 3, must be heard. As someone said this week: if we reject one another the world will reject our gospel.
Next, the focus on the local church, from the mission statement forward, is clear. If you can imagine the entire SBC being picked up and tilted from national entities and centralization toward local churches and decentralization, you get the idea. If the 20th century was the century of parachurch ministries and denominational expansion, the 21st century is already shaping up to be the century of the local church. This encourages me greatly. After all, the local church was, is, and will be God’s plan.
Third, the gospel and its propagation moved to the front and center of the discussion. From the statistical information to the suggestion reorganization, the Great Commission has been placed squarely in the middle of the table.
It is time for neo-Calvinists and Baptist distincitive-ists, older leaders and younger, church planters and church revitalizers, denominational servants and local church servants, rural and urban, generationally Baptist and recent converts, seminary profs and state convention execs, to come together for the gospel.
I love the mission statement the Task Force adopted. Calling Southern Baptists “to rally towards a clear and compelling missional vision and begin to conduct ourselves with core values that will create a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention,” the “missional vision” is “as a convention of churches, … to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.” Clear, unambiguous, and tied directly to Christ’s Great Commission.
The Task Force demonstrated an understanding that the methodological center no longer holds for the SBC, arguing instead we should rally around the mission statement and eight core values: Christ-likeness, Truth, Unity, Relationships, Trust, Future, Local Church and Kingdom.
My thoughts on some of the recommendations in this interim report:
–On the recommendation that the North American Mission Board “prioritize efforts to plant churches in North America and to reach our nation’s cities and clarify its role to lead and accomplish efforts to reach North America with the Gospel.” The North American Mission Board needs to be “reinvented and released” by implementing a direct strategy for planting churches in North America “with a priority to reach metropolitan areas and under-served people groups,” Floyd said.
If you know me or have followed this blog you know how much I have insisted on a greater focus on reaching the cities of America. I could not have been more glad to see this.
– It calls for NAMB to decentralize operations into seven regions and recommends releasing the entity from “cooperative agreements” with state conventions over the course of four years to free up money for national strategy.
I have been a Home Missionary, commissioned with Michelle in 1989, after which we served in Indiana and witnessed the inordinate absence of resources there compared to Southern states. I have been involved in all sorts of committees and in other roles with HMB then NAMB ever since. I think we all know that NAMB as it is currently is broken and needs fundamental change, even starting over. I did not favor putting NAMB into the IMB. We need a missions focus for the US and NA. But things must change. Decentralizing, moving closer to the field, makes great sense to me.
If you are not aware of the intricacies of the cooperative agreements between state conventions and NAMB, let me just say that when I first began to deal with them as a state worker in Indiana 20 years ago I scratched my head then. It is time for a new system, so I am grateful for the recognition of this.
– Requesting Southern Baptists “entrust to the International Mission Board the ministry to reach the unreached and under-served people groups without regard to any geographic limitations.” “Globalization has flattened the world,” Floyd said. “While years ago a people group was located within a specific geographical location, this is no longer reality. Reality today is that these people groups are located all over the world, including the United States…. Most of the 586 people groups that do not speak English in the United States have [IMB] strategy coordinators working overseas with the same groups. With geographical limitations removed, a new synergy can be created in international missions.” Floyd added: “We believe that with this bold and needed change, we are positioning our convention of churches for a major evangelistic harvest, a discipleship revolution and an unprecedented, exponential explosion in church planting.”
Again, I am so glad to see the task force recognize the obvious fact that the US is an international mission field. We are the fourth largest lost nation on earth. We need to think like missionaries, and the IMB can help.
– Reaffirming the Cooperative Program “as our central means of supporting Great Commission ministries” and establishing a broader category of “Great Commission Giving” to celebrate all the financial support –- CP giving and designated giving — local congregations provide for Southern Baptist missions. “We are reaffirming [CP] as our central means of supporting the Great Commission ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention,” Floyd said, saying the task force calls upon every church “to work diligently at giving more through the Cooperative Program.” At the same time, however, “we also believe our local associations, state conventions and national entities should celebrate whatever amount a church gives through the Cooperative Program. In the spirit of one of our desired core values, which is unity, we need to work together in love for the sake of the Gospel.”
The use of the term “Great Commission Giving” for all giving—CP and undesignated—may seem like a minor nomenclatural adjustment. But this is HUGE, and is the boldest statement of recognition of the local church’s right to determine how it gives. This also a shift from “do this because you are supposed to” to “do this because you are part of a movement” in motivation. Enough of the 10% buttons, whether by moderates in the 80s or institutionalists in the 21st century. Those of us who serve the churches should serve them in such a way that they would want to give more because they see the Great Commission being fulfilled. Be about the gospel. Be reaching people. And people will give.
– Raising the percentage of Cooperative Program funds received by the International Mission Board in the 2011-2012 budget year to 51 percent and funding the increase in part with monies previously allocated to the SBC Executive Committee for Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education. The proposal would reduce the SBC Operating Budget allocation of 3.40 percent by 1 percentage point, or roughly $2 million, and add it to the IMB’s budget, currently at nearly $320 million.
This may seem little more than cosmetic. But giving over 50% to reach the nations is a good step and represents the reality that we must do more.
There are other issues that will be raised. And there will be more than a little criticism no doubt. Some may wonder why no name change? I would argue a name change, to remove “Southern,” is in fact only cosmetic unless we change our culture and our structure to demonstrate we are serious about reaching our nation and the nations. I am for a name change. But there are bigger fish to fry. And I think Ronnie Floyd and the Task Force have proven themselves to be pretty good fishermen so far.
Pingback: Preliminary Thoughts on the GCR Preliminary Report « Moving at the Speed of God
I like the intent of the GCR and supported people voting for it, but its recommendations would be disastrous in the North. The whole process as done little more than show me how entrenched all the power and ways of thinking in the SBC are in the South. As a young Southern Baptist that desperately wants to be a part of something great and God honoring my patience is nearly to its limit and I’m beginning to expect that little good reformation will come from the SBC until their is a whole denominational overhaul. Please consider the following. It well represents my concerns and the concerns of many more who have no voice in the convention.
http://www.baptistpress.com/BPnews.asp?ID=32435
Thanks Blake. Grateful for your concern. In reality however, a “whole denominational overhaul” via one task force is bordering on the impossible. If you have ever lead a single, local church to renewal in gospel focus, you know how time consuming and difficult it can be (though worth it). How much greater is the task of refocusing an entire tradition? I think the best way is to make small, substantive, real changes. If you have read Switch (great book), the task force seems to be trying to lead change that is both doable in the short term and potentially wonderful in the long. I for one am encouraged.
Alvin, I don’t expect the GCRTF to come up with an overhaul. Like you, I hoped for baby steps in the right direction. Their recommendations do not spell the right direction for “pioneer” areas. Maybe the things they recommend will be great for the South, and praise God for that if it is the case, but I think it will push us in the wrong direction in the areas of North America that are most in need of a biblically sound witness.
Dr. Reid,
With all due respect, I couldn’t disagree with you more. While the system is broken, cooperative agreements are not the problem.
I am proud to be a jointly funded NAMB missionary in western New Mexico, part of that vast sea of lostness where Dr. Mohler would like to see more resouorces invested. I serve under a cooperative agreement. This agreement, rather than compromise our effectiveness, enables three streams of SBC missions to unite around common strategies. Resources are multiplied as the communities I serve recieve more than any one entity would or could budget. And trust me, we are good stewards of what God provides.
Absent this agreement, our association would disappear (this is not the Bible Belt, where associations recieve much support beyond the Cooperative program). A NAMB missionary might be assigned. Of course, his job would be to implement NAMB’s national church planting strategy. We need church planting. I do church planting. But NAMB’s track record with national strategies (Mega-Focus Cities / Strategic-Focus Cities) is abysmal, not because NAMB isn’t up to the task, but because national strategies cannot effectively address the diverse North American mission field. We’re suffering out here on the Navajo Rez because Southern, White church models have been imposed for years. Out here we need NAMB to resource, facilitate, and empower field-based strategies, not impose a plan drawn up in Alpharetta, or even some regional office.
Where you see the report’s elevation of the local church, I see just the opposite. NAMB is, for all practical purposes, directed to dismiss those closest to the church, abandoning field-based strategies in favor of a top-down national church planting model. Local church input into the strategy is diluted. I seriously doubt such a model can fulfill the task force’s goals.
Assuming the report is approved, one possibility where I serve might be for our state convention to retain funds that otherwise would have been forwarded to national SBC causes. A missionary so funded would likely wear several hats, and cover a larger field, but his accountability would at least be closer to the field than a NAMB rep. I suppose in the area of church planting, congregations would be free to cooperate either with NAMB’s strategy or the state’s, but this squanders kingdom resources. It also presupposes the people of New Mexico choosing to reduce their support for the IMB, seminaries, etc. I am not sure I can ask them to do that. As great a mission field as we are, our churches should still have a hand in our national SBC causes.
Either way, the field I serve will be negatively impacted by the elemination of cooperative agreements. And this is one of many. Cooperative agreements are not even remotely responsible for the recent ineffectiveness of SBC ministry. Could they be improved? Sure. Let’s renegotiate all of them as they renew. Missionaries will adjust. We DOM’s are adjusting as church planting is more of a priority. Others can, too. But eliminating this vital point of collaboration between national, state, and local partners offers no true benefits. In fact, the known losses outweigh any hoped-for gains.
Just a thought.
BTW – Tell my friend, David Mills, I said hello.
Dr. Jim Turnbo, Missionary
Mountain & Western Baptist Associations
New Mexico
Personally I have mixed emotions about the report as it stands. On the one hand, I’m always excited about new efforts to reach our nation and our world. At the same time, some state execs whom I deeply respect have raised some valid criticisms of the proposal. I do worry about what some see as NAMB’s attempts to bypass state conventions (that may not be a fair characterization, but that is how some see it). If state conventions feel they are being slighted, they might feel compelled to keep more CP dollars in their states instead of sending them to the SBC. I believe this will be counterproductive.
I know our leaders can’t please everyone, so I don’t expect to be completely satisfied with the final product. I do hope all Southern Baptists will give all sides a fair hearing and then vote their consciences. Unless the final product contains something absolutely unconscionable (and I seriously doubt it will), I will do my best to support it.
I’ve been reading “The Lifeway Legacy”, by Jimmy Draper. There was a great deal of ill will toward the Sunday School Board (the forerunner of Lifeway) when it was first founded. Southern Baptists survived that controversy, and now many of us wonder how we ever got along without Lifeway. Don’t worry, Southern Baptists: we’ll weather this storm intact, and hopefully we’ll emerge stronger than ever.
One other comment. The report argues that we should focus on the cities because that is where the most people are. While that is undeniably true, I believe it would be a mistake to ignore the rural areas. I was a pastor in the Bootheel of Missouri for eleven years, which is a very rural area. It has one of the highest rates of drug abuse in the state, as well as one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births, and child abuse. It also has one of the highest rates of child sexual abuse in the country. Those people need the gospel, too.
I’m not saying Southern Baptists should neglect the cities; on the contrary. I just hope we don’t make the mistake of “doing the one while leaving the other undone.”
You said, “It is time for neo-Calvinists and Baptist distincitive-ists, older leaders and younger, church planters and church revitalizers, denominational servants and local church servants, rural and urban, generationally Baptist and recent converts, seminary profs and state convention execs, to come together for the gospel.”
I agree with your quote. True cooperation is the only answer for the future of the SBC. In fact, it’s really all that makes us Southern Baptists. I can be theologically correct without participating in a denomination. I am a 37 year old pastor who has both older traditionalists and younger progressives as friends. I find myself in the middle of an interesting yet frustrating struggle.
On one hand, I see a group of determined Mega Church Pastors and entity Presidents who seem to be disconnected from the majority of SBC churches. Still, they see themselves as the supermen who are called to save the day. On another hand are determined institutionalists who see the present action of the Task Force as an attack of all that is good. Though I’m out of hands, there are more groups…3rd we have the contemporary/missional movement, which seems to be divided into many subgroups. Few of them support either of the two groups above. The exceptions are the missional mega churches. Interestingly, I find myself in the 4th, and I believe largest group. This group has no defined age or background. This group is represented by a diversified worship style, polity, and church size. They are 3, 4, and 5 pointers, but they are ok to disagree on that and other issues.
I think this group is skeptical of all other groups because everyone seems to have a personal agenda. I believe everyone agrees there are problems with the Convention, but this is similar to the Healthcare reform just passed by the US House. While there is a problem, most people in the SBC will not see this as the answer. I feel the majority of Southern Baptists will reject the GCRTF proposal unless much is changed before June.
Thanks for the comments all. Lively, respectful debate is needed, and is happening. Well, mostly respectful lol. I think the process is showing us (in my opinion) we do not trust one another enough, or one another’s motives, which unearths a larger issue, again in my opinion, that we are not as guided by the gospel as we should be. That being said, we all have our unique perspectives and we are a very large body, so coming together is not easy.
But I believe there are enough of us, plenty in fact, for whom reaching a lost world and growing believers who see the world from the perspective of the mission of God in the Word of God to come together. Ken, I especially appreciate your spirit. I would say we are effective in rural areas, and not in the cities. So I affirm the focus on cities, but I am not worried personally that we are going to neglect rural areas anytime soon the way we have neglected the cities for a long time.
And Philip, honestly the only comparison I see between where we are and Healthcare reform is that in both instances there is a vote. Otherwise they are far from the same thing. I agree wholeheartedly that there are many constituencies in the SBC. I just continue to believe that there are enough leaders in all to come together. Maybe because I travel a lot and in a give year am in 15-20 state convention meetings and many others in which I interact with an awful lot of Southern Baptists. I know that is more anecdotal than empirical, and I know my “crowd” is more gospel-focused. But I am encouraged everywhere I go.
And Jim, thanks so much for your comments. I served in Indiana and remember the agreements. I thought then there was a better way. You may be right. But I am yet hopeful.
More than anything let us pray that the SBC will be increasingly prepared to reach a nation that is the 4th largest lost country on earth, that will be over 50% minority population by 2050, that is incresingly urban, younger, and lost. And that we will somehow gain a greater vision for the nations and those who have never heard. One thing I can be certain we agree on is that the more we are on our knees the more we may see each other in a good light
.
Dr. Reid,
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you regarding our effectiveness in rural areas. I can’t speak for rural areas nationwide, but the Missouri Bootheel is one of the most neglected areas in the state when it comes to missionary efforts. It’s sparsely populated and has been in a state of decline for years. Thus, it tends to get the “short end of the stick” when it comes to outreach.
My dear brother Ken, I will just have to agree to differ with you. Both the practice on the New Testament church in its focus on the cities in Acts and common sense tell me that with limited resources, focusing on cities versus sparsely populated areas is a pretty obvious choice. However, God has obviously laid on your heart a burden for that area, so perhaps you are the one to be like the Apostle Paul to that part of Missouri!
Alvin:
Here I am, reading these posts, months later, on the eve of the NAMB forum in Atlanta calling together the jointly-funded ADOMs. I serve in the Appalachian end of a “borderline”(Bible Belt/”pioneer”) state. I am from eastern North Carolina. I have contacts with a lot of rural areas in Mississippi, Kentucky, New England, and Texas. Rural areas will not be neglected by the future direction of the SBC; rural areas ARE and HAVE BEEN neglected, in a growing manner, since the early 1970s. Up until that time, the shoe was on the other foot…we neglected the cities. As you mentioned to one of my rural brothers that he should be the apostle to the bootheel of Missouri, why can’t there be room in our national strategies for many of us who feel that same apostolic calling to rural America? I believe that there is a way to do it that would involve little or no financial nor personnel resources being siphoned off from the new NAMB directions brought about in response to the GCR. We just want an opportunity to try. Since we aren’t being involved in leadership discussions at NAMB, LifeWay, nor anywhere else in SBC national(my opinion), how would the Lord want us to go about it?
Greed is a sin, but when it comes to seeing lost people won to Christ, I’m GREEDY—I want to see it happen more in ALL contexts! Whether it be 1961 or 2011, are we heading toward “either/or” instead of “both/and”?
Hi Kenny and thanks. First of all I would say I appreciate your love of the SBC and rural areas. I would add that your call is as vital as any other, for that matter. But I would say that 1) in the Acts Paul obviously went to the cities as central to his strategy, and you can see this in the early centuries as well; 2) we have not focused on the cities for decades, and it will take decades to right this ship, at least in my opinion. So, I for one am greatly encouraged by the recognition that the America of today is very different than the America of the past, and urbanization is one of the major ways this is so. Thus, I am thrilled for the focus on reaching the cities.