Evaluating the final GCR Task Force report (Con)
After assessing the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force’s report unveiled for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in February and finalized in May, I have several concerns and want to encourage Alabama Baptists to oppose the report.
My reaction has nothing to do with personalities. I respect the task force members for taking on a difficult assignment. I appreciate the time, effort and energy that each member of the task force has contributed to this assignment. I also have the utmost respect for the president of our convention, Johnny Hunt, who appointed the task force and gave it the assignment. The members of this task force are all respected leaders in their own right in Southern Baptist life.
My reaction has everything to do with the reasoning for the proposed recommendations that have been unveiled by the task force.
To my knowledge, the concerns expressed over the “restructuring and redefining” of the funding of our work through our convention’s Cooperative Program (CP) did not originate from a “cry” from local churches and pastors, associations, state conventions or even the Executive Committee.
If the CP funding was in need of “restructuring and redefining” and was not working, then I can’t help but believe that such a “cry” would have come from the leaders in these arenas.
Instead the idea of “restructuring and redefining” the funding of our work through the CP was “birthed” by a group of influential leaders among us who it seems from the report have a desire to “redefine” and “redirect” monies given through the CP.
It is my understanding based on the seven components of the report that the task force members feel that a greater percentage of CP funds should go to the entities that are doing the most to touch “the lostness” of the world.
That would include more funds to the seminaries, the International Mission Board (IMB) and the North American Mission Board (NAMB). The task force also recommends that the Executive Committee reduce its budget in order to provide additional funding to reach lost people in North America’s larger cities.
Some members of the task force have expressed their beliefs (which have been publicized) that associations, state conventions and the Executive Committee have become “bloated bureaucracies.”
The perception that has been fostered by these remarks in the minds and hearts of many of our younger pastors is that associations and state conventions are no longer relevant in touching the “lostness” of the world. That is just absolutely not true.
Divisive spirit
This perception has created a divisive spirit among us. In my opinion, it also has created a “generational schism” between younger and older pastors in our convention. This is very unfortunate and very unhealthy for our collective work as a denomination. It is never helpful, nor profitable, for one level of convention leadership to devalue the contributions of another level of convention leadership.
The history and value of the CP as a master financial plan to support the collective work of our convention at all levels is not understood by many of our younger pastors and the younger generation in our congregations.
Their lack of knowledge of the history, value and appreciation for the CP has made them vulnerable in this present debate. This lack of knowledge of the CP is an urgent challenge that we need to address at all levels of our convention work.
The principle behind the CP is the very same principle behind the “tithe” for the local church. The “tithe” is God’s financial plan for His Church. There is not a pastor among us who wants to “redefine” or “redirect” that plan.
Well the CP is based on that same principle, and that is why 10 percent has been used as a goal for our churches.
Gifts through the CP support everything Southern Baptists believe the Lord would have us support according to the Great Commission He gave us: global evangelism and missional vision that begins with our own Jerusalems and goes to the uttermost parts of the earth, Christian higher education — both at the college and seminary levels (discipleship, if you please), church planting, missions mobilization of volunteers through local churches and the list goes on.
Why in the world would we want to do anything that would “unravel” such a proven and successful financial plan, which has worked for our convention to reach a “lost” world for 85 years?
I have yet to hear from anyone how the CP has failed us. If it is not broken, then leave it alone!
If I understand what has been written and reported by members of the task force, then the justification for “restructuring” and “redefining” the CP is the decline in baptisms and church membership in our denomination.
The decline in baptisms and church membership can be explained by several things I have witnessed firsthand as a church member, a senior pastor for more than 35 years, a state convention president and the executive director of a local association. In my opinion, the following attitudes and challenges led to the decline in baptisms and church membership:
- A real lack of passion for reaching a “lost” world at all levels of our work. That is a heart issue for all of us to repent of.
- Many local churches have no consistent plan of evangelism.
- Too many of our churches are plagued with conflict and don’t have time to win people to Jesus.
- Many of our pastors are discouraged and defeated by a “do nothing” attitude among some church members.
- Some of our laypeople are discouraged and defeated by a “dictatorial spirit” on the part of some pastors and staff who make significant changes in the church without any input from the leadership of the congregation.
- The “worship wars” that have plagued many of our congregations.
- Transitioning communities.
- The lack of economic growth in many communities.
- The culture’s negative attitude toward Christians and the church.
In my opinion, some of the above are the things we need to repent of in our churches. These are the things that are contributing to the decline in baptisms and church growth. It has nothing to do with the CP distribution of our funds.
Another concern that I have is what about the ministries of the smaller churches of our convention that are very dependent upon funds that come to them through the CP at the state convention and associational levels to undergird their work?
I haven’t heard anyone express any concern for these churches, which make up more than 75 percent of the churches in the SBC and are very faithful in their giving to convention causes and our special offerings such as (Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, world hunger, disaster relief, etc.). What will happen to the ministries of these churches with a massive “restructuring” and “redefining” of CP funds?
My deepest concern and fear in all of this is the fragmentation that will come to our SBC family if the task force report is presented for a vote to implement its recommendations at this convention.
If that happens, then I will vote against it. It is too much landscape to cover in one massive sweep. A convention as large as the SBC cannot process such changes this quickly. The convention messengers need time to study all the ramifications of this report before they are called upon to vote on it.
My suggestion:
The task force needs to simply report to the convention its findings and concerns on which its recommendations are based without calling for a vote to take action now. The convention can then receive the report from the task force and refer it to the Executive Committee and the various entities of the convention for further study over the next year. This will give the trustees of the IMB, NAMB and the Executive Committee time to elect their new leaders.
We will also be electing a new convention president who will be able to converse with the new leaders of the various entities and the new president of the Executive Committee about the ramifications (pros and cons) of the task force recommendations.
It will also give leaders at the associational and state convention levels time to effectively communicate with their staffs and local churches the concerns of the report and some possible changes that may come.
Then at the convention in 2011, the Executive Committee can bring to the convention messengers any recommendations it feels would be helpful in improving the CP plan of giving or any other recommendations that would help us to be more effective and better stewards of our collective resources.
The task force would then be credited for leading the convention to make a “significant beginning” in helping the convention to truly look at itself to see if there are areas that we can improve upon in our work together of reaching the lost world for Christ.
May God help us to do the right thing at the upcoming SBC annual meeting in Orlando. Our world needs the “salt” and “light” influence of the Church more than ever. We cannot make a mistake as a convention at this juncture in world history. The cost is too great.
And these are not my thoughts alone. Here are others who have expressed concern about the task force recommendations:
Sammy Gilbreath, director of the office of evangelism for the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions (SBOM), said, “It would change the face of evangelism in Alabama because we could not relate to our churches and associations as we do now.”
Gary Swafford, director of the office of associational missions and church planting for the SBOM, said, “Alabama is a missions field, too. This will change the way we do church planting.”
Ted Stephens, cooperative missions ministries team leader for the Baptist State Convention of Michigan, said, “Everyone here is worried about the future of their ministries.”
Michael Collins, director of the Michigan convention, said, “The task force recommendations would devastate our convention.”
Jimmy Barrentine, executive director of the Baptist Convention of Iowa, said the recommendations could significantly hurt smaller state conventions in new work areas.
Joseph Bunce, executive director of the Baptist Convention of New Mexico, said, “Under the task force recommendations, NAMB jointly funded missionaries would be under the direct supervision of NAMB rather than the state conventions they have historically served. This is huge for New Mexico and is a death sentence for other Western state conventions.”
Bobby DuBois, associate executive director of the SBOM, said, “Eliminating this support would impact ministries and missionaries in every part of the state.”
Because of the negative impact the changes would have on numerous ministries provided by Alabama Baptists, I am opposed to the task force’s proposal and encourage Alabama Baptists to vote against it.
EDITOR’S NOTE — Mike McLemore is executive director of Birmingham Baptist Association.
What are your thoughts about the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force report?
Answer seven questions at www.surveymonkey.com/s/gcr. The results are anonymous and will be compiled into a story for the June 10 issue of The Alabama Baptist.
CLICK HERE to read the pro GCR perspective.
Share with others: