The Great Commission Resurgence
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I regularly blogged about matters relating to the Southern Baptist Convention. After a couple of years of such writing, I retired from it and began to blog about other matters. I’m writing this particular post as a couple of friends, for whom I have great respect, have asked me to weigh in with a few thoughts on the proposed Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) in the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m not returning to the fray.
Though some, perhaps many, will take my writing as negative, it is only how things are viewed from my seat. I hope against hope for nothing but success for all those who are involved in this attempt and would be happy to be proven wrong.
Beginning at least as early as Dr. Jimmy Draper’s Younger Leader Initiative in the SBC, calls for major institutional, structural and Cooperative Program reform have been a part of conversation from the fringes to the center of SBC life and leadership. The Younger Leader discussion board that went online just before Thanksgiving of 2004 (now defunct) was flooded with concerns about the wastefulness of the current denominational structure and suggestions on how to address those issues. Those younger leaders ultimately divided into at least three branches: those who continued their path out of the convention, those who tried a concerted effort (ie, political) to effect change (I was here) and those who more or less eschewed the politics to focus on bringing change via their local churches. This is a simplification, I’m aware, but I think it holds up well enough for this post.
After two years of blogging multiple times a week and gaining insight into the mechanics, politics and personalities of the SBC, I came to the conclusion that attempt at denominational reform were hopeless and efforts to bring it about were futile, bordering on bad time management. (One can read those posts here, here, here and here. Independent of my own writing, Michael Spencer came to very similar conclusions regarding the collapse of evangelicalism Part 1 and Part 2.)
Recently Dr. Danny Akin of Southeastern Seminary issued a call for denominational reform under the name Great Commission Resurgence which term has been credited with coinage by Dr. Thom Rainer, president of Lifeway Christian Resources. This original 13 point message was distilled into ten points and promoted by current SBC president, Dr. Johnny Hunt, who, as I understand it, intends to make it a focus of the 2009 Convention in Louisville. As of this writing, the document boasts 3,346 signatures, which is less than the annual attendance of the SBC and .0002% of the claimed 16M SBC membership, but, to be fair, substantially more than movements of the recent past have garnered (ie, The Memphis Declaration and the Joshua Convergence).
Responses to the GCR document have been, shall we say, wildly varied. Shortly after Danny Akin’s message, Baptist Press published a subtle rebuttel from the normally far afield Dr. Malcolm Yarnell who did not disappoint. Dr. Hunt has taken flack for proposing such a thing as the GCR, accusations about base motives are swimming just under the surface. A document attempting to call the SBC back to a focus on the Great Commission has not been signed by 75% of the Executive Directors of state conventions/fellowships, who, ostensibly, are for the Great Commission, and there is suspicion within the ranks over who would be the president of a potentially combined IMB/NAMB mission agency. With the less than stellar performance of late at NAMB and the perennial candidacy of the SBTC’s Jim Richards, I do not know that much trust would be engendered by a search team, assurances of “God’s will being done” notwithstanding.
My thoughts are few and, sadly, are little changed from the thoughts that led to me abandon any hope of a true change in the SBC from a vestige of a nostalgic past to a rebirth as a missional powerhouse. Nevertheless, here are a few for what they are worth.
1. The SBC has ADHD. EKG, GPS, GCR. The SBC sounds like alphabet soup or the federal government. There is scarcely enough time to promote one program or idea before it makes way for the next one, none of which catch hold. There are programs that emanate from different offices and different entities (The Net and F.A.I.T.H. for example) giving the impression that some entities are actually in competition with each other. This is not even to get into different promotions within given states that alternately duplicate or ignore national movements (Promise Keepers becomes Legacy Builders in the GBC).
2. There is too much turfism. The local association, the state convention and the national convention are often at odds with each other over who is to do what, when and where. State evangelism offices and directors are at odds with NAMB. The entities are concerned about money and who’s getting it. For years at least one of the seminary presidents has been pushing hard for a “seminary offering” to be observed in the convention’s churches, but has been rebuffed. The states balk at the idea of sending a greater percentage of funds to X-Comm, though the IMB is now unable to send M’s who are currently trained and ready. Much of this is related to denominational protectionism or fiefdoms that must be protected at all costs, even kingdom costs.
3. The SBC’s greatest strength, autonomy, has become its greatest weakness. Since each level makes it’s own decisions independently of the other levels (though each claims to be the servant of the churches), there is not enough cooperation and often redundancy. When Dr. Akin mentioned “bloated bureaucracy” he was met with cries of “foul” from other areas. No one thinks that their own area is bloated only that others are. For that reason, as some have noted, passing a resolution on this document means little since the states and not obligated to do anything as a result (Others have noted that restructuring will not bring revival). Even if a study committee returns and makes recommendations for streamlining, each individual state would have to act independently and would be loath to do so for fear of another state keeping or receiving more CP money.
4. There is not enough trust. Everything that I learned in two years keeps me believing that there is ample reason for this, but this is a terrible situation. Adult men and women all of whom are assumed to be maturing Christians, but cannot trust that there are no agendas other than a kingdom agenda. There is not even trust on the upper levels of leadership; how is there going to be trust down the line? Anyone who has read Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team knows that trust is foundational to effectiveness.
5. There are too many viable options for education, fellowship and mission. Southern Baptists no longer need an SBC education. The proliferation of online education has made it possible to have more (and sometimes cheaper) alternatives. Not being forced to move in order to attend seminary may be a bane to the schools, but it is a blessing to the students. Not only that, but currently I’m in a degree program that is not offered by SBC seminaries and is a less expensive option even counting CP subsidies.
Networks such as Acts 29 and Glocal with discussions like ChurchAsMissionary have made it possible to have meaningful partnerships outside rigid SBC structures and, in many cases, individual churches provide more church plant money than all levels of the denomination combined. Fellowship is as readily attained in online communities and impromptu phone calls than at the Monday Morning Pastors Conference at Shoney’s.
6. God does not need the SBC. At least one SBCer, Jedediah Coppenger, has written a lament about the drop in Cooperative Program funds relating to international missions asking if the Great Commission is filing for bankruptcy. While I appreciate the concern, I cannot join the chorus of despair because I do not think that God is dependent on the SBC. Was there no fulfillment of the Great Commission before the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention? If not, how did the gospel get to our ancestors? Was the modern missions movement founded in Nashville? Did Adonirum Judson go through the International Learning Center?
A few years ago I sat in a room with 20 or so other men and ladies and we discussed the future of the SBC. My primary contribution to the conversation was this: “If we are not prepared to admit that God may be envisioning a future without the SBC, then we are not prepared to envision a future with it.” That is, the SBC must be willing to at least seriously and thoughtfully consider that God is done with the SBC before serious thought can be given to a potential future. Otherwise we think and act from a position of triumphalism–that God needs us to fulfill His plans, when, in fact, He does not.
7. There is more concern about job security than about soul salvation. Every time someone mentions b’cracy, downsizing, and streamlining, someone usually brings up the fact that people will lose their jobs. So? And? I see a commission in the Word to take the gospel to all the world, but see nothing about denominational job creation. This particular concern should never enter the discussion. It simply is not relevant to the mission. Glorifying God by getting the gospel to those who have not heard is the mission; everything about the SBC should flow from and into that.
8. There is no compelling vision. Still.
9. We do not need a Great Denominational Resurgence. In case you spend all of your time inside the SBC beltway, the GCR has already been pegged as such by some outside your circles and a few in them. I just don’t know anyone who is crying themselves to sleep at night because of the SBC. Over the condition of our world? Yes. Over the lost? Yes. Over the denomination? No. Pastors are leading churches to be involved in the Great Commission. I know scads of them who have adopted unreached people groups, have partnered with M’s and nationals, have sent countless teams and planted churches all without denominational assistance. Why spend so much time and energy trying to change the saddle on a dying horse? Pastors and churches should recognize the efficiency and effectiveness of channels that exist outside the bureaucratic structures of denominations and exploit them to the fullest.
10. Any study team will likely have the wrong people on it. The order of thinking that could get the SBC out of this mess will of necessity be a different order of thinking than got the SBC into this mess and that “different order” kind of thinking will have to come from different people none of whom will be asked to serve. Why? Because they are on the fringe. The fringe is where creativity happens. Revolutionary thinking scares the status-quo which is why it gets pushed out to the fringe.
One SWBTS professor wrote that the SBC is led from the center. This might be true when there is consensus, but is decidedly not true about leading a revolution. Revolutions always begin at the fringe because the center is inhabited by the status quo. Imagine a study group filled with fringe dwellers who bring back a bunch of wild ideas about streamlining, combining, restructuring… stuff that will actually work. Then it gets beat half to death by a bunch of turf protectors, before being subjected to everyone in the blogosphere, then it finally limps into the annual meeting only to be suffer 20 lashes and then pass the votes of not one but two consecutive June meetings.
And while all that energy has been expended trying to change a denomination, the fringe dwellers are out changing the world.
This is a reprint of an article by Marty Duren, lead pastor of New Bethany Baptist Church in Buford, Georgia, and co-author of the book, “JOURNEYS: Transitioning Churches to Relevance”. The creator of SBC Outpost, Marty shifted his blogging focus from denominational politics to missional matters in 2007, and now blogs on those matters regularly at iemissional.com.
This is the first honest appraisal of the current situation in the SBC that I have read. I personally have been blackballed in my own state because I have stood up to bureaucratic waste and malaise that is getting worse every day. I am a former long time pastor and an associational director of missions. So I have seen this thing from the inside out as well as from the outside in.
Can God still use the SBC? Yes. Will He? Of course. But could He and would He use us more efficiently if….
And please, don’t assault me with some theologically asinine circular reasoning on whether or not God is sovereign and how He chooses to interact with us.
He has promised us that the Gospel will reach the ends of the earth and be proclaimed to every nation. The question is will we be participants or will He have to go around us?
Brother Marty,
Perhaps you have just scratched the surface relative to the clutter that so easily besets us….
Protectionism is antithetical to the great commission. I hope those that claim any Baptist and Biblical root can realize the power of the gospel in this day.
Blessings,
Chris
Wow! This looks like a job for Superman.
I am a layperson in my church. For 25 years I have read my Bible and applied its principles to my life and lived by faith. I have no formal education in the secular world except for 2 years of college. I have no seminary education, either. I am a Sunday School teacher. My Spiritual gift is prophet. Just the typical layperson that is active in his local church. Personally, I think we have the same obligation on a large scale as we do on a small one-on-one relationship. God’s principals are the same without regard to who, what, when or where.
If the leadership that is in place is leading the SBC in the wrong direction and it is a sin to do so, then, bring several concerned pastors together to meet with them and follow the principle of Matthew 18:15. Just do it on a larger scale. If they fail to hear you, then, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven (Matthew 16:19 & 18:18, 19). This produces humility in us when we realize what we are doing. It also brings change we may not expect.
On May 10, 2006 I left the church that my family and I were attending and serving in. The pastor had deliberately caused the remodeling construction team (the deacons) to build out the kitchen the way he wanted it in lieu of what the committee had presented to the church and was approved. I approached the pastor on this and he turned on me. I met with him two (2) additional times with another brother to persuade him to do the right thing and he refused. I even called the local association (Tryon Evergreen Baptist Asso.) and discussed this with one of the Church Growth directors. He told me it was wrong and actually called the pastor on it. The pastor called a business meeting and had the superintendent deacon redraw the kitchen to the way they were building it and presented it to a new crowd for vote during a special called business meeting and they accepted it. This was a cover-up to say the least. I, along with several others, prayed that God would bind that sin upon them. A few months later the Chairman of the Board of Deacons was in the church attic and fell through the ceiling onto the tile floor on his head. He died the next day. On May 25, 2009 (Memorial Day) the pastor came to my house at 9:00 AM while I was outside working on my porch. It was obvious he had lost weight. I greeted him and he told me that he was there for one reason only and that was to apologize for the sin he committed. I said without hesitation, “You’re forgiven.” We cried together and he left. That is all I ever wanted to do was to forgive him. What a wonderful day it was for both of us. He is now right with God and I am restored to a brother in Christ. God has given clear instruction on how to approach sin. (By the way, no faith is a sin. Rom 14:23) God does not use politics to change things. Only God can change it if it must be changed. We simply need to trust what His word says to do and act upon it if we believe in what we are doing.
Great post. When I first read it, I was overwhelmed at how anyone could possibly turn the Titanic in time. Maybe that’s where we are now.
Marty,
Though I signed, and support, the GCR statement online, I think that, for the most part, you make some good, valid observations here.
My main question is: Is there any objective evidence to demonstrate that those pastors and churches who “have adopted unreached people groups, have partnered with M’s and nationals, have sent countless teams and planted churches all without denominational assistance” are doing so just as effectively and efficiently as those who still choose to do these same things with denominational assistance? And, if the answer is “yes,” are they doing so just as effectively and efficiently as those who do the same things with denominational assistance could be doing them, if the necessary reforms were carried out?
I realize this may be a hard question to answer objectively, and everyone who attempts to answer it is likely to have their own spin. But, I would at least be interested to be directed to whatever sources of opinion on this question are out there, and compare between them what they are saying.
Kirby-
Nicely said.
Chris-
Agreed.
Bruce-
Sorry to hear about your episode at church. I think we’ve all experienced some measure of hypocrisy and unfruitfulness at seeking reconciliation. Unfortunately, there are pastors who do not respond well to any type of questioning or correction.
At the SBC level things are a little more tricky because there is not always a specific sin involved, rather, differing philosophies of ministry that are competing for prominence.
David-
I do not know of any studies that have been done either.
As you know, the issues in the SBC are not primarily whether the IMB is effective and efficient, but whether the entire structure lends itself to effectiveness and efficiency. As more and more people see the entire structure as bloated and wasteful, they will lose confidence in the good stewardship of the model. Ultimately, as more and more churches redirect their giving to less bureaucratic means of doing mission (included in the quote), then the results will eventually pass bureaucratic denominationalism as it is going down.
I do not believe that the multiple layers of the denomination are going out of business tomorrow, but the convention as a whole is continually losing the confidence of those who take the command of faithful stewardship seriously. At some point, “fighting the good fight” to save a denomination morphs into an idolatrous fear (imo) of losing our identity as Southern Baptists, when we should rather rejoice over our identity as people of God and embrace the new forms of ministry that He has made possible.
I agree with the “ADHD” thing. I think Southern Baptists think a new slogan or a new program with a catchy title will change things. Its as if we believe that changing nomenclature will change nature. It is not so.
If the GCR is just another slogan, another empty promise, then it will fail and perhaps we will continue our denominational slide.
I know that autonomy of national convention, state conventions and local associations is part of our heritage, but it is not a biblical mandate. I think churches should remain autonomous, but I am wondering if the autonomy of individual denominational structures has perhaps become outmoded.
Here’s a suggestion. Lets make Danny Akin “King of the Southern Baptists”!
I urge everyone to read the Michael Spencer links near the beginning of Marty’s post. It will not be a pleasant experience, but he says things that need to be said.
Kirby Winstead,
Are you the Kirby Winstead from South Carolina who graduated from Mid America Baptist Seminary in Memphis back in the 80′s? Who had a cute little girl named Sarah?
David Worley
1988 graduate of Mid America Baptist Seminary
LOL Indeed I am, David Worley. And that cute little girl will make me PaPa in about two weeks.
One more thing that qualifies me to say what I’ve said: for the last year, I ran one of our institutions here in South Carolina as the transitional CEO/President. I’ve served on their board for five years, four as chair. Five years ago, our agency was losing more than one million per year. After a complete restructuring and reorganization, we are making that much. That doesn’t make me a total organization expert. But I know you can’t run the Kentucky Derby with a mule. And I know you can’t compete in 2009 with 1955 or even 1999 organizational structure. And that’s what we are trying to do as Southern Baptists.
And I know where another former MABTS dude, David Rogers, is going with his comments: we had better uniquely lock arms with anyone who agrees with us in basic evangelical concepts if we are to reach our world, regardless of their label. In fact, I may be about to change my “label”, though I will NOT change my beliefs. I am who I am and it is what it is.
You can reach me on Facebook or at kirbywinstead@gmail.com to discuss more personally.
Kirby,
It would be good to see you again, and see Sarah again. It’s been years and years, hasnt it? I havent changed a bit? you? lol.
Kirby, about changing things…yea, we could use some tweeks here and there. I agree. Wholesale changes…I’m not so sure. Locking arms with others? Depends on who they are and what they believe.
And, what label are you thinking of changing to? Brother, I really think that the SBC is the best thing going in our world today. We are people of the Book. We are the best mission sending agency in the world today. Even with all of our problems and shortcomings, which some people seem to obsess and major on, we still have a lot going. Missions. Church planting. Theological training. Ministries to children. Autonomy of the Churches, etc.
David
Kirby,
Also, I do hope that everything goes well with Sarah and the new baby.
David
A good article for people to read when thinking about the supposed decline of the SBC and of what’s wrong with the SBC is the one below…
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30656&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0610
Read this, and compare it to what’s being said and written about the SBC.
David
Here’s another article to read that will be eye opening as we talk about the supposed loss of “young leaders” and “decline” and what should happen in the SBC.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30662&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0611
David
David Burleson was quoted in a recent ethicsdaily.com essay saying the Conservative Resurgence caused more Harm than Good.
Wondering what Marty Duren and David Rogers, key signers of the Memphis Declaration, make of this comment from Burleson; most likely seconded by his former staffer Ben Cole.
Also my understanding the NC Biblical Recorder is having active intense discussion of this matter in it various article comment lines.
Here is a link to Robert Parham’s indictment of the conservative resurgence with the quote from Burleson.
Would be most interested in your comments on Parham’s assertions.
Would love to have David Rogers do a column here bringing Parham’s piece to the attention of the likes of Chic Fil A’s Truett Cathy and Harry Dent’s daughter Ginny Brant, a 90′s IMB trustee, to get their take on Parham’s assessment.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=14350
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/post/2009/06/11/No-more-programs-Eller-invests-in-discipling.aspx
Above is the site referred to by Stephen Fox in the Biblical Recorder. It will get you to several recent articles on the GCR as well if you go to the home page or archives (recent). My commentary is “graciously critical,” but I have problems with all these recent declarations.
I have communicated directly with Johnny Hunt who pastors a church just North of where I was in the late 70′s. He is in “Beulah Land” for church growth as are all these recent SBC mega-church leaders.
Our Editor, Norman Jamison, is doing a good job of trying to appease the fundies, who now own NCBSC, but speak the truth in love. I wish him good luck.
We have lost our way as Baptists. As the article clearly states “they” took it over to improve it, but time always tells whether “they” were right by the response to a “new and more conservative” Baptist way.
Along the way we have been like the monkey climbing the tree–the higher he climbs, the more you see his tail. Thinking and searching people are not as easily fooled as Conservative Republican and Baptist Inerrentists believe.
We are not reaching the numbers we once reached because America seems to be divided into 2 groups: One which wants everything done for them with clear rules for everything, and another which continues to think along the lines of the Founding Fathers where a free religion and a free conscience allows for discussion of all things human.
Your typical Baby Boomer and Generation X’ers were raised in Daycares where everyone had to “hold the rope” to go to the bathroom. The mega-church mentality feeds on this void of personal decision making. However, everyone with a brain gets tired after a while of being told what to do at every turn. Who knows if they will ever find a way of self-determination and free thought without being called names?
At the core of Southern Baptist success were Autonomy and Missions. Both of these have been babies thrown out with the bathwater of the “Conservative Resurgence.”
Traditional SBC politics had too many political sidebars and connection to the Seminaries and State Conventions. If you knew the “right people” and attended the “right schools,” you were bound for the big FBC and fame. If you stood out in mission giving, you were assured of high office and recognition. In essence, it was “money talks and the poor man walks.”
Conservative Resurgence was a situation described above on steroids, in my opinion. You had to REALLY know the “right people” and use the “exact right words” to be on the ladder to success. It was even more tightly knotted than the old school of the SBC.
In my opinion, both have their flaw in ego and self-servance. When Jesus said, “He who is greatest must be least.”–he meant it. When he said, “If you love one another and forgive one another, you are my disciples.”–he meant it. We who belong to all sides of leadership have forgotten most of the above in our quest to be great followeers of Christ. Therefore, we have failed miserably.
Randall Lolly recently cited a new Baptist church in Jacksonville, FLA, which was ready to give itself a name. They hired an expensive research firm to survey the community for a name which would not be offensive and would attract newcomers. The advice given them was to NOT use the word Baptist in their name. It had so many connotations of fussing and narrowness that it brought a negative reaction from Joe Q. Public.
I think this is accurate and “enough said” on our perception by the average Joe wanting to find a place where he is loved, instructed, encouraged, and supported in his daily attempt to find the Joy and Peace promised by our Saviour to his followers.
Maybe we have ALL lost our way in “big church religion.” The way of Jesus was dusty, full of fussing and flawed Disciples, and tracked among people who just wanted to be forgiven and loved in a Jewish “big church religion” which failed them at every turn.
Let’s not crucify Christ again for telling the truth in love. I still think he is wanting us to follow him, IF we are wise enough to be servants of all.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=14363
The above article simply adds a GA dimension to the FLA story cited above!
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics