GCR: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly tagged: , , , , ,

GCR: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Posted by in Baptist Life, Church & Missions

It is amateur hour in Baptist politics. Perhaps if I mess things up too badly David can fix it [I realize that in using that name it applies to half this blog—any David will do].  My friends assure me that until Orlando has come and gone that it is pointless to talk with Baptists about “other things.”   If you can’t beat them, join them.

Terry Robinson, Executive Director for the Baptist Convention of New York, wrote a forward, if not bold, opinion piece concerning the GCR report.

He asserts that churches need to accept the report on the basis of what it does propose rather than on what is missing from it since he believes that “bold changes” and not “minor adjustments” are needed in order to impact ever growing lostness.  His opinion is interesting and noteworthy as he is outside the south and in proximity to the largest urban center in the county.  As one in five Americans live within 150 miles of NYC, it goes without saying that he affirms the necessity to target our urban centers.  Rather than the traditional plant using a transplanted core, Robinson thinks that there is a need for indigenous leaders.  These leaders are for the churches, whose focus should be making reproductive disciples, and for the convention, as they provide a diversity outside the usual brain trust.  His article is quotable, and contains many productive suggestions.  It is well worth reading.  My personal views on the GCR can be classified as optimistically cynical.

Optimism

I am optimistic that the “bill” will pass.  After all, what Southern Baptist wants to go on record as voting against the Great Commission?  Now, had they called it “Restructuring the SBC Resurgence” it might not have fared so well.  I am optimistic for two reasons.  First, I think it will pass.  Second, I like what is in the report.  Here are a few summaries of various components:

Component #2 NAMB should be streamlined and “released” to plant churches and they should do so in major cities.
Component #3 The IMB can apply a people group strategy to work with similar people groups regardless of geography.
Component #4-5 The Cooperative program is here to stay, get on the bandwagon. 2.5% does not reflect true kingdom priority.
Component #6 We will boost CP giving to the IMB to 51%

What is not to love?  The report indicated that there was interested in intentionally focusing our efforts and resources outside of the Bible-Belt with special emphasis on urban centers.  Perhaps I am just naïve, but I fail to see what is so controversial about actually focusing monies dedicated to the great commission on the greatest areas of need.

Cynicism

Here are some reasons to hold off on confetti:

  1. The GCR appears to be the Baptist equivalent of TEA parties.  Our structures have become bloated by too much money.  This has been brought into sharp focus through the economic down turn.  Perhaps the most visible case of this is in IMB downsizing.  In a real sense the GCR is in fact about the Great Commission.  In an equally real sense, the GCR is simply about money.  Since there is not as much money, the bulkiness of denomination structures becomes more apparent and is scrutinized as a result.  Perhaps the economic woes will help the SBC to become more strategic.
  2. Even though the report will probably pass, nothing [except the flow of cash] will really change.  We can vote for the Great Commission till the cows come home, but if our churches continue to operate with myopic priorities, and if associations and state conventions skim off their piece of the ever shrinking pie before it ever reaches then end of the line, then the only thing that we have accomplished is to make the people at the end of the line more efficient with what is left over.  If individuals, churches, associations, and state conventions don’t start operating from a kingdom focused mindset, our voting record will only condemn us.  Furthermore, there exists a certain gap between those who fund and those who receive funds.  In the process to go with the IMB, we had to find five partner churches.  As I visited these churches, I had many people ask me what the IMB did, who they were, and who they were affiliated with [many might have similar questions about NAMB, see number 4]!  These churches had always given to Lottie Moon, and many of their congregants had no clue of their connection with IMB!  Even if we fix the current funding woes, if we remain on this trajectory where churches are completely disconnected from the institutions and individuals they support, the results will not be long lasting.  My prediction is that the GCR report will pass but that the churches at the local level will remain unchanged for the most part and we will be revisiting this issue shortly.
  3. What have we been waiting for?  Why have we ever been doing things this way (Give to state conventions, which give to NAMB which give to states to give to churches)? Why is the report viewed—by some—as earth shaking news (or any kind of news at all)?  Anyone who has been paying attention for more than a minute can tell you that the least reach and most densely populated areas of the country lie outside the south.  The very fact that we need to have a committee tell us what is evident is a bit depressing.
  4. Perhaps it is too little too late.  The convention is currently suffering from a brain drain of young leaders [thought it may not realize it yet].  This is due in part to the nature of the institutions.  Just consider church planting.  Of all of the planters I have talked with who went through the Jeremiah Project, the vast majority of them had few positive things to say about it.  In other news, the Acts 29 network is growing by leaps and bounds.  You can like it or hate it, but its happening.  While it may not appear to be all that problematic right now, how will that change things for Southern Baptists a generation or two from now?  When I was postponed a year in departing to the field, I decided to be active in working cross culturally.  Someone thought that what we were doing was simply reinventing NAMB’s wheel.  One very disappointing call later, I realized that they were not doing this [I describe it in a disaffected post which should be read hyperbolically].  Our early movement suffered from a lack of funds.  We had to re-strategize and structure ourselves so that we didn’t need the money.  That turned out to be a blessing in disguise.  One member of our organization contacted the state convention to request funding and the moment we sat down with the state folks, I regretted the decision.  There were simply so many layers of strings, expectations, and reporting, that it was not worth the hassle.  We started formulating our methodology in a way which they could understand and accept, but it was a step away from everything we were previously doing.  The only payoff would be that they would support it financially.  Thankfully, we do not have any of their money, and are freely operating according to methodology which makes better sense in our context.  We are still working with some SBC churches as well as associations on the local level.  The state and national levels, however, have not been effective partners.  What I learned through that experience was how little I understood NAMB.  I have two degrees in Jesus from Southern Baptist schools, and have been involved in various facets of convention life for 10 years and knew next to nothing about how NAMB operated and what all they did.  All my life I assumed that they were simply the stateside counterpart to IMB and functioned in the same way.
  5. We are going to spend a TON of money to go to Orlando and discuss how much we need to be good stewards…  Perhaps we should all stay home and put that money towards missions and local church planting.  How much does it cost to put on the pastors conference and convention with personal expenses included?  It is the age of technology, can we do it remotely?

What Needs to Happen (the world according to Rastis)

  1. We need a paradigm shift away from fulfilling great commission = our church is full and fulfilling the great commission = we have enough money, to fulfilling the great commission = impacting lostness regardless of geography, demographics, and “turf,” and even if they will not end up at our churches.
  2. We need to close the tithing to ourselves loop hole.  Money that goes to NAMB needs to be for church planting off the southern grid.  That means that there is not a circle between the state –> NAMB –> state.  If the state wants to plant churches, they should set aside money for that.  If we give to NAMB, we need to cut them loose from promptly returning it to our coffers.
  3. That said, NAMB needs to go through a “New Horizons” transitions.  They need to be a church planting agency which targets lostness and unreached people groups.  NAMB personnel should not be serving in churches or state and associational offices.  They need to be able to work unilaterally if needed.
  4. We need to apply Geiger’s simple church “razor” in evaluating and planning future convention missions plans.  We need to figure out what we are called to do and put everything behind it.  If some facet of our work is not related to our goals and calling, then we need to get rid of it.  Sentimentality is not a strategy.
  5. Get rid of state conventions.  They are the middle man.  They are too disconnected form local work to be of real service and they do not have enough of a bird’s eye view to provide strategy, guidance, and resources for reaching beyond the borders of their states to places they know little or nothing about [the north east, the west, etc].  Local mission and church planting work can be funded through local associations who can look out for their area.  NAMB can serve as a national strategy partner to guide us beyond our church saturated borders into the pockets of lostness.
  6. Get rid of ERLC.  Is an explanation warranted?
  7. We need the seminaries to decentralize so that training can be more effectively done on the “field” both for those who are sent and for those who are indigenous to those areas.  This is the age of technology; you can’t tell me that the classroom is the primary form of training.  The cooperative church planting efforts of the seminaries and NAMB need to not only be traditional plants [part time support, evangelism, gather core group, launch, planter becomes pastor], but catalytic as well [planter raises up leaders and doesn't pastor the planted church].

I will close with a quote uncovered by a friend of the blog: “if the Church concentrates its endeavors in saving itself it will lose itself, for it will break a law of the Kingdom: “He that saveth his life shall lose it and he that loseth his life shall find it.” (E. Stanley Jones “The Unshakable Kingdom and the Unchanging Person”)

So what of the current system?  “It’s broken,” says Robinson, “and denominational employees should stop defending what is not working just to keep a paycheck. And I count myself among that number.”  As I said, a bold article.  Did I mention that he is the head of a state convention?