The GREAT COMMISSION RESURGENCE and IX. A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure has me thinking. It has many (most?) Southern Baptists thinking. I’m thinking about the relationship between local churches and state conventions. I have questions, but I’d like to hightlight a few points in the GCR before asking for some input from my fellow SBCers.
We call upon all Southern Baptists…state conventions/institutions…to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Some of our convention structures at all levels need to be streamlined for more faithful stewardship of the funds entrusted to them. We must address with courage and action …overlap and duplication…where poor stewardship is present…must be wise stewards of these funds…examine whether the allocation of Cooperative Program dollars genuinely contributes to Kingdom work or simply maintains the status quo.
…simplifying our convention structures…streamline our structure…maximize our resources for Great Commission priorities…ask hard questions about every aspect of our Convention structure and priorities…
We believe the local church must be “ground zero” in a Great Commission Resurgence, and that our associations, state conventions and national agencies exist to serve and assist the churches in their divine assignment.
I too believe the local church is “ground zero”. Without the local churches the SBC doesn’t exist. Above all else we must protect the health and integrity of our local churches. This brings a few questions to mind concerning the state/local level.
- What kind of stress, if any, will this cause between local churches and state conventions/institutions?
- Should pastors be worried about relationships with state officials if they support the GCR task force?
- Is there any push back the state conventions could use against pastors who support the task force?
- What if some organizations don’t comply? Where do we go from there?
- Are these valid concerns? What are some other concerns we might have?
What do you think?
{ 23 comments }
From a small town church in Arkansas, I’ll give you my answers:
* What kind of stress, if any, will this cause between local churches and state conventions/institutions?: None, as yet. The work I see my state convention and institutions using CP money to accomplish is part of fulfilling the Great Commission. It may not be sending money to the IMB, but the Great Commission is not just fulfilled in IMB or NAMB efforts.
* Should pastors be worried about relationships with state officials if they support the GCR task force? No, because the GCR task force shouldn’t be what we’re spending the bulk of our time on anyway. Pray for them, yes, but we’re supposed to be preaching the Gospel. Our state folks are supposed to be helping us reach people in our state and accomplish tasks within our state that are too big for any one church.
* Is there any push back the state conventions could use against pastors who support the task force? Not considering that the authority remains in the local church. Besides the fact that any type of “push back” would result in bad publicity and cause people to excessively overreact against the state as a whole.
* What if some organizations don’t comply? Where do we go from there?: Don’t comply how? As in, a national SBC committee makes a recommendation to a group over which they have no authority, which is then rejected by the messengers that make up that body? Where we go from there is back to our confession of faith, that these groups are independent. Do we end up with the potential for multiple state conventions, like happened in the wake of BF&M 2000? yes. But to allow the national SBC to dictate the dollars and cents of the states is a step towards becoming a complete hierarchy. And that’s a step we don’t need to take.
* Are these valid concerns? What are some other concerns we might have? Some of these concerns show an inherent distrust for state convention workers. Maybe some states are that way, but not all are. Other concerns? That supporting a committee becomes a litmus test for whether you care about a lost and dying world. Which it cannot be. That some people don’t support one group’s version of how the SBC could be adjusted does not mean they don’t support being effective global witnesses.
I would hope that each state convention will examine itself to determine if they are being as efficient as possible. The whole reason we have individual state conventions is to have local people that understand the needs of that state, rather than having someone in Kentucky determine the best course of action for Texas.
If the national task force spends their time trying to find faults within each state, this will come to naught. The national task force needs to focus on national level SBC issues. If they want to express a desire that states pass on more money, they can. But individual churches could cut checks direct to Nashville and bypass the state already, can’t they? If we in local churches thought our states were keeping too much, we could shave a percentage point off our CP and give it direct to Nashville. Why don’t many churches? Because, at least in a lot of the smaller churches that make up much of the SBC, despite their non-representation on committees and task forces, see the efficiency and bureaucracy problems in Nashville, not their local states.
If we don’t handle this right, and allow each level of SBC life, church, association, state, and SBC to align on their own, if there is an effort to force “compliance” or push back against “support” then we’ll destroy 150 years of growth and effort. We’ll end up fighting the GCR battle as long as we fought the CR battle, and have twice the casualties. We’ll lose peace, harmony, the lost, and the Bible. Let’s not do that.
Doug
.-= Doug´s last blog ..Runners-up for my most influential book =-.
Doug,
You said:
“If they want to express a desire that states pass on more money, they can. But individual churches could cut checks direct to Nashville and bypass the state already, can’t they?”
I agree with you on this… however, (and I think this is one of the major issues the GCR committee will be addressing) those churches who bypass the state and send their money directly to Nashville get absolutely zero, zip, no credit for these contributions. A church can send all their missions dollars directly to Nashville, and regardless of how large of an amount they send, they would still be denied the right to send messengers to the Convention. I know this because my church does this, and we are denied messengers.
That’s simply not right.
Grace Always
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg,
Good point. Should SBC messengers be allocated based on how much of an individual church’s giving goes into the SBC side of the CP? That would be a good suggestion.
For example, your church would be allowed messengers at the SBC based on the bypass giving, while the state would be free to evaluate your giving to the state for messengers to the state. Also, churches that are in states that push more through would potentially be allowed more messengers to the SBC.
Which would be increasingly relevant if we ever find a way to use technology for remote meeting sites. True, we had decent attendance in Louisville, and Orlando will probably be full, but how many folks are going to journey to Phoenix? Better if we could find a way to allow satellite locations, perhaps.
I think we will probably see the suggestion to have churches start writing separate checks, like we already have between Associations and CP. Have churches choose how much to fund to association, state, and CP. And then each group allocate representation accordingly.
Thanks for the illumination about what goes on places other than here.
Doug
.-= Doug´s last blog ..Book Review: 100 Bible Stories, 100 Bible Songs =-.
Greg,
That sure doesn’t seem right. So, where some concern may lie at the state level, that level may become a barrier of sorts if a local church doesn’t agree with and bypasses them?
This actually shines more light and, unfortunately, maybe some validity to my questions.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Godology Book Giveaway I =-.
Greg:
Can you clarify?
Are you saying that you don’t get Florida Baptist messengers for sending CP money to Nashville?
Or are you saying you send designated gifts to Nashville for missions, and then don’t get SBC messengers?
Or, are you saying you send undesignated gifts to Nashville, and then don’t get any SBC messengers?
I don’t know much about whether most state conventions are bloated but the local associations I’ve known have been little more than useless. Admittedly, I don’t know that many, but of the DOM’s I’ve known, only one of them has been worth a plug nickel.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
Joe,
My limited experience has been the same as yours.
I’ve experienced the opposite. I’ve been privileged to serve in associations with godly, driven, missions-minded leaders.
I wish that were true for all of us.
I am encouraged to hear that. I had one DOM that was out of sight or as they would have said in the 70′s “Dynomite” but he was the exception. Glad that wasn’t the case for you.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Missing the Point on Missions Part II =-.
I’m glad you cleared that up–I thought you meant that you couldn’t find him for long periods of time. I quit speaking JJ Walkerese a long time ago but it’s coming back!
.-= Pastor Jim´s last blog ..A Complete Mismatch =-.
I know that I’ve asked DOMs for help in seeking ministry employment, and been cold-shouldered by ones that didn’t want me in their association. I think there are some who view the churches in the association as “their churches” and don’t think of themselves as there to serve those churches. Others are good as gold.
It might be evidence of too much bureaucracy that we’ve got so many people in full-time non-church roles.
I think it is time we ask some questions of ourselves, like do we need associations? do we need states? do we need this entity or that agency anymore?
It has to come from the church up, though. But I’ll think you already see churches voting with money (or lack of it ) and participation (and lack of it ) in these groups.
Of course, around here, we eat, and eat good, at Association meetings. So, attendance stays decently up! Nothing like a good Baptist tradition of voting with our stomachs.
Doug
.-= Doug´s last blog ..Book Review: 100 Bible Stories, 100 Bible Songs =-.
Doug,
Thanks for your answers. These were just some top of the head questions that I thought of given the wording in Article IX. OK, not just the wording, but add in all of our sinfulness, etc.
I do understand the issue of “who has authority where and how much”. However, since the task force passed via the messengers who represent local churches does this somehow give some “authority” to the task force?
It seems that it could be a conundrum.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Godology Book Giveaway I =-.
Mark,
I think they’re good questions. I think I have some similar concerns about how we will handle the recommendations.
We could probably loop all day on the authority question. True, local churches were represented, but not all of them, so where does it stop, and on, and on, and on. Which is why I think we’ll do well to see each state consider things separately. I know here in Arkansas we get many more churches represented than we get at the national SBC. And I think that our state staff will be responsive to the messengers to the state convention when a similar sentiment is voiced this fall.
That being said, I think we’ll see some very good suggestions and recommendations come from this group. Hopefully we’ll put them to good use.
Doug
.-= Doug´s last blog ..SBC Controversy of the Month-July =-.
I’m pleased to say that my experience is different than most of yours. Our local association (Mountain State Baptist Association, under the leadership of Dr. Don Deel) is excellent. I could go into details, but you would tire of reading before I tired of typing (and I can tire pretty quickly). Suffice it to say that Dr. Deel has come up with some very innovative ways to assist our churches and facilitate several church plants and rebirths. I might be off slightly in the numbers, but I believe that our association has grown from 23 to 49 churches during his tenure.
Additionally, our West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists under the leadership of Dr. Terry Harper has done some great work with significantly fewer resources than most states. When resources are available, they provide assistance to local churches and associations within the state. Even when resources are not available, they are always willing to personally assist.
I think their good stewardship and transparency is evident in the fact that Drs. Harper and Deel were of the first to sign the GCR online petition. It is certainly telling that so few state executive directors and associational missionaries signed the document.
I have always been of the opinion that something is wrong if a person is afraid of an outside audit. Those who protest Article IX the loudest seem to be the most afraid.
.-= Pastor Jim´s last blog ..A Birthday Present for Me! =-.
Pastor Jim,
Thank you. That’s very encouraging.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Godology Book Giveaway I =-.
Mark — I emailed our state and local directors earlier this week to ask them some questions (some very similar to yours) about their thoughts on the GCR. I have yet to hear back from them.
I don’t really know that anything could happen to churches who don’t tow the line with the GCR. I’m beginning to wonder myself if it isn’t just another committee. We baptists love our committees. I pray this is different. I pray they bring us actionable results next year and not just a bunch of facts and figures.
Also, sometimes restructuring smaller isn’t always the best thing. Sometimes the problem is we just don’t have enough man power to make it better. Less is not always better.
Mostly, I care about the local level, and then state, with national coming in last. I want to see the local churches doing more outreach work within the local neighborhoods. I want to see churches reaching out to the guys across the street or the next block over. I want to see state activites that bring us all together in our kingdom work. I want to see national bring all the states together. I want us all to be reaching beyond our comfort zone and our local/regional/continental levels to meet the needs of people, just as Christ did.
The GCR will work by itself if it is a good thing. You can’t force people to join in. Show that its good and people will stand behind it. Let it be another group of Baptist bigwigs meeting together and twiddling their thumbs over what might work and what might not, and it will die off. That’s just my 2 cents…
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Do you think we got the hint? =-.
Sallie,
I’d love to hear what the response is to your inquiry.
I agree with you too.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Happy 500 John Calvin =-.
Mark — I met our local DOM when picking kids up from camp tonight. He promised he’d email me back by next week. I’ll share whatever I can.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
I have no distrust for my state convention and even have a state exec. who has led the state to adopt measures to reduce bureaucracy and funnel more dollars to church planting as well as to the CP.
The one thing that I don’t understand is why we see the state convention in terms of “them” rather than in terms of “us.” What I mean is that local churches make up the state conventions. We send messengers to the conventions, the various boards are made up of our church members, the decisions made are made by our messengers or by persons elected by our messengers. If we don’t like what’s happening at the state level, it’s up to us to change that. If the GCR task force makes any recommendations that apply to state level issues, it will be up to us as local churches and messengers to decide on those recommendations. The state convention is “us” not “them.”
Doug’s concerns in the first comment are right on. We can’t force this thing. It almost seems as though the GCR leaders (I’m a supporter of the GCR, by the way) are like a new pastor straight out of seminary and they want to change their church overnight. We have 150 years of bureacracy and history. I am all for change and I think it needs to happen fast. But, I am concerned that no one has any real idea what the GCR is or what it will be and we are already demonizing people who are asking some real questions about it or are pushing back a little. From what I understand, many of the state convention presidents are VERY concerned about this because they don’t know what will happen and they were not brought in on the ground floor. The GCR Task Force has ZERO guidelines and they can pretty much come up with what they want. Nor, do they have accountability. They are meeting behind closed doors and I suppose (haven’t heard differently) that they will roll out their recommendations around Convention time next year for an up or down vote before an uninformed convention. If what happens next year is like the rhetoric from this past convention, approving the recommendations will be tantamount to approving the Great Commission itself and a vote against the recommendations will be a vote for the death of the SBC and failure of the Great Commission.
That approach IS NOT going to be very fruitful. I hope it doesn’t go that way, but what I’ve seen the past two weeks causes me to believe that GCR proponents sense a mandate and anyone who gets in their way is going to be roadkill. That only means division and interdenominational warfare. The main causualty will be the Great Commission because we’ll be fighting over restructering and not experiencing the heart change that we so desperately need.
I’m all for the GCR. I signed the document. I’m just not for politics and power plays. Everything pre-convention was great. The convention was really positive. Everything post-convention (except for adding some diversity to the task force) has caused me great concern. I hope we keep our eyes on the ball on this one and not get distracted.
.-= Alan Cross´s last blog ..NYC Schools to Celebrate Muslim Holidays =-.
Alan,
Good words of encouragement and caution. It is much appreciated.
Until the GCR Task Force sorts this thing out (if in fact they ever do), I think our churches should take advantage of existing offering programs such as the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering. These offerings bypass state conventions altogether and send 100% of their gatherings to the IMB and NAMB coffers. Not a permanent fix, but a way we can encourage and empower local churches to participate financially right now.
.-= Brian M.´s last blog ..GCR, IMB, Lottie Moon, and Article IX =-.
Comments on this entry are closed.