Check out the GCR Video!
Any thoughts on it?
GCR Video
Previous post: The “Spiritual” vs. “Structural” Red Herring
Next post: Cracking the Book of Revelation: Revelation 20:1-6
Check out the GCR Video!
Any thoughts on it?
Previous post: The “Spiritual” vs. “Structural” Red Herring
Next post: Cracking the Book of Revelation: Revelation 20:1-6
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 9 comments }
First reading – BRILLIANT.
After skimming and reading through closely a few spots of interest, I’m happy with it. Glad to see some of the challenges to local churches & pastors. I’m looking forward to going through it more carefully over the next day or two.
I had a few concerns about the original, interim report, but this one seems miles ahead.
I did a quick read-thru and it looks like they’ve softened some of the harder edges (as many expected them to based on the initial report’s reception). but i need to get home and read all of it carefully for sure!
What makes this one better, or even all that different? I mean, I read the report and all, but it still hits the Executive Committee budget, it still hits the state convention budgets and it still gives its blessing to Great Commission Giving even when it comes at the expense of Cooperative Program Giving.
Granted, more ink is spent “claiming” CP is primary, but if it really is, then why couldn’t they just say: “We discourage churches from taking money away from CP in order to support missions through alternative channels.” That would have been a great gesture I could really get excited about since it would be more than words.
I have no problem with the added vision and values statements or the lengthy challenges at the end. But besides giving the state conventions a little more time to prepare for the end of their cooperative agreements, how do the actionable items in this proposal really differ from the original?
This report gives a nod to Regenerate Church Membership, but couches it in language tantamount to another good suggestion. But that has to be the biggest problem in the SBC. Lack of faithfulness to Disciple those God sent our way.
Also, I still disagree with removing “unreached people groups” inside the USA, from NAMB to IMB. NAMB seems more apt to help the local churches deal with this problem right where they already are.
The other big problem is what seems to be a complete ignoring of the fact that every church is different, based on the giftedness of the people God has already placed in that church. That’s what will determine the task of that church, not a Task Force meeting and discussing it.
There are other things, but I really need to download and print it, and study it. Listening one time through doesn’t quite make it.
I really like the challenges at the end. As for the six components, they still seem good in theory but I’m not sure how well it will work out. Some of the language of those components is also a bit quirky. But the final report gives more room to entities to figure out how to accomplish the specific recommendations, and I think that’s a good move.
I guess this is somewhat irrelevant, but I wish they had done a better job checking the grammar in the video. Did anyone else cringe at the use of “less” at 1:37 to 1:48? http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000214.htm
Jesus said, Himself, that our attitude should be “we are unworthy servants .. we have only done our duty”. Where do we think we are to “CELEBRATE Great Commission giving”, anyway?
Sounds like lipstick on a pig, to me.
Comments on this entry are closed.