A GREAT COMMISSION RESURGENCE END-VISION
By Dr. Rodney L. Hammer
I’d like to express deep gratitude for the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. They have demonstrated courageous leadership in helping us evaluate how we move forward with greater focus. I support each recommendation of the GCRTF Final Report and pray we will embrace the challenges.
I’d like to suggest our SBC family also consider adopting a “SBC 2020 End-Vision”. An end-vision can be called a picture of a preferred future. While not comprehensive in detail, such a picture revealed to us from the Lord could give us a target to know where we’re heading. I do not mean to suggest that the GCRTF does not include elements of such an end-vision. They recommend some immediate and phased changes and have hinted at some key future elements. I’d like to suggest a few others, including them in one package. Such an “End-Vision” would enable us to take the necessary steps together to arrive at a desired destination.
I propose an end-vision that depicts a “simple denomination.” What I hear most from SBC pastors and church members is a desire for a simple but effective denominational structure and strategy. They want a denomination that enables cooperative missions, ministerial training, and compassionate response to disaster on a large scale. They want their cooperative giving mission dollars to support these three areas. They support associational and state level ministries that they believe are effective and add value, but they also see redundancy. They want their 14 largest, old-line State Conventions to forward much more of their CP/Mission dollars to national and international ministry.
I hear from many pastors and church members that they don’t want an Executive Committee staff whose salaries are not transparent and who create their own ministry programs such as Empowering Kingdom Growth and a Global Liaison office. They don’t believe a political Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is a priority for our cooperative mission dollars.
In short, I believe most Southern Baptists want what the GCRTF wants…a leaner, more effective and efficient denomination that is reprioritized and refocused even more around the Great Commission. They want a denomination that has strategic mission priorities and works well with other evangelicals in the work of the Kingdom of God. They want a denomination that assists local congregations in doing whatever it takes to reach the unreached of the world with the gospel of Christ! I concur. Let us adopt the GCRTF Recommendations along with a “SBC 2020 End-Vision” in Orlando, June 15-16, 2010.
A “SBC 2020 End-Vision” would seek to answer the question, “What would the SBC look like in 2020 if we were maximizing our resources and effectively pursuing fulfillment of the Great Commission in the 21st century?” I propose the following end-vision or targeted picture of a simpler, even more Great Commission-focused SBC in 2020.
A SBC 2020 END-VISION
Without restating it here, the GCRTF Report contains a wonderful, biblical call to repentance and spiritual renewal we desperately need to heed. A concrete schedule of reviving and renewing “Promise Keeper” type rallies and solemn assemblies could be held around the SBC over several years to encourage spiritual renewal, along with the challenges presented in the GCRTF Final Report.
The report follows the call for repentance and renewal with an excellent vision statement and values with which to pursue it. The vision statement is well aligned with what Southern Baptists have stood for and rally behind. I wholeheartedly concur and urge adoption of their vision, values, and challenge statements.
A NEW NAME
We need a new name in the 21st century that reflects what we value and the scope of our ministry. We need a name that no longer reflects a regional conference of churches. We need a new name that is relevant, not misunderstood, and not a potential barrier nationally or internationally.
MULTICULTURAL LEADERSHIP
In 2020, we need our leadership and staffs of the newly named SBC and its entities to more fully reflect the diversity of cultures, backgrounds, and ethnicity of our churches.
A GLOBAL MISSION AGENCY
By 2020 Southern Baptists should develop a new global mission agency, replacing both NAMB and IMB. We need to recognize that our world has flattened, globalization is a given, and the Great Commission is already “from everywhere to everywhere”. We must internationalize our missionary force and remove old barriers to strategic advance no longer pertinent to our multicultural, interconnected world. It would certainly need regionalized, affinity group structure and strategies and perhaps different departments. But we need a common vision, macro-strategy, and creative synergy.
COMPASSION MINISTRY/DISASTER RELIEF
Disaster Relief is a great strength of SBC life already developed. While adjusting as needed to ongoing contextual changes, it can be carried forward by the Global Mission Agency in cooperation with other entities such as Baptist Global Response and regional resource networks of Southern Baptists.
A COLLABORATIVE NATIONAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR GREAT COMMISSION FULFILLMENT
A collaboratively produced strategic framework of shared vision and priorities for reaching all peoples and cities in the U.S. should be developed. Representatives of the new Global Mission Agency, LifeWay, Seminaries, States, Associations, and local church pastors could develop such a strategic framework proposal for denominational adoption.
GREAT COMMISSION FOCUSED SEMINARIES GIVING CUTTING EDGE THEOLOGICAL, MINISTERIAL LEADERSHIP TRAINING
Our six, Great Commission focused SBC seminaries would complement their residential training with further decentralized theological and ministerial leadership training delivered in partnership with local churches. I believe the Leadership Development component currently assigned in the report of the GCRTF to NAMB should be moved to the Seminaries in partnership with local churches and LifeWay.
ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION
We should reassign the development and publication of ethics and religious liberty materials and training to LifeWay and the Seminaries, eliminating the ERLC as a separate entity. The ERLC budget should be reassigned to the new Global Mission Agency.
A DIGITALLY EFFECTIVE LIFEWAY CHRISTIAN RESOURCES
LifeWay is already moving in the direction of a digital age resource. They will be tasked with providing biblically faithful, digital age deliverable resources and equipping in partnership with SBC Seminaries and States/Associations.
A FLATTENED DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE
We should consider how to flatten our denominational structure into a simpler, more efficient form. In the future it is highly unlikely that three levels of denominational work will be funded or relevant. There is already too much overlap in services and resources offered among association, state, national, and international SBC entities. Strategies and tactics for implementing A Great Commission vision and priorities should be developed and implemented as close to home as possible. Providing resources and expertise to local churches with local understanding is a must. Of course, the churches can and will draw on national and international resources as well. But we need to flatten our organizational levels to be more effective and efficient in assisting our churches.
Such a flattened network must be large enough for excellence, make sense strategically, and nearby/local enough for relationship, understanding, customization, and contextualization. There are already a few piloted attempts in the spirit of this proposal in Southern Baptist life. We could study and perhaps utilize or adapt these restructuring efforts, remembering that one uniform size or approach may not fit all contexts.
IMMEDIATE ISSUES IN 2010
I have proposed elements of an SBC End-Vision for 2020. If adopted, we need to work toward that preferred picture of the future while allowing it to shape our responses to current issues.
LEADERSHIP OF EXCOMM, NAMB, IMB AND SBC
One current issue is the soon to be selected leadership of the SBC Executive Committee, North American Mission Board, International Mission Board, and next SBC President. In addition to adoption of a GCRTF report and its recommendations, I believe the selection of these leaders to be the most significant decisions facing the SBC. Nothing will have more import and impact upon our collective ability to pursue a GCR than these new leaders. They must be God-called men in alignment with the priorities, convictions, and spirit put forth by Dr’s Akin and Hunt in their Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.
What kind of leaders do we need? I am in agreement with Mark Morris’ blog entry of March 1, 2010 on “Time for G.R.I.T.T.Y. Leadership in the SBC” at www.missionleader.com. He offers insightful encouragement regarding the need for younger, new wineskin, missional leadership for new times.
IMB
With such G.R.I.T.T.Y leadership traits in mind, the new President of the IMB also needs to be in alignment with the declarations set forth by Dr’s Akin and Hunt. He needs to be able and willing to lead the transition to a new Global Missions Agency. Additionally, he must be a capable missiologist, able to inspire and mobilize missionaries, a strategic thinker, capable of leading change and able to collaboratively develop a strategic framework for Great Commission fulfillment involving all levels of SBC life. IMB policies also need to be in alignment with Dr’s Akin and Hunt’s Great Commission Resurgence Declarations.
NAMB
Likewise, the new President of NAMB should have the above qualities. He should be willing to work toward a new Global Missions Agency. The retooling and refocusing of NAMB should be in alignment with the GCR. This should include a refocused Trustee Board that does not revisit us with another quick dismissal of a President. NAMB’s policies should also be in alignment with Hunt and Akin’s GCR Declarations.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Executive Committee also needs to be refocused. We need an ExComm to continue to handle administrative matters, financial processing, business plan oversight, and convention planning functions. However, we don’t need an Executive Committee that creates its own ministries and hides the salaries of its executives from its constituents. While good men head the initiatives created by the ExComm, the EKG and Global Liaison ministries should be phased out and their budget line items transferred to IMB and the new Global Missions Agency for the sake of the nations.
GOALS
Ultimately, why seek God for spiritual renewal? Why realign and reprioritize our convention efforts? We should seek a Great Commission Resurgence for the glory of God, the declaration of the gospel, and the making of disciples among all peoples.
To that end I propose three Great Commission goals. Our simpler, reprioritized convention and its end-vision should include goals of engaging every remaining unengaged, unreached people group with the gospel, a church planting movement for every global megacity, and annually sending 1,000 college and seminary students to serve 2 year terms overseas in compassionate gospel ministry and church planting.
I respectfully submit these thoughts with great appreciation for the GCRTF and for Southern Baptist leaders at every level. I am grateful for our heritage and positive about our future. I pray God will grant us guidance, vision and courage for His glory.
Dr. Rodney L. Hammer
Executive Director of Missions, Blue River-Kansas City Baptist Association
Current member of Missouri Baptist Convention’s Organizational Study Group
Regional Leader, IMB, Central and Eastern Europe 1999-2008; 18 total years of overseas service in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Europe;
SBC church planter and pastor prior to missionary service.
Twitter: hammer_rodney@twitter.com
Web: www.blueriver-kansascity.org
Dr. Hammer,
So, you serve in an area that has only white middle-class people? I am not trying to be smart, just trying to state a reality. It seems that you and Dr. Akin are calling for the same thing. I commend the call and I appreciate that we should reflect the cultures, backgrounds, and ethnicity of our churches. However, to call on pastors to do such within their own congregations, but never leading in that step within the association, or in Dr. Akin’s case the seminary, seems a bit arrogant and even hypocritical. You and others in the leadership positions you hold have an easier time of leading in diversity than we would as pastors in the local church. You two have BoT and Executive Committees to bring on board, we as pastors have entire churches to bring on board. You would less likely cause a split in fellowship, where something like this would certainly bring about a split in fellowship for our churches.
Having said that, I would like to ask a couple of questions. What steps would you suggest we as Pastors take to bring in staff members from diverse ethnic backgrounds? Also, what vision do you see in bringing in leaders of diverse ethnic backgrounds to serve on your staff there at the association?
Blessings,
Tim
Hi Tim, yours is a good and fair question. First, I was referring to SBC entities/agencies, not anyone’s local church who have to examine their context and church setting and the Lord’s leading. Second, regarding our Association I have been DOM for one and a half years and inherited staff I have. We don’t have the resources to expand staff at this time, but as the Lord led us through a “re-envisioning process” we utilized teams of pastors that sought to reflect the diversity of our churches. We also now implement our strategy via 5 Ministry Teams which consist of multiethnic pastors, church leaders and laypeople as well.
Third, I do believe that leadership at the entity/agency level of Southern Baptists ought to begin to reflect our increasing diversity as the Lord gives guidance.
Rodney
Dr. Hammer,
Thanks for the reply. While you say that you are not directing this to the local church, the GCRTF does seem to be expressing it in that direction. If the end vision should contain much of what you have placed in this OP there is one question. What is the active plan and where does it begin? Ok, that was two in one, sorry. 🙂
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I was responding to your question about local churches involving ethnic/non-white leadership. My original statement was to encourage multiethnic representation in leadership and staff of our Convention entities/agencies. That’s why I said my suggestion wasn’t aimed at the local church.
Regarding an action plan for implementing the suggested end-vision…Tim, I think it’s important to begin with the big picture objectives, allowing room for the particulars of process, timing, necessary adjustments, entity decisions etc to be determined by those involved.
With that as a given, I think it has to begin with adoption of the recommendations of the GCRTF and the selection of leadership of SBC and IMB, NAMB, and ExComm Presidents who are in alignment with the GCR Declaration/Axioms of Hunt/Akin and the TF Recommendations. Then, the pertinent parties/agencies develop action plans to take steps toward the suggested desired end results. The End-Vision tells us where we want to be by 2020. Those with responsibility in the particular entity/area map out what it will take…what decisions and steps need to be taken, how we will make the changes, etc…in order to arrive at the desired end result in 2020.
For example, GCRTF recommendations are adopted which result in some immediate and phased in changes in missions giving and budgets, ministry assignments of NAMB and IMB, etc. If the End-Vision were adopted, the IMB & NAMB Trustees would be encouraged to select Presidents who would understand that part of their role is to work toward a new Global Missions Agency. A National Strategic Framework and Priorities for fulfilling the Great Commission in North America would collaboratively be developed as previously suggested. The ExComm and their new President would work toward the renaming of our Convention via proposals and feedback, with ultimate selection and ratification at two successive annual Conventions. The ExComm would phase out EKG and Global Liason Offices. The ERLC Trustees and SBC ExComm would work toward phasing out the entity while transferring it’s responsibilities and budget as suggested. Each entity would look at staff and leadership positions and seek to employ ethnic leaders representing our diversity. The SBC entities mentioned would take necessary steps toward fulfilling their 2020 end-vision objectives, reporting annually to the SBC on their progress until completed by 2020.
The timing, phases, and specific approaches to these changes would need to be worked out by the entity trustee boards, Great Commission Council, ExComm and collaborative bodies of leaders representing each level of SBC life.
Dr. Hammer et all,
Wanted to thank you for kind response to my questions and statements. I feel this is a productive discussion and one that needs to take place not just on the blogs but in the BoT meetings.
Having said that, I need to issue an apology. My original statement, though I tried to soften it with “seems”, came across as accusatory. The statement implied at best, an inaccurate accusation leveled at both Dr. Hammer and Dr. Akin. At the least the statement was reckless. Let me say that I do not know you, Dr. Hammer, but I do know Dr. Akin. I made the statement looking at the staff surrounding you both at your present ministry positions. I based my statement solely on that presumption. I should not have done that and it was wrong of me to level such a charge. I know Dr. Akin has been tirelessly working on trying to bring racial reconciliation and placing men of color in positions of leadership during his entire academic career. I applaud him on his efforts and support him in his call for placing people of color in leadership positions. As I said earlier, Dr. Hammer, I trust you have been doing the same. Thus, I need to apologize to you both and I ask your forgiveness for my reckless statement.
I do add that the premise to my statement is still the same. I am not saying that either you or Dr. Akin is disingenuous in your efforts. However, if we continue our present hiring practices in our entities, state conventions, and associations, we appear disingenuous in our efforts if we continue to surround ourselves with only white middle-class people. Thus, when one knows of positions of leadership open, we should recommend Scriptural and academically qualified Brothers of color for those positions.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I appreciate your apology, and also believe your point is well taken.
Best Statement and follow -up comment I’ve read on this subject, but without a plan as Tim requested we’re left with nothing but “lip service” This is the first idea -with an absolute plan I could get behind. Yes , Pastors will have problems – some more than others and some Pastors have their own problems but with the right backing we can move forward as a group. The ethnic groups have their hands out. It’s only some of our own that are a problem. If some get fired from their churchs then we step up to the plate and support them financally and aid them in planting new churchs which more closely represent what we believe and what most want. This would take money and would be answered with donations , above board for the purpose toof re-making this mess. Takes “balls to play rugby” and now is the time for the good fight we just talk about and some are already doing believe it or not. Adkin has the concept.
Just so I get this straight: a new denominational name, replacing and merging NAMB and IMB, eliminating the ERLC, downsizing state conventions, associations and the Executive Committee while essentially leaving the Seminaries pretty much alone….
1. Is the GCTF Report simply the first step in moving the convention toward the end-vision described here?
2. Do messengers not deserve to know that this is the direction where our leaders would ultimately take us?
3. Is the Task Force being sufficiently transparent about their long term goals?
Rick,
I think those are fair questions… My first response is that I am not sure how much of the future the GCRTF has figured out themselves… They might not have anything more to be transparent about. But I could certainly be wrong.
1) I hope the GCRTF is the first step into moving the convention towards what Rodney has described here!
This is a fantastic post – I hope the SBC will deal seriously with some of your proposals.
Actually, all of them.
I am with Dave on this one… This post is insightful and needs to be taken seriously.
People blow off the name change as if it doesnt make any difference, but those people are usually from the Southeast corner of the US and havent a clue how the rest of the US views the SBC. If we dont want to be a regional Convention we need to not have a regional name. It’s that simple.
One things I love about this post is that it deals with the really BIG issues and the issues many think to be small- from flattening the SBC structure to making Lifeway digitally effective.
Its funny, Matt. I wrote a post at IMPACT suggesting a name-change and you should have seen the southern contingent fight back.
Your good buddy over at SBC Tomorrow really came after me about that one.
Dave,
Can you define, “buddy?” 🙂
I wrote on that very issue here as well. I got more positive feedback on the post, though certainly not from everyone, but I think I got more bad emails on that issue than anything else.
https://sbcvoices.com/should-we-change-our-name/
I, honestly, have no idea what people are thinking when they dont realize that a name change is a good idea. If they would stop getting drunk on their sweet tea they might realize that the South East isn’t the only part of the US that God cares about! 🙂
there’s no momentum for the name change unless a suitable and popular alternative is found. I’m for one, but I think there hasn’t been a compelling alternative to convince people in the South that it could be ok to change the name.
Rick, Dave, Matt, and Josh,
How about “The IBC”? That stands for “The Intergalactic Baptist Convention!” That should cover our need for an all inclusive name for the foreseeable future… 🙂
Grace Always
Josh, Greg,
Nothing is going to be “suitable” until the convention does decide to change it. If it is going to happen the Convention will have to vote to change it and then spend the next year coming up with name ideas, debating, and then voting at the following convention.
Momentum will have to come by way of us realizing the “need for a new name” not the “lure of a good name.”
If we are waiting on a good name replacement it will never happen. We will come up with 1000 possibilities and people will simply say, they dont really like it… Why wont they like? Merely because its different. Which is why we have to decide that change IS coming and then find a name.
Josh is right actually. I’ve been a big advocate of the name change, but honestly, figuring out WHAT to change it to has been a mystery. A lot of the good names are gone.
I will say this. Lets change the REALITY of the convention first, then worry about the name change.
I think Dave Miller has finally nailed it on the head with his words, “Josh is right actually.” Now if only I could convince him to shift his MLB loyalties down to KC and embrace suffering as a true Christian!
And you came up with this WITHOUT a $250,000 line item in the SBC budget? What’s wrong here?
John Fariss
Maybe Rodney should send a bill to X-Comm?
I agree with Rick… I think the messengers need to know the direction our leaders will take us, and exactly what adoption of the CGRTF report will mean.
Grace Always,
Gentlemen, thanks for the interaction on the post. Just to clarify, I have no formal relationship to the GCRTF, was involved in none of their discussions, nor am endorsed or “shadow-coached” or such by members of the TF. They have not seen this post or its content before today. I state that so that no one extrapolates from my post that my proposed “end-vision” is actually what the GCRTF envisions. If what I’ve posited matches with some of their thoughts or hopes, it came separate from one another in any specific sense. I’ve certainly been influenced by ongoing ideas and discussions. I believe having an encompassing, big picture vision with identifiable components gives a picture of the future we can work toward…praying, discussing, and collaborating together to work out how to get there. I think the GCRTF’s own comments reveal, at least in part, that their recommendations are at a level of change felt to be do-able at this point. IMO, if we can identify and coalesce around a unified Great Commission-driven end-vision it could help us take necessary steps to arrive there..beginning with the GCRTF’s recommended steps.
Rick, to pick up further on your comment…I personally didn’t mean to imply that the Seminaries should be “left alone”…I believe that delivering theological education/ministerial leadership training in partnership and via local churches–would be a significant change/addition to what our Seminaries are currently doing..certainly a few steps in that direction have been taken but should be considered in a much more significant fashion. I do believe our Seminaries currently promote and include significant Great Commission emphases in their curriculum and learning opportunities.
I love our seminaries just as much as our other institutions. It just seems that the sweeping reform of merging the mission boards would imply, at the seminary level, something along the lines of merging Southern Seminary with Southeastern Seminary, for example, or trying to get by with four seminaries instead of six.
To be clear, I’ve merely shared those ideas as examples, not proposals. The point I’m trying to get across is that “big picture” thinking seems to be applied to entities like the Executive Board, NAMB, IMB, the ERLC and the State Conventions but not so much to the Seminaries.
Jack, point well taken. I have a DMin from Midwestern Seminary, but I should have stuck with my usual approach which is to sign “Rodney Hammer” or just “Rodney”. No elitism or puffing up intended. My bad.
Rodney
In all of the discussion I’ve been reading about the GCR, the future of the convention and the seminaries, one thing I haven’t seen mentioned by anyone is the enormous educational and mission resources of our state Baptist colleges and universities. While the seminaries offer a tremendous resource, our colleges are more geographically distributed, often closer to the local church action and can be equally valuable in providing training. In addition, our colleges can mobilize thousands of committed and talented young people who can be engaged in mission service while they are still in college. Let’s think about how seminaries and universities can act in partnership to provide for 21st century needs and opportunities.
Great point! They do bring much to the table by way of expertise, students, etc (which colleges/universities would need to be considered). I certainly agree that Great Commission fulfillment needs/requires student passion and involvement and included mobilizing and deploying 1,000 students a year.
Rodney,
I am not sure about the pastors of the SBC but I believe that the cultural mandate is a Biblical mandate so why would we not continue to support the ERLC . Glorify to God in every arena of life.Remember the Christianity is a worldview.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert, I hear you and agree our ultimate objective is our biblical mandate. I see the churches, pastors, Convention leaders and other entities at local, state/regional levels as fulfilling our biblical duties in the public policy/religious liberty realm. I’m coming from the perspective that our national/international mission dollars/CP/GC giving focus on missions, theological&leadership training, and disaster relief. Though I’d argue the public arena be engaged primarily through churches. We also have regional/State ethics and religious liberty capabilities as well as excellent conservative evangelical partners and entities in this realm regionally and nationally. Mine is not a statement “against”, or bad vs. good, but an argument for greater focus and priority with our mission dollars on the Great Commission.
For what it’s worth, the only thing I can come up with is “Missionary Baptist Convention”
Keeps us grounded in our heritage. Frees us from geographic limitation.
Baptist Mission Convention
National Baptist Convention
Not Just Southern Baptist Convention
I think there are plenty of suitable names, but no one will be happy with any of them until we decide as a Convention that we NEED to change our name. IMHO, “Southern Baptist Convention” is one of the worst names we could have… It was good for what the SBC was, but it isnt good for what the SBC wants to be. At least, I dont think we want to be regional.
Guys, regarding a new name for our Convention. I concur with the concept of agreeing we need changes and what those are, including a name change, and then work down the road toward a large consensus for what the new name should be to reflect our new reality and desired future in the Lord.
It’s too easy to get sidetracked from the issues now in the particularities of a name.
Reprioritization and refocusing on what’s best for impacting lostness, proclaiming the gospel and making disciples of all peoples in North America and around the world needs to proceed naming.
Also, practically speaking, a lot of research needs to be done…National Baptist Convention and Missionary Baptist Convention are taken (historically African American Baptist Conventions), as is International Baptist Convention (a convention of english-speaking churches initially birthed around the world by Southern Baptists, starting primarily in Europe. it used to be called the European Baptist Convention but upon admitting member churches from middle east, asia, etc changed their name)
“Reprioritization and refocusing on what’s best for impacting lostness, proclaiming the gospel and making disciples of all peoples in North America and around the world needs to proceed naming.”
Agreed.
my apologies…above statement should read “precede” not “proceed”…my typographical error, not Matt’s!
I keep telling you guys: “The Intergalactic Baptist Convention!”
How come on one is taking me serious?
I have told my wife I’d like to do a translation of the New Testament into Klingon and go set up boothes at Star Trek Conventions. She just rolls her eyes.
I think you’re overstepping Greg. I’d go for Galactic, but not Intergalactic.
Maybe Universal Baptist? No, that’s got a bad misinterpretation.
Maybe we should merge mission board efforts and then become the North American Baptist Convention with a Global Missions Board?
Doug
Joe,
I once had a deacon that I am absolutely sure was a Klingon… His favorite dish, that he often brought to church socials, was “Catfish Head Stew”… no kidding. However, I never could get him to admit to being a Klingon, and he just rolled his eyes whenever I ask him about his home world.
Doug,
I think I could go for Galactic Baptist Convention…for now. But when we are back after just a mer 1,000 years trying to come up with a new name to include all those Baptist outside of our galaxy don’t say I did not tell you so.
Matt,
I read your post on names but the SBC name has no problems in Omaha. Plenty of Churches even have Southern in their name or use the example of Westside Baptist in Omaha.
I like the Southern Baptist name but then again I think the conservative cultural of the South.
How about the Red State Missional Convention
or from Douglas Wilson Confederation of Mission Baptist Churches.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters,
While Omaha and a few others places do have SBC churches, by and large, the name/how people perceive the SBC due to their name, is by and large a hindrance here in Nebraska and the rest of the Midwest, along with the North.
We cant just point at a few SBC churches in Nebraska and say, see, its not a hindrance there… Because it certainly is.
Also, what I have found is that many churches in Nebraska that are Southern Baptists are largely made up of displaced Southerners! In fact, many SBC church plants here were started because Southerners didnt have a SBC church to attend. The SBC has not tapped into Midwest culture hardly at all… Not just Nebraska, but the Dakotas, Montana, Minnesota, etc..
Just because displaced Southerners are okay with being a part of the “Southern Baptist Convention” in the Midwest doesnt mean Midwesterners are. To be clear, I am not saying no midwesterners are okay to go to an SBC church… But I am saying, for the most part, the name/how people perceive the SBC because of their name is a hindrance in the Midwest/North.
Btw, “Red State Missional Convention”= Hilarious!
You raise a good point about displaced Southerners being okay with the name but actual people in the Midwest feeling alienated from it. You might see “Baptist” in a name, but you’re certainly not going to find many “First Southern Baptist Church”-type names around.
As I remember Tim Keller saying once, there are hundreds of University of Texas grads in New York, which means you could do a church just like one in Texas and have attendance. I think some view church plants in non-mainline states the same way unfortunately. “Little colonies of the South in strange lands”. Fortunately, the good work many are doing to reach the lost in these areas helps to change that perception over time.
Sorry for any confusion but I would like to know where and how you got your education , particularly your Doctorate.
hi Jack, I mentioned previously in a reply that didn’t get posted..don’t know why. It’s really not important and I should have just signed my name to article as is my normal practice except in cases where titles/positions on official documents is helpful.
In any case, for what it’s worth..I have a BA in Religion from Baylor, an M.Div and a Doctor of Ministry from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO. I started the D.Min while pastoring a church I planted and then completed it on my first furlough back from the mission field when I served in East Asia with IMB.
Those are admireable credits and I appreciate your reply. Your assessment of SBCs problems to me is on target and I hope they are well received by the Convention for further developement. You must be on the ball.
Greg Alford, I take you serious enough to reccommend Richard Land and Wiley Drake as the first IBC public relations team to go to the moon and set up a card table and wait for business.
Dr. Hammer,
I’ve been busy commenting on this post without giving you a shout-out and thanks for what you’ve written. I’ve never really been involved in associational work here in BR-KC, but I’m more hopeful about the future seeing that there are people at the association level thinking as missionaries in our context and not just as retirees looking for something to keep them busy. (not that this ever happens in the SBC…)
Josh, thanks for your kind words. I agree with you that we must think and minister in North America as missiologists. Drop me a note so we can meet sometime.
Rodney
I like the idea of an Intergalactic Baptist Convention. If I have to give up “Southern,” they definitely need to make it worth my while. After all, I figured out that they had tried to go to the stars back in the early 50s. I asked one fellow who taught interrogation tchniques to intellligence agents what happened, and he said somthing went wrong (without batting an eye). I asked another, and he made some enquiries and reported back that it was in the early 40s and that when they launched the ship, they did know where it went as they did not know there was a gravity warp between the earth and the moon. So I second brother Greg Alford’s Intergalactic Baptist Convention, but I fear it will bend some folks out of shape. Still, it will require interstellar missions and evangelism and awakenings to really get to the numbers near to fulfill the promises to Abraham of a seed as numerous as the stars of heaven, the sand of the seasore, and the dust of the earth. O yeah, I forget, the number in heaven no one can number even if they tried to count for all eternity. His angels gather his elect from one end of the heavens to the other!!! Sounds possible that even greater times might be coming than we imagined. Whoooeee, Praise the Lord! What a Chorus that would be!
Dr. Willingham,
Thanks for the support for the new name… “Intergalactic Baptist Convention.”
“Woooeee” is right! And we already have an interstellar missions and evangelism movement mentioned in Scripture… See Ezekiel chapter 1 for details.
Addition to my preceding comment “they didn’t know where the ship went.” That was due to the gravity warp. Mabe Interstellar Baptist Convention Or Galaxies Baptist Convention or Island Universes Baptist Convention or ……..This might take a while….even at Warp nine, but then there are particles in the nano realm thta travel way beyong the speed of light, so I have heard and understand from recent readings.
The thought of Intergalactic Great Awakening is enough to bend my poor feeble mind clear out of shape. Wish I could go to Orlando, Greg. You could bring the motion, and I would second it. Just as sure as we did some earth bound pre-trib, pre-mil soul (I know, I know, that probably cost us the majority vote by a landslide, but I stiil love them any way – too bad you folks never got to hear Dr. Lee preach on the millenium in ’63) would bring a motion to lay it on the table or, what is worse, refer it to a committee – probably the Committee That Never Meets Until Judgment Day.
At the church I serve, we heard over and over about referring something to “the apropriate committee.” Consequetly, we formed one–The Appriopriate Committee. It consists of myself, our Youth Minister, and the church Secretary. Now SHE gets stuff done, let me tell you.
How about “the Intragalatic Baptist Convention”? We can just put the abbreviation on the letterhead and literature, and refer to ourselves by the initials. Right now we are all in the Milky Way, but if we do branch out into other galaxies, we could easily change the name to “Intergalatic Baptist Convention,” but as it wouldn’t change the abbreviation, folks wouldn’t get as upset by it.
Seriously, I minister in southern Maryland. It is south of the Mason-Dixon Line, and some of our sister churches, especially those which draw from traditional and long-established Maryland families, have neither problem nor difficulty with the “Southern” part. We however minister largely to families who came here either as transfers due to government work or the military, and are thus as liable to be from the North, Midwest, West, Southwest, Pacific Northwest, or various countries (including eastern Europe and Africa) as from the South. Among those folks, the “SOUTHERN” in the name is somewhat of a deterent. It is also a deterent among African-Americans, as largely they identify the SBC with the white social conservatives who resisted (and some of whom still resist) the Civil Rights movement. There was a couple who came to us a little while back: she, African-American, he, African. She was very wary about the church for that reason, but her husband, whose experiences of the SBC were from missionaries in his native Nigeria, was enthuisiastic to be part of an SBC church. Unfortunantly, the Africans here are vastly outnumbered by African-Americans, whose perception is like that of the wife. Even amoung our African-American members, I would say they united because the church’s attitude overpowered their impressions of the “SBC.”
John Fariss
Good article, not on board with all the proposals, but I like the thinking and work that went into it.
And the comment thread is hilarious.
The terminology “Great Commission Giving” may be just a change in wording on the annual report of a church that members never see, but it still unwittingly communicates an arrogance that only SBC causes are Great Commission work. The Cooperative Program belongs to the SBC but Great Commission giving belongs to ALL Christians of ALL evangelical churches. Perhaps is is a neutral point to suggest that some churches will stop providing opportunities for people to participate in great non-SBC Kingdom work, realizing that the money will go instead to SBC missions, seminaries, and bureaucracies. I think the major risk is that it further alienates younger church leaders who are more collaborative and empowering in their leadership styles. The SBC institutions would do well to adopt a 21st century and more biblical style of leadership that creates chosen accountability based on motivation and empowerment rather than 20th century corporate command and control methodologies of leadership. Read my complete response on the GCRTF recommendation as related to Great Commission giving at: http://wp.me/piODZ-bm