You can read the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force’s Progress Report- here.
You can watch it- here.
There will be posts written soon about certain aspects of the progress report in order to discuss some of the Task Force’s “findings” and suggestions.
For now, if there is anything specific you want to discuss now, the comment thread is open!
I loved the thoughts on making NAMB more focused on doing missions in North America, specifically church planting. It will be interesting to see how State conventions would respond to NAMB not giving their money back to the states to use but focusing on the unreached portions of our country (as they phase out agreements). Will some states simply stop forwarding that CP money they were being given back once the partnership ends? Emphasis on church planting, especially in assessment, etc. seems like something we should have been doing more of already.
I wasn’t a huge fan of the video. I may be a young whippersnapper but pinstripe suits and elaborate stage sets seem more indicative of the wastefulness many of us would like to see gone from SBC life.
Josh,
I chose to read it as well! As Southern Baptists love two things: Sending money for missions AND wasting the rest of our money.
Also, I agree with your points on NAMB- we should of had a church plating focus long ago, but at least we are finally getting to it!
I really need to learn to wait to comment on these posts until a month or so (or 6!) after the topic is relevant. That’s when the commenting threads really seem to heat up around here.
Matt,
I think you should get that quote framed. That could be on a t-shirt or even better, a VBS theme!
“Southern Baptists love two things: Sending money for missions AND wasting the rest of our money. “
Was anyone else terribly underwhelmed? I don’t see the massive refocus that is needed to save our dying denomination.
for starters, this was only the initial presentation. They will add more things before May.
second, as much as some may wish for a dramatic overhaul of all existing structures, this might be foolish for several reasons:
a) complete alienation of those who generally support key aspects of the current formats. The last thing they would want is a BP headline saying “Task Force Wants to Do Away with the CP…and spits on Lottie’s grave during presentation”
b) it would assume that all things in the convention AREN’T working, hurting some very good things (like our NAMB disaster relief)
c) there’s simply a limit to the amount a convention made up of autonomous churches can “decide” at the national level without buy-in from states and the ultimate “buy-in” of support from its churches. “Buy-in” takes time.
For these reasons, “sweeping” changes are not only less likely but probably less effective in the long run than incremental. From what I’m reading so far (more detailed responses from people who know far more than I know about SBC and its entities still await), most who wanted change like the changes (even if they wanted more) and those wary of change aren’t necessarily breaking out garlic and wooden stakes to use on the Task Force…(yet).
Josh C. , I understand all that, but thought the GCR was a response to a recognized crises. All of the reasons you gave tell me that we a rechoosing slow death over painful change.
The task force can do nothing, only make recommendations. Why not offer actual changes, rather than small redistributions of money here and there.
As is, it makes more sense for my church to go at the Great Commission without the SBC. This report does nothing to change that.
‘As is, it makes more sense for my church to go at the Great Commission without the SBC.’
um…you should be already, even if you give money to the SBC. I don’t remember “SBC” being mentioned in Matthew 28:18-20 (not even in the Textus Receptus, believe it or not!). I know that’s most likely not what you personally meant, but there is in some places that mentality of out-sourcing the Great Commission to the SBC, which is what got us in this mess, methinks.
I think perhaps part of where you and I are missing each other is how we define “sweeping.” As anyone can see, some of the recommendations made by the Task Force are not merely “value statements” but real changes. NAMB becoming its own missions organization more than just a clearinghouse for the states activity, focusing on church planting in unreached parts of our country, even working to have a consistent process for assessing church planters who receive funds is a big change from where they are now. If you don’t think so, just wait until we start seeing the reactions from state conventions to it. While 1% moved from Executive Committee funds to IMB seems small (and therefore unlikely to be rejected by the EC!), it’s moving in a good direction.
That said, I’m not saying that everything the SBC does is great or everything the TF will do is great. There are other people doing Kingdom work besides the SBC. But if you want to partner to do missions with like-minded Christians, I think there’s a lot of good stuff going on here. Especially in the way (traditionally) the IMB has helped place and care for its missionaries. I grew up in Independent Baptist circles and know the nightmare some of their workers face. But ultimately, as you well point out, if churches don’t like the changes, they can either not approve them in Orlando OR they can find other avenues for reaching the nations (or like some, they can spend their time and effort building more Six Flags over Jesus-type church buildings.) Local church autonomy.
Ok, few quick things –
1.) Of course my chruch is persently giving to the SBC, and doing the GC on our own. I’m sure that will continue.
2.) I don’t expect the SBC to do the GC for my church. I do, however, expect them to serve a purpose. Nothing mentioned so far will cause my church memebrs to give one more dime.
3.) Is that all there is to it? Getting people to give more money? I had really hoped for some kind of roots level cooperation that would help my church reach our community.
You see, I serve a small (200 -300) church in the poorest county in NC, which is the 10th poorest state in the country. We, and all but two or three other SBC churches around here, are just struggling to survive. We manage, through God’s grace, but the people we are serving are dirt poor, hurting, and lost. I would love for someone to cooperate with us in helping us reach our community, but it doesn’t appear that the GCRTF is going to address that at all. My point about going at it alone is that we could just save our money and use it to reach the mass of lost people we see everyday.
4.) Let it be said, I LOVE the SBC. I am southern baptist for a reason, and it is precisely because of who made up the task force that I got my hopes up. These men are spiritual heroes to me. Guess I had just hoped for something…else.
Now I can go back to paying know attention to what is going on in the convention on a national level.
I would hope that any decisions made would be to ensure that money given is handled well, not just decisions “to get more money.” I think I commented on such in my initial response to this post.
Good thoughts, Josh. And also, I know that the Task Force is asking and welcoming feedback from SBC’ers regarding what has been proposed so far and what still remains. I’m certain they would appreciate hearing your thoughts about that over at pray4gcr.com. That’s probably a better way than simply disengaging. at least at this point in the process.
Yeah, I’ll stay engaged. Just venting a little. Thanks for the forum 🙂
We know how to grow a church–lots of research done on that.
What we desperately need to learn is how to grow a group of churches–an Association, a State Convention or a Denomination.
One starting place is to look for what Heath and Heath (Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard.) calls “bright spots”. What the authors of Influencers call “positive deviance.” In other words–what are the fastest growing associations in the nation? Which ones are growing where the population is not growing? What State Conventions are doing best and what are they doing? Are they planting churches? How much training do they do?
Josh Hunt
Good Questions Have Groups Talking
http://www.joshhunt.com
Josh C. talked about what States would do if NAMB didn’t give back their money. Well, if California decided to keep all of our money and remove the partnership agreements that would amount to something like a $4 million gain for NAMB to put to use. I don’t think most people realize the drain some Conventions are on the mission budget of NAMB. Frankly, I think this would be good for California. Much of the money for missions is wasted in a huge State Machine that eats up mission money.
MattNUMBERS,
That’s interesting. I’m assuming for every state that receives more CP money from NAMB than it originally passes on (if that’s what your numbers from California are saying–I might be reading that wrong so correct me (gently) if so!), there must be some that are currently putting in more than they get back?
In the end, it appears that the success of the CP will be in how various levels of conventions (state/national), as well as the churches that make up those conventions, “cooperate” to reach the unreached places. Cooperation as key to Cooperative Program? I believe I’m on to something bordering on genius there. 🙂
Matt2239,
MattNUMBERS.. OOPS!
I typed your name out that way when I starting my reply (intending to change it to the actual numbers), and forgot to do so! So before there’s an accidental blog war, let me express my apology for the way that might look. I don’t know if your name is Matt or if you just like that Matthew 22:39–either way, I’m pretty sure there are too many Matts and Joshs roaming the blogosphere right now, as the comments here suggest!