Undecided.
That is as much as I can say about the GCR.
I’ve read the blogs, heard the podcasts, and asked around – but I still don’t really get it. Let’s just say I’m coming to Louisville with a lot of questions marks.
At face value, the GCR statement says some good things. About 90% of it would get a nod from any Southern Baptist. No SBCers are going to argue against the Bible, Jesus, and the Great Commandments.
It’s like preaching a hard point in your sermon. You get the people moving in your direction. You get the AMEN corner warmed up. Then at the decisive moment, you throw in all your weight. It’s old fashioned preacher-spin.
Not that all spin is bad. But this tactic can confuse the issues. It gives the impression that the hard part of the message is just as obvious as the easy parts. The listeners are assume that a 90% right message is automatically 100% right.
That’s what I see in the GCR. The real objective is to radically restructure the SBC. That is the battle line and the rest is just repeating what the convention has already accepted. The final goal may be spreading the Gospel, but the GCR is committed to doing that through reorganizing institutions. That is the point of action.
At least that’s my feeling, especially after reading this post on Baptist 21 titled “A Call to Young Southern Baptists.” What issue seems front and center?
It does little good for us to criticize state conventions for keeping too many CP dollars in state if we will not show up and vote.
. . . but we believe that the Great Commission Resurgence is trying to answer some of these frustrations. It is true that many younger SBC’ers are frustrated with the bureaucracies and with what they perceive is ineffective use of resources. In addition, they are frustrated with many of our church planting mechanisms.
What kind of things come up for a vote?
This was my first concern when I read the GCR statement. There was only a few ideas that could actually be implemented at the national, state and associational levels.
It just looks like a Trojan Horse to me.
So What Does This Matter?
That’s the funny part – it may not matter. From what I know, the SBC has many structural flaws and needs to reorganize in some painful ways. Especially with the money drying up over the next 10 years. The SBC cistern has some leaks and the missions spicket is running dry.
At the same time, I feel manipulated. If we need to radically restructure – just lay out the case. I don’t need the omnibus approach. I don’t need the preacher-spin. Just give us straight talk and real evidence.
If half of our CP funded jobs don’t actually advance the denomination’s mission, then just say so. If most of our State conventions are money pits, then say so.
The “more effective convention structure” is going to mean cutting back jobs – lots of denominations careers will be gone. State conventions and local associations will have rapidly shrinking budgets. Fewer people will make more decisions.
Maybe that’s why they don’t want to talk about committment #9
Anyway . . . That’s why I’m undecided.
{please grill me in the comments}
The only thing I would challenge you with is an organization’s inability to be self critical and adapt. Will we have to hit bottom before we change? The CP has been sold to the church as a sacred cow and if you dont give enough you dont love people or dont care about salvation. In my church we give 10 percent to the CP but our Evangelism/Outreach budget to reach our city and area is woefully underfuned. If we were to cut our CP giving in half we would be “sinning” in some eyes. I have no problem helping the convention and seminaries and especially missionaries but have we told the truth? Is it missions to pay a state staff salary and benefits that are far above most pastors salary and benefits? Is it missions to create associations that exist primarily for themselves and our support of them rather than using our resources to proclaim the gospel. If a church exists for people to support it then the purpose is lost. The church exists to be the body of Christ and to disciple and reach people. The denomination exists to support the church in that endeavor. For the denomination to say we have to support it, the purpose is lost.
Many churches do without needed staff because of money issues. Why cant the states or denom. lower their staff?
.-= Darrell Morgan´s last blog ..Welcome =-.
What Darrell said. Exactly.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..IssuesEtc on Free Will =-.
Darrell and Mark,
“Is it missions to pay a state staff salary and benefits that are far above most pastors salary and benefits? Is it missions to create associations that exist primarily for themselves and our support of them rather than using our resources to proclaim the gospel.”
“What Darrell said. Exactly.”
From the way I understand it (or maybe want to understand it) that’s the point. Danny Akin can’t just come out and say that a pile of horse manure would be as effective at reaching people as 85% of the SBC national, state, and local association “jobs,” but listening to his first presentation of this plan from the chapel at Southeastern that appears to be the gist of it. (If I recall correctly he even mentions the possibility of eradicating local associations, which, coming from an area where being a Calvinist gains you a local association death sentence, I can fully support. ) Besides, he can’t be too forthright about it since the only people who will be at the convention to vote on this are those same people who hold the jobs in question. No one wants to vote for their own downsizing.
People believe in the CP and I think that is for good reason. The goal of it is right, and the idea of getting money from the local church to the mission field without making the missionaries feel like they have prostituted themselves to a few overbearing churches is a wonderful commitment to make. But somehow that becomes the last priority instead of the first as every sublayer of SBC-dom wants to take its cut along the way in order to better make their own name great among the land.
I believe in the CP, not the bureaucracy we have corrupted it with.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Cynicism and The Sinner’s Prayer- Peter’s Instruction in Acts =-.
“No one wants to vote for their own downsizing.” Great quote.
That is my point that an organization cannot be self correcting. It would be like me taking a vote on whether or not my boys should brush their teeth at night. They will always vote no! If we voted pizza or chicken for dinner they would always vote pizza!
What it is going to take I guess is for churches to say NO! We will not give anymore money to a system that exists for its own purposes. Why not just send the money to LM, AA or state offerings? The bureacracy that exists is not an intentional problem it is a result of not being good stewards. Information, technology and culture is now to a point that i never think to ask my state staff for anything. I just go find it. Most pastors dont need any more events to tell us the latest Lifeway products, latest evangelism strategies etc…
.-= Darrell Morgan´s last blog ..Welcome =-.
Tony:
“If half of our CP funded jobs don’t actually advance the denomination’s mission, then just say so. If most of our State conventions are money pits, then say so.”
The reason for the “preacher spin” is the near apoplexy that the state conventions had at the original, “straight-shooting” language. Sad to say, but the messengers tend to follow their cadre of beloved denominational leaders…so if they riot, the movement fails…if they tacitly grumble, momentum can be maintained. Also, we need a top-down, every-level examination…finger-pointing has done us no good in the past few years.
Darrell (concerning both his posts):
The issue is not about the money or the giving percentage….at least unless you want to run for SBC president! The issue is really about how the money that is given is allocated. I agree we should send money to where it is most effective (I doubt that many would disagree with that). However, it is difficult to gauge how what one person does in denominational life affects local or global evangelism? Is it better to pay for a LifeWay curriculum writer or a seminary professor? Is it more effective to send a missionary to New York City or Mumbai? Do we need more state evangelism experts or more church planters?
Todd:
“Besides, he can’t be too forthright about it since the only people who will be at the convention to vote on this are those same people who hold the jobs in question. No one wants to vote for their own downsizing.”
I would agree in principle…but not in SBC history. In 1997, the Convention did vote to downsize and reorganize (whether we need to do it again is the lingering question of this year…are we just rearranging furniture or fixing the hull on the Titanic?). Also, the majority of the messengers at the Convention (since at least 1979) have been local church pastors (usu. 60-65%) and few denominational personnel (only about 10%). If the people want to do something, they’ll do it over the heads of the denomination’s bureaucracy.
Now my own thoughts:
Is this even really about the money? Is it really about the bureaucracy? Perhaps we should take Darrell’s advice, bite the bullet and take the body-shot and DO SOME LOCAL EVANGELISM! At the same time, we need to emphasize proper money management (do I need to remind anyone about the obsession with keeping line items and designated funds on the church budget?) and proper giving as tithes (read: CP) and offerings. We also need to go to the meetings (local, state, and national) and tick some people off by our motions, comments, and votes
…there goes my dream of being SBC president…anyone else want to save the world and lose your prestige?
.-= Andrew´s last blog ..Something more wholesome and kind! =-.
Sure, one of the main objectives of the GCR is to “radically restructure the SBC.” But I believe the GCR is an honest attempt to bring necessary change to our convention in a gracious, gospel-centered, grassroots manner.
What is true in local churches is true in the convention as well. Just dropping the bomb and forcing people to change is rarely the best approach. Far better is it to teach, discuss, model, illustrate, and involve others.
Gradually introducing and implementing change is a slow and messy process, but by God’s grace it can be effective in the end. For many, splitting off and just starting a new church plant (or denomination) may seem easier, but I believe working together to rebuild our existing convention may be worth the effort.
.-= Stephen Jones´s last blog ..Mishnah madness =-.
Grassroots does not mean setting up a “movement” on a website owned by one of the seminaries.
I agree that the first four axioms may be ones that are readily accepted by “any Southern Baptist.” The remaining six, however, address issues that are very relevant to today and each affect, in one way or another, our ability to proclaim or focus on the gospel. Sure, axiom #9 may be the most controversial and perhaps the only one that is actionable in terms of actual motions. Still, the statement, if adopted by the Convention as a whole would carry the weight of a resolution and give churches and church leaders an additional basis on which to make needed changes.
I think the bottom line is that the SBC exists for its own purpose: to sustain itself. Now, I agree that the SBC is good and I am proud to be SB. However the inability to admit that the system is too top heavy is astounding. In our church we cut almost one fifth of our budget this year by being lean, discerning and working hard, and asking our staff to take on more without any raises. Why? Because we want to be good stewards of God’s resources. We were bloated. We are doing the same ministry with less dollars. Was that easy? NO. Would it have been easier to just ask for more money? Maybe.
The SBC is going to have to make some tough choices. But my cynicism is running rampant when i know many denominational workers make more than pastors and then do interims on the side. They travel to resorts for conferences, stop by the church once year to meet the quota and then wonder why anyone would question the effectiveness of their position. I know that is a bit hyperbolic but come on……
.-= Darrell Morgan´s last blog ..Welcome =-.
You’re right, Darrell, but we can’t just “take our ball and go home” just because others won’t make the same level of sacrifice…I have to side with Stephen on this one…let’s try to change the system with patience and God’s grace instead of abandoning it in our frustration.
.-= Andrew´s last blog ..Something more wholesome and kind! =-.
No doubt. And I am still here! Most things in my life that needed to change took some harsh truth. So I am not that hopeful. But we will keep up the good fight of faith. I just pray we get our act together.
.-= Darrell Morgan´s last blog ..Welcome =-.
So…why do we need to pay anyone to write Sunday School material period? If we already help with seminary tuition shouldn’t that education go towards educating the local body?
I was a messenger at the Georgia Convention in 2007. I really have no desire to repeat that experience. The “main” people all knew each other very well or were related. It seems that most who had something to offer in service also had something to offer for sale like a CD. The book LifeWay had for sale were terrible. Outdated with minimal practical theology. The meeting seemed all about the meeting. And a great resolution about blogging. Not really.
I would love to see some sort of downsizing that pushes back to the local church. How important are the local churches right now other than giving money?
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Should “Celebrity” Pastors Offer Disclaimers =-.
Mark,
FYI, Lifeway receives no CP funds so you are not paying anyone to write SS material unless you buy it.
Also, the local church is vital. No GCR will happen except and until it happens at the local church. Nine of ten axioms address things that happen largely the local church level. Number 9 addresses stewardship of resources give by the local church.
Blessings,
Todd
But the initial investment to launch the SS board was paid by SBC churches, they still work for us.
Toddy,
I was replying to the response above mine about spending on SS material vs. seminary. Sorry, I should have thought first. 🙂
The local church is vital, I agree. However, it sure seems to be about personalities and certain sized churches when the big stage is up.
Mark
.-= Mark Lamprecht ´s last blog ..Should “Celebrity” Pastors Offer Disclaimers =-.
Does anyone thing the “Trojan Horse” approach is a little short on “Christian integrity?”
Tony,
I reject the idea that there even is a trojan horse. Nothing has been said or done in secret. All ten axioms have merit and at least six (by my count) suggest areas that are genuinely in need of strengthening in our churches. Further, I don’t think it’s fair to call Akin’s and Hunt’s integrity into question. There is no evidence of hidden agendas nor of any motive other than the one stated — a resurgence of the Great Commission. You can debate the merits of Axiom 9, but I believe it is wrong to presume faulty motives and political maneuvering.
Blessings,
Todd
tony,
i appreciate your criticial thinking. you’ve given me some things to ponder, some things i’ve actually been tossing around my brain from time to time but haven’t voiced (or typed) yet.
it’s funny how re-emphasizing the gospel can sometimes involve everything but telling your neighbors about Jesus or meeting at church to pray about it.
again, i appreciate that you are trying to get us to think critically about the gcr and not go all hook-line-and-sinker over it. even if people end up supporting the gcr, examining every bit of it and thinking through every issue is a wise course of action.
.-= mike´s last blog ..it’s tea time =-.
Mark,
Sorry not to have jumped on this thread earlier, but I wanted to say that I for one am not too bothered by LifeWay. Of all the things that the SBC does, I think LifeWay is a positive. Sure, maybe the local church could write its own SS material, but how many could afford to produce it the way that LifeWay does? Not many (I would guess maybe 5% at best). There is something to be said about that.
Plus, LifeWay is a lot more than just SS material. How many hours do you think are saved each year in the local church by buying into the LifeWay VBS packages? Again, you have to use their material, but you get to use their production which is not too shabby. Have you seen the websites they create with all of the digital images that your church can cut-and-paste for its own promotional materials. That’s not cheap or quick to produce, and it is something we take for granted having at our disposal.
Okay, sorry for being on a soapbox. I just wanted to defend the one branch of SBC interference, um . . . resources, that I think is actually helpful to the majority of us in the long run.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Cynicism and The Sinner’s Prayer- Paul’s Testimony =-.
I would have to say that most local associational DOM’s are about as useless as JPEG’s to Helen Keller. There, I said it.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew’s Memorial Baptist Church–Living God’s Love =-.
Todd,
My “objection” was not about LifeWay. It was about SS material. 🙂
There is something to be said about local churches having qualified leaders to be able to teach SS without using LW’s material, IMO. I think too much material that is used in SS gets a pass without the pastor actually going through the material to check for doctrinal standards. This goes for LW SS material as well. Everytime I taught from it in the past I did not stick by it, but would take the subject and move about. 🙂
The local church would do well to raise up leaders who will do the work of ministry in their teaching without pre-packaged material. That doesn’t mean NEVER use it, but don’t make it the norm.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Should “Celebrity” Pastors Offer Disclaimers =-.
I may be wrong but I don’t think there is anything the actual SBC meetings can do to change the way money flows. Wouldn’t it take a complete dismantling of the CP? To me it’s all about the seminaries namb and imb trying to ensure they get bigger pieces of the shrinking pie.
It is 100% up to the states about how much CP gets passed on to Nashville and the SBC – but they can put a good deal of pressure on the states to pass more on.
Or they could disassociate with the states and force the local church to decide if they are going to send money to the state or to the national convention, knowing that each won’t send money to the other.
Plus, if I understand correctly, it already is not necessary for money to go “through” the state. A church could decide to send it directly to the SBC. We could always “resolve” to encourage more of that.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Sunday Devotion- A Prayer over Joshua 10.42 =-.
Todd,
“Still, the statement, if adopted by the Convention as a whole would carry the weight of a resolution and give churches and church leaders an additional basis on which to make needed changes.” ,
You mean like the weight the Garner resolution carried?
Resolutions are a waist of time, because they cannot be enforced as long as the various entities of the SBC can just ignore the ones they wish to ignore.
The whole convention process is a big waist of our time and God’s resources.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..The Decline of LM and CP Offerings – Some Tough Questions =-.
I’ve said this before….without a plan in place…the GCR is nothing more than a tool to ease their minds…”We took a stand and agreed on something we already believed.” Until there are actual cuts made, jobs lost and things reorganized I won’t sign….even with caveats 🙂
Interesting discussion. It’s exciting to see the passion that has been generated by the GCR document and the ensuing conversation about denominational entities at all levels. I think that if this GCR discussion helps us become reenergized about the mission Jesus gave us all, it will have been a tremendous blessing.
I won’t try to respond to everything but I do want to address some of the concerns that have been expressed about state conventions. I obviously can’t speak for everyone but as the communications director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention I am familiar with the KBC and can attest that you won’t meet anywhere a more hardworking or committed staff of Christians who have a strong passion for the Great Commission. These are folks who are working many hours each week in either direct ministries or in ministries that help to strengthen churches so that they can be effective in their own local ministries as well as strong supporters of SBC causes. I am aware of some on the staff who took pay cuts in leaving churches to come to work for the state convention but did so because they felt God calling them to serve here.
Discussing the division of CP resources is a completely legitimate and important process but as we do so, please keep in mind that, at least here in the KBC, we are working with fewer dollars than in the past – not more. In the 11 years that I have been with the convention, Cooperative Program giving has never matched the inflation rate and we have seen the average percentage of undesignated giving from the churches to the Cooperative Program decline from 9.3 percent in 1998 to just under 7 percent last year. At the same time, the Convention has moved to increase the percentage it sends to the SBC.
And this year, due to the downturn in the economy, the Kentucky Baptist Mission Board is working on a spendable budget that is less than the budget approved by messengers. The number of staff has also been reduced during the past 10 years and, again due to the recession, we have some positions that are going unfilled right now.
In Kentucky, CP gifts through the churches are basically divided three ways. The largest piece of the pie (just over 37 percent) goes to the SBC followed by a slightly smaller slice (36.5 percent) that goes to the Kentucky Baptist Mission Board for its work. Then the smallest piece of the pie (26.4 percent) goes to Christian education and KBC entities such as our children’s ministries, camps, foundation, etc.
In addition to supporting SBC mission causes through the CP, Kentucky churches are also supporting the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board through the special offerings. The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering from Kentucky was more than $4 million this past year and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering was almost $2 million which effectively doubles what the SBC mission boards receive from Kentucky churches.
Every state convention, seminary, national SBC entity, church and individual Christian should always be looking for better ways to serve and to adapt to the missions and ministry needs of the times. I’m grateful to be a part of a state convention and national convention that is willing and even eager to examine itself and do just that.
Robert,
Thanks for stopping by and sharing the inside story. Judging from your comments, the calls for sweeping change coming from some are way too simplistic.
I do appreciate your dialog here.