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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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):… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 –… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.