The GCR was a failure.
The GCR was a waste of time.
The GCR was a backroom deal proven by the sealing of their documents.
It has become almost a truism in certain circles of Southern Baptist life that the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, the Report they produced, and that which has resulted from that, was a tremendous failure. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so is effectiveness. Some, disdainful of the direction and priorities of current convention leaders, have little choice but to see the initiatives of those leaders as failures. Others, more balanced in their perspective of our leaders and their direction, still see the GCR as a misdirected effort. Others have given a positive perspective on the effects of the GCR. Some have challenged the meme that the GCR was an unquestioned failure. If you hear our current president talk about the GCR, you will hear a glowing report of success that varies greatly from the doom and gloom of the negative nellies.
Which side has the truth? It’s been almost 6 years since we adopted the GCR. How do we judge whether or not it was a success? Each of us will use our own standards. I would say the following.
1. It is not fair to create an artificial standard of judgment for the GCR.
The SBC continues to struggle annually when our statistical reports are released. We are continuing our numerical slide, which actually began six decades ago (I wrote on this in 2013). Our growth rate slowed gradually, then we plateaued, and now we’ve begun to decline. The decline began about a decade ago, so some want to pin it on the Calvinism wars. The plateau came some time before that, making it convenient to affix blame on the conservative resurgence of the 80s. But the slide really began back in the early 50s, when the Southern Baptist Convention bought into a model that emphasized culture over kingdom. Read Alan Cross’s book “When Heaven and Earth Collide,” for a better understanding.
Those who disdain the GCR often point out that the statistical decline has continued in spite of the passing of the GCR. “I thought the GCR was supposed to turn this around,” some have stated sarcastically. That is not fair. A convention proposal cannot magically fix a 60-year convention problem quickly.
2. We are a convention of churches – our problems are church problems, and people problems.
This is the ultimate problem with a convention of congregational churches. We cannot fix our problems at the convention level. There are things we can do better. Perhaps Frank Page can change a few things, and David Platt and Kevin Ezell, and other leaders. But we are a convention of churches and our problems are not primarily convention problems but church problems. We are congregational churches so the problems in those churches are not just church problems but people problems.
The GCR could only deal with systemic and convention problems, but our real problems are at the personal and church level. Those take longer to fix. The GCR addressed those to some extent but did cannot fix them.
3. To condemn the GCR because the records were sealed is unfair.
In nine years the GCR records will be unsealed. If I’ve still around and blogging, that will be a big day. I have a feeling it will be a bit like the day that Geraldo opened Al Capone’s vault. But much has been made of fact that the records of the deliberations of the GCR Task Force were sealed. Aha! Proof positive that shenanigans were happening. My opinion is that the furor is unfair. Our church just commissioned a task force to study an issue and they produced a report. They did interviews and had discussions. The only thing they published was their final report. That’s pretty much standard. You have the freedom to discuss things in committee, to ask questions privately and confidentially. Then, you produce a public document – standard operating procedure.
But even if you are one of those suspecting a deep dark conspiracy in the sealing of the records, that should be a separate issue. Judge the document on it’s own merits. When the records are unsealed we can fight about the fairness of the process again, but the convention adopted the report and that report ought to be the standard for its judgment.
4. The fairest way to judge the GCR is to look at what it recommended.
The final report of the GCR made seven recommendations to the convention – specific, measurable recommendations. We ought to be able to judge the GCR by that standard. The convention approved the document. Has it been a success? If we want to judge the GCR, let’s examine the document and judge it according to the purposes that it set forth.
A PDF of the GCR’s final report with recommendations can be found here, if you wish to read it.
The document identifies 7 components and then presented 7 recommendations to the convention, all of which were approved.
In the next few weeks, leading up to the convention, I intend to review the seven components and recommendations of the SBC’s Great Commission Task Force and review them individually. How have we done? Was the process successful? Was it a waste of time? I’m going to ask some of my fellow contributors to join in the process as well.
Let me reveal my perspective. I voted for the GCR, but I did not expect it to save our denomination from all of our problems. I think there were some good ideas in it and some I was not as enthusiastic about. As a pastor involved in a new-work state, the relationship of NAMB to the state conventions is always a concern and there was quite a bit of roiling about that during the discussion leading up to the vote. One of our state staff members accused me of being “against” the BCI and said he hoped to get me back “one their side” just because I said on this blog that I was going to vote for the plan. But I did vote for it. I sat in a group of friends from the upper Midwest and I think I was the only person in the section who was a “yes” vote. But I was a cautious, tepid, yes. There were two reasons.
- What we had been doing had not been working so well that we could refuse to change.
- There was enough good in the GCR that I thought it was worth a try.
So, in the weeks to come, and before the SBC in St. Louis, I hope to do a series of posts about the various components and recommendations of the GCR. Old news, you say? I don’t think so. It might surprise you to know that it has guided more to the direction of the SBC in the last 6 years than we have realized.
Has it been a success?
Well, that’s the question. Before you start offering judgments, though, could I make one request? Go back and read the report one more time? Let’s be fair.
Glad you’re revisiting this issue and looking forward to this series.
I remember at the time, there was a lot of false hope that a convention report or resolution would actually do something that mattered. As you noted above, the problem is local – with our own churches and people.
I’d love to read and interview with
Dr. AlienDr. Danny Akin as a part of this series. It was his Chapel messages Southeastern that gave the real framework to the so-called DCR movement.http://www.danielakin.com/axioms-for-a-great-commission-resurgence/
Dr. Alien?
That could explain the sealing of the discussion better than other thoughts…we had Dr. Alien consult, and we’re waiting for him to go “home….”
Nerd
I can’t type on my phone, just made the edit. I meant to write Dr. Danny Akin.
We may or may not have known that. But “Dr. Alien” was cooler.
I can’t type on my phone either. Glad to know I’m not the only one.
It was from the 80s
I couldn’t remember if it was Dr. Akin or Dr. Allen….
I believe ‘Simple SBC’ is a better answer because it will reduce the SBC footprint allowing more local emphasis and less of dependance on NAMB to somehow save us…and increase $$ available for Intl Missions.
We’ve done “Simple SBC” to a large extent. When I was a young whippersnapper, there were several entities that no longer exist. Not sure if any more are going to be downsized unless there’s a failure among the 6 seminaries.
Someone brings up uniting NAMB and the IMB from time to time, but that doesn’t seem likely any time soon.
Isn’t the hope that if we do our part, God will bless us with growth?
Two things:
One, we are not doing our part.
Two, our hope is wrong, maybe growth isn’t guaranteed by us doing our part.
I think it is both.
Faithfulness to God is not measured by numerical growth.
And we as a convention of churches have not been wholly faithful.
But we still send many on missions across the world.
Best we seek to be as faithful to God as we can, and wait on the Lord.
The Great Commision isn’t fulfilled at the Convention level, but at each church and individual level as well as in our missionary endeavors.
Part of the Gospel proclamation is that Jesus is Lord and thus a warning to those who reject it that are rejecting Him. So whether or not we grow numerically, we as individual churches should ever the more proclaim the Gospel to our lost and dying nation.
I’ll give a small hint here.
I don’t really think that the GCR has been a failure, but the question of whether it was worth all the time, effort, and conflict is a reasonable discussion. Much good has resulted from the GCR. But does the good it brought justify the conflict and the trouble?
My, Dave, that’s a good question. You should write a series!
The GCR was a discussion with some recommendations. It is hard to measure if something is worth it at the time. Should leaders not have talked about the issues? Did they get it all right? It is hard to say at the time and 20/20 hindsight after. If anything, the GCR should be the beginning of an on going discussion about church health and missional engagement as we live as followers of Jesus. It isn’t a magic bullet. Anyone who criticizes the GCR because it didn’t “solve” the problem and get baptisms back up show that they don’t even understand the issues related to the actual problems. Their criticisms are pretty empty.
I often say that if this problem were easy to be fixed, someone else would have already come along and fixed and we wouldn’t even know about it. Almost every problem we face is there because it is a hard situation. Criticism from the sidelines is easy. Actually addressing issues and moving on to tell a better story is the narrow way that few travel.
The GCR solves nothing. It was never going to. Anyone who thought it would was wrong. It is fine to say that. But, is it addressing actual problems? Or getting us to see the real issues? In some ways, yes. In other ways, it missed it. But, maybe an ongoing conversation from there will then get us to see what we need to see. Or maybe we will now see some of the problems more clearly? Could that have happened without the GCR? What you see depends on where you stand. We stand in a different place because of the discussions around the GCR. Maybe we should be happy about that and keep reaching to see a bit lore clearly and keep going?
The failure of the GCR or the SBC, frame it as you choose is not the label.
The SBC has applied for decades (remember ‘A Million More in 54’) a flawed Metric – numbers, numbers, numbers. Our purpose is to make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20).
There is no functional and exegetically substantiated definition of what a disciple is. What you have not defined you cannot measure.
Therefore, we are left with reams of reports that contain data that, while necessary and should be tabulated, is not an expression of our PRIMARY PURPOSE.
It is not NAMB or any other entities failure. The failure is at the local church level. When the true saints are equipped to do the work of the ministry and they actually do that work, we will not need an acronym to inform us of our effectiveness.
Tom Fillinger
803 413 3509
I’m not sure what you are saying, Tom.
How has the SBC “failed?” Certainly, we are struggling and the USA has not been reached. But we are still faithful to the gospel in a time when many denominations and churches are throwing away God’s word faster than yesterday’s newspaper. We are still reaching people – though not as quickly as we’d like. We have had to reduce our missionary force, but it is still one of the world’s largest and even church history’s largest. We still have 6 seminaries training pastors for the future – “for the church” (to co-opt Dr. Allen’s term). The SBC is continuing to plant churches and reach out through NAMB – though we may not always agree with their strategies.
And, by all accounts, CP giving is up.
So, while I’m not happy with everything going on in the SBC, I’d say labeling the SBC may be a bit premature.
Dave,
Thanks for the response. You TOTALLY missed the heart of the message I sent. I post that portion again for clarity.
“There is no functional and exegetically substantiated definition of what a disciple is. What you have not defined you cannot measure.”
We are focused on butts, budgets & buildings. We are suppose to MAKE DISCIPLES. When we have no objective means to define what a disciple is, we therefore have no objective means to measure our effectiveness or lack of same. We are myopically focused on NUMBERS. I don’t know how to state this with any greater clarity. In this, we have failed and we perpetuate status quo. We keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. You know what that is.
In Grace,
Tom
I don’t mean to pick on you, Tom, but you pushed one of my buttons.
We need to be realistic. Is the SBC all it should be, could be, what God wants it to be? Can we improve? Are there areas where repentance and renewal are needed? No, no no, yes, and yes.
But when we overstate things, when we make statements like “failure” – that way overstates reality and in my mind is not helpful.
Dave,
Here is ‘A’ definition of a Disciple that meets the criteria of the NT for same.
Disciple – is a Believer who is becoming more like Christ. Their Transformation is consistent, objective and measurable. Transformation comes from the study of the Scriptures, applying the precepts and principles in daily living, and imitating the life of a disciple as modeled by mature believers. There is a deliberate and intentional effort to obey all that Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8).
Hope this helps our deliberations on this topic.
In Grace,
Tom
Tom, I agree w Dave that we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes there are areas of failure but there are areas of success as well. While I agree w you that our metric should be disciple making, how do you quantify that? How can you say we have failed to make disciples in such a broad stroke. Do you believe that successful disciple making will result in the growth of the church?
Justin – I have a very effective and tested process for measuring Transformation. If you would like to discuss this give me a call and thanks for your post. 83 413 3509.