Is Anyone Else Becoming Wary of What the GCR Is Becoming?

It seems that the GCR is primarily becoming a conversation about the amount of money that goes to the state conventions versus the national entities of the SBC. If so, that is a major mistake.

I have written about the proposed Southern Baptist Great Commission Resurgence a few times here and with the upcoming convention in Louisville, it seems appropriate to address some issues that I see arising.  Almost all of the talk that I am hearing about the GCR in pre-convention chatter has to do with restructuring the SBC entities, downsizing state conventions, and getting more money to the national SBC bureaucracy for "missions."  All of this has to do with Article IX of the GCR which calls for an analysis of our denominational structures and their effectiveness in mission. Let me be clear that I have been a big proponent of thrift and effectiveness when it comes to our missions dollars and I think that there is a great deal of waste, both on state and national levels. But, the fact that a discussion about money, power, and denominational structures is what has begun to dominate talk about the GCR in the days leading up to a supposed vote on the document at the convention has caused me to wonder if there is not more going on here than meets the eye.

I trust that Dr. Danny Akin (president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and architect of the GCR) and Dr. Johnny Hunt, president of the SBC, both have great intentions in his advocacy of the meaning of this document. I think that their hearts are good. But, it seems that this is becoming about money and power and not about a spiritual renewal in the SBC. If that is the case, then we will continue along the same trajectory of decline, having tried one more bailout measure that has failed. Maybe the opponents of the GCR are pointing out this one issue to derail the whole thing and the proponents of the measure are responding to them, thus causing all the attention on this one issue.  If so, I think that the proponents of the GCR are making a tactical error.  They need to stay on message and stop responding to the Article IX talk lest we forget that our main problem is primarily a problem with our hearts.

I signed the GCR and I think that it is a good document. It captures a great deal of what I have advocated in the SBC the past 3 years. But, focusing on our denominational structure before we see a heart change is a dead end street in the SBC. It is why we are in decline. I sincerely hope that this becomes more than that and that is does not end up like every other good initiative that has arisen over the past several years.

Comments

[Bob Cleveland]

You BET I am.

I signed it as a declaration. Which is fine. Good ideas. But if there are good ideas in it for SBC entities, let the Trustees get right on it. Let pastors get onto any good ideas for their churches. Let guys in the pew review their own service, and adjust if needed.

Signing the declaration does NOT mean we endorse any "official" use for it, any more than signing my Bible means I think you ought to use it to press corsages, squash mice, or as kindling in your fireplace.

I've already said that, if it comes to the floor in Louisville as some sort of motion, I'm going to speak against it. IF I can get to a microphone.

I suspect I'll have trouble with THAT.

[Joe Kennedy]

My dad was a ministerial student at TCU, and I grew up swapping off between a Methodist church and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). As the DoC is quick to say, "No Book but the Bible, No Creed but Christ." Limited? Yes. But aside from the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, I'm good to go with that.

We sure do like to talk and write about what we believe, but we are so pitiful with our action upon those beliefs, it's just a joke now. I know they meant well. So did the Memphis crowd. How much energy will be put into writing "perfect" documents? Too much, already.

[Daniel]

If we are wasting money as a Convention, we need to address it. It is not either spirtual renewal or administrative effectiveness and spending money wisely - it is both. In fact, if we are content to continue spending some money the way we do, that bespeaks a deeper spiritual problem. I agree that we cannot just beat the drum on number 9, but the local missions agency in states that are full of local SBC churches should be those local SBC churches, not a bunch of programs and state administrators. That money is better spent on missions and training the next generation of pastors and missionaries. That's an oversimplification - to be sure - but it is largely an accurate one. It's spiritual renewal and fervor that will cause us to look at how much money we are keeping in our states (where we already have many local churches) and say, "woe is me Lord, we've been hoarding money for ourselves for far too long."

[Guy Fredrick]

One thing that I've seen in the SBC is that the money sent to the cooperative program isn't always well allocated to the areas with the greatest need. As an individual from the Great Lakes region, I see huge evangelistic needs -- less than 6% (and in some areas 3% or less) of the populace is evangelized -- yet little in the way of funding is allocated on a national basis. It is tough work to start new churches in areas where there are only 10-15 congregations spanning hundreds of miles of territory. There simply is no critical mass large enough to assist the plants or missions to get them over the hump. IF this issue can be addressed with an eye toward actually carrying forward kingdom mission work, I'm ALL for it! When we discover the same heart for "unreached people groups" be they in New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, or other northern and western areas, that we see in the IMB, with targeted resources, I'll be one happy church planter. As it stands now, I cannot even work a plant in the area of my calling, as funds are non-existent. That requires bi-vocational work, and is exhausting to the planter and his family, not to mention kills most chances for successful plants.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Joe: I tend to agree with you which was why I did not sign to begin with, but was convinced by Tom Ascol and others that this was the real deal. It seems that I should have gone with my first instinct.