Recently Doug Baker, Executive Editor of the Baptist Messenger of Oklahoma interviewed Dr. David Dockery, President of Union University and member of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force for both a print and pod cast publication.  As I have come to expect, both of these brothers handled themselves exceptionally well.  Doug asked intelligent and pertinent questions.  Dr. Dockery answered them in a humble and statesman-like manner.  The transcript and pod cast are available at the Messenger website; you should give it your time.

During the interview Baker pursued a line of questioning that brought forth Dr. Dockery’s great knowledge of Baptist history.  Not only was Baptist history examined in an interesting way, relevant commentary was given in light of who we have been as Southern Baptists.  Highlighted in the exchange were stories of the early days of our convention, the purpose for which we joined ourselves together on a large scale and the missions heart of our forefathers.  The interview continued to track the development of our national polity and the ways we sought to work together, ultimately culminating in the development of the Cooperative Program.

Baker moved the discussion along to the present day and queried Dockery about the current state of the convention in light of the Great Commission Resurgence and the ensuing Task Force that he serves.  Dockery discusses much of the context of the Task Force indirectly as he works through the thorny issues of state convention CP distribution.  Dockery fairly describes the rationale for the various distribution levels that currently exist today by relating the levels to the early days of the CP discussion and the needs that existed and continue to exist for state conventions in the SBC.

As I have already commended this interview to you I want to do so again; it is good and I think it will help the vast majority of Southern Baptists understand their history more clearly.

Part of my job as a DOM is to work with pastors on an almost daily basis.  There is more to my ministry than that, but I would rank my relationship with the pastors of NWBA and outside the association at the top of my ministry priority list.  I visit regularly with pastors both inside my association and across our state, and often the topic of conversation, at least since the convention in Louisville, has been the GCR and the Task Force convened by President Johnny Hunt.  In all the conversations with pastors that I have had I cannot think of one time, truly, not one time when a pastor asked directly or indirectly one of the two following questions:  “Are we doing what we organized ourselves to do in 1845?” or “Are we cooperating together today according to the vision of the CP as created in 1925?”

Now please do not misunderstand, I do not believe that either of these matters are small or unimportant.  I stressed above the importance of Dr. Dockery’s historical assessment of the SBC.  What I am pointing out is the very current reality that who we were in 1845 or even 1925 is not a pressing concern for most pastors or their churches.  It has been said that the past is prologue and with this I would agree.  We have also heard that the person who does not know his history is destined to make the same mistakes.  Agreed.  One strategy for determining how we make decisions today about our future heavily emphasizes who were have been and the direction that leaders in our past have charted as a kind of organizational compass to guide our future.  This is not a bad strategy, but in my estimation it is out of step with the pastors that I talk to on a regular basis.

These pastors seem more concerned with determining our future based on two primary principles, Scripture and cooperation,  that I will illustrate through two questions. 1) What does Scripture call the church to be and do in the name of Christ, His gospel and the Kingdom? and 2) What sort of cooperation will help us move toward the future work that we desire to accomplish in Christ’s name and for His glory.  Please note that this second mode of determining how we move forward as a convention of churches is not truly in contradiction to the former.  This mode simply looks to an alternative starting point for the discussion and moves out from there.  One assumes the broad history of the SBC as a people, movement, convention, and denominational powerhouse and the other looks more simply to Scripture, theology, ecclesiology, culture and the reality on the ground in their churches and their personal networks of affinity.

My purpose is primarily to understand where different voices in our convention are starting as they look to the future and our shared life together in cooperation.  One group looks back for a kind of conformity and integrity to who we have been and the best parts of our history.  Another looks more narrowly at the present culture, Scripture and their experiences in Evangelicalism and seeks a way forward that is nimble and quick to respond to a rapidly changing world.  I would advocate a merging of these two perspectives.  We ought to start with our present situation, our best understanding of Scripture and the movement of the Spirit in our midst and begin to explore how we would live out faith and serve Christ effectively in the coming years.  With this as our primary line of reasoning we should regularly look to our past to learn our best lessons and glean the truth that the Lord has revealed to His people over the years.

In summary I want to hear from our past, but I believe that is the wrong place to start.  Most leaders I talk to are not asking where have we been.  They are asking where should we go.  They are not asking “Is my church doing what the churches who began the CP in the early parts of the 20^th century were doing?”  Rather, they are looking high and low for ways to be effective today in a world that will not wait for them to catch up and is not asking their permission to change.  They are seeking ways to embody the eternal, unchanging truths of Christ and His Word in a world that has largely ignored our best efforts to share Christ.

Movements are what they are, of that we can be sure.  Some are good, some are bad, some are forgettable, but in the long run, movements change things.   Key leaders in our convention have spoken about the need to transition from institution to movement.  They say that only in the movement will we find the needed power to live out the gospel of Jesus well. Movements are what they are—nothing more, nothing less.  They are not manufactured, not real ones anyway, and they have a sustaining power that enables those in the vanguard and the wake to do mighty things.  In another day we talked about movements regularly; we called them revivals.  A revival in its most basic sense is the movement of God to stir the heart of the believer and those outside of Christ to repentance and gospel renewal.  Though we see bright spots of gospel ministry in our convention of churches, overall we are a group in decline.  How did we get here?  We planned to get here.  No?  Take a moment and think it through.  Nothing in the world or the kingdom of God is static.  We are called to live active, missional and engaged for Christ.  We planned to get here, and we need to own that.  We need to realize that even the lack of a plan is a plan, and the lack of an intention is an intention deeply held demanding that we continue what we do writ large.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point.  Read more…

“People give to what they can relate to and participate in. They don’t give to institutions anymore. They give to movement and something tangible. They give to something that they can see.”

The missioscapes team of editors and contributors has sought to provide thoughtful, and at times, provocative ideas for the future of churches, Southern Baptist ones in particular, as they seek to fulfill the mission of God (this is a Latin free post).  As a contributor I have tossed in some ideas on what the GCRT might need to do as they make decisions that will likely change the way in which Southern Baptists do their work both at home and abroad.  For the present the GCRT draws much of our attention.  We want to provide a place for voices to be heard, from a variety of ’scapes’ and I have found one today that makes me cold just thinking about where God put this man.  Let me introduce to you Glen Land.  Glen is the State Missions Director for the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention.  Glen has taken keyboard in hand and shot out a few of his own ideas about the future of the SBC structure and the work of the GCRT.  I found this post here at the NOBA website and wanted to bring his voice to the missioscapes blog.  Thanks Glen for letting us re:post your piece here at missioscapes!

Critical Issues Concerning Southern Baptist Structure

With three key presidential vacancies at hand, pardon my analogy from paganism when I suggest that the planets may have aligned for sweeping changes in Southern Baptist Convention structure. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse is a question. Bureaucratic structures are tenacious under assault. Just consider the repeated attempts at federal tax reform, resulting in an IRS more bloated and a tax code more confused, complex and convoluted than ever before. There is no guarantee that a new denominational structure will be an improvement over what we have now. Read more…

Change is never easy, especially in the church. That much we can know for sure.  To effect change that is lasting, useful and effective a few things must obtain.  Leaders must know their minds, be confident of their purpose and have clear direction.  Leaders must have a strong imagination, one which enables them to see a world where changes have already occurred and then move backward to unpack the process of that change.  Leaders must have hearts that are large enough to hear from both their proponents and their detractors in order to exercise the very best ideas possible to move forward to the goal of faithfulness and effectiveness.  Leaders must be the sort of people who draw the best from those around them, inspiring greatness of heart and mind for the good of those who follow and the goal that they pursue.  Leaders must lead.  In short, leaders must break the ground, lead the way, chart the course, encourage the process and be willing to allow many people to share in the journey without losing their own way.  Leaders must have great vision.

Do Hard Things
Leaders must be willing to say and do hard things, things that defy the status quo, upset the system and seek the good that is shining in the future, not the past.  Leaders have to be those able to rise to the difficult task of choice.  Leaders have to be those who will choose between “this” or “that” all the while knowing that vested interests will call any choice for change an abandonment of our most sacred efforts to follow Christ.  The call to lead can be lonely, it can cause conflict and it likely will be misunderstood.

Tasked For Leadership
Leadership is precisely what we have asked the GCR Task Force to give the SBC.  We have given them the heavy task of recommendation.  We have set them aside for a purpose that comes with great authority.  We have not convened a group simply to ignore their recommendations, rather we have given the GCRT a de facto authority which says, “We will take seriously what you have to say about our cooperative life and will use your recommendations to help shape the future of our churches’ efforts to cooperate together.  With that said…

To The Slaughterhouse
If we were on the GCR Task Force we would go to the slaughterhouse.  Even as I type these words I know that some will object.  I did. The first time that phrase was put in front of me I quickly looked for a work around, a way out, an easier option to say what needs to be said.  Leaders lead.  If we were placed on the task force we would not have the luxury of the “easy”.  We would travel to the place where programs go to die, budgets get cut, denominational staff are sent back to the church to take up their work of serving Christ and whole entities are phased out.  We would have to go to that place we call the slaughterhouse and spend time there.  Though not easy, we would have to learn by heart the way of subtraction before we engaged the art of addition.  We would go to the slaughterhouse precisely because we have been called to the task of assisting in reshaping a denomination that has clearly lost its way.  We do not call people BACK to the task of the Great Commission of Christ our Lord if we are already engaging it in faithfulness and fidelity.  This is no time of minor tweaks, small adjustments, re-organization, or reallocation.  This is a time for seismic change to set a course for a future of local church centered, cooperatively effective mission in the name of Christ.  By going to the slaughterhouse we mean one thing uniquely: “Everything that makes it out of the GCRT recommendation process only does so because it can prove its vitality and usefulness in a 21st century effort to take the Gospel of Christ to the nations (including our own)”. Read more…