Dr. Danny Akin prophetically, positively, and profoundly addressed the race issue in his signature message in chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, concerning the Great Commission Resurgence. Rarely, do we hear of this type of statesmanship and leadership on this issue from anyone in SBC life. Much respect to you, Dr. Akin. I wish the GCR report to the annual meeting in Orlando would include Dr. Akin’s initial remarks on this subject.

For years I’ve asked many of my Black Baptists and evangelical Pastor friends, who would not question one word of the B, F, and M, 2000, why won’t you join the SBC? Their response would be, because it is “southern and racial”. Note: not racist, but “racial”- meaning, the DNA of the SBC is White, and geographically and culturally southern oriented. Therefore, it cannot comfortably or willingly accommodate or assimilate as equals, African American Baptists input, involvement and influence. For years I’ve disagreed with my friends’ analysis. But I’ve since reached the conclusion, they are right.

The entire post can be read here.

With the resignation of Jerry Rankin from the IMB and the opening of the presidency at NAMB, the trifecta of opportunities has been acknowledged as a defining moment for the future of the SBC. I’m thinking recently that, while the two mission agency positions are viewed as extremely important, the lynch-pin may well be the X-Comm position.

Consider a person who gets to give a lengthy address to the X-Comm each time they gather, a lengthy message to the convention every single year, participates in the budget planning for the entire convention and, essentially, leads the committee charged with running the convention 362 days a year. Arguably that person would be the most influential or powerful person in the convention. The president of the IMB might be, to quote Paige Patterson, “the most important person in the world,” but I’m not sure he’s the most important person in the SBC on a day-to-day basis.

If the most important position being filled is the X-Comm president, for what type of person should the search team be searching? A few thoughts:

1. Someone not antagonistic toward any part of the convention’s disparate parts. We have had a few years worth of younger leaders, emergent churches, Acts 29 and Calvinism. If there is one thing true about the convention it is this: there are different groups many of whom are on opposite ends of varied spectrums. The next president of the X-Comm must be one who is able to bridge gaps, not expand them or create them. The polarizing effects of those friendly with the Baptist Identity group need to be kept from this office.

We have had a pretty consistent firing of salvos across the convention toward any who are self-identified as (or suspected by others of being) Calvinistic in their theology. Most recently a paper has been circulated through some southern states detailing how to tell if your pastor is a Calvinist. One or two pastors have even lost jobs as a result. This type of antagonism toward any convention sub-set simply cannot be a part of the leadership motif of the X-Comm president.

2. Someone who is above board and not a subversive. To be in a key part of convention budget planning is to be charged with a huge responsibility, one that requires an ability and willingness to remain free of leadership slight of hand.

People who are involved in manipulative, behind the scenes scheming don’t have the kind of character needed to lead. This position requires engagement with the other members of the Great Commission Council, the convening of SBC entity heads which as been as historically dysfunctional as an episode of Wife Swap. All of the new voices must be able to work as part of a team for the good of the SBC. The X-Comm president needs to be a proven voice of honesty, integrity and openness.

3. Someone with experience. This one might sound odd coming from a person who railed against recycling trustees and for creating opening new opportunities for new people to be involved in convention activities. This particular position needs some amount of convention experience and, I think, more than either of the other two entity openings.

The question is, “How much convention experience is necessary?” Must a person have served at every single level from associational moderator through state opportunities to the SBC Executive Committee? Must he/she have lived and breathed the convention for most or through his/her adult life? Been born with the CP spoon in their mouth? Surely not. Though familiarity should be expected, a DNA strand encoded with the letters “SBC” should not be required.

Rather than simple convention experience, I think the more apt question is, “What did the person do with the opportunities he/she had?” Was it a simple “keep on keeping on” or was vision part of the equation? Were new ideas and strategies introduced to demonstrate real leadership?

It also might be worthwhile to consider what type of outside experience or influence the person has had. Do those outside the SBC recognize his/her influence and value? Is the right person one who has been living in an SBC box? Doubtful.

4. Someone who is more inclusive than exclusive. Related to number 1, but, even more than not being antagonistic, this person must have a record of being welcoming to the widely differing range of styles now represented across the convention. Back in the day we would have said, “Not a person for narrowing the parameters of cooperation.”

I don’t know Troy Gramling. A week or so ago when Nathan Finn tweeted

I hesitate to be so pointed, but I do not think Troy Gramling should be president of the SBC Pastors Conference. We need another candidate

Gramling’s name crossed my plate for the first time ever.

Apparently I’m alone in my ignorance.

Former president of the Georgia Baptist Convention and former SBC presidential candidate, Frank Cox, also had something to say. It was similar to Finn, but I think much more telling. Emphasis is mine:

I think it is time we Southern Baptist [sic] stand up. We are about to lose the whole thing. We need another candidate for SBC Pastors Conf.

What “whole thing” is who about to lose? Surely the Pastors’ Conference is not the “whole thing”? If not, what is? What should Southern Baptists be standing against? A pastor who is too innovative? Any kind of progress?

Perhaps it was simply because Gramling’s church gives a paltry amount to the SBC and is barely considered cooperative, but, honestly, it sounds like the same kind of chicken little “the sky is falling” rhetoric that we heard way back when the Younger Leaders movement started gaining traction in the SBC, for which Jimmy Draper was often castigated by some in convention leadership while the younger leaders themselves were ridiculed as power hungry, impatient, unappreciative or liberal.

5. Should be someone who is known for leading change or leading in a time of change. The X-Comm presidency will set the tone for how and if many recommendations from the GCTRF are implemented with enthusiasm and kept a part of X-Comm’s agenda (as far as that goes). This is a strategic time in the SBC. The nominee cannot be “star-struck” by the opportunity, but needs to be effective in a time of constant change and shifting landscape.

In this writer’s opinion anyone who is thought of as “Mr. Convention” probably is not the person. The last thing the convention needs right now is conventional. I’m not necessarily advocating someone who will push every single boundary–even though that type of person might be my personal choice–but a person who knows which boundaries to push and when as he or she reaches out to build and sustain relationships across the convention while, perhaps, creating a few outside it.

May the search team have wisdom in this process.

We have no movement on our hands here at the present point.  I, like so many others, voted heartily for the GCR in Louisville.  Like so many others, I cheered Pres. Johnny Hunt as he preached at the convention.  I was struck by the sober reality painted by David Platt in the Pastor’s Conference.  I was hopeful that a movement was underway.   That is not to say that we do not have some good words working through the convention.  Much of the rationale for the preliminary report given by Ronnie Floyd to the Executive Committee was great.  Consider his call for a renewed emphasis on the local church and a recognition that the church is the true “headquarters” of our denomination.  Wow, truly great words spoken by a great pastor and leader.  The recommendations?  They seem to be primarily concerned with the top level of cooperative life in the SBC.  Some have said this is simply because the GCRTF can’t change anything else.  We would do well to remember that they do not have the authority to change the SBC; only God can do that through willing hearts of faith.  We need a movement of God.

Denominational tinkering makes not a movement.  I was one who hoped the strong words of Danny Akin in his axiom sermon would start a movement in the SBC toward gospel-centered, Christ-exalting ministry.  I had hopes to see a movement toward participating truly in the Great Commission by living out the Great Commandment.  I had hopes that leaders would rise up and point our convention of churches toward Christ, His commands and His commission with great humility and great zeal.  I still hold some hope…but it is fading.

Most of the firepower in the preliminary report has been aimed at “releasing” NAMB, as if there was lying dormant some latent power in this agency.  Don’t get me wrong—NAMB does many good things, but we have no clear idea who will lead NAMB.  There is also much talk that we might not need NAMB and a real lack of clarity about how the proposed changes at NAMB demonstrate that the denominational headquarters of the SBC is in the local church.  This is not a movement.

There is little doubt that whatever the GCRTF brings forward will pass in Orlando.  Some will take exception with that statement, but I have not met one person who has followed the GCR conversation who actually thinks the recommendations won’t pass.  The problem is not whether what is brought forward will pass.  It will.  The real questions are:  1) How can we implement the recommendations in the current institutional environment of the SBC? and 2) How will these changes specifically lead the churches of the SBC toward the gospel movement that God is already at work supplying to some?

IF this is the best that we can do as a denomination, I will accept it and move forward with my brothers and sisters in Christ, in great hope that God will do mighty things through His people.   I do have a pressing question, though.  What will the leaders of the GCRTF do to demonstrate that these changes will in fact move us toward a resurgence of the Great Commission, a movement based in the gospel and carried out by transformed people? How, in particular, will the churches, seminaries and organizations represented by the leaders of the GCR model for us the means of a gospel movement through these and future recommendations?  I would ask the presidents of two seminaries, “What specifically will be different in your strategic plan as key partners in training pastors and leaders in light of the recommendations?”   To the pastors I would ask, “How will the church that God has entrusted to your shepherding care model for the cooperating churches of the SBC a gospel movement specifically by participating in the recommendations?”  To the other leaders I would ask, “What will be different for you and the church you attend in light of the vote in Orlando?

I ask the questions for a very simple reason:  I want you to be leading voices for gospel-centered churches in the SBC.  I have the privilege of working with 20 Southern Baptist churches in my association.  If you show me how you can be more gospel-centered, Christ-exalting and missional in light of these recommendations, I will join up and serve alongside you for the glory of God.  This is a critical time in our life as a convention of churches GCRTF, please show us your hearts for the gospel and the specific work that we cooperate together to do.  Provide clear calls to mission that other churches can join alongside.   I still want to believe that the GCR is far more than a call to manage the denomination; I want to believe in the movement that might have been, is not yet, but still can be with God’s help and grace.

When I look at the local church I’m both aghast and amazed. Reading about the church through the last 2000 years I’m aghast at some of the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived lo these many years. Shoot, reading the New Testament I’m aghast at the things she’s done and amazed that she’s survived. Even our heroes, like the belching, flatulating curmudgeon Martin Luther, will make one scratch one’s head. It truly is a wonder that the church has made it this far. But made it she has.

She’s made it not because of her resiliency. Not because of her determination. Not because of her moral purity. Not because of her shining example. She’s made it because of whose she is. God is simply doggedly determined to have a people, however imperfect we may continue to be. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

However, as Scripture and history demonstrates time and time again God often leaves his people (or at least some/most of them) to their own devices when they choose to go their own way. The seven churches in the book of Revelation along with many churches-turned-in-to-museums in Europe are some prime examples of that.

But when churches become corrupted, sick, self-serving, unfocused and/or irrelevant to all but themselves, they die and God replaces them with another unlikely group of people meeting in a mud hut or crammed into a small room in some unlikely corner of the world somewhere where Jesus is the main thing and where the gospel rings clear. While it’s tragic to watch churches struggle and die, maybe that’s just a part of a natural lifecycle of birth, death and rebirth that God does throughout history. The church dies in America and thrives in Korea. Who knows but God, whose ways are inscrutable?

This is where we Baptists face our greatest challenge. Our greatest challenge is not figuring out how we will turn NAMB into something we can finally be proud of. It is not in revamping the IMB or revitalizing (or doing away with) the ERLC. Our greatest challenge is in figuring out how we can move a significant number of our 45,000 churches from conflicted, inbred, inwardly focused, self-serving and self-preserving social gatherings to loving, reaching, kingdom-focused, other-serving, world-preserving outposts alive with and for the mission of God. I’m not saying all of our churches are that way. Many are. Not long ago I heard a state executive say that his state’s Associational DOMs unanimously tell him that the number one issue facing local churches in their associations is conflict. In a lunch with leaders from another prominent denomination they told him the same thing is true for them. We’re too busy fighting with each other to be bothered with a Great Commission Resurgence. We like the idea in principle, but we’re too distracted fighting a host of fires that we ourselves too often set. I’ve been told that most of our churches simply don’t have the will to make the changes that will bring vitality and relevance. I also know that, from a denominational perspective, our structure doesn’t lend itself to the sort of outside help/push that can serve as a catalyst for that kind of movement. Local church autonomy, you know.

From that standpoint the GCRTF may feel somewhat helpless. So, they propose to do things they can actually have some control over – which by definition must be outside of the local church. They’ll say that we need a Great Commission Resurgence in the local church, but they’ll do denominational restructuring. They’ll tell us that the local church is vital to our success but they’ll assign the local church’s mission to an agency or entity because they simply can’t make the local church be something other than what it currently is.

So here’s a suggestion to the GCRTF. Take the considerable influence you have and pour it into the local church. Not just your own, but other’s as well. Not just in a once-a-year conference but in an ongoing way. Help that little church in your association figure out how to get healthy. Invite them to partner with you outside of the weekly associational pastor’s coffee-and-gossip session. Resource them. Their pastor wants them to be healthy, but he’s having trouble getting them there on his own. Be an outside voice of reproval, rebuke and exhortation when you can. Help them to see why they are so dysfunctional. Help them see how they can become more effective. Help them and us to ask the hard questions – questions like: how did we get here in the first place? Why haven’t our discipleship efforts produced better disciples? Why have our spring and fall revival services not produced more revival? Why hasn’t our curriculum helped to prevent these problems that are now so large? Can we break unhealthy cycles? To do so what sort of things must happen? How can we get our focus off of ourselves and back onto Christ, the gospel and the Great Commission?

Our problem, as I see it, is that by and large our churches are not healthy. Healthy churches are like other healthy organisms – they show the signs of life, vitality and growth. Unhealthy churches are like other unhealthy organisms – they are weak, feeble and distracted by the things harming their health. Generally speaking, when we are unhealthy our thoughts, time and money are consumed by our problems. If I have a broken leg and you preach to me that I need to be running the race, well….good luck with that. Fix my leg and I’ll jump in. Ignore my leg and I’ll continue to watch from the sidelines.

So, use your bully-pulpit. Speak prophetically to our churches at the annual meeting, in Pastor’s conferences, in articles in your state Baptist paper. In articles in my state Baptist paper. Through BP. And get involved. You were asked to serve on the GCRTF because someone believes you can be of help outside of simply your own local church setting. You’ve obviously got time to attend all kinds of speaking engagements and what not. Turn down a few of those and spend that couple of days getting involved in the life of a church near you that desperately needs the kind of help you just might be able to give. I know it’s not sexy. There’s nowhere to report what you’re doing on your ACP. You’re not going to receive recognition at the annual meeting. It’s risky business. You might fail. After all, some of those dysfunctional churches simply don’t want to get better. In the end changing hearts is God’s job and we can’t plan, structure and organize God or his activity. We can plan, structure and organize NAMB. [Of course, that may fail, too. Been there, done that. More than once.]

If the local church really is where it all begins and ends, then give us something tangible in your recommendations for the local church. If you’re going to recommend the restructuring of entities then gear the restructuring to best assist the local church. That will most certainly mean that significant recommendations will have to be present for the six entities that were strangely left out of your initial report altogether – the seminaries. How will they equip men and women for service in dysfunctional, inbred, inwardly-focused churches that don’t have a lot of motivation or incentive to change? How will NAMB encourage and resource the local church to reach America beyond the south? How will the IMB encourage and resource the local church to take the gospel to the nations? How will the ERLC do anything that matters for a local church who’s members hardly even know it exists or why?

If a true Great Commission Resurgence will only take place at the local church level, and you’ve said that that’s true, then let your recommendations be driven by the needs of the typical local church. Help them get healthy and I just have to believe that they’ll want a resurgence in the Great Commission as much as you do.

In a day where technological advancements could make theological education more accessible, we find our seminaries takings steps to make their campuses more accessible, read “attractive,” with a new entrance at Southern Seminary at a reported cost of $5,000,000. And, if we are not beautifying the campus with a new chapel or dressing up Pecan Manor, we are acquiring fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is not that these two investments are reckless. The question begging to be asked is just when cuts are being made and dollars are scarce, what about doing theological education? It is a bit like major insurance companies resisting health care reform then announcing ahead of the vote they will increase premiums by as much as 30%.

Hutchinson believes we need more money for theological education. The SBC Outpost reported in the past how a number of the seminary presidents were pushing for an offering akin to Lottie and Annie. Perhaps if some of our seminaries took a more aggressive approach to a new kind of theological education they would find more support for this idea from churches and not have to lobby the Executive Committee.

Donors like their names attached to large projects. How may we help them attach their dollars to students desiring theological education? That may be a good place for Hutchinson to put his energy.

And what seminary is he writing from?

In the spirit of interesting analogies, Missioscapes contributor and former SBC Outpost contributor, considers the parallels of the health care debate and the current GCR Task Force Preliminary Report and its implications.

March 18, 2010

Similarities Between Health Care Reform and the #GCR of Southern Baptists

I would venture a guess that most who have used the word never read the book by Guder titled, The Missional Church. Even fewer will have read his book, The Continuing Conversion of the Church. In the best sense of semper reformanda, Guder contends that the church in every context and age must experience conversion from the barnacles it attracts as it passes through culture. He never suggests there is a pristinated version of church but opens the reader up to understand that when the church becomes complacent in its self-criticism it eventually loses its voice as it takes on the worst characteristics of the culture in which it finds itself.

Yes, Ed Stetzer regularly tweets in love and favor of the church. What he does not do is suggest it is perfect, just not worth bashing.

Monday I spent the day at a conference hosted by our contributor John Elam and the Northwestern Baptist Association in Woodward, OK. That’s right one of the smallest associations in the SBC hosts a conference titled, For the World. (Oh that our larger associations would consider these kinds of regular events.) Applying the best sense of the word missional the conference sought to encourage pastors to lead their congregations to live out the mission of God “for the world.”

SEBTS professors Nathan Finn and Alvin Reid offered two sessions each. Dr. Anthony Jordan, Exec. Director of the BGCO was featured for another session. The three combined with John Elam for a panel discussion moderated by Douglas Baker, new Executive Editor of The Baptist Messenger.

The point of this piece is not to offer a review or necessary critique. I would suggest you listen to the sessions. The discerning ear will hear some surprises. For instance, what would it mean if we really grasped Finn’s description of Baptists as an “ecclesiological reform movement?” Let that sink in a bit you who want desperately for Baptists to be a “theological reform movement.” Finn does not suggest an a/theological move for Baptists, instead he outlines historically what it means when we talk about the “five Baptist distinctives.” One must confess they are all ecclesiological in their affirmations.

Maybe you would find Reid’s attention to the 120 in the early Acts narrative compelling. Regularly we pay attention to the extraordinary “move of the Spirit” in Peter’s preaching. But, would we concede that contextually the 120 likely had as much going on in that fast movement of Gospel embrace? Or with all the bantering about “contextualization” would you be willing to accept the methodological adaptations evident in the growing story of the church?

There is little doubt a firestorm could swirl around Dr. Jordan’s contention that we make second order or tertiary confessional commitments matters of collegial cooperation. Recent moves to attach secondary issues to first order matters in an event to tighten the circle for cooperation would surely resist that the BFM article on the family does not rise to the level of the deity of Jesus. What’s more, will we ever concede unity does not of necessity mean uniformity? And, can that apply to more than our preferred music or governing polity?

Take some time to listen to the sessions. Come back and engage a conversation.

I am very excited about the GCR Task Force and the potential that exists for us to rethink the direction of the SBC and the relationship of the local church with the larger denomination. Much of what I am going to say here can be objected to with anectdotal stories that might paint a different picture. But, I am talking about overall trends and cause and effect relationships that have had unintended consequences. I am not saying that your favorite denominational worker or Megachurch pastor has a bad heart. I am saying that we have constructed a bad system that rewards the wrong things to help us carry out the mission God gave us. Until we see that, all attempts at tinkering with the structure to fix it will ultimately end in frustration.

If the GCR is to be a success, the GCR Task Force should call for Southern Baptists to withdraw from our addiction to corporate mechanisms and top heavy bureaucracies and return to the local church as the primary staging ground for Kingdom activity and advancement in the world.  Sometime in the mid-20th century, Southern Baptists began to behave like General Motors and we thought that we could coalesce everything into boards, denominational structures, and programs. We thought that cooperation meant that we developed huge denominational enterprises to direct our work. Sure, we said that the state conventions and national entities existed to serve the local church, but in reality, the situation reversed itself and the local church found itself in the role of being the resource mechanism for the entities to do the work for us. We called this fulfilling the Great Commission and we gave to a Cooperative Program to do so. The result has been that the local church has, by and large, hired out its God-given mission of equipping and sending to denominational entities that have become unwieldy in their scope and limited in their effectiveness. Baptism-to-member-ratios stand at around 47:1 across the SBC and we now see the local church in decline everywhere.  This is especially true among smaller churches.

Bill Hybels says that the local church is the hope of the world. Of course, he believes that Jesus is the hope of the world, but his point is that a local community of believers where Christ reigns and rules is exactly what the world needs to be restored to God. Of all people, Southern Baptists should believe this. But, we have gone all parachurch the last 60 years or so and have moved our focus away from local churches to larger, richer, and what we have thought to be more effective and diverse organizations. This move towards conglomeration has ultimately had an adverse affect on our fulfillment of the Great Commission. We have done this in several ways:

1. By flocking to the Megachurch. If there is a giving crisis related to the Cooperative Program in SBC life, one source of this crisis might be the Megachurch. It is common knowledge that Megachurches (churches with 2000 or more attenders) have primarily grown through transfer growth from other churches. As Americans fell in love with the shopping mall, consumer choice, and a “bigger is better” mentality, Megachurches, based on charismatic leadership and excellent programs and services, began to attract people building their lives in suburban sprawl. Many of these people left smaller churches. These smaller churches that often gave large amounts to the CP could not compete with the massive appeal of the Megachurch that often gave little to the CP because they were doing their own thing. Adrian Rogers’ famous statement that percentages don’t pay the bills became the mantra of Megachurches when it came to their relationship with the SBC. Even though their percentage giving to the CP might be 2-4% of undesignated offerings (as opposed to the 10% or more given by smaller churches), they still exerted heavy influence because they gave more money overall than smaller churches could. But, think about this: If we see a migration of people from smaller churches that give 10% to larger churches that give 2-4%, the result will be that overall giving goes down. The financial crisis facing the SBC could be solved (temporarily, at least) if Megachurches gave more. Now, smaller churches are beginning to follow the example of the Megachurches whose pastors influence the SBC and the situation is becoming an epidemic, it seems.  Our system is perfectly designed to produce the results we are experiencing. Megachurches are a part of that system and should not escape scrutiny. While they can do a lot of good and when properly focused they can be a powerful force for the Kingdom, they can also attract a large crowd that becomes increasingly disconnected from engaging in missional living.
2. By calling for continual support of SBC entities through the Cooperative Program, the impression has been given that the real action in SBC life is found in our state conventions, mission boards, and seminaries. While publicly saying that the local church is ground zero for Kingdom activity, the private expressions of many denominational workers has been that the local church is just not going to do the work required, therefore, they must do it themselves.  The local church has gone along with this and has outsourced its mission to state and national structures. The problem is that parachurch structures and denominational entities are fundamentally parasitic. While potentially helpful in assisting local churches in their mission, they are not effective in the long-term when they replace the local church in that mission. They end up removing mission from the context of daily life and community and it becomes something that the professionals do. Through adherence to size, money, and power as marks of success, we are seeing a reiteration of the priest/laity divide in unexpected ways (experts/professionals vs. non-experts/non-professionals). The short-term results of this can be exciting because of the accumulation of resources and speed of action that make so much possible, but the long-term effect is that you retard the Christian movement overall because you remove it from the hands of the people and from smaller churches where everyone can participate.  With an exodus of leaders and resources to larger systems, smaller churches have often lost their own vision and sense of usefulness for their role in the Missio Dei and have settled for sending a check to the CP or for sitting on the sidelines because they believe that they cannot do the real work. Lifelessness has set in with many smaller churches as battles over identity and turf ensue and this only speeds up the exodus of leaders and gifted people to larger systems. A vision and mission must be restored to the smaller church so that everyone can participate in a healthy way.

On a side note, it is ironic that the individualism that initially fueled the Megachurch and parachurch movements can often result in a bland conformity to large structures that end up squelching the God-given creativity of the individual as large systems replace affirming and empowering communities. With the emergence of the Millenial generation, there is a much greater desire for people to actually participate in the mission/cause themselves instead of hiring proxies to do it for them. Technology and connectedness make this personal participation not only possible, but necessary. Many Megachurches are realizing this and are adapting accordingly with great effect (Willowcreek and Saddleback come to mind and are influencing many others by reconnection the Missio Dei with the people of God, turning spectators into initiators).  Can denominational entities follow suit?

So, what can the GCRTF do to change this system? The GCRTF is powerless to actually change very much, but they can make recommendations that will have influence.

1. Change the scorecard for success. Through their example, the GCRTF can make a statement that every church in the SBC has value no matter its size and wealth that what matters most is loving others sacrificially. They could promote stories and examples of how to engage in acts of sacrificial love toward others and let that be what we are known for.  Refocus on the Great Commandment. Introduce initiatives that simply promote love and care for people estranged from God. Call us to live out the implications of the Gospel as much as we are called to proclaim the message of the Gospel and bring transformation to our cities through acts of love and service.  In doing this, we must reconnect the Megachurches with the smaller churches through relationships and speak against the competition that has often occurred.  Of course, preach the gospel, but also live the gospel, caring for the poor, the needy, and the alienated together.
2. ChurchAsMissionary: Send church planting and missional engagement back to the local church. Develop a strategy that would empower local associations and state conventions to create networks for local churches to work together in both local and global initiatives. Encourage the emergence of organic networks that spring up that empower local churches. What if 5 smaller churches worked together locally to impact a neighborhood or a school? What if 5 churches regionally or nationally were partnered together to plant a church in San Francisco, for example, pooling their resources together and involving themselves with the church planter strategist there and a church planter? What if 5 smaller churches came together to interface with an unreached people group on the other side of the planet? You would have very little overhead (if any), hands on participation from local churches and believers, and engagement on a grassroots level with the real work. Megachurches can lead the way in this as resource centers (First Baptist Church, Montgomery, AL is a good example of this) and our state and national entities can facilitate this kind of missional partnering through communication and networking. This way, everyone gets to play, even the smaller churches, and the Megachurches get to serve as facilitators for Kingdom growth, which they are uniquely positioned to do.  Additionally, the state and national entities actually assist the local church in carrying out the Great Commission.
3. ChurchAsSeminary: Send theological and missionary training back to the local church.  According to statistics, 80% of the 10,000 students currently enrolled in SBC seminaries will not be in full-time ministry in 5 years. Does it make sense to continue to do seminary education the way that we have? Megachurches, in conjunction with local associations and state conventions, can serve as hubs to educate and train the next generation of church planters, theologians, and pastors through their campuses. Seminaries can push back their training to these centers and Megachurches can bring in the pastors and leaders of smaller churches and invite them to act as consultants and labs for Kingdom work in their local context, providing much needed wisdom, perspective, and practical application. This also exposes smaller churches to transformative theology and missional practices. This would be much cheaper and more effective than what we are currently doing, would aid in church revitalization, and would diffuse theological training throughout America instead of centralizing it in a few places. Lakeview Baptist Church in Auburn, AL is a good example of a Megachurch attempting this.

Once we start pushing the Great Commission back into the hands of local churches and people and stop hiring others to do it for us, the results could be staggering. What if local churches restaffed for the community instead of themselves, believing that if you have been a Christian for a few years you should be leading and equipping in your church and community instead of sitting? What if every local church saw it as an imperative to lead their people into both local and global engagement with the lost on a hands-on level, no matter the size? What if local churches partnered with indigenous churches overseas or churches in pioneer areas in the U.S.? What if every entity in SBC life lined up to facilitate this kind of work, pushing the local church to the forefront of ministry, with the Megachurch serving as a facilitating partner with the other local churches in their area?  What else might emerge that we had not even thought of yet?  We have to put ourselves in a position where quantam change is possible instead of just linear progress. This is all quite doable and I sincerely hope that the GCRTF would consider encouraging us in these options. I believe that such an approach is what the challenges of the future are calling for and an attempt to tinker with the institutions of the past will only lead us to more frustration.

We Need More Cowboys!

Sitting on his stallion, he overlooks a range full of cattle about to begin the long drive to market. The cowboy, that quintessential image of the Old West, knows the days will be long, the trail difficult, and the season, though short, will feel like forever. Yet he embraces the challenge that lies before him, for the sake of the herd, his employer, his family, and even himself.

The Old West means many things in American history. It was a period of time encompassing the latter half of the nineteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth. It was also a location, that huge area of land purchased by President Jefferson in what was known as the Louisiana Purchase and is now known as the area West of the Mississippi River. The Old West was a time of great expansion and growth in USAmerica. It was even a time when many thought we had finally fulfilled our “Manifest Destiny” as we extended our country from sea to shining sea.

It was the rugged, creative, and self-reliant nature of those who moved West that allowed the country to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The West was not a place for those seeking an easy life. It was dangerous and difficult. Some flourished. Others could not handle it. It was full of lawlessness, a much different way of living from those in the genteel East.

The West is where people on the fringe live. They go there because they get to be creative without the reach of those trying to control. This is where our country was changed. It is where our own denomination can be changed.

For the purposes of this article, I want to define the West as any area where Southern Baptists have limited influence in United States, primarily in the West, Northeast, and Midwest.

A Southern Missiology
The Southern Baptist Convention is primarily a regional denomination with continental aspirations. The majority of our denominational mass is found in the Southern region of our country, primarily in the states of Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, North and South Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. 80 percent of churches and 70 percent of the net gain in churches from 1990-2000 were in the South. From a 2002 NAMB report, even though the Southern Baptist Convention is national in scope, 4 of 5 SBC churches are still located in the South. In percentage distribution of SBC churches, the Midwest is the second largest region (11.2%), followed by the West (7.6%), and the Northeast (1.6%).

Let me say it again: The Southern Baptist Convention is primarily a regional denomination with continental aspirations.

What are the implications of this truth?
1. Because five of the six SBC seminaries are located in the South and Midwest, professors at these seminaries are limited in their ability to interact with and do research with those from a non-Southern, Baptist-dominated culture. Professors have a lack of understanding about ministry in the “West”. This can be easily illustrated.

A few years ago, our church brought a professor from NOBTS up to Delaware to help us for a weekend in ministry. We showed them around our area and talked with them about our struggles, issues, and how we do ministry in the Mid-Atlantic. As they made suggestions, those suggestions were made from a purely Southern, culturally-Christian perspective. They could not fathom a developer would not give five acres in a subdivision to build a facility, though the going rate for land at the time was $500,000-$1,000,000 per acre. They used words like RA’s & GA’s and revivals. I suggested over lunch one day that they take a summer or a semester off from teaching and to come and learn how to do ministry in the Mid-Atlantic. It would give them a broader perspective and a greatly enhance their ability to teach. The professor responded that he would love to but Dr. Kelley, NOBTS president, would not allow it. Even on their sabbaticals they could not do that kind of field research.

With very few professors having any extended experience outside of the Southern, Baptist context, they can read all they want, but they cannot teach how to do ministry outside their Southern, Baptist context. Since this is what they know, all these seminaries are prepared to do, with the exception of Golden Gate, is produce little Southern Baptist ministers who understand Southern Baptist literature. (My Intro to Christian Education class at NOBTS literally included a discussion of each of the three SBC Sunday School literature programs.)

2. Students who leave the five Southern, SBC seminaries have to shed much of their Southern Baptist mentality to effectively minister in the “West”. I graduated from NOBTS. I spent 6 years helping start three internet companies in Central Florida after spending a year as a pastor in Louisiana after seminary. I learned more about evangelism and ministry in those six years than anything I was taught in seminary. When my wife and I got back in ministry, and then eventually moved to Delaware, I had shed most of my seminary training regarding ministry. I was thankful, because what I was taught would not be effective in Delaware. New seminary graduates that move to this part of the country to do ministry either shed their Southern, SBC training or they simply will not last. It is a different world.

A couple of years ago, our church planted a church twenty miles South of ours. When the planter was here to be assessed, I told him that he was not to tell people he was a pastor until he had developed a relationship with people, or someone introduced him as a pastor/church planter. I told him this out of experience. When we moved into our house, it was strange to us that none of our neighbors would talk to us. Finally, I was able to strike up a conversation with one neighbor while getting the mail. He told me that the man who sold us our house had gone to all the neighbors and told them a pastor was moving in. A year later, one of our church members was looking for a house and visited two that were for sale across the street from us. We met them and their realtor looking at the houses. The next week at church, the lady said their realtor got all nervous and asked them why they would want to live across the street from a pastor. It took people moving out for us to get to know our neighbors, and some we still have not said anything more than “Hello” to because they know I am a pastor.

Back to our church planter. When he moved in, he had at least six neighbors helping him unpack, and even had his family over for meals. He played the pastor card too early. None of them will have much to say to him as a result. And the church plant never took off because he could not get his Southern, Baptist training and mentality out of his head.

3. Most of the Leadership of the SBC and the GCR have a limited understanding of the “West” because their world revolves around a Southern Exposure. Southern, Baptist culture is different than the rest of the country. The majority of the GCR task force reside in the South and have limited exposure to the “West”. Thus, without a great influence from those in a “Western” world, the recommendations will flow from a Southern mindset.

So What Would We, as the GCR Task Force, Do?
Here is reality. The West and the South are the fastest growing areas of our country. Where are people moving into these areas from? The North and the West. The “West”, as I have defined it, is moving into the Southern, Baptist culture. That will mean a decline of the Baptist, culturally-Christian mindset in these areas. We have actually felt that in Delaware as people are moving from New York and New Jersey. This area has become more like New York and New Jersey in concept in the five years I’ve been here because of the people moving in. So what would we do as the GCR Task Force?

1. We would use Golden Gate Seminary as the model of practical seminary education for the entire convention. They live, practice and minister in San Francisco surrounded by every culture and religion. They know how to do ministry in the coming American culture. They are on the frontlines more than any other SBC affiliated group. They need to be studied and used a model for apologetics and practical ministry in the future.

2. We would spend most of our time in the “Western” areas. We would go and learn in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York, Vermont, and Boston. We would interact with church planters and pastors. We would hold our town hall meetings there. We would talk to those who are reaching “Westerners” from outside the SBC. We would see ourselves as learners and consider that education in our decisions.

3. We would spend time learning from churches and organizations in large, urban areas. Southern Baptists do not do urban ministry well. We are primarily a rural and suburban denomination. Only one of the Strategic Focus Cities could not be called a failure. The task force needs to spend time with Tim Keller in New York, Mark Driscoll in Seattle, Francis Chan, Dave Gibbons, or Erwin McManus, all of whom are in California, or Rick McKinley at Missio Dei in Portland, along with any other groups who are effective reaching people in urban populations in the “West”.

4. We would diversify more. 52% of the American population and most of the members of our churches are female yet there are only 2 females on this task force. In addition, there are not enough people from “Western” areas. Too much emphasis placed on Southern, male, SBC leaders, demonstrates an ignorance of the culture outside of the South.

5. We would have on the task force a “bomb thrower”. We need someone on the task force that is willing to fight to blow the whole thing up and leave the remains on the slaughterhouse floor. We need someone who is willing to risk their career and reputation to say destroy it all and start over or to stand against those on the task force with the larger than life personalities.

If the SBC is going to live again, one of the things it must do is head “West”, learn from the “West” and learn from those who are ministering in the “West”. Otherwise, the Southern, Baptist culture will die on the vine. We need the mindset of the cowboy with his stirrups, sweat and manure, not the Southern, genteel, gentleman plantation owner with his non-alcoholic mint julep.

If we were the GCR Task Force we would avoid “watergate.” You see, we are familiar with “leaking computers.” Well, maybe not leaking computers, but leaking sources. During our time with the now defunct SBCOutpost, read SBC Drudge Report, there were many willing to “blow the whistle” on questionable tactics yet they feared reprisal. Over and again we bantered back and forth about “anonymous sources.” Some pontificated with erudition. In the end the atmosphere was the problem. In an organization, institution, intending to bear the Gospel of Jesus to the world one would assume ethical decisions would run through the ethic of Jesus. In order to move us from the pragmatic and narrow agendas of a few, we would declare an end to secret meetings from the outset.

Rather than offer an expose’ on the countless secret meetings held over the past 30 years, we would schedule all meetings inside a local church building. From the now famous or infamous meeting at the Cafe du Monde to the present hour our history is full of examples of these private meetings. The stakes are too high to undermine the process behind the cloak of secrecy. Sometimes symbolism is as important as substance. We hear much about the Great Commission being given to the local church, then we would plan to meet there. Our history is full of meetings held at airports. Sometimes the outcome of those meetings has been less than profitable.

Not only would we declare an end to secret meetings, we would open ours. We would lead by example. Marty noted in our opening post how we would offer Town Hall styled listening sessions. One is already planned in Arkansas. We would report after each meeting the pertinent details of the discussions. Our goal would be to engender trust where it has obviously been called into question.

Since the horse is out of the barn, we would have selected all members of the Task Force without respect to our friends, we would work tirelessly as co-chairs to listen to input from every member regardless were they among the first group (18) selected or the last (4), whether they served one of our entities and exhibited brilliance or served as pastor of one of our smaller churches and demonstrated common sense, whether we had known them a lifetime or just met. We would hold the floor for those who we selected not showing deference to another who made the GCR motion or was the representative figure head of the “movement.” We would risk underplaying the role of those more prominent members of the Task Force. Too many have made meetings only to discover the decisions were in the bag before the car ride or the plane trip to the appointed destination. Everyone must be valued in the process.

The USA Today article carried a reference to “cronyism.” That should not have been a word Ronnie Floyd or Johnny Hunt need look up in the dictionary. In fact, it is quite humorous we are calling attention to cronyism in the USA Today article but have seen few references to such in our state newsletters newspapers. If there is one thing we know something about in the SBC is cronyism. I was once told to “get a group of my friends together” and “do what we did” when I suggested things seemed our of whack. We cannot do without friends. But, in the task at hand, we need more than friends. We need someone who would draw attention to our shortsightedness, our narrow perspectives, and call us on the carpet when we use our power or position to exert undue influence into a process on which many have staked their future SBC hopes. And, do not begin to think that an overstatement.

We would avoid manipulating the moment. Politicos understand the necessity of trial balloons. Already some form of consolidation between NAMB and the IMB has been broached as a topic du jour. We confess it seems all to coincidental this news comes out now when as noted it is nearly a year in the making. Surely you would understand the NAMB BoT wanting to go above and beyond so as not to be seen as “the problem” with two successive firings. This is not the time to capitulate to the pragmatic, which is our general penchant. We have had far too many instances of entities dabbling in other entities affairs. We need not continue the practice with the GCR Task Force. After all, the Task Force may only make recommendations. NAMB will need leadership, and solid leadership, long before recommendations may be parsed and evaluated by the Convention. We would need to maintain focus on the larger picture of empowering our churches to more effectively, and with resourcefulness, carry out the Great Commission.

We would seek to live out the Great Commandment as we consider carrying out the Great Commission. The Nixon administration went off course. Cover ups became necessary. We must admit running off course began before statistics demonstrated a decline. Our issues run deeper than bus tours and development of more creative witnessing tools. We would certainly want to pray for the process and encourage others. Even more, we would call on each Task Force member and the sum of the SBC to practice Jesus’ call to love one another. Recently SBC provocateur Wade Burleson remarked that he must learn to love the liberal, moderate Baptist among us before he could possibly be considered to know how to love our Muslim friends. And, if that is not enough for some of you, Jimmy Allen has long contended that our love for each other must reach beyond our theology. We have pushed out, preached out those who did not draw our narrow lines. We remain in danger of continuing this practice. Only by committing to the Great Commandment do we have any hope of fulfilling the Great Commission.