“Our system is perfectly designed to produce the results we are getting.”

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? Read more…

Following the “Twelve Axioms of a Great Commission Resurgence” chapel message by SEBTS president, Dr. Danny Akin, a movement was born. In June’s SBC meeting in Louisville, KY, president Johnny Hunt recommended the formation of a GCR Task Force to explore how the convention might respond to the ideas presented (reduced to ten from the original 12). Eighteen people were appointed to the task force initially with 4 others being added later (Hunt himself makes the twenty third). Chairman Ronnie Floyd has announced that the first two meetings, both this month, will be held in Atlanta and Rogers, AR. Great things are expected by some, the same old thing is expected by others.

Out of the 4 million committed members of Southern Baptist churches (not the supposed 16 million on rolls), there are 3,999,977 who have not been asked to be GCR Task Force members. Count us among the masses, as none of the writers on this blog are among the chosen. Just for fun, though, we asked ourselves this question: What if we were the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force? Or, at least, what if we were on it? Rather than waiting for task force decisions to be made and follow them up with critique, we decided to put ourselves in their place and see what ideas might be generated.

Our attempt is to be careful to only address what we feel is within the purview of the task force, rather than what only the convention itself can do. This is also something that the convention peanut gallery might do well to remember. The GCR Task Force can only make recommendations; it cannot implement a single change, be it structural or ideological. It can only study, review and recommend to the gathered convention next June at Disney World Orlando.

First, we would read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team before our initial meeting and take its lessons to heart. Patrick Lencioni’s seminal work on the causes of team malfunctions lays a framework that cannot be overlooked. It will not be enough to pray and ask God for things to go well. This team of eighteen have never worked together; some have (or had) never even met each other, yet the expectation is a report that will be nothing short of revolutionary. Without a specific plan to create teamwork on short notice, a lot of time stands to be wasted and the end product could be in jeopardy before the first gathering in Atlanta.

Lencioni argues that the foundational component of any effective team is trust, ergo its absence is the root cause of dysfunction. When the team members cannot have absolute trust in each other’s abilities, motives and efforts it creates a mental morass where healthy conflict cannot take place. The atmosphere becomes, “Oh, that’s a good idea” or “Yeah…,” followed by awkward silence, rather than, “Uhm, that sounds good, but here’s why I don’t think it will work” or “Now that you have trotted that out, I’m going to shoot the legs off of it.” Lack of healthy conflict further manifests itself in a lack of commitment to the end result (which could result in members resigning or being less than enthusiastic about the outcome), an unwillingness to have true accountability and then carelessness about results. When you are not in for a dime, who cares about the dollar?

Trust can be quickly gained if there is a level playing field where no attention is given to ranks, positions and titles. The freedom for meaningful conflict will come when those with “power” (Floyd, Hunt, Mohler, Akin, et al) make it clear that there is no advantage gained and that all ideas will be judged on merit, not on the prestige of the presenter. It will be crucial that Ronnie Floyd and Johnny Hunt facilitate this and we would insist on it.

Second, we would remember just why those calls for live streaming or open meetings exist. There is a trust factor across the convention that the mere reading of a book cannot fix. For the last 30 years, whether valid or not, there is the perception that too many decisions in SBC life have been made in “smoke-filled” rooms, midnight phone calls, or by improper pressure and influence being placed on convention processes. Already there are whispers in the wind that some decisions are set in stone before the task force has even met. Because of these issues, many people now want the GCR Task Force to have completely open meetings and perhaps even live stream the proceedings.

We would not do this, but would proceed in this fashion: we would schedule three meetings that are completely open to any Southern Baptist who wants to attend. (One meeting of this “town hall” style has already been planned.) At these we would schedule 1- 2 hours of open mic with a two minute limit for any attendee to voice concerns or ideas. The task force will have to determine whether any usable ideas are generated, but at least there is a process in place for input. These three meetings and these three only we would live stream for anyone interested in watching online.

The other meetings would be closed. At the conclusion of each we would issue a press release summarizing the topics discussed, but not solutions to be recommended. This would allow the group to have confidence in their ability to have open, honest discussion without being sniped at for every comment made. It would also keep the convention up to date with the process as it unfolds. The final step we would take to help ensure integrity in the process would be to publish the name of every person who attempted to unduly influence the process and the higher up the denominational ladder the person was that tried, the bigger and bolder the font would be when we published the name.

Third, when encountering #IX of the GCR Declaration (A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure) there will be inevitable talk of consolidating or closing seminaries. We would insist that Al Mohler (SBTS) and Danny Akin recuse themselves from those discussions. No matter how diligent an effort is made to avoid undue influence, the issue will not be with the men themselves, but with the impressions given and friendships made among task force members. While in these discussions, it will already be difficult for task force members to avoid thinking, “We need men like this leading our seminaries” and perhaps they will be right in thinking so. That, however, creates an out of balance situation for the other presidents, and thus the other seminaries. Certainly at the drop of a hat a hundred graduates, trustees and supporters could speak as to why the other four presidents are the kind of men to lead those respective seminaries in addition to these the two on the task force. In fairness to the other four and to protect the process, Drs. Mohler and Akin should not be allowed to participate in seminary discussions. Any and all enrollment information, CP support, etc, can easily be gotten from the SBC Executive Committee or the offices of the various seminaries.

Potentially making this matter even more complicated is the Council of Seminary Presidents, the name given when they convene to discuss theological matters concerning the convention. This council has an agreement that when they deal with any matter that requires their involvement, after debate and discussion, they put forth a unified front with whatever decision is made. Our concern would be that the presidents not involved in the discussion might be forced to choke down a cyanide pill under the guise of presenting to the convention a bill of health.

(We do not see as large a concern regarding the IMB and NAMB, since each has a representative on the task force who can provide concurring or contrasting opinions.)

Fourth, we would seek statements from the president of each SBC entity and the chairman of its board of trustees to the effect that, no matter how far reaching any task force recommendation might be, there will be no public criticism or disagreement. This is a matter for the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to decide, not those who work for us. If this or that entity head or trustee board start making statements or fighting the process, it will create fiefdoms that will make medieval Europe look positively communistic by comparison. The politics of the convention are filled with an inglorious history of manipulation and improper influence; the GCR effort is an opportunity to put all of that aside for the furtherance of the Great Commission.

(Further, we would ask every state convention or state fellowship executive director for a similar statement of agreement.)

Fifth, we would do our best to ensure that these discussions are guided by mission, not by dollars and cents (although sense would be just fine). After all, this is about the Great Commission, is it not? But, because so much talk has been generated about “efficiency” there is a danger that many decisions will fall under the domain of “cost cutting” turning the SBC into the denominational equivalent of Big Lots or Goodwill. What should guide us is the missio dei and all decisions should be subservient to that. The mission of the SBC, whether you call it a “Great Commission Resurgence” or something else, should be seen as within the mission of God, not separate and distinct from it. We would be hesitant to make any recommendations that we could not reconcile with the missio dei.

Finally, because there has been concern about #IX becoming the focus of the entire work of the GCR Task Force, we would make sure that every recommendation concerning restructuring was tied into at least one of the other nine points of the declaration, since, arguably, the other nine stand head and shoulders above it in relation to the gospel.