“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?

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.