Comments on: If We Were the GCR Task Force, We Would Head Back Home Where We Belong

By: Van Richmond

Van Richmond — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:04:37 +0000

Suggesting that seminary training be brought back to the local church has a tremendous surface appeal, but what will the end product resemble? A significant number of issues and potential outcomes must be carefully considered and evaluated: the qualifications of the local faculty; recognition of the programs by accrediting agencies, ongoing recertification processes for the local church/association/state convention; funding of the programs; and ultimately, will the percentage of “graduates” who remain in the pastorate beyond five years be any larger than we currently have? Has an exhaustive study been conducted to determine why the former pastors are leaving at such an alarming rate? Seminary graduates typically leave with exorbitant student loans, often to accept a position that will offer a minimum salary, and many leave denominational work because they cannot adequately support their families while meeting financial obligations.

By: don woolley

don woolley — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:19:49 +0000

This is excellent and entirely applicable to us United Methodist. I very much share these sentiments. Thanks.

By: Grady Bauer

Grady Bauer — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:45:54 +0000

I was told that I was cynical for linking the GCR to finances….but I think it’s true. It looks like we’re doing something by having the GCRTF but we’re much too fragmented as a denomination to make any significant changes. I personally don’t think we as a denomination are as heart broken over the GC as we are heart broken that we’re losing significance in the US church scene. And the reality is, with that significance goes the money.

By: David Phillips

David Phillips — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:34:43 +0000

Grady Bauer :
Our main decision comes down to WHEN we will make drastic changes. We can choose to make these changes now and create momentum or we can wait until we’re in deep water and make these changes…it’s got to happen…the question is when.

Grady, note the calls for change did not come until two things happened. First was the decrease in baptisms and membership (our SBC superiority is on the wain) and a decrease in money (and by some entities, a longing for more of the pie). I hate to sound all Rush Limbaugh here, but what I think we are really seeing is the Rham effect: never let a good crisis go to waste. Money will be the driver in all of this...my prediction.

By: Grady Bauer

Grady Bauer — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:22:01 +0000

David,
Great post! You’ve given me a lot to think through and process. Our main decision comes down to WHEN we will make drastic changes. We can choose to make these changes now and create momentum or we can wait until we’re in deep water and make these changes…it’s got to happen…the question is when.

I agree that we’re going to lose identity which will freak out a lot of people and we’ll also lose control over so many things…which will definitely freak a lot of people out. The coming days will be interesting to see if anything actually comes out of the GCRTF.

By: David Phillips

David Phillips — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:42:38 +0000

Grady, I think this is a great question. The real answer will, like all of our convention entities, revolve around money. There would probably be a great need for an organization to facilitate the church as missionary concept. What I mean by this is a group to help with VISA issues and other issues involved with developing an overseas presence legally for the church. It might be helpful, though not, required to have some sort of presence in regions of the world for something like IMB.

As for NAMB, that becomes a bigger issue. The convention has given NAMB 9 distinct (I think) charges. Those would have be dissolved I think. If you turn church planting back over to the churches (or state conventions), then all that is at issue is money, much of which the churches or state conventions could then keep to facilitate church planting. In essence all you would then be supporting in a small organization to facilitate oversees missions (not do overseas missions).

If you combine that with churchasseminary, you could really reduce the need for a lot of things the CP pays for, money could then be used by the churches to glocally impact the world without the need of a bureaucratic organization.

That would be a huge decentralization. It would also potentially deconstruct the entire convention. The convention might possibly lose a lot of its identity. I’m not saying that’s bad or that is good. The implications need to be considered.

By: Grady Bauer

Grady Bauer — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:15:33 +0000

Great post. I like your thoughts on church as missionary. With this in mind what would you do with NAMB and IMB.

By: John Elam

John Elam — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:32:11 +0000

Great post Alan,

I especially like the part about using a weakness of our convention (small church attenders moving to large in attendance churches) as a future strength through non-financial cooperation.

Makes me think that you should be a GCRTF member.

By: Monk-in-Training

Monk-in-Training — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:06:33 +0000

I am not Southern Baptist, but I follow this blog. Alan, you mentioned a statistic that shocked me:

“80% of the 10,000 students currently enrolled in SBC seminaries will not be in full-time ministry in 5 years”

Can you expand that a little for me? What does that mean? Were do these men and women go?

By: Todd Littleton

Todd Littleton — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:47:58 +0000

Alan, Len Sweet offers some new metrics of success for the Missional, Relational, Incarnational church in his new book on the church, So Beautiful.