If we were the GCR Task Force, we would wear camel hair suits and eat bugs.
If we were the GCR Task Force, we would wear camel hair suits and eat bugs. Like John the Baptist, the Task Force is charged with the task of issuing the clarion call to leave that which is and conform to that which is best. That which is no longer the religious routine but that which is the Missio Dei, the very Mission of God: the redemption of His creation.
We understand that this is the most powerful role that the GCRTF can fulfill. I say this not because of the prophetic image that John the Baptist casts – and let’s just admit among ourselves that all preachers fancy themselves a modern version of the second Elijah. At least a little.
No. It is not the simple image of John that creates a powerful role for the GCRTF, but it is because they can fulfill no other role that they must become John.
Tasked with calling the bureaucracy of the SBC to a powerful move to fulfill the Great Commission, the GCRTF is the fruit of that same bureaucracy. Calling for the various entities to move, restructure and reform is all that the GCRT can do, since the Boards of Trustees run their respective entities and do not have to conform to the reports, resolutions or votes of the convention.
So the prophetic call is what must come from the GCRTF. There is nothing else.
And it must issue that summons with power and conviction. It must do so with such force that the SBC heeds the call because to not do so would be tantamount to rejecting the Great Commission itself and no Christian should be able to do as much.
With wild hair and a burly countenance, the GCRTF must look the established processes, organizations and people in the eye and expose the semblance of an organization that claims to be about the business of God for all its many failures to actually be so.
More specifically, the GCRTF has to expose the deficiencies of the Cooperative Program and call the masters of the CP to realign it and the organizations it feeds to weed out redundancy, inefficiency, mismanagement and, sometimes, cronyism mixed with nepotism.
I’ll give you just a couple real life examples.
Take, for instance, this graph of the Cooperative Program Distribution of an Oklahoma Church using the CP to partner together for missions. (I use OK, because that is where I pastor.) This graphic was provided to us in our past annual meeting on the book of reports and is available through the BGCO website.
As you can see, for every dollar my church sends to the CP, less than 30 cents makes it to the mission boards.
Assume that half of the IMB’s budget goes to administrative costs, including of all employees’ salaries, benefits, travel expenses and then the exorbitant cost of the Trustee Board meeting 6 times a year. (You could take that money, buy a new laptop for every member of the Board, staff the IMB with an IT team exclusively dedicated to facilitating communications among board members and still save the IMB a couple million dollars annually, I suspect.)
This is not to mention the fact that, even though the NAMB claims over 5,000 missionaries, the vast majority of them are people who are supported in ministry by other means – like several state denominational employees I know that are commissioned as missionaries. Can you really call money “missions dollars” if they are going to support middle management at the state convention? The BGCO has 18 full time staff members who are “missionaries” commissioned by the NAMB and receiving 65% of their salaries from NAMB’s budget dollars.
Bottom line? If my assumptions are accurate at all, just over 10 cents of every CP dollar in OK will make it to the “Mission Field” – international and domestic, things that are actually focused directly on fulfilling the Great Commission. Ouch.
Task Force member J.D. Greear recently expressed a similar sentiment on his blog as he talked about the responsibility of the GCRT:
[Younger SBC Pastors] question whether or not giving money to the Convention is the best use of their resources. They see what they believe to be a great deal of bureaucracy, inefficiency, and activity in the Convention not related to church planting.
Whether right or wrong, most younger pastors will not give to the SBC solely out of a sense of loyalty. They want to know if the Convention will assist them in the fulfillment of the commission God has given to them as church pastors. While some of us are young, arrogant, and naïve, we also have the understanding that we must be more committed to the Great Commission than we are the Convention. If the SBC is an efficient tool in fulfilling that commission, we will use it. If it is not, most younger pastors will discard it.
Fellow Task Force member, Dr. Al Mohler, said in an interview concerning the GCRTF at the SBC in Louisville last summer that churches should hold the SBC accountable. If the entities of the SBC are not doing what should be done, the churches should not send the money.
If we were the GCRTF, we would look the institution in the eye and call it out. How?
We would call for technology to be used effectively to involve more Southern Baptists in the processes of the SBC, including and especially the annual meeting. If we want the SBC to reach beyond the region of the South, then we need to utilize people who can’t make it or can’t justify making it to the annual meeting, the next one to be held in Orlando. We need more ideas and we need voices.
We would call for the streamlining of our entities. These organizations will not fulfill the Great Commission. It is impossible for a denomination to do what was assigned to the body. The entities of the SBC must exist to facilitate the local church doing so. If they are not, they must be retooled to do so or they must be eliminated. This can be done. I am a part of a local association (now called Tulsa Metro Baptist Network) that has done just that.
We would call the churches to get off their backsides. The CP’s biggest problem is that it has taught a generation or three that putting money in the plate is enough participation in the Mission. Member churches need to get involved in taking the Gospel across the street AND across the ocean, and we’d say that loud and clear.
We would call for state conventions to quit hording the monies given through the CP. I’ve heard of one state director who pointed to the wasted CP dollars nationally and said that his convention was justified in keeping so much of the money because he felt they could do more with it there. If that’s true, then I can argue the same logic and say that my church can be more efficient with the money and keep it in our budget.
Which is exactly what we did last year. We went from being a 10% CP/2% Assc. church to giving a (much lower) set amount to the state, designating set amounts to the Lottie Moon Offering/Annie Armstrong Offering in addition to what is raised during the year, and setting aside a large amount for our church’s Missions Administrative Team to facilitate the fulfilling of the Great Commission. We aren’t the only ones, either. The various levels of the SBC will either get out ahead of this or find that the CP dollars disappear before they can right the ship.
We would call for the end of repetitive Trusteeships. If we are going to reach the world, we need a lot of ideas from a lot of people. Trustees who serve for decades (as Texas pastor Bill Sutton will have done at the end of his term – 20 years!) create a shallow pool of ideology that stagnates creativity and limits vision.
We would call for the full disclosure of all budgets and salaries from all entities. Churches need to know where their contributions are going and if there is anything of which the organizations are ashamed to fully confess to the churches, then it is obvious that it needs to be righted.
I’ll conclude by reminding us all that John the Baptist lost his head over the call he issued.
I pray that the members of the GCRTF will be strong enough to risk calamity and the end of their stature among the established processes, organizations and people in order to prepare the way for God to use our little SBC culture in His plan for the world’s redemption.
This is all or nothing for the SBC. If the GCRTF isn’t able to reflect John the Baptist or if they are unwilling to lose it all to fulfill that role, then I fear their impact will be slight.
God, give them power.
I really like these thoughts Art! Good suggestions. If the national convention needs to be responsible for how they spend their money, the state conventions do as well. As do the associations and churches.
There should be term limits on trustees. If there are more than 16 millions (cough, cough) then sure there are enough people to serve on trustee boards rather than have guys server 20 of the last 24 years. Honestly, that’s just idiotic and political.
With the coming evangelical crisis, entities will have to shed things. You offer some good challenges as to how this can be done.
Dead on Art. I agree. Getting the trustees of these entities to give up money and power, that will be something I doubt will happen. You are right that the churches need to get off their backsides and quit giving the task of the GC over to denom. agencies. Paying others to do missions on the churches behalf does not work.
Art,
You nailed it. I’d be happy to sign my name to ideas like this any day.
We have fallen for the lie that giving to the CP equals participating in the Great Commission. False. It means that we send a check to a far off entity that most of our folks don’t care about. In this day of social networking, that makes no sense. Our entire bureaucracy and cooperative program is from a bygone era and makes no sense in a connected and networked world.
The waste must be cut. If the entities won’t cut it, you’re right, the churches will cut it for them. Waste in the churches needs to be cut too. I’m a big proponent of that as well.
“Trustees who serve for decades (as Texas pastor Bill Sutton will have done at the end of his term – 20 years!) create a shallow pool of ideology that stagnates creativity and limits vision.”
Priceless
Art,
There is so much we could do to be more effective, more faithful. Great suggestions!
I agreed strongly with just about everything you said. Having said that, let me focus on one area at which we have a disagreement.
You said, “This is not to mention the fact that, even though the NAMB claims over 5,000 missionaries, the vast majority of them are people who are supported in ministry by other means – like several state denominational employees I know that are commissioned as missionaries. Can you really call money “missions dollars” if they are going to support middle management at the state convention?”
I am an Iowa Baptist. Our Exec, Jimmy Barrentine, has worked hard to pare the staff and keep it functional. No dead-weight at the BCI office, as best I can tell (and I was an officer for several years – worked closely with these guys). At BCI, they don’t even have a janitorial service. They just clean up after themselves. What an amazing concept.
We have to pay for Jimmy’s upkeep, but our other staff members are generally NAMB appointees and missionaries (one is supported largely by Lifeway).
I cannot see why Oklahoma or Mississippi or Florida would need NAMB appointees on their boards. I suspect that state agencies could fund their own work. But in Iowa, NAMB is a lifeline. We depend on NAMB’s funding and rely on its help to get our work done.
I think that people in pioneer states like Iowa may feel differently about NAMB than people in oldline SBC states.
But we are wary of streamlining NAMB. You might well eliminate much of Baptist work in pioneer states if you are not careful.
I’m not defending the status quo at NAMB. We get really mad here when we think NAMB does things that are unwise – that’s because we need a healthy, functioning NAMB (or something like it) as Baptist work in Iowa gets established.
David,
I am with you, as I am in Delaware. If we lost NAMB funding, it would kill our state convention and our associations. If that happened, we would cut by 1/2 what we send to the CP to make up the difference (at least).
I would think (and I’m not putting words in Art’s mouth) that Art would primarily be talking about state conventions like OK where “18 full time staff members who are “missionaries” commissioned by the NAMB and receiving 65% of their salaries from NAMB’s budget dollars”. That doesn’t include any associational staff that are considered NAMB appointees that also receive funding.
What I think Art is describing is the case where a couple moves from OK to Pittsburg to be campus ministers on a college and have to raise their own support. However, NAMB considers them missionaries, despite the fact they get nothing, not even benefits.
I think that is a big problem. NAMB has supported OK folks in the state convention. That’s a lot of money that could have been used to fund church plants or ministries outside the SBC sub-culture. NAMB’s mission has been confused and it is a duplication of efforts in some areas.
BINGO David.
Yeah, what David Phillips said. I can’t speak for Art, but that is likely what he is talking about. As for Alabama, lots of good work happens here. You can justify all of it as good, most likely. But still, when you have 4 million people, 66 state missionaries, 80 associations, and over 3000 churches, you end up with lots of redundancy. Money given for missions stays in the state to do work that the local churches should be doing. So, it goes on and on.
Local churches need to step up with action, not just with giving to the CP.
I think I can safely speak for Art…
While I still struggle with the idea of calling state convention employees Missionaries, I think you have a much stronger argument for such in frontier areas as you say.
My biggest problem is that NAMB presents the number, 5,000+ missionaries, and people are left to conclude that we have over 5,000 people fulfilling the role they traditionally consider defined by that term. The picture in their head is someone out among the people of a certain area 24/7 attempting to engage them in order to share the Gospel.
That’s not what is happening. The people receiving the money may do good work, even essential work. In fact, I assume that they do. Nevertheless, calling denominational employees “Missionaries” is not equitable to calling IMB M’s serving in Afghanistan seeking to reach Muslims by the same name.
It lacks “truth in advertising,” you know?
Thanks for speaking Art…
In Delaware, our Missionaries get 75% of their support and benefits through NAMB…thus they are called missionaries. Though they are state hired, they are primarily NAMB funded, thus the name and they have to actually go through NAMB appointment.
Not saying it’s right, just saying it is and that’s how it works…
Art,
“I think I can safely speak for Art…”
Unless you have been authorized by the local church, no you can not [wink].
Dude, that’s funny.
Jumping from NAMB to IMB, while the latest restructuring at IMB has streamlined the Richmond office, there is still lots of redundancy, wasteful spending, top heavy administration, and bureaucracy at the Affinity and Cluster group levels. When are we going to remember that kingdom work is done at the lowest person to person level. If any administration is needed, and some is, it’s only reason for existence should be to directly facilitate ministry, whether in Iowa or Uganda. Can every State Convention, NAMB, IMB, Seminary official justify their position by saying what and how they contribute to SBC churches reaching the lost? If not, they need to be relieved of their responsibilities and sent to Iowa or Uganda.
Jim-
BOOM!
@Jim Palmer
Definitely. I alluded to it in the article, but that is what Tulsa Metro did. They cut loose all of their entities to stand on their own feet, reduced staff to a minimum and recently sold their building (highway widening project made it easy and profitable) to reduce overhead. The money from the sale of the building (a lot of money) went into a fund that will be used to resource churches doing ministry – as does all our money beyond essential staff and the small offices we rent from a local church.
We have three piles of money and a team overseeing each pile made up of the pastors and laymen/women of the Network: Church Planting, Church Strengthening (partnering to help fund church initiatives) and Staff Support/Leadership Development. All focused toward the churches. Nothing outside the churches.
This can be done. The question is and will be… Do “we” really want to do it?
Now that is kingdom focused, kingdom driven, and kingdom results oriented! What kind of leadership would it take to redirect our national SBC institutions to facilitating kingdom work through local churches (and their missionaries)? Or do we have to wait till apathy and frustration squeeze the life and funding out of them forcing change.
I will be off line for a couple of weeks. No internet in the jungles of Central American. Keep Writing!
Interesting discussion. It’s exciting to see the passion that has been generated by the Great Commission and the ensuing conversation about denominational entities at all levels. I think that if this conversation helps us become re-energized about the mission Jesus gave us all, it will have been a tremendous blessing.
I am especially pleased to see the conversation beginning to move toward practical and helpful ideas for making things better. Art’s suggestion about great use of technology to empower more people to be involved is one that needs much more attention. Technology is already playing a huge role in this discussion but I agree that there so much more that we can do.
I won’t try to respond to everything but I do want to address some of the concerns that have been expressed about state conventions. I obviously can’t speak for everyone but as the communications director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention I am familiar with the KBC and can attest that you won’t meet anywhere a more hardworking or committed staff of Christians who have a strong passion for the Great Commission. These are folks who are working many hours each week in either direct ministries or in ministries that help to strengthen churches so that they can be effective in their own local ministries as well as strong supporters of SBC causes. I am aware of those who took pay cuts in leaving churches to come to work for the state convention but did so because they felt God calling them to serve here.
Discussing the division of CP resources is a completely legitimate and important process but as we do so, please keep in mind that many state conventions are actually working with fewer dollars than in the past – not more. In the 11 years that I have been with the KBC, Cooperative Program giving has never matched the inflation rate and we have seen the average percentage of undesignated giving from the churches to the Cooperative Program decline from 9.3 percent in 1998 to just under 7 percent last year. At the same time, the Convention has moved to increase the percentage it sends to the SBC.
This year, due to the downturn in the economy, the Kentucky Baptist Mission Board is working on a spendable budget that is less than the budget approved by messengers. The number of staff has also been reduced during the past 10 years and, again due to the recession, we have some positions that are going unfilled right now.
Every state convention, seminary, national SBC entity, church and individual Christian should always be looking for better ways to serve and to adapt to the missions and ministry needs of the times. I’m grateful to be a part of a state convention and national convention that is willing and even eager to examine itself and do just that.
Robert,
Thanks for the comment. I don’t know if you realize that I served in KY for the better part of 12 years (with a brief mission trip to North Carolina in the middle), and some of your co-workers at the KBC are my close personal friends.
That is how I know that the job they are doing is important and that they do it well.
My complaint is not with the people serving in state conventions, but with NAMB commissioning them as “Missionaries” and intimating that they are doing similar work as those who go by the same name serving overseas.
It’s not the same job, and if NAMB is going to fund it (I’m not arguing for or against that at this point) they should call it something else.
It is not that they aren’t Missionaries, either. They are, but in the same sense of the word that every believer is to be.
Also, and lest I be rightly accused of waffling on my position, I must say that I still believe that the Great Commission will not be fulfilled by a denominational entity of any size, regardless of the lack of waste or fraud.
As clean as it can be, it is still not the individual believer on God’s mission in the context of a local body of believers.
To whatever degree the denomination (whatever level or function) facilitates this, it is good. To whatever degree it attempts to duplicate, replace or control/direct this, it will and should fail.
@Art Rogers
Thanks, Art. Yes, I remember and appreciate your service here in Kentucky. I couldn’t agree more with your statement that the Great Commission must be fulfilled by local churches (and the individual believers in those churches)and not pushed off to a denominational entity. I was talking to a pastor this morning who said he had stopped having an “evangelism team” at his church because he was finding that members were beginning to act as if it was only the evangelism team that could do evangelism. He said he transitioned this team to one that was given the responsibility of helping to equip all of the church members to be doing evangelism.
That “equipping” of the local church is one of the chief functions of our Mission Board staff and I think our role is clearly borne out by our staff vision statement: “As a servant team, empowered by Jesus Christ, we work with Kentucky Baptists in fulfilling their God-given mission.”
Likewise, the mission statement for the entire Kentucky Baptist Convention (the collective group of churches) reflects this as well: “The mission of the Kentucky Baptist Convention is to assist Kentucky Baptist Convention churches and ministries and associations in connecting all people to Jesus Christ.”