During the interview Baker pursued a line of questioning that brought forth Dr. Dockery’s great knowledge of Baptist history.  Not only was Baptist history examined in an interesting way, relevant commentary was given in light of who we have been as Southern Baptists.  Highlighted in the exchange were stories of the early days of our convention, the purpose for which we joined ourselves together on a large scale and the missions heart of our forefathers.  The interview continued to track the development of our national polity and the ways we sought to work together, ultimately culminating in the development of the Cooperative Program.

Baker moved the discussion along to the present day and queried Dockery about the current state of the convention in light of the Great Commission Resurgence and the ensuing Task Force that he serves.  Dockery discusses much of the context of the Task Force indirectly as he works through the thorny issues of state convention CP distribution.  Dockery fairly describes the rationale for the various distribution levels that currently exist today by relating the levels to the early days of the CP discussion and the needs that existed and continue to exist for state conventions in the SBC.

As I have already commended this interview to you I want to do so again; it is good and I think it will help the vast majority of Southern Baptists understand their history more clearly.

Part of my job as a DOM is to work with pastors on an almost daily basis.  There is more to my ministry than that, but I would rank my relationship with the pastors of NWBA and outside the association at the top of my ministry priority list.  I visit regularly with pastors both inside my association and across our state, and often the topic of conversation, at least since the convention in Louisville, has been the GCR and the Task Force convened by President Johnny Hunt.  In all the conversations with pastors that I have had I cannot think of one time, truly, not one time when a pastor asked directly or indirectly one of the two following questions:  “Are we doing what we organized ourselves to do in 1845?” or “Are we cooperating together today according to the vision of the CP as created in 1925?”

Now please do not misunderstand, I do not believe that either of these matters are small or unimportant.  I stressed above the importance of Dr. Dockery’s historical assessment of the SBC.  What I am pointing out is the very current reality that who we were in 1845 or even 1925 is not a pressing concern for most pastors or their churches.  It has been said that the past is prologue and with this I would agree.  We have also heard that the person who does not know his history is destined to make the same mistakes.  Agreed.  One strategy for determining how we make decisions today about our future heavily emphasizes who were have been and the direction that leaders in our past have charted as a kind of organizational compass to guide our future.  This is not a bad strategy, but in my estimation it is out of step with the pastors that I talk to on a regular basis.

These pastors seem more concerned with determining our future based on two primary principles, Scripture and cooperation,  that I will illustrate through two questions. 1) What does Scripture call the church to be and do in the name of Christ, His gospel and the Kingdom? and 2) What sort of cooperation will help us move toward the future work that we desire to accomplish in Christ’s name and for His glory.  Please note that this second mode of determining how we move forward as a convention of churches is not truly in contradiction to the former.  This mode simply looks to an alternative starting point for the discussion and moves out from there.  One assumes the broad history of the SBC as a people, movement, convention, and denominational powerhouse and the other looks more simply to Scripture, theology, ecclesiology, culture and the reality on the ground in their churches and their personal networks of affinity.

My purpose is primarily to understand where different voices in our convention are starting as they look to the future and our shared life together in cooperation.  One group looks back for a kind of conformity and integrity to who we have been and the best parts of our history.  Another looks more narrowly at the present culture, Scripture and their experiences in Evangelicalism and seeks a way forward that is nimble and quick to respond to a rapidly changing world.  I would advocate a merging of these two perspectives.  We ought to start with our present situation, our best understanding of Scripture and the movement of the Spirit in our midst and begin to explore how we would live out faith and serve Christ effectively in the coming years.  With this as our primary line of reasoning we should regularly look to our past to learn our best lessons and glean the truth that the Lord has revealed to His people over the years.

In summary I want to hear from our past, but I believe that is the wrong place to start.  Most leaders I talk to are not asking where have we been.  They are asking where should we go.  They are not asking “Is my church doing what the churches who began the CP in the early parts of the 20^th century were doing?”  Rather, they are looking high and low for ways to be effective today in a world that will not wait for them to catch up and is not asking their permission to change.  They are seeking ways to embody the eternal, unchanging truths of Christ and His Word in a world that has largely ignored our best efforts to share Christ.

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.