America is bracing for a vote this weekend on Health Care Reform. No one really knows what is in the bill and the entire process is complicated beyond belief. If you ask most Americans the question, “Do we need health care reform?”, most people would say yes. I think that we need some level of reform to a system that sees premiums continue to go up and up while coverage continues to go down. It is not good for small businesses or for families to continue to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month for health insurance that still does not cover everything, does not accept prior conditions, and that is often not transferable. Who doesn’t think that the system needs fixing on some level while medical costs continue to skyrocket? I have yet to meet anyone.

However, just because you think that the system needs attention because of skyrocketing costs does not mean that you accept the proposals that the Democrats are putting forward. They seem to have taken the fact that most Americans want some level of health care reform to mean that Americans want what they are putting forward, and if they don’t, well, they just don’t know what’s good for them.  I am not going to debate health care reform here. The problem with the bill (whatever it is), is that it is impossible for people to actually know what it says or what it means. Even members of Congress do not fully know what they are voting for or against. The cable news pundits pick up on one detail and say that that is what health care reform is all about. Then, opposing pundits pick up on another detail and try to persuade the public based on their position. In reality, both sides might be right and both sides might be wrong. It is impossible to tell because the attempt at reform is complicated to the point of making it unintelligible. Still, we are going to have a vote and no matter how you feel about the particulars, President Obama and the Democrats are making this about whether or not you want health care reform, which completely misses the point, because you might actually want health care reform, but you don’t want THIS kind of health care reform. Republicans did the same thing on the Iraq War, by the way, by appealing to American’s desire to be protected from terrorists, so I am not being partisan here.

Which brings me to the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) among Southern Baptists. Few would disagree with the fact that our churches, state conventions, and denominational entities are in trouble. Few would argue that declining baptism rates and giving is not a sign of difficult times ahead. Former SBC president Frank Page predicted that around 20,000 SBC churches would close their doors in the next couple of decades if we keep going the way that we are going because of the graying of our denomination (we currently have around 45,000 churches). Everyone agrees that there is a crisis going on. Who would argue that at this point?

So, if you ask the average Southern Baptist pastor or layperson, “Do we need a Great Commission Resurgence?”, is anyone really going to say no? Would anyone argue that we need a resurgence of a passion for the lost and the mission of God in our churches? That would be foolish. But, just because we agree that we need a GCR, that doesn’t mean that we agree on what a GCR should look like. I think that in this situation, taking a top-down approach to the renewal of the SBC does more harm than good.  The changes that have been proposed end up falling far short of what is needed and valuable capital and good will that has been built up through calling for reform is going to be wasted.  What happens in 5-10 years when we find ourselves in the same situation? Will we call for another GCR? Any GCR that does not begin with gospel renewal in the local church is ultimately going to wash out far short of what anyone would consider a success. If we say that we are incapable of bringing renewal to local churches and all that we can do is tinker with denominational entities, then that is the crux of our problem and sidestepping it doesn’t change a thing.

When Southern Baptists meet in Orlando in June, the GCR (whatever it is) will be put forward before the delegates as a vote for the Great Commission itself. Watch the speeches given in support of it. “Do you believe in the Great Commission? Good, I do too. Vote for this. If you vote against it, you are voting AGAINST the Great Commission.” That is not entirely honest, but it is what will happen and it will likely pass no matter what the GCR actually is because the right people will say that this is about the Great Commission and the masses will vote on the basis of which personality is for or against it.  That is how things work at SBC Annual Meetings and people know it.

Here is the truth: Unless we see real grass-roots gospel renewal in our churches, no amount of denominational tinkering is going to make a difference. As a matter of fact, it might make matters worse because it will give the illusion of change when our churches continue to decline.  Does that mean that we can’t be more efficient on a national level? Of course not. There are always things that we can do to make the mission that God has called us to more accessible for each of us. But, unless local churches begin to lead the way, or unless denominational entities begin to really see themselves as servants to the local church, then we will not see a GCR just like current attempts at health care reform are unlikely to make the difference that people really want to see nationally.  Ironically, we already have a system in place in our state conventions and local associations that we can work through to try and bring about gospel renewal in our churches. Creating more systems will do little. The main problem is not our organization (although there is much that could be better about it). The main problem is that we need a heart change in our desire to follow Jesus instead of our own desires. Restructuring without a corresponding heart change will only move problems around to different places while ultimately leaving us in the same position as we started.

So, how do you effect gospel renewal in local churches from a denominational perspective? What could the GCR Task Force have done if they had been thinking grassroots instead of top-down? How could state conventions and local associations play a vital role in this instead of being seen as competitors? The GCR took the microphone last year and had the chance to really call for sweeping change that almost everyone would have bought into, but they went for the easier approach of forced reorganization. What if they had done it differently?

I’ll talk about what those changes could have looked like in a future post, but if you want a preview, read what I wrote last August at Missioscapes.com.