By George Bullard at GBullard@TheColumbiaPartnership.org 

February 2010

Will the Great Commission Resurgence Plan, if Adopted, Be Effective, Or is it Strategically Naïve and Historically Ignorant?

I have been a member of a congregation affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention all of my life. I worked in Southern Baptist denominational positions for 30 years. I am currently serving the larger Baptist community as General Secretary [executive director] of the North American Baptist Fellowship of the Baptist World Alliance. As such I favor the increased vitality and vibrancy of all Baptist conventions and unions.

I have consulted with 50 different denominations in North America and Europe. I am currently finishing a book manuscript entitled Real Denominations Serve Congregations. My observation of what makes for effective denominations is broad and deep. I have been one of only a handful of consultants whose primary focus has been denominational organizations.

I am fully in favor of a deep commitment to fulfillment of the Great Commission. Emerging from this commitment is a desire for any denomination that seeks to transform to do so with the most effective possible kingdom strategies. Few denominations in the past several decades have been able to establish and sustain effective kingdom strategies.

I am also aware that attempts to renew denominations through restructuring often primarily leads to preparation for the next restructuring. For Southern Baptists the mid-1990s saw the Covenant for a New Century. Some of the most significant changes impacted what is now the North American Mission Board [NAMB]. NAMB is now the primary focus on the Great Commission Resurgence. The two presidents of NAMB since its formation have been terminated. The agency has not met the expectations Southern Baptists have had for it.

Is the Great Commission Resurgence progress report a new spiritual and strategic direction, or an effort to restructure the denomination that is likely to be short-lived and lead to the next restructuring within ten years?

I do not know. I do know if it is a new spiritual and strategic direction that it can stand the test of strategic scrutiny. To that end I offer my first 20 observations concerning the Great Commission Resurgence progress report. More will follow.

#GCR Observation 1: Defining “Together”. I would affirm the spirit of the committee's assignment--"how Southern Baptists can work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission." The challenge is defining "together", determining who defines "together", and if the definition of "together" is broadly owned and a centered set of actions, or narrowly owned and a boxed set of actions. The diverse, postmodern world requires the former.

#GCR Observation 2: Church Planting vs. Church Transformation. Heavy emphasis on church planting is on target. For a mature, large denomination to have a successful church planting strategy it must also have a strong, assertive church transformation strategy for plateaued and declining churches who are ready for transformation. It is a strategic dance. It is churches in need of transformation who will be the primary funders of a church planting movement--or not if they are ignored and marginalized.

#GCR Observation 3: Lostness Figure. 258,000,000 is really big estimate of lost and perishing. Figure we once used would put this number between 170,000,000 and 190,000,000. What happened? Did the definition change? What is the current definition? Would it pass scrutiny at a gathering of the Southern Baptist Research Fellowship? Or, did we lose the doctrine of eternal security or adopt a stronger doctrine of the elect?

#GCR Observation 4: Local Association. As I read report I was looking for references to the “association” entity. There are a few. Mainly incidental references; mentioned in a list. Few congregations will pay for a three-tired denominational structure unless they see high value in each dimension. What is the future of associations in the GCR plan? What role will associations play in new emphasis on cities? Or, will that be a direct strategy?

#GCR Observation 5: Pastor/Churches as Missional. Of course! This should be a goal for all ministers and congregations. Now, how should missional action be correlated? In a distributive or networked denominational system, which SBC could become, where is the initiative for creating the synergy necessary for the best kingdom impact? For example, in cities what is the role of associations in this regard?

#GCR Observation 6: Strategy or Strategic Framework? Top of p. 12 asks some very good questions. However, should they lead to a national strategy or a national strategic framework? I would suggest that the most effective strategies will be locally-owned, custom-made, and open-ended. National entities should have principles and a framework that support these rather than a national strategy. National strategies, even seven regional strategies, may be too close to a "one size fits all" approach.

#GCR Observation 7: Missional Vision. In Component #1 the great missional vision of GCR looks amazing like the goal of Bold Mission Thrust. Good news! Our overall mission has not changed. Same news! The denomination wants everyone to do it. Same song! If you are loyal you will buy into it. What has changed from 34 years ago when Bold Mission Thrust was established? What is new and different about the Great Commission Resurgence that offers a passionate journey that will be effective? Thoughts? 

#GCR Observation 8: Kingdom Value. It is very important to say more on p. 15 about how GCR suggests SBC join with other Christ-followers for their missional efforts. SBC has traditionally wanted to go it alone. When we join with others we want to be in charge. How will this work? Working with other Baptists in North America has even been a challenge; even though some are more conservative and evangelistic than SBC.

#GCR Observation 9: Church Planting/Reaching Cities. Component #2 calls for priority on planting churches in North America and reach cities in the USA. [I guess this is a mistake. I assume GCR is interested in cities in Canada.] About Canada: is this one of the places we will reach out to kingdom partners like the Canadian National Baptist Convention and Canadian Baptist Ministries? Since church planting and reaching the cities were high priorities in Bold Mission Thrust, it is good to see them in the GCR report also. Apparently they were and continue to be good strategies.

#GCR Observation 10: “Direct” Church Planting Strategy. Dig deeper into Component #2 and you will find reference to NAMB “implementing a direct strategy for planting church in North America”. This is the place that first inspired me to characterize this report as strategically naïve and historically ignorant. Meaning the committee does not understand denominationalism. I will have to think through for a while how to put my ideas into writing. I will probably post a longer note for this.

#GCR Observation 11: Churches Planting Churches. This is a strong part of Component #2. Churches should plant churches and not the denomination. Three churches at a minimum should be directly involved in sponsoring, mentoring/coaching, praying for, financially supporting, provide resources, and, if it is appropriate, providing people—at least temporarily. One congregation is the lead congregation and the other two are supporting congregations learning how to proactively sponsor a congregation in ways that give the new congregations wings to be all God calls them to be.

#GCR Observation 12: City Reaching. I commend the strong focus on reaching cities. I find striking the naïve thought that this can be done direct from a national strategy and stand any chance of understanding the complex systems of the city so that the true unchurched and preChristians can be reaching. Ownership for sustainability may be significantly missing so it will be the “Big Bang Theory” of evangelization.

#GCR Observation 13: 7 Regional Offices. How will the creation of seven regional offices for NA Mission Board not result in adding another layer of denominational structure? PC-USA Presbyterians are studying doing away with such super-regionals as they have lost their purpose and function. How will super-regionals keep from actually replacing state conventions in newer convention areas? By the way, I found it interesting the report referred to “pioneer” areas or conventions. I believe term went out of use 30 years ago in favor of “newer convention areas”. I know the old “Pioneer Missions” department was eliminated at least 30 years ago.

#GCR Observation 14: Cooperative Agreements/Budgets. With 20+ years experience with Cooperative Agreements/Budgets, I would be among the first to say the system needs revision. But, it does not need eliminating. Does GCR adequately reflect the value of both direct and cooperative missions? Does GCR understand difference between a conforming, a competing, and a collaborative denominational system? Before cooperative agreements we had a competing system between national and state, and a conforming system regarding associations. After cooperative agreements we moved towards a collaborative system, but never got there. In the past couple of decades we have move back towards a competing system and it would appear this action will institutionalize it.

#GCR Observation 15: State Conventions. State conventions are called upon to “manage their budgets accordingly” when they lose national cooperative agreement funds. They will. They will adjust Cooperative Program percentage to replace what they feel is essential. With lead role in promoting CP they will control the CP percentage split.

#GCR Observation 16: North American Mission Board. Let me see if I understand. HMB/NAMB has become increasingly dysfunctional over the past 20 years. SBC organized around 1 president, and fired the next 2. So, let’s give them unilateral authority for missional strategy and $50 million more, and they will have the perfect GC strategy plus the wisdom as to what projects to fund. How will the necessary transformation in the ability to lead a North American strategy occur over the next four years within NAMB. Is it just the matter of the correct presidential leadership?

#GCR Observation 17: Leadership Center. I can affirm a national leadership center for church planters and equipping church leaders for missional action. I would add a component on transformational pastors. I would fund it by phasing out CP money to six seminaries over 4 years since they can survive and provide theological base while center provides effective ministry base. We need more effective ministry preparation with appropriate theological reflection. But seminaries cannot provide this. They provide theological preparation with appropriate ministry reflection.

#GCR Observation 18: People Groups. Of course! Part of a global missional approach must be an affinity and/or people group strategy. We share the Gospel with people; not territory, However, to say this is the exclusive initiative of international missions may not be wise. This is, in fact, one argument for a borderless, singular missions agency. One part of the impossibility of this is that current the North American missions agency functions as a denominational organization, and the international missions agency functions as a parachurch organization. Their nature and functioning are clearly different.

#GCR Observation 19: Missions Agency Communication. This is a place where GCR is definitely strategically naïve and historical ignorant. The North American and international missions agencies will not have adult-to-adult communication with one another, the state conventions, and associations without a system that requires them to do so unless they operate different in future than they have in the past. They ought to be because it is their support base. But, historically they communicate with a parent-child relationship. A strength of state conventions is a check and balance on both. It is a check and balance on unbridled direct missions that runs over the integrity and autonomy of other entities.

#GCR Observation 20: Cooperative Program promotion. If state conventions have lead role in promoting the basic missional fund of denomination, and lose the cooperative funds from the North American missions agency, they will adjust the percentage of what stays in state and goes to national to compensate. The loser will be the national denomination. Further, is GCR saying that the primary national recipients of funds from the basic missional fund—Cooperative Program—are off the hook and no longer have to promote it? That is a step towards the death of the Cooperative Program.