By George Bullard at GBullard@TheColumbiaPartnership.org 

March 4, 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 develop and sustain effective kingdom strategies.

 I am also aware that attempts to renew denominations through restructuring often primarily lead 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 a 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.

 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 30 observations concerning the Great Commission Resurgence progress report.

 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. It needs to be the top priority. 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. The figure 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 the 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 dimensional 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 GCR entirely 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? On the top of page 12 are 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 spiritual principles and a strategic 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 amazingly 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?

 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 also 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 great strategies. That is good.

 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. The committee may not adequately 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. Sponsorship does not necessarily mean geographic proximity. 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 directly 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. With a direct approach ownership for sustainability may be significantly missing so it will be the “Big Bang Theory” of evangelization.

GCR Observation 13: Seven 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 the 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 revising and revamping. 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 the move to competition.

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 the lead role in promoting CP they will control the CP percentage split. Unfortunately this will set up a system for disunity rather than the unity GCR seeks.

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 the last HMB president to create NAMB, and fired the next two. So, let’s give them unilateral authority for missional strategy and $50 million more per year, and they will have the perfect Great Commission 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 Cooperative Program money to the six seminaries over four years since they can survive and provide a theological base while the leadership center provides an 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, state conventions, and associations without a system that requires them to do so. That is unless they operate different in future than they have in the past. They ought to because it is their support base. But, historically they communicate in a parent-child manner. 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 churches and associations.

GCR Observation 20: Cooperative Program promotion. If state conventions have the 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.

GCR Observation 21: Stewardship Education. I am disappointed to see stewardship education linked with the primary denominational funding vehicle. Stewardship education is an integral part of discipleship development as people come to understand kingdom generosity. To link it with the Cooperative Program makes it a part of fundraising and not as much a spiritual commitment. Agencies at the national level such as LifeWay and NAMB need to integrate stewardship education and the development of a generous lifestyle into their discipleship development. That should include the core commitment to tithing and beyond.

GCR Observation 22: Personal Biblical Stewardship. With 2.56% of income given away by average church member, the challenge of personal Biblical stewardship is great. Again, it is why it needs to be an integrative part of discipleship development for all ages. It should be seen as a basic Christian commitment rather than the commitment of a few. This begins to speak into the giving of congregations to missions. Do congregations have the same minimum commitment of at least ten percent of their income given to missional activities outside their congregation?

GCR Observation 23: Great Commission Giving. Wow! What a step towards the death of the Cooperative Program! What an accommodation to leaders and congregations who lack a core commitment to the Cooperative Program.  They want individuals to tithe their income undesignated through their church, but dismiss the idea of churches doing the same to the denomination. What inconsistency! Faithful congregations begin with 10% commitment to basic denominational funding stream, undesignated, and then designate beyond that to places they feel need special attention.

GCR Observation 24: Multiple Funding Streams, Part One. There is a good news side about Great Commission Giving [GCG]. For almost 20 years I have strong advocated for a dozen funding streams for denominations, with their foundational stream being at the core. GCG does acknowledge this, but instead of being a proactive strategy from strength, it is backing into this category from weakness. It is really an accommodation to those who said they would come around to support the Cooperative Program in a more generous way, and have not followed through with that promise. They now want a category that will make them look good. It is not as altruistic and cutting edge as it sounds. It is a compromise.

GCR Observation 25: Multiple Funding Streams, Part Two. The reality is that the Cooperative Program has not been the majority of income for missions for Southern Baptists for around 30 years—a little more for international missions and a little less for North American missions. The special offerings—known to SBC folks as Lottie and Annie—have been for three decades the largest funding streams. I do not know the dates for seminaries, but guess is that they hit this mark 10-20 years ago. So, for a generation of time the Cooperative Program has been moving to the margins of funding rather than being in the center.

GCR Observation 26: Multiple Funding Streams, Part Three. It is true that increasingly people want to give in designated ways. This is a movement whose time has come. Active ways to engage this must be addressed. At the same time the bar that has been moved is that the percentage of church budget gifts to missions—either designated or undesignated—is going down. There is nothing wrong with saying the foundation is the 10% level of church giving to the core denominational fund. Designations should come above that. Sacrificial giving by congregations should move to 20-25% of their income going cooperatively, indirectly, or directly to missional activities. But the standard may be moving the other way for the vast majority of churches.

GCR Observation 27: Seminaries are MIA. Did I overlook it or is the word “seminary” missing from the GCR progress report? If any areas of denominational work need Great Commission resurgence it is seminaries. If any areas of denominational life have the tendency to focus on their institutional nature rather than their missional nature it is seminaries. Any chance the presence of the CEO’s of two of the six seminaries on the GCR committee led to the silence of any need for them to experience resurgence? At least a token mention their responsibility in the Great Commission Resurgence would be appreciated.

GCR Observation 28: Nationalization of Southern Baptists. The GCR progress report appears to focus on a nationalization and centralization of what it means to be Southern Baptist. Yes, the Southern Baptist Convention really only has authority over itself plus its agencies and institutions, and not over state conventions and associations. Yet the report goes beyond that to focus on the primacy of the national convention. It would appear that a basic understanding of the polity and history of Southern Baptists would be in order here, unless the goal is to reimage the polity and set new historical patterns.

GCR Observation 29: The Regionalization of Denominations. At the point of state conventions, the GCR committee needs to understand that the overall trend in North America is the regionalization of denominations. There is an ascendency of regional or middle expressions of denominations and a focus that is shifting away from national bodies. Expecting regional bodies to come in line with national bodies is the exact opposite direction of denominational trends. More autonomy is being expressed by regional bodies.

GCR Observation 30: The Death of National Denominations. The ascendency of regional or middle expressions of denominations is actually leading to talk about the death of national denominations over the next several decades. Particularly when congregations are given the option to send more funding to their national denomination or their regional denomination, it would appear the trend is regional. Certainly various denominational families differ on this trend. Yet national denominations are well advised to have a collaborative relationship with regional and local expressions of the denomination rather than a competitive relationship.