I must confess I have yet to catch the Great Commission Resurgence fever.
In fact, I am a little confused by first document and second by its attending hoopla. Now, to many that may simply reveal my limited passions and intellect. It may also reveal that I am not part of the “official” SBC blogosphere.
My first confusion is that when I read it, I do not notice anything new. I would hate to think that there are a wide number of Baptist churches and pastors that have suddenly been introduced through this document to the Lordship of Christ or the importance of the Great Commandments or that our churches should have a healthy commitment to the Great Commission and Biblical preaching. Other than a vague (and timeless) statement that we should “seek to do things better” I am blind to the paradigm shift that has the SBC web a-flutter.
Some of what I hear in this discussion is the all too common tendency that is in all of us to think, “if I were in charge everything would be different (when I say different I humbly mean incredibly better)”. There is a bit of an antiestablishment energy to the debate. For better or worse what I read has the quality of a disgruntled opposition party within the denomination. (Opposition may be a bit too strong a word, but disgruntled seems to fit pretty well.)
Which I find ironic because the Great Commission Resurgence is the ultimate SBC insider document. Crafted and promoted by the SBC President and various SBC agency heads, we now know it was trotted out before a gathering of a group of “pastors of strategic churches” for final approval before regular Baptists were given a chance to sign their affirmation. This strikes me as “reform by the usual suspects”. Aren’t these the very folks that have been holding the official and unofficial reins of SBC leadership for some time now?
My greatest frustration with the GCR is that it too closely identifies the Southern Baptist Convention with a three day meeting in June and denominational agencies instead of with than with what happens the other 362 days in communities across our nation. It is not about denominational structure, it is about the churches. Keeping the conversation at the denominational and structural level allows us to flex our theoretical and rhetorical muscles without always doing very much where it matters most. I find it revealing with all that has been written about the GCR, at the time I write this there has been one lone response to Tony Kummer’s question at SBCVoices concerning churches that our currently living out the GCR. As long as we discuss blueprints we don’t have worry about the rubber hitting the road.
To be honest there is nothing specific in the document that I disagree with. There is also nothing specific enough in the document that excites me. I simply don’t see what all the fuss is about.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled pep rallies for the Great Commission Resurgence…..
Posts
3 comments:
Right on, my brother! I've felt the same way since the hoopla began a couple of years ago. All I can figure is that the SBC wants to take the "Battle for the Bible" to the next level, and at least say so in print. The fact of the matter is that winning the controversy over biblical authority hasn't produced the numbers of baptisms that the SBC was hoping for (though, hopefully, we'd agree that those numbers could be abysmally worse had the biblical authority issue not been addressed). That may be due to a lack of evangelistic zeal, a more sincere approach to baptisms (not so easy-believism), a greater challenge to postmodernity, or more, but the emphasis from GCR hasn't changed my approach to sharing the gospel and yet God has seen fit to lead our church in more mission trips and greater giving and praying and lives surrendering to Him. Thus, the biblical authority issue demands a Great Commission approach, even if it doesn't look like what the SBC wants it to look like. Keep blogging!
Joel Breidenbaugh
If we sign it, we won't have to do it. :-(
I haven't signed it either although I want to, but I remember that in 2000 with the blueprint for a new century or whatever it was called, the same kind of over the top enthusiasm has produced not just no noticeable effect, the indicators show a downward trend.
Now the Trustee chair for NAMB is saying to join NAMB and IMB into one big board. I think much of it has to do with restructuring rather than repentance and evangelism.
Tim, glad I found your blog. Boy, do I wish I could go on a long run with you and discuss this on the road. Oh well, that's life. I do see it a little bit differently and did sign it myself. I agree with Tom that a major focus of it is on the need to restructure the SBC entities, which is what Dr. Chapman strongly objects to in article 9. (it was a much stronger statement in that regard until it was watered down) I think that are state and national level entities are bloated and taking up fewer and fewer dollars that should be used in direct Great Commission endeavors. When you see that only about 2% of all CP dollars given last year made it to the IMB, to me that shows signs of needed adjustment in our structure. I don't think it needs to be scrapped, just refined. Also the GCR document addresses the fact that there are many different ways that we "do church", all of which are valid as long as we all come together in agreement around the fundamentals agreed to in the BFM(2000). As a final point of strong agreement, there are definitely many pastors in our Convention, some that you and I are both familiar with, who are anything but good expositors of God's Word. Sorry to voice a little disagreement with you on my first response, but I do love the discussion. God bless you, brother! Best wishes on getting back to running as well!
In Christ,
Ben
PS: wow, I just realized I disagreed with Joel...I may have to completely rethink my position :)
Post a Comment