The Return of the GCR

If I recall my last blog posts were about the GCR. (It has been that long that I do have to strain a bit to remember.)

As a Southern Baptist pastor I am interested in the ongoing conversation about the structure of our convention. As a believer in Christ I am interested in the most effective means to obey the Great Commission.

So I have been following the #gcr twitter feeds.....

To be honest I am confused by what I read. Dr. Floyd refers to the GCR as a grassroots movement of Southern Baptists but I would not call seminary presidents and agencies heads exactly grassroots. But more confusing to me is the giddy enthusiasm and support for the Progress Report. But when I read the report I just can't find any cause for these ecstatic utterances (even of the Baptist variety).

The talk is that everything is on the table. We will do anything to accomplish this task so great. It is time we repent and refocus everything on the evangelism side of the Great Commission. Yet the Progress Report offers a revamped missions statement, new accounting practices and....a redistribution of 1% of receipts to the IMB.

Not exactly storming hell with a water pistol! Or maybe it is storming hell with a water pistol....a very inexpensive water pistol.

I think my biggest concern is that we are asking the Task Force to provide things it cannot provide. If there are bottlenecks and blindspots in the system let's address them. But let us not think we can Task Force ourselves to the next Great Awakening!

I would also add, that while our resources often reveal where our heart is, money is not the missing ingredient to global Spiritual Climate Change. The shifting of dollars will be a result of Great Commission Resurgence not the cause.

With the risk of being considered an anti-Great Commission blogger, I do want to add a warning to my brothers and sisters that we not make the tragic error of counting on denominational restructuring for Great Commission Resurgence.

So may the GCRTF study and recommend. May we carefully consider. But let's also know a water pistol when we see one.

Great Commission Resurgence Fever? Not Yet.

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…..