Please wait while my tweets load 
Why the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCR) recommendations are good for churches of all sizes
May 03 | Pastor J.D. | 16 Comments |
I have heard the objection that the recommendations of the GCR are great for “mega-churches” that no longer need the help of the associations and conventions, but not so good for smaller churches who are greatly benefited by the local and state associations. It is said that megachurches may be able, by themselves, to plant new churches, and they may be able, without the help of others, to house huge ministries and pull off great events… but these are things most smaller churches cannot do alone. Thus, the size of Convention structures may be superfluous for megachurches, but for smaller churches, it is just about right. Thus, some of the GCR recommendations are good for megachurches but detrimental for smaller churches.
I can understand that objection, and if that were true I would be against the GCR task force recommendations myself. But here is why I believe it is not.
First, the suggestions of the task force come from a blend of both large and smaller church pastors, all of whom have equal voice on the task force and all of which are in support of these recommendations. Second, the objection is built on a false assumption, and that is smaller churches need the large bureaucratic structure in order to network effectively for ministry. I believe that is no longer the case.
The suggestions of the task force do not discourage, in any way, networking or cooperation in ministry. We recognize that churches of all sizes need to learn from one another and band together to do ministry. Cooperation is a deeply held Baptist principle, and one which has helped Baptists succeed in mission for over 150 years. One of the reasons I joined the SBC when I was in college is that it has put me in a viral community of information exchange that has helped my ministry improve significantly. We Southern Baptists love to look to each other for ideas and support. The smaller churches not only need the megachurches in this exchange, the megachurches need the smaller churches. Why? Because our ecclesiology informs us that God places his best ideas not in the minds of megapastors or in anointed Baptist “popes” but in the minds of “regular” Southern Baptists in churches of all sizes. Thus, we need to be networked to each other so we can learn and be completed by each other.
That said, the opportunities for information exchange and network formation have shifted significantly since the SBC was organized 50 years ago. The world we live in is much, much different, and we no longer need the same kinds of Convention structures to facilitate cooperation that we had 30 years ago.
Today, if a pastor is looking for an idea for how to do an Easter service, he can get online and learn what the most effective churches around the country are doing for Easter. He doesn’t need to wait for the Convention quarterly to give him ideas. At the click of a mouse he can be face to face with the best ideas all over the world.
If he is looking for a Bible study to give to his Sunday School/Small Group structure on a particular topic, such as how to set up your personal finances, he doesn’t need the Convention to send him one. He has a plethora of options available to him! And if he is concerned with how well the Bible study fits with his church’s particular doctrinal stance, he can shoot an email out to 5 pastors around the country he knows and trusts and ask them for their input. Or he can simply skim their church’s website and see what they use.
If he is looking for help to start a particularly ministry–say, a college or a womens’ ministry –he doesn’t necessarily need the convention to bring program ideas to him. There are multiple groups around the country that can help facilitate that ministry… he is not limited to only what the Convention provides.
If he is looking for a pastor’s conference to go to, he no longer has to wait until the local or state convention brings one to him. There are so many good pastor’s conferences I want to go to each year that I can only make about 1/3 of the ones I want to go to! And, today, even if you can’t make it to the conference itself, in about 15 minutes you can download all the talks from that conference onto your Ipod to listen to it while you work out. The point is that pastors do not look to (or need, for that matter) the local and state conventions to do those conferences for them.
In fact, most pastors end up going to Pastors’ conferences hosted by some local church they think they can learn from. The most well attended pastor’s conferences are usually hosted by a particular local church or seminary… with the opening of the information super-highway, the ecclesiological world has flattened and we have a much broader resource pipeline into our churches.
If a pastor wants to plant a church, he can network with 3-4 other churches to plant that church. After all, churches are best at planting churches, and churches can and should continue to network with other churches to do so. The most effective church planting networks today are usually comprised of small churches who assist each other in planting. In the most effective church planting networks, it is not the “network” that plants the churches, but the churches in the network that plant the churches, getting support from the other churches in that network. The GCRTF recognizes the primacy of the local church in church planting, and is trying to recognize what God is already doing in our churches.
Our own goal at the Summit Church is to plant 1000 churches in 40 years, and every one we’ve done so far has been in cooperation with other Baptist churches we partnered with on a particular plant.
All this to say, the GCRTF recommendations do not discourage or impede networking, and networking is key for effective ministry by both smaller and larger churches. The GCRTF suggestions simply recognizes that networking is happening, and should happen, in different ways today than it did 30 years ago.
Please note that this doesn’t mean I think that there is no role for centralized convention structures in the future, or that there is nothing unique that they can offer. It just means that they are no longer necessary for much of what pastors of churches (of all sizes) depended on them for 30 years ago.
Simply, we need more specialized Convention initiatives. For example, they can help galvanize work in places where there are no local churches. They can help churches strategize and network for training, theological education, mercy ministry and sending out teams to do those things.
But churches today are simply not looking to them for the same things they did 30 years ago. Just compare the numbers of people frequenting conferences the amount of money being given to various initiatives. We can either recognize that reality and adjust, or we can remain committed to antiquated, inefficient methodologies that are neither necessary or nor effective in advancing the mission.
Inevitably, some Convention structures will have to downsize and realign… and this is no trifling matter. Every pastor has had to do this with a particular ministry in a church, and it is never fun. But Dr. Paige Patterson has often remarked that we have an alarming shortage of qualified Baptist pastors for the 42,000 SBC churches currently in existence, and many are right now without pastors. Many, if not most, Convention employees were originally called to the pastorate. Perhaps downsizing Convention structures will allow some of them to go back to the local church. That could potentially be a great thing… I don’t mean to be callous about the hardship that transition may cause to some, but perhaps in God’s sovereignty it could be for the best.
I am grateful for the Convention and aspects of the Cooperative Program. Because of the CP, I was able to get a first class education and graduate with no debt. Our church currently has 65 members sent out to the international mission field through the IMB. I’m not sure what the exact cost would be to our church for that, but I know it would be in the millions. We have a number of our own college graduates who are going to Southeastern Seminary at a greatly reduced rated, and if the CP wasn’t supporting them I know they’d be begging our church for help (in fact, they still do that anyway!). Furthermore, the North Carolina Baptist State Convention has really stepped up to help us in accomplishing our dream of getting 1000 churches planted. I am very grateful for these things that come from the Cooperative Program.
But there are a number of things CP dollars go to which are no longer the best and most efficient use of missions giving, and, for the sake of the mission, we need to adjust.
The only really central, burning question to me is, “What would Jesus want us to do with His money?” We should remember we are going to have to answer to Him one day for what He gave us stewardship over. I think we should do whatever it takes to get the money to the Great Commission, and most specifically to the 6500 Unreached People Groups in the World. If we do with “God’s money” what He wants us to do, He will handle any adverse consequences that result from our obedience. As Hudson Taylor was so fond of saying, “Those who do God’s work in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.”
16 Responses to “Why the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCR) recommendations are good for churches of all sizes”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe via Email
Pages
Summit Links
J.D.’s Resources
Facebook
Vimeo
This is a great call for state conventions, associations and others to evaluate the necessity of ministries they’ve been involved with historically.
Declining budgets are already forcing the realization (or should be) that there needs to be a shedding of layers in convention life. Everyone can’t do everything. I just hope the downsizing will come willingly now rather than painfully in five years from now.
JD,
Brother, I appreciate your effort to tell us small church pastors how things should work in our churches. While you are correct in that nothing in the GCRTF final report will impede how churches work together, I think it is true that nothing in the final report actually helps the average small church either.
There is a lot that we small churches can do and are doing to do our part of the Great Commission. And it has nothing to do with trying to do things like big churches do.
But thanks for trying to impart your big church wisdom on to us little guys.
Regards,
Les
Les,
I am sorry my post struck you the way it did. It was not my intent. I was trying to write more as an SBC pastor of whatever size church and a task force member rather than as a megachurch pastor.
Summit Church is the only megachurch I’ve ever been a part of… and most of my heritage is in smaller churches. I am hoping that where the SBC is headed is good for all local churches of whatever size.
I have no doubt that I have a lot to learn from you and many other pastors of churches large and small. As we are reminded of all too often, a big church is no more proof of spiritual health and maturity than physical stature is a sign of intelligence or wisdom.
I wish you the best and am grateful for your presence in our Convention.
JD,
I see you have changed the title from “Why the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCR) recommendations are good for small churches,” to “Why the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCR) recommendations are good for churches of all sizes.”
I understand and appreciate the reason you changed the title.
Now, please tell me how are these recommendations going to specifically help Lewisville Baptist Church reach the lost in our town?
Thanks.
Les
Thanks for the post J.D., and all the work you and the GCRTF gave this past year. I believe the Lord has been blessed.
I am a church planter/pastor of a church in Cleveland, OH. Our church is two years old and we average about 100 people in worship on Sundays. I see potential in the recommendations for churches of all sizes.
In our Association, we have one Southern Baptist Church for every 42,500 people. Nationally, there is one Southern Baptist Church for every 6,500 people. We have State Conventions that have a ratio of one Southern Baptist Church for every 2,000 residents. For Cleveland to have just the ratio of church to population that exists nationally, we would need an additonal 221 churches! We also have people from 117 different nations that call Cleveland home. I am not sure how many different people groups they represent. Ohio is the seventh larget state in the union with 11.3 million people, 70% of who do not know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Ohio has 7 of the nations top 100 metropolitan areas, but we only have a total of 700 Southern Baptist Churches.
I see the potential for many of our smaller churches in the SBC to cluster together to help plant churches in areas like Cleveland. Many (if not most) of our new churches will require bi-vocational church planter/pastors, not just for financial reasons, but also for missiological reasons. Our smaller churches across the convention understand this challenge, as many of them are led by bi-vocational pastors. These pastors would be great coaches/mentors for these planters. Many of our smaller churches have very active WMU’s that would provide vital prayer support.
Also, when you are a smaller church (like us), you want to make sure as much of your mission giving as possible is making to the mission field, mobilizing more missionaries and not being used for duplicated administration/bureaucracy.
Certainly, as Dr. Floyd said in the video report, this is just the beginning, but it is an exciting beginning!
Les, Thanks.
I would say that the greatest hope for reaching the town of Lewisville is the Lewisville Baptist Church. All the promises of Matthew 16:18 are given to the Lewisville Baptist Church, and I think you and I can hardly underestimate what God is willing to do when we believe Him.
The local church is God’s plan A for reaching any community. Into the very hostile environment of Acts 2 God planted one church, and when that church was simply being the church God added to their number daily those that were being saved.
God doesn’t change, nor do His methods change. The answer for RDU is not in the Convention, the answer is in the local churches of RDU. We need the Convention for where the church is not.
I hope we will continue to encourage each other to believe God for great things in our communities.
JD,
Thank you for your gracious reply. I agree with everything you said. I believe that we at Lewisville Baptist Church are making progress in reaching our community, although like most, we have a long way to go.
I believe your response actually makes my point that the Final Report of recommendations from the GCRTF doesn’t help the local church in our task at all. I wish it were not so.
Thank you for serving on the TF. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Les
Les, you are right. The primary focus of the GCR report is on the places where Christ is not yet named and no healthy churches exist to proclaim him.
Also, please know that when I say that we can hardly underestimate what God will do when we believe Him, I do not mean to imply that you don’t… I know of your church and its reputation. Like us at the Summit, I know you are seeing God do exceedingly abundantly above what we could ask or think, even in response to the meager faith we put in Him. I hope we can continue to encourage one another in the fight.
Warmest regards to you, and see you (DV) in Orlando.
J.D.
Your observations are precise, discerning and strategic. If SBC messengers fail to carefully consider and act on the work of the GCRTF we will dismiss and discard our best opportunity to retool our structures, reallocate our resources and renew a vision of local church impact for Great Commission purposes in the decade to come.
The SBC has become “top heavy” like every other corporate structure in America and we must recover our mission from our corporate consumption and stagnation. As you so effectively stated the influence and progressive focus on church networking cannot be denied. Nor can we deny that the past decade has seen young thriving SBC pastors using this path for leadership, strategy and personalized program development for the churches they lead. To choose to ignore this is to insure a greater loss and impact than the economic adjustments required to adopt the GCRTF recommendations. While many want to embrace and support SBC cooperation, they will not sustain the SBC corporation at the expense of local and global effectiveness.
It is time to strengthen churches by adjusting organizational alignment, spreading leadership and encouraging the dispatch of some back to local church service. You made an excellent case at this point. This is not to imply disrespect or disregard for personnel but that dollars invested in a multitude of convention programs need to be redirected to our global mandate, church planting and “more specialized Convention initiatives.”
Its curious that the SBC known for, “Simple Church” seems to be struggling to disencumber itself from “Difficult Denomination.” Its time to, “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith…”
I am grateful for your insight, involvement, and impact in SBC life today and for the future.
JD,
Thanks for the piece. I think the GCR recommendations help my church in 2 ways:
1. It allows us to take a more hands-on role in church planting in the underserved regions of N. America.
2. It allows us to see our missions giving direct resources in a stronger way to the areas of greatest need in N. America and the world.
That excites me! Thank yall for your hard work,
Jon
I think Les is absolutely right and his analysis of the Task Force report is spot on! J.D. I have a difficult time accepting your comment that, “the suggestions of the task force come from a blend of both large and smaller church pastors, all of whom have equal voice on the task force and all of which are in support of these recommendations.” The GCR Task Force was not made up of a good representative sample of the SBC churches (84% of SBC churches have 80 members). I would be willing to say that there is not a pastor at all on the GCR Task Force of a church that size – most are either a mega-church pastors, pastors of a church larger than 500 members, or a SBC entity worker (or perhaps both). Once again this GCR is a top down push instead of a ground-up push from the average Southern Baptist. The Conservative Resurgence was the exact opposite (hence the largest attended SBC annual meeting ever). The average Southern Baptist has not heard about the GCR and will not hear about it after the convention. My prediction is that we will see no change that is meaningful!
Michael,
I am really sorry that you feel that way. I think getting more resources to the underserved areas of North America and freeing up 50 million dollars to assist local churches in church planting is a meaningful change.
This changes how average local churches cooperate to plant churches and in missions.
Jon
I really can’t see how the GCR recommendations can do anything but help local churches by engaging our local churches, but large and small, in reaching lost cities all over the world for Christ. I believe dwelling on the question ‘how does this help me/us?’ could be the very same mentality that has caused a disconnect between the SBC and having maximum impact in Great Commission.
I don’t think the purpose of the GCR is primarily to assist local churches in North America where opportunity, funding and support is already maximum. The intent of the GCR is to maximize our spending to increase the flow of the Gospel in areas of the world where no Gospel influence can be seen, not to areas already heavily influenced with the Gospel.
Aaron,
With all due respect, the GCRTF has been very vocal about the recommendations helping the local church to accomplish the Great Commission. My point is that I don’t see how these recommendations accomplish that goal.
Les
Les,
They help churches cooperate together in the Great Commission more effectively by getting more resources to the underserved areas of N. America and freeing up 50 million dollars (plus) to assist local churches in church planting.
If recommendations are followed this will be local church driven.
The recommendations have always been about helping local churches cooperate more effectively in the GC b/c that is what the TF was commissioned to do by the convention.
Also, the challenges at the end give tangibles ways for churches to be directly and indirectly involved in the Great Commission.
Jon
Would you mind linking up Paige Patterson’s thoughts on this issue for a more balanced perspective. I’m undecided as to where I stand, but Patterson’s quotes in this article are used to support something he apparently rejects.
Thanks.