5 Comments »

1. I think the humility and spiritual sensitivity behind this report is certainly worthy of emulation. I think the desire to see churches in our convention to better reflect our commitment to the Great Commission through both our giving and our serving is spot on. May that this be true:

   When ministers see themselves as missional strategists and churches begin to operate as missional strategy centers, releasing and sending our people to advance the gospel regionally, nationally, and globally, we will begin to penetrate the lostness in our world.

   That statement alone is powerful! May that our churches catch this vision!

   I have one question about Component #3. While I understand the rationale behind the recommendation, I wonder what the relationship will be between imb personnel who will then reside within N.Am. and local churches? Also, I would like to think that the evangelization and planting of churches among ethnic and immigrant populations still falls within the reponsibilities of the local church. Now, if imb personnel would serve as catalysts and coordinators of local churches reaching cross-culturally (though not always!!!) within the geographic closeness of their church, thus empowering local churches, then great. But if the imb personnel answers to teams in countries far off and feel they should direct the strategy over local churches, then I feel a trainwreck coming. I guess what I’m saying is that for Southern Baptists to consider supporting this change, more needs to be disclosed and we need to have some healthy discussion. I would love some feedback, if only for my own conscience.

   Humbly, and thankfully,

   Wes

   Comment by Wesley Handy — February 23, 2010 @ 9:43 am

2. This is a great report.

   I did a copy and paste of the official text of the report from the BP site and put it into a MS Word document. Then I added a little “textual apparatus” so I could easily go to each of the six points.

   There is (or was) quite a bit of “discussion” regarding the percentage of funds “passed through” by the state conventions. There was a perception that this would be a major issue that the task force would be addressing. This turned out not to be true but the task force did come out and touch on the subject as follows:

   —– Exact text follows:

   When churches give more through the Cooperative Program and state conventions keep less of it within their respective states, and a compelling unified Gospel vision is cast for Southern Baptists, we will see giving through the Cooperative Program increase in a major way.

   —————-

   In my opinion I think the task force took the right approach. They mention that goal of states sending more to the CP without making provocative statements such as target percentages and/or timetables.

   Comment by Roger Simpson — February 23, 2010 @ 11:37 am

3. Roger:

   That is one of the elephants in the room, and you are right. They did the best they could with it.

   That issue will be addressed over time informally. Churches that like the states keeping large percentages will give through the states. Others will give more money directly to the EC in Nashville.

   Comment by Louis — February 23, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

4. I love the SBC, and had great hopes for the GCRTF. My parayers have been with you since day one. I had hoped for a massive vision shift that would empower small churches like my own to get involved with a renewed focus on the Great Commission.
   Sadly, I must admit that I was underwhelmed. The ideas presented so far will make no difference in the life of my struggling church, and the 100’s of other struggling SBC churches just like us. We have found ourselves on an island in our lost, hurting, community, and we are still there.
   The SBC is dying and everyone knows that. I had hoped the GCRTF would be akin to an emergency heart transplant. Instead, it is a band-aid on a severed limb.

   Still praying – Josh

   Comment by Josh Hamrick — February 24, 2010 @ 10:59 am

5. One thing that I never have understood, and still don’t, is the Byzantine way that states give a portion of CP receipts received from the local chruches to Nashville only to have some of it come back via the NAMB for “jointly funded ministries”. I don’t know why such a construct ever came into being in the first place.

   What advantage does this convaluted funding mechanism supposedly have over a more straightforward mechanism such as the states just keeping whatever they would otherwise receive from the NAMB to begin with?

   It seems to me that the task force is on the right track by recommending that this mechanism be phased out over a four year period.

   Comment by Roger Simpson — February 24, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

Leave a comment