Before speaking to other specific Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations, particularly a new strategic focus for NAMB and changes in funding, these issues need to be put into perspective. We need to put in perspective the relative scope of the Great Commission task and the proportionate use of resources as well as questioning resistance to these recommended changes.
The Great Commission Resurgence has put many into an awkward position. There were many in prominent positions of leadership that did not readily embrace the vision of the GCR, but what can one do? The Great Commission is for the Christian like patriotism, motherhood and apple pie are to the American. Certainly no one would confess being against missions and winning a lost world! An alternative is to dilute the Great Commission to mean whatever we happen to be doing in witness and ministry!
But what has disturbed me most of all is to hear many say, “We are doing just fine, thank you very much; there is no need to study our structure and use of our resources.” However, in a changing world, we must constantly be engaging in a brutal assessment of what we are doing and how we are doing it lest we find ourselves locked into legacy methods and structures that are irrelevant and ineffective. But that is the subject for another blogpost.
Cannot we at least take an objective look at what is happening in our denomination? Is it ever wrong to examine our structure, the use of our resources and the efficiency of our programs? Could it be that there are those whose entity or special interest may be threatened by such a study of realities?
There are those who say we already went through major changes in the mid-90s; there is no need to examine our structure again. Do they not realize how much our world, our society, our churches and our economy has changed in the last 12 years? Besides, what was labeled “Covenant for a New Century” really did not position us for the 21st century. Some entities were eliminated but the supposed streamlining just incorporated those functions into other existing entities. We were told this would make more resources available for missions, but the greatest benefactors in budget increases were ERLC and the Executive Committee. The result was an actual reduction in allocations to the mission boards!
I am incredulous that so many seem to be in denial of the trends. Everyone expresses concern about the 20-year decline in baptisms. When you consider that most of our baptisms are children or re-baptizing people already in our churches or born-again believers coming from other denominations, it is even worse than the statistics indicate. Any honest consideration of results and collective performance of what should be a powerful, spiritual synergy of 45,000 churches reflects we are not effectively winning the lost and making disciples in our own country or among the nations!
In spite of the fact our declining rate of growth has actually tipped to the negative side and the downturn is going to invariably gain momentum, blinded leaders are treating it as blip or temporary aberration. Some seem to actually believe we have 16 million Southern Baptists! I don’t think the New Testament provides an option for the concept of “inactive” or “non-residential” church members. When will we acknowledge we are not as big as we think we are and are getting smaller?
The fact that on the average Cooperative Program giving has not even kept up with inflation for 20 years doesn’t keep some from the delusion that a little more education and clever promotion is going to turn it around. Blaming it on the lack of stewardship on the part of people in the pew is a cop out. Could we not do a better job of focusing on things that would compel greater giving and stewardship? How about actual engagement in the mission of God rather than sustaining a denominational bureaucracy?
There is every indication that denominational loyalty is diminishing. Research reveals that only about half of our churches would be identified as “legacy, traditional” churches committed to the Southern Baptist way, and these are seldom the larger, growing churches. Much has been written about the fragmentation among Southern Baptists. In David Dockery’s 2008 book, Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal, he points out it is no longer a schism between conservatives and moderates but literally 14 factions currently dividing the SBC.
We take pride in being the largest evangelical, mission-sending denomination, but is not the expressed priority and self-identity of being “mission-minded” mostly rhetoric? We are among the lowest in per capita missionaries and mission giving. When we have a structure that results in only two percent of the financial resources of our churches being channeled into reaching the nations and 95% of a lost world, something needs changing…or at least examining!
Praise God for your insight and wisdom. Your voice needs to be heard, not only now, but after your retirement. The next generation of pastors (which I am one) thanks you.
In Christ,
Chuck
Dr. Rankin, I thank you for your frankness.
The need for a compelling vision to communicate to our churches is key. I have pastored my church for 3 years and it is difficult to communicate the vision of the SBC, GBC and local association to my people. All they see of them are the continual requests for money, which they respond to, but I get the feeling they’re not sure why.
I know there are numerous convention, associational workers on the numerous payrolls we have established, but the fact that 45,000 churches contributing millions of dollars can only support 10,000+ full-time (IMB/NAMB) missionaries to reach 6 billion people is frankly hard to swallow.
What are we doing with what we’re giving that would encourage us to give more?
His…yours,
Ken
Excellent description of the crisis that we are in, Dr. Rankin. I agree with all that you have said and I am so thankful that I serve a church that takes seriously fidelity to Christ and His mission. I also heartily agreed with Dr. Akin’s axioms last year and signed my name in support of a GCR. My concern is growing, however, because I don’t see how the proposals put forward by the GCRTF are going to address the problems that you described. It seems as though the GCRTF got us all to agree that we need to address these things (something that many of us have been agreeing with for some time), and now we must accept whatever proposals are out in front of us, even of we sincerely believe that those proposals will not adequately address the crisis. While some may oppose the GCR because they are invested in the status quo, there are others of us out there who sincerely love the SBC and long for a real GCR, yet are coming to the conclusion that this task force is just making proposals that will only exacerbate the problems we already have or ignore them altogether.
Thank you for shining a light on why we need a GCR. My prayer is that we would really have one and not just rearrange the proverbial deck chairs.
Dr. Rankin,
First, THANK YOU for speaking with candor and to the issues not assasinating anyones character. APPRECIATED!
Second, I believe there is a significant aspect of the precipitous decline in your message. You, along with nearly everyone else, distinguish the tasks of Evangelism and Dsiciplemaking. Faal error in language and theology. Evangelism is simply the first phase of Disciplemaking. We have permitted it to function separately; walk the aisle, riase your hand, get baptized etc. Our own SBC strudy recently concluded that less than 10% of those baptized could even be located let alone particpate in any intentinal disciplemaking process that leads to Transformation.
Third, the SBC as a Denomination, like every other Denomination that I work with, is terrified of the attmeptimg to measure Transformation. The reason – it is simply not happening. We do not have a clear and theologically accurate definition of what a Disciple is. That ebing the case, how can we measure progressive sanctification?
Fourth, the ministry I lead has all of the above. I have presented it to Denominational Leaders (sic). The response I received was “Tom, we are bleeding. We need a quick fix.” There is no such thing.
It is possible to change the DNA of an assembly. This requires the loving, strategic, phase specific approach to intentional disciplemaking with objective metrics and honest and uncompromised accountability. Accountability is – - each one helping the other keep the covenants they have made with God on the basis of loving relationships.
I would be more than pleased to share all of this in detail with you or any other personnel that can apply it on ministry so that people are Transformed and Christ is glorified. 803 776 5282 or info@igniteus.net.
Again, thanks for apeaking and for listening.
Tom Fillinger
Pastor SouthEast Community
Columbia SC
CEO of IgniteUS, Inc.
Thanks for the frankness and for providing some G.R.I.T.T.Y. Leadership (see http://www.missionleader.com/?p=746)
Dead on Dr. Rankin. Keep saying it loud and clear. A failure to examine ourselves will have the result of us failing.
What a timely and frankly spoken word. Thank you. Much needed perspective.
Wow! I appreciate your frankness. One of the roles of a leader is to speak the truth regardless of how it is received. I am thankful that God brought you to the position of leadership you have had and hope the man who replaces you will carry on what you have started.
Thanks for response to these insights. The next post will be on “convoluted priorities.”
Tom, this is basic to our problems. After speaking to SBC structure, strategy and funding in the next few posts, I plan to come back to shallow evangelism, subsidized missions (paying instead of doing), and related issues.
I am a non-SBC pastor. I write only to say that I pray God will raise up a clarion voice like this in our own denomination. I am desperate enough that I don’t want to hear anything other than the truth anymore.
Dr. Rankin, I’ve watched from afar, your work, but have never interacted before. It’s time.
The SBC has had something like 16 million people walk down our aisles, join our churches on our terms, place themselves under the authority and responsibility of our pastors, and then mostly disappear. We’re told to give respect to our leaders as to those who must give an account, and I’m afraid that our leaders won’t be able to account for the whereabouts of most of our alleged members..
How can that possibly be called “making disciples”?
We may be evangelizers but we’re not disciplers. I got much more of that as a Prestbyerian than I have as a Baptist. I find very very few people in the SBC who have ever even READ the Baptist Faith and Message, so how could the be convictional Baptists? We mostly seem to know “how we got here”, but not much else.
At the local level, largely in charge of this is pastors trained by SBC seminaries. So if they’re carrying out the Great Commission, where’d the people go? And how did they populace get so un-knowledgeable?
Against all that, I saw not ONE WORD in the report, about the abysmal failure of SBC churches to make disciples of the people God already sent us. Why, I ask, would God want to send us more?
As I said on my blog, the GCRTF, in my opinion, missed the boat. In GRAND style.
There are so many other things wrong, I don’t have the time……
Dr. Rankin,
Solid assessment. I would think every entity should come under the kind of evaluation you describe. Research by the BGCT years ago noted the disproportionate allocation to our PAC (ERLC) after it was “streamlined.” We still have entity personnel told to “spend their expense account budgets” so they do not get cut, even press them to the edge so we can ask for more.
You rightly note the world has changed. Leadership has also changed. We have not paid attention to either.
May God raise up more and more leaders who see the importance of self-evaluation rather than self-congratulation. Thank you Dr. Rankin!
I am encouraged by your straightforward insights and clarion call to real evaluation and transformation for our denomination. I pray your voice will be heard. With all the denominational “heads” speaking out as if the Task Force’s recommendations are a new gospel, it gives me hope that someone with your influence and stature echoes the concerns of so many of us who do not “own” SBC entities or pastor “influential” SBC churches. Please continue to speak truth and call for authentic change.
Dr. Rankin, thank you for these insights.
Alan, I understand that there will be some who don’t believe these proposals adequately address the crisis. The great thing has been that the Task Force is openly asking Southern Baptists to raise questions and concerns, to suggest alternative proposals. Mohler and Floyd have said publicly we may have missed something so please make suggestions. I’d be interested to hear what proposals you think will solve the problems in the SBC and lead to a real GCR. I think the Task Force would as well.
Bob Cleveland,
I agree that discipleship is an issue in the SBC. The report has making disciples as the missional statement for the SBC.
What would you have the GCRTF say about discipleship and our failure in it if you were writing the proposal? I am sure the TF would like to hear it.
My prayer is that the GCR efforts will be a way for us to work together and create solutions that will genuinely address the issues in our convention so we can fulfill the Great Commission.
Michael,
Where did denominational heads refer to these recommendations as a “new gospel?”
It also seems to me that Dr. Rankin is in agreement with the GCRTF report and supports it…
Jon
I would affirm and echo Jon Akin’s appeal. I am confident the GCRTF does want to hear opinions and additional ideas. Churches must feel a sense of ownership of the recommendations if the task force report is accepted and adopted at the convention. We have to help them flesh out the implications even if details aren’t included in the recommendations. Their “broad brush-stroke” report leaves many details to be fleshed out–how is NAMB going to work and be held accountable for an effective missiology? Where will a phase out of the cooperative agreements leave the state conventions? Are the proposals radical enough to generate a compelling missions vision that will enhance cooperative funding? Etc. Etc. I intend to speak to these and other issues and encourage others to as well.
Raise the questions! What is it that the churches want from the denomination?
Dr. Rankin,
Well done!
I certainly can’t speak for all the churches, but above all, I believe that we need a convention-wide structure that does not inhibit the missional activity of the local church, but that encourages it and enables it. I have heard some folks ask the following question: “Why are [in-general] Southern Baptists small-government when it comes to politics, but big-government when it comes to the SBC?”
Its a great question! The premise behind the small government mindset is that centralized control inhibits personal freedom. Could we say that centralized institutional ministries inhibit local church autonomy?
Now, as SBC churches, we have agreed to cooperate in “one sacred effort”. This is great! Because though we affirm that churches should be self-governing, we also affirm the unity of the body of Christ. Even so, we cannot only cooperate in Nashville, Richmond, Atlanta, etc, but amongst ourselves. The GCR must go beyond the convention level, beyond the state convention level, to the local association and ultimately to the local church level–and all the while encouraging cooperation!
So, as we re-center our conventional structure, and rightly so, the question we should have of the GCR report is whether or not the local church is being enabled to serve or being restricted to serve? We must laud the language of the report that affirms the primacy of the local church. Still, we must also consider whether, unintentionally, the various components don’t contradict such affirmations.
Do I have any answers? No, I’m only one person. But I want a convention that enables!
ALERT! THE COMMENT STREAM IS CONTINUING IN SEVERAL PREVIOUS POSTS.
Bob Cleveland and others: There is no question that the foundational issue is obedience on the part of authentic Christians in spiritual vital churches. We are off base in two regards: Jesus commanded us to “make disciples” but we are seeking to “win the lost” and not doing a very good job of it. He also told us to proclaim “the gospel of the kingdom” but we proclaim the gospel of salvation. Result: perhaps saved but not submitted to the Lordship of Christ in which He reigns in one’s life.
However, we can’t wait until we get that right and excuse misplaced priorities and an inefficient structures.
JR said: Jesus commanded us to “make disciples” but we are seeking to “win the lost” Bingo !
What can we do as a denom? I think we will get what we reward and what we reward is what is important to the SBC. Continue to reward churches and pastors simply based on giving to CP, you get some pastors and leaders bending over backwards to give more to the CP. That is not bad but it is not priority either.
If you want churches to engage and take on UPG’s then that needs to be accentuated. Both giving and going are important. But focusing on only one, giving, keeps perpetuating the idea that what is really important is to give and let the IMB do missions on our behalf
I know Dr R and know that is not his view, He has led the way for churches to engage the work. Thanks Dr R. But his view is not the predominant view in SBC life.
Another “What Can the COnvention do?” Do not place the IMB report on Tuesday or Wednesday night at 9:00 PM. Everyone is dead tired and gone. Make it front and center !
Ken, wish I had some influence in the convention program but we get our 20 minutes with everyone else whenever the president and order of business committee says; everyone has to have equal time because all we do is of equal value, isn’t it? Then we have to have all those sermonettes interpreting our theme, not leaving much time to focus on what should be our theme–missions and reaching our world for Christ!
Dr. Rankin,
I read your last post about leadership. These statistics are without a doubt very true. I believe as well that missions will inspire the new generation to stand up and take the SBC into the 21st century. With the right leadership and a biblical focus it will draw Southern Baptist to have a new vision for our convention. Notice I said Southern Baptist. As a former IMB missionary in Zambia and now a Chaplain in the military I know the importance of getting the people behind what we are doing. It is my hope that the Southern Baptist laymen out there who faithfully attend and serve in the local churches will be taught by their leaders how to get involved in the GREAT COMMISSION. Unfortunately, I think we are far from accomplishing this mission. SBC leaders must remember that the decisions being made at the convention must be communicated to the people in their church. Unfortunatley, I don’t see that happening yet. IF we are unable to clearly communicate the vital change in how things are done at the IMB then I think your efforts and the efforts of the convention leadership will be wasted time.
Dr. Rankin,
By the way, I have to say, Being the President of the IMB which I can only imagine what a huge responsiblity that is, and still being able to have a blog and actually answer them is an awesome example of humility and good leadership. Thank you my brother for allowing everyone in this wonderful convention to have a voice. I will be praying for you.
Your brother in the Lord,
Mark Conard
Dr. Rankin,
I want to echo Mark Conard’s appreciation for your effort on these discussions! Kudos! also Kudo’s on the leaders in denial post. I’d comment there, but the string is already long enough!
Your hard work is helping me understand the proposals much better and for that I am very appreciative!
Blessings! Keep up the good work!
Wesley H.
Dr.Rankin,
You are dead on the target, and extremely accurate, We are dying, as a denomination and as a world influence.
In my honest opinion we are looking more and more like the fundamentalist baptists. Im afraid when we had the resurgence we adopted the ways of the legalistic, and have forgotten the Spirit of the Law we follow. I temporarily was in that camp during my spiritual growth, and recognize its pitfalls and ways.
SO Many not only will not see or acknowledge that we are dying, but still continue to ignore the causes of this disease. ONE of which i would like to submit for your consideration,
I made a motion at the Nashville Convention a few years back to see how the waters were on this issue, and the responses from the 7 SBC entities were very revealing, Some time in about 1992 shortly after the resurgence started , the SBC powers that be, determined that Single Adult issues and Married Issues were one in the same issues, AND MERGED THE TWO TOGETHER . THEIR NEEDS ARE NOT THE SAME FOLKS,,,,,and where we had one of the largest and effective singles ministries in any denomination, we now have NOTHING,
We in essence have practiced respect of persons and decided to “NOT CARE” about single adult in our membership, WELL that number in the ADULT general population is OVER 50% now, EXCEPTION: We might do some ministry to the never marrieds in college, but after that ministry is non existent for the most part in SBC Churches. around 25% plus are singles who are divorced , single parents or widows, This is the segment we ignore the most.
HINT: Barna says single parent children are taking notice of our actions and policies towards their parents when the get older.
I noticed your baptism stats, and have followed them for some time on my own, WHATS MISSING, *** Single ADULTS *** HOW CAN we honestly ignore 50 PERCENT of the adult population for some 20 Years now and expect GROWTH ,,,ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY OF THE ADULT POPULATION.
Just the math here is sooooo blatant and obvious, How can we have respect for less that 50 Percent of the population and disrespect for the other 51 Percent and sometimes even contempt for about 25 Percent of the whole complete adult population (Divorced and Single Parents)
In closing, this attitude i see in the SBC reminds me of the Pharisees who held the attitude that : Publicans , Tax Collectors, Harlots, Non Jews, Sadducees. Scribes, Sinners, Barbarians, ETC. ETC. ETC. and all of the “OTHER” lots of “GROUPS” as unworthy of their attention and “Looked Down” upon them. As it was written about them in the scriptures repeatedly.
~ they proclaimed to Jesus in effect ” we have no need of your instructions or help, “we know who our father is” ,,,
We as the SBC are following in their footsteps in so many ways and are truly the Blind leading the Blind.
How long can we continue and survive as a Denomination. ???
My apologies for the Length, My passion over runs me
Gene
[...] accept any and everything as long as we cooperate. Of course this charge comes after Dr. Rankin publicly charged that leaders were living in denial and then calls into question the 45,000 churches with the 16 million members. The churches that [...]