A Great Commission Resurgence? (Part 2)

I realize that many people may never read this blog. That is okay as this blog serves more as a release for me and an outlet for my thoughts. To those who know me, that can be a scary proposition!

I want to continue discussing the GCR Task Force that was appointed by Dr. Johnny Hunt and their mission as I understand it. This group of 18 people (19 if you count Dr. Hunt) represent a treasure trove of wisdom and experience in Southern Baptist life. (And let me state for the record, of which I was previously unaware, that Dr. Hunt announced at a news conference on the first day of the convention that he would name the task force members by the following morning if the motion passed.) In no manner or fashion do I want anything I say or write to be considered as questioning any of these individuals integrity or commitment to Christ. I have nothing but respect and admiration for every one of these 19 people, their families, and the churches they serve and attend. With that being stated, I wish to address some concerns that I have with the GCR Task Force.

There was a lot of talk leading up to the 2009 SBC Annual Meeting in Louisville about the Great Commission Resurgence as proposed by Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Johnny Hunt. I do not think there is anyone who can challenge or doubt the commitment or faithfulness of either of these two men to our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church, the Bible, or the Great Commission. Their record of service to our Lord Jesus and His Kingdom is exemplary. No one wants to be considered as being opposed to the Great Commission, unless they are a liberal or an unbeliever (one is not necessarily the same as the other, although they are usually very close). So with much fear and trepidation, let me continue.

The motion to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint a GCR Task Force was overwhelmingly approved by messengers on Tuesday night of the convention. There was some opposition to the motion, most notable by a messenger who tried to link the motion with a desire to move the SBC in a more Calvinistic direction. He cited the decline of the Primitive Baptist denomination as an indicator of where our Convention would end up if the motion was approved. I could not help but wonder, as I'm sure many others in the room did as well, how this motion and Primitive Baptists and Calvinism could be linked together. (In response, could someone make the same claim in reverse and compare the motion to Freewill Baptists and Arminian beliefs? Enough of that nonsense!) This motion, as stated, was about studying and questioning how our convention, through our agencies, can be more effective in fulfilling the Great Commission. I voted for this motion, because as I have stated in my previous post, I do not believe it is ever wrong to try and ensure that our CP dollars are being used wisely and effectively.

The GCR Task Force is supposed to study and evaluate over the next year how we can be more effective as a convention in fulfilling the Great Commission. The Task Force has not received the authority to make any changes, only to study and possibly make recommendations at next year's meeting in Orlando. Yet it seems as if Dr. Floyd has taken the bull by the horns with his chairmanship. How?

First, he has asked for 5,000 prayer warriors who will pray daily for the committee. I plan to pray for this committee and I would hope that many others will do the same. I plan to sign up as soon as the website Dr. Floyd mentioned is made available. However, Dr. Floyd has used language that seems to place added emphasis upon what this committee is about. He has referred to it as a "critical assignment" (BP article, June 29, 2009). I believe the work of this committee in the next year is very important. I look forward to hearing their report. Yet, they have barely even begun and already it sounds as if some things have been decided already.

At a D.Min seminar and conference at SWBTS on Monday, Dr. Floyd stated several things in regard to Dr. Morris Chapman in regard to GCR (as reported by Nathan Lino on his twitter site, http://twitter.com/nathanlino, which I'm sure is a paraphrasing of Dr. Floyd's comments). Now let me state that I was not at all pleased with Dr. Chapman's "report" at the convention. As a matter of fact, I was shocked at his words and the tone of his words. He had already stated his concerns with the GCR document prior to the convention, but his statements during his report were well off-base, in my opinion. Attempting to link GCR with Calvinism sounded like a desperate plea intended to cause fear and misinformation about GCR. A quick perusal of the team that Dr. Hunt assembled should put those fears to rest!

Now back to Dr. Floyd's statements on Monday. In fairness to Dr. Floyd, I was not at the meeting so I did not hear his stated plans for the GCR team. I'm sure his plans are noble and well-intentioned. What concerns me, however, are his comments regarding Dr. Chapman. He stated that Dr. Chapman works for the churches of the convention (TRUE). He went on to say that Dr. Chapman needs to get on board with GCR and support it and that if he doesn't, then pastors should contact Executive Committee trustees and tell them of their concerns about Dr. Chapman's lack of support. That sounds too much like a threat to me. I believe that Dr. Chapman does not need to be afraid of the GCR committee and that he should be supportive of the committee's work of evaluation during the next year, especially since it was approved by about 95% of the assembled messengers. However, I do not believe that Dr. Floyd needs to make comments such as this in regard to Dr. Chapman. The GCR committee is a "study" committee. They have been empowered to evaluate, study, and report back to next year's convention. They may make possible recommendations, and I expect they will, based upon their evaluation and study, but that has yet to be determined. Or has it?

It just seems like to me that there is the possible perception of an agenda at work here with the GCR committee. Sometimes, these things can take on a life of their own. This issue is not about conservatives and liberals. I really do not believe it is age-driven, either, although that may be more of a factor than I think. What I have heard repeatedly by men I trust and know to be very conservative, is that they are suspicious that the formation of this committee is an attempt to perform an "end-run" around the CP. In other words, they believe that some mega-church pastors would like to have all of their missions giving counted as CP giving. Remember, this is the perception by quite a few people that I know.

I believe that this perception has its roots in the defeat of Ronnie Floyd in 2006 and the aftermath from the Convention in Greensboro. There were many "power brokers" upset that Dr. Frank Page defeated Dr. Floyd. Many people believe, and I am one of them, that one of the main reasons Dr. Page won was because his church gave 13% of their undesignated receipts to the CP while Dr. Floyd's church only gave 0.27%. Again, what each church gives is at it's sole discretion. There is not a set amount that a church must give to the CP. However, many average Baptists did not think Dr. Floyd was the best choice to serve as President of the SBC when his church only gave 0.27% to the CP. Whether that is right or wrong, that was the decision of the messengers in 2006.

Since then, though, there has been a lot of talk about allowing churches to count their total missions giving, as well as their direct giving to SBC agencies apart from the CP, as a part of their CP giving percentage. I could write a lot about this, but let me point you to an excellent article by Dr. Ken Hemphill that appeared on Baptist Press entitled, "Should designated giving be counted as CP?" (http://www.bpnews.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=30619). In a nutshell, Dr. Hemphill states the obvious very succinctly about counting designated missions giving apart from CP gifts as though they are CP gifts. I hope that is not really what is behind the GCR initiative and task force. But it is a very real concern to a number of good people throughout the Convention.

Let me close this post by stating again that I am in favor of the GCR committee and will be praying for them during the next year. I really hope that this is about how we can effectively fulfill the Great Commission. Only time will tell.

In Christ,

Joe