2009 SBC Annual Meeting
The big issue at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville is the introduction of the Great Commission Resurgence. It is a document calling on people to come together around the Gospel. It has some great points, and in general I have no issue with it. However, there is a controversy surrounding the document. The big deal around this document is Article IX, which states:
A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure. We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.
The original copy of this document caused a great deal of angst among those who serve on the State Convention staffs. The feeling is that one of two things are going on here. The first is an attempt to either do away with the state conventions or to circumvent them by encouraging church to give directly to the SBC denomination instead of through the state conventions and the cooperative program. This would force the states to either agree to pass more money through to the national convention or not have money coming into their own financial channels as monies go directly to the national convention. Either way, staff and ministries are cut.
The second thought is that this is an attempt to get more money for the seminaries. It is well known within the leadership of the SBC that the seminary presidents are longing for the convention to take up a special offering for the seminaries just as they do for Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. They want more money.
It is important to note that the cooperative program of the SBC arose in the 1920′s, a period of time when the rise of the progressive movement, which calls for government management in areas of economics and personal choice in the areas of social policies, was growing in influence. It was also a time of great economic upheaval. During this current era of big government and an economic downturn, it appears that the call to restructure the SBC completely is an attempt to become more centralized in policies and economics. Just like socialism cannot solve the problems that frustrate our country, a more centralized structure will not solve the issues that plague the Southern Baptist Convention.
So instead of just issuing criticism on this one point, I want to offer a suggestion on how the SBC could restructure and be more efficient. Here’s my plan. No one will really care, and no one will endorse it. That’s okay. It’s just how I think we need to implement Article 9.
Let me begin by saying that the only real way to make effective change of the convention structure is to kill it. We need to blow up the structure and start over! That will not happen, so here is my alternative:
First, transfer the control of the seminaries to the state conventions in which they reside. For instance, transfer NOBTS to the Louisiana Baptist Convention. The same will the other five seminaries. This allows the seminaries to diversify into Christian colleges where a more integrative level of Christian education can occur. They can offer degrees such as MDiv’s in Global Business or MBA’s in International Missions. This facilitates the second item, which is to…
Transfer Christian higher education to the state-affiliated colleges. There is no reason our state-affiliated colleges can’t offer the bulk of our theological education, particularly MDiv’s & PhD’s. This allows for a more local educational experience, greater contextualization, and the ability to again have a more integrative level of education. State conventions without affiliated colleges could start one, partner with an existing Baptist college as education by extension, or partner with a like-minded evangelical institution.
Third, we should merge the two mission boards. The purpose of the mission boards would be to facilitate church planting in USAmerica and reaching people groups all over the world.
Fourth, shut everything else down. Yep, shut the rest of the bloated organizations down. Lifeway is a profit producing organization and could continue. Guidestone can charge service fees as do all other investment groups and could survive that way. Otherwise, shut everything else down. Items like disaster relief get handled by the state conventions.
This decentralizes the convention. A friend of mine noted to me via twitter that “centralization serves the organization; decentralization serves the people the organization was organized to serve.” I agree fully. Decentralization will reduced the bloated bureaucracy and centers the convention squarely around missions.
The state conventions would send 25-30% of their cooperative program dollars through to the missions agency. The offerings for Lottie and Annie could continue. It would likely result in more dollars for missions, especially with a stream-lined mission board focusing on limited functions.
This would negatively impact the control and power that the current oligarchy would have over the convention, which is why this would not be implemented. It might also cause a reduction in the affiliation of Southern Baptist identity, which would cause angst among some groups.
On the positive side, however, it would make the convention more nimble so that it could react to the changing needs of the culture. In addition, it would prepare pastors better for ministry in the culture, particularly if the education is more integrated and contextual.
The SBC does not need to become more centralized but less if we are going to be more efficient in reaching our world for Christ. Of course, it is a waste of time if we have not fallen in love with Jesus first, but that is for another day.
David,
I was waxing poetic over your proposal until the cyber-pig ate my response. Uggh! In a nutshell, I agree that the SBC is in need of a major decentralization overhaul. Your suggestions are practical and commonsensical, which of course means they will be seen as way too radical to implement! I enjoyed reading your post.
Rocky
Thanks Rocky! I’m sorry for the cyber-pig eating your poetry, I’m sure I would have loved to read it!
Good thoughts. Would that they would get wider circulation.
This is what SHOULD have been in the GCR….details. Saying we’re going to refocus without a plan is like a drunk saying he’s going to stop drinking…without a plan it just eases the conscience. My question is….if we care about the Great Commission…then where is the outrage over the recent IMB cuts?
I’m still for euthanizing it.
David, as you well know, your ideas make far too much sense to be taken seriously by the status quo.
Marty…I know! Thanks for good word though…