I really appreciate the effort. There are some good statements, reminders, and exhortations in the document. In the end, however, I’m left wondering what it will accomplish? The following are my thoughts as I read through the 26 page document.

1. Under “Reality: What is Holding us Back?” the conclusion is that the reduction of funds is indicative of a reduction in Great Commission commitment. It could be that churches are involved in other Great Commission efforts. It could be that churches are getting directly involved in missions and church planting and investing more of their resources there instead of indirectly through the convention. In other words, just because its not reported to the convention or sent through the convention, does not mean it is not taking place.
2. Under the same heading, the document uses the phrase “push back against lostness” here and in other places. I wish the committee would have chosen better language. We are not called to “push back against lostness.” We are called to live out the Gospel and share it with the lost around us. “Lostness” is too abstract. We are extending the Gospel to people, lost people, unreached people. We are not in a struggle against “lostness.”
3. My favorite statements are in “Back to Basics: A Theology for Great Commission Faithfulness.” The gospel message of salvation in Christ through his atoning death is clearly set forth.
4. However, the same section raises a question for me. Individual congregations are urged to reach their city, country, and world with the Gospel. As the document admits earlier, ministry requires money. So how are local congregations to go about reaching out with the Gospel by sending their funds to the convention?
5. Where’s the teeth? The bottom line is that there are no IMB, NAMB, State, or Associational personnel who are going to say, “My position could really be filled by the local church or incorporated into another position. It would be best for me to step out of convention life.” Neither will any of these organizations slash programs or promotions. The point is everyone involved believes in what he does.
6. Thumbs way up under “Component Four” where congregations are urged to be church-planting congregations!
7. However, right after that great exhortation, the document calls on NAMB to support the churches, then chastises NAMB for sending the majority of its funds to regions with the most churches! If they exist to support the churches so that the churches can plant churches in unreached, underserved areas, shouldn’t their resources be where most of our churches are?
8. Thumbs up on “Component Five.” Missions is no longer national or international. In our global world, those are quickly becoming the same thing in terms of methodology. The sooner we adjust to Muslims, atheists, Hindus, and Buddhists right in our American neighborhoods, the better evangelists we will be!
9. Thumbs up under “Challenges” as the document calls for authentic Christian living and godly families led by godly fathers!
10. However, when it comes to challenges for the churches, the challenge begins to be for the Task Force. They encourage local churches to strategically reach their mission field, then they encourage churches to intentionally work with associations, state conventions, and NAMB to accomplish it. It is clear that as more and more churches become intentional in their efforts to be missional, there is less and less of a role for associations, state conventions, and NAMB to play. The local church should be evangelizing their local fields, and when this happens, there is really not much for convention institutions to do.?.

Final Thoughts.

The document clearly states that the convention institutions are there only to serve the local congregations, however, it has been my experience that the local congregations end up serving the convention. The convention develops a program, promotes it, and then hands it over to the churches to accomplish it. That doesn’t sound like serving to me. That sounds like having churches work for the convention. As with the recent “Find It Here” campaign, interested callers were given convention numbers and cards were sent to convention institutions. Why were they not directed straight to the local church?

As churches in our convention continue to become healthy churches pursuing the NT model, the role of the convention institutions must change or they will continue to prove of no use to churches on the move. I see this as the real rising tension in the convention. What is the convention’s role when local churches begin to function properly?

Also, I want to state emphatically clear that I am a supporter of the CP and the SBC. I am a graduate of one of our fine theological institutions. I lead my church to support all of our convention institutions. I strongly support our offerings for IMB, NAMB, State, and Association. However, local pastors serving local congregations with unique mission fields, unique opportunities, and unique struggles are finding that they don’t need the convention as much as the convention needs them! When those churches are planting their own churches with their own people from their own resources and sending their own children to foreign fields, some through SBC and some through a vast array of other missions groups, what will be the need for the convention if its purpose is to serve congregations?