As stated in my previous blog, I would like to share with you why I decided to sign the document “Toward a Great Commission Resurgence” even though initially I had strong hesitations. (Those are listed on the previous blog)

All opposition to this document, that I am aware of, centered around Commitment #9. It reads, “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.”

Who could argue with that? Right? But then again, we are talking about Baptists! I read a few articles of opposition from state leaders who were basically saying that the funds in their state conventions were being spent wisely and there was no need for this evaluation. Of course, that may be entirely true for those few state conventions, but why would they not want to make sure there was wise spending across all state conventions? And why complain about transparency?

The most prominent voice of opposition was raised by Morris Chapman who is the president and chief executive officer of the SBC’s Executive Committee. Chapman posted an article in Baptist Press on May 29 entitled “This One Thing I Do.” You can find it at www.bpnews.net. As I understood his position, he was basically stating that the national convention already designates the vast proportion of CP funds to home and foreign missions and the seminaries. So there is no need for this evaluation and restructuring. From his standpoint, the Convention already has these three priorities and they are reflected in the budget of the SBC.

The problem here is that the national level is only one component of SBC relations. There is also the state conventions and the Baptist associations. It may very well be true that the national convention is structured well and rightly spending CP funds. But what if the state conventions need refocus? What if the associations need to let go of some dead programs? The IMB announced the inability to maintain all of our foreign missionaries on the field. So why would we not take a look at where all the funds are going?

Chapman sums up his objections as (1) reorganizing the Convention is a separate item from the other 9 Commitments. Reorganization will not bring revival. If revival comes, so will the funds. [This is true, but wouldn’t wiser spending of resources and focusing of resources to main priorities be good stewardship, honoring to God, and preparation for revival?] (2) Article 9 will be divisive. [Change, or tough decisions, always are divisive to some degree. However, the 95% vote to appoint the Task Force hardly seems divisive. It seems like a mandate.] (3) Southern Baptists already unite around both fronts of missions and theological education. [Yes, but can we do more or be more efficient?] (4) We have not been told what is wrong with the Convention. Why call for a restructure? [Well, actually we have been told that there seems to be overlap between the 3 levels of the convention and that some agencies may be too bloated. That language was actually in the original draft but was edited out for the sake of unity. Also, Chapman himself called for a possible complete overhaul of the Convention in 2004.] (5) More gifts counted as CP dollars will not result in more money for missions. [As Tom Ascol pointed out in his reply to Chapman, the problem is not with the designation of CP funds but with “what happens to them once they leave the churches.”] You can read Ascol’s reply posted on May 31 at www.founders.org/blog.

So why did I sign? Simply put, our convention structures are there to serve local churches, therefore, they must always be open to evaluation/change/revamping/etc. The convention agencies and institutions must come under the accountability of the churches if we are to remain a convention. For this reason, and it is a major one for me, I lend my support to this call for a Great Commission Resurgence.

To be completely fair to Morris Chapman, I do believe him to be genuinely concerned for the convention and the churches. He has stated forthrightly that he would completely cooperate with any requests from the GCR Task Force and that is a very respectable and commendable stance from one who stood in opposition. I just think he had a different viewpoint on the matter.

In the end, the GCR Task Force has been appointed and are set to have their first two meetings in August. May God grant much wisdom, knowledge, guidance, transparency, and direction. May we see our convention maintain conservatism and move forward with a Great Commission Resurgence!