A few weeks ago, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force released their report. The response has been varied, from overly enthusiastic to actively opposed. It was last June with high hopes that our convention voted to authorize the GCRTF in Louisville. I and over 90 percent of the convention voted in favor of it. Many thought, “Now we can put divisive politics aside for a moment with our debates over Calvinism, Mark Driscoll and boycotts, for the purpose of rallying around the Great Commission.”
Doug MizeIn the game of basketball, the most exciting type of offensive play is the slam-dunk. It is also the easiest shot to make. In Louisville, the GCRTF was a slam-dunk for our convention. But now, as Orlando arrives, many Southern Baptists are raising concerns and engaging in spirited discussions about the recommendations of the task force. Suddenly it’s not a slam-dunk anymore. Why is that?
First of all, early momentum was lost with the makeup of the committee. All members are great people of faith but seriously lacking in diversity, with the 15 original members chosen by Johnny Hunt dominated by megachurch and entity leaders. This task force was white, male, and Southern, with only one on the original team currently under age 50. There was only one woman appointed – and she is married to a megachurch pastor. The diversity of the task force was questioned immediately after it was named. After intense pressure, five more names were added to fill a few gaps. One was a young African-American smaller-church pastor – but from Hunt’s own church. Another woman was also appointed with ties to the West Coast, but she was on staff with Ronnie Floyd, the chairman appointed by Hunt.
Many task force members have been a part of our top leadership in the past decade as our baptisms have continued to decline. Why would they be the only ones to “right the ship” without more representation from non-insiders? Currently there are millions of Baptists who are involved in small- to medium-size church ministries. It is possible one reason the task force recommendations aren’t quite the slam-dunk the members were hoping for is many Southern Baptists cannot identify with those on the committee. A more diverse group representing the majority of Southern Baptists would have given our convention more confidence in the recommendations.
The second factor for growing uncertainty is what some have referred to as the “Greensboro Incident.” In what was viewed by many as a questionable move, Hunt appointed Floyd in Louisville instead of allowing the committee to elect its own chair. Hunt’s friendship with Floyd is well known, as four years ago he nominated Floyd for SBC president. He promoted him at the Greensboro Convention, despite knowing Floyd’s church was giving less than one-half of 1 percent to the Cooperative Program. Floyd’s record of giving to the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings was also meager. Many Baptists, including younger ministers, made their way to Greensboro to get involved. They voted pro-CP, and Frank Page received double the votes of Floyd, winning on the first ballot. The primary reason for this outcome was not solely because of Page, but the belief by our convention that our president must model cooperation in giving. Last year, Hunt told an Arkansas newspaper that the SBC “really shot themselves in the foot [in Greensboro]. We still got a really good man – but Ronnie got blindsided.” Not everyone agrees.
What we do know with the GCRTF report we now have is Recommendation 3, which creates a new way churches can be credited for designated giving other than CP. This new additional way of being credited does not add one penny to what is received. Most churches designate extra giving to all kinds of wonderful ministries in the SBC, but they do not all feel the need for more affirmation for it. Some pastors seek election to convention office without supporting CP. For those leaders, Recommendation 3 in the GCRTF appeals to them because, if passed, CP will not be the only way pastors and churches are publicly affirmed regarding their giving. For the second time in four years, Hunt and Floyd are involved with a CP showdown with our convention.
A third factor is something I call “cooperative confusion.” As Southern Baptists, we are not confused about the fact that our relationship is built on our willingness to cooperate together, for we know where CP came from and what it does. Yet, in recent years there has been a tug-of-war for those who generously support our work together and those who do not. Many in our convention have held high CP loyalty, and others have argued for a different understanding that goes beyond CP. All the talk and debate has become confusing for many Southern Baptists. Certainly the newest verbiage of the recommendations seems to say some nice things about CP. Nice talk does not change this radical proposal, however, because the “teeth” of Recommendation 3 seeks to give CP a new rival, one that will be attractive to those who seek credit for designating gifts. Unfortunately, this report further muddies the waters concerning our cooperation.
If Recommendation 3 passes, churches should gear up for increased solicitations from SBC causes, as our entities will compete for funds. This only adds to the confusion. Some will benefit, to the detriment of others. For instance, larger seminaries with larger alumni bases will have a distinct advantage over other seminaries. Right now, the wisest SBC entities should rev up their marketing strategies so they can convince more churches why they should give money to them and not to others. Some already have a head start.
Every once in a while you will see a basketball game where a player misses a wide-open, uncontested slam-dunk. Then people say, “How could you possibly miss that?” Instead of coming with the excitement of a slam-dunk centered on the real Great Commission, we are now faced with a battle in Orlando, a half-court heave at the buzzer. Although I am planning to support some of the report, I am afraid we missed a real opportunity. Instead of building bridges with unity and clarity of purpose, we now have a “squaring-off,” precisely what we did not want when we authorized this group. This brings disappointment to those who desired better things from a group with the sacred title of the “Great Commission.”
– Mize is minister of discipleship and evangelism at Taylors First Baptist Church.