Matt. 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make-disciples (matheteusate) of all the nations (ta ethne), baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Specifically for the SBC, what is the Great Commission and its resurgence with regard to what the SBC does?

Should it focus on resurging the work of currently established churches in encouraging their “making disciples”?

Should it focus on making a more efficient work of “missions” in new church plants and current missions (NAMB, IMB)? (I.e. lessening administration and maximizing ground level, boots and shovels work on the field)?

The lessening baptism stats come from the established churches. Do we have the baptism numbers from the missions work (of the past few years of the NAMB and IMB) separated from those of the established churches? Are they declining? Are we expecting too much from them?

If the GCR is all about resurging primarily missions work then we should see if the NAMB and IMB work is working in its present structure in its missions work. Judging their work by the established churches’ decline is not quite fair to them.

However, if the resurgence is about ALL of the SBC (not just the missions agencies and their administration) then we need to get an High Def picture of where we are as a convention.

The following information would be needed to get a baseline diagnosis for a proper prognosis for future prospects for action.

(1) Demographic of reasonable congregational ministry area in which a congregation can exercise a discipleship-focused evangelism/ministry.

(2)Demographic classification of current congregational makeup according to ethnic, economic, and regional location factors

(3) Theological education of SBC ministers. Do we even know how many of our pastors have any theological training?

(4) Continuing theological education of SBC ministers, especially those who do not have any training or who have been years and decades out of college and seminary and have not been able to go or do not realize that theology affects practice (or do we actually believe that?).

(5) Cultural awareness of SBC ministers especially in relation to current and changing demographics. Would it be helpful and more effective for ministers to become aware how the culture of the “nations” around them are changing at a quantum rate? E.g. How does Twitter and its impact on behavior habits affect youth ministry?

Just some questions. How do they undermine?

David (NAS)

If that is true, that you were talking to David (not Adrian’s son) Rogers and not to me; then I apologize for the confusion and the statement I made.

David

It may be that the “David” addressed by Paul is me.

Paul,

How did the current system get bloated and fat. Is it possible that it is because people didn’t ask questions?

Just wondering how questions undermine and complicate.

David (Not Adrian’s Son)

You statement to me is not true, nor is it well received. Do you know my motives? Do you really know why I asked these questions and made these statements?

You are not the Holy Spirit.

David

There is a better known David Rogers who comments in the blogosphere. He is Adrian Rogers’ son.

I am not him.

I’m sure he would not want any of my “blathering” and “balderdash” to be attributed to him.

David Rogers (Not Adrian’s Son)

All of the specific strategies can make claim to advancing the general goal.

It is indeed a noble goal to “get more money to the mission field.” But what will the specifics be? What is the “mission field”? In one sense it is where lost people are. That’s everywhere. Is it places where there is no “Southern Baptist” work? But what if there are other evangelical churches in the area? Should the criteria for measuring “mission field” be explicitly named and should it be expanded to take into account the presence of other evangelical congregations or should we be so “Southern Baptist” vision-oriented that we evaluate the “mission field” only by that criterion?

Does making the “Great Commission” defined in terms of “Southern Baptist-ism” lessen its actual “biblical” meaning? Just a question for reflection, not necessarily a provocation for expanding debate.

Getting “more money to the mission field” can mean all sorts of things. It can mean new funding and strategies for already existing work. It can mean funding and strategies for absolutely new work. When there are finite resources some receive and some do not. Will we abandon works that are not delivering “numbers, numbers, numbers”. Will we continue to fund only conversion rates of one a year? How would the success of Southern Baptists of the past be measured by current criteria? Would Lottie Moon be considered a success in the first years of her mission and receive continuing funding if the criteria of today had been the measure? Was her cookie baking a “Great Commission” strategy that preacher boys would affirm?

Will the SBC move in the following direction?

Immediate quantitative church growth typically occurs in “new plants.” Will the GCR focus on only “new church plants” or will it also address ways of revitalizing “established congregations” exciting them to resurge for the Great Commission and reach the lost where they are (who are also a “mission field”)? I’m not providing the answer with my questions, I am raising the questions to make us all aware that the taskforce’s presuppositions of what the Great Commission is and should be will concretely shape what is done.

I raise these things only to introduce the ideas that all is not so simple when it comes to money and strategies.

David

I was thinking that the GCR was all about getting more money to the missionaries…to not have so much beaurocracy…to not have so much of it stay in the state conventions, etc. But, to get more missionaries out there in N. America and around the world.

I mean, that’s what we were told by the people promoting the GCR. That our SBC is declining…it’s baptizing less people…that too much money is going towards buildings and employees of the SBC and state conventions….so, we must study streamlining and tweaking and changing some things in order to get more money to the mission field…to get more missionaries out there starting more Churches.

Now, you are saying things that I have not heard about the GCR. This is exactly my concern with the GCR. I voted for it. I’m all for more money getting out to do more missions…but, if the money is gonna go to “motivational dvd’s” and “training seminars” and such, then we are wasting much money and time with this GCR, IMHO. That’s not what I was led to believe that it was.

I do hope that the task force will not come back with anything less than tweaks and changes that will get more money to the mission field.

David

I’m saying it is about that in general desire, but the very nature of institutions which propose programs and policies and set budgets then concretize that general call of “starting more churches and “winning more lost people to salvation” through specific means which are heavily shaped by the presuppositions and assumptions.

One could say that the way to have “Great Commission Resurgence” is to fund hundreds of crusade revival meetings in every state, and the claim would be isn’t that “winning more lost people to salvation”?

Others might say that since the key is for the local church to do the “resurging” what we need to do is fund motivational Discipleship Training DVDs and workbooks for small group studies to fire up the churches.

Others might say the key to resurgence is to have motivational training events for leaders and funding needs to go toward that.

All of these ideas and others still can use the rubric that their specific programs are about “starting more Churches and winning more lost people to salvation.”

The people who are firmly against the GCR movement program say that the current structures are about “starting more Churches and winning more lost people to salvation.”

We have to define and tease out what we mean by these concepts. We all use them but have different strategies for implementing them. Virtually all denominations (even the liberal ones) could make claim to that phrasing. What they actually mean and do about it is vastly different.

A new taskforce will proceed with its own presuppositions, maybe awares or maybe unawares. We will see how introspective and prospective the taskforce will actually be.

David