Review of SBC Great Commission Resurgence Statement

May 8, 2009 – 12:00 pm

I was asked about my perspective on the new effort among Southern Baptists called “Great Commission Resurgence.” There is much to like and be encouraged about in this declaration and the desire that is behind it. Specifically, calling believers and churches to a thorough commitment to the Lordship of Christ, Gospel-centered living, the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, a healthy confessional center and building healthy churches, and sound biblical preaching resonates with my heart. Some of what these descriptions means may need more clear explanation, but in principle, these are calls that need to be made and heeded. (I am not quite sure what to make of the statement on the family-how does this directly affect a Great Commission Resurgence?)

Hopefully time will allow the primary movers of this resurgence to be more specific on some points and that would be helpful. While the idea of leaving room for methodological diversity sounds great, great care must be exercised here. It is naïve to assume that methodology is completely neutral-the Apostle Paul clearly thought that his preaching method was not a neutral matter (cf. 1 Cor 2:1-5). Although it is becoming popular to talk about holding your theology tightly in your right hand and your methodology loosely in your left hand, this is a potentially dangerous mistake. How can one’s theology and methodology be treated as if they are not closely tied together? Shouldn’t our methods grow out of our theological convictions? Knowing something of the diversity which is already present within the SBC (from Saddleback to Capitol Hill!), I sure would like to see something more clear and specific than a general call for diversity.

Another point of clarification that I’d appreciate is at the very center-what is the Great Commission in the minds of the primary movers of this resurgence? Is it evangelism? Is it missions generally? Does it include the newer concept of holistic mission? Where do church planting and starting church planting movements fit into their understanding of the Great Commission? I’ve been around long enough to know that the meaning of Great Commission has become quite flexible and, sometimes, virtually synonymous with “doing anything to advance the gospel” (and what passes for that is mind-boggling at times!).

Clearly, one area of concern for me is the whole issue of convention life and its relation to missions. There is no doubt that there are certain advantages obtained by something like the Cooperative Program-pooled resources, swifter movement of people and resources to the fields, etc. Yet, the reality that shouldn’t be missed is why a statement like this is needed. Have these folks considered the possibility that the very structure of their organization and missionary efforts created the situation from which they have spent three decades pursuing resurgence? By shifting the authority and control of their missions program outside of the local church, they created the context within which convention employees could direct the work of the convention out into the theology wasteland where it went. The Conservative Resurgence has done many great things to restore theological integrity, but we shouldn’t be so quick to overlook all the damage that was done in the USA and around the world.

My concern with this Great Commission Resurgence would be that it is an attempt to reclaim some of what was lost as churches began to focus on their own responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission. It is a non sequitor to argue that diminished giving to the Cooperative Program means less commitment to the Great Commission-unless one wants to argue that the Cooperative Program is the Great Commission. I sure hope nobody is that foolish. Many churches, in the wake of the problems in the SBC, chose to “eliminate the middle man” so to speak. Personally, I think that is a good and biblical thing. And I don’t think it would be a good thing to wrap the Cooperative Program (and thus the SBC) in the Great Commission as a means of strengthening it through increased giving. Hopefully this is a genuine effort to refocus believers and churches on a thoroughly biblical approach to Great Commission ministry.

–David Doran, pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and President of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. Check out his other MM posts.

Previous MM post on Great Commission Resurgence statement.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

  1. 2 Responses to “Review of SBC Great Commission Resurgence Statement”

  2. DD: “By shifting the authority and control of their missions program outside of the local church, they created the context within which convention employees could direct the work of the convention out into the theology wasteland where it went.”

    tjp: So, Dave, could we cross-apply your analysis to fundamentalist churches who farm out their missions responsibilities to such para-church groups as, say, GFA or BMM? Should we eliminate those middle men?

    Just curious.

    Have a good one!

    tjp

    By T. Pennock on May 8, 2009

  3. Thanks for this post.

    I disagree with your concern that the GCR may be “an attempt to reclaim some of what was lost as churches began to focus on their own responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission.”

    The reason for the churches’ shift away from the Cooperative Program was NOT a new focus on their responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission — as if they hadn’t focused on their responsibility before. Southern Baptists view cooperation-oriented missions as potentially just as biblical and just as responsible as single-church-oriented missions. Southern Baptists look at how the Scriptures speak of local churches cooperating together for various causes and see a “theology of cooperation” for missions.

    Southern Baptist churches that move away from the Cooperative Program generally do so not because they disagree with the theology of cooperation. It’s not that they read the Bible and think “our local church can be more obedient by having more direct authority over our missionaries and finances.” They don’t question the idea of the Cooperative Program.

    Rather, they question how the Cooperative Program is being run. Too much wastefulness, poor strategy, too much bureaucracy, too much money stays in the US, too much redundancy among denominational entities — these are the reasons churches are moving away from the Cooperative Program.

    And these are some of the very issues that the Great Commission Resurgence seeks to address. GCR is not a ploy to increase Cooperative Program giving for its own sake. GCR sees the Cooperative Program as a biblically legitimate, highly efficient means of doing missions and seeks to streamline it to better serve our Lord’s global mission.

    By Troysko on May 9, 2009