In contrast to the myth that state conventions are bloated bureaucracies, most are actually finding themselves having to do a lot of belt tightening as they seek to serve their churches.

This post begins the GCR Myth Buster series I introduced earlier. Several posts on this topic will follow in the days ahead although I’ll also be posting other items as needed.

As a communicator, I have to say right up front that part of me hates to even talk about the “bloated bureaucracies” myth because simply writing the words tends to reinforce them. It’s kind of like telling a person not to think of an elephant. The mere act of reading those words forces you down that thought path whether you want to go or not. This myth has been so repeated, however, that it’s necessary to deal with it right off the bat in this series of posts.

Of course, the origin of the myth is no secret. When the original Great Commission Resurgence document was first presented, it contained the following statements:

“… our denominational structures have become bloated and bureaucratic at every level, from local associations to state conventions to the SBC itself. We believe our ministry effectiveness is being strangled by overlap and duplication, poor stewardship, and a disproportionate amount of Cooperative Program dollars being kept by the state conventions.”

The statement was probably meant as hyperbole inserted to help make a point. The authors realized the choice of words was unfortunate almost immediately, however, and quickly softened the language. Unfortunately, calling the words back has been kind of like trying to recall a hand grenade. The damage was done and I often still hear the phrase “bloated bureaucracy” bandied about. In fact, it’s kind of taken on a life of its own as one of those phrases associated with the GCR conversation.

The purpose of this post isn’t intended to criticize anyone. It is so easy to get caught up in the moment when you are passionate about a subject and go farther than intended. I know there have been many times when I wished I could somehow reach out and grab the words that just left my mouth before they reached listening ears.

But on to the myth itself. The two operative words, of course, are “bloated” and “bureaucracy.” From a technical standpoint, there’s nothing wrong or inaccurate at all with the second word. Every organization has (and should have) a bureaucracy in that it has rules, systems, policies and procedures under which it operates and people who help to implement its mission within a framework. State conventions certainly are bureaucracies in this sense as are our Baptist seminaries, our international and North American mission boards, our executive committee, our associations and even our churches — especially our larger ones. It takes a level of organization, or bureaucracy, to keep everyone on the same page and moving toward the goal together.

The word bureaucracy has taken on a negative connotation over the years, however, in that the word tends to be associated with excessive official routine administered by a “bureaucrat” who simply applies the rules of his particular department without exercising much judgment. I know that when I hear the word, I tend to think immediately of large government agencies with sad employees loudly applying rubber stamps to large stacks of paper.

This certainly doesn’t describe any Southern Baptist organization of which I’m aware, though. In the case of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, I know from experience that we have some of the most professional, committed, passionate and hard-working Christians that you will find anywhere in the world. A number of our Mission Board staff have come to us from the international mission field and very successful pastorates. They are well-educated, work hard to stay up-to-date on the latest techniques for strengthening churches and do an excellent job of communicating their knowledge through consultations and training conferences. They are always willing to go above and beyond to meet the needs of Kentucky churches, work long hours and travel many miles to be in the churches when they are needed.

The professionals who serve within state conventions do so out of a sense of God’s call even though many could be earning more by using their expertise in a large church or in a secular field. They are people of God who spend much time in prayer seeking God’s will and who are sold out in seeking to fulfill the Great Commission. Their work is that which has been identified by the churches themselves through their elected mission boards as being useful and helpful to keep the convention moving forward.

I suspect these could be said of those who are on staffs of our other Baptist “bureaucracies” as well. People who teach at the seminaries or serve on the mission field or serve churches do so because God’s love compels them to serve Him in this way. We need to be very careful about saying anything that disparages such calls.

The adjective “bloated” is the word that really makes this statement a myth. When I think of this word, my mind immediately goes to something so large and cumbersome that it can barely function anymore. According to the dictionary, the word can also be used to describe someone who is swollen with vanity or self-importance or someone who is overstuffed with rich food.

Even though I have to admit that after this holiday season, this latter description might be somewhat accurate in reflecting my weight gain, I definitely don’t see the application to state conventions. Admittedly, I am not familiar with the details of each but I’m very familiar with the KBC and can say categorically that “bloated” is not a word that should be associated with this organization. And since Kentucky is one of the “old line” state conventions that was in place before the Southern Baptist Convention itself, it is probably fairly representative of state conventions in the South. (It’s even more inaccurate to use the word in connection with conventions in the West or Northeast where a very few employees have to wear a lot of different hats to try to meet the needs of the churches.)

Here in Kentucky, even in the best of times, we only have about 75 full-time Mission Board employees to meet the needs of nearly 2,400 churches. Other part-time, contract or temporary workers are also used to help out but their roles are by budgetary necessity very limited.

When you think about the number of areas in which churches might need consultation or training assistance, there’s not really any fat in these numbers. For instance, the Sunday School Department is made up of one person who receives secretarial support from one ministry assistant. That same ministry assistant also serves the one person on the Mission Board staff who focuses on discipleship and assimilation for the entire state even while he serves as a general church development strategist for one of our regions. Likewise, there is one person focused on youth ministry in our state. One person focused on partnership missions. In my mind, given the importance all of these areas are to church health, having one expert in these areas on a state level is certainly not “bloated.”

And so it goes throughout the Mission Board staff. In fact, the single area with the most employees is Baptist Campus Ministry but that is only because we seek to have a campus minister on each of the major college campuses in our state. Given the importance of reaching college students with the Gospel today and the opportunities that colleges provide us to do international ministry by reaching international students while they are in the United States, this seems to me to be a very wise investment of resources.

Discussing the division of Cooperative Program is a completely legitimate and important process but as we do so, please keep in mind that, at least here in the KBC, we are working with fewer dollars than in the past – not more. In the nearly 12 years that I have been with the convention, CP giving has never matched the inflation rate and we have seen the average percentage of undesignated giving from the churches to the Cooperative Program decline from 9.3 percent in 1998 to just under 7 percent last year. At the same time, the Convention has moved regularly to increase the percentage it sends to the SBC.

And this year, due to the downturn in the economy, the Kentucky Baptist Mission Board is working on a spendable budget that is less than the budget approved by messengers. The number of staff has also been reduced during the past 10 years and, again due to the recession, we have some positions that are going unfilled right now.

In Kentucky, CP gifts through the churches are basically divided three ways. The largest piece of the pie (just over 37 percent) goes to the SBC followed by a slightly smaller slice (36.5 percent) that goes to the Kentucky Baptist Mission Board for its work. Then the smallest piece of the pie (26.4 percent) goes to Christian education and KBC entities such as our children’s ministries, camps, foundation, etc.

In addition to supporting SBC mission causes through the CP, Kentucky churches are also supporting the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board through the special offerings. The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering from Kentucky was more than $4 million this past year and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering was almost $2 million which effectively doubles what the SBC mission boards receive from Kentucky churches.

Every state convention, seminary, national SBC entity, church and individual Christian should always be looking for better ways to serve and to adapt to the missions and ministry needs of the times. I’m grateful to be a part of a state convention and national convention that is willing and even eager to examine itself and do just that.

I’m just not sure that there is really a lot of fat out there to cut. In the end, the key to GCR from an organizational standpoint is not going to be so much in reallocating very limited resources but in recommitting ourselves to giving at greater levels.

Previous Post in this Series:

• Great Commission Resurgence Myth Busting