I had the privilege recently of hearing Dr. Ronnie Floyd, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, speak via Internet connection to the annual workshop of the Baptist Communicators Association in Chicago. I really appreciated him sharing his heart for reaching the lost and for helping Southern Baptists take a careful look at the ways we are seeking to fulfill the Great Commission. Dr. Floyd is obviously a man who deeply loves the Lord and he and the other members of the task force have certainly been given a huge challenge to help cast vision and direction for the Convention.

Dr. Floyd’s presentation followed by just a couple of days a meeting that he and several other members of the task force had with a number of state convention executive directors, and he talked about how the committee had been carefully listening to Southern Baptists since the release of its progress report in February. He reiterated that the progress report was just that — a progress report — and I came away with the feeling that there might be some changes or adjustments to the final report. I have no way of knowing if this is the case or if any possible changes will be wording adjustments or substantive modifications of the original recommendations in the progress report.

I do have a wish list, though, and here’s what I would love to see:

Allow greater flexibility for NAMB in strategic planning with state conventions.

Cooperative agreements are essentially the written guidelines that the North American Mission Board have with each state convention that spell out how the organizations will work together and share expenses in the effort to reach the lost and serve churches in the areas covered by the conventions. Each agreement is somewhat different, which takes into account the needs and goals within each geographic area. For instance, in the “old line” Southern state conventions that originally formed the Southern Baptist Convention, joint positions are typically funded with the state convention picking up the majority of the costs while in the new work state conventions, NAMB may cover the majority of the costs. In Kentucky, for instance, the state convention picks up 60 percent or more of the costs of jointly-funded positions with NAMB covering the remainder. This is just for those positions that both organizations agree are needed to help reach common Great Commission goals. The agreements are thorough and clear.

The progress report recommended phasing these agreements out within four years as a way of freeing up funds for an intensive church planting effort focused on the larger cities of North America. The idea for strategic focus on church planting is a good one and it is in making recommendations for broad strategic direction that I think the task force best serves Southern Baptists. I’m not real sure that it really helps to try to get overly specific with the details, though.

Much has already been written about the devastating impact that ending cooperative agreements will have on state conventions, especially those in the new work states. I am also concerned about the impact the loss of the agreements will have on NAMB. None of NAMB’s current assignments were eliminated in the recommendation so I am assuming this means the organization will be asked to carry on with those responsibilities in addition to adding the church planting initiative. Eliminating cooperative agreements will mean that NAMB will lose a substantial portion of the force it currently counts as missionaries at a time when expectations for progress will be rising.

I would prefer to see the task force recommend goals and establish strategic direction in terms of a national church planting movement but then allow NAMB to work in conjunction with its state convention partners to develop a joint cooperative agreement. One way to do this that would differ from the current system is for NAMB to develop a unified strategic plan for the nation rather than individual agreements with each state convention. Right now NAMB staff travels to each state convention to work with leaders there to develop individual cooperative agreements. Under the new system, state convention executives would meet as a group with NAMB staff for the purpose of developing the national cooperative agreement. This would help the state conventions to feel more a part of the national strategy while better enabling NAMB to deploy its missionary force in the manner it feels is most effective. Sub-sections of the national strategy plan could deal with issues that may be specific to each state convention.

Strengthen support for the Cooperative Program.

One of the beautiful things about being Southern Baptist for me has always been the Cooperative Program. By giving cooperatively we are able to support all kinds of great missions and ministries and to do so in a way that ensures funding for endeavors that may not be as glamorous as putting missionaries on the international field but are important nonetheless.

Two of the recommendations in the progress report have the potential of seriously damaging the Cooperative Program. The first is to create a new giving category called “Great Commission Giving,” which would be used to elevate and celebrate designated giving in a way that I believe will diminish the Cooperative Program. The second is a recommendation to shift the coordinating responsibility for the promotion of the Cooperative Program and stewardship from the Executive Committee to the state conventions.

Let me say here that I am not opposed to celebrating Great Commission giving. I do think that churches who give strongly to the International Mission Board, NAMB, a seminary or other worthy Baptist causes should be celebrated and commended. We should all thank these churches heartily and rejoice at how the Lord is working through them. The problem comes in creating a special giving category that aggregates this kind of designated giving and lifts it up as being the same as cooperative giving. Some missions and ministries simply have more emotional appeal for Southern Baptists than do others and the tendency with a new category for designated giving is going to be for those causes with more marketing resources to increasingly receive more of the funding pie while other worthy Baptist causes languish.

I think the answer is not to create a new giving category but to find ways to celebrate designated gifts more fully. Let’s do more to celebrate our top designated giving churches for each specific cause rather than aggregating the gifts. For instance, let’s find new ways to celebrate churches that give big to Lottie Moon or who stretch to help fund a church planting effort. That will allow more churches to receive recognition while at the same time lifting up the particular cause the church was supporting.

I would also like to see the SBC Executive Committee retain its coordinating function for Cooperative Program promotion as well. The state conventions already do a vast amount of the work of CP promotion but it is helpful to have a centralized office as part of the Executive Committee to help coordinate efforts. More importantly, however, is the need for every organization that receives the benefits of CP giving to be integrally involved in promoting the unified budget plan. My concern is that if the Executive Committee no longer has responsibilities for CP promotion, there will be a drift away from seriously supporting it as Southern Baptists’ primary missions funding mechanism.

Be specific about NAMB’s lead role in North America.

A third wish for a revised report is for it to spell out more clearly that NAMB is to have the lead role in directing our strategy in North America. I think it’s a great idea to involve the International Mission Board in helping to reach some of the people groups in the United States that it is already working with overseas. Having IMB missionaries who are on stateside assignment working with the people groups they are familiar with serving abroad makes perfect sense.

It’s always important to have someone in the lead role for directing strategy, however, so I think it will be essential for NAMB to play that role. Otherwise, we may have the two organizations unintentionally stepping on each other.

Of course it will be interesting to see how many resources IMB would actually be able to devote to North America. Although much of the impetus of the GCR was the desire to see more funds reaching the international mission field, the report’s recommendations actually send relatively few additional dollars to IMB. Eliminating the cooperative agreements with NAMB will make it more difficult for state conventions to increase the percentage of CP giving they send to the SBC which makes getting more dollars to IMB even harder. Despite the rallying cry of helping international missions, the primary impact of the GCR recommendations in their current form will be to simply reallocate funds within North America.

Please pray for the Great Commission Task Force.

I have been and will continue to be in prayer for the SBC’s Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. These dedicated individuals have spent many hours studying, talking and thinking about these topics. They have been asked to essentially become experts in all things Southern Baptist in the space of just a few short months and a few meetings. Given this and given the great diversity of thought in Baptist life, it’s no wonder that not everyone is happy with every aspect of their report. I am praying for them to have wisdom and discernment from the Lord in the days ahead!

–Robert Reeves