In this article, I wish to cut through the hype by briefly summarizing the final GCR proposal and the contending viewpoints, providing clarity regarding these recommendations.

It’s easy to be confused about the recommendations of the Great Commission Task Force. Through state papers, blogs and websites, the conversation about the future of the Southern Baptist Convention has been going on at a furious pace.

Whenever two points of view become overly politicized, the rhetoric heats up.

Hype can eventually obscure reality, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunication on the part of both camps. GCR supporters have sometimes spoken as if this resolution will be the spark of a worldwide revival which will send renewal through the SBC. GCR detractors have sometimes spoken as if these resolutions would end the SBC as we know it and destroy all our cooperative efforts.

In this article, I wish to cut through the hype by briefly summarizing the final GCR proposal and the contending viewpoints, providing clarity regarding these recommendations.

1. Getting the Mission Right
SUMMARY: In the first recommendation, the Task Force encourages the Convention to adopt the following mission statement: As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.
DEBATE: There has been no debate about this recommendation.

2. Making Our Values Transparent
SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that Southern Baptists seek a healthy culture within the Convention by committing to the following core values: Christ-likeness, Truth, Unity, Relationships, Trust, Future, Local Church, Kingdom.
DEBATE: There has been very little debate concerning these values.

3. Celebrating and Empowering Great Commission Giving
SUMMARY: The Task Force affirms the Cooperative Program as the central means of mobilizing our churches and extending our reach. The Task Force also encourages Southern Baptists to celebrate the total dollar amount given to Southern Baptist causes (such as the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings). Churches will report “Great Commission Giving” by recording their gifts through the Cooperative Program as well as their gifts to other Southern Baptist causes.
DEBATE:
>>>Those who oppose this recommendation believe that the sum total of “Great Commission Giving” will dilute the value of the Cooperative Program by elevating designated gifts for specific ministries. The result will be a return to societal giving. By celebrating designated giving, churches will have less reason to support the Cooperative Program, leading to the dismantling of the current structure and the rise of special interests.
>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that the Cooperative Program is already weakened and needs to be strengthened, not by chastising churches for giving designated gifts, but by celebrating all Great Commission giving. Once churches become convinced that the ministries funded by the Cooperative Program are worth their Great Commission dollars, they will rise to the occasion and increase giving in all areas.

4. Reaching North America
SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that the North American Mission Board (NAMB) prioritize church planting in metropolitan areas and among under-served people groups. Currently, 2/3 of CP dollars are directed to 1/3 of the population. In order to penetrate the lostness in other areas of North America, the Cooperative Agreements between NAMB and the state conventions should be phased out within seven years so as to free up NAMB for a new pattern of strategic partnership and effectiveness in church planting.
DEBATE:
>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that national Southern Baptist entities will be pitted against state conventions and local associations, causing them to compete for funds. By withdrawing NAMB’s financial support from newer state conventions, many good ministries will be significantly weakened, if not forced to shut down – including work in the pioneer states where lostness is the greatest. The remaining state conventions fear their evangelistic efforts will also be weakened by the lack of resources.
>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that everyone – whether at state or national entities – must be prepared to sacrifice in order to get more resources to underserved areas and the gospel to the nations. Though good ministries may be cut or altered, supporters believe it is a question of good versus best. By shifting resources to the places with least access to the gospel, frontier ministries will receive more attention. The Task Force recommends new strategic partnerships, not severing of relationship between the states and NAMB.

5. Reaching Unreached and Underserved People Groups within North America
SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that the IMB be free to focus on underserved people groups wherever they may be found. Since large numbers of many of these people groups now reside in U.S. cities, the IMB should be free to work alongside NAMB in utilizing its linguistic skills and cultural knowledge to penetrate the lostness among these people groups, regardless of geographical location.
DEBATE:
>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that there could be significant overlap between the existing efforts of NAMB among underserved people groups and the IMB. Despite the claims that these two boards would work alongside one another, the possibility exists for one of the two boards to become irrelevant, which could eventually lead to one centralized board engaging in missions both at home and abroad.
>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that the IMB is better equipped to reach ethnic groups on American soil. Once the IMB’s personnel, trained in the language, culture, and religions of these people groups, begin to collaborate with NAMB and local churches, there will be a church planting movement among foreign people in North America’s urban centers. The SBC will then better reflect the truth that the gospel transcends socio-economic, national and cultural barriers.

6. Promoting the Cooperative Program and Elevating Stewardship
SUMMARY: The Task Force recommends that responsibility of promoting the Cooperative Program among local churches be transferred from the Executive Committee to the state conventions. The Executive Committee would work with the state conventions in developing a strategy for encouraging churches to increase participation and giving to the Cooperative Program.
DEBATE:
>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that state conventions will be expected to handle this additional responsibility, but with fewer resources. Additional responsibilities might cause the states to retain higher percentages of Cooperative Program missions money. In order to keep the cost of promotional resources down, the Executive Committee should maintain a continued, though modified, role in stewardship education and Cooperative Program promotion.
>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that state conventions have carried out stewardship education effectively because of their proximity to the churches. Encouraging the president of the Executive Committee to work alongside state convention leaders to execute a strategy for promoting the Cooperative Program will strengthen the partnership between state conventions and the national convention.

7. The Call of the Nations and the SBC Allocation Budget
SUMMARY: Currently, 50% of all Cooperative Program funds received by the Southern Baptist Convention go to the IMB. The Task Force recommends that the Convention increase this number to 51% by decreasing by 1% the budget for Facilitating Ministries. The purpose of this reallocation is to make a statement about the need to reduce denominational infrastructure and strengthen our commitment to reach the nations.
DEBATE:
>>> Those who oppose this recommendation believe that the current allocation of 50% is sufficient if churches would be challenged to set giving goals to the Cooperative Program. The proposed reallocation increases the IMB’s budget by 0.62% while decreasing the Executive Committee budget by almost 30%. Transferring two million dollars from the Executive Committee to the IMB would be unnecessary if churches would reverse the trend of keeping more money under local control.
>>> Those who support this recommendation believe that the key to increasing enthusiastic support of the Cooperative Program is demonstrating that more funds are going to the mission field. The intention behind the proposed reallocation is to make a symbolic statement that the SBC is committed to reducing infrastructure and increasing missions giving, thereby providing local churches a Great Commission motivation to increase their support of the Cooperative Program.

CONCLUSION
At the fundamental level, the GCR Task Force recommendations are about how we can best cooperate in pushing back lostness. Some of the recommendations are missional; others are about SBC culture. Some are about ministry priorities; others are about stewardship and structure. Regardless of one’s point of view, it is our Christian duty to assume the best in our brothers and sisters, seeing in each another the sincere desire for Southern Baptists to be good stewards of God’s money.

Trevin Wax is Associate Pastor of First Baptist Church in Shelbyville, TN. This article appeared on his blog, Kingdom People – Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven http://trevinwax.com/ and is used with permission.
Source: http://trevinwax.com/2010/06/02/gcr-in-a-nutshell/