One of the criticisms often bandied about in the transition that Southern Baptist Life is undergoing is that people have to realize this isn’t the 1950’s anymore. I’m grateful for the wakeup call because I was just about to make a run to the local Gibson’s on the corner :) I think it might surprise some that I agree the SBC is long overdue for transition – or perhaps a better word is renewal. Often organizations cycle through a vicious sequence that can lead to demise, decay, and even death. It’s why I embrace the concept of a resurgence centered on the Great Commission – such is an impetus that could bring unity and clarity. I think much of the murmuring that is bubbling up in the meantime is the natural byproduct of what happens in the midst of transition. The question becomes how do we bring people along that are resistant and perhaps comfortable where they are? I think the following might offer a few suggestions that could help facilitate the process.
Rebuild trust. Help everyone feel like they are in this process together. There is a perception in some circles of Southern Baptist Life that some groups are receiving a larger share of input than others because of their position or connections. I know from many conversations that small church pastors feel disconnected from the process. I can sense from the reaction of some state convention presidents that some too feel detached from the process. I’m sure the initial launch that spoke of bloated bureaucracies (while at times true) was perceived as threatening. There is the perception that the megachurch network has a preconceived agenda about the Cooperative Program and the SBC. I think that the listening sessions are a key component, but I would dispense members of the task force to board meetings, network gatherings, and other venues to make sure that perception does not become the defined reality. Use venues from Baptist Press to upstart blogs to communicate the necessity of renewal and resurgence. Tell us the truth – the whole truth about what we need to say adios to. If NAMB needs to be restructured or even reinvented or merged let us know. I, for one, am not threatened by dismounting horses that need to be put out to pasture whatever they may be.
Continually define the purpose. Take us out of the wilderness into the Promised Land. Different is not necessarily bad. Different is not necessarily good. Define the new beginning in images and symbols that resonate with the SBC. Make sure the “official reason” for change is the “official reason” for transition. Some people always believe that there are hidden agendas driving change: power plays, personality clashes, and the good old boy system. Tell us what the purpose of the Great Commission Task Force is. Tell us over and over again until we “get it”. Realize that people integrally involved in the SBC may overreact and feel shortchanged. Not all such folks should be written off as laggards and malcontents – they might just be struggling through the transition. Paint a picture of what the resurgence will look like. Help us walk through this with you. One suggestion would be to allow a mechanism for every Southern Baptist to communicate their ideas and concerns. Make certain this mechanism is widely communicated.
Buy into the vision yourself. One of my complaints in past restructuring is that key proponents of the change are no longer even on the SBC scene. They are AWOL and disengaged from Southern Baptist life. I am a loyal Southern Baptist and I want loyal Southern Baptists guiding the ship. We are not starting from scratch but attempting to bring about a resurgence that will lead to new ventures and an expansion of the Kingdom of God. I want to know that those guiding us to burn some ships will be with us in the future. Give us an idea of when and how the plan will be unveiled. Don’t wait until May to tell us what the changes will be. Give us plenty of time to digest, pray for, and work through the implications of the proposed new steps. Tell us what has to immediately change, what will take time, and what is absolutely off the table in terms of change. Above all, make sure the change is initiated and directed by God. Be willing to scrap the whole enterprise if God is not in it. I, for one, will pray for God to lead you and us toward a new beginning.
Pingback: Tweets that mention A New SBC :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
“. . . I would dispense members of the task force to board meetings, network gatherings, and other venues to make sure that perception does not become the defined reality.”
I think you are too late, but that is, of course, just my perception.
JND
Perhaps but as they say better nate than lever :0
Good advice brother,
I like the idea of communication and inclusion. That is key to building this trust.
I know personally this is true when you said “I, for one, am not threatened by dismounting horses that need to be put out to pasture whatever they may be.” That statement might always remind me of our time together in Hobbs, New Mexico…. but I get what your saying here! :)
Good stuff,
Chris
Good advice, brother!
Joe,
Some good thoughts.
But I still miss Gibson’s :-).
David R. Brumbelow
Great posts.
Here are my thoughts.
1. Churches will give to the programs in the SBC if they are perceived as being productive and effective. Churches should not give simply because they are supposed to. If the SBC or state programs are not perceived as being good, churches should not be lectured or punished because they find a better place to put some of their money.
2. There is great disparity between the types of churches in the SBC. We are much more together theologically than ever. That was essential. The SBC could not move forward if we have some agency employees and some churches that question the truth of scripture and some major doctrines. We don’t have that any more. But there are differences in emphases among churches, the types of programming that they want etc. The differences between some urban churches, new church plants, traditional “County Seat, Tall Steeple” churches, and rural churches can be huge. The SBC needs to let each of these types of churches have their own programming and emphasis. And each of these churches needs to feel appreciated and a part of the SBC.
3. State involvement should not be required for participation in the SBC. Our church has given directly to the SBC in Nashville for years. We give some to the state, too, but we do not route all of our giving through the state, and do not think that we ever will. We are very supportive of the SBC and its programs. Most of what the state does is not what interests us.
4. The health of the SBC is no better than the health of its churches. They are related.
Louis
Rebuilding trust would mean (a) that the GCTF makes some effort to have openness and transparency in their meetings, that is, that they drop their practice of closed, secret meetings. Put a BP reporter in the room on background or something. (b) that the GCTF, heavily dominated by megachurch people most of whose Cooperative Program support is tepid at best and downright pathetic at worst, demonstrates that it has a purpose beyond changing the CP algorlithm to make the megas look better, and (c) that no one on the TF will be considered for the head of any new entity proposed. We tried that with NAMB. It was a disaster.
The most salient fact about the GCTF is that it was put together by a megapastor and is filled with people who choose to express their Christianity in an arena where there are no less than 2k people congregated to worship on Sundays. Well and good, but hardly the picture of anything more than a tiny fraction of the SBC.