The Main Reason behind the GCRTF Report

Upon reading Dr. Alvin Reid’s perspective on the reasons to attend the convention in Orlando, I was encouraged and excited.  I encourage you to read his perspective found at the above link.  I must admit I was a bit surprised after reading reasons #3, #4, and #6.   Dr. Reid is an eloquent writer who can clearly and convincingly express his point of view.  The above mentioned reasons give me pause concerning his perspective.

My first pause to his reasons has to do with his point on Proactivity.

3. Proactivity. The GCRTF offers us a proactive approach to bring change. If we do not seize the day and call for change, we will nevertheless change. But it will be reactionary. What if it does not pass? The movement will not stop. It will simply lead to further factionalism, and delay the inevitable. Let’s be clear: we are not voting on a structural change primarily. We are not voting on the Cooperative Program—I have not met anyone who wants to abandon it. We re voting on what we believe should be the soul of our convention, and accountability and consistency in what we say and how we live. We are stepping back from the how of cooperation to talk about the why. (Emphasis mine)

I have never known anyone to question the “why” of cooperation among the SBC. I thought the Peace Committee Report settled that we were “cooperating together to accomplish evangelism, missions, Christian education and other causes authorized by our Constitution“.  I thought that once the CR was in place we understood that the gospel message was about the blood of Jesus redeeming sinners of which I am chief.  I thought the “why” of cooperation was that the light of the Gospel needed to be shined on the darkness of the world.  I thought the moderate/liberal way of  doing missions without presenting the Gospel was the reason we held tenaciously to the inerrancy of the Scripture.  Now, Dr. Reid tells us that we are needing to stop and get to Orlando to vote on the “why” we cooperate instead of how we cooperate.

While, Dr. Reid is pointing to the “why” of cooperation as the message I must disagree with him.  I am sure that in their hearts some believe that we are going to Orlando to vote on the “why” we as a convention of churches cooperate.  However, if that is the reason for our attending Orlando, then we are being presented a false report from the GCRTF.  Their report clearly has nothing in it about the “why” of cooperation.  Certainly they have core values stated.  I guess a question I have (and I have not listened to or read every comment from everyone on the GCRTF) concerns the place these core values will hold within our convention.  For example, will we throw out the BF&M2k to replace it with our core values?  I want to make this clear that I am not saying that the motive behind the Core Values is to take the place of the BF&M2k.  I am just asking what place they will hold.  Also, I am not accusing Dr. Reid of trying to change the reason we cooperate, but I do not think the GCRTF has anything about the “why” of cooperation.

My second pause comes when I read Dr. Reid’s point on the Gospel as a purpose of being in Orlando.

6. Gospel.  We as a people have loved the gospel. But when you look at the practice of many (most?) of our churches, and look at the raw data, we have pushed the gospel to the periphery. (Emphasis mine)  Just look up the statistics on reaching youth in a day when more youth live in the U.S. than ever in history. Too many are more energized about political matters than the lost around them. Too many have in effect minimized the gospel to the bottom of the computer screens of their lives. Many churches have done the same. The gospel should be the center of our lives, not at the periphery. We should be raising our children to focus on the gospel more than career. We should be thinking about how we can be involved in fulfilling the great commission more than retirement. We should be more about winning the lost to Jesus than winning an election in DC.

Dr. Reid is correct, there seems to be some that are more interested in doing the politically correct thing instead of presenting the Gospel.  There appears to be churches that have pushed the Gospel to the periphery.  I know of a church in the area I was raised in NC whose Deacons voted not to participate in a state-wide outreach event because they were afraid people of color would begin coming to their church.  I say; God help them!  The Gospel has not been pushed to the periphery in that church but has been  anathematized.  Having said that, Dr. Reid has placed the Gospel as something that is behind our need to get to Orlando.  I agree that the Gospel is very important and I agree that we need to work hard to make certain the Gospel has every means necessary to get before the lost.  We rally around this need by clearly stating our Core Values.  However, there seems to be a Core Value missing.  Would we not agree that the Gospel is a Core Value?  One may say that the Gospel is a given when it comes to who we are as Southern Baptist.  However, couldn’t the same be said concerning the Lordship of Jesus Christ?

A third area that gives me pause is the area Dr. Reid has entitled, “solution”.

4. Solution. The GCRTF seeks to be a part of the solution not a part of the problem. As D.A. Carson pointed out in his book on the emerging church, more radical leaders in that movement like Bryan McLaren (whose book Generous Orthodoxy is far more generous than orthodox) are great at whining about the church, but not great at solving issues.  You can be a part of the solution. The GCRTF offers solutions. (Emphasis mine)

Dr. Reid begins doing something here that is a tacit comparison and contrast.  He presents Bryan McLaren as one end of a movement that is at best liberal theologically.  Dr. Reid tacitly places those who are complaining about the GCRTF report in the camp of a bunch of cry babies.  I do not believe that is what he intended but that is the result by using this example.  Certainly no one believes we have non-orthodox leaders in the SBC.  However, in the spirit of trying to be part of the solution, one needs to remember one thing about our SBC polity.  Let’s say this GCRTF report is passed with an 80% vote.  Then let’s say the entities decide not to do any of the recommendations.  Well, there is nothing anyone can do.  Why?  The entities Board of Trustees have to make the decisions and put into action the recommendations.  Let’s say that the GCRTF report is rejected by the convention with a 95% vote.  Well, the entities can still implement all of this with out the convention’s vote.  As a matter of fact, Lifeway could decide to place a Great Commission Giving column in the ACP without a vote of the convention.  Thus, Dr. Reid’s “solution” point is about as strong as his #9 reason. :)

I am going to Orlando and I plan to vote in favor, with caveats, concerning the GCRTF recommendations.   I am not one that desires to see this recommendation defeated, but I am one that desires to see it better defined and less stringent concerning the various state conventions. I beleive that Dr. Reid has some great insight into the reasons to get to Orlando.  However, I believe his rallying points do hold some level of hype.