Comments on: EDITOR’S JOURNAL: Our ominous future

By: Tom Ogburn

Tom Ogburn — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:18:07 +0000

I want to thank you for your courage in writing the article. I know that it probably made some uncomfortable but it is an effective depiction of what is going on in Baptist life right now. You article is both challenging and informative.

By: Future of SBC « Ecclesiophilist

Future of SBC « Ecclesiophilist — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:38:37 +0000

[...] of SBC Douglas Baker posted this thought-provoking assessment of the issues facing the SBC. This observation was especially [...]

By: Maybe its not so ominous « fiat lux

Maybe its not so ominous « fiat lux — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:36:26 +0000

[...] By airbornesaint I just read an article in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger (accessed here: http://baptistmessenger.com/editors-journal-our-ominous-future/#comments on 11 November 2009). My comments on the article are to follow, but perhaps a bit of history is [...]

By: Bill Nettles

Bill Nettles — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:22:32 +0000

Doug,
I think that you have short-changed the discussion (unless you have plans for several sequels) in that you haven’t given a development of the growth of the Cooperative Program. What did Southern Baptists fund in the late 1800’s? What agencies and groups were funded in the beginning of the CP? What was added later and when (, and possibly why)? These are historical realities which would help the people in churches get a better picture of whether the CP is too big, too small, or just right. I think your paper is a great place to disseminate that history.

It’s going to be the GCTF’s responsibility to evaluate whether those entities should continue at current levels. In an editorial, however, you might make a stab at whether the original funding method is still meritorious or whether the speed and ease for information dispersal and financial transactions demand a renovated funding structure.

There may be very good reasons to keep the funding system as it is. “That’s the way it was originally set up” is a very bad reason.

By: The Future of the Southern Baptist Convention – Justin Taylor

The Future of the Southern Baptist Convention – Justin Taylor — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:01:45 +0000

[...] This piece by Douglas Baker is a helpful summary of what’s going on with the Great Commission Resurgence, the Cooperative Program, and the political in-fighting as some try to protect their territory. [...]

By: rick

rick — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:38:12 +0000

Is it surprising that I see this same discussion occurring in the local church where the de-churched are wondering what happened to the mission? The ‘paid staff’ became more concerned with job security and maintaining than about equipping and sending. After all, there are mortgages to pay, both church buildings and employee homes. That doesn’t engender a sending or great commission mentality.

By: Tom Cocklereece

Tom Cocklereece — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:14:57 +0000

Very interesting article. The most telling point is and will continue to be how the SBC and GCR leadership aproach the views of those raising concerns about the GCR. I raised some of these issues in my article linked below.

http://drthomreece.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/the-hole-in-the-great-commission-resurgence/

By: Norman

Norman — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:52:22 +0000

There is word that the GCR Task Force intends to make a preliminary report at the SBC Executive Committee meeting in February.

By: money or missions? « Turnaround Churches

money or missions? « Turnaround Churches — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:06:17 +0000

[...] http://baptistmessenger.com/editors-journal-our-ominous-future/ [...]

By: Roger Simpson

Roger Simpson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:29:05 +0000

Doug:

Your article clearly illuminates what is animating people’s interest relative to the GCR task force.

I don’t think the task force can stay in “information gathering mode” forever. Communication is a two way street.

It is OK for the task force to dispel the various myths that are circulating. However, a more direct way to short-circuit rumors is to come right out and give us a first draft of — say — the five to ten “key points” of their recommendations.

I don’t think anyone at Orlando will be in any position to take action unless whatever recommendations are going to be introduced by the task force have been publicly vetted — and tuned-up based upon feedback — ahead of time. Implicit in the way the SBC does business at the annual meeting is that things like this have to be enacted on a consensus basis. We don’t have a workable mechanism to debate issues and/or offer ammendments real-time at the meeting.