Great Commission

My Thoughts on the Final Report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

One week ago, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force released their final report, including recommendations to be made to the messengers in June at the SBC Annual Meeting. I had written previously on the initial report that was released back in February. This final report was greatly anticipated across SBC life. There was a belief that that final report would contain recommendations that were not listed in the initial report. That did not happen. There was however a new wording of the previous recommendations with some additional explanation of the task force’s thoughts on their work. Also, one of the original components was divided into two separate recommendations. New to this report is a series of challenges set forth by the task force. There are challenges issued to the individual Christian, individual families, local churches and pastors, local associations, state conventions, Lifeway, our seminaries, the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission, Guidestone, and all Southern Baptist leaders. These challenges reflect how each group can do their part in carrying out the Great Commission.

The final report includes seven recommendations written out in the form that each will be presented to messengers in June. As parliamentary rule goes, this report, including all seven recommendations will be voted on as a whole, unless a motion is made to divide and vote on each one individually, which is 99.9999% likely. I hope this is the case. I believe that an up/down vote on the entire report would not be in the best interest of the convention. However, I am just one pastor. Listed below are the recommendations exactly how the messengers will receive them. If presented as a whole, I would still have to vote no.

Recommendation #1:

“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, adopt the following as the mission statement of the Southern Baptist Convention:”

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.

I plan on voting yes on this recommendation. I feel this is a good solid vision for the convention as a whole while allowing the church to keep their individual visions.

Recommendation #2:

“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida,  June 15-16, 2010, adopt the following as Core Values for our work together:”

CHRIST-LIKENESS

We depend on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and prayer to make us more like Jesus Christ.

TRUTH

We stand together in the truth of God’s inerrant Word, celebrating the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

UNITY

We work together in love for the sake of the Gospel.

RELATIONSHIPS

We consider others more important than ourselves.

TRUST

We tell each other the truth in love and do what we say we will do.

FUTURE

We value Southern Baptists of all generations and embrace our responsibility to pass this charge to a rising generation in every age, faithful until Jesus comes.

LOCAL CHURCH

We believe the local church is given the authority, power, and responsibility to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world.

KINGDOM

We join other Christ-followers for the Gospel, the Kingdom of Christ, and the glory of God.

I plan on voting yes on this recommendation. These are solid value to pursue.

Recommendation #3:

 “That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida, June  15-16, 2010, request the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider recommending to the Southern Baptist Convention the adoption of the language  and structure of Great Commission Giving as described in this report in order to enhance and  celebrate the Cooperative Program and the generous support of Southern Baptists channeled through their churches. We further request that the boards of trustees of the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board consider the adoption of the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offering goals as outlined in this report.”

I plan on voting no on this recommendation. I personally believe that creating another description of giving in order to recognize and celebrate churches that choose designated giving over CP giving will only lessen the emphasis on Cooperative Program giving.

Recommendation #4:

” That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 15-16, 2010, request  the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider any revision to the  ministry assignment of the North American Mission Board that may be necessary in order to  accomplish the redirection of NAMB as outlined in this report; and that the Board of  Trustees of the North American Mission Board be asked to consider the encouragements  found within this report in all matters under their purview.”

I plan on voting yes on this recommendation. I share the concern for a re-emphasis of the North American Mission Board.

 Recommendation #5:

“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 15-16, 2010, request  that the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention consider a revised ministry assignment  for the International Mission Board that would remove any geographical limitation on its mission to reach unreached and underserved people groups wherever they are found.”

I plan on voting no on this recommendation. On the surface this recommendation makes sense. With the recent funding issues of IMB missionaries, it seems appropriate to me to keep their focus, time, and resources committed to people groups around the world.

Recommendation #6:

 “That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 15-16, 2010, request the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider working with the leadership of the state conventions in developing a comprehensive program of        Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education in alignment with this report.”

I plan on voting yes on this recommendation. I feel that the state conventions are in the best position to promote and educate the local churches regarding the Cooperative Program.

Recommendation #7:

” That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 15-16, 2010 in  Orlando, Florida, request the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider recommending an SBC Cooperative Program Allocation Budget that will increase the percentage allocated to the International Mission Board to 51 percent by decreasing the  Executive Committee’s percentage of the SBC Allocation Budget by 1 percent.”

I plan on voting yes on this recommendation. More funding to the IMB is vital to the effectiveness of missionaries around the world in pushing back lostness. With the task of CP promotion and education taken from the Executive Committee and placed in the hands of the state conventions, it is a good idea to reallocate what the EC used for CP promotion and education and forward that to the IMB.

As a pastor I feel this is an important time in the life of the Southern Baptist Convention. The passing of and rejection of these recommendations can and will have far-reaching effects upon Southern Baptist life as we know, effecting conventions, associations, and local churches. None of these recommendations will be implemented immediately. These proposed changes to the structure of the SBC may be years in the making. What we must do as a local is make an individual commitment to carrying out the Great Commission where we have been planted by God. I believe in the Southern Baptist Convention, but I believe in the local church more.

FIFS : Matthew 28:19

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

“ Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19

One part of the commission that Christ left to the church was the making of disciples. A disciple is one who is intentionally following after a master in order to know more about him. In the context of the Great Commission, a disciple is pursuing after Christ in order to be more like Him.  However, before a person can pursue Christ, he/she must first know Him. So, for someone to know Christ, someone must first share Christ. Sharing Christ is the responsibility of every believer. Jesus said, “go therefore”, literally “as you are going”, make disciples. Our sharing of Jesus with others is to be a lifestyle rather than an activity. But why? Why should we share our faith with others? Why should we take time to tell others about the message of hope through Jesus? Why should we take time to verbalize the heart-change we experienced? Let me suggest a few.

1. Jesus left every believer the command to do so. There is something special about the last words of a person. Jesus told His disciples in Acts 1:8, “ But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

2. Because lostness is real. Paul wrote in Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

3. The chosen method of God for the lost to hear the gospel is for the believer to tell them. I don’t know why God left this tremendous task to us, but He did. I am certain God could have come up with at least five other options. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that God, through Jesus Christ, redeemed us. Only the redeemed can testify of redemption.

4.  Someone once cared enough for us to share Christ with us.  They have the right to expect that we will do what they once did for us.

Reflections on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Initial Report : Part #5

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

This is the final post in a series on my personal reflections of the initial report from the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force.

Component #6: We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, that a greater percentage of total Cooperative Program funds should be directed to the work of the International Mission Board. Therefore, we will ask Southern Baptists to support this goal by affirming an intention to raise the International Mission Board allocation for the 2011-2012 budget year to 51%, a move that is both symbolic and substantial. At the same time, we will ask Southern Baptists to reduce the percentage allocated to Facilitating Ministries by 1% as part of our initial effort to send a greater percentage of total Southern Baptist Convention mission funds to the nations.

This component is closely linked to Component #4. The fourth component of the report recommended moving the responsibility of Cooperative Program education and promotion from the SBC Executive Committee and placing it in the hands of the state convention. The task force believes the International Mission Board deserves a bigger piece of the CP pie. Currently, the IMB receives 50% of all CP dollars forwarded by the state conventions. The task force recommend increasing the amount given to the IMB from 50% to 51%. The additional 1% would come from the Facilitating Ministries budget.

In simple terms, the task force is asking for a budget adjustment, a reallocation of funds. The 1% will likely come from the Executive Committee’s budget once CP promotion is no longer an SBC responsibility and is taken on by the state convention. I am in favor this component. I believe the IMB needs more of our CP dollars. They have a huge task before, taking the gospel to all the nations. I applaud the task force for recommending an increase in the IMB budget. This recommendation speaks volumes to the importance of, and the need for, more dollars to the mission field.

Overall, this is a good solid report with the capacity to bring about a needed change across the SBC as it relates the carrying out the Great Commission. I am not sure how these recommendations will be out to a vote in Orlando, if they even get to a vote. There are two options: vote on all six recommendations as one, or vote on each component individually. What would I do? If the report is offered as a whole for consideration, I would have to vote no. If these recommendations are offered individually, right now, I would vote this way:

Component #1: Yes

Component #2: No

Component #3: No

Component #4: Yes

Component #5: No

Component #6: Yes

If you like, you can read the entire initial report here.  

Reflections on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Initial Report : Part #4

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Component #4: “We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to move the ministry assignments of Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education from the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and return them to being the work of each state convention since they are located closer to our churches. Our call is for the state conventions to reassume their primary role in the promotion of the Cooperative Program and stewardship education, while asking the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to support these efforts with enthusiasm and a convention-wide perspective.”

 The task force believes the primary responsibility of education and promotion of the Cooperative Program among  local churches should be given to the individual state conventions. Since 1997, Cooperative Program education and promotion has been the responsibility of the SBC Executive Committee. Dr. Floyd, task force chairman states, “We envision that a consortium can be created by these state convention leaders that involves the President and CEO of the Executive Committee and together they can plan and execute an annual strategy that will promote the Cooperative Program to our churches as well as challenge our churches in biblical stewardship.” In its infancy, Cooperative Program education and promotion was the responsibility of the Executive Committee.

 I don’t really have a problem with this component. I personally feel that the each local SBC church needs ongoing education as to how Cooperative Program funds are distributed. Churches also need new and varied ways to promote the Cooperative Program. I believe the state conventions are in the best position to fill this important assignment.

 

 Component #5: “We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to reaffirm the Cooperative Program as our central means of supporting Great Commission ministries; but in addition, we will ask Southern Baptists to celebrate with our churches in their Great Commission Giving that goes directly through the Cooperative Program, as well as any designated gifts given to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.”

 I am 100% opposed to this component of the report. The task force desires to create a new category of giving entitled “Great Commission Giving”. The goal of this designation is to celebrate what every church is doing to fulfill the Great Commission by recognizing their CP gifts and their designated giving to other SBC, state, and associational causes. In a supplemental article, Dr. Floyd writes, “there was a need to ask Southern Baptists to celebrate with our churches the Great Commission Giving that is given through the Cooperative Program which is our priority, but also to celebrate with our churches those gifts they felt led to designate to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention, or a local association. When our churches give to offerings like Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, and state-related missions offerings, the Gospel is being advanced. Therefore, our convention should celebrate with our churches what God is leading them to do.”  

Dr. Floyd states that this new category of giving is not designed with traditional CP giving. He states, “We are reaffirming the definition of the Cooperative Program that was adopted by the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. We believe the Cooperative Program is Southern Baptists’ unified plan of giving through which cooperating Southern Baptist churches give a percentile of their undesignated receipts in support of their respective state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention missions and ministries.” I believe this too. One area of possible confusion, at least to me, is the inclusion of Cooperative Program gifts in this new Great Commission Giving. I am fearful that a competition will naturally arise between these two giving designations.

 The Cooperative Program is a unified effort. This means that a portion of church’s offerings through the CP reach all the various ministries and missions across the state and SBC. This collective work enables all agencies, commissions, and boards to be funded and carry out the work they have been called to do. My question is this: How does including designated monetary gifts to the local association, state convention, and SBC causes, not given through the Cooperative Program channel, reaffirm the Cooperative Program as the primary plan of giving for the SBC? Hopefully this example will explain further.

 First Church gives 5% to the CP totaling $15,000, $2,000,000 to a church plant in New York City, $10,000 to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and $8,000 to the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering. Under the new designation, their Great Commission Giving would total $2,033,000.

 Second Church gives 11% to the CP totaling $29,500, $3,000 to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and $2,800 to the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering. Under the new designation, their Great Commission Giving would be $35,300. Who do you think will be celebrated? I am not opposed to church planting, nor am I opposed to individual churches supporting specific missions and ministries. Although First Church gave over two million dollars, only $15,000 went to the collective efforts of the state and SBC.  I am concerned that an atmosphere of “look at how much we gave” will overtake the foundational principle that “we can do more together than we can do alone”. The Cooperative Program  fuels us doing more together.

Personally, I believe that if this component comes to pass, there will be an abandonment and erosion of the CP as we know it years down the road. Although not intentional, when two classifications of giving are offered, one will fall by the wayside. The CP is the SBC at its best. Any effort, intentional or unintentional, to shift the focus off of collective funding of missions and ministries will would unravel the very fabric that holds our unified missions efforts together.

 

Reflections on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Initial Report : Part #3

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

I am continuing my thoughts on the initial report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. What I thought would be three posts, will more likely be four or five.

 Component #3: We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to entrust to the International Mission Board the ministry to reach the unreached and under-served people groups without regard to any geographic limitations.

 The task force envisions the International Mission Board taking on the responsibility of assisting the North American Mission Board with reaching the lost across the North America. A large number of the world’s identified people groups that do not speak English are represented in major cities across the North America. Many of these groups have strategy coordinators working overseas with the same group. The task force seems to believe that a more effective reaching of these people groups would be accomplished by allowing the overseas coordinators to work in North America.

 I believe this is a terrible idea. One statement from the report seems especially ambitious. Dr. Ronnie Floyd, GCRTF chairman wrote, “We are confident that the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board can communicate with one another effectively about their respective work and communicate with our state conventions and local associations about what God is doing in their gospel work. I don’t understand how improved communication at denominational, state, and associational levels can be accomplished through this “unleashing” of the IMB on North American soil. I tend to believe the opposite will occur. Here are a few of the concerns I have about this particular component.

 1. The IMB has more than enough one their plate. With the number of unreached people groups around the world growing almost daily, their concern, efforts, and energy should be spent pursuing these groups. I believe with all of my heart that moving the IMB to North America will lead to a less-effective IMB. I would hate to see the IMB get so spread out that they would suffer the same ineffectiveness that the North American Mission Board is seeing now.

 2. North America should be the responsibility of NAMB. I believe the responsible thing to do would be to restructure NAMB in order to reach these same goals. Of course, I’m just one pastor.

 3. I believe this movement of the IMB to North America will blur the lines of responsibility  between these two mission boards. I can also see a funding nightmare as it relates to the Cooperative Program.

4. Does this mean that NAMB will be “hands-off” in the areas of North America in which the IMB is working? Who will have the ultimate responsibility of reaching North America?

 I would rather see the North American Mission Board strengthened through new structure and vision than to see the International Mission Board weakened by taking up the slack of the North American Mission Board.

Reflection on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Initial Report : Part #2

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Component #2: “We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, that our North American Mission Board needs to be reinvented and released. Therefore, in order to do this, we will ask Southern Baptists that the North American Mission Board prioritize efforts to plant churches in North America and to reach our nation’s cities and clarify its role to lead and accomplish efforts to reach North America with the Gospel.”

 The GCRTF envisions a restructure of the North American Mission Board. NAMB has had its share of problems over the past few years that have led to a decreased effectiveness. Constant turnover of leadership at the top, duplicated ministries (down the associational level), and a broad focus have contributed to this ineffectiveness. Many would say that NAMB is broken. I would not go that far as to agree. This envisioned restructure is centered around the belief that the planting of healthy new congregations is the most effective way to reach North America. Dr. Ronnie Floyd, Senior Pastor of FBC Springdale, AR and Chairman of the GCRTF said, “This reinvention of the North American Mission Board that we envision will implement a direct strategy for planting churches in North America with a priority to reach metropolitan areas and under-served people groups. We desire for the North American Mission Board to encourage Southern Baptist churches to become church planting congregations. Regardless of the size or location of our churches, we want each to have a vision for and get involved in planting churches some way, somewhere in North America. It is our desire that at least 50% of the ministry efforts of our North American Mission Board be given to assist churches in planting healthy, multiplying, and faithful Baptist congregations in the United States and Canada.”

 The task force is calling for the following specific actions to be considered, including church planting, pastoral leadership development, local church assistance in evangelism and discipleship, and putting more Cooperative Program money where it will be most effective. The task force is also recommending the dissolving of “cooperative agreements” between NAMB and state conventions, where NAMB forwards portions of their CP budget dollars back to the state. Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and task force member states, “The idea of Cooperative Agreements is simple – the North American Mission Board (and originally, the Home Mission Board) established agreements with each state convention in order to avoid overlap, confusion, and duplication of work. When the Great Commission Task Force recommends the phased elimination of these agreements, we are calling for the North American Mission Board to rethink how it should relate to the state conventions so that the mission board retains a more focused ministry of assisting Southern Baptist churches to reach North America. In the year 2009, about $50-million dollars was routed through these Cooperative Agreements. Many of these dollars were spent on the salaries of workers in the state conventions and associations. The monies are allocated and channeled in way that are difficult to trace, much less prioritize.”

 The goal of dissolving these agreements is to streamline the work of NAMB, increase productivity, and improve accountability of CP dollars. There are parts of this component that I like and some I don’t like. I agree with the focus on church planting and leadership development. Aspects of these cooperative agreements trouble me greatly. Also in the initial report the task force envisions giving priority to the top 100 metropolitan areas of North America. While I understand that these large urban centers require more effort and resources (due to population), what about the other areas of North America? What about the pioneer regions of North America where lostness is just as real? What about the rural areas of North America? Will funding to reach these types of areas be sacrificed for the sake of reaching the top 100 metropolitan areas? There are still many questions left to ask, and answer.

Reflections on the Great Commission Resurgene Task Force Initial Report : Part #1

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Better than a month ago, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force released the interim report of their work leading up to the final report to be given at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Orlando this summer. This report was the first of two to be made public (the other in early May) sharing their progress. I have written on the origin and function of this task force. You can read it here. Simply, the purpose of the GCRTF is to examine ways in which the SBC can more effectively carry out the Great Commission and report its findings to the messengers at the annual meeting in June.

This highly anticipated initial report has prompted much discussion across the SBC. Many articles have been written about it the state newspapers. Bloggers have critiqued it, giving  their own reasons why it will and will not be beneficial to the church. State convention executives have even gave reasons as to why they can and cannot support the recommendations contained in the report. In the grand scheme of all things SBC, my opinion won’t make any difference. Denominational structure won’t shift because of what I write. My words won’t change the course of current policy.  However, being the pastor of a small church (defined by the SBC as having fewer than 200 in the primary worship service), which is the make-up of approximately 85% of all SBC churches, my opinion may matter after all.

The initial report contains six components which may or may not be presented in the form of formal recommendations that require a vote for passage. When the final report comes out in May, there may be more or less than these initial six. Over the next three posts, I want to share each component, what it means, and my thoughts on each one.

Component #1: “We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to rally towards a clear and compelling missional vision and begin to conduct ourselves with core values that will create a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Basically, this component calls for all SBC churches to come together around one central vision that is missional in nature. The term missional basically means to take on the mindset, attitude, and practice of missionary living in everything you do, instead of just “doing” missions. The task force calls for the SBC to embrace and pursue eight core values as part of this new vision: Christlikeness, truth, unity, relationships, trust, future, local church, and kingdom. I believe this is a good starting point. Unless the convention comes to terms with where it wants to go, the remaining components do not matter. Every local church has their own vision based on their local context. Embracing this vision and these core values will collectively give the convention a unified direction to move in.

Great Commission Resurgence Task Force

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

At the SBC Annual Meeting in Louisville of 2009, the messengers voted to establish what has come to be known as the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. The genesis of this task force was a chapel message shared by Dr. Danny Akin at Southeastern Seminary. He and SBC president Dr. Johnny Hunt worked together to draft the Great Commission Declaration. A motion was made by Dr. Al Mohler for the convention as a whole to respond to this declaration. Subsequently, Dr. Hunt appointed the members to this task force. The purpose of this task force is to study the ways in which the SBC and its entities (seminaries, agencies, boards, etc) can better carry out the Great Commission. They were asked to bring these recommendations to the messengers of the SBC Annual Meeting in June 2010. The make-up of this task force is rather diverse. It is made up of twenty-two members ranging from pastors to (2) seminary presidents (Southeastern and Southern) to state convention executive directors.

The work before this task force is great. They have been charged with taking a hard look at the SBC and determine what can be done that will allow more effectiveness in carrying out the Great Commission. This is harder than it sounds. Here is the problem the task force faces, as I see it. Each SBC entitiy, agency, and seminary make their own decisions and cannnot be directed to change the way they operate or change their structure. Only messengers can direct this type of action. If the task force finds that a particular agency would be more effective by changing its structure, they can only reccommend the change. Their recommendations are non-binding.

Further complicating their work is the recent resignation of the president of the North American Mission Board and the announced retirement of the preseidents of the International Mission Board and the SBC Executive Committee. The leadership of our mission boards will be critical in our continued efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. Effecting significatnt change across the SBC will be alot like stopping a fully loaded freight train. It is no easy task. The SBC has been around for ovr 150 years. There is alot of tradition. There is alot of programming in place. In my opinion, there is duplication of some ministries and programs across national, state, and associational levels that do not make the best use of personnel or Cooperative Program monies. Rumors have circulated as to what the task force will do. A casual reading of state baptist newspapers show these. Some are saying that one of our seminaries will be closed. Some are saying that a merger of the North American Mission Board the International Mission Board will be recommended (big mistake). Others are suggesting that an overhaul of the Cooperative Program will be recommended. I don’t know. The task force chairman (Dr. Ronnie Floyd, Pastor, FBC Springdale, Arkansas) and the SBC president (Dr. Johnny Hun,Pastor, FBC Woodstock, Georgia) have been out front and proactive in putting rumors to rest and sharing the purpose of the task force.

Why is this important? Why does this matter? First, I am a Southern Baptist pastor leading a Southern Baptist church. I believe in the SBC and its commitment to missions, doctrinal integrity, and cooperation. Second, the latest research shows that nearly 89% of all SBC churches are plateaued or declining. It is the right time, as I see it, to take a look and determine if we have put too much focus on programs and structure and not enough focus on people. If it is found that we would be better able to reach people with a restructure or realignment, I am in favor. Third, I believe in the Cooperative Program. The CP is the best vehicle for funding mission work here and around the world. As we give collectively through the CP, we are helping to fund missionaries, train and equip future leaders at our seminaries, and provide resources for church planters to birth churches in places and among people where no church exists. Yes, the work of this task force is important. What this task force recommends and suggests will have an impact on us for years to come. I feel the best days for our SBC are ahead. I am excited to lead our church to do our part in carrying our commission. Pary for this task force.