Some of the brethren are complaining about the Great Commission Task Force and the recommendations that came out of it. It is said that the GCRTF recommendations (those would be the ones that were overwhelmingly passed back in June by the assembled SBC) is divisive, that it was a top-down deal, that it was somewhat coercive on the state conventions. I don't see that, save for the fact that when money is on the agenda it is inevitably divisive. Those who have want to keep. Those who see greater priorities for our money want to reallocate.
Amazingly, some have even complained about pastors, churches, and messengers who were detached from active state convention life getting involved in the process, showing up at the conventions and, gasp!, voting. There would have been no GCR, much less a GCRTF, if this wasn't done 30 years ago.
While the GCRTF recommendations did frame the question about the proportion of resources to be kept in heavily churched, Deep South state conventions, one has to admit that no state has been coerced. They met. They voted. That's the way we do stuff.
So, what's the problem?
A number of state conventions have indeed voted to move towards a 50/50 Cooperative Program split and some who haven't committed to those numbers have increased the SBC portion. Good moves, IMO, but not moves that anyone has dictated to the conventions. It is well documented that nobody tells an autonomous Southern Baptist church, association, state convention or the national convention to do anything...sometimes not even Jesus.
I have my doubts that the states will ever achieved the 50/50 split that some have committed to do. State conventions that don't want to give more to the SBC, IMB, and NAMB can certainly vote to keep their money.
But I don't see how anyone can complain about the process.
Baptist Press has an entire story collection on the state convention meetings.