I found some interesting challenges when I became Area Director for South and Southeast Asia during my tenure on the mission field. Responsible for effectiveness and use of resources, I tried to get our missionaries to adopt a zero-based budgeting approach and strategic personnel deployment plan. I simply wanted to know what would be accomplished by granting a budget request. After all, financial resources are always limited, and a dollar can be spent only one place or another.
Each countrywide mission had an extensive list of new personnel needed, prioritized according to the most urgent and strategic assignments. However, those on the field tended to do whatever they had always been doing without regard to whether or not their assignment was critical to the overall objectives and goals.
Missionaries would say, “We need more budget, but don’t ask us to be accountable for what we do with it. After all, we are engaged in a spiritual task and the results are up to God. We cannot be held accountable for results.” The outcome was many succumbing to the activity trap—as long as they were busy doing good things and fulfilling their assignment, it didn’t matter if anything was accomplished.
We ought to be willing to ask hard questions regarding what is being accomplished with all we are investing into denominational entities. Otherwise our objective is just maintenance of programs and continuing the work because it is good, and it is appropriate for us to do what we are doing. After all, this is what we have always been doing. It’s not our fault if we are not having results. The problem is with the churches, people in the pew, society, or the economy, etc.
If Southern Baptists have assigned us the task of winning the lost, discipling believers and planting churches around the world, and they invest $300 million in supporting more than 5,000 missionaries, then they have the right to expect results of the IMB in terms of baptisms, new churches and people groups engaged with the gospel.
I am grateful for the work of our entities, state conventions, associations and every aspect of our Southern Baptist network. I don’t mean to sound critical or question the effectiveness of any. But have we fallen into the activity trap, simply carrying on legacy programs and ministries we have been engaged in for ages without any honest assessment of results? Have we introduced and accumulated new programs, earnestly wanting to make a difference, but been unwilling to cease irrelevant and ineffective methods that continue to absorb and dissipate resources?
We rejoice that our seminaries continue to enroll increasing numbers of students in expanding educational programs. But how many are graduating to serve our churches and go to the mission field? Five years after graduation, how many are serving in Southern Baptist-related ministry roles? The restoration of our seminaries to conservative, fundamental doctrinal foundations parallels the decline in evangelism and church health. Should there be some accountability for the outcome of a seminary education in practical and spiritual effectiveness?
State conventions have had to pare down staff and are devoted to doing so much to serve their churches. If they are promoting stewardship, why is stewardship in decline? If they are promoting and training in evangelism, why are baptisms diminishing? If they are training in discipleship and church programs, why are churches plateaued and continuing to die? Are the resources poured into colleges and Christian education turning out students equipped to stand for their faith in a post-modern society?
Do Southern Baptists have a right to expect results and effectiveness in their institutions and entities? Could this be a factor in declining Cooperative Program allocations and mission funding? Like those missionaries mentioned earlier, are we asking for continuing funding for programs and activities with no accountability for results? Do our churches see the denomination and its entities making a difference? Can we justify continuing legacy programs, although good and needed, that may not be having the results we presume they are having?
What results would be reflected if we were focused on fulfilling the Great Commission? Baptisms, discipleship, healthy churches teaching all Jesus commanded? What about winning and discipling the nations? Doesn’t that have something to do with our concept of the Great Commission? Are we willing to make adjustments and quit doing some things in order to become more effective and really reach a lost world?
Interesting post.
I see both sides to the issue. On the one hand, you’re right, you can’t just do what has always been done if it is really just sucking up time, money, and resources.
And on the other hand, you run the risk of catering to the numbers. When you do that, the numbers become the bottom line, so something looks like it works and is funded and prayed for even when that which is producing the numbers may not be Biblical at all. Plus, there is no indication that, despite the growth of the early church, they had a concern for whether they grew.
So the question comes down to this: what are you measuring? What are the results that these programs or people are being accountable for?
Dr. Rankin,
I appreciate your many years of service to IMB and the SBC. You have my undying gratitude and respect for allowing God to work through you to bring Him glory.
With all due respect, your post sounds more like the approach of a business corporation than a biblically-based entity. I spent 25 years as an executive in the business world prior to God calling me into fulltime ministry, and what you are saying sounds no different than any secular endeavor to sell a product.
Are results important? Absolutely. But our charge in the Great Commission is to do specific tasks which Jesus will work through to save people. Neither you nor me nor any missionary on the field has ever saved anyone. Salvation comes through Christ. If someone claims to trust in Christ because of our sales techniques and not the work of the Holy Spirit, that person is not saved and we have done him a great disservice in saying that he is saved because he will go the rest of his life under a spiritual delusion.
I said results are important and they are, however, the results of a spiritual transaction depends more on God than it does me and you. God works through us and we should be burdened in our hearts for the lost and lose sleep over the lost and do everything possible in order to share Christ with the lost.
I discussed this point on my blog recently. Personally, I do not set goals for baptisms in my church because I do not feel it is my job to set goals for God. However, I can set goals for Great Commission activity for our church. Some of the goals we set as a church are as follows:
- number of people invited to church
- hours spent developing relationships with lost
- bible studies established
- bible studies led
- hours spent in servanthood ministries
- mission trip days
- worship attendance
- small group attendance
- number of times sharing faith
We set these goals because these are activities that we can control. These are the seed sowing activities that we believe God will work through to save people. Do these activities translate into results? Yes they do! We average 10 people for every one baptism which is an excellent ratio compared to the average of 45:1. We baptized more people during a 12 month period last year than any other 12 month period in the history of our 127 year old church. We live and breath missions. We are an active Acts 1:8 church.
You said, “If Southern Baptists have assigned us the task of winning the lost.” With all due respect I don’t think Southern Baptists have assigned you the task of reaching the lost. I believe that Southern Baptists have assigned you the task of helping the local churches win the lost.
You also said, “have we fallen into the activity trap, simply carrying on legacy programs and ministries we have been engaged in for ages without any honest assessment of results?.” I do not think that measuring Great Commission activity means that we have fallen into an “activity trap.” I think it means we are focusing our activity on things that will be Great Commission focused.
Though the results in our church are good for a small church, we’re never satisfied, but we’re also not discouraged. If we went through a year of doing everything possible to reach people for Christ and not one person came to Christ that year, does that mean we were unsuccessful? Does that mean that God was unsuccessful? No. If that logic held true, then Noah was unsuccessful. Jesus had 5,000 followers and ended up with 120 in Acts 1. Was He unsuccessful? I think not.
I know this way of thinking is difficult for our pragmatic-centered convention. I also know something needs to change because many, if not most, of our churches are not going about any Great Commission activity. But I believe we will be better served if we focus our efforts on Great Commission activity instead of inward-focused activities or devising better sales techniques to sell Jesus.
Once again, thank you for your leadership. We will miss you.
Les Puryear
Dr. Rankin,
I think you have a valid point. If we are cooperating to fulfill the Great Commission, then we should measure our effectiveness by the end results in each aspect of the GC.
While numbers do not always give us the whole picture, they do represent results (and people). God used numbers to represent results (and people)… 3,000 saved & baptized (Acts 2:41); number grew to 5,000 men (Acts 4:4); multitudes of both men & women believed and were added to their number (Acts 5:14); in those days the number of disciples was multiplying (Acts 6:1); the number of disciples multiplied greatly (Acts 6:7), and so on…
If the Lord goes to the trouble of mentioning specific numbers, and terms like adding and multiplying, I think it is significant enough for us to consider as well. I am not saying that this is the only measure for effectiveness, but it is a significant one, especially on a large scale like a convention, denominational entity, mission org, etc.
I see four key result areas in the Great Commission where we should evaluate our effectiveness: Going, Making Disciples, Baptizing and Teaching to Obey. We ought to look for ways to measure our effectiveness in each of these areas.
Accountability is good. Numbers are difficult. We should certainly be measuring the effectiveness of our programs and searching for ways to do better. Of course, sometimes you can do everything right and see few results. Other times God blesses in spite of poor organization and implementation.
I think this post applies really well to the multiplication (over years and years) of ministries and efforts our state conventions are involved with. We are at the point of having to take a serious look at everything and downsize to real essential ministries – only those things that no one else can do.
I also share the concern (and I imagine Dr. Rankin does as well) that numbers shouldn’t be our idol. But they can oftentimes be indicators of effectiveness.
Mustard seeds. Yeast. Little children. Treasures hidden in fields. Salt. Light. The marks of the Kingdom were much different than what people expected. God works in ways that we cannot imagine. At the same time, Dr. Rankin’s point is valid. We should expect results of some kind. It is not enough to just establish and fund institutions. We should be looking for gospel movements to take place. Organization exists to serve the movement, not the other way around.
But, having said all of that, which results do we look for? This gets pretty tricky. How do we know when God is moving and we are making disciples? Is it just because of baptisms and dollars? Southern Baptists have focused on that forever and it hasn’t helped us very much. Primarily, I think that we need to be raising up disciples who are filled and are led by the Holy Spirit and are following God’s agenda and not their own.
Activities, of some sort, are common to every effort. We humans will engage in activities as we seek to cooperate with God in expanding His Kingdom.
I think I have experienced the “activity trap”. Getting out of that trap is not always easy. It is easy to continue engaging in activities that are familiar and comfortable.
At some point, I think this question must be asked: “Am I engaging in the best activities for the culture and context in which I serve?” One may need to experiment with various activities in order to identify the best ones. Beginning that experimentation process is a challenge. (The easier default setting is familiar and comfortable activities.)
Okay, we all know spiritual results cannot necessarily be measured by numbers, and only God is responsible for results of a spiritual task. But if we are only responsible for faithfulness and not accoutable for results, then we can be satisfied in continuing to do what we are doing, and there is no need for a Great Commission Resurgence.
However, I think the Bible clearly reveals God is concerned about results. If he is not willing for any to perish, then He would obviously lead us to do something in the way of witness and evangelism that enables His Spirit to bring people into the Kingdom. Would anyone deny that the more we witness and the more people who hear the gospel, the more likely it is that God will convict and bring them to faith. If God really does want the nations and peoples of the world to hear and respond to the gospel, the number being reached can be measured…and He has committed that task to us. What we do and how we do it can make a difference. Are we doing what enables God to work through us to accomplish His purpose and be glorified, or are our programs and methods an obstacle to His Spirit working.
SBC entities all have ministry assignments that can be measured. There is an expectation that if we are funded and supported by the convention, we will be accountable for what the SBC expects us to accomplish. The synergy of all we do should be resulting in people being saved (numbers), saved people being baptized (numbers), baptized church members being discipled to live and work in Christlike, God-glorifying spiritual power, that will impact our society and the lostness of America and the world. But if we are not responsible for results, then we can blame God for the dying churches and declining baptisms and the nations that have yet to hear the gospel.
Dear Dr. Rankin,
I sure like your blog posts and the issues that you present for consideration. Thank you for this opportunity to listen and gain insight and for the invitation to participate in the conversation.
We began our service in east Africa a couple of decades ago. We were in Africa during those days you were serving as the Area Director in South-Southeast Asia.
In Africa we saw hundreds of souls harvested and many churches planted. We always wondered what was wrong with those serving in Southeast Asia who would sometimes go years without seeing a church planted. I’m ashamed to say that I was among some other African missionaries who were guilty of saying, “What in the world is wrong with those missionaries in Southeast Asia!!! I planted 5 churches last term and saw hundreds come to Christ every year!!”
Does God have a sense of humor or what!? We ended up transferring to SE Asia due to there being so many Christians in our part of Africa and experienced first hand why work was so slow in SE Asia. It certainly wasn’t due to a lack of zeal, passion or competence of the SEA missionaries and leadership as compared to our African colleagues. It was due to the soil being fertile in Africa and like a ROCK in Asia!
But praise God! We are now seeing a tremendous harvest beginning in SE Asia and in particular our country of service even though those saved have not yet reached 2% of the population. Still, it seems to be “God’s season” for harvest. But again, it certainly isn’t because we missionaries are so much better than our predecessors!
The harvest is being led and implemented by those few national churches planted by missionaries here years ago! Now the Gospel has finally taken on an “Asian” face and the Kingdom is growing by leaps and bounds! We simply get to work with our national brothers and sisters as they lead and as God’s Spirit takes over!!!
I know we all agree that the challenge is to discern when a lack of fruit is the result of poor performance and administration or a result of other factors.
We all fall short in giving our all, all the time. It’s difficult to always stay trim and streamlined.
Even we at IMB find that we are less strategic in the assignment of personnel when the resources are abundant and the pace is hot to send people. We tend to put our “global strategic priority list” aside in order to accommodate the opportunity to deploy more missionaries. But when we’re strapped for funds we are much more strategically focused. I’m sure that churches and other organizations face the same challenge of maintaining a strategic edge.
But I’m not suggesting we limit funding to IMB in order to keep us a “lean, mean sending machine”! I just agree with you, Dr. Rankin, that we all have to continually use diligence to use whatever resources we have to its maximum effectiveness during the good times and the not so good times. Hey! Think I’ll go tell somebody about Jesus!
Dr. Rankin,
On the one hand, I do believe that faithfulness is our mandate and our task. On the other hand, there must be a test for that faithfulness. The Bible says in many ways that when the Gospel of Christ is faithfully presented with those who are lost, some are saved. If we are falling behind in reaching the world we must evaluate what we are doing. Yes it is hard to measure Spiritual things. Yes it is difficult to determine if an area is particularly difficult (as the writer above explains). Yes numbers can give a distorted view. But we must evaluate.
My DOM and I were talking about report forms for church planters recently. We have both filled them out in the past for our positions. Now he is the one reviewing them. He said, “I do not have a fixed number of visits a church planter has to make. But if month after month a person sends in a report that shows no response to his efforts, then I need to evaluate his efforts.” Church planters receive financial assistance for the purpose of planting churches. Those of us who support the Cooperative Praogram and give to missions offerings should expect that those church planters we support are accountable to be doing those things that lead to a church plant.
Thank you Dr Rankin for continuing to dialogue on these things.
Steve In Montana
From my understanding, the trustees of our institutions are the prescribed method of accountability within the SBC. State conventions and associations have executive committees that serve that function. So, if there is a need for have an increase in accountability, what are you suggesting? How would you change the current model?
As an aside, could you please rethink your illustrations? Your points are fine, but when you write “missionaries would say” you are misrepresenting most of us for the sake of your illustration.
Obviously we have to be somewhat equivocal in terms of accountability for results when God is the One that produces the results. However, if countries are to be evangelized, someone must access them with the gospel. If people are to be saved, someone has to be witnessing and telling them. If new churches are started, someone has to be investing in the activities and efforts that bring about a church; none of this just happens in a vacuum.
It is one thing to discuss this ambiguity in terms of the Great Commission task, but what about all we are supporting as a denomination. Southern Baptists are putting tons of money, personnel, organization and efforts into associations, programs of state conventions, and every SBC entity. Is anything expected as a result of those resources, staffing and work? Should anything result from these programs year after year or is continuing the activity another year satisfactory?
Rob, the missionaries I referred to in the illustration were from 20 years ago. I don’t think you would hear that today because there is a sense of focus on the task and commitment to be strategically aligned with what God is doing.
I think the boards and committees responsible for SBC entities, state conventions, etc. are conscientious about accountability but tend to rubber-stamp staff reports and planning because everyone is obviously doing good work. They need to have a vision for greater effectiveness and stewardship of resources, but it will probably come from grassroots Southern Baptists and churches communicating expectations and demanding accountability more in line with Great Commission priorities.
[...] In a new blog post, Jerry Rankin talks about the “activity trap”: “We need more budget, but don’t ask us to be accountable for what we do with it. After all, we are engaged in a spiritual task and the results are up to God. We cannot be held accountable for results… as long as they were busy doing good things and fulfilling their assignment, it didn’t matter if anything was accomplished.” [...]