If there were any question about the need for a Great Commission Resurgence and a study of our structure and programs it has been dispelled in the convictions and positions that have surfaced from many prominent voices. It is evident where resistance will come to recommendations from the GCRTF at the convention in June.
Many will be pointing out how the recommended changes will impact what we are doing as a convention—but isn’t that exactly the point! Watch for those who stand to lose entitlements of a system that hasn’t been moving us toward effective engagement of the lost. Dr. Morris Chapman found a receptive audience in speaking to the winter meeting of State Executives last month in passionately pointing out that the purpose of our denomination is not the Great Commission but cooperation.
Apparently it doesn’t matter whether we impact a lost world or accomplish anything else as long as we cooperate together. In fact, it was said that the formula for Cooperative Program allocations must not change. I now understand why for 17 years I and my staff have been meeting with the budget workgroup of the Executive Committee, presenting our required report on funding needs, but nothing is ever done. It is just a meaningless exercise of denominational bureaucracy.
A mighty move of God could open the world for harvest with thousands of missionaries poised to be deployed to the nations, but we could not do anything about it as Southern Baptists. More important than actually reaching a lost world is every entity getting their share. The priority is reflecting our cooperative commitment to all our programs as if everything we do is of equal value.
The above scenario is not altogether hypothetical. God is using global events to open unprecedented doors of opportunity to penetrate previously restricted and unreached people groups with the gospel. War, political disruption, economic uncertainty and natural disasters are turning the hearts of people all over the world to a search for spiritual answers that only Jesus can provide. Thousands of missionary candidates are in the appointment process but cannot be sent.
What our convoluted priorities are practically saying is, “It is better to let the lost multitudes never hear the gospel and go to hell, than change the way our denomination functions.” It is too bad that we have a system in which only two percent of our resources are given to reach a lost world that Jesus died to save. It is unfortunate our denomination can channel only 17 percent of Cooperative Program allocations to international missions because we have to sustain everything else we are doing. We can’t expect to cease a valid ministry, compromise programs that serve ourselves and our own churches in order to provide resources to get the gospel to those who have never heard! That, in essence, is what is being communicated.
One of my exasperations in working cooperatively with other convention entities has been the difficulty in nailing down the purpose of what is being done. On Mission Celebrations, which used to be World Mission Conferences, is a mission event hosted by local associations. IMB, NAMB, WMU and State Conventions all send personnel to speak in the churches, report on what we are all doing in missions, supposedly to enhance mission awareness. Pressing to know if there is an outcome that is supposed to result from this event, I am usually told that the event is an end in itself. Nothing is done that actually enlists and equips the church for missions involvement once the week is over.
Participation in Jericho Weeks at Ridgecrest and Glorieta rapidly declined when it became obvious that this mission week was more about profiling the cooperation of IMB, NAMB, WMU and LifeWay than accomplishing anything that would significantly advance missions. What about annual state convention meetings and associational meetings? Is there any outcome that made a difference, or do we continue to expend time, energy and expense on just being who we are?
Cooperation is about us; it is self-centered, self-promoting and maintaining everything every entity is doing without any concern for priorities or results. The Great Commission is not about us, our programs and sustaining what we have always done; it is about others. It is about a lost world. It is about consolidating our resources and focusing our energies to proclaim the gospel to those who have never heard, to win the lost and see the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom of our Lord.
I wonder which is God’s priority. Yes, He is pleased with unity among God’s people. He is honored by anything we do cooperatively for His sake. But not to the neglect of His mission! Cooperation is the means through which we work together, not an end in itself. Why couldn’t our cooperation be for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission? Now that would be a quaint idea!
Great poem, Greg; is it copyright or can I use it?
Kevin and everyone else, let’s don’t put down cooperation nor confuse cooperation with the cooperative program. The potential of cooperation focused on a common objective is powerful; we just must not make the process and means become the objective. And there will be no cooperation if there is not an agreed upon objective. So far, we are not exactly in agreement about what the Great Commission is, what it looks like and how to do it. Also, cooperative program is an absolute miraculous system if not abused. The IMB is the largest benefactor, so I’m not going to knock it, but I do have some ideas that I think could possibly double giving to CP–keep reading. I hope some of the ideas being generated will be used to put some flesh around the GCR skeleton.
Thank you for your commentary on what we are facing as a denomination. Praying for all of us at this pivotal moment in our convention. Praying that it will be about Him and not about us.
I am saddened that a man such as your stature Mr Rankin would make the comments you did here on your blog. I ask what resentment you have hidden inside of you towards Mr. Chapman. Let’s see, you made comments about a speech in which you were not present and then you twisted it out of context. Not very wise at all for a man who claims what he does. I suggest you ask Mr. Chapman what he really said, then apologize when you realize you were pushing your agenda, and then you can repent before God concerning the division that you caused by maligning someone else’s words. I will pray for you.
Whew! Things are getting interesting on this blog! Emotions are high but we have to be careful. I’m sure that Dr. Chapman would not depict himself as caring more about “cooperation” than winning souls to Christ should he have the occasion to address that issue. We all get passionate about our causes but we do have to be careful about the characterization of our brother’s position on things.
The Cooperative Program functioning does have its problems and should be assessed, but praise God that among the money returned for allocation among the Southern Baptist entities IMB receives a lion’s share! Shows where our priorities still lie and makes me prouder than ever to be a Southern Baptist!
We should have independent assessment, similar to the GCR committee (NOT entity Boards) to review how SB entities are using the resources they currently have and to assess the effectiveness of their current strategies.
Before we ask for more, we should be more determined to use what we have to its maximum effectiveness. For instance, I do hope that everyone realizes that the world’s coming to Christ is not dependent upon Southern Baptists sending out more and more IMB missionaries!
We currently have over 5,000 IMB missionaries. I believe this far surpasses any other Protestant mission agency. Can Southern Baptists send enough evangelists and church planters to win the nations to Christ? Of course not. That will be done by the national church.
Is IMB using its current force to most effectively maximize the work of the national Christians in the countries where unengaged people groups live? THAT is the question. THEY are the ones that will win the peoples of the world to Christ. Is IMB’s current strategy prioritizing the use of national Christians or is it prioritizing the sending of IMB missionaries as the means to win the world?
Is our intent to see the nations won to Christ or is winning the world to Christ “ourselves” the priority that overrides our strategy? Are we willing to assume the role of anonymous partner in “their” endeavor? Our current strategy will answer that question the most accurately.
Dr. Rankin,
I agree that more money needs to be given to international missions. I don’t understand why the GCR committee came back with so few changes after all the talk. It’s as if our talking about the problem will somehow fix it. Thank you for taking a bold stand and for not being afraid to speak up. I know you will take a few hits but I believe you are on the right path. I pray the ultimate end of this discussion will be much more CP money going to reach the unreached and many people brought to saving faith in Christ.
Sincerely,
Bill Pfister
Taylors, SC
What I love about this is that there is a battle brewing here about the Great Commission and cooperation. This should be a great witness to an unbelieving world.
Bart,
There is no real battle brewing here about the Great Commission and cooperation in the SBC, as if they are mutually exclusive. This was fabricated by the author of this blog who took words out of context. Once this is acknowledge, the perceived battle will dissipate and we will all be on the same “side” again.
Dr. Rankin,
The IMB does receive monies (millions) by means of the cooperative program.
Is the lion’s share of those monies being spent more on support structures for missionaries on the field (read, at home personnel, trustee meetings, etc.) or on the missionaries and their on field budgets?
Does not the money from Lottie Moon about cover the expenses of the 5,000 or so missionaries now employed? Where is the other money going?
My point? Doesn’t the IMB need a fiscal overhaul along with the rest of the convention entities and procedures?
Respectfully, James Hunt
Mac Dean, I’m puzzled by your assertion that Dr. Rankin took out of context words from Dr. Chapman, which were written by Dr. Chapman’s employee and director of convention news, Will Hall. The article clearly states:
[begin quote] Referencing a push he has made over the years for a 50-50 percent split of CP gifts between state and national causes, Chapman emphasized the symbolism it would represent and the relationship it would knit organizationally.
He said such an ideal would “adequately convey to our people that we are all yoked together … in Gospel enterprises,” having set aside “competitive tendencies for the greater good of the convention and to do more for the Kingdom.” [end quote]
This is all Dr. Rankin is pointing out. Dr. Chapman desires a 50-50 split, namely, for the symbolism of cooperation it would convey. That, then, would show we are “yoked together…in Gospel enterprises” (aka: cooperation). Anything other than equality would represent competition, the 2nd quoted graf insinuates. So, cooperation takes precedent over getting more resources to a lost and dying world. Urging an imbalance of funding for the sake of the Great Commission is seen as maligning the balance of cooperation.
Dr. Chapman is on the record on more than just this time speaking against ‘imbalance’. This isn’t something that Dr. Rankin should apologize for, and this is exactly what the GCRTF should (and is, I believe) be working towards.
This is all about money! Dr. Rankin wants more money for the IMB, and he is now throwing mud to accomplish that mission. They attempted to do that through absorbing NAMB, but it didn’t work. Since Rankin is in a position to not care about his title, he is using the opportunity to smear another Christian in order to get more money for the IMB.
The problem in the IMB, like so many institutions, is they care more about protecting their share of the pie and its system than they do about the Great Commission. How many missionaries within the IMB have been called to lifetime service to a region, then called to lifetime service at IMB, and then back again to the same region. This is all to protect the system. If the Convention really wants to help the IMB with tis finances, do a thorough investigation of IMB practices–and not being led by the nose by some hand-picked candidate of the IMB.
Dr. Rankin you should make sure your own house is in order before you start lying about another to increase your own storehouse.
Thank you for the courageous words. may they not only be heard but acted upon. God can use the SBC if we are obedient and surrendered to HIS will. If not He will choose anther.
Dr Rankin,
Please keep posting your take on the report from the task force. I do not believe you are “all about the money” any more than I believe Dr. Chapman is “all about cooperation.” Maybe he mis-spoke. Maybe you mis-quoted. I do see two men of God who passionately want the SBC to do its best in reaching the world for Christ. I beleive the debate among leaders is healthy (though the circus that often follows in blogdom is not helpful).
Thank you for keeping the discussion on the task and not spending time answering every critic.
Steve Young in Montana
AlanB,
This bickering is pointless.
Why does Chapman’s statement have to be — in your mind — at odds with the Great Commission?
The quote you referenced simply recounts that Chapman said a 50/50 split would show people “we are all yoked together.” That statement is true, right?
And the goal of a 50/50 split would mean mean there would be more money for missions, or as Chapman said, “to do more for the Kingdom.”
I like both Dr. Ranking and Dr. Chapman.
I feel like Rodney King: Can, can, can’t we all just get along?
AlanB,
You are puzzled?! How so? Let us take a look at what was said:
Rankin: “Watch for those who stand to lose entitlements of a system that hasn’t been moving us toward effective engagement of the lost. Apparently it doesn’t matter whether we impact a lost world or accomplish anything else as long as we cooperate together.” Where in Chapman’s speech did he say that impacting the lost doesn’t matter. This is absurd! It makes it sound like Chapman is the wolf in sheeps clothing who we all need to “watch out” for. You may disagree with Chapman, but Rankin’s words are maligning Chapman’s character and his Christian devotion.
Rankin: “What our convoluted priorities are practically saying is, ‘It is better to let the lost multitudes never hear the gospel and go to hell, than change the way our denomination functions.’” Rankin, with these words, is insinuating that Chapman is so worried about himself that he thinks it is good that people go to hell, as long as he gets what he wants. Again, you are puzzled at what I said?! Really?! These words by Rankin do nothing but cause polarization within the denomination, and, they are a complete lie.
And finally to set the record straight, I have no problem with Mr. Rankin’s message that more money needs to allotted to the GCR. What I have a problem with is that he smeared Mr. Chapman’s name by insinuating that Mr. Chapman doesn’t care about the lost or the Great Commission and that they can just go to hell. Yes, Rankin’s words are way out of context and in doing so, has attempted to hurt someone else’s name. Whether you disagree with Chapman’s idea of imbalance or not, and whether his solution is justified or not, it is innapropriate for someone such as Rankin to make it seem as if Chapman doesn’t care about the lost. This is hurtful and uncalled for!
Rankin or any other individual is not the point of his blog posting. He is making a valid point at an important time: will the Lord say ‘well done’ to our allotting 97% of our resources to the U.S. when 45,000 churches are already working here while thousands of missionaries are ready to go but can’t because of lack of funding?
Eph. 4:2,3
Sam in Va
There is a lot of discussion here about dollars used here in the US and internationally. Take this into consideration: Most churches keep 90% of their money for local ministry, if they give 10% to CP, only an average of 40% of that 10% makes it to imb. So in reality, on average, more that 98% of all money collected is used for North American ministries.
As the controversy heats up over what Dr. Rankin said about Dr. Chapman in the opening paragraphs, I want to revisit what I said in my first comment when I said that I agree wholeheartedly, I was not speaking in particular about anything to do with Dr. Chapman. Honestly, I skimmed that part because I am not that interested in personalities and who says what or how what certain people say is interpreted. Some are saying that Dr. Chapman didn’t mean things the way they were represented here. Perhaps that is true. It is important to accurately reflect another’s words, but I have not taken the time or energy to research what Dr. Chapman actually said or meant. So, my agreement with Dr. Rankin on the thrust of his post has nothing at all to do with what Dr. Chapman said or didn’t say.
There is one thing that I would like to speak to, however. Dr. Rankin said that the GCRTF can only deal with structural change. I disagree. I think that they could serve as a catalyst for grassroots movement and transformation if they would choose to do so. Jon Akin pointed to the need for that as well. That is encouraging. That is exactly what needs to happen. Initiating structural change and calling it a GCR without having a corresponding groundswell of grassroots transformation is a recipe for many to see the GCR ultimately as a failure. I don’t want to see that happen, but I am afraid that is where we are headed if we don’t hit hard the need for a bottom-up change. Please keep calling us to that.
Nowhere in Scripture do we have the right to attack a brother in Christ. Maybe we lack the power of the Holy Spirit because we continue to violate one another!
“Globalmind” (above) makes a great point in an understandable and succinct manner. Thank you. As a former accountant, let me go one more step. 40% of the 10% makes it to the “SBC” (not the imb). Then half of that actually goes to the imb (20% of the 40% of the 10% average given to the CP by churches). FOR EXAMPLE, if a dollar is given in a church offering plate, on average 90 cents stays local for the church and whatever it decides. 10 cents goes to CP. 6 cents then stays in that state and thus 4 cents gets passed to the SBC. Then, 2 cents of that actually makes it to imb. Only two cents of every dollar in the offering plate on average. Its hard to make disciples of all nations on that.
“Tom” is apparently unaware that he is guilty of the very thing he is accusing others of, namely, unsubstantiated hyperbole, making aspersions, judging motives, & slander. Be careful, brother! As a former missionary, I am offended by his unfounded castigations of our agency caring more about protecting “the system” than the Great Commission. If its “about the money,” it is NOT a money grab but a conviction that more evangelicals should share based on the data clarified by Globalmind. How can we know what we know and it not break our hearts and cause us to plead to use our money differently? Two cents of every dollar to reach 95% of the planet?? Please, for whom is it really “all about the money”??
To respond to James Hunt who wonders if the lion’s share of the money is spent on “support structures” rather than field ministries and budgets (great question), the answer is No. As a former trustee of imb, know that 86% of imb money supports the field. Only 14% is used in what you might call overhead, the necessary support structures any organization or business needs (employees, trustees, mobilization materials/efforts, light bills, missionary training, etc.). Compare that with Samaritan’s Purse, your own church, or any other non-profit and you’ll be pleasantly surprised at imb’s efficiency and stewardship. The house is in order. But if its not, rest assured the current leadership would be willing to examine its own house and sacrifice for the sake of the lost.
Rick K’s questions are good. Briefly, the imb does send people in catalytic roles to assist nationals to reach their own. You are right, that is the primary way the task will be accomplished. But the imb is also rightly focusing on the least reached and the unengaged so that EVERY tribe will be represented. Many of those do not yet have national believers who can be trained/mentored. Somebody (imb personnel) has to go reach that first person in their tribe. What a privilege and responsibility that a Southern Baptist would have the means to achieve that honor and an obedient heart to do so! May our SB tribe increase ONLY SO THAT the nations will be blessed because of us!
Frank’s words above are my point exactly! People on here have been saying that the point of this blog is not a matter of individuals. That is fine to say, and I agree with much of what Mr. Rankin has said in this blog. But, no matter how wise a word Rankin has spoken, it profits nothing if it has been said in an unloving way/or has been unloving toward Mr. Chapman; it is simply a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal. And trying to get one’s point across by insinuating that another brother in Christ does not care whether the lost go to hell or not is not very loving in my opinion.
We all know about what the “Great commission” is all about. Sometimes we see things more clearly than the other person, and sometimes they can see better than what we can. There are millions of poor souls heading towards hell, and here we are wasting time finding faults towards each other. We don’t fight the devil with our fists, and our enemy cannot be seen. Yeah, nobody’s perfect.. But can we ask ourselves about what we did to make the whole thing back to it’s track? Or we make it worst? God said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you..” We do His will first and His blessing will come right after. Anyway if this is not for God, this won’t last a year.. But if this whole deal is of God, man.. It’s a hard nut to crack. We don’t like ending up like Judas Iscariot. We’re all part of Christ Body. Is Christ divided? I don’t think so. I prefer love than money. And I know for sure that we all understand about what Jesus’ meant when he said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, IF YE LOVE ONE TO ANOTHER..” These mission is first rooted in Love, not it money.. Money has no value, souls do. And if we cause some souls to stumble because of our irresponsibility to love, shame on us. We’re not Christ’s disciples.
This is all about the money, not the structure or even reaching the lost. As an example, let’s examine how many more people the IMB employs versus NAMB, and then divide by production–saved souls. Further, let’s examine how the money is used within the institution on various events, training, etc. Finally, let’s evaluate the attrition rate of missionaries; i.e., how many last beyond their first tour in the ministry. I submit to you that if you were to examine ministry production in this way, you might discover who is getting the most bang for their buck.
And don’t tell me how unbiblical a process this would be when the IMB itself relies more on secular experts in evaluating the “called-ness” of its missionaries than on the word of the churches that send them prayerfully.
This is all about money from the President of the IMB and their share of it. And as for Frank’s comments, I believe that Paul rebuked Peter for misleading the Gentile Christians in front of the Jewish Christians. There is ample Biblical precedent for rebuking a brother for bearing false witness or otherwise acting in an unBiblical way.
As Tom has pointed out Paul did rebuke Peter and we too often assume that Paul handled the situation correctly. I would suggest that Matthew 18 defines a better way to correct a brother.
Additionally, we believe that structural change will win the day and assist in fulfilling the Great Commission. Structures will not change people or cause people to fall in love with the Lord or with the lost. We can adjust structure all we want but when we open the door next Sunday we will still have the same people. The structural change will not cause people to commit to the continuation of the Mission of Christ.
Money and structures become excuses to justify failure and a way to blame God for a failure to go, baptize, teach and make disciples. True leaders work with God to find solutions rather than attack a brother or complain and make excuses for today’s circumstances.
Phil said: “Many of those do not yet have national believers who can be trained/mentored.”
He was speaking in reference to some unengaged people groups not having any Christians from that people group in existence. I agree. That’s why I made reference to nationals in the “countries” where those unengaged people groups exist.
There are many unengaged people groups in Indonesia. The reality is that Indonesian Christians from other people groups in that country would be much more in tune with the cultures, languages-dialects, and belief systems of those unengaged people groups than people from outside the country. They would be likely be received with more openness by the unengaged people than would foreigners from the west.
But certainly western missionaries could and should partner with the national Christians to emphasize the need to engage those that are unengaged and work with the national Christians to develop a strategy for reaching them. That would be MUCH more effective than the westerners just going in on their own in the initial stages.
God bless.