We will never do anything that will result in a Great Commission Resurgence unless we are willing to acknowledge realities and realize that it will take a new paradigm of cooperation. Some have been offended as flaws in our traditional system have been exposed. I have not intended to imply that anyone is doing anything wrong; in fact, state conventions and SBC entities are doing a very effective job in exactly what churches have asked them to do. It comes back to defining the issue and evaluating everything in terms of what it will take to do a more effective job of reaching the lost throughout America and around the world.
I am moving toward a series of posts on “Alternative Futures.” Several future scenarios become evident depending on decisions we make now. Which alternative is chosen will not be determined by recommendations by the GCR task force, but actions taken by every church, association and state convention as well as the SBC. I believe state convention leadership will be the key to whether or not we see a Great Commission resurgence. A lot has been said about the role and responsibility of states in our current system. The leaders of our state conventions are passionately devoted to reaching the lost; they are among the most devoted supporters and partners of our mission boards. Those in mainline states are deeply burdened about the needs and challenges of their colleagues in pioneer states. I believe they will provide the creative leadership needed to create a new paradigm of cooperation and synergy.
No one would deny that spiritual revitalization is needed since the Great Commission is a spiritual task. Simply changing processes and funding formulas will not get it done. But we cannot expect God to bless us with revival if we fail to be obedient to what He has called us as His people to do. We must be committed to the task and have the courage to make the decisions in what we are responsible for in order to be aligned with the mission of God.
Let me reiterate that no one is suggesting eliminating the Cooperative Program. It is a miraculous channel for support of all we should be doing collectively and has the potential for providing the resources to reach our world for Jesus Christ beyond what churches can do alone. But changes need to be made that will enhance credibility and compel a greater level of giving. I believe—as I have stated in previous posts—this includes a stronger direct focus on missions, greater transparency and efficiency, and giving churches flexibility and ownership rather than insisting on impersonal, generic giving.
The strongest resistance to changes in CP—and even to the GCRTF recommendation of giving credit for “Great Commission Giving” as designations beyond CP—is that it will return us to the societal method. I want to explore the fallacy of this concern as we are already there!
In 1925 churches across the rural South did not have the communication channels that exist today. They were probably aware of most Baptist entities, but did not really know what they were doing or their needs except as representatives of the state and SBC entities came to their church. Obviously this pattern, accompanied by appeals for direct financial support, overwhelmed the churches and created competitiveness among the entities. The Cooperative Program was a brilliant and effective solution.
However, this is the 21st century in which communication has changed and churches are well-informed. It is not necessary for “agents” to make appeals for direct funding. Not only would churches not tolerate and entertain a parade of appeals for special interests from their pulpits today, I don’t know of any denominational entity that could afford to add a team of staff in such a role. Churches do want to know what they are supporting, and each recipient of CP funding should be conscientious and diligent to communicate with churches about what they are doing.
Those who are fearful of a societal method of giving seem to be blind to the fact that our support is already being eroded by societal giving. The last time I recall seeing a breakdown of church missions giving was in 1998; it revealed that already churches were giving more to non-SBC causes than to CP, the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering combined. I have estimated that there are three times as many Southern Baptists doing missions overseas independently and through other mission agencies than through the IMB. I am seldom in a mission conference in which there are not more missionaries from other agencies than IMB and NAMB.
In seeking to partner with Great Commission Christians and evangelicals doings missions overseas, we have identified 53 independent organizations among Southern Baptists alone. They wave high their banner of identity as Southern Baptists, but they are mobilizing volunteers, sending missionaries and appealing for funds from our churches with no accountability to the convention. Many of them are raising support for national workers in foreign countries who come to the states each year on fund-raising circuits.
There are probably more churches involved at Christmas with Samaritans Purse and Prison Fellowship’s Angel Tree ministry than promote the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Even WMU and LifeWay feature Samaritans Purse, Habitat for Humanity and Voice of the Martyrs in literature and promotion. None of these entities, organizations and individuals are subject to convention prohibitions against promotion and fund-raising.
Why do churches open their doors to these appeals and respond with funding? It is because it is a personalized appeal that provides an opportunity for involvement in something significant. There is accountability; they know exactly what their gifts are accomplishing. It has far greater emotional appeal than giving to a broad, generic program that is perceived to be primarily supporting administration of the denomination.
Three years ago the Great Commission Council (SBC entities heads) confronted the International Mission Board for violating the Business and Financial Plan by encouraging churches to adopt people groups and become directly involved in mission strategies overseas. In spite of the fact that no appeal was being made for direct funding to the IMB, it was felt encouraging churches to do missions overseas would undercut what they would otherwise designate to CP. The chairmen of the various entity boards were invited to witness this review. However, most of them were pastors of churches heavily involved in missions and recognized the service IMB was providing was clearly within the parameters of convention policies.
It was also pointed out that many churches received letters of appeal from seminary Development Departments and were recipients of significant designated giving. Almost half of NAMB missionaries were Mission Service Corps volunteers who raised their own funds for support. LifeWay was engaged in a campaign at the time called “A Defining Moment” in an attempt to raise $29 million, much of which was to be used to train pastors in Kenya, print Bibles for China and promote True Love Waits in Africa. Even Guidestone’s appeal to churches to “Adopt an Annuitant” was an expression of direct funding appeals. More recently even the Executive Committee has appealed to churches to underwrite and sponsor conferences overseas as a part of its Global Evangelical Relations program. Do churches not also get special appeals from Baptist colleges, children’s homes and other local needs?
The reality is that we have already succumbed to societal methods both internally and externally. We need to recognize why this has such an appeal to our churches and a contemporary generation. People today will give and give generously if they know what their gifts are doing and especially if they can be involved. We need to discover a new way of cooperative support for what we are doing as a denomination that will acknowledge this reality and capitalize on it for the sake of reaching a lost world.
[...] and maintaining the interest of the next generation of Southern Baptists. See Dr. Rankin’s April 19 post which advocates a similar [...]
Sounds like Cooperative Program Plus http://www.missionleader.com/?p=779
This post talks too much sense – a lot of people are not going to like it. The fact is that regardless of whether or not Great Commission Giving becomes a recognized category, many churches already do and more will in the future give to the areas they believe will be most effective.
The only people upset by the idea of churches being able to give where they want are people who realize their organization gets a bigger cut through subsidy than it would if people chose whether or not to support it.
Dr. Rankin hits the nail on the head. We need to treat churches like adults (capable of making their own decisions in missions support) rather than like children (you send us the money and we’ll decide where it goes).
“Churches do want to know what they are supporting, and each recipient of CP funding should be conscientious and diligent to communicate with churches about what they are doing.”
Is this not what ON MISSION CELEBRATIONS are designed to do? It has not been long since you stated that OMC’s were pretty much a waste of time. I agree that OMC’s probably need a tweaking, but this is still a marvelous opportunity for those recipients to communicate face to face with churches about their ministry.
I would like to address the comment about the mainline states being more supportive of pioneer states. Under the current suggestions of the GCRTF, my state would lose a significant amount of money from the NAMB cooperative agreements. Our state leaders will have to find a way to recover those funds to keep viable, evangelistic ministries alive. On the other hand, our state is being encouraged to send more resources to pioneer states? Our state is 60% lost….That is our Jerusalem—60% lost. I am confused by this thinking.
Again, I am a missions supporting church staff of a small church. I believe that we have a responsibility to support our agencies. But I also have a strong sense that money would not be an issue if we had an outside group take a look at the IMB and NAMB budgets to see how much waste is taking place. If IMB would PARTNER with the states rather than work against them (or allow their leader to BASH the states) they could save tons of money in stateside personnel. How many churches realize that IMB has a number of people living across the US going into churches doing work that the state staff could do?? Why is this money not being spent sending missionaries to the field? Why is IMB flying their trustees and a guest all over the world to visit missionaries? Couldn’t these visit be done by missionaries on state side during one of the $100,000 board meetings? Why is IMB flying 12 media people and case after case of video equipment ALL OVER THE WORLD to produce a three minute video? All of this money that is spent frivilously could be used to put missionaries on the field. I will not vote for any motion that does not require a long, hard look at how our agencies are spending the funds they have been given. I am sure many will say that is the job of the trustees. It should be…but if you were a trustee being given all those perks, would you challenge anything?
Those who are taking all this GCR recommendation at face value need to do some research. The picture painted by Hunt, Floyd, Rankin, et al… is not the full picture. THey are painting a picture they want you to see. I, for one, have looked into several things that have opened my eyes to some things that will NEVER make it to the convention floor in these reports.
Thank you for documenting the Societal Missions Resurgence of the past twenty years. Unfortunately, I am now even more paranoid of the societal missions approach than I was before reading the article.
During this Societal Missions Resurgence, churches have reduced their Cooperative Program giving from an average of 10.2% to an average of 6.6%. Without a doubt, some of the money that is now going to other missions causes formerly supported Cooperative Program missions.
In response to CP support reduction, state conventions felt pressured to change the percentage they forwarded to national entities, creating dissatisfied churches who bypassed CP to give directly to national entities, all of which resulted in a vicious, uncooperative cycle.
I keep hearing: “If we continue doing what we’ve always done, we’ll get the same results we’ve always gotten.” But hold on a moment. I beg you to consider that we are NOT continuing to do what we’ve always done.
As Forrest Gump might say, “I’m not a smart man, but I know the difference between 10.2 and 6.6.” Oddly enough, the Cooperative Program only works if we cooperate.
We have got to be willing to ask why this is happening. There is something about accountability and opportunity for involvement that is appealing. Could we not find a new paradigm of cooperative support that is aligned with the contemporary mindset that is more compelling that generic, impersonal giving. When Yogi Berra was manager of the NY Mets who were in a losing season and at the bottom of conference, no one was coming to the games. In one of his typical Yogi observations he said, “If people don’t want to come out to the ball park you can’t keep them from doing it.” If church don’t want to give to the current system….
It seems like to me that the personal connection with missionaries that was present prior to the cp in 1925 was a positive. The fact that about half of the money was spent on raising money was a negative. I wonder if today a group of people stateside could be organized to volunteer their time to go around speaking for the cause of the great commission (to regain that positive personal connection). There are certainly many people who are passionate for the lost worldwide. These pastors, missionaries, and lay people could possibly speak to every sbc church on a regular basis. I think that for many churches the lostness of the world and the privilege we have to join in God’s mission are merely an afterthought or at best a minor focus. The church needs to be awakened. I think people will give, go, and do when they are awakened to God’s call and the current state of lostness in the world.
I agree we need to ask why this is happening, and I could not agree more with the need for teaching the contemporary mindset that both CP giving AND personal involvement are vitally important. When my twelve year old son went with me on a mission trip to Ukraine last year, we raised financial resources above and beyond the resources we tithe through the church and the church tithes through CP channels. Personal involvement did not come at the expense of CP stewardship.
Must we pit the contemporary mindset AGAINST the traditional one? If the contemporary mindset favors personal involvement in lieu of strong CP support, my question is: “Should we condone this mindset and give it our blessing or should we not instead teach the next generation the value of supplementing important personal involvement with the consistently strong Cooperative Program support needed for the gospel to reach those places where we will never personally go?”
Dr. Rankin,
Thank you for your insightful observation. I couldn’t agree more with your position here. I only wish you would take if further, which is why I will watch with expectation on your coming post on “Alternative Futures.”
I’m hopeful to reclaim that pioneer spirit (First Love) that Baptists once had. You know, what I read about in history books that we were once passionate people for the cause of the Gospel.
JB,
I am a M finishing my stateside assignment. I haven’t stopped to count the number of churches I have been in during the last 5 months, but I can assure you it has been many.
But, I must also say that it seems many churches are becoming less interested in having a M speak before the congregation. Even my home church did not allow me to speak during a service.
There are a number of us at home during a year, and I know we would be willing to go wherever a door opens. We love to share our stories with any and all who are willing to listen.
I am very interested in the comments concerning financing of the IMB and how to gain more support. One of the biggest issues I have seen is that SBC churches don’t trust the IMB anymore. Transparency has never been a quality of the IMB. And as I think any good leader would acknowledge, transparency is always the best policy. Of course the IMB shot itself in the foot when they passed rules that told the public in so many words, “that if any trustees or associates of the IMB disagrees with us stand by.” This may not be reality, but this is what the local churches heard. There is a lot of Dirty Laundry being reported about the IMB on other blogs and in certain books. This dirty laundry should have been reported by the IMB itself. If any Southern Baptist is going to invest in the vision of the IMB it would only be wise to invest in an organization that one has no reservations about. My wife and I continue to give to Lottie Moon and IMB missionaries because we have personal contact with these Godly men and women. Jon’s comment does have valid arguments because these are the things being said and heard at the local Baptist Church level, like it or not. The biggest issue facing the IMB today is regaining the trust of Southern Baptist. Many churches are supporting missionaries from other organizations. I would be willing to bet that the average Southern Baptist in our local churches across the United States have never even heard of the International Mission Board. It is time the IMB has a self examination and listens to its findings. We live in a world where at the press of a button one could literally have a long list of evangelical, Biblical, Christian Mission organizations that are involved in cutting edge ministries on the foreign field. Why should they support the International Mission Board? We can no longer say that just because they are Southern Baptist they should support the IMB. The International Mission Board has to clean up itself in terms of how it does business before they can successfully reach the world.