For SB's, The Great Commission Is NOT Affected By A Drop In CP Giving

IMB Missionary Appointments are being cut because of a drop in Cooperative Program giving.

IMB Trustee Chariman, Paul Chitwood wants to change the CP formula to get more money to the IMB.

Southern Baptist Cooperative Program giving has dropped and IMB Trustee Chairman, Paul Chitwood, SBC President Johnny Hunt and others are acting like people are not being reached with the gospel around the world because we are being selfish.  Well, we are selfish and I understand their sentiment and desire for Southern Baptists to be doing our part, but the truth is, God is working through believers all over the world. The indigenous church of the global South and 2/3's world is taking the gospel everywhere. Chinese are evangelizing Chinese and Muslims. Koreans are going everywhere with the Gospel. There is a huge movement in South America. More and more people are coming to Christ in Africa. Indians are evangelizing Indians. The Holy Spirit is working and the world is seeing the greatest influx of people into the Kingdom that it has ever seen. Yes, there is a vital role for Westerners, Americans, and Southern Baptists, but I think that we should stop with the stories that manipulate money out of people by claiming that missionaries will stay home and the lost will never hear the gospel if Southern Baptists don't do it through the CP and IMB.

Here's the truth: Sob stories and appeals to emotion will do little to make us more evangelistic or generous. The problem with the SBC is a problem with the heart. Threatening to "take the gloves off" as Johnny Hunt is doing over this issue will hardly make a difference. Our priorities are wrong. We think first about ourselves and our own needs. This is a heart issue. I know that that is what they are saying. But, here is what I believe. If you think that you are called to go overseas in missions and you are told by the IMB that they can't send you because of lack of funds and you subsequently stay home, then you are not called to missions - at least not in a way that will be effective in the long term. We are far too depenedent on the institution of the SBC to do the work that GOD has called us to do. If SBC churches are waiting on the 5,600 IMB missionaries to reach the world for Christ and we are putting all of our eggs in that basket, then we are going to be very disappointed. Until individuals and churches take this upon themselves to get involved and begin to engage with unreached people groups and the lost in their own neighborhoods and cities, we are going to continue down the road to irrelevance and death.

I love the IMB. I have been a huge supporter of it for many years now. But, we have to face facts. The Great Commission was given to the local church and when we farm it out to a denominational missions sending agency through giving money, we are going to be very disappointed. Why doesn't the IMB contact SBC megachurches and ask them to support missionaries that are qualified but cannot go through special offerings? They can be overseen by the IMB but supported by the megachurches? 

Read what Dr. Rankin, president of the IMB said about where the money comes from:

 "God is using global events to provide unprecedented opportunities for global advance," Rankin said. "The harvest is accelerating, unreached people groups are being engaged as never before, but we are on the verge of forfeiting the opportunity to fulfill the Great Commission."

If the IMB doesn't send those who have a passion for missions, Rankin said many of them will find other channels for service; many of them will be forced to raise their own support and churches will begin diverting resources to support those called from their congregations.

"They will be forced to be obedient to God's call by going independently," Rankin said. "The Cooperative Program will suffer as a result.

"We need to recognize that we must get on board with God's agenda of going into all the world and making disciples of all nations."

I love Dr. Rankin and I have loved his leadership. I have spoken with him several times at events and I am a supporter of his. But, the issue here does not seem to be getting missionaries to the field. He admits that if the IMB does not send them, they will find other channels for service. The issue is that "the Cooperative Program will suffer as a result."  So, is this about sending missionaries or about the Cooperative Program?  The two are not necessarily synonymous.

From the same address reported inthe Baptist Press article, 

Rankin also challenged Southern Baptists to retool "outdated" denominational formulas to reach a lost world for Christ.

"God has blessed Southern Baptists in numbers and resources, and we will stand accountable before God for whether we use those resources to serve our own needs, church programs and denominational entities or fulfill our mission task to reach a lost world," Rankin said.

Could it be that it is time to take a look at how we send missionaries through the IMB? If the IMB exists to help churches do missions, then why can't we ask churches that are able to spend the $50,000 or so a year that it takes to put a missionary couple on the field? How many churches who had the funds would say no to that?

If we are really serious about being a part of the greatest Christian movement that the world has ever seen, it is time that we put aside outdated means of denominational work. There is a better way to do things than we have been doing them. If the local church would engage mission both locally and globally in a front lines way, and if all of that work could be celebrated as Baptist work, then we would not have any issues. But, if everything has to go through the CP to the State Conventions to the IMB and then they appoint people who have left their churches to go through them, I think that things are just going to get worse - no matter how many tough speeches are given by our leaders.

If we are talking about missions involvement, funding, and sending, as well as supporting the work of indigenous believers, then there are many funding approaches. If we are talking about control (we often think that if we hold the funds then we have control), then I can see where the CP is the preferred route for those in charge. But, it doesn't have to be that way. Denominational entities can serve the local church through direction and expertise while the local church can provide funding and support in many ways. I don't have all of this worked out, but it seems that it is time to look at new approaches.

Final Question: What keeps the IMB from contacting Johnny Hunt's church, First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia (a HUGE church, by the way), and asking them to support a few of the missionaries that cannot be appointed? If it is over fear of a diminishing of the CP, then that might show where our priorities really are, even if we don't realize it ourselves.

Comments

[Alan Stoddard]

You said, "but I think that we should stop with the stories that manipulate money out of people by claiming that missionaries will stay home and the lost will never hear the gospel if Southern Baptists don't do it through the CP and IMB." I agree, we should not "manipulate." It used to work, but doesn't any longer. BUT, I would not want to lay off pushing with urgency the need to reach the lost. This is a hard dilemma. Also, once we deemphasize the CP, it will be gone. We will go to a society model, which I don't like. I like that missionaries don't have to raise money. Now, I do know there has to be room for more CP money to go to the IMB. And FBC Woodstock does a lot with missions.

All good. I like this post. Made me think.

[Alan Cross]

I agree, Alan. We need to be urgent about our need to reach the lost and communicate that clearly. But, we need to do so accurately. We live in a day and age when people are changing rapidly. Because of technology, communication, education, connectivity, resources, and other advancements, people are getting rid of what does not work in business and their personal lives and are grabbing hold of what does. If we are going to make appeals to people because we believe that the current system is the best system, we had better make that case to people and show why it is the best system instead of just saying that it is. We could easily fund 100 missionaries by going to 100 large churches and ask them for $50,000 each. They could raise that in one or two Sundays. But, if we don't do that because we are afraid of hurting the CP while simultaneously saying that we can't put people on the field, then we have elevated the CP ABOVE sending missionaries and it becomes a hindrance to the mission instead of a help. That is a problem. Also, I know that FBC Woodstock does a lot with missions. That is why I named them. I believe with my whole heart that that church would raise $50k to send a missionary family to the field that could not go otherwise. But, they might not raise $275,000 so that $50k could make it to the IMB with $225k going everywhere else.

My point is not to speak against the CP or the IMB. Rather, it is to say that we need to make sure that we don't use the Great Commission to keep the CP solvent because that is the means the WE have chosen to do OUR work. God's work needs to come first and the organization needs to exist to serve the mission, not the other way around.

[Doug]

Excellent post as usual. I think you have hit on the issue for many younger churches and church leaders. I am a whole hearted supporter of the CP. But I also see that we (the SBC) must stop with the thinking that we are the only "act" in the Kingdom and start working with other Believers to "build the Kingdom of God." I warned of this kind of thinking when we withdrew from the BWA. As we continue to divide, our institution will become weaker and weaker. It is good to know, however, ( as you point out in this post) that, as hard as it for some SBC'ers to imagine, God's work and God's kingdom will go on and grow without us!

[Jeff Moody]

Great post Alan. Yuo make a clear argument for us to not stand on our systems but on the word of God and to continually bring the framework in which we do the ministry of the gospel under the lordship of Christ. Tough times often reveal hidden motivations, and it appears that this is the case with the CP. You are asking the right question: "What is most important, reaching the lost or the cooperative program?" We must continually ask these questions about all avenues of following Christ: preaching style, worship style, community ministry, etc.

[Grady Bauer]

Great post Alan. You're one of the few asking the right questions. I hear "change the formula"..."promote more"...."point out their selfishness"...we need to ask tough questions. I'm grateful for both the CP and the IMB...they allow me to do what I'm called to do...with relative ease. But I don't do this to preserve the IMB....I do it for King and Kingdom.

In the secular world we watch daily as older "entitled" corporations fall by the wayside and newer innovative, more efficient companies take their place. GM has been top-heavy and ignoring the trends for years....their solution....bring back the old cars...from when we were powerful and significant. The IMB has a choice to make....follow GM and the others or reinvent. Both are painful and both will result in significant changes for those involved....but if we choose to reinvent and recreate...then we get the continued joy of being involved in the greatest of all human activity. If we don't...then those who are truly called with find other ways, churches will struggle through learning to do it themselves, more people will be true tent-makers and the IMB will become another chapter in church history. What will it be?

[Alan Stoddard]

Alan,

Thanks for the reply. I get your point. All good. I agree that larger churches should fund more. That's a fact of truth. There seems to be disengagement going around. Good discussion. Wondering how an organization so big can turn it around.