I have been thinking a lot about missions, GCR, and what churches and state conventions can do to really bring a Great Commission Resurgence to fruition.
Through Twitter, e-mail, facebook, and other avenues I have often been asked, “What do you think we will actually come to see when it comes to the Great Commission Resurgence?” My answer is always, “I have no idea, I am just praying.” I have begun to do more than just pray. I have started dreaming about how God could use this and I have been thinking hard for ideas that we Southern Baptists can discuss before the GCR task force gets to Orlando.
Here is my first idea:
What if the GCR task force started an initiative that encouraged all State Conventions to adopt a country?
The main purpose for this would be to help start church planting movements in each states chosen “country.” I am not sure exactly how many State Conventions there are, but let’s say there is 35- that would mean Southern Baptists would then “adopt” 35 different countries with the primary purpose of starting churches and a secondary purpose of community development. In my opinion, this is a great way to start a Great Commission Resurgence.
I am not promoting a 1 year commitment, this would do little good. I am suggesting that every state convention chooses to adopt a country and then remain close relations for however long is needed before either moving on to another country. It could even be a scenario that the state convention doesn’t fully “move on” from one country to another, but once the original country is becoming self-sufficient the state convention continues relations with this country while choosing another country to adopt as well.
I am no missiologist, but here is why I promote adopting whole countries rather than state conventions adopting “people groups.” Let’s say the Kentucky Baptist Convention chose to adopt Cambodia. While the entire state convention adopts the country, individual churches could themselves adopt people groups within the country. If churches are to small to take on the task of helping with community development for an entire people group local associations could take on the task. I understand that some people groups cross over the borders of some countries. This is not a full proof plan, but I have never seen a plan that is. This is still a way to try to have an impact in several countries, in a united effort, at the same time.
Simply, here is what I am suggesting:
1) Each state convention adopts a country for two purposes: primary-church planting, secondary-community development.
2) Individual churches and/or local associations adopt a certain people group, within their country, in order to build an ongoing relationship through community development within a specific people.
3) The state convention as a whole comes up with a country wide church planting strategy by looking at the “big picture” of the entire country and still working with the individual churches and/or associations in order to help the entire state convention remain united in its strategy.
What are your thoughts? Questions on how I see this playing out?
**side thought: Dont you think we would have a lot more people devoting themselves to foreign missions after they have devoted significant time in prayer, money, and effort into a specific people group and country? This is a way to help people not just write checks to the CP and the missions offerings, but rather they would be much more personally involved.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Matt-
This is just my perspective, so take it with a grain of salt, but I’m not a fan of the idea. Not that I’m not a fan of the GCR, foreign missions or church planting, because I love each of those. No I’m not a fan of the idea because I think it continues a bad pattern of striking at the primacy of the local church.
In my opinion State conventions shouldn’t be in the church planting, missions business, per se. Churches should be in that business and associations, conventions, etc. should exist to help facilitate the local church as they do that work. I would be strongly in favor of local churches adopting a country/city/people group and then having a state convention structure that served to help link a few churches together to do that work and to help funnel money into that work, but not to initiate that work.
I think we’re in a situation today where we have essentially become a top down organization, an organization that essentially denies the primacy of the local church because organizations other than the local church have assumed the responsibility that the local church should have rightly assumed all along.
I love your innovative thinking, I would just prefer to see it channeled in the local church’s direction. That would almost certainly lead to the decentralization of the state convention, at least in most of the mainline SBC states.
Micah,
Your perspective is noted, appreciated, and thrown out…lol- Just kidding.
I understand your concerns and even have some of them myself. But in my mind the local churches are at the heart of this idea. The local churches will decide through a state convention vote(or something) in order to choose which country to adopt as a whole. When that is finished the local churches choose specific people groups in order to do community development and church planting, while at the same time using the state convention in order to help enable the churches to fulfill church planting strategy, etc.
In my idea, the state conventions wont become completely decentralized, but there primary purpose will be to:
1) Help local churches strategize in order to do church planting throughout the whole country, among the different people groups.
2) Funnel resources and money into individual churches community development and church planting projects.
3) Help local churches train and prepare local church mission teams.
Do you see what I am saying? Am I being clear?
I’ve gotten this thought quite a bit on Twitter and Micah’s comment:
“I want to see local churches more involved/doing most the work.”
Does this idea not do that? Compared to what we have now? As of now most churches write checks to the CP and give to the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings and that is the extent of their “missions.” My idea seems, to me, to be a step in the right direction of- “making local churches more involved/doing most the work.”
while I think at its heart the intent is good, I think the result is still the same – the larger organization is in control of what happens, when it happens and how it happens. Sure the partnership will be approved at the state level, but only after a state convention employee finds it, proposes it and creates the strategy for it. It essentially takes ownership out of the hands of the local church. None of the local churches will view it as “their” partnership. Instead it will be the state’s partnership which they will latch on to.
That gets back to my point that the local church needs to initiate these kind of things. It’s what our church is doing in Guatemala, San Francisco & North Dakota right now.
Obviously, I couldn’t/didn’t get this detailed in my post, but I wouldn’t necessarily have state convention employees making these decisions.
I would go more in the direction of a “missions team” of local church pastors and lay people.
I don’t know, in my mind, I am seeing it as a clearly-local church led effort, but I guess that’s either not translating in how I am saying it or I just don’t have enough experience in state convention work to know how these things work out exactly.
This won’t work. Ill tell you why.
The problem is that this distances the Congregation from the work of ministry and of course the Great Commission.
The problem with allowing Conventions to do anything is that it robs responsibility from the people at a local level.
In order for the GCR to have any power, the SBC needs to put tons of effort into training people locally. Within local churches to get people actively involved (not cutting a check)
I have noticed that within the SBC there are tons of people who believe they are “helping the Gospel” by placing money into a lottie moon offering when in reality this is just an excuse to be lazy.
If the GCR focused the efforts locally. Training up street preachers, local evangelist at local churches then the overflow would encourage global missions.
If the main focus of the GCR is distancing responsibility from evangelism by “adopting” countries then the problem will be the exact same.
We pay money to the Mission Boards or State Conventions and thus our hands are not dirty and we can continue our trouble free purpose driven apathetic Christian life.
The most radical changes I have seen from people, the most overwhelming transformations from people have been from ones who have become passionate about personal evangelism. Once one becomes passionate about personal evangelism they become immediately concerned with global evangelism .
Until that happens, global missions will be Gospel-less housing projects that do nothing for the souls of the lost.
Nothing will work if we don’t try.
I never said that this idea would be the “main focus” of the GCR. All I said is this is one idea that the GCR could do in order to promote local churches being more hands on in foreign church planting and community development.
My vision turns the IMB and NAMB into something like air traffic controllers.
Perhaps each state can adopt a country as their primary mission field, our visions are compatible in that sense. But the difference I would like to see is that the state or national agencies facilitate the local churches efforts in missionary sending and church planting.
For example, my church should tell the regional or national agency that we have X missionaries to send and/or Y dollars to give. Then the regional or national agency helps us find missionaries that need funding for our dollars and a place for us to send the missionary we have determined is called by God to go.
By the way, I emailed the NAMB executive search committee a recommendation for Scott Thomas to be put in charge. I’d like to see some of the Acts29 model applied at the NAMB.
Always good to be thinking of new ideas, Matt. While I applaud the effort, I’m not a fan of the idea, even at the local church level. I certainly want churches going on mission trips to specific countries, but I am concerned that once we “adopt” only one country, all our attention and focus will be concentrated there. The beauty of the CP is that we can be a part of going to many countries at the same time. I don’t think that diffuses our passion. I think it extends it.
Rick, I’m going to disagree with you here. One of the things I think churches need to quit is what I call “missions tourism”. By not choosing one place and pouring resources, prayer and consistent efforts in that one place our churches are unknowingly causing more harm than good at many places. Dropping in and dropping out after 1-2 weeks and then moving to a new location often hinders the work of the local missionary rather than help. As a former IMB missionary I can attest to the challenges that a volunteer team can bring if they do not have a consistent relationship with a specific area.
However, if a specific church would focus their efforts on a specific people the likelihood of creating authentic disciples increases. It is difficult, if not next to impossible, to go about creating authentic disciples that form churches when you’re in and out in a matter of days.
Sadly, in my experience, these groups that fly into a place, spend 10 days there and see “365 salvations!” rarely leave behind anything of lasting value. That has to stop if we are going to be more effective with our missions dollars and efforts.
Micah,
Amen and Amen! While, I know you aren’t a fan of the idea- what you just argued is one of the main reasons I like my idea. Churches need to invest into a specific people group over an extended period of time in order to have a real impact.
Rick, in my idea, the IMB would still exist so there would still be effort in “unadopted countries.”
My local Baptist Association has adopted a country and is doing mission work there and helping out with a seminary there.
One possible problem with state conventions adopting a country – we should be careful not to duplicate or hinder the work of the International Mission Board. Also, sometimes the best thing we can do for missions is to pray and give. Sometimes, not always, the price of that plane ticket may be better used by just sending it to the IMB or the CP.
David R. Brumbelow
While I understand what you are saying, I am of the opinion, that simply writing a check to the CP/IMB is not the way missions is biblically done. As others have noted, the local church needs to be much more involved.
Friends,
I’m so excited to see this conversation. I think I can contribute a little bit. It is my blessing to serve Kentucky Baptists on the KBC staff (I’m the webmaster.)
While it’s not my area of service and I’m no missiologist, I’m excited about the approach taken by our Partnership Missions Department. They are dedicated to helping each church increase their mission involvement. Parternship Missions provides a variety of services to that end, including training, identifying and connecting churches to opportunities, and trip facilitation.
The idea is to move churches through a progression, starting with exploring missions > increasing involvement > partnering strategically w/an IMB missionary > long-term commitment to a people group that does not have any missionary presence.
You can get a better explanation of the strategy here: http://www.kybaptist.org/kbc.nsf/pages/all-the-world.html
Scott Pittman, a former IMB career missionary to Brazil, is our Partnership Missions director. Scott is really passionate about equipping churches to reach the nations. He’s also channeling that passion into a blog (http://www.go2alltheworld.com/) that is full of great resources for missions-minded churches. Check it out — you’ll find lots of great stuff!
I hope I’ve explained correctly. Thanks for the great conversation, and please be in prayer for these efforts. I personally know one pastor who is actively leading his church to partner with an IMB missionary working in a very difficult area. This is no easy task.
Blessings!
Is this that different from the current structure? I know our state convention (MO) does 3-5 year partnerships with other countries and individual churches who want to be involved are connected with churches or projects in that country and carry out the relationship and ministry themselves.
I agree with Micah (aka Mr. Fries) and do unfortunately think that our emphasis on short-term “tourist” mission trips can often be a waste of kingdom resources. I know there are few missions groups out there that have a commitment to doing short-term trips well, but sending 15-20 people for one week to Africa is about the same cost as sending a missionary family for a year.
Josh,
I agreed with Micah as well on that point. That doesn’t hurt my idea at all. My idea is 100% against week-long trips with no follow up, continual discipleship, church planting, and community development.
I agree with Micah and some with Marcus. Matt’s ideas are moving in a good direction, but it still seems to take away somewhat from the local church.
We have enough external organizations doing the tasks of the local church. It seems to really remove the people from being more involved than check writing.
I also like Jason’s idea where local churches get help with coordinating. That is, as long as the coordinators do not start taking over.
I guess I am really missing it… My idea is giving the local church a more productive role now than it currently has.
It is only a step, but I think it is a step in the right direction.
I think I get caught on the “funneling money” issue. If the state conventions funnel money they must get it from somewhere. That somewhere is most likely individual churches. So, they take money from churches only to give it back to churches minus some expenses. OK, maybe that is too simple. Anyway…why not just leave it to local churches to begin with?
I think it is odd that we have to come up with ideas to give the local church a more productive role than it currently has. Something is amiss. We are taking about one of the roles of the church itself.
The more ideas we get to help or solve problems the more visible the issues become.
I do see the need for a larger agency. For example one church may not be able to fund a church plant, but a larger agency can help find three churches that together can fund a church plant. The larger agency does not need to collect the money, but can get everyone together.
Now we’re getting somewhere – Jason I think your comment is right on point. When it comes to State conventions, I think they can be radically streamlined organizations who receive very little money, but instead serve as a networking tool to connect churches, and their money to accomplish specific projects together. Rather than be large organizations that receive, and then distribute, that money – they can merely help facilitate the work of the local church.
I think it’s a great idea!
Jason,
That is a good idea. I am all for minimizing the agencies by giving them roles that take little money with maximum effectiveness… aka- making their primary role one of facilitating.
I have read many articles on, or about, what Southern Baptists are hoping will come about as a result of the work of the Great Commission Resurgence task force. There are certainly a lot of ideas out there as to what a reorganized Southern Baptist Convention should look like, and there are a lot questions being ask. However, the most common question almost everyone appears to be asking is “What to do with the State Conventions?”
For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the GCR and State Conventions:
1.) I believe the State Conventions are important and have the potential of playing a major role in any Great Commission Resurgence that might take place in our lifetimes within the Southern Baptist Convention.
2.) I believe that full autonomy (without any oversight and genuine accountability) for our State Conventions has proven itself to be a very bad idea. Human nature being what it is; oversight, transparency, and accountability are an absolute must (especially when finances, positions, and power are involved).
3.) I do not believe the State Conventions should be in the church planting business at all! The examples of where State Conventions have wasted huge amounts of money on failed churches, and sometimes even outright fraud, are too many to list. Not to mention that (regardless of how good a plan someone has, or how large of a core group they have already gathered) many times State Convention Leaders have been guilty of discriminating against those who are from a different theological camp than they are, or who’s worship style is different from their own, or who disagree with their own convictions on second and third matter doctrines. This abuse of authority has lead to many new Baptist Churches being planted “Outside of the Southern Baptist Convention” by a younger generation of Southern Baptist Pastors and Church Planters who are unafraid to go it alone.
4.) I do not believe the State Conventions should be involved in any mission’s activity outside of their own state. We, as Southern Baptist, have both an International mission’s agency and a North American mission’s agency. Why are State Conventions duplicating services that we as a convention already provide for? Why are the State Conventions not “Cooperating” with (working through) our national missions agencies? In my opinion our State Conventions should be focusing upon reaching the mission fields of their own states, and not trying to do the work of the IMB or NAMB.
5.) Ok… here is where I believe the State Conventions could play a major role in a Great Commission Resurgence. I believe that State Conventions should put the establishment of Christian Schools, Daycare Centers, Orphanages, Adoption and Foster Care programs at the top of their agenda. This is where I feel they could truly find their purpose and place in bringing about a true and lasting Great Commission Resurgence. I also feel that no other organization within the Southern Baptist Convention is as capable of filling this much need role as is our State Conventions. How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to start a Christian School in every community, county, or parish in America by the end of year 2020? How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to start a Christian Daycare in every community, county, or parish in America by the end of year 2020? How great would the impact on our culture be if every State Convention made it its goal to see that no child in America is ever unloved and unwanted by the end of year 2020? In short, how great would the impact on our culture be if by the end of year 2020 every State Convention saw itself purely as a mission organization, and the people their state as its mission field?
In closing, I believe if we are to have a true and lasting Great Commission Resurgence in America that we must “Reengage” the culture and society in which we live… that we must make it our highest goal to win the hearts and minds of the next generation. This we will not do unless we are willing to change. And if we are not willing to change for the sake of reaching the next generation for Christ, then all this talk about seeking a Great Commission Resurgence is nothing more than shameful religious bravado and we might as well spend our money on prayer rugs for the next generation.
Grace Always,
Greg
Matt,
I disagree. Writing a check to the CP or IMB is one of the ways missions is biblically done. Didn’t they send money for missions in the New Testament? Ask any of our missionaries if it matters whether we send money to support them. They would not, could not be there, if it were not for our mission money. We have a part in all they do because we pray for and financially support them.
I am not against mission trips, that depends on how the Lord leads you. But I strongly disagree with the idea I occasionally see, of saying that a church is not involved in missions if they only pray and give (send a check) to missions. Every church in the SBC who gives to the CP, NAMB, or IMB is vitally involved in missions.
Also, I still maintain that in some cases (not all) it is more fruitful to send money to the IMB than to use that money for a plane ticket to go on a several day mission tour of the country.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I’m not saying don’t send money, that would be dumb and ignorant. I am saying it is unbiblical if that is where it stops.
I’m as critical as anyone when it comes to short term mission trips, but there are many times where, for missionaries, people with certain skills and gifts are much more effective on site than a check.
Let’s do it! Seriously. I love this idea.
Good conversation going on here. The State conventions as a “networking tool to connect churches” for mission projects and producers of “Christian Schools” in communities are ideas that stick out to me.
In fact, if missions was a part of the curriculum of the Christian schools [like reading biographies of missionaries for example], then you could have the seeds planted in the school that could blossom in time through the networking tool.
I know Bruce Ashford at Southeastern and I think it was the missionary biographies that he read from his mother that planted the seeds that have blossomed in his life later on. If I’m wrong Bruce, just let me know:)
Excellent discussion. Matt’s idea is similar to the way the Kentucky Baptist Convention is promoting partnership missions. We are no longer selecting specific countries to support (this was the approach for many years but we changed to more closely support the current IMB model) but we do see our role as facilitating the local church that wants to be hands-on in its international missions endeavors.
Here’s a video about how this approach works for our churches:
http://www.kybaptist.org/kbc.nsf/pages/all-the-world-video.html
I will give my testimony on how state conventions and associations have targeted a country or a people group and worked in partnership with the IMB in facilitating local church involvment in international church planting. In the country we I served we have partnered with states and associations at different times for several years each time. Missouri and South Carolina are two examples. We have also worked directly with churches. In the case of the state conventions and associations they did not try to duplicate what we were doing with the IMB but partnered with us. In each case there were churches who would not have been actively invoved in missions or chruch planting if the state convention or assocition had not taken the initiative. I think it was a win win situation for the IMB, the state convention and the local church.