Comments on: Want to see a GCR? Idea #1

By: Ron West

Ron West — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:44:37 +0000

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.

By: Robert Reeves

Robert Reeves — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:54:23 +0000

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

By: Benji Ramsaur

Benji Ramsaur — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:27:50 +0000

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:)

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:27:29 +0000

Let’s do it! Seriously. I love this idea.

By: Matt Svoboda

Matt Svoboda — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:52:20 +0000

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.

By: Micah Fries

Micah Fries — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:57:56 +0000

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!

By: Jason Smathers

Jason Smathers — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:51:28 +0000

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.

By: Mark Lamprecht

Mark Lamprecht — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:35:58 +0000

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.

By: Matt Svoboda

Matt Svoboda — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:37:04 +0000

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.

By: David R. Brumbelow

David R. Brumbelow — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:32:53 +0000

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