Is it my own limited observation or is the old SBC stand-by, Cooperative Program guilting or shaming on the wane?
I don’t know who coined the phrase but I’d guess that most SBC pastors know what is meant by Cooperative Program shaming or guilting. Many have experienced it. I’ve seen it for decades.
Here’s my informal definition: Cooperative Program shaming is the implied or stated criticism of a church and/or its pastor and members for giving too little to the Cooperative Program. It is often measured either by an arbitrary percentage (commonly 10 percent often labeled the ‘denominational tithe’) or by the current average percentage of church CP gifts as a part of total undesignated giving ( now 5.16 percent). Shaming is almost always is done by percentage rather than dollars, thus a church can give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the CP and still be shamed.
Although I don’t recall the phrase being used in the early 1980s, I saw some CP shaming at my very first associational annual meeting when the statistics for the previous year were handed out on a mimeographed sheet. My church was at around ten percent but several were much lower. No pastor or church members had to stand in a corner for their low CP giving but it was in the atmosphere.
I have most often heard the term “shaming” used in this context from my younger pastor colleagues who seem to be less vulnerable to it. But, shaming can be effective. There were public stocks to shame offenders in earlier times. How about the scarlet letter? There may still be those who would lean towards having low CP church pastors wear a placard declaring their paltry CP support. I suspect that someone will offer a tiered plan for SBC participation based on CP percentages, a back door shaming plan.
Whatever the origin, Cooperative Program shaming is in the Southern Baptist vernacular but I think it is losing favor. Here are a few observations:
- I have never heard any staff in my own state convention employ it. In fact, when I had a meeting with a state staffer a few years ago, I made mention of my church’s low CP percentage. The brother replied that the state convention was the servant any SBC church regardless of their CP percentage. I greatly appreciated that. Neither have I heard convention leaders and officers employ CP shaming.
- CP shaming comes mostly from pastors who resent the fact that their church gives 8, 10, 15 percent to the CP, often at the expense of upgrading staff pay or maintaining church facilities, while others give 1 or 2 percent.
- The selection of ten percent as a CP standard and doing so on the basis that there is some relationship or equivalence between the Christian’s tithe and the church’s CP percentage is often used. This is a back door way of shaming (“How can a church expect members to give the tithe and not do the same for the CP?”). The concept is not even hinted at in Scripture and is a cheap way to try and shame or guilt a pastor and church into giving more. Hooey.
- It doesn’t work. Denominational leaders often ask for more to be given to the CP. That’s a perfectly legitimate though not terribly successful strategy when decoupled from vision and results.
- It is counterproductive. Let’s face it. Many SBC pastors are recalcitrant and contrarian. To try and guilt them into giving more works in reverse…seems to me.
Which brings me to the reason I resurrected this well-worn saga. Here’s a 2016 excerpt, a quote from Florida Baptist Convention president Tommy Green:
When it comes to CP giving, we do not guilt our churches. I have not initiated any individual conversations with pastors concerning their church’s commitment to CP. I fully believe that the local church decision must be valued and honored by our SBC. The percentage a church gives is not the litmus test for our involvement with that local church. As a former pastor of a local church, I fully understand the nuances of resources, commitments, and factors that impact a local church budget. The state convention exists for the church and not the church for the state convention. Our goal is to bring value and not guilt to the churches of Florida.
The future of state conventions, their churches, and the Cooperative Program probably looks a lot like what has happened in Florida over the past couple of years. The state convention has downsized, decentralized, and has cut their CP percentage to under fifty. At the recent SBC meeting in Phoenix, Green gave Frank Page a gaudy check for $3.1 million for the CP, 51% of the proceeds from the sale of their headquarters building. Other states have indicated a move towards selling underutilized assets as well as a plan to decrease their portion of CP revenues. The downward trend line for CP giving by the churches has long been established.
Imagine that, a state convention that has the goal of “bring[ing] value and not guilt to the churches.” Novel concept. From where I have pastored it often looked as if the state convention’s goal was to “serve churches” by building staff and buildings. Those days are gone. Good.
There’s a warning in all this to those who think there can be a groundswell of pastor and church support for returning to the halcyon CP days when churches gave over 10% to the CP and the state convention kept two-thirds of it. That’s not the direction things have been going. The typical promotion plan of merely asking for more money or guilting the churches into giving more is not effective.
The CP is essential to the SBC going forward, not mainly because of the hundreds of millions of dollars it generates but because it is the key to our cooperation. It works best when denominational organizations at every level show the churches what they intend to do to add value to the local church. Let them show a commitment to paring programs and assets that do not contribute to that goal. See if the churches respond positively.
Waning shaming…a positive development.
Well, “CP shaming” is probably a reality, and it is unfortunate, guilt being a poor motivator compared with love. But I have to believe there is a way to “encourage” churches to give in the neighborhood of TEN PERCENT through the Cooperative Program without being subject to charges of “shaming.”
If it is done *properly* I see nothing wrong with making such a suggestion in and of itself. For example, the church I serve is currently at 8% CP and 2% Association giving levels. We have not approved our budget for next year, but I am asking us to consider some minor sacrifices that would bring us to 10% CP and 3% Association giving levels.
What is the rationale for such a giving level? When we are at that point, I will be able to state: “If every SBC church contributed the same Undesignated Receipt percentage that my church does, we could adequately fund all of our ministries at every level of denominational cooperation.” I will sleep better at night knowing that our church is definitely doing its part. We are not the reason the missionaries came home. We are not the reason the BCM’s are shutting down. We are not the reason the Evangelism Directors are being let go. In my mind, we are not part of the problem, but we are part of the solution.
It seems to me the shaming comes in whenever we take our own personal conviction and state that others *must have* that very same conviction. Like the family who removes their TV from their house, that’s fine, unless they start telling everyone else that they have to remove their TV as well.
HOW TO ENCOURAGE WITHOUT SHAMING
1. DEFEND PERCENTAGE THINKING
Just as the widow’s mite represented 100% of what she had, so that she gave *more* than the rich people, giving is indeed appropriately measured by percentage. “Percentages don’t pay the bills—dollars do,” is a canard, no matter who said it, and I know full well who said it. The principle that those who have more *should reasonably be expected to give more* is as solid a biblical stewardship principle as we find in the Bible.
2. SET AN EXAMPLE
Like preachers who call us to witness without witnessing themselves, good stewardship is caught more than taught. It is hypocritical to challenge someone else to more faithful giving than one is doing personally. Who else has credibility to challenge us toward a lofty TEN PERCENT CP GOAL other than someone who is meeting such a goal already?
3. RESULTS-BASED STEWARDSHIP ADVOCACY
It is a perfectly acceptable question, and in fact may even be *the* most pertinent question in this entire discussion, to ask: “What would happen if *every church in the SBC* approached stewardship the way that my church does?” Granted, the *Designated Approach* circumventing the CP would fund *some* ministries at *some* levels quite effectively. But other ministries would be completely destroyed. In my humble opinion, if every church in the convention gave according to this 10-3 ideal goal, ALL ministries at ALL levels would be in fantastic shape in terms of financial support.
4. DEFEND GOALS AT ALL LEVELS
It is appropriate for the SBC to aim for 50% of all national CP receipts to go to International Missions. It is also appropriate for a state to aim for 50% of all state CP receipts to go to the SBC. Skipping one level briefly, it is appropriate for an individual Southern Baptist to aim for 10% of total income to go to the church. Backing up one level, it therefore *must* be acceptable for a church to aim for 10% of all undesignated receipts to go to the state CP fund. The usual cry of “autonomy” is not being diminished in the least. At every level, everyone has the autonomy to do whatever they want.
CONCLUSION
Since the other three levels have established specific percentage goals without charges of infringing upon anyone else’s autonomy, we should be permitted to establish such a goal—and even to *promote* such a goal just like we do the others—without any charges of autonomy infringement.
No, there is no room for guilt manipulation or shaming. When we challenge people to do something, it is not because we think they *ought* to do it, but because if everybody did it, we would be fully funded. It is okay for us to encourage, as a proven approach that has indeed worked in the past, the giving of 10% of undesignated receipts by churches through the Cooperative Program. I *would not* hold out the index finger of one hand while brushing the index finger of the other in the direction of the church that refuses to give at Ten Percent levels through the CP. But I *would* hold both hands outward with palms up and plead for them to consider it, and I *would* place those hands together in a prayerful pose asking them to ask God what they can do—not out of guilt and shame, but out of love for our Lord and Savior and the faithful spread of the gospel by means of the greatest Christian stewardship channel ever established in the world history.
I appreciate the lengthy and thoughtful response and will reply more fully later but the 50/50/10/10 formula has just one of the four as being biblical. The member’s tithe. The others are arbitrary but I’m glad to see that you have adopted the 50/50 dicvision of the CP dollar (presuming that you also agree with clean SC accounting).
For a pastor like Rick to make a case for 10% giving is fine, not shaming, except for the subtle comment that “we (Rick’s church and those who give 8% and more) are not the reason missionaries came home.”
1. DEFEND PERCENTAGE THINKING; Adrian had it right years ago. I’m waiting for you to criticize Steve Gaines whose church gave an enormous ($1m) sum but below average percentage. Percentage thinking is mindless, fails to account for differences in churches, and is arbitrary although most of us have in mind an arbitrary percentage for elected officers.
2. SET AN EXAMPLE; I’m certainly fine with your example. Good for you and your church and worthy of commendation as are the churches pastored by Jared Moore and David Worley and others here. The “what if” question is certainly acceptable but not pertinent. It is also one that has been used ad nauseum by state convention and other denominational employees. Hasn’t worked. It also presumes your church to be correct and proper and others to be incorrect and improper.
3. RESULTS-BASED STEWARDSHIP ADVOCACY; Part of the problem is that just asking for more money from churches, and that is what asking for a percentage increase does, fails to offer anything but the status quo ante as a reason. If the goal is to put 2k mssys back on the fields, then doubling the CP which in round numbers would put another $500m in the CP pool and would give IMB another $100m to accomplish that. Great. Is it lost on churches that it makes little sense to give a half billion if only 30% of that is needed to return the level of mssy personnel we had earlier? Results based CP promotion would force a re-evaluation of priorities and goals. Frankly, these calculations have been made church-by-church for years and that is why designated giving has fared better than CP giving. Your results based, percentage giving plan merely locks in the status quo.
4. DEFEND GOALS AT ALL LEVELS; my earlier comment on this.
My observation is that your “proven” approach has failed. We have had decades of this. Let’s see a vision, set a personal and church example, and then see if others respond.
____
It would be good if we could return to the place where it is possible to have a decent discussion on issues that matter in the SBC. This is, so far, a good example of such.
“I’m glad to see that you have adopted the 50/50 dicvision of the CP dollar”
“Percentage thinking is mindless, fails to account for differences in churches, and is arbitrary…”
William, how would you explain the difference between encouraging states to move toward 50/50, and churches to move toward 10%CP, if both numbers are voluntary, arbitrary, and don’t take individual differences into account?
Andy, the 50/50 division was the historic CP split. One could argue that it was arbitrary in 1925. I don’t know how they got to it back then but consensus was reached. At the time it was agreed that “state treasurers” would also keep money for promotion of the new CP. Naturally, this amount grew into a considerable percentage on its own (there were certain things added to it) so that for the past many decades the state share of CP revenues has ranged between about 60 and 65 percent of the total (currently it is slightly below 60%).
The SBC of 2017 is considerably different than that of 1925. My view is that a 50/50 split is overly generous to the states (particularly the legacy southern states) for the results shown but as you note there are individual differences.
As best I can tell, the 10% is built off of the individual tithe. As a denominational support percentage it is completely arbitrary.
One DOM was known to tell churches that if they did not give at least 10% and 3-5% at the Associational Level they were not SBC Churches.
He specifically named several churches including the one I attended.
Yeah…classic shaming. Been there.
Good morning, William,
Thank you for keeping the subject of the Cooperative Program in front of us. It is important. I am thankful that we are talking about it. Also, I agree with you that it is unseemly for denominational officials to call out and scold individual local churches about their giving patterns. Something about that seems to run counter to our ecclesiology.
I would, however, pose you two questions:
1. Do you think that selfishness and stinginess are EVER a factor in a local church’s decision to keep more of its donations for itself?
2. If that is ever the case, what (other than shame, which apparently churches never ought to feel) do you think that such churches OUGHT to feel about that situation? Conversely, how ought churches to feel who give away two or three times more, as a percentage, of what they receive than do other churches, presuming that they do so because they are selfless and generous? What is the right way for a church to feel about being selfless and generous?
Lest I was unclear, my experience is that denominational officials rarely call out and scold individual churches for CP giving. Like I wrote, my state convention people do not do this (although some have strayed into that neighborhood on occasion). Frank Page never does this.
1. Yes, of course.
2. I can only say what I would feel, likely conviction that I presume to come from the Lord. I would likely not have such feelings triggered by someone on the CP payroll. I can’t tell individual, autonomous churches how they should feel in this regard.
On the second part of your second question. Churches that give double and triple the SBC CP average percentage should feel satisfied that they are doing what the Lord wants them to do. Unfortunately, those churches, those pastors sometimes seem to acquire a modicum of resentment that other churches fail to do likewise. Your view of what is “selfless and generous” may differ from mine. We should both seek to lead our churches to fulfill that subjective quality as best we understand it.
Easy questions for you: Is the CP percentage the measure of a church being “selfless and generous”? Would a better description of CP giving be the measure of a churches degree of cooperation with other churches?
William, I agree that different people will have different views of what it means to be selfless and generous. Some of those views will be wrong, won’t they?
Is giving the sole area of Christian discipleship in which iron cannot sharpen iron? One must arrive at convictions in this area without the benefit of teaching or example? Have we given over entirely to postmodernism on this topic, such that the subject matter is utterly subjective now, with no place for objective truth? Or might it be possible to look at a church giving away 20% of what they receive on the one hand and then a church giving away 1% of what they receive on the other hand, and then reasonably conclude, “That church over there is very, very generous; this church over here, not so much.”
Bart, one thing not addressed in your question is non-CP giving.
IE, 2 churches give similar amounts to missions/outside ministries, bit one gives 10%CP/3% association…and another gives 3%CP, 1% association, 5% directly to IMB, and 4% to other non-SBC causes.
I think this I this is the conversation that has been happening…not on church giving to missions and other churches not giving at all.
Andy,
I agree that I have not addressed that. I certainly know that this is sometimes the case.
Here are my thoughts: ALONGSIDE a gracious determination to let sister churches set their own priorities with regard to the avenues of their generosity, we ought to leave some space for sister churches to offer gentle, respectful, and restoratively minded rebuke of those churches who spend the preponderance of their gifts on themselves. Rebuking is a Christian imperative and a Christian virtue.
As long as we’re using modern vernacular, are some churches giving 10% or more to CP as a form of “virtue signaling”? That is, in place of or at the expense of reaching their own communities for Christ and active participation in Great Commission Ministry, they give to CP?
I think virtue signaling has displaced shaming in this regard…same actions, more contemporary language.
Yes, I agree that denominational officials should eschew (word for William) shaming. Fifty years ago the average percentage given by SBC churches to the Cooperative Program was 12%. Now, it is about 5%. What led to this decline? First, a change in priorities. If churches are mission-minded (Mark Terry), purpose-driven (Rick Warren), or missional (Ed Stetzer), then they will demonstrate a concern for needs outside their community. This type of concern seems lacking in many churches. Second, localism. The emphasis now in most churches is on ministries to their members and local community, at the expense of home and foreign missions. Third, ignorance. Many pastors know little about the Cooperative Program–its history and impact. Their members know even less. Fourth, value. Many of the younger pastors question the value of the association and state convention. Both associations and state conventions need to demonstrate the value they add to the pastors. Last, less giving. Our church members are giving less per capita, and this forces the churches to keep more money for local needs, rather than pass it on for ministries beyond their locality.
I think a corollary is this:
Does the vast SBC lake of funding really need the few inputs from my church? Can’t they spare a gallon of what we have been doing so we can do other things?
But, when everybody pulls a gallon out of the river before it hits the CP lake, the impact is massive. One church’s cut doesn’t seem like much, but when it’s around the whole operation, just like small contributions multiply, small cuts snowball.
So many churches made individual decisions about what was better for each individual church, probably most not expecting it to have a true detrimental impact on the big picture. But over time, it magnifies.
And it’s much, much harder to go back and cut the dearly beloved program at church (and then face the music) than it is to expect “them” to figure it out at the national level.
In all, it’s a shortfall of education and understanding. But it’s a shortfall in those items that goes back 30+ years and is worse today, but it’s been getting worse for a lot longer. We didn’t go from 12% to 5% in a decade–if the 12% is from the 1950s, then that’s roughly 1% down every decade. It may be accelerating over the recent years, but we started rolling down that hill a while back.
Unfortunately, the problem gets laid at the feet of “today’s leaders” and their lack of loyalty or commitment, and so the solutions are aimed at those problems. (Which do exist.) The root is deeper–but I don’t know if we’re looking for deeper and older systemic problems. We want a quick fix to a slow problem.
Doug, when you write that, “So many churches made individual decisions about what was better for each individual church, probably most not expecting it to have a true detrimental impact on the big picture” you describe the typical opportunity cost decisions that we all make, all the time, and that churches make about their income every year. I wouldn’t divorce that calculation from the big picture. That is, churches evaluate the benefit of their level of support to the CP and adjust giving accordingly. The benefit includes not just what the local church will directly receive (buildings, staff, local ministries, mission trips) but what they receive in intangible benefit from supporting the CP as a part of their greater mission.
Clearly, churches have made these evaluations and have determined that they can spend income more effectively by not giving as much to the CP. I don’t disagree that it is easier on the church level to cut CP than to cut other local spending. What denominational leaders have to figure out is how they can better convince the local church that the CP adds value to their autonomous congregation. The plan outlined by my friend RP is hitched to an arbitrary amount, a goal for revenue, not results.
It’s more complicated than this.
Mark, best one paragraph treatment of the matter I’ve seen in a long time. Your last cause for CP decline was lower personal giving. Often, I’ve heard denominational staff put this first, sometimes exclusively.
Have we gotten over tithing shaming?
I don’t disagree with much of this, Ron. I’m pretty much in favor of setting an arbitrary percentage for SBC officers.
I’m over it, Jim. Thanks for asking.
I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60 years but I don’t think I have heard the phrase “cooperative program shaming” before William used it here. There have been situations where it could apply however. I have never heard any official of our state convention use the term or even act in a way that would imply shaming. Maybe William is more familiar with those state conventions that do that. It is wrong to shame churches when you do not know their economic situation.
As usual Mark Terry gives an accurate historical context to cooperative program giving and reliance on percentages. I am not sure how you can compare giving between large, medium, and small churches without using percentages.
I don’t think in the past it has been so much shaming churches for not giving a certain percentage as criticizing those leaders whose churches have poor records of cooperative program support for demanding to be in charge of how the money is spent. When Mike Huckabee was President of our state convention in Arkansas, he wrote an article in our state paper saying, it was hypocritical for those who were leading their churches to give 1% or 2% the cooperative program to then demand to be placed in trustee positions or as convention officers that decide how CP money is spent. I did hear a reverse shaming to what William is saying when some criticized Mike Huckabee and others whose churches were generous in their support of the cooperative program by saying they were financing liberalism and neo-orthodox missionaries. This was really just an attempt to excuse their poor support.
In our state for many years our leading cooperative program supporting churches and our elected state convention officers were ignored when it came time to select national trustee positions from our state. In fact, for several years our state convention presidents never served as SBC trustees but the losers for state convention president, receiving 20% to 30% of the vote, were all on SBC boards. So much for listening to grass roots Southern Baptists.
I think that we as SBC need to rethink missions as in international missions.
Churches in many countries are no different than that of our own. Do we really need as many missionaries there or more in unreached areas??
JMO
I’ll share what I shared with Tarheel in a different setting.
Between tithing and CP giving, it’s all just scale. People don’t need shaming or virtue signaling, they need knowledge and encouragement. “Here’s the work that is accomplished with your money,” period end of sermon. None of this, “please give more so we can do more.” Simply let the work testify and get out of the way.
I know we like to say “It’s God’s money” but really, let’s stop with the semantics. “The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.” Psalm 24:1, we get it. Everything is the Lord’s, period, end of story. You want to be consistent you’ll have to talk about, “When you get up in God’s morning and take God’s shower and eat God’s breakfast and dress in God’s clothes and drive in God’s car on God’s road to God’s work and to God’s job be sure to remember it’s God’s money.” Maybe it’s a helpful picture for some. But most people get it already.
But we start in on tithing and giving shaming with our sermons (I say we, I’m not a preacher, y’all are), because we want those people to get convicted. I’m not saying pastors are all about getting money, most of the ones I’ve known hate preaching on money because of this perception.
People want to be a part of something. God loves a cheerful giver, so let’s talk about the cheer of giving! Sure, tithing came before the law, yada yada yada–we’ve still made it a rule. “Because it came before the law it’s even MORE important!” Barf. What does the giving to the work of the Lord accomplish? We can play the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong videos until the cows come home, and those are really good stories of God’s work through our resources, but if we can stop talking percentages and talk about the work more, we’ll see more giving.
Also: local success stories. The Church doing the work of God with the resources given. Probably might need more than your annual easter egg hunt and Dave Ramsey class and Health Clinic and VBS.
I’ll just keep this going. We all love the Youth and College groups coming in on a Sunday and talking about their mission trip to so-and-so and who-knows-where. What about the adult mission trips? Not just international stuff but local stuff. How often do you have groups of adults getting up giving testimony about their community ministry?
Easy to be like, “if I could just get my people off their butts to do something.” That’s where we fall into the trap of shaming instead of finding an opportunity and cheerfully inviting others to go with.
Though, currently not in an official SB church, we are SB by nature and by birth (people who started the work). My whole pastoral ministry up until now has been in a SB church. Some of the churches I pastored gave 10+ and others less. Some I have led to give more and some I have led to reduce the percentage.
I always hated getting letters from SBC leaders in associations… state conventions… national conventions which encouraged upping our giving. I do believe any type of letter will be perceived as the pastor reads it in context of his current ministry. At least I did.
I never led our church to give less or more because of any letter received or contribution push. My determination was based upon God’s call for us as a people, in a certain location, reaching our community and beyond. I think it would be fair to say whether we gave more or less from our purses, we did more (hands on) ministry than before. We reached further outside the previous distances and went. We budgeted some of our mission dollars to help our people go.
I personally struggle with churches not being able to affording insurance for their staff.. GuideStone was/is expensive, as is any individual insurance. So my take… Support the CP but not at the expense of denying proper support for your staff and the ministry the church must be involved in to continue to reach the nations and closer. Ignore the letters and pleas from those who exist for you if need be. Much like at home. I don’t neglect my immediate family just so my extended family can do more.
Glenn, in answer to your question about the IMB, that is what the IMB has done. The IMB has shifted focus and personnel from “reached fields” to “unreached people groups” in the 10/40 Window (from 10 to 40 degrees north latitude from West Africa to East Asia). The 10/40 Window includes the Muslim block, the Hindu block, the Buddhist block, and the Chinese block. Ninety percent of the unreached people groups (ethno-linguistic groups) live in the 10/40 Window. For example, when my wife and I served in the Philippines, we had about 175 missionaries in the country. Now, there are about 15. In contrast, now we have lots more missionaries in Central Asia and North Africa. Lots of good work goes unreported for security reasons (to protect the safety of missionaries).
I believe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the unreached fields (frontier mandate) over against the so-called reached fields (harvest mandate.)
The problem is that these so-called reached fields are not really reached at all. In fact, they’re not even close. But there are evangelistic opportunities in these nations that we may be neglecting.
This is not to say that I oppose the frontier mandate. (Heavens no!) I just think a reasonable balance can be struck to achieve both mandates.
I guess I just believe in Dr. Robin Dale Hadaway’s formula: 40% Frontier, 40% Harvest, 15% Education and 5% Administration. As an experienced Missiologist, his recommendations are worthy of our most serious consideration.
That’s a legitimate debate and worthy of consideration. There are more considerations than numbers of fully funded imb personnel in certain areas. I’ve always wondered why you have been the most active advocate for Hadaway’s views. Do you think that imb policy in this regard is overly influenced by other SBC factors than missiology?
I have seen one of our own church mission workers reduced to tears upon learning that the country where she felt led to visit had no current SBC missionary on the field, since it was already viewed as having been “reached.”
She approached me with the desire to take a mission trip to that nation, but was wanting to work with a non-SBC parachurch group. I said, “Let’s call Richmond and see if we can work with one of our SBC missionaries there.” While she was in my office, I called, only to learn we no longer had any SBC missionaries there.
Cue broken-hearted tears.
Before I ever read Dr. Hadaway’s article, I had already formed the opinion that Southern Baptists should have at least one pin on the map for every nation on earth that will have us.
As for your final question, I think our methods are driven by our theological and philosophical assumptions.
If one embraces a view of the Great Commission that “God wants to reach all people everywhere no matter where they may be found” then the Harvest Mandate is highly prized.
On the other hand, if one embraces a view that “God wants to reach only some of the people from all of the people groups” then the Frontier Mandate takes center stage.
Rick,
Did Paul desire to go where the Gospel had been preached, or to areas where the Gospel had not been preached? I think he was a good “missiologist.” Romans 5:20, “And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation.” I am a missionary. We will never find an area where the Gospel has saturated all of the country. There are always patches of neglect. However, I find it hard to think that God want’s us to prioritize a country where the Gospel is known by many at the expense of a population where the Gospel is known by few. I left the USA a few weeks ago and seldom was more than a 5-10 minute drive from a church. I left Laos yesterday, where I could not find a church after driving more than 6 hours in the country.
I pastored a church where we dropped our CP giving to help pay bills. This was not done lightly, but to continue to give our large percentage to CP was going to put us consistently in the red.
I did get shaming some, saying I needed faith that God would provide, etc. But we couldn’t put our church behind like that. I thought it better for CP long term if our church was healthy, than to be unable to pay bills, lose a pastor, or even close down. After the crisis passed we began raising back the percentage, though it never made it to what it was before. The church people saw more benefit in keeping money than giving to CP. And before you say it, we regularly promoted CP, Annie, Lottie, etc. we talked about the benefits, people just thought it better to hold onto it, at least for a season.
Rick, you raise a point that has been highly debated. Every year the missions professors at our SBC seminaries (including Mid-America) meet with IMB staff members. This issue–unreached people groups vs. “reached” fields–has been discussed many times. It is a shame that we have to choose one over the other, but our missionary personnel are limited. So, difficult choices must be made. Robin Hadaway and I are friends. I like his formula. For years I have advocated a balance between harvest fields and unreached people groups, as have most of the professors. This approach was previously rejected, but David Platt’s administration is more open to assigning IMB missionaries to harvest fields to mobilize and train believers to become missionaries. Beyond, that the current leadership at the IMB is more positive about assigning missionaries to do theological education overseas.
I suppose there is a realization that we can’t do everything with our current mission force. We could put all 4000 mission personnel in Brazil and it would not be fully reached. Shoot, we could put all 4000 in Sioux City and this city wouldn’t be fully converted. Decisions have to be made.
I have no objection to Dr. Hadaway’s formula. I am not a missiologist – arguing him would be like me arguing football strategy with Don Shula.
But at our current mission force level, hard choices have to be made.
Dave,
I think hard choices do not need to be made as much as unreached fields need to be prayed over. God’s timing in reaching a population is more important than the statistics and finances that often drive the IMB’s decisions. I’ve always like Henry Blackaby’s advice, “See where God is working and join Him.”
I did a little editing…hope it suits everyone. It’s a reasonable thing to discuss how much theology influences missiology although I suggest a separate topic for it. From where I am, I don’t see that imb was influenced by any theological subgroup in their present policies…but we can talk about it going forward since things never stay the same.
I had the same discussion 30 years ago about a country that imb was pulling out of, nothing new. It is a misguided policy to have a goal of putting a ft imb worker in every country unless bragging points become our goal.
“It is a misguided policy to have a goal of putting a ft imb worker in every country unless bragging points become our goal.”
Well, I can think of one other motive, besides bragging points, for Southern Baptists to have a “presence” in every single country on the globe that will allow us to be there. The rationale is based on the personal experience I just shared. As long as we have at least one missionary in every nation on earth that will allow it, then out of 16 million Southern Baptists, anyone who feels impressed of the Lord to do personal mission work in a certain country can at least be assured that they can work with a fellow Southern Baptist missionary without having to leave our denomination in order to partner with others to fulfill their calling.
I don’t want to play “Holy Spirit” when it comes to people and their sense of call. If God is calling them to a certain nation, it would be beneficial for us to have someone there representing Southern Baptists. Practically speaking, there are only about 200 nations in the world, and we’re already in most of them. Having someone everywhere—at least where it is legal—is pretty much doable.
I realize the focus today is “people groups” and not “nations.” I am in general agreement with this strategy. But God called Paul to the nation and region of Macedonia. The call was to a place and all the people in that place. It was not merely to a specific people group. So doesn’t it stand to reason that God might still be calling various Southern Baptists to certain places? Having a missionary already there, it seems to me, could greatly benefit our cooperation.
It would have allowed us to avoid that which I did not really want to do but which
we ended up doing anyway—going outside Southern Baptist life as we planned our mission trip and partnering with a parachurch organization seeking to reach the millions of lost people in that country.
Unworkable, ill advised…there are limited dollars. I’ve stumbled all over American Christians who feel led to go to easily reached, often desirable, locales…but I’ll volunteer for duty in the Caribbean and South Pacific. We had this discussion a generation ago. It would be criminal to pull workers from the 10-40 so that we pay for a guy in Antigua or BVI. At some point a pastor has to explain that their member’s calling doesn’t necessarily include a claim on IMB’s budget. You are free to work it out with your member. None of us are free to work it out with other’s dollars.
Rick
There is nothing in the world stopping that woman from going to the nation that she feels led to and doing mission work solo or with nationalist pastors.
The internet should be able to hook her up as well as former missionaries to that country
William,
I respect your right to disagree with my goal of having a Southern Baptist Missionary in every country on earth. However, I disaffirm any assumption that the only motive for such a goal must be “bragging points.” I also disaffirm any assumption that the nation this missions leader felt compelled to reach was luxurious like Antigua or the British Virgin Islands. In fact, it is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.
Glenn,
Of course this woman could go on her mission trip to the nation where she felt led. (That’s exactly what she did.) Of course we could look at the internet. (That’s exactly what we did.) The trip was a great blessing. She took our GA’s. It was a life changing experience. They worked with missionaries from other denominations and national pastors from other denominations and orphanage directors from other denominations. Granted, there was nothing in the world to stop her from going to that nation. My argument is not that *she* was limited, but that *we* missed an opportunity. No, we are not required to do missions under the banner of the International Mission Board. I simply *prefer* this approach. Serving through Southern Baptist channels fosters the kind of denominational loyalty and faithful support for Southern Baptist missions that I desire to instill in the hearts of our people.
“I don’t want to play “Holy Spirit” when it comes to people and their sense of call. If God is calling them to a certain nation, it would be beneficial for us to have someone there representing Southern Baptists”
It sounds like you are playing Holy Spirit. It sounds like God can only work through the church members who go on short term mission projects if a bona fide SBC missionary is there to hold their hand. I admire your love for the SBC but it seems a bit misplaced when it comes to reaching the nations.
God doesn’t need the SBC so that the nations can be reached. I praise Him for using us when we are on the field but on the field, there is no benefit of having a SBC missionary by our side if we go in obedience to God. I think He is big enough to hold our hand without a pro there also.
Seeing God do great work without a SBC missionary by my side.
NOTE: I support the SBC missionaries in prayer and finances and Praise God for their call and faithful service but the ones I know personally do not think they are the means to the end for the gospel.
Jon,
Obviously, I don’t believe God can *only* work when we partner with SBC missionaries. Why would I believe that when our Haiti trip was, by necessity, in partnership with non-SBC missionaries? God was at work on that trip. I willingly grant that He does not need the SBC.
Both you and Glenn seem to be interpreting my comments as though I believed our present policy *limits* our missions leader or *limits* the work of the Holy Spirit. That’s not my concern at all. I simply *prefer* to work through the channels of our own denomination in order to foster loyalty and faithful support through SBC channels. The more each SBC church works through outside parachurch organizations, the more likely we are to establish financial support channels with “Mission XYZ” and to work with non-SBC groups. Over time, a much greater proportion of our missions money, time and energy will be invested in non-SBC groups—eventually and inevitably, I believe, to the detriment of our partnership through SBC channels.
In other words, while God can certainly use Evangelical and Charismatic and Methodist and Non-denominational channels to reach the nations, there is a practical sense in which these groups *compete* for SBC missions dollars. The more SBC churches give money to non-SBC missions agencies, the weaker our missions support through SBC channels will necessarily become. Frankly, I am concerned that our present policy offers an incentive for our missions activity and support to become less Southern Baptist.
Rick –
Nothing against the SBC. I am grateful to God for her and pray for her mission to reach the nations.
“I simply *prefer* to work through the channels of our own denomination in order to foster loyalty and faithful support through SBC channels.”
This is where I find the problem with what you convey. I know we all have preferences but let’s admit that often times our preferences get in the way of God’s design. Why make it anything less than what God says and leads to do? Why take what God is doing or has done and put the SBC in the mix as a potential benefit?
Do not misunderstand me. I do think the SBC has a lot to offer. They have been beneficial in many ways but their presence or hoped for benefit must always come second to what God is leading to do. When we know we are following God and God is not involving the SBC, let’s leave the SBC out of the conversation and just praise God. To have to make the SBC a part of the conversation and say it gives a benefit, it comes across as the God needs the SBC for the mission project to be its best.
You are a better communicator than this but it seems the SBC clouds your judgment or at least your use of the keyboard.
Jon,
I don’t know how to put it any more clearly. You say, “It comes across as if I believe God needs the SBC.” Yet I specifically stated I believe no such thing. So you must think I am being insincere or else I am unaware of my own motives—or perhaps some other explanation. Listen, if it “comes across that way” then just push it back, and don’t let it come across, because that’s truly not the way it is.
Can one not believe in denominational loyalty and in the priority of working through denominational channels without being accused of believing that “God can only work through the SBC” or that “God needs the SBC?”
There is value in denominational loyalty that runs beyond pejorative charges of pride, boasting, or SBC-onlyism. I like to work through Southern Baptist groups. It is a way of guarding doctrine, of holding high standards, and of trusting in the integrity of the missionary. I know how they have been selected, educated and trained. I can partner with them more confidently—even in spite of all the areas I mention, from time to time, in which I believe the SBC can improve.
There is, in me, a strong sense of what the Beach Boys called, “Be True to Your School.” For what it’s worth, I apply the same loyalty to my nation (drawing charges of patriotism, for which I am guilty), to my family, to my church, my denomination, my alma mater’s football team (win or lose, and we’ve been doing the latter a great deal lately) and to every other association in my life.
For good or for bad, I am loyal. If I have a choice of sending a mission team from our church to work with a Southern Baptist missionary or an Assembly of God missionary, which one do you think I am going to choose? If I have to go outside the SBC, it feels disloyal to me.
But to run all the way to the notion that my motive is because “I think God needs the SBC” is to misunderstand my heart and my passion to work together, with other Southern Baptists, in fulfilling the Great Commission. I suppose one could make such loyalty out to be a weakness, but in my life it has certainly always felt like a strength.
I agree with what Rick Patrick has written here. I prefer to work through the IMB of the Southern Baptist Convention. I prefer to do so because I believe that an otherwise flawed Baptist church is healthier than an otherwise healthy pedobaptist church. I prefer to do so because I believe that an otherwise flawed Baptist church is healthier than an otherwise healthy prosperity-gospel Benny Hinn church. That’s two reasons out of a hundred.
Because I love the Great Commission, I want the globe covered with healthy churches. I’ve had my bones to pick with the IMB from time to time, but I trust Southern Baptists more than anyone else to plant healthy churches.
Rick, my church has a team in Haiti right now. There in a endless supply of national pastors, orphanages, etc that can accommodate those who feel led to go. I don’t call my church’s team mission tourists but hosting Americans is a significant part of the country’s foreign exchange. The Florida Baptist Convention has a long partnership with the country. I suspect that you can’t fly into P-a-P without stumbling over mission teams. This is not a good example in support of your complaint about IMB. Even the Haitian government cannot tell you how many NGOs there are in their country.
30 years ago I hosted an IMB worker who was being pulled out of the country. At the time, before I became better educated about such things, I thought it was appalling. Another Caribbean-based mssy was always sending idyllic photos of stunning scenery. Nice gig and how wonderful to have it underwritten by little old WMU ladies. They all do good work but one can see how our subjective sense of calling can be bent towards the close, the safe, the desirable and away from the distant, the difficult, the stressful, the risky. An overarching strategy helps to correct these things.
…worthy of its own discussion. Let’s not get bogged down here.
Rick, I’m guessing that your team went to Haiti. Sometimes, the IMB does not assign missionaries to a particular country because there are already many missions organizations working in that nation. Rather, they send missionaries to countries where there are few, if any, missionaries. This is a strategy decision that mission administrators must make. I can tell you from personal experience that these decisions are difficult, even painful, to make. However, if you have limited resources (personnel and money), then you have to choose a priority.
I find a lot of the comments concerning IMB missions kind of entertaining. I work in security level III areas where belief in the Gospel costs much more than time and tithe. I only wish that I could take some of you with me to areas where I work for you to see God’s hand at work in hard places. I wish you could have seen the faces of believers I studied with a few weeks ago as they quickly ran to their homes to hide from local communist officials coming to check things. I wish you could have heard the voice of one young woman who realized that she and I had no place to hide and she said, “I guess we will need to be the sacrificial lambs. I trust God. Do you?” However, I also wish I could take you to areas where non-SBC work has been done to the great detriment of the truth of the Gospel. I spent most of my life in a cult and was saved in a SBC church and called to missions from an SBC church. The one thing I know is that on the field we attempt to faithfully evangelize and disciple. That could not occur without CP support from churches. Some of my colleagues who took the VRI but feel that God is not finished with them and returned to the field on their own now spend most of the year going back to the USA to raise funds from SBC churches. Their time on the field is significantly reduced because they must go back and forth. Because of faithful giving from our churches, I can spend every day attempting to share the Gospel with the lost. To those of you who belong to churches that give to the CP, thank you. May I continue to fulfill the Great Commission overseas to which I am called, and may I also be accountable to you for your continued support of God’s hand through me.
Proud to support you.