My dissertation probably reveals a lot about trends in my thinking. I took a century-old Baptist squabble and sought to explain how I think societal trends in the culture at large were the driving force behind the controversy. It’s not that I’m a soft-sciences pragmatist. Quite the opposite: I’m a (sometimes bombastic) theologue who regrets that culture so frequently drives the church.
So, amid everyone’s analysis of recent votes, missionary policies, and the leadership profiles of Jerry Rankin, Tom Elliff, and David Platt, I’m sitting here thinking that something much broader and less personal is the true driving factor behind the reduction of staff at the IMB.
Let’s cut to the chase: Church members expect churches to compete for their “business,” and spending to fund other people to do missionary work is, if a factor at all, not much of one in that competitive decision. That, I think, is the largest factor at work today in Southern Baptist missionary funding.
Why Is The Situation More Competitive?
Americans are moving out of rural areas and into densely-packed urban areas. The distance that people can reasonably drive to church on Sunday morning is only marginally affected by this trend (traffic can be a little worse in the city, although not usually so bad on Sunday mornings). The number of churches within that reasonable driving radius, however, explodes when a person moves from a rural village to an urban center. If you live in Gun Barrel City, TX, there are five churches affiliated with the SBTC within five miles of you. If you live in Dallas, TX, there are forty.
There’s also a difference in the nature of those churches. The five churches in Gun Barrel City are likely each unique, but the variations in size, style, and budget are probably somewhat constrained by the comparative homogeneity of the culture out of which they spring. But in Dallas, there’s everything you can imagine, from megachurches to house churches and with a wide variety of approaches to music, polity, and demographics (and even language!).
So, the population migration from Gun Barrel City to Dallas creates a more competitive situation for churches.
How Do Churches Respond to Competition?
All free churches everywhere in America tend to respond to competition by making the case to local Christians as to why they should choose to attend their congregation rather than another congregation. Major factors affecting the choice people make for a church home? Preaching, music, programming for children, and opportunities for the development of friendships are significant factors. Missions giving? Not so much. Mature believers will care about missions (and in my opinion, the more mature they are, the more they will care about it), but even a lot of seasoned believers are going to choose the church that equips them through the preaching ministry or gives better leadership to their children over the church that does those things poorly but gives sacrificially to fund missionaries.
To survive these days, your church has to have a web site. That’s a concept that would be inscrutable to your great-grandparents. And a web site costs money.
A church can improve its odds at having great preaching, great music, and good programming by spending money on those things. A good salary helps to recruit and retain strong ministerial talent. Should that matter? No. Does it? Yes. And once you get that talent on the field, they need a budget for spending to put their talents to work. Having spent some time with Eskridge and Noll, I’m prepared to reject as fallacious the equation “More Money, More Ministry,” but that there is a correlation between more money and more people (both in revenue and in expenditures, although not 1:1) is beyond refutation.
So, some churches in these urban areas have diverted missionary spending (as a percentage of budget) toward local expenditures that attract and retain congregants. Those who did so succeeded in attracting and retaining congregants. Those who consequently were losing congregants took note. Rather quickly we went from “song leaders” to paid music pastors and a panoply of staff positions. The trend went beyond the urban centers to touch even moderately sized towns. After a couple of generations, most Southern Baptists were attending multi-staff churches, and a surprising number of them were in something new called a megachurch.
Two generations earlier, for a Southern Baptist church in a village to give 5% through the Cooperative Program would be ho-hum. Today for a megachurch to give 5% counts as breathtakingly generous. And, indeed, the dollar amount of money represented in a 5% CP commitment from a megachurch is breathtaking. The churches who commit to that kind of giving are making real sacrifices to do so, because they are also trying to survive in that competitive urban environment that I described above (unless they can find a way to make missionary giving a marketing point). But no matter how much that dollar figure turns out to be, if it represents the pooling together of the gifts of people who once populated a hundred small churches giving 10%, then that enormous gift actually amounts to a net loss for the missionary agencies receiving the funding.
So, the net effect of Southern Baptist migration into cities has been the collection of more people into fewer churches that keep more of their gifts for local ministries and forward less of their gifts to worldwide missions.
Conclusion
I’ll go out on a limb here: I think the population migration is going to turn around before this century is ended. Expanding Internet access is going to make it easier to decentralize both work and entertainment. Wherever you pack more people, prices are going to rise for housing and staples. I think people are eventually going to want their children to know what a tree is. Also, a discernible trend toward urban violence has begun. Technological advances are making it a little cheaper for smaller churches to have a web site, a video podcast, and a cutting-edge worship service.
But even while people pack more densely into the urban centers, an opportunity exists for pastors to make things like Cooperative Program support an item that they tout in inviting members into their fellowships. Maybe we all ought to put something about our level of missionary support prominently on our church web sites? Perhaps we can use marketing to motivate a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom in terms of Cooperative Program support among Southern Baptists?
In any event, we would all do well to factor into our discussions about personalities and policies some sort of a nod to the fact that these men and women are, to some degree, being carried along by the floodwaters of major societal trends—trends over which 10,000 “little guys” may have more power than does any solitary “great man.” That’s my belief, and that’s why I’m trying to use my little bit of influence to convince local churches to place a greater priority upon support of the Cooperative Program.
I hate when you make me think.
Do you prefer when I make you walk?
I’m hoping to get back there and make someone else walk.
I’ve been on a diet for 10 months now. That 10 days is still the most effective 10 days of my diet!
Yeah, don’t make Dave think. Last time he did that bad things happened. Love your thoughts, Bart! Do you really think that putting CP on our websites will be anything churches will do? We can only pray for that to happen. I think it’s interesting that the history of the churches of our 2 presidents of our mission boards churches pastored before accepting presidency show low CP giving too. Are we reaping what we have sown?
I’d like to get offended – but you are probably right.
Marc,
I’m not sure whether you’re counting Ezell and Platt as seed-sowers or as harvested fruit. Do their CP-giving resumes illustrate the trend about which I am writing? I think they do. Are they the seed-sowers (i.e., are they vanguards of a trend toward low CP giving)? It would be hard to make that case, I think.
Everyone knows I preferred that we have a strong CP giver as our new IMB president back when Platt was elected. But that’s not because I blame David Platt at all for the trend toward lower CP giving. He didn’t take his church down from 10%; he just didn’t lead them up to there from the low spot they had occupied.
I want CP champions at the helm of our agencies. If Platt and Ezell can successfully lead us to a revitalization of the Cooperative Program, their past histories won’t matter to me one iota. I’m cheering for them to win. We all should be. They didn’t start this trend. I’d rather they hadn’t followed the crowd when they did, but I’m not going to blame them as though they were blazing the trail away from the CP.
As to the website thing, it occurred to me while I was in the process of writing this post. It’s not even on MY website.
…yet.
Bart,
Don’t think either are sowing the seed or reaping the seed that was sown but part of a wave of pastors/churches that stepped away from the CP for a period of time. Did/Do our conventions skewer older? Did/Do our programs need to be updated and refreshed? Did/Do our State Conventions keep too much at home rather than sending it on to the national entities?
All are legitimate questions that need to be addressed. I do think that any pastor could and should lead his church to give more to the CP while those questions are addressed. I am rooting for Platt and Ezell to succeed. Those who don’t shouldn’t be given places of authority and a visible leadership within our convention to entice them and others to become more involved. We wouldn’t do that in a church.
I enjoyed this piece Bart.
We might all need to recall what Adrian Rogers said about percentage giving to the CP: “Percentages don’t pay the bills, dollars do.”
It is low-hanging fruit to bash the various megachurches but some do give generously to the CP and other SBC needs. Obviously some barely give squat and I think of the multicampus megachurch franchise in my home state of SC that barely registers on the radar of CP,etc. giving. I think another factor is all of the churches that have closed and are on their way to closing. That is certainly part of the problem.
I say with love that I have seen your church website and brother no one is losing a job over its cost. If so, someone needs to find out where all the money went. As for the website, I have seen churches that proudly and in detail describe both where and how much their various mission dollars are sent. It is the exception rather than the rule. If it is not being touted online then it might not be getting enough attention in the church.
Check on your Member resources Statement of Faith as it is a dead link.
Thanks for the different view on this problem.
Louis, a couple of observations.
1. I’m not bashing the megachurches. In a difficult competitive environment, they have to be generous to give through CP. In fact, there’s a way in which all of a megachurch’s giving reflects a level of generosity that isn’t necessarily present in some small churches. The megachurch pastor is generally in a pretty solid position. He doesn’t need favor with an association or convention. He doesn’t need the approval of the WMU. Contrast that to many small church situations where the pastor might very well gut the Cooperative Program were it not for the fact that his WMU would get him fired and then his Director of Missions wouldn’t help him at all in his search for a new pulpit.
2. But something has to be said about this whole percentages-versus-dollars thing, even if you have cited a statement that was made ex-Cordova: If you move populations from 10% churches to 5% churches, then the differences in percentages amount to reduced dollars. More dollars come from a single church, but that church has also drained the membership out of all of the smaller churches in the ever enlarging shadow that it casts. Fred and Wilma used to go to FBC Rockville, where he tithed his salary to a church that gave 10%. Barney and Betty used to go to Trinity Baptist Rockville, where he also tithed his salary to a 10% church. But now they both, together with Mr. Slate and most everyone at Slate Rock and Gravel Company, attend Stone Foundations Church, where they all tithe their salaries. Stone Foundations only gives 5%. Stone Foundations sends a monthly check that is larger by an order of magnitude than the checks sent out by any of those smaller churches (especially now, since they have lost so many members), but for each person like Fred and Barney, the amount that CP giving went DOWN at their previous churches is TWICE as much as the amount that they went up at Stone Foundations. Then Stone Foundations lets the SBC know that it’s the dollars in their big check, not the percentages, that funds ministries.
Being a DOM my guess is that Stones Foundation Church does not give squat to my Association, and Wilma used to be my WMU director. Sorry Dr.Bart couldn’t resist 🙂
Finally, FBC Farmersville’s website reflects the fact that, for the moment, our competitive environment is a bit more like Gun Barrel City’s than Dallas’s. Our total cost for the development of that web site stands at (let’s see…add that column…carry the 1)… $0.
Louis
I well remember Dr. Rogers saying that. IMO He was the greatest statesmen/pastor/servant of my generation, hands down. That is the one point with which I disagreed. No one likes old cliches, but I still believe that “not equal dollars but equal sacrifice” should drive our CP.
I understand where Dr. Rogers was coming from, but that may be one time in which I diverge from him. Obviously, technically, he is right. But his statement was missing the point of the SBC’s CP.
As I recall, it was said as a defense against accusations being made against the CR presidents.
Any discussion of CP church/dollar percentages should go back one step to the percentage of the CP dollar that states keep, written in stone as 50% but with add-ons that push it up to about 62% on average.
Megachurches rightly ask, “Why should we do without the additional staffing that can be paid for by reducing CP percentages to below the SBC average so that our state convention can add centralized offices and staffing that has little value to our or other churches in this state?”
Average sized churches should ask why they should give above average CP gifts for nicely compensated state staff while their own pastor is below average in pay or while they forego that additional staff member who is needed?
Each church makes their own calculation here but is a healthy local church less important than a healthy state convention?
…or a healthy association?
William,
Here’s what I would add to that calculation:
1. To what degree has said church participated in the process by which budget decisions are made at the state convention level? When the church can say, “Why should we do without the additional staffing that can be paid for by reducing CP percentages to below the SBC average so that our state convention can add centralized offices and staffing that has little value to our or other churches in this state and that we have worked to oppose through the decision-making apparatus of our fellowship of churches?” then I have a great deal of sympathy for their position.
2. Is there a better missions-giving apparatus out there that we ought to fund? Because it truly is a weak, shallow dodge, in my opinion, to say, “This particular avenue for putting this money out into the worldwide mission is imperfect; therefore, we will not only defund it but will also forego all of the other avenues for spending this money on missionary causes beyond ourselves and will rather keep more money here to spend on ourselves.” If the answer is, “Yes, we’ve found a missions effort through which every dollar goes further and does more to share the gospel around the world,” then leave the Southern Baptist Convention and go fund THAT. If the answer is, “No, although I see problems with this system, I can’t find anything any better,” then maybe we’re being a little unreasonably picky and we should just fund through the Cooperative Program while doing what we can to make even better the best approach that we can find.
1. I’m fine with the church whose budget process includes proposing to amend their state convention’s budget, from the floor of the state annual session, prior to cutting their church CP percentage. Since tens of thousands of churches have decreased their CP percentage over the past 35 years, I think most do not chose this route and I speculate that the reason is that they do not feel compelled to do so and likely feel powerless in that process.
I have yet to meet the state executive who blames the churches for reallocating their church’s mission dollars to give less to CP or who puts them on the defensive about their autonomous decisions…but I do appreciate someone who is optimistic about change at state or national levels being made.
We’ve had this discussion before.
2. You aren’t arguing against any position I’ve taken. I think the CP is a great system. SBC churches and ministers do also, since high percentile approval levels are always present in surveys and virtually every SBC church gives to the CP.
“Ex-Cordova.” First time I’ve heard that one. That’s classic.
In any case, Bart, I think you’ve hit on some really insightful thinking here. When all is done and told, though we ought to—and must—be about the business of winning souls and building churches, I believe in many ways the church in America today—and it has spread throughout the world—is paying the dividends of the downside of the church growth movement of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.
Our bottom line must be making disciples, not nickels and noses.
I’m glad you appreciated my attempt at wit. 🙂
I love your Dad. I’m a big fan. For me, and for a lot of people in the Mid-South, Adrian Rogers WAS the Conservative Resurgence.
I just don’t grant anyone papal infallibility. 🙂
I didn’t know him, but I’ll just have to hope that your father would prefer it that way.
Yes, he would.
And from someone who feels even more pressure than you to be in 100% agreement about everything—at least from certain sources—I greatly appreciate your balance of courage and respect you show in saying this and in saying it the way you do.
I offer an occasional Adrianology, almost always “ex-midtown”
Hi Bart!
I like that you’re looking to understand the situation from a bigger picture perspective, and I think you’ve hit on at least part of the underlying reality.
One thing we have noticed is the virtual disappearance of missions education in SBC churches. This may have something to do with the inability of churches to “market” this kind of programming, as you note with the inability to “market” CP or missions giving in many urban churches. But, on a Convention level, the response does not seem to have been rebranding missions education, but offering educational options which had little or no missions education.
As well, one could ask, why are young pastors graduating from SBC Seminaries without an understanding of and commitment to CP and missions giving?
A few examples, if I may.
On our first Stateside assignment, about 8 years ago, people came by your table after we spoke in churches and took prayer cards. On our second Stateside, about 5 years ago, the table was pretty much ignored by everyone after we spoke (and sometimes in the same churches).
On our first Stateside, we actually had a few kids as for our autographs. I’m not looking to hand out autographs and questioned the practice, but these were kids who had a huge interest in missions and looked up to missionaries. That was the only time in three different stateside assignments in which we had that happen. The interest in missions among kids is waning. We think it is, at least in part, due to a lack of missions education in SBC churches.
On our second Stateside we were invited to speak in a church which really surprised us. It was a good sized church, not mega, located in an area of urban expansion – right between urban and rural. As it turns out, one family who had moved in to the community had a passion for missions and wanted the church to catch that passion – they were behind our receiving the invitation. Speaking in that church was like speaking in a graveyard. I do not ever recall speaking about missions in a church where 99.9% of the people had no interest in hearing about missions. The pastor even asked us how we were funded on the field. Yes, an SBC church in the Bible-belt. The staff and leadership took us to lunch following the service. It was like having a nice lunch out with my wife. Everyone at the table was talking to others from the church and no one asked us anything that expressed interest in who we were or the missions work we do.
Now, we have had some very good experiences too with churches that have deep interest in missions. But, it is becoming far too common for SBC churches to ask us how they can help support our mission work. They look kind of shocked when we tell them our support comes through CP and Lottie Moon.
What do you think about the changes in mission education in the SBC, both in churches and seminaries? Is that also a part of the “big picture” that can help us understand our present situation?
A dramatic change is missions education in three years? Strange.
That is not what I intended to communicate.
When I was growing up in RAs we almost always asked missionaries for their autographs. There was weekly education about missions and missionaries.
Now that I am one, I can see the changes in the kids and I think this has a lot to do with the decreased emphasis on missions education in SBC churches.
However, there has been a noticeable change in the interest in missions and missionaries by churches in our 11 years on the field.
Interesting article Bart,
I think I agree with the reason to talk about making “Cooperative Program support an item that they tout in inviting members into their fellowships.
I’m not sure I buy into anything but the “exposure” of the lost dinosaur here. Mission work is not a high visibility expenditure….so it goes the way of the dinosaur these days, unless, and I mean unless, the drum is beat continually. We see churches not give to our local mission, but it is not because they think it is unimportant….its just not as important as the shiny object.
One of the main reasons for lack of support to the CP and Missions is because Pastors really don’t find it important…other things are shiny. If they did, more money would be funneled into the CP and subsequently, missions. The money is still there and it goes for more menial stuff around the local churches because that “is” highly visible and it “is” what the Pastor believes is important.
When you get more Pastors on board with CP, and beating the drum daily for why….the internet will not matter. A lot of excuses fly around about efficiencies, leadership in the IMB, and other places (some probably well discerned)…. but the bottom line, is that drums are beating louder for other things, more often.
Brothers and Sisters,
I believe when we lost our focus on personal one-on-one evangelism we lost our zeal for missions. The change in evangelism from one-on-one to church planting brought about such a paradigm shift that we have not recovered from it yet.
Brother Meadors above speaks of going to a church and the pastor did not know how the M’s were funded. That is sad that a pastor of an SBC church doesn’t know that information.
Brother Bart, let me ask one question here. I agree with what you are proposing and I certainly see the need in my local church to continue the push for CP and maintaining that level of funding. I am very shocked by some who propose a certain % to be given from state conventions but then insist that churches base their giving on $$’s. However, that is another post. But it seems that the shape we find ourselves with the IMB isn’t as much about church websites as it is about deficit spending and not reporting it to the convention. Dr. Platt was the first to sound the alarm and is remedy leaves much to be desired. Having said that my question is a simple one. What part does the Trustess play in forsaking their fiduciary responsibility to allow $210 million to be spent out of the reserves? With that question I have a follow-up question. Should the current Trustees have some type of input into this remedy that Dr. Platt has outlined instead of allow Dr. Platt to take the entire brunt of this thing succeeding or failing?
I personally have not lost my zeal for evangelism.
Tim, did you read Dr. platts letter that – that lays out how we have been told about the deficit spending for numerous years dating back to, I think, 2009. I don’t think the problem is “we” were not told I think the problem is “we” weren’t listening.
Tim, I’d encourage you to acquaint yourself with the process that took place. Read the letters by Platt. They had input and by all accounts agreed with Platt’s assessment and solution.
The work of the convention is not advanced by creating divisions where none exists or falsely stating the facts of the situation.
Bart, speaking of websites, I think there is another factor which is being overlooked in the discussion of reduced funding for the Cooperative Program and for the IMB in particular. If you look at the websites of many mega-churches, you will see that they often provide some degree of support for their own missionaries. That fact alone is a significant reduction in funding available to send on to their respective state conventions and subsequently to the IMB.
If you take a quick look at the website for David Platt’s former church in the Birmingham area, The Church at Brook Hills, you will see that they support a number of missionaries, some of whom their sending agency is the IMB, but a good number are being sent through a non SBC agency. Here is a link to the page on their website:http://www.brookhills.org/missionaries and then select, “List”, you will see the individuals whom they support. Then, you can click on each picture, and get information on where they are serving and their respective sending agency.
This, obviously is a little but ironic in that the majority of SBC churches who support the IMB give all of their dollars to support Global Missions through the IMB, yet its current President came from a church which supports Non-SBC missionaries. Also, for those who are listed as being sent though the IMB, are we to think that The Church at Brook Hills is providing some portion of direct support to these individuals, and is this an indication of the funding mechanism which Platt envisions for financing a major increase in the number of missionaries? This would have significant implications for the future, because those individuals who have a calling to do international mission work and are member of mega-churches or any church with a larger budget would be at a significant advantage over those who are members of smaller, rural churches who don’t have the giving in dollars to help support them.
You are on the mark in your analysis of the consolidation of church members into larger churches which give 5% of their budgets to the Cooperative Program. However, we also have to remember that the IMB receives 55% of its budget from the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. In the past, the WMU would really promote giving to LMCO at Christmas time, now, (As I said in another thread), the WMU is a lot of older women (often over 70) and could be considered to be “dying out” and is nonexistent in a lot of churches. The question then becomes, “Who will actively go around and speak to individual Sunday School classes to encourage giving to LMCO?”
As far as a change in population of people leaving large metro areas and moving to smaller, areas and joining rural churches – I have my doubts about that. In a service sector economy, the metro areas are still growing – particularly in Texas and it seems that the exurbs over time become suburbs. Also, a lot of folks will have reservations about moving to a good portion of the rural south as the public schools don’t have as good a reputation as those often found in the large, more affluent suburbs.
From what David Platt has said, and from what I can see by looking at the Church at Brook Hills website, it appears that the direction which the IMB appears to be taking to increase the number of missionaries is to shift to a model whereby some individual churches will provide some portion of direct support to individuals from their own congregations (in addition to some funding through the general flow of funds from the Cooperative Program and LMCO).
Can some of you guys share some information for clarity sake. I was always taught that while SBC churches are free to give money anyway they want, such as directly to IMB, our career missionaries are not free to receive money direct from SBC churches or individuals.
Some have spoke of churches supporting IMB missionaries direct. This would have to be short and mid-term missionaries wouldn’t it? Can you support our personnel directly?
I’m not sure. I know you can give direct support to the IMB, but I don’t think you can give money to a particular missionary through the IMB.
That’s my understanding. I believe we can support journeymen, masters and some of the other 2-3 year appointees but not career missionaries.
That still may well be the case that there is a prohibition to direct support of an individual missionary. However, if you look at the link I had to the Church at Brook Hills website, it appears that he church is providing direct support to those whose sending agency is not the IMB and by logic (and extension) it could be somewhat implied that they are providing a similar direct support to those individuals whose sending agency is the IMB. That could be a wrong assumption to make.
In another thread, it seems like I remember reading William Thornton saying that the IMB is looking to go to a different model to increase the total number of missionaries by having the individual be responsible for some of their funding through their home church and he thought it was possible that there are some now in that situation.
The reality is this: Up until 2009, there was sufficient giving to support over 5,000 IMB missionaries, now the goal is to reduce that number to close to 4,000. Yet, at the same time, Platt has said he wants to significantly increase the number – this begs the question of how you can afford to do this? Going to a different model whereby the individual is responsible for some of their own funding would bring up a lot of other dynamics where those from larger and more affluent congregations would be at an advantage over those coming from smaller, less affluent congregations.
Hey, guys. My apologies for disengaging from the thread. Yesterday was…you know…Sunday, and I’m out the door to Montreal today.
A few quick comments :
1. Bart – Great thoughts! As always you provoke thought. Thank You.
2. As to giving to IMB M’s – You can give to their projects directly, not to the M’s salary thru the IMB.
3. As to David Platt’s Church support of Non IMB M’s -Let’s say David preaches the great commission at his church, which is disciple making among the ethnos, unreached people of the world. Let say 30 units respond. The IMB can only take 4 of the units due to things like having teenagers, the wife does not have the seminary hours, or some other non money related issue. What is Brook Hills to do? They send the people thru a different org. God is calling and the church is the true sending agency, the IMB just helps in the process, but so do other org’s. And the IMB is not inerrant when it comes to who to send. The churches responsibility is to God not the denom. ( I do not go to nor speak for Brook Hills)
4. As to CP – When at least 75% of CP dollars stays here in the USA one of the most evangelized places in the world (And actually it is more than 75% if we average the state conventions ) then I am way more effective in carrying out the Great Comm. with my dollars if I give direct to the IMB. Nothing against state conv. but in a country with so many churches not sure a lack of money is our problem in not reaching other Americans. We have a huge heart problem.
5. I think a lack of knowledge of the CP is not the problem. People are all to aware of where CP dollars go. See #4. A certain national para church organization loosely tied to SB life takes in 458 million dollars a year. It is projected that 58% comes from SB people. People are looking for what they perceive is the best use of their money. I am not saying the Para above is effective, it is absolutely not effective, but people think it is effective. The CP is great but we cannot keep the same ole percentages within our states and expect that people will just give out of loyalty. We have to change things up a bit and show that we can change with the times and place money in high priority areas of the world. If not, we have what we have, people not giving to the CP at levels they could.
IMHO all of these issues = the issue of “competition” or “urban – rural” ratios ad nauseum really leaves out the principles of the Kingdom. What is the Kingdom of God? What are the parameters of sacrificial giving based upon what exactly is being sacrificed? While Bart you have mentioned that you are not really out to get the “megas” I believe (unintentionally) you have laid a small hatchet to the root of an enormous problem both in American evangelical practice as well as in some Southern Baptist circles.
I do not believe that the megachurch financial model (as one example) is truly sustainable. The reason that a 5% gift by a megachurch is a sacrifice is because all the other things they have to spend money on to keep the status quo. Physical plant, utilities, staff salaries, staged lighting, radio and television ministries, the multitude of activities, etc., etc., all cost money – and a lot of it. Add to this with the younger generation (of whom most megas will tell you is their target audience) are really not givers like the generations before them. And then add to this the propensity of the megas to franchise out with satellite locations to further their Apollos and his reach. Money – Money – Money (songs like a song).
The Biblical record was never in the “numerical size” of a congregation. You did have mass conversions on the record, but the individual “church” was always small. Leadership was encouraged to teach and witness “to the people” so that there was always a level of appreciation and community among the servant leaders and their flocks. Church communities were always commended by their sacrifice, not by the amount they gave as is a Kingdom principle (see Jesus and his commendation of the poor widow; Paul’s commendation of several churches who gave little but sacrificially to his work). Emphasis in the Biblical record has always been about relationship rather than presentation. This emphasis has been reversed in American Christianity = all the more apparently so in Southern Baptist practice (or at least the practice of the more affluent and “successful” in Southern Baptist life).
It was on the practice of the Biblical record “Kingdom principle” that Southern Baptists began their great endeavor of the “Cooperative Program”. Small churches began pooling resources together in order to follow the commands of Scripture and reach their “outer parts of the world” with the Good News. Like the five loaves and two fish these gifts have been rewarded with one of the greatest missionary outreaches in the history of Christendom. Yet we are on the precipice now because frankly in my opinion we have lost our way.
There are several ways we have lost our way. I will not lay down all the reasons (I am thinking of writing a book) but one of those I have already listed: Presentation over Relationship. Many have assumed that the church must present itself in a way that will attract people to hear the good news of the gospel in a worship setting. Disregarding that the Great Commission was given to all the Disciples of Christ, we have allowed this ill advised teaching to captivate and empower well intentioned leaders to begin kingdoms with a little “k.” Why should disciples go share when the leader will bear a message to the lost in a sanctuary built for thousands? I am not saying this dynamic does not play out in the small church = small churches everywhere try to mimic this “winning” method in order to “grow” themselves into notoriety. As a result all of the activities we were doing in order to make disciples for Jesus has gone into making kingdoms of half grown babes who are more about what they can receive rather than what they can give. This is the day and age we live. This may be one of the multitude of reasons why the IMB (and our other agencies) are in trouble. The men in charge come from both the cultural and financial mindset of the problem at hand.
We need to rediscover what it means to be in the Kingdom. What is important. What is not. To live by and for faith in Christ who is the redeemer. To have faith in a Supernatural God who owns the cattle of a thousand hills rather than saying “percentages don’t pay the bills, dollars do” (I apologize in advance, for I love Adrian Rogers – I just do not abide by this quote).
Sorry for the long diatribe Bart.
Rob