We have published articles by missionaries, former missionaries, retired missionaries, missions professors, and other personnel with far more expertise than I have in international missions. They have discussed strategies and philosophies and missions approaches – interesting discussions. It is evident that there is discouragement, frustration, and confusion in our missionary force – as well as passion and resolve! Most seem to appreciate Dr. David Platt’s desire to put the IMB back on solid financial footing but also were confused by some of the management strategies and reorganizational approaches taken in recent years.
I generally listen more than I talk in these discussions because I do not have a strong expertise in missions strategy. I guess I think that career missionaries are probably more effective in the long run than short-term missionaries and that missions partnerships are better than one-and-done missions trips. That’s my theory. I hope the IMB search committee will listen to the people it serves – both the SBC people and the mission force they manage – and find a top-notch man of God to lead the IMB – one that shares some of Dr. Platt’s qualities and one perhaps different in other ways.
But there is one thing I know, for sure. And this one thing is at the root of all of the struggles we are talking about. It is the reason we had to have the VRI and reduce our mission force. It is the reason that we are having to make decisions about whether we should minister in this country or that, to this people-group or that. The problem is dramatically simple.
The IMB is not authorized to print money.
They can only spend what they receive. I remember reading the Great Commission Resurgence report and being struck by the opening paragraphs. We can argue as to whether the GCR was a good idea another time, but the facts are the facts. At that time, Baptists gave less than 3% of their income to all charity causes, including their church. That means we keep over 97% of our income for ourselves. At that time, the average Baptist church was giving about 6% to missions through the Cooperative Program. If the estimable Rev. Dr. William Thornton is to be believed, that number is now in danger of crashing through the 5% barrier in the wrong direction.
What can we say when people keep 97%+ of their incomes for themselves and churches keep 95% of their offerings for themselves? (Yes, I know there are other ministries than CP churches may support, but I doubt that changes these figures substantially). What conclusion do we draw about a people who keep over 97% for themselves and churches that do almost the same?
It is hard to argue that they are committed to world evangelization.
I heard a statistic at a recent denominational meeting. I have no desire to debate whether tithing is incumbent in the NT era, but here are the facts. If Southern Baptists tithed and SBC churches gave 10% to missions through the CP (not such a problem if people are tithing!) there would be ONE BILLION DOLLARS entering the CP pipeline about every 22 to 30 days. That’s a billion a month! Twelve to fifteen billion a year. Can we agree that trustee meetings at IMB and NAMB would be very different under those circumstances?
Pie in the sky? Okay. What if Baptists gave 4% and churches gave 6%? Or 5% and 7%?
The math is pretty simple.
- If we give more and our churches give more the pie will be bigger.
- If we continue to give less and our churches continue to give less the pie will be smaller and tough choices will have to be made.
Does anyone think there is anyone at the IMB who wouldn’t GLADLY double or triple our mission force if Southern Baptists doubled or tripled our missions support? It is because the pie is shrinking that tough questions have to be asked.
- Must we shrink our full-time staff?
- Should we abandon areas where there is significant Christian presence to witness in unreached areas?
- Should we use missionaries more and more as volunteer and partnership coordinators?
It is fair game to question the strategies employed by David Platt and to suggest that a new mission philosophy may be needed at the board. I’ve heard more than one missionary say that they would like for there to be experienced field personnel (let’s ignore Dr. Terry’s reference to dysentery!) in Richmond. That seems reasonable. We can bemoan staff reductions and our dwindling mission force. Many valid points have been made.
But let us remember the basic truth here folks.
Our mission force is down is because our GIVING IS DOWN. David Platt didn’t reduce our mission force. Our giving did! Southern Baptists are giving an amount that supports a smaller mission force.
And all the strategizing in the world won’t turn things around unless we fix the root cause.
There’s only one real solution.
People must give more to church and churches must give more to missions.
Shall we pass the plate?
This is in no way to disagree with the analysis of the other posts – which make excellent points. I hope people realize this.
But I just want us to realize that we can hire Superman as IMB president and he will not be able to increase our missions force unless we increase our missions giving!
Thanks, David, for the good information you provided in this article. I am certainly not qualified to comment much on IMB policies, philosophy and methodology; but I do agree with you that our churches, and their members, can easily increase their giving if they WANT to give more. It makes no biblical sense to keep over 97% of our income for ourselves. This is a heart issue and a passion issue with members of churches and pastors. Simple math demonstrates that we can easily give more if we just want to give more. We pastors must do a better job in leading our people to be involved and committed to communicating the gospel to the world. Thanks for the challenge and the statistics. It reminded me, as a pastor, that we can give more!
The math seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?
Dave, I agree. Our people must give more and our churches must give more. I believe they will if someone will articulate a vision for it and make the case for it all across our convention. The principal people who can make this happen are in 40,000+ small churches across the country with many people in their 50’s. They represent a vast untouched resource for missions giving if someone will go to them with a compelling vision and a word about why they matter. Most of them aren’t on Twitter or Google Groups, but their hearts are broken over the state of their nation and the world. They know Jesus is the answer. We have to stop trying to convince people and start trying to compel people. We need an appeal to the heart. It’s time to return to our prophetic roots. When we do, we’ll send our young people again, in droves. People have to stop with the “we’re just part of this great evangelical family each doing our part” stuff and call out the unique family known as Southern Baptists to fall before the throne of God and ask Him for one more anointing of His Spirit for the sake of the gospel of our Lord. There must be someone who still believes in Southern Baptists enough to do this. I pray the search committee finds him.
A friend (I won’t mention Todd Benkert’s name) said something similar – that people need inspiration and encouragement. A vision. I hope: a) you are right and b) someone steps up.
Barrett,
You’ve hit the nail on the head brother. I couldn’t agree more with you. Convincing people missions giving and going on missions is important is easy. Compelling someone though to give more and sacrificially go is harder.
Yeah. It gets a little tedious to hear denominational folks breathlessly describe what “we” could do if everyone tithed, or if churches gave that “tithe” to the CP. I don’t see anyone making future plans based on CP revenues going up.
The easier route for IMB to grow is LM and other direct giving where a CP missions dollar is not cut by 80% before it arrives in Richmond.
I’d guess that the new IMB leader will be a strong cp supporter but rely on tools that have a chance to increase LM or other direct IMB giving and work on the alternative, less money intensive routes overseas.
But I do think it gets to the heart of the problem.
We have less because we give less.
I’ve been mission minded since I was a child. I’m now 80. I went through GAs, YWAs, and WMU. I led a rolicking, frolicking Sunbeam Band when I was 16. Reading these blogs breaks my heart. I see churches announce the mission offerings and say, “Our goal is . . .” But no one is out there beating the drum to keep that goal in front of the people. The videos are good, but real, live people sharing mission moments are better. I can’t go. I can pray and I can give. And I do. I give my annual IRA distribution to Lottie Moon. Why? Because I care. I don’t know what it will take to get others to care.
There are people who care, Charlotte. There are young people who are passionately working and serving and going and giving and praying. The work will not die with your generation or mine. Take heart.
But there does need to be more people whose hearts are filled with a passion for the things of God.
One problem that hits some churches in this area (especially in rural areas): one or more key families moves away, thus reducing tithes coming into the church. At budget time, you have to cut something. You can cut the pastors salary, reduce your ministries, or you can cut the CP budget. Guess which one is the least painful at the time?
From Christianity Today:
“There’s no denying the decline of America’s largest Protestant denomination any longer. The SBC lost almost 78,000 members in the past year, according to the Annual Church Profile (ACP) released ahead of its upcoming annual meeting. Southern Baptists have now lost a million members since their peak of 16.3 million in 2003.”
If those 78000 members gave an average of 40$ a week that equates to a loss of over 162,000,000 a year in lost revenue. Thats 162million dollars a year! Average church give to CP is just over 5% which means over 8 million a year.
For one year.
But we have lost a million members in 15 years. Thats an average of 67000 a year. which if they gave $40 a week each over 2.6 million a week or about 140 million a year or CP giving of 7 million the FIRST year, 14 million the second, 21 mil the third, 28 mil the 4th, and so on. That moves us close to 1 BILLION dollars in lost CP revenue since 2003.
Unless we reverse this losing membership trend or Southern Baptists get richer so they can give more, CP giving and mission giving will continue to reflect this decline.
Yes, maybe more in dollars but also remember that there is some inflation every year so that 1 dollar today buys much less than 1 dollar in 2003.
We are baptizing fewer than we are losing. Thems the facts.
Mike, I’m not taking a jab at you. However, there was much talk about the 16 million members being a hoax (not true numbers) and that we (the SBC) would do well to cull these “fake” members from our midst. In other words, our membership numbers were artificially inflated and we should just be honest about it. I believe Ed Stetzer wrote on this multiple times.
I say that to say this. If that was true then this loss of a million members probably hasn’t done anything to the giving numbers because if these million members were “at-large” or casual attenders, I doubt highly they were giving any money, or if they did it would non-consequential.
I’m all for statistics, but unless we have valid statistics of where we were, speculating about where we are, or how that has impacted giving gets rather complicated and opinionated.
I think Dave is right. People aren’t giving as much to missions. How do we know that? The numbers! I would add as well that people aren’t giving as much personally to their churches. There are many who say speaking about tithing is legalistic. However, it is a call to sacrificial giving and a starting point that has some biblical merit.
Mike, The Annual Church Profile is our only means of assessing how well we’re doing, but it’s far from an accurate tool. It is completely dependent on churches self-reporting, and I can tell you that thousands of our churches do not fill it out. A difference of 78,000 people hardly qualifies as a rounding error when you’re counting 15 million, but when thousands of churches don’t even turn in their ACP, that number gets even less dependable. I have no idea exactly how many of us there are. There are still more than any other evangelical denomination has, and more than we’re actually counting, too. It’s funny that we’re worried about numbers, anyway. God’s people were taken to task by God Himself for thinking their numbers were what gave them their strength. There are enough of us to do more than we’re doing. It would help if we stopped competing for our own piece of the pie and joined together to lift all the boats. Southern Baptists still believe in the gospel and missions. They will support what needs to be done in order to win more people to Jesus if they hear a compelling call. Can we let them be who they are, give God room to work in each of their lives according to His timetable, and call them all, at whatever stage of incomplete perfection they are, to join us in one more great missions enterprise? I wanted to call it a “great gospel enterprise” but today everything is about the gospel, so no one even knows what that means anymore. Let’s join together, however many of us there are, to win people to Jesus and help them grow as disciples.
It’s not completely dependent on self reporting but not far from it. I’m not sure if we can presume underreporting to account for a significant portion of declining stats. I don’t know a fix for the declining reporting rates. There’s a lot to the subject.
The ACP is imperfect but it is apples ro apples annual monitoring.
Assigning ‘causality’ is always challenging. SBC churches are populated by people that are simply not redeemed. We claim 15 million members but on the best Sunday of the year you cannot count 7 million in attendance. Those 8 million that are not attending do not contribute to our missions endeavours. Address that problem first and the % of giving will dramatically change!
Tom, I agree that we have unsaved people in our churches, and we need to address that. Many more are undiscipled Christians, and we need to address that, too. On your other point, if you grant there are 7 million people in our churches on any given Sunday, then there are still many more of us than that. It isn’t as though the same 7 million come to church every Sunday. Let’s give more of them a reason to come to church on the same Sunday and maybe giving will improve.
As former missionary to Brazil and close to two decades on IMB staff in Richmond (both remarkable blessings) I have just three words for you, Brother Dave–Very well said!
Do you pastors ever feel like Paul when he said to the church at Corinth, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius”? I baptized seven a few weeks ago; but I know from experience that some may not persevere in the faith. I think we do well to celebrate baptisms, but also to do a better job of making disciples. Rick Warren says it is not how many members you have on your roll, but how many ministers you have in your church that really matters. Perhaps we (including denominational entities) should focus more on how many members are followers of Christ, disciples, and not just baptisms. If we ignore the goal of making disciples in addition to baptizing, we shouldn’t be surprised when unregenerate, unbelieving, uncommitted religious members don’t give much. As we make disciples, giving of our time, energy, gifts, and money is very much a part of following Jesus Christ. When is the last time you heard an association, state convention, or the SBC celebrate how many workers, disciples we have in our churches?
One layperson’s story:
I don’t know much about the IMB. Much of what I know, I learned through writing a play about Baker James Cauthen for our church’s children to perform. This is despite being in a Baptist church for almost 20 years – a so-called ‘moderate’ Baptist church that often preached the Great Commission, but seemed kind of self-separated from SBC institutions. We did have missions Sunday once a year, with a video & handout, and Lottie Moon offering. I looked up Lottie Moon to find out more about her. There was an offering goal but I don’t recall any announcements toward the goal, or whether it was reached. (Maybe there was, I just don’t recall). There was also a mission trip to Africa occasionally. The same people went every year, it happened without fanfare, it was not featured on Sunday morning. I’m guessing those people paid their own way. As far as I know, our church did not support particular missionaries; that seemed to stem from some long-ago bad experience or disagreement. Rarely did we hear any missionary report. The written materials I used to teach RA’s had some interesting missions reports; I’m not sure if the church uses those materials any more. We took our own kids on mission trips: Canada, Arkansas & several places in Texas. The youth trips – now called Bounce, mostly painting & roofing — were simple to find out about & sign up for, and to participate in. At one point, we got a new pastor who traveled to Africa & announced that our church would be involved in a partnership to build an orphanage. Photos appeared on our church website. After that there was silence; it became very hard to find out what was happening, if anything. I tried to donate to it.
After all this, I drove to a Baptist church in another city that I knew was in a partnership to do world missions, talked with the missions coordinator, & made a donation.
Our older people remembered exciting mission days. They were our guests for the children’s performance of the Baker James Cauthen play in the church basement. As I got to know these precious older saints, I found that their hearts were broken for unsaved people around the world.
It’d sure be nice to keep 97% of my income for myself! In reality, as a middle class family, about 20% of our income goes toward some sort of tax. Then 15% for health care and 25% for home/car/retirement (modest living). I’d imagine there are many millennials and gen-exers with young families who have even higher percentages than that.
I don’t say all that to argue against Biblical stewardship. I say all that to simply give some clarity to many financial situations so that we don’t seem as greedy as the 97% number sounds. And to be clear, Dave, I don’t think it was your intent to mislead with that figure.
Dan, I agree. It’s hard for many young families to start out today with a 10% tithe. Churches used to encourage a plan of gradual growth in giving so that those who wanted to honor the biblical tithe could set themselves on a path to that goal. It was called planned growth in giving. It simply asked people to start with some percentage and commit to add to that percentage each year rather than buying material items as they begin to prosper in their careers. It makes it manageable. For those who can’t start out there right away, there is still a way to get to that. I hope many of our young families will make this commitment. The Lord still honors the tithe.
I think many are overlooking a very legitimate reason for the lack of increased giving to the SBC.
IMO there will be no substantial increase in giving for missions until Southern Baptists decide to agree on one gospel message to present to the world.
I know I have recently taken steps to assure that my church contributions will not be used to support missionaries who present a gospel message that does not coincide with my understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation, and I have noted that in my church more and more people are also “designating” their offerings to support only causes they feel are in line with their understanding of God’s Word.
It is doubtful that God could be pleased with any evangelical outreach that does not support the fact that He loves all men, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of each and every person who has been, is now, or will ever be, born into this world, and, that every such person is eligible to attain eternal salvation by receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord.
When there becomes a unity of understanding among SBCers on that subject I believe that the missions offering will increase substantially.
Well, if that fractious and petty spirit prevails, we are doomed.
Cooperation rests on the idea that we unite around the BF&M not your personal prejudices and interpretations.
But it may be true that the hate, the conspiracy theories, the paranoia, and other efforts of the virulent anti-Calvinists may have truly damaged our convention.
To think that all SBers present the gospel message in accordance with the BF&M is a pipe dream.
Are you saying that IMB missionaries are not adhering to the gospel and sharing it in accord with the BF&M?
Let us hope that this kind of arrogance will not be replicated widely in the SBC or we will soon be in history’s trashbin.
There was a time in history when General and Particular Baptists felt they needed separate fellowships because of those theological differences. Thankfully the SBC has agreed that those issues are not worth fracturing over. Ken, your narrow vision of cooperation is simply not what the SBC has been about at any point in its history.
Dave Miller,
That ” that fractious and petty spirit” is a two-way street.
You stated: “But it may be true that the hate, the conspiracy theories, the paranoia, and other efforts of the virulent anti-Calvinists may have truly damaged our convention.”
It may be just as true that the hate, the conspiracy theories, the paranoia, and other efforts of the cage-stage Calvinists may have truly damaged our convention.
BTW, Ken Miller,
Your view is truthfully about as narrow as the slits of a Copperhead’s eyes. Maybe you need to rethink your position on cooperation.
I know you are invested in this being equal, but I don’t think that is fair.
The kind of arrogant hostility – accusing Cals if preaching a false gospel- shown by Ken, is not something I am seeing going both ways.
Obnoxious and annoying attitudes – that’s one thing. Plenty if that to go around. But questioning the orthodoxy of the other side, or their Baptist bona fides, is largely a one way street.
Dave Miller,
Think back if you will. In the not too distant past (Prior to the rise of those now called Trads.) there were many Calvinists, some well known in SBC life, who openly declared that Non-Calvinists did not preach the biblical gospel. Some even said, “Baptists have lost the gospel.” The “Baptists” referenced in that statement were and are Baptists who do not adhere to 5 point Calvinism.
As a matter of fact, if memory serves me and it does, those were the first shots fired in this little set-to that now captivates the minds and times of so many in the SBC. . . . on both sides.
Dave, I don’t agree with many things the Trads say and do and I know there are some truly ungodly (even reprobate) individuals in that group. However, the truth is truth and there are some mean and vicious individuals in the Calvinists ranks also. There are bloody hands on both sides and fairly equal is it so.
The Gospel does not include the extent of the atonement.
Nor does the Gospel explain election.
Therefore even if we differ on those issues, we can still proclaim the Gospel together.
If as one poster has implied that he thinks the Gospel does include those things and that those who disagree with him on those issues are perverting the Gospel, then why is he still aligned with the SBC? The SBC certainly accepts Baptists who proclaim the ONLY Gospel, and accepts those that disagree with Ken Miller’s narrow stance.
We see the SBC accepting those that disagree with Mr. Miller, because our presidents have appointed such men to highly respectable positions. And those men in turn have hired others who disagree with them on these two issues. Both the president and his appointees can faithfully [to God] make such personell moves because they know that the Gospel does not include those secondary issues.
There is no reason to divide over these secondary issues UNLESS they see them as not secondary.
If so, why are they still aligned with those that preach, in their estimation, a false Gospel?
And as just pointed out, the SBC has never been so narrow.
In response to “The Gospel does not include the extent of the atonement”—–
Many would believe that a simple understanding of John 3:16 would indeed reveal the extent of the atonement without having to try to contort “the world” into meaning the elect…
The extent can be argued from John 3:16, but I do not contort “the world” in order to get a limited atonement; I merely agree with the sentence.
God loved the world in as much that He gave His one and only Son that all those believing in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
That said, those who disagree with me on the extent are not distorting the Gospel, and to say that I am is anathema to everything the SBC has stood for, as well as being a rejection of the standard of cooperation (BF&M).
So back to the original question; why are you a Southern Baptist if you have a narrower definition of cooperation than the SBC?
Kevin,
Actually, a simple reading of John 3:16 does no such thing.
John 3:16 is not talking about the extent of the atonement but about God’s love for the world, and that those who believe on Jesus will have everlasting life.
And every SBCer can affirm that whosoever believes on Jesus will have everlasting life.
Now every SBCer may not even agree with what the word ‘atonement’ signifies, but we can agree that al that call on Jesus will be saved.
We can agree that we are to go into all the world and proclaim that Jesus is the crucified risen Lord of all, and that by faith in Him, a person can have peace with God and forgiveness of sins. And yet the extent of the atonement never needs proclaimed to the lost for them to be saved -because it is not the Gospel.
One could die a faithful witness for the Lord and never hear about or discuss the extent of the atonement. Therefore it is a secondary issue. And not worth dividing over or to cause division.
And this same label of hypocrite can also be applied to those Calvinists that joined the SBC then declared some weren’t preaching the true Gospel, because they didn’t agree with them on secondary issues like extent and election, or whatever it was that led them to err.
“And this same label of hypocrite can also be applied to those Calvinists that joined the SBC then declared some weren’t preaching the true Gospel, because they didn’t agree with them on secondary issues like extent and election, or whatever it was that led them to err.”
Mike White,
On this we agree.
I agree with Mike here, Ken. If you believe that Calvinists preach a false gospel then why are you Southern Baptist?!? Why would you willingly align with a group that has historically included Calvinists among its ranks? Why would you accept a statement of faith as your own that is intentionally written to allow for both views?
Now I am just as opposed to those that argue that Arminians (i.e. true Arminians like Nazarenes and AoG not trads) preach a false gospel. They don’t! But what you are doing here is hypocrisy. You are saying you belong to an organization that has a long history of belief and cooperation, but will only cooperate when they change their position on cooperation.
Todd wrote: But what you are doing here is hypocrisy. You are saying you belong to an organization that has a long history of belief and cooperation, but will only cooperate when they change their position on cooperation.
Actually, it’s not hypocrisy; he is upfront and open about what he’s doing. He’s not being “stealthy” it. No “quiet revolution” going on here.
Paul,
Yes he is being upfront and open, that is how Todd knows he is being hypocritical.
Are you blind to it?
“. . . what you are doing here is hypocrisy. You are saying you belong to an organization that has a long history of belief and cooperation, but will only cooperate when they change their position on cooperation.”
Yeah, and he also wants that “change in their position on cooperation” to be according to “his” personal plan.
Mike, A hypocrite has to put up a false appearance, a mask, or act in contradiction to what he says his beliefs or feelings are. Ken is upfront and open about his beliefs and feelings and is acting in accordance with them. He is open and upfront as to what he thinks the Southern Baptist convention should become. Therefore, he is not a hypocrite.
The accusation was, “But what you are doing here is hypocrisy. You are saying you belong to an organization that has a long history of belief and cooperation, but will only cooperate when they change their position on cooperation.” Now, we can debate whether Ken fits in the Southern Baptist convention or not(In which case we would have to debate whether others fit in the Southern Baptist convention or not), but he’s not being tricky about it. To be hypocrisy in this context, he would have to engage in behavior that could be described as “stealth” or “a quiet revolution”. He would have to call others to give to cooperative giving while he wasn’t. To be a hypocrite he would have to do things like openly call for unity and cooperation while only cooperating with Traditionalists.
Mike wrote:Are you blind to it?
Brother, this isn’t kind. You can have the last word here.
Paul,
You said:
“A hypocrite has to put up a false appearance, a mask, or act in contradiction to what he says his beliefs or feelings are. Ken is upfront and open about his beliefs and feelings and is acting in accordance with them.”
Okay, lets use that definition.
Ken joins the SBC, which presumes that he is in cooperation with it, and that he agrees with their dtatement.
YET, he puts forth that there are many who preach a false Gospel.
Which means [1] he is willing to a part of a group that preaches a false gospel.
And [2] despite pledging cooperation with the group, instead promotes division in it.
Thus the false appearance is that he first shows hinself as a cooperation Southern Baptist while his feelings are thatinstead of promoting unity in the group he is a part of, he promotes division and says no to cooperation.
What he wants the group to be has nothung to do with his hypocrisy. It was he has already said and done that are at odds.
Hypocrisy does not require stealth or anything close to a quiet revolution.
Defintion of hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
His claim: part of the SBC and in cooperation with it.
His lack of conformity to his claIm: instead of cooperation, he promotes division.
His claim: Joined with a group that has always included Calvinists
His lack of conformity to his claim: Now says that Calvinists hava a false gospel. Disdn’t seem to bother him when he joined and did he quit after he found out — NO.
Conclusion: He is acting the hypocrite.
I hope this makes it plain to you.
Todd Bankert and Mike White(and others):
Todd, you wrote, “I agree with Mike here, Ken. If you believe that Calvinists preach a false gospel then why are you Southern Baptist?!?”
First, allow me to inform you of something that you had no way of knowing about me. I no longer consider myself a SB. I was a proud card carrying member for almost 70 years but recently decided to renounce my membership to all who know me.
The reason I still have such strong feelings about what is going on in the SBC is that I have hope that it might someday return to its former glory as a great force for God. But, at age 86+ that hope is becoming dimmer and dimmer, and I know I will never live long enough to see it.
I long for another Herschel Hobbs or Adrian Rogers to rise up and lead the SBC back home.
So, I say to you, Dave, Brent, Mike, and others, shoot if you must this old gray head, but consider that I have very fond memories of what the SBC used to be and am not content with what it is now.
Mike White, you wrote, “One could die a faithful witness for the Lord and never hear about or discuss the extent of the atonement. Therefore it is a secondary issue. And not worth dividing over or to cause division.”
I will tell you that I can’t even imagine how anyone, let alone a minister of the gospel, can define the different soteriological stances in the SBC as a secondary issue. In my own church of 250 members I can name you at least 245 of them who would strongly disagree with your assessment on that matter.
All of you have a great day.
Ken,
Calvinistic preachers and churches have been a part of the SBC since its beginning.
They were there when Adrian Rogers and Herschel Hobbs presided.
They were there when you joined, and they are still here now since you have left.
What makes any group great is there unity in the Gospel. And despite what the members of your church think, the Gospel does not include the extent of it, or how one becomes of the elect. If they have been taught different, then they have been taught wrong. If they learned from others, their pastor should have corrected them.
As witnessed here, missionaries do not bring those things up in their endeavors to proclaim the Gospel as to win souls for the Lord. I have been a Christian for 40 years almost and never brought up either subject with an unbeliever because what an unbeliever needs is the Gospel, and they aint it.
That they are not the Gospel is why we can we work together, and why we do work together to obey the Lord’s command to spread the Gospel to all in the world.
Ken Miller, please be assured that all the IMB missionaries sign the Baptist Statement of Faith and Message, affirming that they believe it without reservation. Beyond that, all the missionaries sign a pledge to preach and teach in accordance with the Statement. If an IMB field leader discovers a missionary who is not so doing, that missionary is sent home. Now, that is rare, but it has happened. For what it is worth, I’ve never heard IMB missionaries discuss Calvinism or its soteriology, and I served with the IMB for 24 years. What we do talk about is how to win more folks to Jesus and plant more churches.
Many of our missionaries are not teaching an ecclesiology that is consistent with the BF&M. Many are prone to pragmatism that is at odds with the distinctives clearly articulated by the trustees and articulated well by Dr. Platt concerning the doctrine of the church. Pledging to do something and actually practicing it are different things.
“Many of our missionaries are not teaching an ecclesiology that is consistent with the BF&M.”
Would you please share what you mean by that statement? What examples do you have of this? When you say “many”, I assume that you are saying a majority. Is that what you meant?
Pics or it didn’t happen.
In response to Ken Miller’s conviction regarding not supporting an organization that won’t use God’s plan of salvation:
I’ve served between 15 and 20 years w/ the IMB alongside the very young and the very old; with some legalistic folks and some Christian liberty fans; with Platt devotees and Platt detractors. Never once – ever – have I heard Calvinism and Traditionalism mentioned. Not even in passing.
Ever.
Never have I seen someone decline to share the gospel with the excuse, “Well, not all are pre-destined.” Neither do I observe rule-of-thumb universalists claiming we’re all God’s children and will all be in heaven. Both perspectives are caricatures of extreme positions in our convention, I realize, but I imagine you see the point I’m making.
Never have I heard someone say anything other than, “We are fallen creatures, made in the image of God, redeemed by the gracious gift of Christ on the cross, in whom we have faith.” Some teams in the organization have crafted a biblical statement of the history of redemption from creation to cross, simply to ensure they can quickly share the basics with anyone, anywhere, any time.
David Platt informed a roomful of IMB workers we measure success as a teacher of the gospel by faithfulness in telling His story to anyone anywhere at any time. He announced it openly, on the record, to hundreds of people who applauded his definition of obedience. Never once has he, by statement, policy, or hiring practices, demonstrated to IMB personnel anything but a dedication to spreading the Gospel message to the ends of the earth, sweeping up people and nations as it goes.
The attitude of “I won’t donate if your personnel fail to agree with me regarding the details of a topic they don’t really debate” is nothing short of spiritual egocentrism. For those who have seen my writings on this site and read my comments, you know this is probably the strongest phrase I’ve ever utilized here, and I do so deliberately.
A guy hosted me at his home last night to hear from the Bible and said, “This is new information. I would have thought something this amazing would be more widely known.” He doesn’t care about Cals and Trads and the minute details of sinner’s prayer. He wants to know why more people have never heard what’s in the Bible.
I respect your choice, but if you can’t support that then by the whiskers on Hercules’ left forearm I cannot imagine why.
When I read, “It is fair game to question the strategies employed by David Platt and to suggest that a new mission philosophy may be needed at the board,” I think it is best not to confuse the need for more funding with the need for effective mission strategy. The two are separate issues. Yes, financial order was important to the future of SBC world evangelism. But, NO, David and Sebastian’s ideas of mission strategy were not based upon experience, case studies, nor even a basic seminary course in mission’s strategy. I know of no effective, long-term, mission’s strategy EVER carried out by a USA based church. There’s often a lot of hype from our churches about results here and there, but they are not lasting results. I’ve worked with missionaries in 28 countries now, and not one, no, not one, has ever seen consistent people group evangelism and church planting that has involved a USA based church. The few that did seem to be effective, stopped when the church quit giving money to the national partners who were doing the work. They were, in essence, buy a local pastor and church which ceased to exist when the funds dried up.
I’d be fascinated to hear if others with experience in this area agree.
I should have kept reading, thanks Mark.
Pat, you comment is “spot on,” as our British friends like to say. Volunteer mission teams can make a contribution to progress on the mission field IF their work is part of a strategy laid out by a career missionary who will follow-up with the folks they contact or evangelize. I have seen consistently good results from medical/dental teams, especially in winning the favor of the people in a place. (You could call this pre-evangelism.) Also, when a church team returns to a particular place again and again, that can have a positive impact. When I served in SE Asia, we had a sports team come from California Baptist University each summer. They held basketball clinics all over the country. These were well attended, and we did see many professions of faith. Those making professions of faith were contacted by career missionaries. If a volunteer team comes and there is no provision for follow-up, the lasting benefit is questionable.
Mark, in leiu of career missionaries (if there are none in the area) do you think follow up contact by local churches in the area might be effective? Or has experience shown that not normally the case?
Brent, More often than not, the evangelistic event that USA churches are involved with are initiated by USA churches. Local pastors will not turn down these events, even though they may not be fully on board, because a Western church brings with it resources – money specifically. While local churches and pastors may follow up, I’ve only seen a few that have resulted in converts that have remained in the church when a career missionary was not present to encourage the follow up. Likewise, poor pastors of poor congregations will often go where the money flows. For instance, in Cambodia career missionaries started about 25 churches over a 2-year period in and around Phnom Penh. Leadership of the career missionaries did not realize that these pastors were being paid by USA churches, and the missionaries were told to wean the pastors off the funding because it weakened the overall health and long-term existence of the church. They did. When the funding ceased, about 2 years later, AOG missionaries went to the same churches and offered to pay the salaries of the pastors if they converted to AOG. All of the churches, with the exception of two, converted and the CPPI (church planting progress indicator report) reflected this decline. I agree with Terry that USA short-term trips can build good will and open doors, but the likelihood that local pastors will continue the work in the same vein of followup that USA churches do, is unlikely without the encouragement of a missionary.
It turns out that Ken Miller and his church is no longer supporting the missions of the SBC because he and his church has left the SBC.
And although in the SBC, the Gospel is preached by Non-cals and cals alike and always has been, he recently decided to leave the SBC.
God speed to him and his church and may the true Gospel always be preached.
Meanwhile, on my team that includes one with a Calvinistic theology and another more inclined to EY Mullins, we walk out the door together to preach the same gospel to the spirituality dead…
For nearly a decade our church had a Cal and a non-Cal associate pastor- with me kinda splitting the difference.