What Is The Great Commission?

Brother Tim,

I always like a good article about the “good news”!

The idea of the commission is fluid. We go, make disciples, baptizing, teaching Christ followers concerning His commands, and recognizing His presence in us. (“I am with you always”). What I might add about baptizing is its connection with the Holy Spirit. The understanding of being baptized into the Holy Spirit is not much thought about these days.

Acts 19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

What I find so comforting is that the Holy Spirit sustains all the activities of the commission. Unfortunately, there have been men throughout history that emphasize one stanza of the commission song over and above the others, when all along Christ delivered to us a very robust statement of the power of God unto salvation through the Spirit’s application. We forfeit so much when we do not sing the entire song, emphasizing each verse and praising Him with thanksgiving in the chorus.

So, I think your right….structures will not change a thing,..nor will changing those structures do anything remarkable. Preaching and Commissioning the entire counsel of God’s Word is the remedy as Christ builds His church.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Tim,

You are very kind…. I am fairly confident that you and I agree on more than we disagree on my friend.

Being immersed into the Holy Spirit is understanding Christ’s commission. I think you have accurately stated that baptism is identifying with what you know, so that you can obey. So, timing in my opinion is not the context of the Acts 19 passage. The passage is clearly giving us a view into the essence of Baptism and who we know (the person of Jesus Christ and the person of the Holy Spirit). It commutes the understanding of Christ and the Holy Spirit’s dwelling in ones life. John’s baptism was signaling something quite different.

I don’t think it is plausible to believe that Apollos was never baptized into the Holy Spirit when he understood the difference. Not having it spelled out for us in Acts 18, should not be a problem because Luke’s account of Apollos directed us to the content of his teaching not his baptism. Luke’s account of the disciples at Ephesus was about the Holy Spirit which leads to their baptism. In other words…the Acts 19:3 statement is more about understanding, and less (if at all) about timing. Timing is more important today for some (for many spurious reasons), where we should learn from scripture that understanding should be the premium, because it leads us in obedience.

1 John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Les,

Thanks for your words. Let me tackle that point that you make (which I understand you received from our pedobaptist Brethren.) and give you the sole reason this thought should be rejected. In the exegetical process it doesn’t seem that the Greek Text supports that line of thinking. While one would like to say that last part of v. 19 points to the HOW of making disciples, I do not think one can support that from the text, especially if you keep the text within the context of the Scripture. Now, if one would pull it out and only examine that portion it would be easy to arrive at that conclusion. However, that would make it a pre-text then wouldn’t?

Also, if I were to take the Scripture in that context then I would have to place babies under water in their baptism because that is what the word baptizing means in Greek.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

I feel as if I am on a radio show and should write, “long time reader, first time responder.” For this topic is to important and dear to my heart to do anything but respond.

You ask what will a Great Commission resurgence look like. I advocate that a resurgence will not look like anything until and unless it takes on the Acts 1:8 model and the Matthew 28:18-20 model and the Romans 1:16 model of “to the Jew first”.

The Acts and Matthew passages were written before the order was given to disseminate the Gospel to the Gentiles and so we must ask — who was in Jerusalem (Jewish people), Judea (Jewish people), Samaria (Jewish people), and the uttermost parts of the world (Jews and Gentiles). I wrote a journal article (page 5-7) for the Evangelical Missiological Society “Occasional Bulletin” that might prove interesting reading to those who are attempting to answer your same question — http://emsweb.org/images/stories/docs/bulletins/OB_Spring_2009_3.pdf.

For until we include the Chosen Ones of God on the Great Commission plan, we will accomplish little. 99% of Jesus’ brothers and sisters are lost at this moment. Who will reach them through a true Gospel resurgence?

Acts 20:24,

Amy Downey — Tzedakah Ministries
“To Equip His Church to Reach His People”

(www.tzedakahministries.org/info@tzedakahministries.org)

Sister Amy,

I don’t disagree that to omit the Jew as an aspect of our responsibility with the gospel of God would be to misunderstand how God entrusted the Jew with His Oracles. I am afraid though, that in your article (which is very well written) you may have conflated and projected an imperative mood into the Apostle Paul’s writing, where an indicative mood is breathed. In other words,… The Apostle Paul’s incentive to deliver the gospel to the Gentiles is no different than God revealing to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations.

The Spirit was the mover in the Apostle Paul to declare the gospel to all men….yet he understood and made it clear to the Jews in Rome that the Oracles of God were entrusted to the Jew first for their benefit so that they recognize the gospel….. as he indicates by saying

Romans 4:13-15 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (14) For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; (15) for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

The Apostle Paul’s indicative mood is consistent through chapter 11….not before. So, in other words God is declaring, not commanding until later (chapter 12 and ff). The Jews will be made jealous, that is not an option in the plan of God. The Apostle’s declaration, even as the Spirit called him to the Gentiles, will ultimately result in a Jew yearning for Christ. But there is no command, only a declaration (as is Romans 1:16-17). Paul, being a Jew of Jews, certainly made it clear that there is no partiality with God.

Romans 11:13-14 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, (14) if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

I do agree with you that we are not to leave anyone out of this gospel preaching (preach hard to the Jew and the Gentile), but to misapply a declaration and replace it with a command is not what the Apostle is teaching us. The more important message is that the Oracles were (indicative) given to the Jew first….and with that there is no excuse where much is given. Paul is simply teaching the church that the Jews received the gospel (faith handed down) and now the Gentiles are being grafted in through the awesome power of the Holy Spirit in these last days…..seen clearly in the law of faith as Paul has declared.

Romans 3:1-4 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? (2) Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. (3) What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? (4) May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”………….

Romans 3:21-27 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (22) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; (25) whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (26) for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (27) Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

The Jew most assuredly needs to understand their lot in the plan of God in the light of God’s Word. The Apostle Paul laid it out very clearly,….and we should do that as well and declare to them the truth of their reception of God’s oracles, as with the Gentiles to embrace the truth of God,…and receive the Christ of the gospel of God.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris,

Thank you for your email. Thank you as well for your compliment on the paper I wrote. Siegfried Schatzmann at SWBTS was a good supervisor of theses as well as a NT Greek teacher and I learned a great deal from him … even when we didn’t agree.

Your argument is that Romans 1:16 is in the indicative and not imperative mood. I will give you that fact; however, let me ask what type of indicative mood — declarative, conditional, potential, cohortative? So while it is not in the imperative mood, it could be read as either a statement of fact or a command.

Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ελληνι:

Your arguments about Romans 9-11 which are specifically related to Jewish evangelism offer us an insight into Paul’s heart. He was willing to suffer anathema for the sake of his brothers in the flesh. Therefore, if we take the whole canon of Scripture we see several concepts throughout — (1) God’s Chosen Ones were unconditionally covenanted by God in Genesis 12, 15, 17; (2) Jeremiah 31 is not a promise to the church but instead a promise to Israel that the New Covenant is for them; (3) New in Jeremiah should not be brought into modern vernacular as different but instead a fulfillment of the Old; (4) Jesus came first to the House of Israel and is was not until Acts 10 and then again in Acts 15 that the concept of Gentile salvation was even truly understood … as salvation was for the Jews first; and (5) the church of Rome was at first a Jewish “church” until AD 49 when they were expelled from Rome — consequently when Paul wrote the epistle the congregation was different as there more Gentiles present but Paul repeatedly reminded them (specifically in chapter 11) that they were grafted in to the promise of Abraham (i.e., don’t become too proud or exclusive).

In addition, and as mentioned in my response to Tim, let’s examine the model of Paul the missionary to the Gentiles. When he entered into a new area to whom did he go first? He went FIRST to the synagogue and to the Jewish people. Is there a model we should follow in Paul’s example?

Acts 20:24,

Amy

Sister Amy,

Thank you for the kind response. As I said earlier, there is no disagreement from me that we should preach and teach the gospel to the Jew. Synagogues are some of the most easy places to find in Nashville,…and always the most passionate group against the gospel. But, that is not a reason to back off from them, since they were entrusted with the oracles of God, they, clearly more than any other people nation have been given prerogative by God. This prerogative though was to announce and shine light on Christ alone, and not any other Jew. The letter to the Romans is a wonderful explanation of just that point. The Apostle Paul makes that same plea through the entire letter to the Galatians, and wraps up very succinctly that same message in that ….you “have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him– (11) a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all…. (Colossians 3:10-11) Even in the day that the Jew is made jealous and does return to the Messiah Christ, the Jewish nation will not get the pat on the back….the glory will be focused on Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

So the image of the One who created him, in which there is no Greek and Jew is extremely important as we carry forward the faith that has been delivered to the Saints. We certainly do not leave out the Jew, and as I stated earlier, we can be as direct as possible with that nation since they were the prerogative that God set out to announce His Son in this world. So yes,…by all means the Jew is as much in need of the gospel as any other nation…..and the nation should be remembered as the Apostle Paul has already declared by way of question…. Romans 3:1-2 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? (2) Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Scripture is clear….the Jew has a great advantage of legacy, being the trustee of God’s divine communications. As you continue to explore Romans, you will find that the indicative mood of the Greek used throughout the first eleven chapters is declarative and interrogative. The Apostle does not use the cohortative (command) indicative in any of the “to the Jew first” passages…..since he is declaring the existing path of the faith that has been delivered, and is answering questions concerning the knowledge of the Christ expressed in the oracles they have been allowed to possess.

The moods help us understand the importance of the Apostles Paul message to the Jews that were in the assembly in Rome, so that the Gentile believer would also recognize how God displayed His Law.

Blessings,
Chris

Tim, Sorry it took so long as I have been out a bit.

I would agree that new structures will not increase baptisms in current local churches.

I do think however that a structure change can help fulfill the Great Commission, which I believe is what Akin and Gilbert were speaking about. Since the GC is to make disciples among ethnic groups, then here is how I could see (In theory) a structural change helping that:

1. Few SBC churches are seeking to penetrate the UPG’s that are coming here to America or live abroad. Most are simply planting churches in Suburban white areas. Few are reaching ethnics.
2. New churches willing to do this are needed in order to fulfill the GC.
3. New structures could open up more money for new church plants among these UPG’s (Ethnos/nations) here in the US and overseas.
4. Therefore the Great Commission is being fulfilled and more baptisms are coming about as a result of new church plants among the ethne.

What we have seen happen over the years at our church is that as we went out to the ethnos in those least reached areas of the 10/40, people came home with a vision for reaching people right here in America.

As far as many current churches, I would agree with what I think you are saying, it is not happening, we need revival among us. Structure does not create revival.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to post, Have a great Christmas ! Ken

Brother Ken,

Your 4 points of change that will happen when structures are changed is very interesting. I do not think I could disagree with those points if I took on your basic premise for church planting. I believe that is where I disagree with you. You seem to have for a basic premise that conventions/associations plant churches. However, I have as a basic premise that churches plant churches. Thus, we can have all of the revivals we want among denominational leaders and they can get as excited as a couple about to have their first child, but all of that is not going to result in revival among the churches. With your basic premise, as with Dr. Akin and Brother Gilbert, you seem to be giving up on the current churches that make up the SBC. That is not something I am willing to do. Yes we have over 40K churches and you would be correct to say that we have some that could be classified as dead. However, the future of these churches are in God’s mind, not in the minds of denominational leaders trying to increase inflated numbers.

Sister Amanda,

My article is focused there because that is the only structures that our current leaders desire to change. I am all for a GCR on the international fields. However, it seems with the IMB reporting 500k baptisms no one seems to be saying they could do more.

Blessings,
Tim

tim,

thank you for your quick response. just wondering where you’ve heard the stat of 500k baptisms? i’ve not heard that, but would definitely rejoice if there are truly hundreds of thousands of new brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. also, what do you mean when you say, “no one seems to be saying they could do more?” i was under the impression that part of the push as of late has been to increase the number of missionaries sent by the IMB, requiring a push for more donations and funds allocated to the IMB, so that they could do more? i may have misunderstood. thanks!

God bless,
amanda

Brother Josh,

The quote came from Dr. Hunt at one of his Timothy/Barnabas conferences I attended. It was during an open discussion when pastors were asking him questions. One of the questions concerned embarking in a building program without all of the money. That was his response to encourage the pastor.

As to your second question. We cannot have it both ways. If one believes that the local church is autonomous then one has to receive leadership from the prophetic voice of a pastor. If the convention is in a hierarchal structure, then by all means let the prophetic voices come from academia.

Sister Amanda,

The IMB reported the stats. You can read about it here

To all,

Sorry for the lateness in responding. The weekend was full and I was not able to follow the comment stream.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Ken,

Thanks for your response. I agree with you that money is being wasted on church plants and these plants are not being done in a proper light. While I agree and encourage you as you lead your church in her endeavors, I cannot sympathize with your assertion for the structure change. You say; “The reason I am for the structure change is that the money that we do give to the denom, I want to see that used more wisely for Church planting and not wasted as I feel some of it is.” However, just a few sentences earlier; “Many [churches] still have the old idea that we hand off our missions and Church planting to the denom. to do on our behalf. “ We cannot have it both ways. Either churches plant churches or denom.’s plant churches. I serve on a Missions Committee for my local association. We had a pastor and his wife come before us at our last meeting. Our committee will recommend that we bring, under watch-care the church that this pastor is planting. The church is not even constituted and we are bringing it under watch-care. Why is this happening? Because of the push in the convention to plant churches. We have started calling any bible study that meets in a home a church in order to receive funds. I submit that if we were to return to churches planting churches (it may be that we decrease in the number we show that are church plants) we will increase in church health and have a better retention rate for new church starts.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Josh,

Thank you for the convo. I am not saying that we should not listen and assess the voices from academia. However, I am saying that these voices of academia are theory from ivory towers. If we have a GCR with the directions coming from the Axioms presented by Dr. Akin we have a process that was hatched in an ivory tower of academia. However, if we have Dr. Hunt present from his experience the Axioms instead of copying and pasting Dr. Akins we then have a prophetic voice sounding the clarion call. The drawback for me of the GCR is the basis for the entire movement was born in the ivory tower of academia. Please do not take anything negative about Dr. Hunt or Dr. Akin from that statement. I do not intend anything negative, I am just giving the facts of how we have arrived at the place we find ourselves today.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Josh,

No problem with any Axioms coming from Dr. Akin. He, as a church member has just as much privilege to speak from his heart as any SB church member. However, he was not speaking as a church member he was delivering the Axioms as a President of a seminary. In that address he basically stated, and his development personnel wrote a paper that the GCRTF is taking serious consideration of, the seminaries were not getting enough money because the “bloated bureaucracies”. If Dr. Akin stated that as a church member then using the podium of SEBTS was not the place for that to take place. Dr. Akin basically told the state conventions to release money to come to SEBTS. While he never stated such in his address and he has certainly articulated his desire to work together with the state conventions, he spoke out against the very structure he was placed in position to support.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

I think my problem with “… he was not speaking as a church member he was delivering the Axioms as a President of a seminary…” is how can you separate the two? I know of many professors, from differing seminaries, who are also pastors at local churches (I can give names if you want but i choose to leave them out of this discussion). Are they too be two separate people: sometimes 1)pastors, and sometimes 2)professors? I just want us all to think about that logic.

Thanks again.

Tim,
First of all the Article to which you refer is VIII, not IX.

Second, I’ll say one last time what I said at BtT: it is evident that you either are not reading carefully or are intentionally misrepresenting what others say.

The bolded part (which reads similarly to the actual address given in SEBTS’ chapel) says nothing about funneling money to the seminaries.

This is what you say: “Akin basically told the state conventions to release money to come to SEBTS.”

This is what Akin **actually said**: “We must recognize the need to rethink our Convention structure and identity so that we maximize our energy and resources for the fulfilling of the Great Commission,”
and
“Are we distracted by doing many good things but not giving our full attention to the best things? Church planting in the United States, pioneer missions around the world and theological education that starts in the seminaries but finds its way to the local church is a 3-legged stool I believe most Southern Baptists would gladly occupy! Let others do what they can do. Let us focus on what only Christ has commissioned us to do. Prioritize and simplify.”

In neither of those statements does Akin suggest that more money should be given to SEBTS. That is either misrepresentation or misreading on your part.

Tim, I am done commenting here. You have continually exhibited either an inability to read clearly or a desire to misrepresent others, and especially those in leadership positions at SEBTS, and therefore our conversations are not fruitful. I simply wanted to point out to your readers what you are doing.

Matt

Tim,

“However, I am not standing there and expressing my point as a church member.” You are no longer a member of that church when you stand in the pulpit? When I have stood to preach in my home church i stood in that pulpit as a church member. For that 30+ minutes I did not take off my member mask and put on my preacher mask. We have to be careful here. The pastor is a member of the Body just like Jill or Frank. When any member speaks, whether in a pulpit or not, they are representing Christ. I think in the long run you and I just have a differnt understanding of “church”.

Dr. Akins current Job is a Seminary President, but he is also a teacher. I read a quote and i saw nothing about “State Conventions and the SBC to be restructure in order to allow more funds to come to the three areas he said they were needed”. I believe it was “full attention” not funds (again could be wrong). Tim, I have a seminary degree and maybe you do too. Are you happy that some attention was given to your seminary so that you could get your education so that you could (possibly) better teach and shepard your church. (note that not all pastors have to attend seminary, there are many great men in the pulpits that do an amazing job exegeting).

Yes he does have the right to nominate people being he is a SBC church member. But does he really have to wait till that one time a year “to express any recommendation for restructure from the convention floor[?]” Would it really make a difference if the recommendation was say, comming from Pastor Jim in Smalltown, Va?

Please take to heart that they, the GCRTF, want to see the Great Commission fulfilled in all nations (including this one). Their hearts are for the nations. I want to see the GC fulfilled. My heart is for the nations and I plan to go asap. So maybe a little restructuring would be good so that we can better fulfill the GC of Christ. No matter where the idea came from.

Thanks

Tim,

We will have to agree to disagree. You have your view on the Dr. Akin and his position. That will not change I can see that. I will infer from reading this article and comments that you also do not beleive that the SBC or state conventions are in need of any restructuring (Yes or No?). I think you are still failing to see Dr. Akin as a member of a local church AS WELL AS “a paid employee of an entity of the SBC.”

Are you paid employee of your local church? Have you ever spoken out against someone in your church that pays your salary? Have you ever wanted to impliment change that all the members of your congregation have not wanted? Have you ever thought that funds in your church should go for one thing instead of another and spoke out about it? If you are pastor long enough I can imagine that you will want to one day. Does it mean your congregation should not listen to you? Think about it.

One more thing i would like to see the article of podcast where Dr.Akin chastises the state convention. That might help me better understand what you are trying to say.

Thanks

Brother Josh,

You are right we will have to agree to disagree. I will leave you with one question. Where were you back in 2006 when Dr. Akin was maligned and put down for nominating JD Greear? I was one of a few that defended his right to do such and it seems that those who took him to task for pursuing his right to do such are some of his greatest supporters today. Thus, I have already stuck my flag in the ground on this hill and my opposition to him speaking out about convention issues, using the pulpit afforded him by the people in the pews is where I draw the line. I said it in 2006 when I supported his right to nominate someone to an office and I am saying the same thing today. You speak out all you want to in opposition to the direction your church decides to go in.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

Because you have not answered my questions directly I only think it fair that i not answer yours: “I will leave you with one question. Where were you back in 2006 when Dr. Akin was maligned and put down for nominating JD Greear?” (Though I am not forsure what the question is actually asking.)

I really want to read the article or podcast. I just want to hear evidence. I am not blasting you for lying or anything. I just want to see the facts for myself. In the courtroom evidence is what wins cases and so far all i have read is hearsay, word of mouth.

P.S. JD is one of my favorite people. Just for the record.

Thanks

Brother Josh,

I have given you the evidence as much as I know how. If what I said is only in my mind, then why did Dr. Akin think it necessary to deal with what he called “myths”? I am not the only one who is weary of his position. Also, my statement about 2006 is relevant as you will find I defended Dr. Akin to the hilt for practicing his autonomy as a church member. Go back an read the blogs. I was the one then getting blasted by the ones who are great friends of Dr. Akin and JD now. I will always defend Dr. Akin’s position as a church member to state what he believes. But, when he begins using the podium of SEBTS to negatively speak against the very convention structure that placed him in his position, I have to draw the line.

Sister Amanda,

Thank you, I need the prayers.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

Wow, brother; you surely know how to pick em, don’t you! For the record, know your concern about Dr. Akin (and I would add, Dr. Mohler) being the dominant voice(s) behind the restructuring of the SBC does not fall completely on deaf ears, my brother. I too have strong reservations about the philosophical shift Southern Baptists are allowing to take place with the rise of the GCRTF.

Contrary to the Conservative Resurgence which was observably led by men–mostly pastors–who stood outside the denominational structure, the GCRTF is being primarily led by men thoroughly embedded inside the denominational structure, men who are denominational employees.

Ironically–not to mention the sideways humor in it–this makes the GCRTF analogous to the pre-CR moderates who had an agenda for the SBC–albeit an agenda already securely in tact, nonetheless an agenda to pursue. More disturbing, I find here on this thread positive calls for the very scenario the CR challenged (entity heads calling the denominational shots). The CR delivered us a ’squeaky clean’ slate, a convention where grassroots Southern Baptists once again called the denominational shots, and I’ll be dogged if we don’t find young voices whining for the onions and garlic of Egypt.

If I haven’t been clear yet, allow me to be so please: we tell Drs. Akin & Mohler, along with every other convention employee what’s best for the SBC; they do not tell us.

Just a word to say, you are not alone, brother.

Grace, Tim.

With that, I am…
Peter

Tim,

It is very possible for more than ONE person to read to much into a certain axiom or whatever. If people in the pew are hearing it, who are the hearing it from: Pastors that have read the articles and axioms and don’t agree?

“You were in school, (I presume either high school or college) in 2006 and you are going to tell me I am misunderstanding the issues? Ok!” No actually, seminary at SEBTS. So i am well informed in all that you are saying. I have had a front row seat to this issue. OK!

I’ll look for that message but a date or title would help.

As a SB church member, I agree with the GCRTF and Dr. Akin.

One or two pastors (i.e. you and your fellow bloggers) could be misinformed and share your misinformation with your congregation. Is this not a feasible way for a “grassroots issue that people in the pew are hearing about” to start on the basis of one or two men’s biased opinions? The reason the myths were addressed is because the average person in the SB pew can’t feasibly walk up to Wake Forest to hear Dr. Akin address the issue. By discussing the truth of what the GCRTF hopes to accomplish, and dispelling myths on Between the Times, the average SB church goer has the opportunity to hear the truth rather than the biased opinion of a misinformed pastor.

Jason,

Implying Tim (and a few bloggers) is “misinformed” and consequently sharing “misinformation” based upon “biased opinion” means exactly what?

Tim offered a sincere opinion based upon his understanding of the facts at hand. To merely assert his position is “misinformed” is easy and convenient; it also happens to be presumptuous and telling.

I personally think it’s grand you agree with the GCRTF and Dr. Akin. There are some very good people on the TF, not the least of which is Dr. Akin. So you’re standing with some good folk. Nevertheless, granting such does absolutely nothing to absolve genuine differences concerning the way the SBC should proceed.

Grace.
With that, I am…
Peter

oh… excuse me. did i take that out of context? my bad.

Brother Jason,

If you would like to exchange ideas, be our guest. But sarcasm concerning this issue is not the way to go. I have produced within this comment stream the basis of my statements. If you do not care to engage them, the your childish rebuttals only reveal your decision to stick your head in the sand.

Blessings,
Tim

Hi Tim,

A friend mentioned there had been some interesting dialogue going on here, so I thought I’d check it out.

I’m going to jump way up the page and by-pass some of the banter. In the dialogue between you and Ken, first, it seems that you may have twisted his words a little. I read over what he said a few times to make sure I understood his statement, and I could find nowhere that he said money is being wasted on church plants as you seem to infer. He did, however, seem to say he would like to see money spent more wisely (i.e. on Church plants), rather than wasted (on less important things). Just wanted to point out a different way to understand his comment.

Also, I have a comment regarding how churches are planted within SB life. If my understanding is correct, SB churches choose to cooperate for certain tasks (like missions) in order to pool resources. This means, when the ‘denomination’ plants a church, it’s really multiple churches coming together and sending missionaries. The reason for this cooperation being the lack of financial resources that one church alone may have. Thus, by cooperating, SB churches are able to do more (think synergy). So, seeing as the actual “denomination” only exists for a few days each year, it seems that within the SB world, churches are planted by churches…many are just not aware.

As one intending to serve on the mission field, I think this is a pretty great set up as it provides a wider support base for SB missionaries. I think the only pitfall is simply that not enough churches are aware of what is going on outside their local body of believers. If we could simply get the word out to churches who don’t have members of their local body on the mission field, we could increase awareness, which would hopefully increase the prayer support and emotional support of our missionaries. Being that the churches are in fact sending missionaries, I think it would be great that they knew more about the work of which they are a part.

Thanks for letting me share.

Tim,

This is an interesting post. Seems to be a lot of good opinions and excellently asked questions. There are some tough ones.

You said “If we agree on the fact that a GCR will begin in the local church, then why the defensive posture when someone disagrees with changing the structure of a convention?” It would seem that from the above conversation that many see that we do need change. I frankly agree with change. I am guessing by the quote you don’t or at least disagree with certain parts of change? I heard recently from a IMB personnel that only 2 cent on the dollar given to the CP starting at the state level makes it to the international mission field (i don’t know if this is posted online or not but if so i will try to find it and post it). If that is the case we really do need change.

Also: I read equal defensivness from both sides of the arguement in the post. It can be understandable that change is sometimes tough and that not everyone is going to agree. But seems that everyone here has a passion for their view whether for or against change. I do want to remind you and the other bloggers that a 95% vote was held at the last SBC for a TF to be assembled. By looking at that percentage there are a significant amount of people that are concerned enough to want to see if we need change. That is what the TF is for if i am not mistaken. Again fun post to read.

Peter,

First:You said “Implying Tim (and a few bloggers) is “misinformed” and consequently sharing “misinformation” based upon “biased opinion” means exactly what?” The original quote seems to me it makes sense to me. He is simply sharing that if certain people are misinformed or biased then they will pass that on to their congregations.

Second:Aaron has a point about your comment ““this makes the GCRTF analogous to the pre-CR moderates who had an agenda for the SBC”…” Brother please becareful treading there. It is hard to read that and not say that you are comparing the two and saying they are similar. Just want to ask you to becareful about how you word things.

Oh by the way read Dr. Akins article on BTT from your link and i agree. Great article can’t wait to hear the rest.

As I walk with Christ,

J.D.

J.D.,

Thanks. I appreciate the words. I feel I need to respond. First, the original quote from Jason does not suggest as you state “if certain people are misinformed or biased then they will pass that on to their congregations” (my emphasis).

Instead implicated is Tim and his fellow bloggers: “One or two pastors (i.e. you and your fellow bloggers). The comment was a direct implication that at least Tim is misinformed, and evidently sharing “misinformation” based upon “biased opinion.” Hence, I asked Jason he “means exactly what?” In addition, just who the “fellow bloggers” he had in mind was also folded within the question. I simply inquired. That’s all.

And yes, to assert one “misinformed,” implying he is subsequently responsible for creating myths and perpetuating misinformation to his congregation–apart from any reasoning whatsoever–remains easy but entirely presumptuous from my side of town.

Second, and more importantly, is your caution to me concerning my words: “Brother please be careful treading there. It is hard to read that and not say that you are comparing the two and saying they are similar. Just want to ask you to be careful about how you word things.”

I appreciate, J.D., your concern for statements and precisely how things are worded. Thank you. Nevertheless, may I say similarly to you as I implied to Aaron upon his query: your reading is incorrect.

I assure you I measured the words carefully before I wrote them. If you or Aaron or any other draw unnecessary implications not in my statements I’m afraid it’s not I who needs to pursue more caution.

Know also, had Aaron inquired further, I would have followed my unequivocal “No” by pointing out while I was most certainly drawing an analogy, I was most certainly not drawing an analogy the way he framed it. Not even close. What’s funny is, Aaron did not follow up, but you did, evidently failing as did Aaron to look closely at the comparison I was making.

Allow me, J.D.

I wrote:
“…this makes the GCRTF analogous to the pre-CR moderates who had an agenda for the SBC–albeit an agenda already securely in tact, nonetheless an agenda to pursue”
To which our Aaron responded:

“am i to understand you are comparing those who support the GCR…to those in the late 70s who denied scriptural inerrancy?”

A) I offered an analogy of the GCRTF with “pre-CR moderates” while Aaron confuses it to be “those who support the GCR.” The two cannot be equated on a perfect mother’s grave. Many, many, many support the GCR who have fundamental reservations the GCRTF is on track with it. I have been extremely careful to keep the two separate. And one will find this distinction in all my musings about the GCR & GCRTF.

B) I offered a specific frame of reference for my analogy (see below) while Aaron mistakenly connected up to biblical inspiration; that is, “to those in the late 70s who denied scriptural inerrancy”.

My frame of reference for the analogy was explicit and had jack squat to do with biblical inspiration. Instead I wrote, the GCRTF is analogous to the pre-CR moderates who had an agenda for the SBC,” all of which had to do with my assertion the CR men were “outsiders” while the GCRTF is primarily powered–and here we may say publicly driven–by “insiders,” denominational employees (i.e. Dr. Akin & Mohler).

Hence, rather than careless wording, the analogy I offered was specific and explicitly referenced as to how I find the similarity between the GCRTF and pre-CR convention men both ironical and a bit humorous. Looking back over it again, I wouldn’t change a word actually.

Hope this helps, J.D.

Grace. With that, I am…
Peter

Brother JD,

I know that you, as well as I, are running on a tight schedule with it being Wednesday evening. However, I would like to ask a question to your earlier comment concerning the amount of funds making it to the mission field. You an Peter can continue to go back and forth over the analogy. Thus, I will not comment only to say that I do not believe that Peter was saying anyone that was heading up the GCR did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

But, you said that a M told you he had done some stats that shows only 2 cents make it to the mission field. As I understand that is the current rate based on the current CP giving. Help me understand something. First, where is he getting his stats and are the available for others to review? Second, if everyone takes a vow of silence and the GCRTF has a clean run to place anything their heart desires before the convention, what amount will make it to the mission field in a plan you would support?

Blessings,
Tim

found one link:

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31728

Wow do the math with 100,000 dollars from each state. It is pretty sad. I did NC and it came to only 14,350 for every 100,000 given to the CP then only half of that goes to missions. That means the sate keeps 85,650 Sadly still the other half goes to try and fund 6 other areas of interest. To me that is sad. And that is my state. (Anyone is welcome to check my math i tend to mix numbers sometime). Oh and i just found out where the 2 cent stat comes from other than the IMB guy. GO to http://www.sebts.edu and then to view all media and listen to the DEC 8th Chapel message by Dr. Akin. I am listening to it now so i hope it was during the message not before.

Walking with Christ,

J.D.

J.D.

I am sorry my extended comment did not help. Even so, I not only was careful in the wording of the original analogous comparison between two scenarios, I was especially careful in my response to you.

However, just because you find an analogy someone makes a “bad analogy” striking you as “distasteful,” and consequently insisting I “should have chosen another” gives me just enough of a belly-roll laugh to pop the middle button off my shirt. Please, brother. How am I supposed to take your critique seriously?

I recently had an exchange with another brother over the worthiness of his analogy. Understand, however: I did not insist it was a “bad analogy” because I found it personally unacceptable to my tastes; instead, I found it “bad” because the analogy neither followed from the subject under discussion nor was it contextually in proper form as to be useful in the discussion.

On the other hand, your criticism fundamentally is, “I don’t like the comparison” hence, Peter’s analogy is a “bad analogy.” In addition, you further insist you were “reading the quote objectively.” Really? Might I not argue I was writing the quote objectively?

If I may, J.D., from my perspective, you appear to have objectivity colliding with subjectivity (personal distastes) resulting in slight confusion.

To top it all off you make this incredible claim: “This is a false statement because if both Aaron and I read the quote similary [sic] then there may be something there.” Lord help us all if this hermeneutic ever catches on. It could be called “If two, therefore true” principle. I honestly don’t have anything to say in response, bro.

For the record, were I in your position I would not like my analogy either. But as my dear wife has, over 37 years of marriage, taught me well, there’s lots of things I may not like but must learn to let.

Grace, J.D. I trust your evening well.
With that, I am…
Peter

Peter (BRO),

Don’t do that: “gives me just enough of a belly-roll laugh to pop the middle button off my shirt.” I might feel bad. Then i couldn’t take you seriously.

“Please, brother. How am I supposed to take your critique seriously?” Really? Because i do not share you view you cannot take me seriously? That is fundamentaly what you are saying.

Ok yours was “Bad”. The two are not similar in any way. Do i really have to go into details in all the ways they are not? If you have been married 37 years then you are probably old enough to know they are not similar. Fundamentaly, again, my criticism is that I know the SBC history and they are not similar.

“Really? Might I not argue I was writing the quote objectively?” Might you not have been writing subjectively as well? Two ways.

“Lord help us all if this hermeneutic ever catches on.” Are you claiming to be inerrant in your writing? If i am not mistaken the only writing that is inerrrant is the Bible. There is no hermenutic in blogging. We are human, Bro.

“For the record, were I in your position I would not like my analogy either.” What postion is that? Wanting to see the gospel taken to the nations? Wanting someone to take a look into the need for change within the convention? Explain what position i am in?

Walking with Christ,

J.D.

Back to the original idea, I think. Change is needed. Since we do give to the CP, then we are supporting Church planting in the denom. no matter what you view is, you are supporting the denom planting churches.

With that, All our cooperative efforts fall way short of their intended purpose of taking the gospel to the UPG’s. We are failing to use our cooperating money to make disciples among ethnic groups. What I hear the GCR TF saying is we need to change this to make us better stewards.

What I hear Dr Akin saying is (my paraphrase) We have the money available let’s use is wisely to accomplish the task we set out for. That is all. Simple.

Change is needed if we intend to take the gospel to those who have ZERO access. To quote a friend “They (UPG’s) could walk for days and weeks and never find a person who can tell them of Jesus in their own language”. We should all be willing to cooperate by making the changes necessary to get the gospel to those with ZERO access.

We are reducing our Int’l missions force by 600 and yet we have the money available in the denom. to send those people. That breaks my heart.

Ken,

Thank you for your comment. I agree wholeheartedly. My husband and I, as well as many of our friends, are in the process to go work with UPGs and it is very disheartening to think that, due to money being unwisely spent on this side of the pond, there may not be enough money for everyone who desires to go to be sent. It makes me terribly sad to see that churches are more excited and willing to give for a building project to expand their already large campus than they are to give resources to reach the nations for Christ.

Tim,

I don’t think the question of ‘how much’ is really relevant. The issue is simply that the vast majority of money given to a church in the US stays in the US. We have churches on every street corner. In fact, there is one street in my city where within roughly 400 meters, there is a Baptist church, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian. I know many churches in America do not teach the full Gospel at this point in time. But you would have a hard time convincing me that the majority of American’s can’t easily find a Gospel centered church within at least 30 minutes of their home… if not closer. The fact remains that we have come together as a denomination to see Christ glorified in all the earth. I think re-directing funds and restructuring things in order that we can be better stewards of what the Lord has given us is not a bad thing.

Danke.

Tim,

My deepest apologies for rambling on so long. I honestly came over here just to affirm you since you appeared abandoned by others having but a remote like-mindedness.

Know, also, you are right to question the “2 cents” seed thoroughly sown in just about every soil around hoping, I presume, to grow some strong sentiment in concluding a crisis exists which we must address.

I read the article our brother J.D. linked and am thankful for it, and especially the pastor’s heart who wrote it, passionate as he rightly is for getting the gospel to those who’ve never heard.

On the surface, I must admit, I have my doubts about the accuracy of numbers added up in one’s head in a conference hall. And, if this is the cited research our GCRTF is publicly saying it is presently assembling, again I’m lost for words.

Initially, I think, when one asserts a mere 2 cents gets to the missions field, a number of questions surface.

Questions like, “2 cents of what?”; or “Was it ever more than 2 cents?” For example, was it a penny or a penny point five (1.5 cents) before we streamlined the convention in the late 90s, and after restructure, it jumped to 2 cents because of all the money we were told we would save as a result of the new venture?”; or “Would 3 cents be acceptable?” (it’s hardly acceptable on the surface); or, “How does the 2 cents we spend there rank against other missions expenditures in productivity?” etc. etc.

The fact is, none of these questions toward the 2 cents seems relevant, relevant at least to those who sow it to draw sentimental sparks that Southern Baptists have a crisis on our hands that’s going to take a restructuring of the SBC to address.

Our Lord bless you, brother.
With that, I am…
Peter

Back to a real discussion,

Tim,

I wish i could give a good number that would suffice. There are people with the accounting brains and then there is me that only knows what he reads and hears from those with the books. I wish i could say; “20 cents on the dollar” would make thing better. But i cannot say that. The simple truth of the matter is that the IMB is hurting, truly hurting. I think someone above said something similar, but there are alot of M’s that are not going to make it to the field because the funds are just not there. Just found out a few weeks ago that only 11 units will be sent to Central Asia over the next 2 years. That breaks my heart as well as i know it breaks yours.

I believe that part of what the GCRTF wants to do is figure out to be better efficient with our money so that more funds can be directed to overseas missions (and other CP programs). I think that might be part of the reason why they maybe pushing the deadline back from Feb, they want to do a thorough examination of everything. But what i say to this is only an educated guess because these TF has only met once or twice as a whole group and only a few times as smaller groups. I do not know what they have discussed and cannot speculate as to that either.

I cannot account for the difference in 28.8 and 34.1 in the state convention. I will look more into that. Those numbers on the website i posted are in direct correlation to the amount the CP recieves from each state convention. It could be something as simple as a typo or a change in giving from the time the IMB site was posted. I will dig and find more. I pray that the numbers i gave are wrong and that the 34.1 is right. Wish we could all give above 50… My personal preference entirely.

Tim on more thing. I owe you an appology. I really thought that the discussion between Peter and I would be a simple fling of funny remarks and unlined humor. Instead it was taken much to seroiusly and got out of hand.

J.D.

Brother/Sister Anony,

Your analysis I think re-directing funds and restructuring things in order that we can be better stewards of what the Lord has given us is not a bad thing. is something that I do not believe anyone has ever said it would be a bad thing. I know that I have never said everything needed to stay the same. I am the first to tell you that we need to change, but I am also the first to say changes were made in the mid-90’s with the same battle cry. Change for the sake of change is not something I will support. Also, when one disagrees with a direction that others desire it does not mean the one disagreeing is against change.

I also desire to see funds used wisely. But the state conventions are not the bloated beuracracies they have been seemingly made out to be. NAMB has become the whipping boy as I saw here in NC. Some prominent pastors stated it was stupid at one of the listening sessions without the slightest response from the TF representatives. Now, Brother JD has presented us with a figure of 2 cents on the dollar making it to the mission field. Let’s look at that figure. I give $1 to the CP. My state convention gets either 28.7 or 34.5%. Let’s be conservative and choose the lest %. That means that Nashville gets 28.7 cents. Let’s be real and round up and say that Nashville gets 29 cents of my $1. That means that the IMB gets 14.5 cents. Of that 14.5 cents only 2 cents make it to the mission field. Here is what Brother JD has pointed to that I am not sure he understands in using this amount. The IMB is keeping 12.5 cents from making it to the mission field. If what Brother JD reported is what the GCRTF is looking at, may be they have found the bloated bureaucracy. Therefore, I do not believe Brother JD’s statement of 2 cents is accurate. The pastor in the link Brother JD posted in comment #64, has a beef with the Indiana State Convention if 2 cents make it to the mission field through Indiana. Thus, I believe it would behoove the TF to release these stats they are reviewing and understand that Societal giving is the only way for a person in a church to get the full amount of their $’s to the mission field. But, we have alread fought that battle in the SBC and as a result we came up with the strongest missions sending organization in the history of Christendom. We call it the Cooperative Program.

Brother JD,

Sorry for having to use your name in the response Anony. But I believe you see why I did as you were the one that presented the amount. If we are able to move to a 20 cent amount getting to the mission field when will we have a group pushing for 25 cents? Also, has the TF looked at the reserves of the various entities?

As for the discrepancy between the 34.5 and the 28.7. I wonder if NC is counting the ministers subsidy for Guidestone? If that is the case then I need to count the $640 that is taken from my churches funding CP contribution as CP giving. If that is the case, I believe you would agree that the portion they are saying is CP giving, is not CP giving.

Blessings,
Tim

Hey guys I am not joking when I say I appreciate this discussion for this reason, at least there is some discussion on UPG’s, our giving to the great commission and so on. I personally am glad to at least find discussion about it. I believe the 2 cents is 2 cents of every 1$ given to SBC churches nationwide. That would be all the churches in the SBC combined.

On the other hand, let’s say it was 10 cents or 20 cents on every dollar went to support work among those who have zero access.

Are we happy with that? 80 cents staying here in the most evangelized country on the planet, that’s good? Within one square mile of our church there are 14 plus other churches. Wow. In my home town of Ft Worth TX there are so many Christian book stores, Churches, a seminary, and several radio stations, that you have to make serious efforts to miss the gospel.

Yet I walk among our adopted people groups in Africa and the Middle east and it breaks my heart to see none of this. Access to Jesus is virtually nill. We have guys arguing over 2 cents or 20 cents, we are still way off and something needs to be done.

Opinion: I do not think Jesus is going to look at us and say “Great job guys, you cooperated with your efforts for missions to keep most of that money in your own country, America, the most evangelized, gospel saturated country on the planet”. I am sorry I still think we need restructuring and while I agree it may not help existing churches, it will help those who have NO Access.

Brother JD,

Man, thanks for the clarification. That paragraph certainly went a long ways in clearing up my understanding. It also affirms the original thesis of my post. A GCR will be a result of revival in the local church. This is where the money starts and if I give $1 to my church and only 2 cents make it to the mission field then I believe we all would say it is time for revival in the local church. However, has this not been the case before now? What I am trying to say is that I do not believe your assessment is a fair one. Why? Different churches have different ministries. For example, our church, as I am sure yours, supports a Crisis Pregnant Ministry. Those are funds that are going straight to the ministry. Unless we are willing to begin prioritizing who is more important in a GC context I do not think the 2 cents is a good analysis.

The amount to reach the fields I agree will be a fluctuating amount depending on the economy. That is my point. As we have in the past, so now we need to look at ourselves and make a determination to get more funds to the field. Everyone agrees on this. I believe you will find that I agree more with the TF than I disagree. However, I am not ready to give open approval without questions about areas of disagreement. You know me, I even questioned Dr. Patterson in Systematic Theology.

The discrepancy in the CP amounts I do not believe is unique to NC. I wonder how many other states are showing different %’s than what the SBC is reporting? If that is the case then we will have to begin saying 50/50 split for this state, and a 45/55 for this state, and a 35/65 for this state. You see where this will lead? Certainly this is an area that the GCRTF should probably address if we are looking at singing from the same sheet of music.

Brother Ken,

It breaks my heart to walk in a woman’s shelter and see children without a dad because he has taken cigarettes and burned their bodies and their mother is beaten and bruised from his drunken outrage. These kids have not hope and we live in a world where this should not take place but does. Should I be chastising others because they do not share the burden that God gave me?

Opinion: I do not think Jesus is going to look at us and say “Great job guys, you cooperated with your efforts for missions to keep most of that money in your own country, America, the most evangelized, gospel saturated country on the planet”. I am sorry I still think we need restructuring and while I agree it may not help existing churches, it will help those who have NO Access. You are right. Jesus is going to look at you individually and ask, did you do the task I set before you to do? The same question he will look at me and ask and also Brother JD. We are not arguing over 2 or 20 cents, we are merely discussing a difference of opinion. Please, we all have a burden to reach those who have not heard.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

You have a great point about pushing LMCO. It’s fascinating, however, that local congregations tire quickly if too much emphasis is placed on a single offering–at least that has been my personal experience.

On the other hand, how many churches buck the fiscal committee’s recommendation to up CP giving a half percent? I think a reasonable guess is, not many.

A more appropriate focus may be to query why CP gifts from churches have consistently declined. Now, a GCRTF advocate may respond, “that’s because churches are fed up with money being kept in the state conventions instead of making it to the mission field.”

While that theoretically could explain the drop exclusively in CP giving, it does nothing to answer the drop in the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. If I recall, IMB was 9m short on that. Why?

LMCO funds–100%–goes to the field. If churches were “fed up” with CP allocations, because not enough was getting to the field, the drop in CP would transfer to LMCO where 100% goes to the mission field. Yet no rise took place.

In fact, all gifts to all CP causes–designated or undesignated–have been down. Hence, singing the song that Southern Baptists by and large are not giving to CP because of inappropriate allocations is a tune without demonstrable music.

With that, I am…
Peter

With that, I am…
Peter

JD,

At my Church, we give 20% of every dollar given to the CP. 20%. We also give around $50,000 to Lottie Moon to support missions. 40% of every dollar given to the TBC thru the CP goes to the SBC. Right off the top. So, what you’re saying does not hold true with TN Baptists, nor with the Bethel Baptist Church. Bethel has about 170 in attendance on a Sunday morning.

Yet, we have people on the GCR task force who give less than 1% to the CP, and do not give very good to Annie, nor to Lottie, for the size Church they are. What do you think this says to all of us out here whose Churches give and believe in the CP and SB missions, and who give accordingly? This concerns more of us out here than you know.

David Worley

David,

It is great to hear from someone froma smaller church, about the size of the one i grew up in, giving a good percentagae. That is a blessing. Glad to know that the stats I gave are not true from your church or the TBC.

As for those on the TF that do not give more than 1% and do not support the other offering like they should for their size. I neither confirm that nor deny that. I would like to see some statics from you on those men and their churches. If what you are saying is true then yes there is cause for concern.

“What do you think this says to all of us out here whose Churches give and believe in the CP and SB missions, and who give accordingly? This concerns more of us out here than you know.” It concerns me. I know that it greatly concerns many out there as it very well should. I have not nor will deny that. Larger churches are often times looked up to and many times held to a differnt standard by many. It does not look good, and could cause concern, if they are not giving as faithfully as say your Bethal. But again i am thankful that your church is so giving.

Tim,

” What I am trying to say is that I do not believe your assessment is a fair one. Why? Different churches have different ministries. For example, our church, as I am sure yours, supports a Crisis Pregnant Ministry. Those are funds that are going straight to the ministry. Unless we are willing to begin prioritizing who is more important in a GC context I do not think the 2 cents is a good analysis.” I understand what you are saying about ministries that are here in the states. I think we can prioritize who is is more important in the GC context and i think you will agree, we need to be focusing on those that have not heard the gospel (many that come to a crisis pregnacy center) and those that may never have the opportunity to hear the gospel unless we go (the nations). This would also include discipling them as well. That is where the priority lies whether here or abroad.

Let me put it another way with the 2 cents. The USA is but a small percentage of the entire world(http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html)(Around 4-5%). So we are keeping roughly 98% (98 cents in our conversation) of the money here to minister in the states and 2% is going to minister to the majority of the world. Please do note that i am not saying we are any less important here in the states. But I believe as a few people have pointed out above, it is alot easier to find a church there in the states than in most places in the world. Though not all these are solid bible believing, there are more opportunites. I may have beaten a dead horse here.

J.D.

Brother JD,

First, thank you for following this comment stream like you have. I am honored to once again cross swords with you. Your wisdom is certainly iron sharpening this dull iron blade of mine.

Second,I believe we may have killed the horse.

Third, allow for me this thought before we eat this dead horse. I am in agreement that we need to make certain we get more $ directly to the mission field for UPG. With the current climate–the GCRTF cannot dictate to the state conventions the various % of CP funds–how can one determine to get more funds straight to the mission field and call it CP giving, without returning to a societal giving plan?

Blessings,
Tim

Anon,

I see your point about not enough money to send all the missionaries that may desire to go. I’m surely glad it’s not the other way around: plenty of money but no one wants to go.

The question is, is an abundance of willing missionaries reason enough to strip other worthy, viable ministries to deploy them? It’s not clear to me that it is. It’s pretty convenient for me to look at a paper budget-allocation break-down and say, “why can’t we cut this?” It’s not as significant as that?” Well perhaps it’s not on paper. But let’s not fool our selves into thinking there’s no real ministry taking place behind the figures on a piece of paper.

In addition, it must be asked, has there ever been a time when we had more money than people willing to go? I don’t know for sure but it certainly needs to be asked. Hence, to just appeal to willing servants, by itself, does not appear sufficient to reallocate funds.

Once again I’ll ask, how much is sufficient to spend on International missions? Already we give two and one half times to the International field than we give to all other causes combined. How much is sufficient? How much will it take to qualify for a “Great Commission Resurgence”? Those who continue to simplistically employ the “2 cent” rule are sounding more and more like politicians who create snapshots of persuasion based upon an entirely inadequate analysis of the numbers, and do so in order to get a vote..to rally the base, as it were.

The fact remains, the “2 cent” scenario has, in the end, little to do with the way we allocate CP priorities. Instead, the “2 cent” scenario is indicative, as Tim continues to point out, of the root of missions–the local church made up of individual believers. GCRTF advocates ask, “Why do state conventions keep so much money in the state?” I ask, why not ask local churches why they keep so much of their money in their neighborhood? You mentioned DFBC and the 130m. Admittedly, I am stunned with it as probably most are. But understand: why are we not just as stunned that 43,000 Southern Baptist churches keep, on average, $.94 of every dollar they receive and spend it in their neighborhoods?

The point I’m making is simple: our problem is not allocation. Our problem fundamentally is giving. And not just giving to missions. I mean giving period. According to one study, SBs, on average give 2.5% of their disposable income to the church. Notice I said disposable income, not either net or gross income.

In my view, what we have in the GCRTF advocacy base rhetoric–as least indicative of the rhetoric I’ve heard–is a pack of hounds who’ve gotten themselves locked into the wrong scent.

Thanks for the return.
With that, I am…
Peter

Our problem is not either giving or allocation, but both. If we experience great revival but continue to send 50 percent of 35 percent of 6 percent of every dollar put into an SBC offering plate, the revival will not spill over into more investments for missions. Perhaps a better question is whether God will send revival when the allocations are so clearly focused in the southeastern US and yet we do not have a heart to change anything?

Also, there is a distinction that should be made between the local church and the convention. While both are autonomous, disciples are made in thriving local churches – not conventions. Conventions assist at times, but they are not the makers of disciples. The conventions exist to help serve thriving churches and to plant new thriving churches where none exist. A church must always keep an eye on sustaining its presence in its field b/c it is God’s chosen instrument for the making of disciples. A state, however, should not have the same pressures of “staying on the scene” in the same way. Once a thriving local church is established and is able to take ownership of its Jerusalem, the state convention has succeed in her work. In many respects, the work of the state convention is the work of giving away the work – back to the local churches they help start and equip and encourage. When the churches in states thrive, more resources may be released to reach the nations, b/c the states have accomplished their primary means of making disciples – establishing thriving churches. The money spent by those local churches is money being spent in the state on making disciples in that state. So, the more thriving missions agencies (local churches) on the ground in the state, the more that the state convention may reasonably send on to go to the nations (living in our nation and abroad).