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).

Thank you all for your posts and comments. Most have helped me think about the current situation within the SBC. It seems from top to bottow all of you agree on one thing: Change is needed. I was wondering if i might add my 2 cents worth into this converstation (no pun intended).

It would seem that eveyone on this blog wants to see funds better spent and better managed. I am in agreement with that. But again as an anonomyous writer said previously it is going to start in the church. That “2 cents” that is making it to the field will increase if we see, as Tim as said earlier and many after him, a revival in the local church.

Peter, you are right that “the local church made up of individual believers…” and that is where the money starts. When the average SB is only giving 2.5 of their disposable income we cannot expect a large amount of money to make it beyond the walls of the local church. This in turn hurts the CP and the entities it supports.

But this 2 cent “snap shot” should open our eyes to the real problem that is located within our local church. We as SBC churches are spending most of the funds within our neighborhoods. I do have a question though. Is the 2 cents a “rule”? Sounds like those using this “rule” are trying to say: We keep most of the money in the local body, a small amount makes it to the CP from there smaller amounts make it to the field. I may be wrong in my assessement of this if so i am sorry. I do not feel that they are being political but yet making an appeal to statistics for evidence.

J.D.,
Thank you for the world population link. Breaks my heart to see the number increase and to think that many of them may never hear or get the opportunity to hear the gospel. I would like to know if you could shed any more light on what Peter asked: “In addition, it must be asked, has there ever been a time when we had more money than people willing to go?” That is a good question. I am only asking you because you seem to have some insight into the IMB and international mission.

Ken, you are also welcome to answer this question as well. You also seem to have insight into missions. I have enjoyed reading your passionate posts concerning missions. It is sad that someone in another country can walk for days without finding a church and yet we can drive 5 minutes and find 5 to 20.

I am sorry if i seemed to ramble. There is just alot here that, as Tim applied earlier, has helped me to sharpen my thinking sword.

One more thing. Could someone shed some light into where they are getting their information on the TF. I have read many personal theories as to what they are doing or seeking. I have also read where many are not going to speculate because the TF has only met a few times. I just wanted to be as up to date as possible with what they are truly doing.

Thank you all for your posts and hope to read more sharpening conversations in the future.

Richard

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

Sorry, you comment came while I was commenting to Brother JD. Let me just say it this way. We all agree on more than we disagree on.

The disagreement is what gets known because we are all passionate about reaching the world for Christ. One thing that is certain, I will storm hell in gasoline soaked clothes and water pistols with you and Brother JD in a heartbeat. Having said that, we may argue on the way to the gates about who is going to take the lead and who is going to cover the flanks. But, when we get to the gates I know my back is covered.

I say all of that to say this. I will disagree with methods until the cows come home. When the decision is made and the vote is cast I will close my mouth and move on. We will come together to bring the gospel to the ethnos, er nations.

However, until then I am going to debate this issue because of the areas of disagreement I have. As I am sure you will in the areas of disagreement you have. I am not one that takes a vow of silence and will certainly express my heart’s conviction. As I am certain others will do as well. That is what makes us Southern Baptist. I love Brother JD Greear and have been following his ministry every since he and Dr. Bruce Ashford had a Bible study at a Baptist University where the students in that Bible study fell under conviction of their lifestyle and burned their ungodly CD’s and magazines. His voice has many ears that hear him. However, that does not mean that I carte blanche agree with everything he does or says one should do.

Also, Brother Ken, please always feel free to be here and debate issues.

Blessings,
Tim

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

I also totally agree that revival is the real way to see a GC resurgence. Man I am praying with you to see that happen.
Concerning this:

“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?”

I am with you! No, you should not be chastising people. We should be working to see all ministries prosper. Our church helps many such ministries and leads similar work in our community. Every Thursday I see people in these situations who come through our ministry here. I totally agree it is the local churches job to do this. No argument.

WI do not see it as an either or situation? We do ACTS 1:8 fully.

But again, my struggle is when we have an amazing over balance of a vast majority of our money allocation from our denom. staying right here where there is a lot of gospel access. Do not want to chastise anybody, but I do wish to bring us back into balance. In my opinion we need change…Change we can believe in. (Ha,Sorry I could not resist)

What I see is an amazing over balance in our SB denominational focus. I admit to not being anywhere near a scholar but as I see it the great commission is “making disciples among the ethnos and baptizing them in the Name…”

Structures do show where the heart is, and in our denom. I think there is room for improvement to help us reach the ethnos. That would include those who are coming to America’s shores. They are coming in droves to our neighborhoods. I have worked for years in seeking to mobilizing churches and very few are doing anything to reach any ethnic group, not even their own! So I agree with you, more than restructure realignment is needed.

But…Given that we do give money to the C-Program I would simply like to see more of that CP money go toward reaching the ethnos. It would involve re-structuring to get there. I guess one of my goals is to see Matt 24:14 come about.

That’s all. In my opinion we have the ability to fine tune the money we take in to SB life to be way more effective for all ministries. I am just hoping to see the money we give to the CP be used more for the GC. :)

But I will also say this, IMO nothing will change. The structure will stay the same. Thanks for allowing me to comment, I realize I am a guest here on your blog. Have a great Christmas.

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.

I ask that you please think about what you are saying. I have said it will take a move of God in the churches for a GCR. You have now said; “I think the reallocation of funds will be a RESULT of the Great Commission Resurgence.” You are correct that reallocating funds will be a result, but that is not what we are speaking about. The mindset seems to be that if we can get funds reallocated then we can get more missionaries on the field and this will bring about a GCR. Getting more missionaries on the field will be a great thing, but it is not what brings about a GCR. This is the mindset that I oppose. It also seems to be the mindset that has permeated the GCRTF. Throwing money at things is not the answer. Also, envying what another is doing is not the answer either. It seems that if an autonomous church decides to spend any amount of money, I should not question their decision to follow God. I may not agree with their decision. But a group of people sought God’s face under the leadership of their pastor and voted to enter into this plan. They will give an account to God for the way they spent their funds and that is the same thing I will do one day.

Blessings,
Tim

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

Peter, you said, “Instead what we have is a move to restructure, a call to reallocate, a call to split the pie up differently. That’s one of the reasons I hold reservations about this.”

I think the reason for the call to reallocate funds is simply that there are hundreds (no exaggerating) of people waiting to go overseas who have been told there is not enough money for them to be sent. At the same time, we have churches who are planning to spend 130 million dollars on a building project that consists of tearing down a perfectly good building and rebuilding a ‘better’ one. The problem is that the people in many SB churches get more excited about building a better church for themselves than allowing others the opportunity to hear about Christ for the first time. Ever. I think the reallocation of funds will be a RESULT of the Great Commission Resurgence. When people really get excited about Christ and what He has done for the WORLD, I’d imagine their priorities will change. It just so happens that the restructuring/reallocation seems to be the one area that’s caused the most stink.

In case anyone is interested, the 130 million is not an exaggeration. You can find more info about that on this website: http://ascendio.com/fbd/