What is most important in a Baptist church, unity in the fellowship, or renaming the Building Fund offering? Well, everyone would say that if renaming the Building Fund offering were going to cause a divisive nature within the fellowship of the church then it would be better not to proceed.
It seems that the GCRTF’s report may be something similar to the above example. The question one must continually ask from a leadership standpoint is very simple. Is the balance of unity worth upsetting if the issue is not a theological issue? For the GCRTF report it seems that the unity of the convention is placed in jeopardy because of a simple renaming of something already in place. Why is the renaming so divisive? I believe it is due to two reasons; exclusivity, and degeneration.
Exclusivity. By renaming and even repositioning the designated offerings from the churches it seems that the Task Force has made the Great Commission Giving an exclusive position. It is true that we already have designated offerings and recognize it as Total Missions Giving. However, we never recognized it as Great Commission Giving. By recognizing it as such we are now, though it is not being said, recognizing that there is an offering that is classified for the Great Commission. The report tacitly speaks; “If one desires to support the Great Commission it is not done by giving to the Cooperative Program it is done by giving to Great Commission Giving”. The appeal of GCG is the exclusivity it represents by it’s name. With all of the new church plants being pushed a new pastor will come in and see there are two types of giving. The SBC will promote and make special appeals, according to the report, to give to the Cooperative Program and, oh, you can also give only to the entities you like and that is classified as Great Commission Giving. Which giving method has the greatest appeal? For me, I must admit, it would be better for me to set up the giving of the church to go to Great commission Giving. That is the exclusive offering one would want their funds going to. It says that our money is going to the mission field. While Cooperative Program, says that our money is not going to the mission field but it is going to fund a “program”. We all know that the Cooperative Program is set up to fund missions but we also know that missions requires administration. We also know that churches are autonomous and there are other missions they desire to support outside of the SBC and some even desire to give more support to entities within the SBC. However, by renaming and restricting the designated giving it removes the priority of the giving apparatus that has served us well since 1925. The Cooperative Program has always been the exclusive apparatus for missions money, but with the Great Commission Giving apparatus there is an exclusivity concerning missions giving that will change.
Degeneration. As I proceed with this point I want to make clear that I do not believe that the GCG is anything wrong or underhanded. I am proceeding using the following definition:
: a lowering of effective power, vitality, or essential quality to an enfeebled and worsened kind or state
I honestly believe the Great Commission Giving portion will cause the Cooperative Program to have a lowering of its effective power of shouldering the main responsibility of providing the needed funds to move us forward. I believe it causes the Cooperative Program to lose its vitality in bringing Baptist from the different stripes in cooperating together for the good of all. I also believe the move of creating a GCG plan will lessen the essential quality of the Cooperative Program. Dr. Floyd has said the GCG is an innocuous recommendation that will be referred to the Executive Committee before it can be finalized. However in the same blog he also reports that Dr. Ranier is standing at the ready for the recommendation to be passed by the convention and we will have a new ACP that lists Great Commission Giving. Well, which one is it? Both! One needs to remember that the uniqueness of the SBC is the autonomy of each agency. The EC does not have authority over Lifeway Christian Bookstore. In all honesty, neither Lifeway nor the EC would have to wait for the convention to vote on this recommendation. Both entities could begin this without a vote by anyone other than their own trustees. Thus, this recommendation is anything but innocuous.
Where does this leave us as far as unity among our ranks? The question one should ask concerns the purpose of the recommendation. The GCRTF was given the task to bring a report and any recommendation:
…concerning how Southern Baptists can work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.
What does the Great Commission Giving portion have to do with getting Southern Baptist to work more effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission? Some may say that churches which give to individual entities will be encouraged to give more. I would agree. But, for those churches that are supporting Samaritans Purse, or Acts 29 they will be discouraged to give more because they are not getting credit. Need we be reminded that the purpose of this is to increase funds getting to the mission field, not increase funds getting to SB entities? Also, with the name Great Commission Giving churches giving to missions that are not associated with the SBC could possibly become offended because they are told their funds do not go to the Great Commission. Thus, we possibly cause another rift without intentionally doing so.
What can be done to encourage unity but also keep the report intact where it concerns impacting the darkness? I would encourage the Task Force to seriously consider removing the GCG language and structure of this report. If the Task Force removes this language I believe it would unite the convention as we go into Orlando. I know many supportive pastors of the GCRTF that will be voting against this report because of this one aspect. Recommendation #3 is a great recommendation that will pass overwhelmingly if the GCG portion will be removed. With the GCG aspect in this report, I believe, Recommendation #3 will not pass and if it does it will be by the smallest margin. According to Dr. Floyd the GCRTF will present this as one motion. I believe, by doing such, the entire report is in jeopardy of passing by the smallest of margins at best and and at the worst failing altogether.
Thus, for the sake of unity I ask the GCRTF to take the lead to remove this aspect. If not for unity, from a political perspective, one should heed the words of Dr. Bart Barber in his latest assessment. Also, please note what Dr. Trevin Wax has assessed in “GCR in a Nutshell”. We already recognize missions giving for all Great Commission missions. If the Task Force feels this is such a great aspect then rename the designated giving that goes to our entities. Why not call it Southern Baptist Direct Missions Giving? However, I personally believe, it will be best for the unity of the convention as we go into Orlando to be united on this report. Instead we are heading into Orlando with lines drawn in the sand and I can see a horizon where this report will establish a division that will not be overcome anytime soon.
Brother Tim,
I think you are right in your assessment here. The GCRTF is testing the waters of cooperation by misapplying the concept of giving. And that misapplication is bound up in trying to determine for the churches “how” giving is accomplished. This in effect is incorrect and unwise.
If unity is to be maintain within a convention of cooperating churches, it should be left to the individual churches and only encouraged by leaders joined in a convention… because the unity Christ purchased and guaranteed with his blood is lived out in its fullest expression in the local churches, not through the “convention”, only in the life of the church.
So to rename an offering may be to some extent the same purpose behind many wanting to change the name of the SBC into something kinder, gentler, or more marketable name. When all along those reasons miss the mark of unity and dismiss the power of Christ vested in the local assemblies.
Although I realize that the leaders believe that funding is the mechanism for change….this section of the recommendations robs the momentum of the well thought out theme, and could very well cause more disunity among the Saints as the concept is placed back at the feet of the local assembly.
Blessings,
Chris
Pingback: Tweets that mention Baptist Unity :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
Quickly, two (of many I could name) problems with the thesis of this article:
#1. It assumes there is a great amount of unity right now, ignoring that fact that there are many who are leaving the SBC and feel like they are being pushed away by the current structure. “Unity” does not equal “doing it that way we at SBC Today like.”
#2. The analogy to renaming the building fund? Ann Coulter always talks about liberals not being able to correctly apply analogies. We’ve just found a conservative who has the same problem. A better analogy would be a church re-evaluating its budget because people were not giving because they felt like their money was being wasted. And yes, that could be a situation where change is important enough that it must be made, even if some people in the church don’t like it.
Interesting assessment. However, it should be noted that one cannot give to “Great Commission Giving,” as though that is a designated SBC account. Instead, the recommendation is that funds given directly to entities such as the EC, IMB, NAMB, or ERLC be called “Great Commission” gifts. The idea, it seems to me, is to acknowledge that the ministries of the agencies and boards of the Convention are, in fact, Great Commission ministries. The value of this change in nomenclature is to make obvious what we already believe: our boards and agencies are a way in which we fulfill the Great Commission via cooperation. Again, a church does not give to “Total Missions” or “Great Commission,” rather they give to SBC boards and agencies. The proposal is to call that giving “Great Commission Giving” rather than “Total Missions Giving” (those gifts aren’t our Total Missions giving anyway).
Would a local church be unwise to use similar nomenclature for its members? Are people who give to a love offering at a revival meeting credited with gifts to the ministry of your church, or are they told they should only give to the unified budget? Wouldn’t telling people that their designated gifts to a love offering, or the children’s ministry are ways to participate in the Great Commission further their commitment to the other ministries of the church as well? I simply cannot see where we are unwise to tell people that by giving to the ministries of our convention they are participating in the Great Commission. If we believe these agencies are Great Commission ministries (and we do), why would we not want to call gifts to them Great Commission gifts?
Tim,
Great analysis. I agree with every word of it.
Hypothetically and somewhat facetiously, suppose Component Three should pass. What would prevent denominational loyalists from promoting yet another giving option to the ACP and calling it Great “Commandment” Giving? After all, Jesus wants us to “love one another.”
In order to express our “love” for ministries defunded by the transfer of resources away from CP through the special promotion of Great Commission Giving, these funds could offset the losses of the Executive Committee and the State Conventions. Churches already give in this manner anyway through state missions offerings so what’s the big deal? I wonder how the GCR folks would view the creation of a Great Commandment Giving category?
Of course, my point is simply that the promotion of any new missions giving metric opens a pandora’s box for additional fracturing and even more complicated missions giving metrics in the future. I prefer to promote CP as our Great Commission Giving missions mutual fund.
Brother Chris,
A good word indeed.
Brother Brent,
Allow me to deal with your points in the order you gave them.
1.) It assumes there is a great amount of unity right now I do not believe you would find this much disunity in the convention before 2006. If you remember that disunity began because of a rogue IMB Trustee. Once that began it was “Katie bar the door”. However, even with that disunity it was not major and something we worked around. Even with the implementation of the GCR it created some opposition, but when push came to shove the convention voted 95% for the Task Force to be formed. Thus, your statement seems to be subjective at best.
2.) A better analogy would be a church re-evaluating its budget because people were not giving because they felt like their money was being wasted. First, thanks for the implication that I have no more sense than a liberal. I honestly am not offended when you tell me that I do not hold up to Ann Coulter’s scrutiny. I am not very concerned what a blond that cannot find a husband thinks. But I digress. :) Seriously, if we look at your analogy I believe you are missing the mark. Why? The CP is our budget. No one has re-evaluated the CP. We are told by the GCRTF that the CP is still our main giving apparatus. However, according to your comments that is not how you see it. You are saying the budget is changing and that is the purpose of the Great Commission Giving portion. That is what we have been arguing all along, but the Task Force is telling us we are wrong. Thus, the analogy of re-naming the Building Fund. As to those that are not giving to the budget thus there is a need to re-evalute it. I certainly do understand that need. However, does a church change their budget in order to keep members who hold the budget hostage as a negotiating tool? I don’t think so.
Brother Dr. McKinnion,
Good to hear from you and welcome to SBC Today. I do not know that we have interacted on SBC Today before. If we have forgive my oversight.
Your point is noted and accepted. However, your giving us the reality of this is something that we also need to point out. As you said “Great Commission Giving” will be reported on the ACP by the church. Right now the ACP has a back-up in that the church reports are matched up with the funds from the state office. For example last week I received our quarterly giving update from our state convention. It noted the amount give to CP and also the amount given to Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon. Who notes the amounts given to the individual entities? Or do we just take the words of our churches that they gave a certain amount to the various entities? If the entities now have to make certain they report these funds to the ACP people, whoever that is, does that not create another bloat in the bureaucracies?
In order to keep it as clean as we can, we tell people that donate to a revival speaker to make the check out to that ministry. Thus we do not credit people for designated giving. Now, we have had people to desire special projects in the church. They gave their funds and marked it for that particular project. For instance if a person wanted to see a playground erected for a children’s ministry. We directed that person to make a check out to the church with the designation of such for the playground. When that person received their statement it was noted that it was a designated gift thus did not qualify for tax exemption. While we are not worried about tax exemption on GCG we still have the same principle. If a church desires to plant a church in NY City and approaches the NAMB to do such. That church should not receive credit for Cooperative Program giving because that is not cooperative giving. That particular church is expanding their own ministry, not the joint ministry of the SBC.
I agree it is not wrong to tell people that they are participating in the Great Commission when they are giving their money to our agencies. What is wrong is naming the designated, societal style of giving with a name that implies, and even says our Cooperative Program is not Great Commission Giving.
Blessings,
Tim
Great Commission Giving merely recognizes what autonomous churches are doing. The sky will not fall after this is passed.
But I’d like to thank Tim Rogers here because in his opposition to GCG he has explained exactly what is already happening in SBC churches.
Whe he says that that if his church believes that, “it would be better for me to set up the giving of the church to go to Great commission Giving” why he would not do what his church believes is “better”?
Why not indeed? Good for him. He recognizes that churches are evaluating the opportunities for giving and choosing what they believe is “better.”
If an informed membership looks at the Cooperative Program and at Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, associational giving, state missions offerings, appeals from GuideStone, capital campaigns by LifeWay and the seminaries, direct partnerships with the mission boards and whatever other designated SBC offering opportunities and believes they know what God wants them to do, then why would they NOT do it?
Seems that they are and the GCRTF merely recognizes this. It doesn’t get any more grass roots than this.
Brother Rick,
Great words of truth.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother William,
In all honesty, I cannot follow your point. However, I would like to comment on a part of your statement.
If the GCRTF recognizes such, can you explain what there is in the report that deals with assisting the local church to do the Great Commission? Everything I see about the GCRTF report has to do with “send us your money and we will do the Great Commission for you”. Of course one on the GCRTF has already classified that as “bad parachurch”.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim
Excellent and wise words. I believe you have touched on the essence of why GCG is a bad move for 86% of SBC churches. I doubt if our church would ever go down that road. We sacrifice for the cooperative program and other missions offerings. We, like other small churches, don’t have deep pockets to go outside of what we feel has the greatest impact for the kingdom. The GCG will only benefit the minority of our convention (Mega Churches) and ultimately divide our convention. I also believe it will deeply impede the impact the cooperative program has by going backwards to a societal giving structure. I wonder if this item is not voted in the affirmative if there will be a split with the megas leaving to do their own thing?
BTW, I keep hearing that many are leaving the SBC because of the structure. I would like to see some evidence that the SBC structure is causing people to leave. I would also like to know who is leaving and what specifically about the structure might be causing people to leave. It’s like a few years ago when people were saying that people are leaving because of all the infighting. Now its the SBC structure. It is just like alleging that we have bloated “bureaucracies.” If we do have some bloated bureaucracies, then charge the trustees to “un-bloat” what is bloated and make our agencies more streamlined. We don’t need to waste money on a task force to accomplish this.
Again, who were these people who were leaving? Was it a few or was it a mass migration? Of course, I may not be as well read as some who spend a lot of time on the net, so I am willing to learn and be corrected.
The reason of the GCRTF was the panic over dropping baptism rates. How these recommendations will help the local church in reaching one more person for Christ has yet to be answered. While there are some good items being presented, I believe, like you, that the whole GCG should be dropped.
Tim,
You wrote, “According to Dr. Floyd the GCRTF will present this as one motion. I believe, by doing such, the entire report is in jeopardy of passing by the smallest of margins at best and and at the worst failing altogether.”
I believe this “all or nothing” position by Dr. Floyd is a huge tactical error on his part. Better to get some of it rather than none of it.
Good post.
Les
Brent Hobbs,
your first point mentioned people leaving due to structure. Who are you talking about? What is the structure that is causing them to leave?
Thanks for your help
Jonathan McLain
Tim,
I think it’s alot simpler than all that. The issuse seems to be, simply put, PRIDE.
Pride says, “Look at the sum total of dollars we’re giving. Who are these other people to question our commitment to missions and the Great Commission based on percentages. I’ll be for renamin anything that will get me the credit I deserve.” Pride says it’s worth risking the whole thing over this one item.
Pride also says, “Who do these big shots think they are? Look at my commitment to missions and the Great Commission, percentage-wise, compared to theirs. I’m against renaming anything that would legitimize how they’re doing it compared to how I’m doing it.” Pride says it’s worth rejecting the whole thing over this one item.
I’ve maintained all along that recommendation #3 won’t really change anything. Churches that designate will continue to. Churches that don’t won’t. So is all this fuss over how to label a gift really worth it? No way. Dr. Chapman’s article yesterday notwithstanding, I think the recommendations would be accepted by an over 80% majority if they would just drop this one item. And THAT would be something that everyone could celebrate.
Tim, my point merely uses what you say. If your church thinks direct giving is “better” why not do it? If you think it is not “better” then you should persuade your church that it is not.
If you are a great CP, Lottie, Annie supporter then you already believe that local churches can fulfill the Great Commission in part through these means.
I get the sense that the report will pass and I’d conjecture that it will be handily. It is a very modest proposal. I would vote for it.
I do regret that some are making this a small church/mega church issue. Churches of every size are giving diminishing percentages to the Cooperative Program and have been for 40 years. The GCG label acknowledges reality. It doesn’t create it.
Tim,
I’ve not commented here before, that I am aware of (and I am happy to be called Steve, only my students and my wife call me Dr. McKinion).
In some ways, the recommendation is merely semantic. As you point out, there is already a place to report “Total Missions Giving.” But the value of the new nomenclature is to elevate the status of the Great Commission in the churches of our convention. If every agency is helping fulfill the Great Commission, I submit we should characterize gifts made to them as Great Commission gifts. The TF, it appears, believed that if there is to be a “Great Commission Resurgence” in the Convention structure, then taking care to identify giving in the manner may help.
To further the example of gifting a playground. Suppose in my church (call it FBC Anywhere) I really believe in children’s ministry. I am committed to it. I serve in it. And I believe it is a key to our church fulfilling the Great Commission. In the unified budget my church gives $2000 per year to that ministry. I, as one member, believe that the number should be higher. The budget planners do not, and leave it as is. So, believing in the priority of the children’s ministry, I give an additional $1000 per year directly to the children’s ministry. Is the $1000 I give still considered to be a contribution to the work of FBC Anywhere, or only the undesignated gifts I make? If my church designates an annual gift to the EC to support their Great Commission ministries, are those gifts not contributed to the work of the SBC?
Thanks for the kind and irenic dialogue on this issue. Godly men and women can surely disagree on whether or not recognizing gifts to agencies and boards is our shared work in the Great Commission, but we can do so as fellow Southern Baptists all of whom really want what is best of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Brother Steve,
Allow me to take your children committee example. First, according to the Federal Government that donation is not to be counted as being exempt. I know that we are not speaking about tax exempt status, but my point is if the Federal Government does not identify that type of giving for tax exemption, couldn’t we in the church do as least as well? Look, there are two things that are changed. One is the verbiage of the name change. We are now changing from “missions” giving to Great Commission Giving. The second change is the qualified items. While I do not believe the GCRTF believes this, they still are tacitly saying that only money given to SB missions should be classified as Great Commission work. That is just a little to arrogant for me. Also, do you realize that we now have a report that will be presented to the convention that hinges on money bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence? I do not believe for one minute the Task Force intends this, but this is what the report gives us.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers wrote this,
“Also, do you realize that we now have a report that will be presented to the convention that hinges on money bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence? I do not believe for one minute the Task Force intends this, but this is what the report gives us.”
Perhaps they have time to change the wording.
?
Tim,
Thanks for the clarification on charitable giving. I thought any gift was tax deductible as long as there were no goods or services given in exchange. Glad to be corrected.
I cannot see where the report “hinges on money bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence.” Rather, I think the report recommends acknowledging that gifts to SB boards and agencies are a part of the Great Commission. The money does not bring about a Resurgence. Instead, the TF seems to believe that a part of fostering a GCR in the convention means helping churches see that their gifts to SB ministries is a part of the GC, not the only way to participate in the GC. Thanks again for furthering the conversation.
Brother Steve,
I am no expert on the tax laws, I am just going by what I was told. As I understand it, unless there is a specific vote by the congregation, no designated funds qualify for tax exemption.
Allow me to point you to the reason I said
There are only two recommendations that do not deal with money. Some may say there are three because of recommendation E. However, that recommendation is the reason for the recommendation to cut the EC budget by 1/3.
Look, the GCRTF are doing the same thing that we have been doing for years–appealing for more money to be giving by the churches.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I agree with Dr. McKinion, but he’s done a fine job presenting his argument. The ACP is, after all, a report for SBC churches. It is ironic that the recommendation actually calls our attention to the opportunites to fulfill the Great Commission through existing SBC agencies on the one hand and is criticized for calling us away from SBC agencies on the other. The GCRTF is focused on a GCR specifically as it relates to our convention’s role in being on mission with Christ to the uttermost – to that end, I actually appreciate that the recommendation calls SBC churches to report on SBC giving. Other gifts are great, but they do not directly pertain to the convention that we share in together.
In any event, that is not the purpose of my response. I want to chime in on the very important issue of tax deductibility. It sounds as though some people may have been missing out on deductions they can legitimately take.
The designated gifts to your church most assuredly ARE tax-deductible as long as they are not: 1) given to a named individual or 2) as long as good or services are not received.
So, the gift to the youth department that was not budgeted IS still a charitable gift.
However, a gift to send you on a short-term mission trip is not tax deductible UNLESS the gift is made to a general mission trip fund and the church has the discretion in who is sent/how much they receive.
Daniel
Brother Daniel,
Man, do I have all of SEBTS reading my musings? I am truly honored. I know, classes are out so you guys now read the funny papers for easy readings. :)
After reading your response I went back an re-read Dr. McKinion’s “Children’s Ministry” analogy. I stand to be corrected as I mis-read it the first time. In his analogy that $1000 would be tax deductible.
However, let’s take that analogy. In a church setting if a member decided to increase the children’s budget by $1,000 just because he did not think the Finance Committee allocated enough funds that would be tantamount to imposing his will on the church. James clearly speaks against allowing ourselves to be controlled by those with the funds to control.
Thus, that is the reason for the pushback on the Great Commission Giving aspect of the CGRTF report. If a church member gives $500 to the general fund, but gives $10,000 per year to the cemetery fund should that person have a say over how the church spends its money? Let’s say a church gives $60,000 per year to the CP but subsidizes the students from that church that goes to one of our seminaries to the tune of $100,000 per year. Should that church be able to direct how the CP funds are spent for the entire convention?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Stuart,
Sorry I missed responding to your comment. I agree with your perspective of pride. It makes me examine my motives for opposing this thing. I also believe if this were dropped it would certainly unite us as we enter this convention.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I have no problem with a member making an extra gift to a ministry that is not budgeted – provided that it is a useable gift w/o quid pro involved. If the church has the ministry, they have affirmed that it has value. I likewise have no problem with a church cooperating through the CP and also cooperating through other gifts to things like Annie and Lottie. All three are, by definition, cooperative forms of giving.
As I sit next to a couple each Sunday who is “on hold” for being sent from my small church to a UPG, I really wrestle with how little of my offering makes it to the purpose of eventually getting them there. Giving more to Lottie to try to help is not uncooperative – it is strategically cooperative. I want to cooperate with other like-minded churches, chiefly (not only, but chiefly) to get the gospel to those who have little access to it.
I do not see that as subversive. It is really the only option at present for me as an individual as, at present, less than 1/2 of a 1/3 of the 10 percent of my offering makes it to the IMB. “Give more” is not a strategy. I’m giving what I can.
So, until there are some strategic adjustments, I declare God’s matchless worth each Sunday next to a couple who is called to declare it to the ends of the earth, and our “cooperation” is not sufficient to send them.
This pains me, and I believe it grieves our Father as well.
Daniel
Daniel,
Maybe the reason that couple is sitting there waiting is because we have quite a few mega churches giving .o15%, or 1%, or 2% to the CP? Maybe the reason that that couple is sitting there waiting, is that so many are designating their giving to so many other things right now, instead of giving to the CP?
I, too, grieve hearing about people willing to go to the mission field, but finances keeps them home. I, too, agree that a lot of downsizing could take place at the state convention level, and at the SBC level…to get more money to the mission field. But, maybe a big part of the problem is that so many are not giving to the CP like they should for whatever reason it is that they dont.
Maybe if every church gave like the church where I pastor, and they were doing this before I got there, then we’d be able to send every person willing to go that’s out there. My church gives 20% to the CP.
David
Dear David,
I agree that this is a both/and situation. The question is, who will step up and risk it all for the sake of the gospel.
Even when churches were sending an average of 8+ percent, the money was, mostly staying in the SE. There is enough money collected currently to send every missionary who wants to go if we invert the ratios of funds that stay in the SE US and the funds that go outside that territory. (This is not an argument for not giving more, it is an observation that we could send all the missionaries who are waiting, today, if we really wanted to).
Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that churches should not support the CP. I’m suggesting that they will respond more generously to a CP that is more directly focused on getting the gospel to the nations. The problem with CP support among a growing number of younger pastors is not that they do not understand the CP, it is that they DO understand the CP. I cannot fault a church in a state that spends 2/3 of every CP $ in its borders for finding ways to bolster its support for getting the gospel to those with little/no gospel access in our nation and the world.
Denominational leaders cannot credibly call on churches and individuals to give more unless they are willing to lead the way. Obedience is not, “When you step up, then I will step up.” Obedience is, “I am going to step up regardless, but I pray the Lord will work though my obedience to spur you on as well.”
I believe, wholeheartedly, that the CP will thrive when churches see the CP supporting more robustly the core ministries that comprise the heart of why we cooperate.
I commend you and your church for your robust support of the CP. I believe others will follow your lead if the GCR recommendations are adopted and they begin to see that the CP is becoming more intentionally focused on reaching those with little access to the gospel. My church has fewer than 50 people and is in the “planting stages” with no denominational support and we are sending 10 percent to the CP. I want that 10 percent to be more focused on sending church planters and missionaries. When this happens, I believe our CP support will grow dramatically. If it does not happen, our congregation will continue to support the CP but we will have to strongly consider other ways to get feet on the ground in the “elsewheres” of the world as we seek to chase hard after the King Who is on Mission!
Until He comes,
Daniel
Brother Daniel,
First, and I know that you did not imply this but I feel I need to say it, I do not tell anyone how they should give their money. However, to be honest with you in my years of ministry I have seen when someone begins designating their gifts they do it for control. For example, if someone wanted to make sure their children had the right stuff in the children’s department they would designate funds to purchase that stuff. Let their children become teens and guess what they begin purchasing for the youth department…video games, couches, lounge chairs, etc. etc. I am not against people desire to help out with funds. However, if I have to accept funds with strings attached, then keep the funds.
As for those sitting in the pew next to you waiting for their assignment to be financed. I feel for them and I desire to see anyone that has a heart to reach the lost to be on the mission field. I believe the couple you described to be theologically sound and already approved by our IMB. However, I did receive an email from a Missionary on the field with some thoughts that may have some validity to the slowness of the process. Also, it may hold some validity to this being a God thing that we have so many desiring to go but lack the funds to send them. I have removed this M’s name, but I can assure you it is a M on the field.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
This is a good conversation. Thanks for hosting it.
What if I were a member of a church where the budgeting committee resulted in a budget in which only 3% of receipts were being giving to the CP, but I believed a larger percentage would be best. As one who tithes (at least), would it be appropriate for me to give a percentage of my tithe to the unified budget while designating a percentage to be given to the CP? I am not looking for control, but I also don’t want only 3% of my tithe to go to the CP, I would like for more to go.
Obviously, anyone’s thoughts would be welcome.
Brother Tim,
The missionaries in waiting that I’ve met over the past 18 months are the cream of the crop – all of them. A personal friend serving in NAME sends her tithe every month along with an additional check and a note that says, “for Lottie and for my team members who are not yet able to come.”
Your church can refuse a gift if it deems that it is given out of wrong motives. I would encourage the church to do so if the gift is genuinely not given cheerfully and out of a heart full of grace. I would, however, err on the side of assuming the best of people’s motives unless the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. For example, I could wholeheartedly endorse my church’s unified budget and then realize several months later that at the time the budget was voted in that we didn’t know we would have 5 new babies in the nursery 9 months later. If I made a special gift to buy some cribs for the nursery, this would not be seen as “seeking control” (I hope) but as meeting a need that had not been budgeted. Churches are not omniscient. This sort of things happens fairly regularly (the Lord puts a special mission trip on the heart of the church mid-way through they year, Katrina hits, etc.). Responding to such needs is, typically, not a power grab.
I do not see churches who give directly to Lottie Moon or Annie as seeking control but as pursuing a strategy to reach the nations. Indeed, they are still yielding “control” (i.e. cooperating) of the process of training and sending missionaries over to the SBC, they are just not going through the CP channel. Such churches are intentionally focusing on reaching those with little/no gospel access and committing themselves to reaching their Jerusalem and Judea. Do we want to discourage churches from having a white-hot zeal for the nations that impacts how they invest? I pray not.
I really believe many who are voicing opposition to some of the GCR recommendations are missing how good the proposals are for the long-term health of the CP and our convention of churches. The CP that it envisions is a CP that I will wholeheartedly support, and I’m hearing the same from many, many people of my generation. The CP can thrive as it never has before; it really can!
The decline of the CP will be difficult to avoid if we continue to squeeze out 1/3 of every CP $ to the SBC and then 1/2 of that to the IMB and continue to spend most of the NAMB $ right back in the SE US. If we pursue that course, the CP will, I believe, continue to struggle even more so in the future. Again, this is not my desire, and that is why I stand in favor of the recommendations that will be brought by the GCRTF.
For His glory,
Daniel