Throughout the Bible we see where God sometimes leads individuals into the desert to teach them some powerful spiritual lessons. Whether it was the Israelites, John the Baptist, or Jesus Himself, the desert experience was always powerful in bringing to life spiritual truths.

I had my own experience in learning spiritual lessons in the desert, but this particular trip was because of my role as a military chaplain while I was deployed to Iraq in 2010. I serve as a chaplain with the Louisiana National Guard and deployed with the 1-141 Field Artillery out of New Orleans, Louisiana. We served in two locations of Iraq during the year. In the first part of our deployment we were stationed in Tallil, near the Kuwaiti border. Our soldiers performed convoy operations all over Iraq, starting from our base in Tallil. The second half of the deployment we were stationed in the International Zone, Baghdad. We provided security for areas of the International Zone and the US Embassy.

Though we went through loss of life and other difficult situations, I had wonderful deployment. I loved being with my soldiers and ministering to their needs. In the midst of the incredible ministry with the soldiers, God not only used me to touch their lives, but God used them to teach me a few lessons of my own that I would use when I returned to the States as I returned to my teaching ministry and church plant.

Lesson 1:  Engaging the Lost — The first lesson I learned early in the deployment was during the convoy operations. As a chaplain, I did not have to ride with my soldiers on the convoys, but my commander allowed me full access to our operations. To understand the danger they went through, I felt as though I needed to go through the same experiences. After being out on a few missions, I had a soldier that came up to me and said, “Wow, Chaps, you are one of the best chaplains we have ever had!” As we talked, he began to explain how many chaplains would just stay in their office and not go out with the soldiers. He respected me for placing myself in the same circumstances as them.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:22, “I become all things to all people so that I might save some.” God used this soldier to show me that as Christians, we must go to where the people are. In our post-Christian society, we know well that people are not flocking to churches. The only way we will reach them is by going to where they are. Jesus Himself went to the places of the “unchurched,” even to the disgust of the religious crowd. Returning from deployment, I am bolder in going to those places where I can meet non-believers, even if other Christians criticize me for doing so.

Lesson Two: Strengthening the Inner Man — The next lesson I learned was not so easy. We had several hard situations in our unit as well as on the bases I covered as a chaplain. We had one officer in our brigade killed by a road-side bomb. We had another soldier in our unit who committed suicide. I counseled several soldiers concerning marriage and relationship issues. During the last part of my deployment I was one of the few chaplains providing coverage for my area, and so I received a large load of counseling issues. I now look back and realize I had caregiver fatigue and should have set stricter boundaries for my own spiritual health. The last two months of my deployment I went spiritually numb.

During those months, however, I realized what it meant for God to give me a spiritual strength that only He can give. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” literally became my theme in prayer (Philippians 4:13). A person never realizes exactly what that strength is until they have to absolutely depend upon it. I believe I was at that point because even though I had never been so emotionally and spiritually exhausted in my life, neither had I really experienced such a spiritual and emotional strength from the Lord.

Lesson 3:  Entering into the Harvest — The last lesson I learned came in the form of humility as well as blessing. I received a call from a soldier at a remote base in Eastern Baghdad. She asked me to come perform some baptisms on my last Sunday that I would be in Iraq. A civilian from Uganda had been doing some evangelism and discipleship with both the international civilians as well as the American military on this particular base. They needed a chaplain to come and perform the baptisms and offer the Lord’s Supper. Of course I was not going to refuse, but I had no idea what was going to happen in the next few weeks. Originally I was told there would be a few persons being baptized, around 10 to 15. The day I arrived, the number had risen to 57! I had several soldiers and civilians that had accepted Christ during the deployment, but due to various circumstances, these persons were not baptized. So, to be able to baptize that many my last Sunday in Iraq was quite a gift from the Lord.

In reflecting upon that last Sunday in Iraq, I was reminded of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 3:7 of how God causes the growth of His kingdom, though all of us play a small part. Someone else was able to do the evangelism, I was able to do the baptism, and another person has already started discipling the new believers in Baghdad. Nevertheless, God caused all the growth and I was privileged to have but a small part of what God was doing. As I have returned to the States, I am reminded that I am but a small part of what God is doing in this world to grow His kingdom on earth.

My time in the desert was not as long and perhaps as severe as some of the biblical characters we read (at least I had air conditioning!). Nevertheless, the lessons learned in Iraq will be with me for a lifetime of ministry.

Dr. Ted Traylor, Pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida and member of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, shared his perspective about GCR on the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary campus recently in a GCR Pastor’s Conference, an event sponsored by the Leavell Center for Evangelism and Church Health of NOBTS. Traylor made his presentations in 3 one-hour settings, each of which is different in content.  Dr. Traylor’s remarks probably address questions or concerns you might have had about GCR.

Traylor, whose church hosts an NOBTS extension center, also preached an excellent sermon at the NOBTS Missions Commissioning service, as has become a tradition for the last few years.

Some have asked for these videos, and they have been provided by the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, with Dr. Traylor’s permission.  You can see these three presentations and Dr. Traylor’s Missions Commissioning service sermon by clicking the links below.  These are rather large m4 video files, so please be patient while they download.  It may take a minute or more, depending on your connection speed.

Here are the links to the three videos:

The Missions sermon — http://media.nobts.edu/chapel/2011/2011.05.05.message.m4v
GCR Presentation #1 — http://media.nobts.edu/GCR/GCR-1.m4v
GCR Presentation #2 — http://media.nobts.edu/GCR/GCR-2.m4v
GCR Presentation #3 — http://media.nobts.edu/GCR/GCR-3.m4v

Well, I want to give Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd pats on the back for putting their money where their mouthes are.  Johnny Hunt’s church has raised their CP giving already.  And, according to Bart Barber, over at Praisegodbarebones, Johnny Hunt is tweeting often about the CP.  He’s encouraging Pastors to lead their churches to give more to the CP.  Also, Ronnie Floyd is leading his church to give more to the CP.  Take a look at this report…  http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=11921  

So, I want to symbolically shake Johnny Hunt’s and Ronnie Floyd’s hands, and symbolically pat them on the back, and say, “Way to go! Thank you.”  I really am happy to see these two leaders in the SBC encouraging more Pastors and churches to give more to the CP, and they’re actually doing it at their own churches, as well.  In the words of that famous fella from Mayberry,  “Thank ye, thank ye, thank ye!”  And, may more churches follow their lead.

Dr. Malcolm Yarnell

Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Director of the Oxford Study Program, Director of the Center for Theological Research, and Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology, at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was unable to attend the convention in Orlando.  However, he voted in favor of the Great Commission with his feet while we were raising our ballots.  He has graciously allowed me to post his article below.  Enjoy, and feel free to interact with his thoughts.

A number of people expressed disappointment when I informed them of my planned absence from this year’s Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida. Indeed, two different pastors offered to provide funds for my attendance. I am very grateful for their proposed largess, but alas there were other matters calling for my attention. Because of my nearly month-long responsibility to be away each summer with the Oxford Study Program of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I must limit my summer travel severely. If, that is, I am to enjoy any family time with my beautiful wife and our five children.

Ultimately, the choice came down to attending the Southern Baptist Convention in mid-June, on the one hand, or participating in a mission trip to the Ukraine in early June, on the other hand. The choice was originally difficult, for I am very interested, from a personal and vocational perspective, in seeing a genuine Great Commission resurgence among the free churches of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). God has called me to minister among these churches and I desire the best for them, and the best is found in fulfilling His commission by going to make disciples, baptizing and teaching (cf. Matthew 28:16-20).

There is little doubt among those of us who keep our eyes on the health of our local churches that we as a convention of churches are simply neither as fervent in our efforts nor as blessed in our fruitfulness as we once were. Discipleship–understood as submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in every area of the Christian life, inclusive of evangelism, worship, church life, etc.–and its initial visible manifestation in baptism are suffering from a long-term malaise. I would like to see that turned around and am convinced that the best way forward is through a genuine Great Commission resurgence.

Because of this personal commitment to a Great Commission resurgence, I suppose it would have been best, from one vantage point, to attend the SBC meeting in Orlando, and cast my ballot for an amended version of what the GCR Task Force was proposing. As you may know, the GCR Task Force has generated much discussion among Southern Baptists over the last year. First prominently advocated in a resolution carefully written by Jeremy Green for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention in November 2008, then championed in a major way in April 2009 by Dr. Danny Akin of Southeastern Seminary, the idea of a Great Commission Resurgence resonated with many hearts in the Southern Baptist Convention. In June 2009, the Southern Baptist Convention approved a motion for the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Johnny Hunt, to appoint a task force to study how Southern Baptists can work “more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.”

The history of that task force during the period between June 2009 and June 2010 was marked by some speculation, sharp controversy, and increasing education in Southern Baptist polity. Ultimately, however, the specific recommendations made by the task force, except for the definitions used to describe church contributions to Southern Baptist causes, did not strike most of those involved as particularly controversial. Moreover, the evangelistic sentiments expressed by both proponents and opponents of various recommendations were often similar. Indeed, when reading widely diverse views of the Task Force’s work over the past year, I was struck by the unified desire of almost everybody involved to see a Great Commission resurgence. Any disagreement has been over the methods proposed by the Task Force rather than its actuality. From an historical perspective, however the responsible state and national agencies finally interpret the amended recommendations of the SBC in June 2010, stirring up sentiments for a Great Commission Resurgence will likely be the most important fruit of the Task Force’s work.

This brings me back to my earlier dilemma. Should I get involved (again) in Southern Baptist politics at the Southern Baptist Convention while serving as a messenger for my local church? Or should I go on a mission trip? Ultimately, I came under conviction that the most important action I could take in June 2010 for a Genuine Great Commission Resurgence would not be political but missionary in nature. Yes, I did contribute an essay or two to the debate, trying to remind us of the biblical and historical nature of a genuine Great Commission resurgence, but even those pieces were not terribly political in nature. And, yes, I still do believe in the necessity of sanctified political activity on the part of faithful Baptists in the convention. However, in June 2010, my presence was simply not needed in Orlando, Florida, but it was needed on the other side of the planet.

And I am so glad I chose to vote for a genuine Great Commission resurgence, not with a ballot but with my feet, from a long distance away! I was given opportunity to witness repeatedly to the gospel on the streets of Kiev and later in London, to preach before an established church and a church plant, to work with Dr. Keith Eitel and Mr. Art Savage in persuading an important civil leader to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, and to witness the public declaration of faith in Jesus Christ through biblical baptism by several former Muslims from a Middle Eastern country. I was also pleased with the gracious response I received from the plenary lecture on theological foundations delivered to the president, faculty and students of the Ukrainian Baptist Theological Seminary in Lviv and Boryslov, and by the opportunity to discuss the nuances of Eastern Orthodox theology with an Eastern Orthodox priest as well as a dozen students from Southwestern Seminary. Finally, and perhaps most poignant of all these blessings, I witnessed my middle son, Matthew Garrett, minister to the children of Kiev and later disperse hundreds of gospel tracts to people he will likely never again see in this life, but hopefully will see in the next.

So, yes, I am all for a Great Commission resurgence! However, I am also convinced that sometimes, for some of us, ecclesiastical politics is best put aside, for the Lord has determined that His gospel would be active when we speak it (Romans 10). And I must speak the Word of God everywhere I can, whether among unbelievers in Ukraine or among unbelievers in the United States. It is only as we become more active in our verbal witness–to Jesus Christ as the God-man who died on the cross for the sins of all who will believe and rose again for our eternal life. It is only through the necessary activity of witnessing to Jesus Christ that we will see a genuine Great Commission resurgence. Let’s get started, Southern Baptists, here in the United States and around the world. Let’s vote with our feet and with our tongues, now that the ballots have fallen away from our hands.

PHOTO: FBW

Today, as I was perusing my Google Reader, I came across an article which has greatly encouraged me.  Florida Baptist Witness editor, James Smith, Sr., has posted an interview with pastors Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd.  In this interview these men discuss their journey in leadership within our convention and the impact that has made on their desire and plans to lead their churches to be more supportive of the Cooperative Program of our convention.  As this has been a question for which I have been desiring an answer, I am grateful for Mr. Smith’s work on this issue and for pastors Hunt and Floyd in their transparent, honest answers.  I am under no delusion that I am the only one who has been asking this question…nor that my initial post on this was the impetus for the article in FBW (certainly I might be deluded in other ways, but like the presentation specialist in the FedEx commercial…I digress! :-D ).

I am most thankful for the comments these men made in their interviews expressing their desire to continue moving their churches in continuing their emphasis on this significant means of financial support for the cooperative ministries of our convention of churches…even once the spotlight of their time in high-profile leadership is completed.  I am committing this very moment to praying for and continuing in prayer for these men as the lead their churches in this significant emphasis and commitment.  I encourage everyone to join with me in this.

I am quite thankful for changeable men in positions of leadership.  It is the height of arrogance for any one of us who have been entrusted with the leadership of God’s people to think that we ourselves need not be teachable nor changeable.

On a different note, one quote from Ronnie Floyd which provided a “shake your head in disbelief” kind of moment came from this statement in his interview:

“I challenged them to come on board strong in the future,” he said, noting that he could never recall such a statement being made at the megachurch pastors’ meeting since he has attended, starting in 1988.

I pray this attitude of omission/de-emphasis of mega-church pastors toward the significance of the Cooperative Program is indeed being transformed in our present SBC culture.

SOLA GRATIA!

[UPDATE:  As of June 2 we have the answer of the Task Force. They are bringing the seven recommendations as a unified whole...Well, looks like I'll be supporting a motion (maybe even bringing the motion) to divide the recommendations. :-) ]

Continuing, “sorta,” my response to the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Final Report (GCRTFFR)…

Today I came across an excellent post by Dr. Bart Barber discussing his perspective on the GCRTFFR. It would appear he’s been reading my mind (maybe that’s one of the benefits of being part of the Baptist Identity ‘collective’).  I certainly find myself agreeing with his assessment of the situation.  I wholeheartedly recommend you peruse his post thoughtfully.

As I continue reading, thinking, and discussing, I am once again brought to a question for which I have neither read nor heard an answer thus far.  My question?  Just how will the recommendations from the GCRTFFR be presented to the messengers from the churches when we meet in Orlando?

Will this be a single report thus signifying a single recommendation comprised of seven parts?  If this is to be the case, I think it is an unwise approach.  Based on what I am reading from blogs and various state and national Baptist news sources, an “all-or-nothing” approach will negatively impact what I would hope to see be a significant consensus coming out of the convention meeting regarding our churches moving forward in cooperative ministry and a resurgent emphasis on our Great Commission calling.  I have read numerous accounts of those who will most certainly vote “NO” on the whole for their concern over even just one of the components.  I would hate to see that happen.

Will this be a single report from the Task Force resulting in seven separate recommendations brought to the floor of the convention?  I certainly hope this to be the case.  I believe a truly strong consensus for a Great Commission Resurgence could be built upon high percentage votes for the greater majority of these recommendations, even if our convention votes to not recommend one or two of the seven components at this time.  Upon a springboard such as this, I believe we could continue to work on those areas which at this point might be problematic for a portion of our convention as we forge ahead to penetrate the lostness in our world.

In my next post I plan to ‘wrap-up’ my response to the remaining components/recommendations from the GCRTFFR.

SOLA GRATIA!

As I look at the final report, I begin by acknowledging the introduction which sets out the need which is before all of us.  The lostness of our world is vast.  Sounds like,

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:1-4).

Now, the difficult times do not mean acquiescence to the status quo. This must be a call to arms! We must stand and fight the good fight of our faith. At the front of this fight must be our commitment to carrying out the command of our Lord through His Great Commission to us.

Upon leaving the ‘setting’, we turn our attention to the list of Components.

Component #1: A new Misson(al) Statement– “As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.”

AMEN! Now, I’m not real crazy about the need for the use of the trendy ‘missional’ or ‘missional vision’ which could just as easily have been stated, “…our mission is to present…”, but then I have people in my church who don’t like the term Student Ministry or Youth Pastor. SO, I get it.

Before rushing on to number two, I need to pause here and thank the Task Force for being so deliberate and intentional in asserting both components #1 and #2. Many have lampooned or said, “Well, this is what we are already doing. Duh!” or “Well, thanks for restating Scripture for us.  It’s not like Jesus didn’t do it well enough the first time.” I for one appreciate this group not taking for granted that we need to affirm and reaffirm the foundation of our Gospel commitment. I serve a church in the midst of an association in which the leadership of many of the churches see no need to go on record as affirming our Baptist convictions and renewing our commitment to biblical standards for our churches.  I also know of pastors who have been asked to leave the churches in which they served because they dared to implement Great Commission commitment to the ministry of their churches.  One was told that if they started doing all of that witnessing stuff new people might start coming and mess everything up. SAD! We cannot presume upon our foundation. We must always be willing to stand up and be counted as Bible-believing, Gospel-living Christians.

Component #2: Transparent Values–

“CHRIST-LIKENESS–We depend on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and prayer to make us more like Jesus Christ.

TRUTH–We stand together in the truth of God’s inerrant Word, celebrating the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

UNITY–We work together in love for the sake of the Gospel.

RELATIONSHIPS–We consider others more important than ourselves.

TRUST–We tell each other the truth in love and do what we say we will do.

FUTURE–We value Southern Baptists of all generations and embrace our responsibility to pass this charge to a rising generation in every age, faithful until Jesus comes.

LOCAL CHURCH–We believe the local church is given the authority, power, and responsibility to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world.

KINGDOM–We join other Christ-followers for the Gospel, the Kingdom of Christ, and the glory of God.”

Again, AMEN! Especially the centrality of the LOCAL CHURCH as the one(s) commissioned to go into all the world.

Component #3: Great Commission Giving.

Here’s the focal point of this component for me– “We call upon Southern Baptists to honor and affirm the Cooperative Program as the most effective means of mobilizing our churches and extending our reach. We also call upon Southern Baptists to celebrate all giving to our common work. We will recognize the total of all monies channeled through the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, the state conventions, and associations as Great Commission Giving.”

One significant improvement of this component over the preliminary report is the definitive focus of Great Commission Giving to Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Baptist State Conventions, and Southern Baptist Associations ministry/mission involvements.  Thus a concern of many with whom I have spoken, namely that giving to para-church or other non-/inter-denominational ministries would be included, is absent. There is nothing wrong with leading your church to support financially other biblically sound ministries.  Just don’t call it supporting the SBC.

I also appreciate the commitment to honor and affirm the effective importance of the Cooperative Program for our ongoing missions and ministries as a convention of churches.  This has proven to be the most effective means of equipping and sending ministers of all callings, from pastors to missionaries, into the fields. Diluting or dissolving this funding approach, as is the concern of many of my friends, would be detrimental to our future work as a convention. I am willing to take Pastor Floyd at his word in his latest interview.  He, and others on the TF, asks us to assume the best rather than the worst when it comes to the CP and GCG. I am willing to do that…watchfully. :-)

Allow me to express a significant concern, desire at this point. I still want to hear more, see more, be given concrete evidence/assurance that those on the GCRTF who are pastors of our ‘mega-churches’ are doing more as pastors to lead their churches to be leaders within our convention by example when it comes to CP support. I am gladdened that both pastors Floyd and Hunt have led their churches to increase the percentage of CP giving.  I am not impressed with asserting, as does Floyd, that his church increased their giving by 58% last year. Using a general example of average CP giving among SBC mega-churches to be approximately 2%, the 58% increase results in 1.16% more for a total just over 3%. This still falls short of the continually decreasing national average of 6%, an average which the GCRTFFR laments. I would be significantly encouraged to hear about a plan from either of these men, or similarly placed SBC mega-church pastors, to move their churches to be exemplary leaders in CP giving within our convention of churches. As of now, I am unaware of any such pastor on the TF stepping out and outlining a concrete plan to do something along these lines. I am hoping that these church pastors are not giving token increases in the momentary spotlight only to neglect continued effort once the spotlight is gone. I would welcome any of them, Ronnie Floyd, Johnny Hunt, JD Greear, et al., to drop in and share their thoughts and plans regarding this matter in the comment section of this post.

WELL, time for writing this post must be cut short. I have to take care of some other responsibilities. I am not finished with my thoughts and responses to the report.  I plan to get to ‘part 2′ later today. As you can tell by the hat I now wear, I am planning to be a supporter of the GCR recommendations presented in Orlando. Much of my support is enthusiastic. On some matters I have concerns which I pray will not materialize. In all, I am looking forward to the future God has prepared for our churches and our work as a convention of churches in fulfilling our Great Commission calling.

Matthew 6:1-4 (NIV)
¹ “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
² “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
³ But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
⁴ so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

In their final report the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF) has certainly squelched some of my fears.  I want to be on this Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) train!!  I do not desire to be the one driving it and I do not want to be the one blowing the horn.  I just want to be one of the 40,000 that are known as GCR pastors.  Thank God, and I look forward to being part of this grand movement of God in the SBC.

At this point I want to call attention to one obstacle that I see laying on the tracks.  If this obstacle is not removed it will cause this GCR train to jump the tracks.  It is the Great Commission Giving (GCG) aspect of this train.  This particular aspect will bring a GCR to a halt faster than the Caner brothers can grow beards. It will be the death knell of the Cooperative Program (CP) just as sure as OS Hawkins has his shirt buttons in line with his belt buckle and his shoes shined with a mirrored glaze to the point one could shave with a dull razor.  Why would I make such a statement of surety?  I believe in the surety of this event for three reasons.  Great Commission Giving relegates not accentuates the Cooperative Program.  Also, Great Commission Giving discourages not encourages cooperation. And the motive of Great Commission Giving elevates selfish desires over the Scriptural directive of giving.

Relegating the Cooperative Program–The Cooperative Program (CP) is the main artery for the flow of funds for  missions and ministry within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).  The CP funds the cooperative efforts of Southern Baptist to ensure the Gospel gets to the lost.  The CP funds the various ministries that are being used by God to penetrate the darkness.  It is through the CP that we cooperate with the various ministries of the 41 state conventions.  These state conventions are resource centers for local churches in order to do ministries on the local level that cannot be done by the SBC.  It is because of the CP that we are able to see national strategies developed and put into place.  It is because of the CP that we are able to see strategies developed within the states.  It is through the CP that we were able to fund the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF) with the $250,000 they requested.  Does one realize that if GCG would have been in place when the GCRTF was formed we may not have been able to release the $250,000 because it would have already been allocated?  Thus, GCG relegates the CP to one of many different forms of giving to the SBC.  When the CP is relegated to one of many forms of giving then GCG will be seen as the main source of giving.

Discouraging Cooperation–GCG discourages cooperation in the very form it is being presented.  The very churches that are promoting GCG are ones that fund projects in various SBC entities.  Some of the churches represented on the GCRTF give to agencies outside of the SBC.  However, one needs to remember what makes something a Southern Baptist gift–A Southern Baptist Church gives to it.  If GCG becomes a reality in the SBC then we will see a time that churches designate their giving to all sorts of agencies.  For example, there are some churches that may desire to fund their students education to an SBC college or seminary, so they send funds designated to one of the SBC entities or state conventions for the particular student.  When a church funds 10 0r 12 students at various entities and state universities they are doing so for their own advantage.  Here in NC we have a historical relationship with Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC.  Let’s say (I am not saying this is happening, I am just saying that it could very easily happen) that Pastor Gilbert has a student that is attending WFU and their church is paying the tuition for that student.  All Calvary Baptist does is designate through the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina for that student and the BSCNC sends those funds to WFU.  Those funds will then be counted as GCG for Calvary when it is going to a school that is supported by CBF, has for its President a Presbyterian who came from Notre Dame University with no Baptist background, and has just appointed an ordained woman minister with the United Church of Christ to head up their Baptist Divinity School.  Another example is in the area of church plants.  Some churches partner with NAMB to plant churches in major metropolitan areas.  These churches not only make major contributions, but NAMB matches this contribution with funds from the CP.  However, the church names the Pastor and staff, not NAMB.  Thus, the mega church decides the form of government and these church plants usually end up as Elder rule congregations not congregational rule.  Nothing wrong with a particular church fulfilling their vision and call of God in supporting their students and planting their own churches, but should one call that cooperation?  With just these two examples one can see that there is no cooperation but more of  ‘you scratch my back and I scratch yours’ direction for funding.

Elevating Selfish Desires–This is one area that I believe is the most evident.  The final report calls for us to celebrate ever dollar given by every church.

We call upon all Southern Baptists to celebrate every dollar given by faithful Southern Baptists as part of Great Commission Giving, including designated gifts given to any Baptist association, state convention, and to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention.

It is evident that the GCRTF desires to be recognized for all dollars given.  However, this is where selfish desires take over.  It is clearly not a biblical mandate to recognize every dollar given.  Notice in that Matthew 6, as posted above, Jesus teaches that we are not to desire recognition for our giving.

Mark 12:41-42 (NIV)
⁴¹ Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
⁴² But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.

Also, it is clear that Jesus recognized only those that gave out of their need not those that gave out of their abundance.  In the story about the Widow’s Mites Jesus recognized the exact amount that the Widow gave.  However, Jesus never recognized the exact amount of those giving out of their abundance.  He just said that they gave “large amounts”.  GCG is not something that the SBC needs.  Celebrating what people give when they are giving out of their abundance is against scripture.  We know that many large churches give large amounts to various entities.  However, if we begin celebrating everything everyone gives then GCG will only promote selfish desires.

The GCRTF report is something that I believe will advance a desire across the SBC to see the darkness penetrated with the Gospel.  However, I believe the GCG will derail any GCR that begins.  Why?  The CP is a chain of sand with the strength of steel.  However, if the CP is relegated to second class status as one among many forms of recognized giving that steel will return to sand and the chain will be broken.

**UPDATE**

After reading Brother Dave Miller’s questions in our comment thread, I realized there is another reason the GCG will derail the GCR.  It has to do with trust.  The GCG reveals there is a lack of trust among the GCRTF concerning the state conventions.  If there was trust among them, with two state Executives sitting on the GCRTF could they not have called in the group and worked out a compromise for the CP to remain central?  I know the GCRTF is calling for the CP to be central, but the unique ability of the CP was the trust given at all levels.  With the GCG we will be saying; “we do not trust those state Executives”.

So, when the research tells us that 91% of non-Christians see evangelicals as anti-homosexual, what are we supposed to do?  Quit saying that homosexuality is a sin?   Because, I’ll guarantee you that no matter how nice you try to say it, and no matter how many times you say that you love the homosexual person; whenever you say that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, people are gonna accuse us of being anti-homosexual.   I’ve seen this first hand on more than one occasion.  The lost crowd just does not want to hear that it’s sin against God; plain and simple.

And, when 87% of the lost crowd sees evangelical Christians as judgmental, are we supposed to stop calling sin what it is…”sin?”  Because, listen, the lost, rebellious crowd will say this just because we call sin by it’s ugly name.  That’s just how a lost person is, when they’re living in those sins. They don’t like for their sin to be brought to light.  And, once again, no matter how nice and loving you try to be, once you name a sin as a sin, especially one that a person is living in; then you’re labeled as judgmental.  Go on a talk show, and as nice and as lovingly kind as you can possibly say it; say that any sex outside of the marriage boundary is a sin against God.  See how the crowd responds.   It wont be pretty.

Okay, the next thing on the research list is  that famous old, worn out line that a lot of lost people like to use about evangelical Chrisitans.  85% of the lost crowd sees us as hypocritical.  So, what’s new here?  I’ll bet this has been said ever since Noah first lifted a hammer and told people to get right with God, because it was gonna rain.  Christians have faults and shortcomings.  Every Christian sins; every last one of us.  We all fail to be all that God wants us to be.  So, everytime a Christian fails God, the lost crowd is waiting to pounce on it like  a coyote after a fat, plump bunny rabbit.  I think it makes them feel better about their own sins, when they can call Christians “hypocrites.”  I think it eases their consciences just a little bit to point out the failures of a Believer.  It gives them a good excuse to stay lost.  And, you know what, lost people just dont understand grace.  Again, what do we do with this info?  I mean, we cant stop sinning.  We’re gonna sin.  We’re gonna fail God.  So, what good is it to know this info?  How does this help us?  What in the world can we do with it?

Now, I’m not gonna go over every single research item that was listed in the Spring 2010 On Mission magazine by NAMB.  But, here are the other topics: Non-Christians see evangelicals as Old Fashioned 78%; Too involved in Politics 75%; Out of Touch with Reality 72%; Insensitive to Others  70%; Boring 68%; Not Accepting of Others Faiths  64%; Confusing 61%.   Well, some of these things we can work on.  The old fashioned thing can be remedied, and it is being remedied by many, many Churches with contemporary music, technology, and dressing more cool and hip at Church.  The “Too involved in Politics” thing is something that we’ll always be accused of, if we ever take a political stand for moral reasons.  I do agree that some Pastors are too involved in politics.  But, I’m glad that some Christians feel led to get into politics, in order to do good.   And, any political stand that we take will be seen as too much for a lot of the lost crowd out there

Now, I’d imagine that evangelical Christians will always be looked upon as being out of touch with reality by the lost crowd.  After all, we look thru the lens of faith at the world, and the lost crowd doesn’t.  We can work on being more sensitive to others, but I doubt that us being more sensitive to others will ever be good enough for the lost crowd.  The boring thing….well, I was bored with worship and Bible study and prayer, too, back when I was lost and living in sin.  It didn’t do anything for me, as a lost person.  I doubt that there was anything that could’ve been done to make it less boring for me, as long as I was lost and living in sin.  Then, the “Not Accepting of Other’s Faiths” thing…well, this is just how it’s always gonna be.  How could it ever be seen as any different?  I mean, as Christians, who believe the Bible, Muslims are lost and wrong, and they worship a false god.  Buddhists are lost, and they will not go to Heaven.  Jews are not going to Heaven when they die, unless they put their faith in Jesus as their Messiah.  Mormons are involved in a cult, and they definitely worship a false god.  So, how in the world could we ever change this perspective, and still be true to God and to His Word?  The Bible is exclusive.  God is exclusive.  All dogs don’t go to Heaven.

You know what I think?  I think that the lost, rebellious crowd is always gonna view us, Christ Followers, as a strange and peculiar people, no matter what we do.  I think that the lost crowd is gonna look upon us in a bad light, no matter what.  I think that the lost crowd is not gonna be accepting of our beliefs, nor change their view of us, unless we’re willing to compromise our faith.  They will look upon us in a bad way, unless we’re willing stop living for the Lord.  I knew this before this study was ever done, and we all knew this before NAMB chose to put it in their magazine.  I mean, I didn’t expect to win any popularity contest in the arena of the world, as a Believer.  Who does?  Anyone?  The simple fact is that the lost crowd does not like us due to our walk with God; due to our being a follower of Jesus; due to us calling sin what it is; due to us preaching the Gospel….exhorting them to repent and put their faith in Jesus. 

I’m not really sure why NAMB put this in their magazine, nor what we’re supposed to do with this study; but I’m sure that there’ll be some wimpy Christians out there that this will really disturb.  There will be some namby, pamby Christians out there, who’ll be really upset that the lost crowd doesn’t like us.  And, they’ll want to make every change possible to “get the lost crowd to like us.”  Why?  Why are there some Believers out there, who think like this?  Who think that we have to please the worldly crowd? Who think that we have to be acceptable to the lost bunch?  Who honestly think that somehow we can “make the lost people out there like us and accept us?”  Who think this study  is even important to know? 

Are we gonna stop preaching against the sins of adultery and fornication and lying?  Are we gonna start preaching that “all dogs go to Heaven?”  Do we need to start telling homosexuals that “you’re ok, and I’m ok?”  Are we gonna start having scantily clothed dancing girls in our church, so that the men will not be bored?  And,  sign up men from the church to be in our newly formed, worship leaders group the “Holy Chippendales,” so that the ladies will be more excited about coming to church?  Do we need to start advertising that pre-worship cocktails will be available in the lobby?  Maybe that’ll make the lost crowd feel better about us? or, at least,  less bored with our worship? 

I dont think so.  I think that what we really need is  for Christians to be more like the Believers in the book of Acts, and turn our world upside down.  I really think that we need to trust the power of the Holy Spirit to call people to salvation.  I really think that we need to preach the Gospel, stand on the truth of God’s Word, and leave the results to God.  I really think that we should tweak how we do worship without violating Scripture; be creative in our outreach without getting stupid or crazy; and be open to making sensible changes that might open doors for us to able to reach lost people, without compromising our faith.  Now, please know that I was not saying that NAMB, nor Barna, was saying anything about compromising, nor even hinting at compromising.  I’m really not sure why they felt that this study was important.  Maybe they just did it, and printed it merely for information’s sake, or out of curiousity, or to tell us what we all should already be aware of? I don’t know.  But, I can just see the wheels turning in some “Evangelical Christians” minds about this info.  They might start thinking of all the things that we need to do to be more acceptable to the lost crowd.  I can just hear their thoughts about the shame it is that the lost crowd would think this of us, and how we need to change this perception. 

Again, I ask how?  And, will anything really change their perception of us?  Do we honestly think that the lost crowd will ever view us in a truly positive light?  I mean, if we really live for God, and preach the Gospel?

UPDATE:  Franklin Graham was cancelled from speaking at the Pentagon for some remarks he made about Islam.  Franklin Graham spoke the truth about Islam, and he was censored.  Anyone surprised?  Some of the people, who think that lost people will love us are probably a little shocked.

First question first–Cooperation with Designated Funds.  The GCRTF has defined “Great Commission Giving” (GCG) as follows: “Great Commission Giving includes Cooperative Program giving and designated gifts given to the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.” At present, we have on our ACP various sections that require response.  However, the question that should be asked needs to center on how much the ACP documents will change? At this time the church’s money that goes to the Cooperative Program,  association, and the state offerings, along with funds given directly to SBC Entities and any other funds given to any missions organization are placed in the section that is called “Total Missions Expenditures”. Total Mission Expenditures is defined as;

“Total amount of all undesignated and designated funds given to any/all mission causes (Southern Baptist and other mission causes) by the congregation. This includes monies given to: Southern Baptist church-type missions; any associational, state convention, or Southern Baptist Convention ministries (this includes the Cooperative Program); or any other Southern Baptist or non-Southern Baptist mission cause. A question that should be asked may concern the wording of the ACP.

Does the renaming of the total mission giving funds mean the GCG line item will overshadow the Cooperative Program line item and effectively result in the dumbing down of the CP?  While many are advocating that only SBC mission causes be appropriated in the Great Commission Giving line item one pastor/blogger sees it differently as seen in his defined understanding of this new title;

I think the suggestion that “Great Commission Giving” by a church be recognized while reaffirming our commitment to the CP is healthy (component #5). The CP is ingenuous but when it is used as a stick with which to beat churches who sacrificially give to the work of missions in other ways as well, its effectiveness is greatly hindered by the very people who think they are promoting it.

Please note that the above quote does not distinguish between SBC, State Convention, association and non-SBC mission endeavors.  Also, in the day and age of technology that we live we no longer turn in reports to associations and state conventions we go on computers and enter the data.  If I give to Samaritan’s Purse then I may deem that SBC giving because I am an SBC church and I am helping a Great Commission organization.  Therefore, the above linked pastor/blogger would see the GCG as a SBC church giving to the “work of missions in others ways”.

Another pastor/blogger also in agreement with the GCRTF preliminary report sees a concern:

…the primacy of the Cooperative Program will not be secured merely by the well-wishes of the task force. We must be diligent that we continue to speak from the platform about the Cooperative Program. We should not introduce speakers by talking about their “Great Commission Giving” totals, nor should denominational magazines or emails trumpet anyone’s “Great Commission Giving.”

This mentioned pastor/blogger observes the problem if publications and individuals begin espousing the virtues of GCG above the CP of a church.  However, he also seems concerned that without a concerted effort to promote GCG will dumb down CP giving to the effect that GCG will become our central plan for giving to the SBC.

My second question deals with Great Commission Giving muting our Cooperative Program.  The way GCG is promoted mutes the Cooperative Program while quashing local church autonomy.  Why would I say that?   The Christian Index recently ran an article by Joe Westbury.  In the article Westbury has a neat little “before and after” charts.  I have reproduced the charts for the sake of our conversation here.

First, the reason it quashes local church autonomy through defining the gifts.  The local church decides where their mission funds are sent.  They not only decide these mission monies, but they also define them.    In the Georgia Baptist Convention ACP they have, at present, a line item #23 that calls for “Other Missions”. According to the explanation given in the Christian Index, GCG will now include only “Other SBC, State, and Association Mission Gifts.” (See After) If this is the case then where will a church show giving to say; The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Acts 29, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Campus Crusade for Christ etc. etc.  While these items are not important for the convention to know it is important for surveys.  Why do I say that?  We are already being chastised by various researchers because we keep 95% of our funds here in the US.  Can you imagine a church giving $100,000 to “Other Missions” and $100,000 to GCG of a $400,000 budget and then being chastised for keeping the majority of their funds for themselves and the SBC? I will admit to you that some may see this as a weak point, LET ME YELL TO MAKE IT STRONGER.  :) No, it may be weak but I have been around long enough to know that churches need less incentive than this to stop giving. Therefore, either the church will stop giving and reporting or they will merely grasp the fact that giving to any cause makes it Southern Baptist because the church giving it is Southern Baptist.  You may argue that isn’t a reality.  To which I respond, if the church is king then convention leaders do not define what the funds represent.  If they do, then autonomy has been thrown out the door.

The combining of the CP with other designated mission monies has not seen this problem in the past.  Why?  Churches were not supposed to be wooed by entities to give for special projects.  No one knows when this changed but it did and we are reaping the bad fruit from this practice.  Now we have churches giving more of their funds directly to various entities.  By doing this these churches may say they see the CP as central to supporting SBC missions, but their actions do not verify their words.  Thus they are muting the CP as being central to supporting SBC mission.  The the muting of the Cooperative Program is a serious problem.  The prime example of a dumbing down of the CP is see in the way these charts are set up.  Line item #20 will overshadow Line item #18 because of where it is placed.   Also, this is the way the Georgia Baptist Convention’s ACP reporting will look and North Carolina will probably be different and Florida will probably be different and so on and so on.  By combining the CP within a new GCG term results in the dumbing down of the CP.  Why?  Look at the article in the Christian Index.  Westbury writes;

Under the proposed wording, the distinction between historic Cooperative Program and designated giving will be more obvious, though both will be recognized as Great Commission gifts.(Emphasis Mine)

One cannot look at the “After” chart and say there will be a distinction.  Line item # 18 will be blended into Line item #19 and both are added together to form Line item #20–the final line item.  I can hear it now in a nominating speech; Candidate ____________ has led his church to give over three-million dollars in Great Commission Giving.  Or it may be something like; Candidate ____________ has led his church to give over 24% of their undesignated funds to Great Commission Giving.

How can the GCRTF make this work without GCG overshadowing the CP?  Well, the GCRTF has said they will not abandon the CP.  In their report they stated;

We believe the Cooperative Program is Southern Baptist’ unified plan of giving through which cooperating Southern Baptist churches give a percentile of their undesignated receipts in support of their respective state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention missions and ministries.  Therefore, please understand clearly, we are not recommending any changes to the Cooperative Program but are reaffirming it as our central means of supporting the Great Commission ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention.

If our task force is serious about this statement then to strengthen the CP they must remove the addition of the CP funds into overall mission funds thus, considering it all GCG.  If the CP is our “unified plan of giving” then make it central without any other items added to it.  In other words, set it apart to be a central part of the ACP.  Combining it with all of the other designated mission giving does not clearly say “cooperation” it clearly says “societal”.