I am about as Southern Baptist as one can be. I was born in Fort Worth while my father attended Southwestern. My father was partially supported by the Home Mission Board during his first pastorate.
I was saved and immersed in an SBC church. I was called to preach out of an SBC church. I recently graduated from Southeastern. When I join a church, I make sure a minimum of 10 percent of the budget goes to the Cooperative Program.
I remember well the posters my father displayed in the halls of my home church announcing that 95 percent of CP receipts go to support missions and theological education. I was proud of that.
However, along the way, I earned a Master’s of Public Administration and Policy. During the program, I could not deny that the SBC was laden with inefficiencies – built more like a government than a conduit for the gospel.
Nine years later, inefficiencies remain. Some have recognized challenges within the SBC structure(s) and have included this concern in a Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.
The Declaration includes ten articles. Among these articles is the attention-grabbing Article IX.
Article IX reads: We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.
Because Article IX challenges us to examine SBC "structures and priorities," some have claimed Article IX is unnecessary because it is non-spiritual. Morris Chapman, for example in his article at sbc.net claims, "Article IX and its commentary stood starkly apart from the other nine articles. It suddenly departed from biblical affirmations . . . " (emphasis added).
Throughout his article, Chapman fails to acknowledge that reorganization, structure, and methodology are inextricably linked to stewardship. Is there an SBC pastor willing to proclaim “stewardship is not a biblical issue?” That is the essence of the claim that Article IX “depart[s] from biblical affirmations.”
Much of Chapman’s rebuttal is based upon this phantom dichotomy of revival versus reorganization or spiritual versus organizational. The statements mount.
"Revival and spiritual growth are the greatest needs in our Convention and our nation. . . . Reorganization is not."
Revival versus reorganization.
"Effective and efficient organization is critical to any corporate endeavor . . . . But revival in our churches and appointing a task force to study Convention structures are not two parts of one whole. They are two separate objectives . . . . to put the two objectives together is like trying to mix oil and water."
Revival versus convention structures.
Two separate objectives.
Oil versus water.
When Chapman asks, "What are our choices?," he offers only two.
“On one hand, calling for a study of the Convention is very likely to create highly-charged polarization. On the other hand, if our people come together under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, Southern Baptists have the potential to mount such a powerful witness to the saving grace of our Lord that God will pour out His blessings upon our efforts.”
On the one hand versus the other hand.
Convention study versus Holy Spirit.
He continues, “Perhaps some have the mistaken notion that if we get our stuff organized first, then God will pour out His blessings. . . . Are there biblical examples . . . that would lead us to expect this? . . .” (emphasis mine).
The Bible provides ample examples. Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18, or the selection of the first deacons in Acts 6 should suffice. Sometimes God does not pour out His Spirit until we are prepared for the change He wants to effect.
But, a deeper problem exists.
If we are poor stewards, we are failing in spiritual matters. If the SBC avoids issues of stewardship when they are raised, we may hinder a fresh anointing of the Spirit.
Article IX is no less spiritual than any other. Christ's rule and reign extend to every corner of life - even Convention life.
Relegating administration and stewardship of dollars given for missions and theological education to the realm of the non-spiritual or less spiritual is to knowingly accept a false dichotomy to protect broken and, yes, “bloated bureaucracies.”
Every ounce of life is to be lived for God’s glory. The SBC cannot accept a false dichotomy (revival v. reorganization) and claim they endeavor to worship God in everything (Col. 3.17).
Chapman urges that we wait “until the time is right.” The time, however, is now.
The more than 3,800 Southern Baptists who have signed a declaration including Article IX, cannot be callously dismissed as those with a “mistaken notion.”
In the not-too-distant past, the SBC faced a real dichotomy. Affirm the veracity and sufficiency of God's Word, or become a denomination doomed to forever doddle in a morass of lifeless liberalism. Today, a phony dichotomy threatens to deter us from continuing the steady advance for the gospel.
It is time to return to the issue of the 95 percent of all CP giving going to the priorities of missions and theological education.
Under the current CP paradigm, funds counted as a church’s CP giving are those which local churches send to their state convention. State conventions meet and determine what portion of receipts to send to the SBC. Ninety-five percent of the dollars sent from the states to the SBC are used for the missions and theological education.
So, how much money are states sending along to the SBC?
The average amount of a local church’s CP giving that makes it to the SBC is around 35 percent (this varies, of course, from state-to-state). Thirty-five cents of every CP dollar reaches the SBC!
Of that 35 percent, 95 percent is spent on missions and theological education.
What are the states doing with all that cash? Many things, many good things, but I wonder if we need to step back and consider why state conventions primarily exist - if we may be able to redeploy some resources invested in good things and invest those resources in great things.
God's missions strategy is the establishment of thriving local churches. Conventions exist because there are places where thriving local churches do not.
Hence, the longer a state convention exists, the less money it should need to keep at home. As more and more healthy churches assume the charge of missions in their communities, more funds can be sent to the SBC to partner with other churches in getting the gospel to the nations (in our country and in others).
Good state conventions will strive to work themselves nearly out of a job; the more successful they are, the less are needed. This does not mean that state conventions will evaporate. They will always have role in terms of church health, benevolence, and etc. However, on the whole, the needs in the state should diminish as conventions accomplish their work, but needs across the nation and around globe remain. When states succeed, more and more funding should go global through the SBC; more money must go to the ends of the earth.
The crisis at the IMB is a crisis in priorities - a crisis fostered, in part, by structures not well-aligned with our Great Commission convictions.
Our collective and biblical concern for the advance of the gospel must inform our structure(s). We should routinely adapt and amend spending and structures in ways that comport with the availability of the gospel around the globe.
Structure and stewardship are essential components of any Great Commission Resurgence.
In states where many solid churches are in place, a 35/65 split in the allocation of CP dollars is inexcusable. Even a 50/50 split would be a weak effort for many conventions in the south.
A 75/25 split in the other direction would make more gospel sense for conventions in which local churches are thriving.
Chapman notes Article IX is devoid of specifics. Perhaps, but someone had to have the courage to get the conversation started. As for specifics, we could begin with the following.
1) We do not need as many regional missionaries in some of our state conventions in the south (they remain vital in some states with more of a frontier status with regard to the proliferation and health of their churches). Don't fire them; just don't rehire when they retire. Everything we do must be done with the grace of Christ.
2) We do not need church plants right next to healthy churches while we have missionaries waiting to hear if they can be deployed.
3) There is significant overlap in the work of local associations, state conventions, and NAMB; this needs to be remedied.
4) We do not need oversized, centrally-located state convention headquarters to accomodate a redundant personnel structure.
5) We do not need a national meeting every year. In the early days, it was once every three years and then once every two.
Chapman notes matter-of-factly that CP funding is down because local church giving is down. He’s right. But that is only 1/2 the story.
Many pastors are frustrated with the largess in their state. This directly impacts CP giving. Churches are finding other ways to be on mission apart from the CP.
Revival and reorganization are not at odds.
God may use a real, radical reorganization undertaken for the sake of the gospel to revive us - to give revival that gets us back to first things - back to Christ and His Great Commission.
Article IX only threatens to divide us if we hide behind false dichotomies.
Our missionary God can use reorganization around gospel priorities to spark revival in the hearts of men and women throughout the SBC.
On June 23, Baptist21, a group of Southern Baptists committed to getting behind the Great Commission Resurgence will host a panel discussion entitled, "Honor the Past, Forge the Future." I suggest we do exactly that.
If we don’t, we will recall this Convention as one in which we were content to "Honor the Past, and Forget the Future."
That’s the real dichotomy at this year's Convention.
No comments:
Post a Comment