For much of the month of January, a colleague and I have been in an international setting serving with overseas workers. We have worked together daily in an educational context, and I have been reminded continually of the significance of the Great Commission. To say I am impressed by the workers of our mission board is an understatement, but I don’t want to embarrass my friends by being overly effusive about their labors. None of them desire to have attention drawn to himself anyway. During our weeks together I have had time to reflect on many important things, and I have written out some of my thoughts in a few posts I’ve labeled “A Report from the Field.” There is no grand theme to the posts; they are simply my reflections on matters that have come to mind. I hope they are an encouragement to our readers.
I did not realize the full effect of the economic downturn upon our overseas work until this past month. I have travelled overseas since the events of the Fall of 2008 when the world economy began its decline, but I am seeing the cumulative effects of reduced Cooperative Program (CP) giving and a weakened US dollar in its stark reality now.
I should note that our overseas personnel are not the sort to grouse about all this, but the difficulties imposed upon them and the potentially negative impact of budget reductions are all too clear. Personnel reductions and cuts to strategy budgets are bound to decrease the extent to which the Great Commission work of the IMB will be accomplished.
I would never suggest that this limits God’s power to make His Name known among the nations. In fact, we may form a dependence upon the work of the Holy Spirit in ways that will bear much fruit due to our lack of resources. Nevertheless, our failure to consider the ramifications of reduced budgets is at least Pollyanna and is, more pointedly, a mark of foolishness.
I know of no one in our stateside congregations who fails to voice their support of our overseas work. It is the essence of what it is to be Southern Baptist: to unite together in a cooperative effort to send and support laborers to go to the nations. Or so we say. In fact, we say this without hesitation. But to say this is not enough. Not nearly enough.
At the risk of making some people very angry, let me lay out some facts:
- Of every dollar given by Southern Baptists to their local churches, 1-2 cents (depending on the state convention through which the funds are dispersed) ends up at the IMB.
- In the CP process by which funds move from the local church to the state convention to the SBC for dispersal to the various SBC agencies, the highest percentage that a state convention sends to the national convention (and therefore to the agencies, including the IMB) is about 50%, while most send 35-40%. (The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia lead the way in CP giving, and are to be commended for doing so.)
- That is, most state conventions keep 60-65% of the funds given by those in SBC pews, and forward the remainder to the SBC.
- Most SBC churches keep 85-95% of the funds given by those who fill their pews for work in that church, forwarding 5-15% of those funds to the state convention (though some may give directly to the SBC, though they are not credited with CP giving if they do so. Yes, Virginia, that’s correct.)
- So, let’s say Widow Ellen gives $100 as a monthly offering in her local congregation. It would be typical for the church to use $90 for its own budget, while sending $10 to the state convention. The state will then keep, let’s say $6 and send $4 to Nashville. And the Executive Committee of the SBC will then disperse the funds to the various SBC entities, and the IMB will receive $2 of that $4.
- I’m not making this up. $2 of her $100 makes it to the cause that is the primary reason for the existence of the SBC in the first place. (Yes, I’m arguing that our forebears banded together to form a convention of churches for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission, primarily focused on sending laborers to the nations to spread the gospel.)
I realize I’ve irritated some folks at this point. And likely made some mad. I hope your indignation is directed where it should be. That is, I hope you’re indignant that such a paltry amount of the funds given by the people of the SBC make it to our international work. But I imagine that may not be the case with everyone.
Some like to point to the state conventions as the primary culprit in this state of affairs. To be sure, I hope our state convention leaders will join en masse to change their funding strategies (some already are), raising their contribution to the SBC to at least 50% and, I prefer, targeting 60-75% as a goal, depending on the needs in a given state or region (I think those state conventions in pioneer areas are justified in keeping a greater amount of funds for a period of time to support church planting in those areas). But I don’t want to pick on the state conventions alone. I want to pick on some of our churches.
One prominent church in the SBC recently embarked on a $130,000,000.00 building campaign. Yes, that is the right amount of zeros and the commas and decimals are correct. Several years ago I heard an SBC pastor bragging about his $70,000,000.00 building campaign. We build lavish (by any standards in the world they are lavish) worship centers, “family life” centers, and other buildings at every turn. I have to ask, in light of the fact that over 1.6 billion people have never heard of the name of Christ, do we really need such facilities?
This was brought home to me not too many years ago when I learned of a congregation on another continent that circulated a prayer request among some believers for a larger tree under which they could worship. That’s right. God had added to their number so significantly that they were beseeching God Almighty for a larger tree. Perhaps we should inform them that they should have a bit more faith and go for a family life center where they could play some racquetball or basketball while they take a break from the toil they endure just to stay alive.
Yes, that was sarcasm in that last paragraph. And before you criticize me for that, we should realize that the Scriptures employ sarcasm as a way of communicating that some things are so absurd that sarcasm is a legitimate device to get our attention.
It’s time for our attention to be gotten. And it’s time for us to awaken to the commission of Jesus to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth. The accomplishment of that mission, the mission of God, does not rest on lavish buildings in the US (trust me, they really are lavish), nor immense state convention structures, nor grander buildings on seminary campuses. That mission will be fulfilled by sending laborers into the international fields. And if we have any sense about us and, let’s be honest, real devotion to our Lord, we’ll put our greatest amount of resources into the places where there is the greatest amount of need. And that typically isn’t in our stateside ministries.
This is a time when words aren’t enough. We say we support the Great Commission. But to say we support the Great Commission and then keep spending money on ourselves is to say that we don’t truly care about the Great Commission.
The real test of our commitment to the mission of God will be found in the extent to which we give (and get that money to those who carry the gospel overseas), pray, and ultimately send workers to the ends of the earth. Words aren’t enough, Southern Baptists. They simply aren’t enough.
A great word, David, but the megachurches have more to answer for than their hefty building programs. Suppose Widow Ellen moves to the suburbs and her $100 now goes to a megachurch with a CP giving rate of 2%. Even if the state convention hits your 75% target, only $1.50 would reach the IMB, less than she gave through her former church using the old state convention formula. Put simply, 40% of $10 is greater than 75% of $2. The state conventions need to do their part, but the real bottleneck here is the megachurch giving percentage.
Comment by Rick Patrick — February 2, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
Slight Correction: In a church giving only 2% through the CP, a 75% state convention target would result in $1.50 to Nashville, with only 75 cents going to IMB, even less than the amount I listed in my previous comment. The thrust of my argument is that church CP giving is the primary factor driving the equation. While state convention formulas need tweaking, their impact is mathematically secondary in importance.
Comment by Rick Patrick — February 3, 2010 @ 12:03 am
Thank you, I hope all the widow Ellens in America read this.
Comment by Chuck — February 3, 2010 @ 2:15 am
Dr. Nelson,
I concur with your sentiments. This is one of the major reasons why I support and pray for the GCR TF. I do not support a regime change, but a mindset change will hopefully result in a leaner, more efficient SBC structure where local and state conventions exist primarily to have capital assets for local ministry (like the NC Baptist Convention medical/dental bus), and the fluff is eliminated.
But there are also strong indicators that local churches need to reexamine the way they allot money. This is not just a building project issue, but a daily expense issue. For instance, why I end up compelled to wear a sweater in the auditorium of many churches in the summer is beyond me, I’m not sure that keeping facilities at a chilly 65F when it is 95F outside is really necessary. I am also not sure why some churches insist on investing tens of thousands of dollars in Sunday School materials, most of which aren’t used effectively and are discarded immediately after the quarter ends. (Besides their disposable nature, the most redeeming quality about the quarterlies seems to be that they have full color, glossy pictures and current pop culture references. I struggle to find the value, even as we try to communicate to a contemporary culture.)
In short, there are attitudes present, as you have pointed out, that even the GCR TF recommendations won’t be able to address because they concern the actions and attitudes of the local, autonomous church. We should thank God for the present financial ‘crisis’ because it should give us opportunity to reconsider how we do church and what we can eliminate on the local level.
‘Simple Church’ has been written, but perhaps ‘Lean Church’ is an effort that a theologian should invest his efforts into: something to call the church to finding ways to do more with less locally, in order to give more to do more elsewhere.
Comment by Spencer — February 3, 2010 @ 8:33 am
Rick,
I think you raise a valid concern, but I want add a couple of further thoughts. First, it is not only “megachurches” that are giving a small percentage to the CP. I know of many churches, of many different sizes, that give well under 5% to the CP. Second, remember that many of these churches, including several megachurches, forward a chunk of their money directly to IMB. In other words, because they are unhappy with the percentage of the CP that makes it overseas, they give directly to the IMB to get more money to the missionaries.
Again, I think you raise a good point that some churches don’t give a high percentage to the CP. I just want to fill in some gaps.
NAF
Comment by Nathan Finn — February 3, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Dr. Nelson,
I’ve been a Southern Baptist for just over 7 years (I’m 28) and I in that time I don’t think I have EVER heard a great definition of what the CP is until I started going to SEBTS. I heard of it, but to me it was just another abbreviation I didn’t know much about.
In short, I think the churches are doing a poor job just defining WHY it is so important to support the CP. Communication is key for these types of things and I fear that folks could think they are just supporting another faceless organization. The more people know about these stats, the more t could stir a ‘holy discontent’ among the Church! Thank you for the article.
Comment by Aaron Dininny — February 3, 2010 @ 10:33 am
Dr. Finn – I really appreciate this article as it sums up much of my frustration with the SBC. Do you find fault with churches who give more directly to the IMB than to their state convention, or do you think this is acceptable in order to avoid so much waste?
Comment by Michael — February 3, 2010 @ 11:43 am
Our rural church voted decades ago (long before my pastorate) to give a minimum of 10% of our offerings to the CP. We just passed our first $100,000+ budget this past October; we then gave over $3,000 to the Lottie Moon offering in December, or about 3% of our budget. If the rhetoric holds true, every dollar of that offering will support overseas ministries.
I’d point out 2 things. Remember that I’m just a lowly bivocational pastor with no influence in the goings-on in the national level.
1. The Great Commission includes our neighborhoods and communities as much as it does the rest of the world. In recognition of this, we’ll soon begin our own building program to accommodate our increase in growth (God’s blessing has resulted in an increase in our congregation of over 50% in the past year).
No, we won’t build any $150 million facility with glass on the street level so people can watch us worship, but we’ll build something that our church can use for the next half-century or so. I have perfect confidence that our congregation will continue to match our 10% CP giving and exceed our Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong goals in the process of building a facility that will serve our community.
The investment in our communities includes purchasing quality literature. Not every church can rely on locally produced literature that matches Lifeway’s caliber. Again, I’m a bivocational pastor. Although I also teach Bible survey courses at the local community college where I work, I don’t have time to write Sunday School lessons every week. In our case, we take up our literature each quarter and send it to a ministry that then redistributes it overseas.
Any church that doesn’t invest in serving its community will do little good to our IMB missionaries. Meeting under a tree sounds noble; I’ve done it before in my rural childhood. Reality requires us to provide something more permanent in our community.
2. Don’t gripe about the distribution of the CP funds. I’d strongly recommend you instead insist that any church that participates actively in the SBC also participate as strongly in the CP. I don’t buy the argument that larger churches have more ministries and can thereby justify their miniscule CP offerings that total only about 2-3% of their regular budgets. SBC churches should support SBC efforts. If every church matched the percentages of the small church I pastor, no one would have begun the debate regarding the distribution in the first place. We don’t need a redistribution; we need a recommitment to what already exists.
Frankly, I like the current distribution in my state (Alabama). Our convention has provided far more services in the past year to my church and my former church than I would ever expect from the SBC in Nashville. Neither church could have afforded the benefits offered freely by our state convention. To quote our convention secretary, Dr. Rick Lance: “We Have One Program, The Cooperative Program. We Have Many Ministries, Great Commission Ministries.”
Comment by John — February 3, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Rick, of course you’re right about the “bottleneck” at the level of church’s and their giving strategies. And Nathan is right to point out that this isn’t simply a megachurch issue. I know of one church that gives well over 30% of it’s undesignated receipts to missions. Imagine CP giving if even half of our churches followed suit. There is no lack of money to fund what needs to be done, only the will and wisdom to give it rightly.
Comment by DPN — February 3, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
Michael,
David Nelson wrote the article, not me. I simply interacted with one of the comments.
NAF
Comment by Nathan Finn — February 3, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
I spoke too harshly about Lifeway’s material and didn’t take the time to fully think about my comment before I posted. I should not have brushed off the value of their SS literature, although I believe that there is singificant room for improvement.
I do not think, though, that the cost is usually justified, but all of this is opinion.
Comment by Spencer — February 3, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Thanks to Nathan and DPN for your insights. I agree with you that this concerns churches of all sizes, so please strike the prefix “mega” from my comments as I certainly regret using that term. (By the way, I was saved at just such a church so I love them deeply.)
As to the matter of churches bypassing CP channels to designate directly for the IMB because they are unhappy with the state convention formula, consider a local church example. Deacon Dan votes against the First Baptist budget every year since he is unhappy with an amount allocated for music which he thinks is too little. Dan decides to withhold a portion of his tithe from the church approved budget in order to designate this amount directly to the Music Fund. As a Pastor, I would discourage this approach in favor of a unified budget, asking Dan to pray about an additional gift above and beyond his normal budget giving. I would encourage him to work through the budget process to increase line items he thinks are underfunded without reducing his support of the church approved budget.
Instead of supplementing the Cooperative Program, the
Unhappy Direct Designation Approach only weakens it, forcing the very percentage cuts it seeks to avoid.
Comment by Rick Patrick — February 3, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
I really wish that SBC churches and organizations were more transparent with the people who give to them. I suspect that the only reason why the SBC as a whole isn’t as transparent about this issue as it should be is the same reason why a vendor wouldn’t tell you what’s in the hotdog he’s trying to sell. Because if you knew, you probably wouldn’t eat it.
I really hope that this GC task force does something to overhaul the waste and, let me just say it, the near dishonesty of, what I would consider, a misappropriation of funds without properly informing the givers and tithers of what they are actually giving to. I am no fan of churches and denominations that run like secular corporations, but if the current methods of the CP were a business model, there wouldn’t be enough interested shareholders buying in to it to keep it running.
I don’t mean to sound overly cynical. I think there is great hope for the SBC and the CP, but not within its current bureaucracy; and shielding congregations from knowing about that bureaucracy is not helping anyone.
Thanks for the good post, David.
Comment by Jesse Rose — February 3, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Aaron, you’re exactly right that education about these matters is crucial. We all need to do a better job of that. Michael, Dr. Finn is always trying to take credit for things I do – let’s wait til you dislike one of my blogs and we’ll let you credit him for that, ok?
John, I am happy for churches to wisely build the facilities they need and to use their funds for local ministries. This is a stewardship every church must give an account for. My question is one of proportionality: Does is make good gospel sense to keep most of the money God entrusts to us to the most gospel-saturated places (like the US) while most of the world that has little or no gospel witness receives the least of our resources?
Comment by David Nelson — February 3, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
As for the giving percentages from churches versus conventions, I think we must also bear in mind that there is an ontological difference between churches and conventions. While both are autonomous, disciples are made in local churches. Hence, the local church is ground zero of disciple making. If, hypothetically speaking, we were to lose state conventions in states with thousands of churches, disciples would still be made in the churches already there. Lose the churches, however, and we’ve got a very big problem.
So, it may make sense in certain contexts/seasons for different churches to send more or less to the CP. A church plant, for example, may have a goal of getting to 15 percent to the CP one day but be unable to send even 2 percent as they are beginning. I wonder if this may be a factor in the decline in average church giving from 8ish percent to 6.25 percent. Younger churches just getting off the ground struggle to send along ten percent. Once established however, they should be able to grow this base – but what incentive do they have at the current paltry rates passed along from many state conventions?
Whatever churches do send along, be it 2 percent or 20 percent, each church should be working with their convention to get those dollars to the work of: 1) bolstering/encouraging struggling churches and 2) establishing thriving churches where none presently exist. After all, these are dollars they have designated specifically for fulfilling the Great Commission.
Because the convention is not a church and, as such, does not expressly make disciples, it makes sense to expect conventions to remain focused like a laser beam on strengthening existing churches and planting thriving churches.
Some have noted this means tough choices going forward. This is true, and this is right.
Like a state convention, my family has limited resources. We buy groceries before we buy life insurance. We prioritize life before quality of life. I’m afraid that we have pushed the nations to the end of the line in our current CP calculus and put programs before people groups.
We’re buying metaphorical life insurance and neglecting the groceries that fuel the advance of the gospel among those with little/no access to the gospel.
We cannot continue to stand with Jonah and resist the call of God to get the gospel to the nations. Convenience beckons us to make a few tweaks here or there. The Great Commission begs us for a paradigm shift – allocating resources with the goal of establishing thriving churches where none exist and strengthening those which may be struggling.
Comment by Daniel — February 3, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
I think this is an excellent article certainly these concerns need to be addressed again and again.
But, I have other, similar concerns on the other side of the missions endeavor. For instance, I have worked with a ‘native’ church in Kazakhstan who told me once that their missionary in Mongolia had no money and could not feed his family. Their sacrifice is far greater than our missionaries that are sent through the IMB. (I realize that some may be offended by this but it is true. This certainly does not negate whatever sacrifice is made by our missionaries.)
Should we not also streamline that end as well? I am aware of missionaries who have scaled back during this economic downturn. But this has not been done across the board. Certainly there are bad examples of ‘fat’ money I could list and if someone would want me to I will be happy to with reservations. But that is not the point of my comment.
My point is that missionaries should be willing to go with a one way ticket in hand. How many of the missionaries who have been denied assignments through the IMB because of lack of funds have sought other ways to go overseas?
Certainly, the call of this post should be heeded and we as bodies of believers should give more money to missions. But, the money we give can go a little further.
I write this having just held a young toddler in my arms just this past week who would have lost his life had not some emergency funds allowed him to be airlifted to another country with superior hospitals. A luxury which our brothers and sisters from other countries do not have.
Comment by Dougald — February 3, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
I understand Dr. Nelson’s heart on these matters. The problem lies in what we are producing in our churches. Are we producing true disciples? The early church demonstrates that the gospel passion that compelled the people thrust them outward with a worldwide vision. Their concern was not just for themselves. I am afraid that as a pastor I myself have been guilty sometimes of developing people with more of a concern for our welfare rather than the spiritual welfare of others. The issue IS a gospel issue. Our apathy toward these issues raised exposes our need for true revival that will result in a substantive change in how we do church and how we administrate our convention on all levels. I participated in the conservative resurgence. My church (Green Ridge) is a microcosom of the resurgence. I have some blood on the floor so to speak standing for the innerrant Word of God in our association and our state and in my church. But after all is said and done I know we are not doing near enough in our local and global task of making disciples. The question is if we really believe in the inerrant word of God then why don’t we obey it more enthusiastically? Truth be known it is my comfort level that is being affected if I get too serious about all this GCR TF stuff and the SBC and it’s relationships and the money and how it is spent. I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT MYSELF and that is THE problem. The time has come to move forward on this front in our church life and in SBC life. Dr. Nelson is simply a man who is broken by the Gospel and has a desire to make a substantive difference for that Gospel. We must listen to men like him even though we may get somewhat defensive and we must allow ourselves to be confronted by a new and possibly better strategy. We may still NOT agree on everything but one thing is non negotiable and that is the Gospel is for all the nations. I pray that we can come together in these next few months and years as Southern Baptists and repent and implement some sacrificial changes that will indeed result in a more strategic and effective way to work together for the precious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Michael Palmer
Comment by J. Michael Palmer — February 3, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
Dougald,
As a field worker with the IMB I’d like to respond to some of your thoughts.
1. I agree that workers sent out by “native” churches in Central Asia almost always live more austerely than those coming from the West. I know some of them and respect them highly.
2. Yes, streamlining should take place everywhere. I’d be happy for the IMB to streamline its 2% of the pie. I would also be happy for all the other SBC entities and churches to streamline their 98%. Let’s open all the books and see where the funds are being spent.
3. You said, “My point is that missionaries should be willing to go with a one way ticket in hand.”
What exactly do you mean by this? On what do you base this claim?
4. I’m glad the toddler you mention had the option of being airlifted. I don’t know of anyone who would want anything different. I am very aware that some brothers and sisters may not have the means for this. Many in the country where I serve would not. Are you suggesting that it is somehow inappropriate then for IMB workers to have this “luxury”? If so, would you be willing to make the same statement regarding pastors in America? After all many pastors in Central Asian countries wouldn’t have this “luxury” either. For that matter, neither would an average believer in Central Asia. So, then, are you willing to forego the “luxury” of good medical care?
Brother, we don’t know one another, but I assume your motive is good and your desire is to honor the Lord. However, it seems to me that the logic behind your comments is flawed and your comments miss the main point of this post and discussion. I’m certainly willing to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood.
JH
Comment by JH — February 4, 2010 @ 3:58 am
Dougald,
Your comparison of the Kazak missionary in Mongolia doesn’t give enough information to support the point. Maybe this same man, before he became a missionary, found it difficult at times to feed his family in Kazakhstan. It’s not completely accurate to conclude that there’s a “greater sacrifice” when we’re not given a clear picture of the standard of living the missionary was accustomed to in his home country versus the country of his service.
I also think this statement is faulty: “I am aware of missionaries who have scaled back during this economic downturn. But this has not been done across the board.” A “field parity supplement” is provided for IMB missionaries each month to help adjust for the cost of living in their country. All across our Affinity Group (new term for “region”) field parity supplements have decreased, despite the fact that local prices have increased and the dollar has weakened. Agency contributions to our retirement have been cut in half and we are now paying a greater percent of our medical costs. Our ministry budgets have also been pared back to almost nothing. All missionaries are feeling the effects of this. I know that the economic crisis has hit the US hard and many Americans are feeling the same things, so that comment isn’t meant as a complaint, just the reality.
You also said “missionaries should be willing to go with a one way ticket in hand.” Someone who goes to another country with a one-way-ticket is an immigrant, not a missionary. If we start exporting Christians to live in other countries, I think we would end up with just that: Christians living in other countries. Not necessarily evangelism that leads to church planting.
Just my two cents.
-KF
Comment by IMB M — February 4, 2010 @ 11:20 am
Dear Dougald -
With respect and humility I’d like to comment on your post.
“Missionaries should be willing to go with a one way ticket in hand” is a pretty bold statement. I personally think God should be the one to give that type of a calling and its not our place to assume what others “should” feel called to unless its a “black and white” from scripture. If that is what God has called you and your family to, then Praise God. However, I’m not sure that is how he calls all overseas workers.
I would also disagree with your statement that “scaling down” has not been done across the board. You may be looking at some old information. Or, if you are currently serving with the board then I humbly submit that you haven’t been reading your emails or may not have yet seen your 2010 budget.
Again, I submit these comments with respect.
Comment by Ruth — February 4, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
David,
You were on my list of living heroes before, but now you’ve firmly cemented a place. This post will probably bring you criticism and difficulty that most of us will never hear about. Thank you.
As we discussed in January, I’ve been waiting for someone with your status (or higher) in the SBC to say exactly this. I’d like to add a few thoughts from the field.
1. It seems to me that the average person in the pew is not even remotely aware of this reality; perhaps even many pastors aren’t. I think they should know, and I think the leadership of our convention should inform them. And I think it should be done from the floor of the convention, and in many other places. Then they can make informed decisions.
2. I know of no one on the field who believes that ministries in the States are unimportant, or even less important. We know that our ability to stay where we are and do what we do depends, humanly speaking, on a healthy sending base. We also care deeply about lost people in America.
3. However, can we justify calling ourselves a Great Commission people when approximately 2% of what we give goes to cross-cultural work?
4. Can we really say that we are good stewards of what God has entrusted to us if we spend 98% on ourselves?
David, thank you again for saying what needs to be said.
JH
Comment by JH — February 4, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
Dear Dougald -
I confess that your post does indeed bother me. And, after thinking about it some more, I realize that you aren’t personally serving with the board overseas. So, (again, with the utmost of respect) I just want to graciously but firmly clarify one thing. “Scaling down” has absolutely been done and is being done across the board. I promise you that.
I humbly submit that you may not be able to understand with accuracy if your visits overseas are short-term (with a ticket in hand to return to the USA). Things aren’t always what they seem from a short-term perspective. I appreciate your zeal for streamlining “fat money” and that is my desire as well –so, I don’t want to be argumentative or offensive in my comments. I just want to offer another perspective from the other side of the water. Blessings on you and yours.
Comment by Ruth — February 4, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Dr. Nelson,
You have written a fine post. I will not detract from it any longer. My apologies for the detraction I have caused thus far. I was hoping I would fly under the radar.
Others,
You can visit my blog at http://www.meditationsonthelaw.wordpress.com where I will seek to respond, clarify, and if I have overstated my case retract some of my comments.
My goal was not to offend you, but I do like to stir the pot from time to time.
I would recommend some reading of IMB/FMB history, especially those times when financial problems have struck the board before. This is certainly not the first time this has occured. Nor will it be the last.
I appreaciate all your service for the gospel certainly as I do those who serve in the U.S. as well. I give to Lottie Moon and have always supported the CP.
It will take me some time to respond, though I expect a post to be out by the weekend at least. I am a Ph.D. student working on a independent study and my blog will be dealing with this as well since I have chosen this method to communicate with my professor.
I will warn you I have radical views on missiology. When I post I will not cite these responses per se, but I will be happy to continue the discussion there.
Through Christ,
Dougald
Comment by Dougald McLaurin III — February 4, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
Dougald,
The comments in response to your comment made by my colleagues on the field are excellent and you should consider them thoughtfully. Also I would like to say, as the father of the toddler that you mention, my son’s miraculous recovery and God’s provision of good medical care is not a “luxury” but a blessing. Also your comparison of people’s suffering is unhelpful.
I encourage you to please rethink your comment.
Blessings,
J.M.
Comment by J.M. — February 5, 2010 @ 12:06 am
J,
My apologies for the use of the word luxury. I agree that that is too harsh a term. I did not mean any disrespect to your family. By juxtaposing those comments I see that I have misrepresented myself entirely. I know that you went through a lot and I am sorry that I presented it so casually. And for that, I offer my sincerist apologies to you my brother.
Through Christ,
Dougald
Comment by Dougald McLaurin III — February 5, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Well Dougald, thanks for making this more interesting than I might have imagined. And I’m sure we can all agree we pray God’s people will be moved as never before to carry the gospel to the peoples of the earth, that His fame will be known throughout the earth.
Comment by David Nelson — February 5, 2010 @ 11:17 am
Dougald,
I commend you for your public and unequivocal apology to J.M. I also look forward to reading your follow up.
In light of your intent to reflect some more on what you’ve written, I decided to submit a final comment here.
To me, your original comment above implied the following: Yes, Dr. Nelson has a point, but we have another significant problem here. The IMB and its workers spend carelessly, or at least more carelessly than they should. The solution is for IMB workers to live like “native” missionaries who at times do not even have food to feed their families (or at least they should be willing to live that way). If they would just do that, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
If that was not your intent, some clarification would be appreciated. If that was your intent, I pray that your tribe is small and decreasing.
Also, I think the onus is on you to justify your claim that missionaries should be willing to go with a one-way ticket.
Blessings on your PhD work. I’m scheduled for comps in a few weeks.
JH
Comment by JH — February 5, 2010 @ 4:28 pm
JH,
I am aware of the huge gaffe I made in my presentation.
What you understood from my post is what I said, but not what I meant. It is one of those, “I’m writing on a blog and trying to be as concise as possible. Which usually means that my thoughts are not fully and carefully expressed,” moments.
And, sometimes my views come out of balance when I want to emphasize another point than the one made by someone else. In this case Dr. Nelson. Do I think that the IMB is careless? In most cases, they are very careful.
I think what I really am trying to say here is this: I think that we here in the states as well as those whom we have sent out should be inspired by our brothers and sisters who go out with very little, who are sent by those with very little. We should also be inspired by the stories of the past in our own convention. Men and women who gave up a lot to go to other countries and share the gospel. Sometimes at the cost of their lives or general hardships.
This does not mean sacrifices aren’t made today. But only a challenge to see where we could make more. Again what was not presented was that these sacrifices should be made on both sides. The question is, “What type of sacrifices will either of us make for the sake of the gospel?”
I hope I have stated my case a little more clearly. I know there is a lot I left out.
Through Christ,
Dougald
Comment by Dougald — February 6, 2010 @ 10:15 am
I just read this article. Sorry to get in late on the conversation. David, I am very thankful for all you have said. I strongly desire and yearn to see more Missionaries go to the nations for the fame of God’s glorious name. He is beautiful! He is magnificent! And yet our national convention, our state conventions, our local associations, our churches, and our church members daily spend their money as if something other than Jesus is the greatest treasure. We waste our lives and monies on fruitless things that matter not (buildings, cars, food, life styles etc….). My prayer is that your plea for reform will hit the ears and eyes of every Southern Baptist who loves Jesus.
As one who was recently called to magnify God among the nations this call for reform hits home to me. Especially after my recent denial letter from the IMB for lack of funds. Yet the SBC and the IMB are not my God and cannot dictate the calling on my life. I still continue to go. I just must look through other agencies and other means. Indeed, this is the sad story of many in my generation. God is calling them to go and yet our convention doesn’t have the means nor do they use the means well when they have it.
Many in my generation (20-30) would love to see the SBC reformed and indeed see 8000 missionaries overseas. Yet, even in this talk of reform, many of us are still going down the road we have been going down for a while now, away from the SBC. Most of us lost confidence in its practices and money spending long ago. The SBC is no longer the priority of this generation. Money is tight and we desire for every dollar to be spent for the glory of God. We see this happening more through organizations outside of the SBC. Many still have no confidence in how their money is spent to spread God’s fame even if they send it directly to the IMB because the IMB is in need of huge reform itself. How can a generation of people who are starting to see and value the primacy of the local church give their hard earned money to the IMB that says they value the church when they get their money but leaves them out of the process in everything else? How much does the IMB value the local church when they are choosing new candidates? They didn’t contact my church. They weren’t concerned with what my Elders had to say. They wanted a reference like every other business, but it is just a reference. If the SBC continues its course, there will be no SBC in the years to come because this generation will take the gospel to the nations through other means that value the primacy of the local church.
With that being said, my generation needs to take note of your plea David and take part in this reform. I fear many see the efforts to reform within the convention as an effort that will never make it. You turn their heads when you write your blog, but they still are continuing to pour their time, giftings, and money elsewhere until the SBC gains their trust. May God use the GCR to make lasting changes in our convention so it doesn’t die out like most of churches. And may many in our generation, including myself, count it a privilege to take part in a reform that will hopefully sent thousands of more missionaries to the nations for the glory of His name.
Comment by Thomas — February 9, 2010 @ 12:02 am
John, the bivocational pastor, mentioned giving to the Lottie Moon offering as a means of getting more money to the missionaries since (supposedly) 100% of the money that goes to that fund goes to missionaries.
You read my mind John, but no one really addressed that as far as I could tell. Is the Lottie Moon fund a good means to get more money directly to missionaries overseas, or is it really subject to the same “2% of every dollar goes to missionaries” rule?
I stumbled on to this site and may not find my way back, but please feel free to e-mail me at MGrubb@vwstores.com if you have facts about the Lottie Moon offering.
Comment by Grubb — February 9, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
I am a very small cog in the SBC, the congregation where I am a member runs about 30 on Sunday morning. I live in FAR northern New York state, about 5 miles from the Canadian border. I’m closer to Montreal, Quebec than any other sizable city.
I challenge all of those who have commented to take a look at the make up of the GCR Task Force. If you think that this group is going to look at mega-churches and their bloated budgets with a critical eye, “Good luck with that!” My research may be off, but according to the church websites the smallest church represented had 650 average attendance. Where are the representatives for the average SBC church which research shows is 233 members? How much money did the IMB spend on those flashy info packets for the Lottie Moon Christmas offering?
Having been a member of the US military and having worked as a federal civilian employee, the names and acronyms used in the SBC sound vaguely familiar…
When wishing for CHANGE, as recent history teaches us, be careful what you wish for! Inform your congregations and let them decide what is best.
Comment by Tom Wilson — February 11, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
I submitted a comment yesterday, but it apparently didn’t go through for some reason.
I live in FAR northern New York, about 5 miles from the Canadian border. About 5 hours north of Syracuse. Montreal, Quebec is the nearest city of any size. The congregation of which I am a member runs about 30 on a Sunday morning. Just some background.
I did some research on the members of the GCR Task Force and if any of us think that there will be any criticism of mega-churches I say, “Good luck with that.” The only person on the TF that reported less than 1000, pastored a church of 650. My research shows that the average SBC church is 233. Where is that sized church represented on the committee?
Secondly, we are told to tithe to our local church, not the SBC. I have some questions that I hope someone could answer about what is done with the money that the IMB does get.
According to press releases, the blending of NAMB and IMB is off the table. My cynical side says this is a good way to avoid layoffs in a down economy. As a former US military member and federal employee, the multiplication of agencies and acronyms sounds vaguely familiar….
Comment by Tom Wilson — February 12, 2010 @ 12:14 pm