Relating To Alan
My friend and fellow missioscaper Alan Cross wrote up a piece the other day that I wanted to interact with. I have great respect for Alan, though I have only met him personally two times, one of which I think he cannot remember. I have read Alan’s blog for a good bit now and was able to attend a series of meetings with him last year where he presented a talk on decentralized efforts in ministry. The thing that encourages me so much about Alan is the fact that he is not one who commends ideas to others that he himself does not follow with great passion. In my conversation with Alan I was inspired by the work that the church he pastors engages in on the sub-continent of India. Get in touch with Alan’s blog and read away about their mighty deeds for the sake of the gospel of Jesus.
Alan said something that got me thinking in a recent post (please read before continuing).
“People give to what they can relate to and participate in. They don’t give to institutions anymore. They give to movement and something tangible. They give to something that they can see.”
I have to ask the question here, in fairness, regarding this statement. Is this true? Can we just say that this is the new reality? Is this true for all churches? All SBC churches? All Evangelical churches? I would have to say that this statement is not true, universally and thereby should not be accepted without qualification.
With that said I want to interact with the trajectory of the statement in the context of a great offering taken up for the sake of gospel in the lives of the poor. Alan is right. People give to what they believe in. But Alan is wrong, people still give to institutions. Alan is right and wrong. And maybe more right than I can know. The problem is not that we as Southern Baptists don’t give to institutions, the problem lies in the fact that we give to those things we believe in, trust, have confidence in and support as an extension of our own understanding of calling and vocation before the Lord Jesus. I don’t think that this is as simple as people giving only to those things that they can personally have contact with. Rather I believe that people will support, sacrificially support, only those things that are a part of the ministry that God has called them to in obedience to Jesus.
Recently I read that the Church at Brook Hills is immediatley designating over half a million dollars to Compassion International for relief around the world. We must ask ourselves a question, “Why?” Why give a gift “here” and not “there”? Why designate monies to this relief group and not some other? Why partner with a parachurch effort and not attempt to do this work directly? Why give to this effort and not simply contribute to the CP?
My only answer is this; they as a church choose to give money in this way because they believed in it sufficiently to NOT give to every other thing with those same dollars. Same thing as what happened at Alan’s church with their large offering.
So what does that mean for the CP and our cooperative efforts? Not sure. I am sure that we will miss the point if the discussion becomes “CP or Not CP”, or if we argue “Societal or Not Societal” or “Cooperative or Not Cooperative. This is not about funding mechanisms. No. This is about sacrifically giving to those things that we believe in as followers of our Lord Jesus. We must elevate our discussions to a place where the focus is on the work, not the mechanism to fund the work.
I find that many churches I interact with are not clear as to what their task is in the earth. They know that God gave Paul the ministry of reconciliation, but they seem unsure whether that extends to them. Personally accepting responsibility for taking the gospel to the world and participating in the reconciliation of all things in Christ seems a far horizon at best. This is not to say that they are not concerned with the things of God and his Word, but they are not sure that it is their responsibility to see to it that their neighbor is loved and that all those whom God has deemed our neighbors are recognized as such.
Alan’s church is taking responsibility for the gospel in their community and in the world through direct missions and through cooperative efforts. The Church at Brook Hills is doing the same. Why? Because they believe in it. Plain and simple. We are all doing what we think is best and therein lies our greatest strength and greatest problem.
And while you are reading this I am confident that someone, somewhere sacrificially gave money to their church which gave money to the CP to fund missions/church planting around the world. And they gave because they believed in it.
I, too, disagreed with Cross when I read this in his blog. While he may find this statement true in his church, the rural church I pastor still believes strongly in the Cooperative Program. Most of my members pay little attention to the goings-on in the upper levels of the SBC, but they closely follow missionary reports in their devotional literature and in the _Alabama Baptist_. The election of a new president barely merits a ripple, but everyone tunes in to the latest story of an imperiled missionary. It helps that we pray specifically for missionaries (some by name) each Sunday night in our prayer service.
Maybe it’s the institution itself that engenders either support or skepticism. Our church understands that, at this point in our history, we simply cannot afford to support active missionary or relief efforts on our own; we need the Cooperative Program to enhance our participation in the Great Commission. I wouldn’t ask my congregation to make a special offering for, say, the Executive Committee or for certain seminaries led by blank-shooting presidents (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31277&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0917). However, I’ll actively support our upcoming Lottie Moon offering, both by participating and by encouraging my congregation to participate as well.
Brother,
I appreciate your comments and interaction with mine and Alan’s posts. It is important that pastors and church leaders stay informed about all that we do as Southern Baptists. Your resounding support both financially and through prayer of missions is to be commended. You bring up an interesting point though, by way of inference on my part.
You state that your CP contribution is the way that your church supports missions (IMB or NAMB or both? not sure which you pray for specifically) and relief. You also go on to indicate that you do not support through special offerings or much concern seminary presidents who shoot blanks or the XComm. A real tension occurs when we consider that the vast majority of CP dollars do NOT support NAMB/IMB missions or relief, yet this is the way that S. Baptists ‘fund’ missions.
Please hear me. I am not saying that churches should not support associations, state conventions or other institutions, but we need to be clear as to what it is we believe in and support. You support missions/relief primarily from your comment. Most of your CP dollars support those causes only indirectly. Not wrong mind you…many would not call what I do missions either (as a DOM) but you illustrate the question that Alan was raising very well in your post.
Thanks for taking time to interact here at missioscapes.