It wasn’t the missions offering to which I referred, but the CP giving – which is different. CP funds are spread across the vast expanse of the SBC – some to missions, but others to things that are much more bureaucratic.

You said, “i think that you are right in the sense that the bureaucracy of the sbc is overbearing. however, i also think that the reason why you are getting all of the requests is that people are being told that there are not enough sbc dollars for their project to be funded and that they can seek outside funding.”

As long as these bureaucracies exist, as long as the programs and the institutions are priority over evangelism, people are going to balk at forking over the kind of money you think necessary. I agree with the IMB budget, by the way. They should have that much, but there is no way we can convince people to give that much money to the CP if it is going too get diverted into pet projects, or redundant efforts that actually compete with local church efforts or – and this is the kicker – replace local church ministries so that people think their obligation is to give a little money while the denominational servants do the work. This entices the congregates to be lazy in their thinking and action. It robs them of their passion. In the end, it causes them to GIVE LESS MONEY, because they are not involved.

CP/missions giving will go up the more the denomination gets out of the way and allows/requires Southern Baptists to be more involved. It is backward thinking (or maybe just not thinking that understands human nature as well) to think that the bigger the set of programs, the bigger the need for money, the more folks will appreciate not having to do it themselves, the more money they will give.

As for the numerous requests that I receive, I am not complaining that I get them. I don’t blame them for wanting us to cooperate with them on their mission efforts. We do cooperate, beyond the CP, with several of them already. But we put them in the budget and encourage our members to volunteer with them. That is what we are willing to do. We do not have special offerings for everyone that wants one.

My point is that if they are all going to be asking for money all of the time, the purpose of the CP has been thwarted. There will come a time when many faithful CP giving churches will simply “cut out the middle man,” so to speak. They will partner with whom they choose, give a little to the CP and fund missions (NAMB, IMB and church based) out of their budget.

Or, to say it another way, creating more programs and more institutions is going to lead to the CP’s demise. It’s survival is absolutely dependent on the axiom, “less is more.”

“I am not knocking Floyd or Sutton. I am wondering if they are, perhaps, a little further down the road for many SBC churches. How long will it be before so many others simply reroute their mission dollars to missions they themselves are doing?”

i guess it was the “further down the road” part that i misunderstood.

as to your assertion concerning last year’s record missions offering, it may have been a record but IT WAS INADEQUATE. i don’t want to point to what other faith traditions are spending on world missions such as the muslims or even the mormons. ultimately the moving of God’s Spirit is what is needed NOT MONEY but there are many projects that need to be funded so that the good news of Christ can go out to many people’s who have never heard. if you ask me, the imb’s budget should be somewhere in the $1-2 billion range.

i am in full agreement that “the roadblocks of full disclosure of CP spending and unnecessary restrictions on missions cooperation” should be removed or it will be detrimental to the sbc and her mission work.

“The problem is that it is getting more and more bureaucratic and less and less missional.” in a sense you are right, in a sense you are wrong. i think that you are right in the sense that the bureaucracy of the sbc is overbearing. however, i also think that the reason why you are getting all of the requests is that people are being told that there are not enough sbc dollars for their project to be funded and that they can seek outside funding. of course the people believing that God has given them a great task, they are going to step out in faith and ask as many people as possible. the system fails in that there is simply not enough cp dollars for “the main thing” projects and people working for sbc entities are allowed to ask for additional funds. herein lies the system’s failure.

A Simple Student @ SWBTS

this also raises a weakness of the cp. it oftentimes lacks the tangible quality that might entice people to give more if they knew had a picture of what they were giving money towards.

I share your concern about dependency and nationals that use Westerners to gain support. That is definitely something that we have to be careful of. The people that we are working with are ones that we have known for years, have a proven track record, and are doing work that is desperately needed but there is no way that they can be fully self sufficient. They also do amazing work with very little. While some are unscrupulous, not all are. Some of God’s people in foreign lands take serving Him seriously, just like Americans do. Some are dishonest, just like Americans are. But, when you find faithful people, it works really well.

Thanks for your response to my post. In general, I think we agree. Yes, you can carry my argument too far.

So what is the role of the missionary? I believe the most effective role is either to go to areas that are completely unreached to begin a work (establish multiplying churches) OR go to areas that already have churches and effectively train them to finish the work on the gospel. In places where there is already a church, I don’t think the most effective thing we can do is simply win new converts. Nationals need to take on that responsibility. However, we can equip them to do that work and equip pastors to better lead their churches.

What about supporting nationals at a fraction of the cost of westerners? As long as we don’t cause dependency and rob them of their dignity in the process it is not a problem. HOWEVER, it rarely happens without causing dependency. AND, if all we do is send our money to support a national missionary who we’ve never met, I think the mission movement will die. We must keep sending our sons and daughters. Not only is it Christ’s command but it is the best way to encourage prayer and giving.

You mentioned India. The support of national missionaries from outside the country is and has for a long time caused big problems there. And most of the time, those that are giving the money are unaware. The reports from the nationals will always sound great so the funds will keep coming. What we have created is lots of pastors and missionaries who will jump ship as soon as a better support package comes along (sounds familiar!) or worse, they are drawing a salary from several sources simultaneously without the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. The heart is wicked wherever it is found. We need to be very careful we are not contributing to the problem when we think we are helping it.

So I am not against SBC churches sending VIM teams. Send more! However don’t sacrifice the support of long term missionaries in doing so.

AJ

I’m all for short term teams and missionaries, by the way. I just think that we have to be strategic in how we use them so that the greatest good is accomplished. This whole thing is changing so fast as more and more global Christians become interconnected. Can we do more training through the internet? Can short term teams be MORE effective at times than a long term presence? These are questions that need to be discussed. But, I keep saying that, don’t I?

Not to discredit the other points, and at the risk of saying something perhaps a bit unpopular, I would add one other counterpoint to the 4 reasons Cyle gives for why volunteers ought to continue coming.

National believers sometimes see the enormous amount of money that is spent in order for volunteer teams to come, and ask themselves is this really a good stewardship of God’s money, when it could perhaps go a lot further and be used a lot more strategically funding local ministry. When volunteer teams bring along with them gifts and funding opportunities for national believers, they tend to be a lot more receptive to the volunteer teams. But then, we run into the dangers of unhealthy dependency.

I am not opposed to volunteer teams, but I do believe that those in local churches getting more directly involved in missions have a responsibility to at the same time bring themselves up to speed on missiological issues. It is easy to do things that in the long run end up being counter-productive if you don’t know what you are doing, in cross-cultural contexts. I also think it is better for churches to choose a long-run project or two, such as what Alan’s church is doing, where they can really develop quality relationships and come to understand the reality of the situation where they are working in a deeper way.

Neither CP nor Lottie Moon funds are dropping and volunteerism is continuing to grow. I see your point, but I don’t agree completely. Besides, neither the IMB nor NAMB adequately fund the work of our missionaries. If it were not for the people who are personally involved in their work, many of them would be drastically under-resourced.

Alan,

The only missionaries I know personally are catalytic leaders. Basically all they do is train indigenous leader and plant churches. Granted, I don’t know more than a handful of missionaries personally, but none of them is interested in owning their ministries. They are all giving them away to nationals. When we go to Africa to work with our friends there, that is exactly what we do. We do evangelism, but primarily we train indigenous leaders. We don’t try to tell them how to reach people. They know their culture. We do teach them the Bible, and we work to help them understand how to be a Christian in a world that is hostile to Christianity. We believe that the culture does not determine the message, but the message should define the culture of a Christian.

I had the same question about going myself and the expense of sending volunteers. I asked some friends serving in Africa why it wouldn’t be better for me just to send the money it takes to get me there to them for use. I just felt like it was a waste to send me there for a month when the same amount of money could do so much among the indigenous population. My friends said that there were several reasons volunteers needed to continue to come: 1st, the value of sacrifice – it’s one thing to send money, but quite another to go yourself; 2nd, the witness of sacrifice – the people we minister to recognize the sacrifice and effort made and that speaks loudly about the God we serve; 3rd, exposure – they told me that volunteers are a hundre times more effective at raising awareness of missions than the IMB is; 4th, expertise – they need people who know the Bible to come and teach indigenous leadership.

I hear you and your argument makes good sense. But, let’s take it a bit further. Why don’t we just identify indigenous believers in many of the countries where we have missionaries and fund them? They already have the language, know the culture, and can operate much cheaper than we can. Our money would go much further. The missionaries that we do have in these countries could be catalytic people that are gifted in helping bring believers together to facilitate training and to work alongside the indigenous church. I know that we do some of that, but you wouldn’t know it by reading all of the reports from the IMB that seem to make it look like we’re doing the work ourselves.

It really only makes sense to send true missionaries to people groups that have no believers at all. Or, could we more effectively help send missionaries from one reached people group to another unreached one, and not put Americans there long term at all? We are working with indigenous believers in India who are doing just that.

I’m not saying that we don’t need missionaries. I’m just saying that the argument you use can keep being applied again and again until everyone is eliminated.
I do agree with you, however, that taking 30 people to China to do Vacation Bible Schools is probably a waste of money. You probably spent around $75,000 to do that, and while it is a good thing, what can you do with $75,000 if you are more strategic. You’ve got to think about such things. All of our money that we raise for people to go on mission trips is outside of whatever other support we give. We don’t fund it from our church budget or offerings – people are responsible themselves.

These churches typically send a large number of volunteers overseas on a regular basis. Even though many of these volunteers come from professional careers making nice incomes, the church pays for half or more of their missions trip with offerings. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t have a problem at all with churches sending large numbers of volunteers to the mission field. Just the opposite – I support and encourage it. However the problem lies in churches who redirect giving away from the support of long-term workers to fund volunteers. Some churches that are seeking more ‘personal involvement’ in missions sometimes spend 3 or 4 times the amount they give to the LMCO on sending their own people on mission trips. It would be like a congregation deciding to give the pastor’s salary to a church member to preach each week so that every member would have the opportunity to be ‘pastor for a week.’ That’s a nice until you think it through. The pastor who has both the experience and training to effectively lead the church is now selling used cars. It won’t be long before the church is in decline because those leading the church are simply not as effective.