If you believe the Bible and love the Lord Jesus, you want to get the gospel to the nations. You will want others to experience the grace of God too. There are several approaches to get this done. You can give so others may go, you may go or both. Southern Baptists are now making monumental decisions about getting the gospel to the nations. Money and methods are the two factors in the decision. Let’s talk money first.

The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention will be addressing several recommendations of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force in Nashville Feb. 21-22. These proposals were passed overwhelmingly by the messengers in the Orlando annual meeting last June.

The Great Commission is given to the church. A church is not a New Testament church unless it is seeking to carry out this directive. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded to assist churches in carrying out the Great Commission. The SBC provides a tremendous network for churches to work together in accomplishing this goal.

One of the major emphases of the GCR Task Force was to get more resources to the most unreached and underserved. There are a number of challenges in getting this accomplished. It starts with the individual believer. A tithe is not enough if we are to reach the nations. Giving sacrificially above the tithe will enable us to get to the neediest places. A major culprit in hindering people from giving is debt.

The SBTC Foundation provides stewardship services to the churches. There is a wealth (pun intended) of debt-free courses in the Christian market. Pastors may feel reluctant about preaching on money. In our seeker-friendly environment we shy away from teaching biblical truth about finances. This can be done with the core, the leadership or those who are willing to sign up for a class. Elementary efforts will produce more revenue for the Lord’s work. I encourage you to do something this year. People need to be set free.

The second challenge needs to go to the local church. Cooperative Program percentage giving from churches virtually has dropped in half over the last 20 years. Although there has been a shift to “hands-on” missions, the actual percentage of the average church budget for outreach is small relative to other demands. Hands-on missions is good. It allows church members to experience for themselves the need for Christ around the world. While applauding hands-on going, we cannot neglect hands-on giving through the Cooperative Program. It is not either/or but both/and.

Many churches are in bondage financially because of building notes and other obligations. Expanding church staff might never be called a “bureaucracy,” but sizable dollar commitments must be made to properly care for them. For whatever reason, it seems to take more staff than in previous generations to service a church. Perhaps there is less lay involvement and more of a paid professional concept by laity.

Prioritization of money for missions begins at the local church level. While 10 percent for the Cooperative Program for the majority of churches seems laughable in today’s denominational climate, the CP remains a wise investment. Information about the wide-reaching benefits of the CP rarely gets to churches’ members. Usually pastors are the ones who encourage or discourage participation in the Cooperative Program. Members need to know what God is doing through cooperative giving. Being a part of touching lives together through the CP will stir their hearts.

The third challenge is to state conventions and Old South state conventions in particular. They are being asked to send more to the under-reached in our nation and beyond. The convention model that worked well for almost 100 years has to change for this to happen. Institutions are worthy of our support when they are doctrinally accountable. State conventions can be contributors but cannot be sustainers. Once, schools and human-care ministries depended heavily on state convention support. In most cases the percentage of budget coming from state conventions for the institutions is minimal. Some state executives are attempting to push more resources out of the Old South but it is difficult. Each institution has a loyalty base. Another difficulty is Baptist inertia. “We ain’t done it that way before” is the mantra that hinders innovation.

SBC President Bryant Wright has called for a radical reprioritization of the Cooperative Program. My understanding of his call for CP reprioritization centers on the Old South state conventions. Yet the challenge goes to the national CP budget allocation too.

How will this reprioritization look? Moving more dollars to the International Mission effort seems to be the desire of many Southern Baptists. This is a worthy cause. Conversely, the pie can only be sliced so many ways. Who will receive a reduced amount? Currently, the Executive Committee is being asked to shift 1 percent to IMB.

Will the seminaries that train our missionaries and church leaders be asked to do their work with fewer dollars? Can we really afford to take the small amount of money from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission when they speak for traditional marriage, the life of the unborn and our constitutional freedoms? Will the North American Mission Board reorganization allow some shifting of funds to IMB?

What is the answer to make more funds available? Simple! Church members give more, churches participate at a higher percentage through the Cooperative Program, state conventions send on more to the SBC. By making the pie bigger for everyone we can accomplish what we want to do without major changes in funding our SBC entities. Getting the gospel to the nations can be done without destroying our efficient and biblical network.

Since we have solved the money issue (tongue in cheek, smiley face), let’s move on to the method of “getting the gospel to the nations.” This rallying cry may mean something entirely different from what most Southern Baptists have in mind.

Let me mention some things I think it doesn’t mean. I don’t think getting the gospel to the nations means we are to abandon our efforts to reach our nation. I don’t think getting the gospel to the nations means that ministers are not to be adequately trained theologically. I don’t think it means we mute our voice in the public square or end our ministries to those stricken by disasters.

I think “getting the gospel to the nations” means more than simply presenting the gospel message to an unreached people group. There is a difference between a gospel presentation and carrying out the Great Commission. When I talk about “getting the gospel to the nations,” I am talking about the Great Commission. Jesus calls upon the church to make disciples, which includes gospel proclamation, baptism and teaching the converts to observe the scriptures.

David Sills in his book “Reaching and Teaching” points out there has to be a balance between reaching and teaching. Making a disciple is more than getting a person to accept Jesus. Measuring discipleship among a formerly unreached people group is difficult to say the least. The idea has been proposed that once a people group has 2 percent reached with the gospel, it is time to consider moving on to the next unreached people group. I think that declaring a people group reached is more complex than a theoretical sociological benchmark.

The methodology of getting the gospel to the nations is contested. Some believe we should use the bulk of our resources in evangelizing micro-people groups who have never heard the gospel. While presenting the only Savior, Jesus Christ, to these precious souls is a mandate, how we proceed is a matter of differing missiology. Eschatology (study of last things) should not be a determiner of Southern Baptist missiology.

Southern Baptist deacon Robert Bentley has been elected governor of Alabama. While speaking (preaching actually) at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church in Birmingham, he made some comments that set off a windy outrage. During his message he said, “Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior?you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother,” during a Martin Luther King Day service.

We recognize what he was saying. Maybe it’s unexpected to have a politician, especially a Southern Baptist one, give an invitation during his speech but we understand exactly what he meant. He was expressing spiritual unity with his fellow Christians without regard to race or age or any other external characteristic. He was inviting lost listeners to accept Jesus as Savior. It was a commendable message of unity and openness that was appropriate on that day and in that place.

You’d think he’d said it on the floor of the state house. Unbelievers of all stripes pulled out their canned responses to any evangelical comment and affected grief. The head of the Birmingham Islamic Society said, “We don’t want evangelical politicians.” A spokesman for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League accused the governor of treading dangerously close to a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits establishment of a state church. Former Forth Worth pastor and Southwestern Seminary professor Welton Gaddy, who now leads The Interfaith Alliance and mocks things he formerly professed, warned Gov. Bentley that his title is “governor,” not “reverend.” This for a comment well in the center of his own faith tradition, delivered in a church, during a sermon.

Well, blah, blah, blah. Let’s ignore the silliness for a minute and look at this whole brother/not-brother thing. There is a difference between our relationship with our spiritual kin and those who are our neighbors.

It is a privilege to be the neighbor of a maturing Christian. Jesus set a pretty high standard for that relationship in the story of the Good Samaritan. Paul drew a clear distinction between believers and non-believers in matters of marriage, behavior, and legal actions, but also described himself as a servant to all so that he might gain a hearing for the life-giving gospel. He expended his life in an effort to tell unbelievers the best and truest thing he knew. Paul did this for God but to the benefit of his neighbors and his brothers. Many others have followed his example in doing the most compassionate thing they know to do for those who are not yet brethren. It seems to follow that unbelievers have nothing to fear from a public official who knows God and follows Jesus.

I have a blood brother who is also a brother in Christ. Our relationship is unlike that I have with any other person. We listen to advice from one another, confident that only help and no harm is part of the agenda. We’ve rebuked one another a few times. He’s been a good example to me in many ways. I feel responsible for and to him in a way I’d not feel for strangers. It’s never occurred to me that this special relationship implies that I should treat others as lesser humans.

Tens of millions of us across the U.S. understand what those who professionally despise Mr. Bentley’s personal faith will not hear?a person submitted to one he considers the Lord of all will try to do his best at anything he’s given to do. Such a person will reflect God’s love to those around without regard to race, political affiliation, religion, or demeanor. If he doesn’t, his spiritual brethren will call him out whether the legal authorities do or not.

I thought of that brother/not-brother relationship as I passed a Euless traffic cop today. He was sitting beside the road with a radar gun. If he had pulled me over and I recognized him as a believer, I’d expect him to think of me differently than others he might meet today. I’d expect him to hold me to higher standards of courtesy, respect for the law he represents, honesty, and general behavior. I’d also expect him to write me a ticket if I was guilty of a traffic violation. He wouldn’t apply the law differently to me but he would be a brother who expects the best of me, as I would of him. If he pulls over someone he knows to be an unbeliever, I’d expect him to exalt Christ in the way he handles that contact. Not to preach to him as he writes a speeding ticket but to be an exemplary police officer to the glory of God. What sincere person should be threatened by that?
Gov. Bentley later delivered an “I meant no offense” kind of apology. I wish he hadn’t but I understand his desire to clarify. I was happy to note that he did not apologize for his beliefs, as would be the preference of some.

Jesus called us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He called on us to show the miraculous power of God in the way we love our spiritual brothers and sisters. He left us with a commission to win, baptize, and teach new brothers and sisters. That call applies to governors as well as preachers, and it applies every moment of every day.

WASHINGTON (BP)–The U.S. Supreme Court handed traditional marriage supporters a disappointing loss Jan. 18, declining to take up a case in which the District of Columbia refused to allow citizens to vote on an initiative defining marriage as between one man and one woman.”Gay marriage” has been legal in the nation’s capital since March 2010, and a group of conservative leaders has wanted to gather signatures for an initiative that would define marriage in the traditional sense and overturn the law. But while the city’s charter allows voters to gather signatures for initiatives, the D.C. Board of Elections rejected all attempts at an initiative defining marriage, saying it would violate the city’s Human Rights Act and “authorize discrimination” against homosexuals. The charter is the city’s equivalent to a constitution.Then-Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the “gay marriage” legislation into law in 2009 after it passed the D.C. Council. Conservatives had hoped the Supreme Court would at least take up the case after a closely divided lower court, the D.C. Appeals Court, issued a 5-4 decision in July allowing the board of elections’ action to stand. But the Supreme Court, without comment, declined to take up the case, known as Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections.The board’s actions have been particularly frustrating for D.C. conservatives who have watched citizens in other states — such as California and Maine — successfully place the issue on the ballot. Such an initiative defining marriage has never lost.The suit was brought by D.C.-area pastor Harry Jackson, former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy and others who were represented by attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund and StandforMarriageDC.com. A January 2010 Washington Post poll found that 59 percent of residents — including 70 percent of the city’s black citizens — believed the “issue should be put on a city-wide ballot.””In America, we respect the right to vote. That right is explicitly protected by the D.C. Charter, but the government has succeeded for now in suppressing the voice of D.C. citizens,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would restore this guaranteed right in the district. … We will remain diligent in looking for other legal opportunities to protect and defend the right of all D.C. residents to have their voices heard as the D.C. Charter clearly intended.”The four justices who dissented in the July D.C. Appeals Court decision said they sympathized with “gay marriage” supporters but felt the D.C. Council — which has authority over the Board of Elections — “exceeded its authority.””If the Council’s powers are as broad as they assert, what is to preclude the Council from imposing additional subject matter limitations on the right of initiative or, indeed, from extinguishing that right altogether?” Chief Judge Eric Washington asked in the dissent. “It appears that a candid answer to that question would be ‘nothing.’ Yet, under our ‘constitutional’ principles, a Charter right may not be limited or extinguished by ordinary legislation. That may be done only by going through the intentionally-cumbersome process of amending the Charter.”Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Baptist Press last year that controversy should serve as a warning against the “incremental strategy” used by homosexual activists. “The [D.C. Appeals Court] based its decision on the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and other factors,” Duke said. “The act itself, of course, never mentions that it could be applied to same-sex marriage. It was originally promoted and is written as if it applies solely to such things as employment and housing discrimination. But the radical homosexual activists knew that the language of the act could be applied to other homosexual agenda issues as well.”Duke added, “What happened in D.C. should serve as a reminder to people across the country that the agenda of the radical homosexual movement is to force on the American public complete acceptance of homosexuality and that it is committed to achieving that goal through slow incremental progress that hides the full extent of its motives until it is too late.””Gay marriage” is legal in D.C. and five states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Iowa. –30–Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. The Southern Baptist Convention has a ministry to homosexuals. Find more information at www.sbcthewayout.com.

MADRID, Spain (BP)–A newly published study in Spain shows increased use of contraceptives did not result in a decrease in abortions.The report in the January issue of the medical journal Contraception showed contraceptive use in women of childbearing age rose by 30 percent — 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent — from 1997 to 2007. The rate of elective abortions, however, more than doubled from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1,000 women.The results fly in the face of the conventional wisdom espoused that greater use of contraceptives reduces the abortion rate.The study authors offered some possible explanations for this apparent incongruity, including improved abortion reporting, but said in conclusion, “The reasons for the increasing rate of elective abortion warrant further investigation.”Pro-lifer Christina Dunigan wrote about the results at her blog RealChoice: “Researchers scratched their heads in bewilderment, likely because they don’t understand risk compensation. If you reduce the perceived risks of a behavior, people will compensate by behaving in higher-risk ways.She added, “The Pill Pushers have chosen to ignore the data, and the reality of how human beings work. The more you create an environment in which people perceive sex as low-risk, the more people will engage in risky sex.”–30–Compiled by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press.