Getting the gospel to the nations

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.