Thoughts on the GCR 3 - Too Much To Lose

One of the many concerns that has surfaced over the Great Commission Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention has been a feared return to associational giving or societal missions. Let me clarify these terms. Before the inception of the Cooperative Program in 1925, each entity or institution of the SBC was in a position of fending for its own sustenance. Each seminary (though there were only 2 at the time) was forced to raise its own funding, as was the Home Mission Board (now, NAMB) and the Foreign Mission Board (now, IMB). Every agency was required to compete with each other for funding from the local churches. This is still seen with independent missionaries as they travel from church to church seeking to raise financial support for their ministries overseas. Fortunately for Southern Baptist missionaries, the IMB fully funds their work, so they are not burdened with the fundraising effort. Associational or societal misisons, then, was the effort of each church to determine for itself which ministry endeavors it would support. If they wanted to send 3% of their budget to Southern Seminary and 12% to the Foreign Mission Board and another 6% to the Home Mission Board, then that was their prerogative. This created a book keeping nightmare for many churches as they kept up with their individual pledges and how to manage their money in giving to missions. They made associations with these ministries. In 1925, E.Y. Mullins and others decided to bring forth a centralized giving method called the Cooperative Program. This way churches could send one set amount to the CP and the Convention would then be responsible for dividing the money among the many agencies. There was no competition for funds and ministry blossomed over the next 70 years. For better accuracy on how the CP works, see One Sacred Effort: The Cooperative Program of Southern Baptists (2005) by Brand and Hankins.

In pre-1995 SBC life the Cooperative Program was genius. It did away with the associational giving models that were book keeping nightmares and created a hostile competitive environment. As a student at Mercer University, I learned in Baptist History under Dr. Walter B. Shurden about how the CP trumped the associational model of giving. He described to us about the grandeur of the program and how much easier it was to manage and how much more efficient it made the SBC in funding the Great Commission. I was baffled to learn later in the same class that once the liberal/moderate leaders of the SBC decided to pull out of the Convention and start the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (of which both Dr. Shurden and Mercer were apart), that they decided to return to an associational model of giving. Further, Shurden then claimed the superiority of associational giving. Quite the whiplash effect. But, now in our age of computers and quick-books, ACS, and Shelby Church (and the many other church book and record keeping software programs available), it is not so much of a headache to keep up with church spending and which ministries are funded and which ones are not, so an associational model becomes somewhat appealing.

I would argue to the contrary, but I will reserve said argument for later in this discussion. The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force report, which has been passed by the SBC with an overwhelming majority (for which I have already voiced my opinion and support) raised a serious question in the minds of many Southern Baptists concerning this very issue of a return to assocational giving. Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (where Christi and I went and met), has gone on record repeatedly as saying that the GCR recommendation is NOT for associational giving or for agencies and institutions competing for funding. That argument given, please see this video posted by Baptist21, which is the wellspring of the GCR. If you are pressed for time in getting to my point, fast forward to the 19 minute mark and listen to Jimmy Scroggins' argument about what the GCR truly is.

B21 Panel at 2010 SBC Annual Meeting from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Basically, what Scroggins is saying is that our agencies must compete for money to be successful. While I would agree with his point if he were speaking of publicly funded, privately traded corporations on Wall Street, I do not and cannot agree with him when it comes to the agencies owned by the SBC which exist solely for making us better at doing ministry. I agree with his assessment of why the agencies exists, but to force them into competition fractures the unified body that we are to be. Hostility will arise and ministry will become for profit and not for the love of the lost souls which we have been commissioned to evangelize. Scroggins approach is unbiblical and damaging to what the GCR has set out to do, which is to make us better at preaching, teaching, and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is what Brand and Hankins say in One Sacred Effort:

"As we attempt to work together in cooperative ministry, we must keep several key principles in mind. We must always keep in mind that we must follow Scripture and avoid unbiblical methods in pursuit of accomplishing spiritual goals...We must keep in mind that the fields are white unto harvest and the greatest advantage of cooperative ministry is that we can thereby do the best job of reaping that harvest. And we must always keep in mind that the task before us is to glorify God through the building up of the body of Christ" (p. 77, emphasis added).

In other words, cooperative efforts will always trump competitive ones. If you look through the book of Acts and read the letters of Paul and Peter, there is no competitiveness in their ministry. The only "hostility" is when Paul says that he corrected Peter where he was wrong. There was no arguing for support me, don't support him or if you do support him, give me and equal or greater share. They had their ministries and sought to cooperate for the sake of the Gospel. I am in favor of the GCR, but I am not in favor of forcing our agencies to compete for our funds. I am in favor of finding new ways to fund our ministries better, but our cooperation is what the world around us will see as will they see our competitive and bitter fighting. Do I think that Scroggins is appealing to a bitterness and hostility among the agencies? No. What I do see is this creating an opportunity for our adversary to take us hostage and turn us against each other and distract us from what we have set out to do. In the end, we are all selfish people. Some of us are more obvious than others. In any case, creating a competition based system of funding missions will leave some feeling slighted and overlooked, creating an opportunity for sin to enter the system. I'm sorry, but we are imperfect people on this side of heaven and the flesh will still rise up.

I think we have too much to lose on the mission field to allow competition into our funding. Please hear my prior plea for a rallying support of the CP. While it is not a perfect system, it has yet to fail us as Southern Baptists and it is our best way of doing missions. Reform it, rebudget it, rename it, that does not matter and would probably help make it better. But, taking away the cooperative nature that it has proudly exhibited not only will mean its demise, but I fear it would be both the demise of our mission and our Convention.