On the Future of Mission Agencies

Hi Ed,
Thanks for your blog - I've been enjoying many many of your posts and I know lots of us are finding it fascinating.
About your thoughts about local churches and Acts 1:8 - you said, "Most churches are not capable of living out Acts 1:8 by themselves..."
I would love to read some expansion on that idea. What do you see as the major barriers for the local church? Do you think that sometimes we are not giving enough credit to the local church?

I love the both/and emphasis you present. Our young church wants to be committed to supporting missions cooperatively and in planting new churches from core groups formed and developed from our own church family. Our goal is to plant another church before we ever own a building. Sounds strange to many, especially when you are talking about a very small church making this kind of goal. I recently heard an interview with Henry Blackaby where he said that to ask "How big do you have to be to plant churches?" is the wrong question to ask. The right question, according to Dr. Blackaby is "How big do you have to be to obey God?"

Hey Tony,

Thanks for the kind words.

I think that they typical church (under 100, for example) can't get to the "uttermost parts" without partnering with others to get the gospel there.

Ed

Ed,

You said, "Most churches are not capable of living out Acts 1:8 by themselves-- it takes partnership and cooperation to do so."

But does that partnership have to look like the historical SBC model of the Cooperative program? Have we erred in placing so many of our Great Commission "apples" in the CP "basket?"

Like Tony, I sometimes wonder if we are selling the local church a bit short.

Geoff

Geoff,

I think that is the question that some are asking in our denomination (and in other denominations as well).

You asked: "[D]oes that partnership have to look like the historical SBC model of the Cooperative program?"

Let me give a clear answer: "No, it does not." It can and should look like what the churches feel God is telling them it should be. The SBC was around before the Cooperative Program.

But, one of the reasons I stayed in denominational leadership is that I think our cooperative approach is good-- but can be better. I see a focus at our mission agencies that I think may very well refocus our whole denomination.

The church I just left gave 10% to the Cooperative Program, 3% to our Association, and 7% to direct church planting. There seemed to be plenty of room for a "both/and" approach when we made mission central to our values.

One final thought... when I work with other groups, they are envious of our cooperative approach. Others see it as key to much of our global impact.

Ed

I'm on topic this time. I think the both/and approach is critical and because of the ease of contact with missionaries on the field we can see very quickly how CP dollars are being used. Just following the links in your blog I was able to connect directly with one the SBC strategists on the field. Who knows where that relationship will end up because I posted to his blog. We may end up in a direct partnership because I got to see and hear his vision for the world he is in. If we take advantage of the relationships we have on the field and give to the CP to help keep the career folks in place we have an opportunity to engage more of our people in both short term and long term mission opportunities.

Ed,

I was unaware that you had read comments I had posted on my blog until another M sent me an email. Thanks for the exposure that your site gives as I pray that our discussion adds value to this important discourse. By the way, I saw you in the cafeteria at ILC earlier this year while my wife and I were serving as MIRs during orientation, but was unable to meet you and introduce myself as you were soon surround by others with whom you were meeting.

The primary issue for me continues to be one of contrasting a biblical model for participating in the missionary task versus whatever seems right in one's own eyes. U.S. partners engaging a lost world in greater numbers represents an incredible expression of obedience to the Great Commission and Acts 1:8. However, many of my colleagues see volunteers as a hindrance more than a help. This is unfortunate.

However, to be fair, where we struggle on the field has a lot to do with the counter-productive practices that take place when everyone has their own opinion in defining missions and describing the missionary task. Missions motivation is not an issue, but unfortunately, missions education is. We have for decades shouted from the mountain tops, Pray, Give, and Go, but few ever considered that a "knowing" component was also essential.

From the perspective where I serve, we as a denomination have unity of purpose for the missions endeavor, but lack this same spirit when it comes to missions practice. Contrary to what many in our pews believe, just going does not fulfill the Great Commission. Going without knowing more times than not hinders the spread of the Gospel simply because the "goers" do not understand the challenges of cross-cultural missions. With the incredible human resource that volunteers bring to the global missions task, it is often discouraging that we can't seem to find more common ground from which to work.

Thanks again and blessings on your new ministry.

I actually know 5 under fifty that have reached the uttermost and done it by themselves and outside of the CP. Churches are capable but not willing and partly because we have Baptists have not been taught to think outside of the box and continually are not be taught this way. I have not seen the first church that thinks out of the CP box hinder in its giving. 4 out of the 5 above actually increased giving to CP and alike programs plus other ministries.