Paying to Fulfill the Great Commission

Jerry Rankin Blog

This article is an introduction to a series of posts I will writing on “paying to fulfill the Great Commission.” The convention has convinced Southern Baptists that you and your church don’t have to do anything; the measure of commitment to the Great Commission is how much you give through approved channels for state and SBC entities to do the job of reaching a lost world. Churches may start dozens of new churches, lead their state in baptisms and invest millions of dollars in missions but are not considered mission-minded and cooperative nor are their members worthy of board positions if the percentage allocated to the Cooperative Program does not measure up to expectations.

Let me quickly add that I am not bashing CP. The International Mission Board and everything else we do as Southern Baptists would cease were it not for this amazing program of cooperative support. The IMB gets as much as all other SBC entities combined; a lot is being said about how much is kept by state conventions, but we receive more CP than dozens of states combined. So, please don’t construe anything I say as criticism of CP as I suggest in subsequent posts a new approach to “doing more together” to fulfill the Great Commission

The Cooperative Program is a miraculous system for denominational support. I have witnessed other mission agencies suffer high rates of attrition as their missionaries are unable to sustain support through individual fundraising. Our seminaries are among the largest in the world. The extent of what we are able to do through voluntary contributions of cooperating churches is phenomenal. We dare not do anything that would erode what I believe to be divinely inspired and created by wise and visionary leaders.

However, I believe it is critical that some changes be made to reconstruct the Cooperative Program to be relevant for the future, appeal to the mindset of our churches and result in a significant increase of resources needed to fulfill the Great Commission. An additional 1 percent here and there is not going to make a great difference in global impact. There is no way needed changes can be made without becoming a “win-lose” proposition for entities and between state and national work. I am going to suggest some changes that I sincerely believe could double receipts to CP and enable us to fund a radical advance for impacting lostness in America and around the world.

But first I need to acknowledge that even this will not make a great difference without a grassroots change in life transformation of the redeemed, quality discipleship and a strategy of “doing” rather than paying others to fulfill the Great Commission. Subsidizing state conventions and SBC entities, including mission boards, cannot substitute for what local churches and every believer must do!

Many other commentators on the GCR have mentioned the need for a more authentic approach to evangelism. One speaker called it a “shrink-wrap” presentation of the gospel in which people respond because they don’t want to go to hell, but they don’t want to die to carnal living and self-centered values. No repentance is involved. Something has to be suspect about an approach to witnessing that doesn’t result in life transformation. When those making professions of faith never follow through with baptism and identification with a local church and have to be coerced to attend and give, we should not expect them to share a persuasive witness with others.

Jesus sent us to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom in which God is glorified by the reign of Christ as Lord of one’s life, but we have resorted to proclaiming a gospel of salvation instead. Don’t think I am disparaging the simplicity of the gospel; I was saved by praying a sinner’s prayer in childlike faith. However, once people give intellectual assent to the premise of our presentation and sign on the dotted line, then it should not be an exercise in futility to persuade them to tithe, attend church, serve the Lord and live according to Christlike character.

Which brings us to the second aspect of our dilemma—a lack of discipleship. Too often discipleship is neglected or is simply approached as an introduction to church membership. One doesn’t become a disciple of Jesus Christ by being injected with information and knowledge, even of God’s Word. Discipling comes from relationship—a growing relationship with Jesus and with mature believers who walk alongside mentoring, encouraging and modeling Christian maturity. Knowing what to do and how we are to live doesn’t necessarily result in that becoming a reality.

In his book, Every Member Evangelism, J. E. Conant said, “The Great Commission is sufficient authority to send us after the lost, but it is not sufficient motivation; it is not the authority of an external command but the impulse of an indwelling presence that sends us after the lost.” Knowing we are to witness and do missions doesn’t result in it happening. It will not be driven by guilt and another program of mobilizing for witness. It is only the compelling power of the Holy Spirit within us that will compel us to reach a lost world.

When we recognize we are undeserving sinners saved by grace, there will be the motivation and impulse to share our faith with others and do whatever it takes to reach the lost. This is what is happening in so many places overseas. People’s lives are changed; they cannot be restrained from telling others what Jesus has done for them in spite of persecution, social pressure or government restrictions.

A third flaw is our tradition of a highly subsidized methodology and paying others to do it for us. We pay professional church staff to do the work of the church instead of a handful of gifted ministers equipping the members for witness, teaching and serving. Our programs demand expensive facilities and budgets that make it impossible for “offerings to the Lord” going to fulfill the Great Commission.

Beyond the local church, we pay the state convention, missionaries and the SBC to do the work for us. One of the critical issues in response to GCRTF proposals reflects an acknowledgement that the work of state conventions is based on subsidized resources that will be devastated if any changes are made. There will never be enough money to sustain all our denominational programs and stimulate any advance in fulfilling the Great Commission.

I believe we can do more and make our financial resource go further by reprioritizing what we do. This will create a more compelling motivation for stewardship and cooperative support. But there won’t be a significant difference without a spiritual renewal that brings about massive grassroots involvement in witness and missions, churches reproducing and starting churches and a paradigm shift from paying someone else to do it for us. Stay with me as we explore these issues.