;){kind=logo}
Changes in the IMB
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
Update: In light of godly counsel and the issues brought up in the comments, I have revised this post to better align with my heart, to show my continued support and respect for the IMB and its leadership, and to better reflect the image of my Savior in me. I’m a young guy and need a lifetime of lessons in humility.
My wife and I had the great privilege of going to Mexico at the end of July to help put on a retreat for IMB missionaries and their children. Working with kids all week is definitely challenging, but I was greatly encouraged and enjoyed it. Additionally, I had the privilege of conversing with our missionaries who are serving in Mexico from the frontera to the deep south.
Prior to his retirement, Jerry Rankin began making changes in led the IMB into a promising new strategy that only a man with his experience and standing could make. The IMB has been shifting towards a focus on reaching unreached people groups. What constitutes an unreached people group? According to the IMB, an unreached people group is a population of peoples with a common ethnicity, language, etc. who have less than a 2% evangelical witness.
This predates the Great Commission Resurgence and is not a result of the SBC Annual Meeting. I was interested in finding out what the missionaries thought of this and how it was affecting their ministry. Though there were many opinions and some rumors, they had a general attitude of concern and some questions in common as is natural with any organizational change.
The Missionaries’ Sentiments
One missionary said, “I understand what they’re doing. Why should anyone get to hear the gospel time after time after time when there are others who’ve never heard at all?” There are people groups out there who have never heard the salvation message that has been available in Christ for 2,000 years. How much longer do these people have to wait? Paul made it his ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not named. We should too.
But how should we go about doing it? The IMB has stopped funding certain programs and has cut back on missionary appointments due to the economic situation. Rankin’s vision of having 10,000 missionaries by this year was met by an economic crisis and is not going to happen for a long time if God does not bring a real Great Commission Resurgence to the SBC. As with any organization going through change, the IMB has some tough choices to make.
Whether their fears are legitimate or not, many of the missionaries in Mexico were concerned about having jobs in the future. Some feel (and I’ve heard the sentiment elsewhere as well) that they are being given this message, “God is moving the IMB to focus its strategy on reaching unreached people groups. Pray and consider if He is moving you that way as well.” For those working with “reached” peoples, this may mean becoming faith missionaries (I personally dislike this term) or accepting a new ministry with a new language, a new people group, in a new location. One couple going on stateside said they were unsure if they would have a job to come back to.
Since I personally feel called to overseas missions and am (slowly) working toward that goal, I asked the missionaries what they thought about it. A couple of missionaries talked about the appointment process. One thing that stood out to me was how missionaries end up at a specific location. They said that there are booths with various jobs available if you feel called to Spain and there are no jobs available, guess what? you must be called somewhere else.
Although some of the missionaries agreed with the change in focus or at least recognized its importance (see the first quote above), there was an underlying sentiment that missionaries were being asked to leave the place and people God has called them to or to leave the IMB. The question then, boils down to this: Will you trust God and go where He has led you or will you interpret this organizational change as a calling from God to go somewhere else (either of which could be the Lord’s will for a missionary)? Are you called first to be a missionary to a specific people and place, or to be an employee of the IMB? These are hard questions and each person is going to have to decide where he falls.
Conclusion
I believe it is important for us as Baptists to discuss what’s going on because the IMB was set up to help churches send those who are called. I personally think we’ve strayed from this and have viewed it as a sending organization completely disconnected from the churches. I don’t mean to be overly critical of the process, but the selection and appointment procedure currently seems totally disconnected from the churches, and at least may be partially disconnected from an individual’s calling. One person suggested that if I want to go through the IMB, the dialogue needs to take place between my church and the IMB. I wholeheartedly agree. If the church doesn’t recognize this calling on my life, who am I to go the IMB looking for a “job?” Still, this is not the norm or the expectation.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree that we should seek to reach those who have not been reached by the gospel. We should reach the unreached. But I also believe that there is a biblical principle of working where God is moving, even if it is in a “reached” area. One missionary quipped, “Haven’t they read Experiencing God?” I feel for the frustration, but the overall thrust of the IMB would indicate that they have sought the Spirit’s leading in this. I just hope they don’t pull out too many or too quickly in the haste to reach the unengaged and the unreached. Though I don’t think the IMB is abandoning ministry to “reached” groups, I do think we’re going to see more churches supporting missionaries outside the IMB, and it may not have anything to do with Article 3 of the GCR.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
When I served with the IMB in Argentina the sentiment from regional leaders was that it didn’t matter where you were called or what you were gifted to do, you now worked for the IMB and you took your marching orders from them. I think your article is very perceptive in that you correctly see that the IMB is not a sending agency helping people go where God has called them, but a missions organization that will allow you to work for them if you fit into their parameters of where you will work and what type of work you will do. The IMB continues to be a great missions organization but not everyone fits their mold. It could be that more and more Southern Baptists do missions apart from the IMB in the future.
Bill Pfister
Taylors, SC
I’m sure you have read Rankin’s blog on the issue of the IMB limiting destinations of those who are called to missions.
He puts it succinctly:
I think it would be better to say that if the IMB doesn’t have a job opening where one feels led to go, then one must not be led to have the IMB pay one’s way. Limited dollars mean prioritizing spending. I think the IMB is approaching this correctly.
Bill is certainly right in thinking that more SBCers will do missions apart from the IMB.
As someone who has served on only one short term mission trip to Mexico, let me offer my admittedly uninformed opinion. I know one mission family who ministered in Mexico and appreciate all the others. But at what point can we reasonably expect our efforts to self-sustaining? Because of its proximity, I would guess that Mexico is one of the most heavily “missionized” countries in the world. If Mexico does not now have a sustainable evangelical community, is it possible that we are doing it wrong?
Anecdotal experience from my own mission trip: The baptist community in Mexico welcomed us with open arms and appreciated having us there. But we didn’t do anything for them that they couldn’t do themselves (and were doing). My biggest impression was that they needed resources more than they needed our presence.
I’ve said it before, but I think we should take a serious look at the methodology employed by Gospel for Asia and similar groups.
Andrew,
I am basically in agreement with Bill Pfister and William Thornton in their commments above, and have some sympathy with the other Bill’s comment, but am not in total agreement.
I think the situation you write about in this post brings out some underlying implications in the difference between a “cooperative” (i.e. CP) approach to international missions, and a “societal” approach. Under a “cooperative” approach, there must be some prioritization of resource allocation, and one person’s call, or personal interpretation of God’s call in their life, cannot be the measuring rod for an entire denomination in their allocation of budget resources. There must be a collective seeking of God’s guidance and call for all of us together, regarding what is the best way to employ those resources (human, financial, and otherwise) that He has entrusted us with. As resources are, by definition, limited, the collective decisions cannot make room for each and every person’s individual concerns.
This does not mean that God is not still calling people from Southern Baptist churches to do missionary work in places like Mexico. And, as you allude to, it may well be that certain local congregations within the SBC feel that is a particular ministry and/or calling they feel God leading them to support. I am thankful that, in the SBC system, local congregations are free to do just that. And, there are other organizations out there (beyond the IMB) that are set up to help local congregations do that.
Thus, it is not a bad thing, and should not be frowned upon, when an individual, or family, feels called to go to a certain place to do missionary work, and determines that the best way to carry out that calling is outside the SBC. And, it is not a bad thing when SBC-affiliated churches choose to support them so they can do that. Those who choose to go that way should not be made to feel as if they are renegades, or disloyal to the convention.
I do think it is somewhat ironic that you can get denominational funding to go as an NAMB worker to some places in the USA with a certain degree of lostness, while it may be more difficult to get denominational funding to go to some places outside the USA with a greater degree of relative lostness, though not as great as other places with an even greater degree of relative lostness. But, I don’t see an easy answer to this conundrum.
Personally, I think part of the answer to all of this is the broad perspective we take toward missions, and our participation in it, as the Body of Christ, at large. I think the motto of the Lausanne Movement is helpful here: “The Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World.” We need to see ourselves more and more as team players, and less as individuals, or individual organizations, separate from the Body of Christ at large.
William,
After reading through Dr. Rankin’s post, He seems to agree with me when I said,
From the post, he argues that the IMB is a sending organization and is not for facilitating churches in sending those who they recognize are called. What saddens me is that he doesn’t seem to think this is a problem.
After re-reading what I wrote above, I just realized it could be taken as if I am advocating shutting down Mexico altogether as an IMB field. That is not the case at all. I am sure there are many missionaries in Mexico doing ministry which still falls within the strategic parameters of the IMB’s work. I am just saying that, in principle, in personnel and budget allocation, there are certain places, with certain needs, that are going to unavoidably take priority over other places, with other needs. How this all shakes out, in individual cases, will depend on a number of different factors.
I’ve written quite a bit about this very subject as I was working through it from the field in Western Europe. I understand when Dr. Rankin and others say that a strategic focus is necessary. But what happens if Southern Baptists disagree with that strategy? What if we find greater Biblical support for an alternative approach?
That’s why I think this is a very important conversation to have. Many Southern Baptists who support imb don’t really know about the focus on Unengaged, Unreached People Groups. For the most part, they defer to the “professionals” on things like missionary strategy. Is it any wonder imb falls into the trap of measuring with numbers and the broader Convention is becoming more and more disconnected with missions in general (esp. giving)?
We desperately need direct local church involvement. As it is now a missionary candidate can be well into appointment with imb before his/her pastor even hears about it. Churches see their involvement as limited to “pay, pray, and get out of the way.”
I’ve always been intrigued by the notion that the Great Commission is something to be “completed.” As if the static world we live in would allow for us to “reach” all the “unreached” peoples and then the job will be done. As I see it, we are a sent people, and there is no other posture for us this side of heaven.
Thanks for this post.
I don’t claim to be an expert in this area so please keep that in mind.
In light of Baptist polity, I wonder if the conflict is not so much between the collective leadership of the IMB and the individual seeking to do missions, but the collective leadership of the IMB and the individual churches that are sending “their” missionaries.
This continues to be a tough struggle. Many accuse the IMB of not engaging the churches and I fall into that sometimes. I think, hey, we are not communicating well enough. But then I go back on STAS. I see the truckloads of unread literature, the DVD’s, the fantastic Commission magazine, the prayer lines, the guides, the massive amount of money that everyone complains about being wasted because the home office spent it in the US. Then I go out to the churches and I speak a lot. For all the places I go and speak I can’t get two people anywhere to engage me in any kind of missiological discussion. People are supportive and happy that I am where I am but they are not interested in discussing the most effective ways to do what we should be doing. This must change.
Also, the task is to go to the ends of the earth and declare the Good News of the Kingdom. In Matthew 24:14 it is Jesus, not an IMB trustee who says that this Gospel will be proclaimed to every nation and then the end will come.
But here is where we get very confused. Abandon Mexico? No one is talking about abandoning Mexico. But what we have learned is that if we keep the nationals dependent on us then we impede the spreading of the Gospel. Mexico could use a couple of good disciplers to show the way to the local church but make no mistake that the local church can and should reach Mexico with the Gospel. We need to focus the sending of apostles to the unreached where there is no church. In the past- 30 years ago for instance- we sent out men to run admin for local churches and women to start WMU’s. We were building up a foreign organization,calling it church and staffing it ourselves. That was not the whole story but it happened too often. We were also very limited in our geography. 30 years ago we couldn’t send M’s to more than 80 places around the globe (and the vast majority were in Brazil and Nigeria). Now we work in some form or another in every single country on the planet save one or two and we will get there soon. So, this talk of limited places to be sent really is non-sense as far as I can see.
Yes, we need more local church involvement. I have some great church partners whom I rely on. I am hoping that our next President will be someone who really connects with the churches and can inspire them to keep us going down this good road. Time will tell.
I think the Great Commission has both a wide aspect:
Romans 15:20–21. “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written: ‘Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.’”
and, a deep aspect:
Ephesians 4:11–13: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
It is also true, as Strider points out, that the apostolic function normally is weighted on the wide aspect side of things. However, I don’t think we can make a hard and fast rule about this.
That being said, I think that, as the Church at large, we err, when we weight our Great Commission work either too much to the wide aspect or the deep aspect side of things. It is necessarily both/and. And, as E. Goodman states, that work is never totally finished this side of heaven.
Good teamwork means, to the best of our ability, looking at the entire task (taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World — “deep” and “wide”) from the point of view of the total package of resources with which to see this task fulfilled (the Whole Church). Each member (and member organization, church, denomination, nation, etc.) has its own role to play in the overall task. And God gifts and equips different ones differently in order to most strategically fulfill that role.
It is important, as missions strategists, that we look at the Task from a broad perspective, and not just focus on the part of it that we personally feel a special burden for.
I like the 20 percent figure better than the 2% figure. I served as an IMB missionary to South Korea for ten years. When I arrived, the population was a bit over 19 percent evangelical Christian. It was obvious that the country was pretty far along in terms of being reached. My preference is to prioritize groups that are (1) receptive to the gospel (i.e., joining God where He is working in a special way, as Blackaby has described)and (2) less than 20 percent evangelical Christian. Groups that are unreceptive and/or over 20 percent evangelical Christian should receive lower priority. Some under-evangelized groups are more receptive than others. I don’t think it is good stewardship to send bunches of missionaries to resistant groups that don’t want to hear the gospel. Under-evangelized groups should be probed to determine their receptivity before missionaries are sent to them. Ralph Winter gave some relevant comments about the history of the percentage debate:
“I had a former missionary, Ed Pentecost (now teaching at Dallas Theological Seminary), working under me on a master’s thesis later published under the title Reaching the Unreached: An Introductory Study on Developing an Overall Strategy for World Evangelization. That book (Pentecost 1974), although now out of print, is still the best thing of its scope that I know of on the subject. Pentecost is one of the early ones to suggest the idea of defining unreachedness in terms of 20 percent of the individuals’ being Christians. Working with MARC, he was the research coordinator for the unreached peoples study presented at Lausanne. In the explanatory introduction of the Unreached Peoples Directory passed out at the congress, the definition of ‘unreached people’ is not firmly established. Mentioned are both the 20-percent figure and the phrase, ‘[where] there is no appreciable [recognized] church body effectively communicating the message within the unit itself’ (MARC 1974:26). But the directory goes on to say that ‘for those who prefer a single criterion, 20% is a reasonable dividing point’ and that ‘for the purposes of this directory we consider that a people is unreached when less than 20% of the population of that group is part of the fJ Christian community’ (MARC 1974:26). . . . Meanwhile, Sam Wilson, working with Ed Dayton at MARC, had been involved in both Pattaya 80 and Edinburgh 80 and rightly insisted that the use of a 20-percent definition had always been merely a method of achieving a reasonable likelihood of the presence of an indigenous, evangelizing church. In the 1981 Unreached Peoples annual, presenting ongoing thinking of the Strategy Working Group, the ‘presence of a church’ concept was newly acknowledged (Wagner and Dayton 1981:26). ‘When was a people reached? Obviously, when there was a church in its midst with the desire and ability to evangelize the balance of the group.’ Also, three new categories of unreached peoples were suggested, as the result of ongoing thinking in the Strategy Working Group: initially reached, 0-1 percent; minimally reached, 1-10 percent, and possibly reached 10-20 percent. The word possibly, I believe, especially suggests the basically predictive purpose of the percentage approach. . . . Late in 1981, Ed Dayton, representing the Lausanne Committee, took the initiative to invite Wade Coggins and Warren Webster to convene a meeting near the Chicago O’Hare airport, which I have already called the ‘C-82′ meeting. A wide representation of leaders very willingly gathered, coming from IFMA, EFMA, Inter-Varsity, NAE, Southern Baptist, ACMC, Billy Graham Center, Dataserve, Gospel Recordings, SIM, NAM, MARC, USCWM, and Wycliffe. The sole purpose of the two-day meeting was to settle on a standard terminology which would foster more effective thinking and action in regard to the world’s darkened peoples. A number of additional terms necessary to conceptualize the reaching of peoples were defined, such as reported, verified. evaluated, selected. supported. engaged. as well as reached and unreached. For our purposes here, the key accomplishment of this meeting was the abandonment of the 20-percent concept and the adoption of a modification of the-presence-or-absence-of-the-church definition further refined for the Edinburgh 80 Consultation. . . . The 20-percent active Christian achievement is still a useful measure. David Barrett has focused attention on whether as many as 20 percent have been ‘evangelized’ (rather than incorporated into the church). His 1982 master work defines such as unreached peoples (Barrett 1982: 19). This corresponds to no definition mentioned here thus far. On the other hand, the phrase is elsewhere defined in his dictionary (1982:847) as, ‘Unreached peoples: ethnic, linguistic and other groups without previous contact with Christianity, who have not or not yet had the Gospel brought to them.’”
Ralph Winter, “Unreached Peoples: The Development of the Concept,” Chapter 2 in Reaching The Unreached: The Old-New Challenge, ed. Harvie M. Conn (Baker Book House, 1984).
(The chapter above can be found on the web.)
Strider,
Some of us see Matthew 24:14 as descriptive, not prescriptive. I think we would have to read quite a bit into it (as is often done) to take that to mean that we need to find all of the unreached people groups in the world and reach them to bring Jesus back.
Baptist Theologue,
“I don’t think it is good stewardship to send bunches of missionaries to resistant groups that don’t want to hear the gospel.”
But what constitutes “resistance?” The most rapid expansion of the church is happening in places where the people are, on the surface, “resistant” to the gospel. The only way to know how deep and wide that resistance may be is to send missionaries to engage people incarnationally. Only then can we (as in Luke 10) know if we are welcome there.
I agree with Benji on this one. Focusing on unreached people groups according to a certain formula (2% evangelical) is a strategy for missions. I’m just not sure it’s one most Southern Baptist churches would support if it comes at the expense of work among other peoples.
Brother Andrew,
Thank you for bringing this angle and surfacing a few of the intrinsic principles of the great commission. That being that mission is never separated from the local church. If the SBC is to be successful at deployment of missionaries, it will not come disconnected from the local churches. Professional missionaries never existed as the church was birthed and enlarged throughout the region; unfortunately we (contemporary Christians) have created the role of professionalism,…when in contrast it has always been those on mission doing the work of an evangelist from the context of the local assembly. The Apostle Paul revealed and modeled this as he gathered offerings for use at other local fellowships as the needs would arise, so that the gospel would be spread.
2 Thessalonians 3:1-2 Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord will spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you; (2) and that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith.
It is amazingly pitiful that the shortfall of funding to a para-church organization is presented as the reason we send less missionaries. We as SBC churches should lose that type of thinking and begin to thank God that he provides a lavish amount of funds for the spreading of the gospel. It is up to us to learn to use what is provided and not whine about what is not! Somehow professionalism has changed the joy of serving into the whines of professionals who have little accountability to the churches, …and struggle with accountability only an organization. Those sent to evangelize the regions of the world must as a priority be connected to the churches..and secondarily to the IMB,…there is really no other way if we really believe what is modeled in the scriptures.
Blessings,
Chris
E. Goodman, you said:
“The most rapid expansion of the church is happening in places where the people are, on the surface, ‘resistant’ to the gospel. The only way to know how deep and wide that resistance may be is to send missionaries to engage people incarnationally. Only then can we (as in Luke 10) know if we are welcome there.”
In my dissertation on receptivity, I quoted an IMB affinity group leader and the former leader of NAMB, and they both agreed that rapid expansions (people movements and church planting movements) only occur where people are receptive to the gospel. I also dealt with Luke 10. The receptivity principle is biblically based. Donald McGavran defined the principle: “Evangelism can be and ought to be directed to responsive persons, groups, and segments of society.” Conversely, he said that “correct policy is to occupy fields of low receptivity lightly.” Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. C. Peter Wagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 187, 191. Receptivity/resistance scales have been developed. The factors that God uses to make people receptive have been described in detail. It is definitely good stewardship to do adequate research before sending a bunch of missionaries to resistant groups.
Andrew has written an excellent post with many very important questions for Southern Baptists and the IMB to consider. I pretty much agree with everything David Rogers expressed in #4 but I will try to put some thoughts in my own words. I also share many experiences similar to Strider’s in sharing with and challenging churches in my 30 years with the IMB and trying to encourage churches to be part of our missions outreach.
Andrew wrote, “One person suggested that if I want to go through the IMB, the dialogue needs to take place between my church and the IMB.I wholeheartedly agree. If the church doesn’t recognize this calling on my life, who am I to go the IMB looking for a “job?” Still, this is not the norm nor the expectation.”
When I was appointed I had to be endorsed by my local church. If they had not recognized this call on my life, I would not have been appointed. Maybe David or Strider can help me here but I do not believe that has changed. I keep hearing people say we are disconnected from the local church. That is only true if the local church chooses to be disconnected. We are eager to be connected with any Southern Baptist Church that wishes to connect with us. That does not mean we will dictate to them what they must do or they will tell us how to do missions. It has to be a partnership.
There seems to be concern over the IMB making decisions about strategy or deployment of missionaries or the local church deciding how and where missionaries from their church serve. My church is a medium size church, 300 in Sunday School. In the last 80 years we have had 5 career missionaries serve with the IMB/FMB from our church. At one point, 3 at one time. They all served from 20 to 40 years. There is no way we could have supported them. At the same time there are probably 15 to 20 churches in our area that have had no missionaries or at most one serve from their church. But because of cooperation we work together to support each other and all the missionaries under appointment by the IMB. I don’t know any churches that completely supports their own missionaries. Even those that say they do get lots of support from the IMB or other missions organizations such as TEAM, OMF or others. Since our church helps support these missionaries I think it is reasonable for there to be parameters under which we will appoint missionaries. This would include shared strategy and goals. I know of no mission organization or church that would send out missionaries with no accountability or without having influence on where they serve or the kind or work they do.
Andrew also wrote, “My biggest impression was that they needed resources more than they needed our presence. I’ve said it before, but I think we should take a serious look at the methodology employed by Gospel for Asia and similar groups.”
If by resources he means money, I disagree. I think presence is more important that money. I do not know much about Gospel for Asia. I do know that the greatest movement for the gospel in missions history has taken place in China and sending money had no relationship to the rapid growth of the church there.
Brother Ron,
I agree with a lot of what you have said in your latest post.
During the last 35 years,….watching and working with others in mission organizations, etc. …I do not doubt that the vast majority of those endeavoring to spread the gospel are dedicated and committed Saints in the Kingdom of God. Those that prey upon the system are rare, but they generally get the most air time.
What I have found though while watching this thing for so long… is the tendency to make the mission organization (IMB, NAMB, etc.) itself the driver of the “profession”, not always the mission itself. What I mean by that,…is that the fine line to maintain an organization, pay salaries, preparing budgets to maintain the organization, and all other business functions…. always runs the risk of driving the mission into a profession. That is how business works; revenue and expenses.
The formation of the churches and missions that extended from those churches during the time of the Apostles is quite different than many of the churches today. The SBC and how it conducts missions through the use of a broker (whether you call it the IMB, NAMB or whatever) will always run the risk of making a business out of the mission. There is no doubt the SBC takes pride in the common goal theme of CP giving strategies…. But if she loses the principle that mission is born from the local assembly, and commanded by our Lord in that way (make disciples, baptizing them…forming those local assemblies), then there will be more bickering about the “profession” and not the mission…. Then you have missionaries that think the church “may or may not be able to help them attitude” as they go about their business trying to find the right organization to fund their habit.
A famous Baptist, Roger Williams, ran into the trap of de-emphasizing the local assembly for many of the same noble reasons.
Blessings,
Chris
I think this is an important and timely conversation in light of some other pressures in the SBC blogosphere. I appreciate what the IMB is doing and we support it. But we also support some mission work directly. But when poking around the SBC blogosphere, you get the sense that supporting the Great Commission outside of official SBC channels is some type of betrayal.
Ron,
Andrew also wrote, “My biggest impression was that they needed resources more than they needed our presence. I’ve said it before, but I think we should take a serious look at the methodology employed by Gospel for Asia and similar groups.”
Actually, it was Bill.
Like I said in my post, “[We've] viewed [the IMB] as a sending organization completely disconnected from the churches.” In doing this we as Southern Baptists have helped form the gap, and neither the churches nor the IMB have made it a priority to see the IMB’s core value #5 become a reality: We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ. Most churches are only involved in sending missionaries by giving money, not by recognizing the called and working with the IMB to get them on the field or by partnering up with those who are already there.
My biggest problem is the church gap. I’m just trying to figure out how the churches are playing a part in the IMB’s strategy formation and what we’re supposed to do when the IMB’s leadership says this:
It kind of feels like he’s saying, “We only want people who have no specific sense of God’s calling beyond ‘reaching the nations for Christ.’” For people who go to the IMB with no clue about where they want to go, more power to them, they fit the mold. But what about those whom the church has recognized with a calling? The IMB doesn’t have to facilitate their involvement in sending those people because they don’t fit with the IMB strategy?
I for one am not just looking for the IMB to support me in what I want to do. I’ll tell anybody that I feel called to work in Latin America with Hispanics, and I feel strong inclinations to a specific country, perhaps in one of the cities there. I’m just trying to determine if God is leading me to go with the IMB, as a “faith” missionary, or as self-supporting.
I dare say that in the common rhetoric about the Great Commission on both the IMB site and in the mouths of our leaders there is more adoration of the Holy Strategy and its guidance than the Holy Spirit and His leading.
There is a lot of miscommunication here. The missiologists at the IMB have years and years of study, prayer, and experience. We have learned so much in the 150 years of focused effort on reaching the nations. Now, if I heard people say, ‘we have done this for 150 years and we ain’t changin’ nuthin’. Do it our way’ then I would be concerned. But that is not what is being said at all. What we are saying is that we have learned truckloads of new and innovative things, we have learned, or relearned, how to do the work biblically. Now, churches in the US are waking up, which is great, and joining us out here. If they want to come and say, ‘Hey, what is going on? What is God doing? How can we be a part of that? then that is one thing. But what I see too often is I have never heard of ‘whos-whatsi-stan’ but I have heard of Brazil so I want to go there. Well, is that what God wants or what you want? We also get a lot of ‘I don’t know anything about evangelism or cross-cultural witnessing but I can hammer nails so let me just go and build a building.’ Is this about what you can do or about what God can do? Much has been said about harvest fields verses hard places. Yes, we should work in the harvest fields but how? Too often we have done the work for the local church breaking the chick out of the egg and crippling it forever. If there is a local church it must bear the responsibility for reaching its community. Jesus made his disciples baptize, Paul planted churches but refused to stay and lead them. We must stop being God for these new work areas and support them to seek and rely on Him who is God.
This is what I am talking about when I talk about missiology.
Oh, and E. Goodman: you and I agree on much but this issue of reaching the unreached as task is a big area of disagreement.
Matt 24 is descriptive. It describes what God is about. It is not unique. Psalm 46:10 …. I will be exalted among the nations… and a host of other verses describe what God is about. I want to be about what He is up to. I want to have a heart like His. Therefore my motto from way back has been ‘All peoples nothing less.’ He opened the door for me to come to a country that I should never have been allowed into. He is opening up many many other doors. This is not our own vain effort. He is opening the doors. We must walk through or be found to be disobedient.
Strider & E. Goodman,
I see the two perspectives you each are advocating here as poles of tension within the overall balance of biblical teaching regarding missiological concerns.
I think what I present, in comment #10, though, is a workable synthesis of the corresponding emphases at these two poles.
I am curious to hear from either or both of you if there is any aspect of what I say in #10 with which you are not in agreement. If not, perhaps this could be a place of common agreement for all of us.
My favorite thing about missions strategy is that, as Andrew says, it basically comes down to step-by-step obedience of the Holy Spirit. I love that the church depends on missionaries on the ground to know the context and develop an appropriate approach to ministry.
Again, my main concern is that this often happens outside the purview of the local (sending) church.
I’m familiar with the “receptivity scales” mentioned above by Baptist Theologue,and with McGavran’s thoughts on the matter. But I believe that tools used to measure things like receptivity, lostness, and priority have done more to hurt the church’s missionary endeavors than help. They have us measuring things that get in the way of our dependence on the Spirit’s guidance. I’m reminded of Acts 16, and Paul’s desire to enter Asia in order to preach the gospel where he thought it had not been proclaimed, but the Holy Spirit prevented him. What if our strategy of engagement isn’t what God wants us to be doing? What if He’s leading us not by “open doors” and opportunities, but by calling and personal conviction?
E. Goodman, the Holy Spirit is the primary factor in whether or not a group and individuals within a group are receptive to the gospel. Indeed, we must be sensitive to His leading. When we remove receptivity as a factor in setting priorities for where missionaries are needed, we are removing a very spiritual factor. The receptive groups and individuals are where God is moving in a special way. The percentage of lostness in a group should certainly be a major factor as well. The old “dual mandates” of the IMB were evidence that both receptivity and percentage of lostness were major considerations.
I’ll again stress the stewardship aspect. We all know that it is very expensive to send missionaries overseas for a four-year term. Sending trained and spiritually sensitive missiologists into a potential group for a few weeks to research the receptivity of the group is very cost effective. If the missiologists discover that the group has been resistant but is on the verge of becoming very receptive due to God’s orchestration, then it would be good stewardship to send in missionaries for a four-year term. On the other hand, if the missiologists discover that the group has been growing in resistance during the past few years, then it would be poor stewardship to send in missionaries for a four-year term. Receptivity and resistance change over time. This phenomenon should be obvious to all Southern Baptists in America. America is made up of many groups, and some groups are more receptive than others. Generally speaking, however, America is not as receptive to the gospel now as it was 40 years ago. (Interestingly, 1972 was our best year for baptisms, and I was saved that year.) Of course, most of us cannot leave America and go to a more receptive country. What we can do is look for receptive individuals and groups within America. Doing so is simply good stewardship.
How do you think Christ woulda approached the regime of Rioss Mont in Guatemala. I understand he was evangelical Christian but was he a solution?
Are any of you familiar with that situation. Does that have any bearing on this discussion?
Does the SBC and IMB on another front work at cross purposes with the Gospel in the Mideast, with the Jim Deloach prevailing ideology toward Israel?
I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion. I am one of those who ended up leaving the IMB because of the before-mentioned strategic issues. I was an ISC’er here in Manila. The IMB decided not to give me another 3 year term because they were not willing to invest any more resources in the Philippines at that time.
I have no ill feelings towards the IMB, but I don’t regret my decision to raise my own support and stay here.
Just so everyone knows, the Americas Affinity just released their top 60 UPG and UUPG (unreached, unengaged people groups) job requests. The majority are in Brazil reaching the last tribes along many river systems. As far as Mexico, there are 15 job requests to reach the remaining groups with out the gospel. There are a few in Peru, a few in Colombia and one or so in Ecuador.
There are still other requests that are not UPG or UUPG specific. There will continue to be some engagement with the already reached populations as well as re-engagement with national seminaries.
The IMB is not abandoning the Americas, Mexico or anywhere else. These changes are affecting people who do feel a calling to certain places. The IMB is right to reallocate their missionaries and funding to those places and people that have yet heard the gospel.
There are missionaries that have felt that the new direction does not fit with what the feel God has led them to do and they have resigned. Honestly, I feel that in order to fill the majority of the 60 UPG and UUPG requests in the Americas a new and fresh batch of missionaries are going to be needed. I think that many that have not had to live in difficult areas will end up resigning. I don’t see this as a negative. God has his time and place for all missionaries.
The IMB is a wonderful organization and though far from perfect God will continue to use it.
Signed,
IMB Missionar
I really didn’t want to imply that the IMB was shutting down Mexico. The first person to mention anything like that was David when he was trying to make sure his comments weren’t construed that way. Then it got picked up on by others and now we’re trying to disprove something that was never even said!
In the post I tried to present the comments of the Mexico missionaries and add my own analysis. I expected missionaries in “reached” areas and “unreached” areas to have some level of disagreement over the positives and negatives of the move. One the one hand some people are getting a message that says, “You’re probably going to have to move if you want to keep your job,” and others are probably getting a message that says, “You may finally start seeing more people on your ministry team.”
Perhaps it would be best to lay out my concerns (which I would love to put to rest):
1: The rhetoric concerning people coming to the IMB with preconcieved ideas about where they want to go and what they want to do. Is the IMB willing to question it’s strategy or plan for a specific area or ministry if an individual comes to them with the support of his or her church feeling the calling of God on the the person’s life? If I go to the IMB and say, “I feel called to go ministry with the Xhosa people in South Africa,” I would expect to be questioned and challenged so that I am sure of my calling. If they say, “We don’t have any jobs available with them right now,” are they willing to be questioned and challenged so that they can be sure they’re not supposed to employ that individual?
2: Church + IMB Partnering. If churches want to work with the IMB, and the IMB wants to work with churches, is the IMB really opposed to them being involved in the selection and appointment process? On the church side, I know we’re wanted for funding purposes and we’re usually wanted for short-term trips (so long as we didn’t insult the locals last time we came). The whole “adopt an unreached people group” web application is also good. But is the appointment process one area where the IMB says, “Hands off?”
3: The dependence on the Holy Spirit. We could have really good strategies, but if the strategies don’t align with the movement of God, we’re going to find ourselves fighting the current all the way up the waterfall. As I mentioned before, Dr. Rankin’s post didn’t once reference the Spirit. Please reconfirm for me that the strategy is being driven by Him, not just by conventional wisdom.
4: Consideration of our brothers and sisters in the countries we minister in. I haven’t brought this point up yet, but it concerns me as well. I know there was a lot of heartache over the way we pulled away from seminary ministry overseas out of a fear of creating too much of a dependence. What is the IMB going to do in areas where missionaries are leaving to promote further cooperation instead of leaving them feeling abandoned once again?
With any change, there will be people with questions. The best thing to do is to answer those questions and not just assume they’re naysayers. Perhaps this is just another one of those times when the “naysayers” need to hear, “I love you,” after a long hard day at work.
Andrew:
I have always found the IMB leadership to be open and reponsive to input from anyone in the SBC family that asks questions. I had some concerns myself regarding the degree to which the leadership/trustees were working together on the same page. I was able to set up personal discussions with key people in IMB leadership. In my case, my concerns were put to rest because they had been (or were being) delt with as a result of recent action by the trustees and/or administration.
I don’t know anything about “missiology” or missions strategy. But to me, I think the idea of the IMB implementing a strategy of going to UPGs makes sense. If a majority of churches disagree with this (or any other) aspect of IMB policy then the appropriate avenue to voice this concern is via the IMB trustees.
Roger Simpson
Brother Andrew,
I think there will always be an interesting tension between the churches who give to support the mission effort and the decision to send by a body (sort of a Jerusalem council event) that is at a distance from the church that contributes.
There is always a level of trust given to those that steer the money. That is typically where I have seen the rub and the abuses.
The Apostles left us a clear path to follow …as when they gathered funds from the churches; since it was very simple as to the use of those gifts. The gifts were given to known issues… Gifts were never assigned to speculation. In other words,…the gifts were for the needs of known churches and those preaching the Gospel. The church recognized the need to sustain the preaching…because God brings the increase.
This notion of “going” and in some ways “speculating” just because we have a well oiled business practice…is out of step with how gifts were given and maintained in the NT.
Thank you for bringing this subject of missions up once again. It is important to conduct it properly.
Blessings,
Chris
This is a good discussion.
I have always found the IMB, sprawling and huge as it is, to be sensitive to my concerns and questions. I have also found that the appointment process to be fair and reasonable and I am satisfied with it. If the IMB changed into merely ratifying what individuals “felt led” to do and go, and, if the IMB merely handled the money and logistics for the churches, deferring to what they “felt led” to do and support, I would not support it.
Rankin put it well. When there is a conflict between an individual’s ‘leading’ and priorities in funding and spending, the latter has to prevail and I am satisfied that the IMB is more in touch with the Spirit’s leading than most individuals and churches. If we don’t agree with their priorities, there is a process churches can use to to change that.
‘IMB Missionary’s’ sentiments above are well put.
William,
I find it interesting that you think the IMB should not merely ratify what individuals feel led to do and where they feel led to go. If you mean that the IMB should have some kind of strategy and plan for where to send people and what they should do prior to applicants showing up at the door, I am in agreement.
If you mean that the IMB shouldn’t give consideration to where a person feels called to go, especially if the IMB isn’t working in a certain area or with a specific group, I would disagree. Part of sending is confirming (a.k.a. ratifying) someone’s call. I don’t care if Joe Missionary or the IMB were the first to suggest serving in Kreplakistan, if no one can confirm Joe’s calling there, he probably shouldn’t be appointed.
You also said, “When there is a conflict between an individual’s ‘leading’ and priorities in funding and spending, the latter has to prevail.”
I agree, if there truly is a conflict of desire and God isn’t leading either party toward in a common direction. I just believe that both parties should be willing to rethink their stance. See my point #1 from comment #27.
Lastly, you said, “I am satisfied that the IMB is more in touch with the Spirit’s leading than most individuals and churches.”
Maybe maybe not. I don’t question the Spirit’s leading in the IMB, though I wish He got more emphasis in the IMB’s publications (which is what I was trying to say in point #3).
I agree that the more of us there are, the greater potential for accountability, but I also believe that a person or a church could really sense God’s leading where the IMB has missed it and vice versa. That’s why I said both the candidate and the IMB should reconsider what they feel led to do if one wants to minister to the Xhosa people and the other doesn’t have positions open there.
There is a danger in automatically giving more credence to the larger group than to the individual. I’m referring of course to the start of the Reformation.
Brother Andrew,
There is little question,…in fact ,no question at all that the church and those members that constitute the local churches are where the Spirit works His mission to the world. Scripture has not one record of rebuttal to that concept and doctrine. There is no greater fallacy than to believe “that the IMB is more in touch with the Spirit’s leading”…for the simply reason …it was not the IMB that Christ founded. Christ founded His church,…and it is His aim to build it founded on Himself. The gates of hell cannot prevail against her…, yet the IMB, if given priority beyond where Christ has seen fit to conduct his authority (His Church),… this well intentioned agency may ultimately only give the appearance of success. It takes firm doctrinal founded leadership to maintain the churches direct hand in the conviction for missions with use of CP giving. Without a clear and functional connection to the churches, which the agency cannot mimic, the Spirit will be grieved.
Southern Baptist’s must beware of the lure of “agency authority” over against the church (know matter what trustee function it employees)…..that candy coated tendency plays into the hands of the deceiver, while taking well intentioned workers out of the doctrinal moorings taught by the Apostles.
Blessings,
Chris
I will add this thought to be considered:
“I understand what they’re doing. Why should anyone get to hear the gospel time after time after time when there are others who’ve never heard at all?” and the various other versions of this are interesting to hear, and challenging for strategy.
But how many of us accepted Christ the first time we heard the Gospel?
I for one would be headed to hell had preachers lived by the method of moving on after telling the Gospel to someone once. And I only took until I was 14.
Limited resources are a relevant factor for discussion, but let’s consider our own testimony and our own attitudes before we go writing off people that didn’t fall on their knees the first time they heard the Gospel. Unless I’m the only Southern Baptist that didn’t do it.
Doug
Doug,
The whole “Why should anyone hear the gospel twice when some people have never heard it once,” bothers me too, and I was trying to avoid that by being so repetitious with my comment, but I still have some misgivings about it. Please don’t take the following as a comment on the IMB or anyone associated with it, merely an observation of something I think most of us do or say at one point or another.
We sometimes like to pretend that “reached” sinners are wicked and vile whereas the “unreached” are poor and ignorant. We should be motivated by our love for the lost, but we have to be founded and proceeding from our love for God first and foremost. Sometimes when we talk about reaching the unreached, our talk is sadly devoid of any references to their wickedness before a holy God or of the majesty and worthiness of that God. I don’t know much about Paris Reidhead, but I really appreciated this quote from him:
“If you’ll ask me why I went to Africa, I’ll tell you I went primarily, to improve on the justice of God. I didn’t think it was right for anybody to go to hell without a chance to be saved. And so I went to give poor sinners a chance to go to Heaven. …
And when I got to Africa, I discovered that they weren’t poor, ignorant, little heathen running around in the woods, waiting for, looking for someone to tell them how to go to Heaven. That they were monsters of iniquity. They were living in utter and total defiance, of far more knowledge of God than I ever dreamed they had. They deserved hell because they utterly refused to walk in the light of their conscience and the light of the law written upon their heart and the testimony of nature and the truth they knew.
The heathen are lost and they’re going to go to hell not because they haven’t heard the gospel. They’re going to go to hell because they are sinners who loved… their… sin… and because they deserved hell. …
I heard God say to my heart that day something like this: ‘…I didn’t send you to Africa for the sake of the heathen. I sent you to Africa for My sake. They deserved hell but I love them and I endured the agonies of hell for them. I didn’t send you out there for them. I sent you out there for Me. Do I not deserve the reward of My suffering? Don’t I deserve those for whom I died?’”
http://www.revivalhymn.net/pdffiles/RevivalHymnTranscript.pdf
Brother Andrew,
The IMB does publish their “vision statement” recognizing the church in a couple of places.
“4. We evangelize through proclamation, discipling, equipping and ministry that results in indigenous reproducing Baptist churches.
5. We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ.”
Maybe core value #4 can be slightly modified to include the churches more directly where the IMB organization serves those churches in a similiar missions strategy. In fact, that type of inclusion would multiply the number of workers involved in the effort as well as create a communication platform that the churches would be edified through and would increase CP giving.
It seems that core value #5 is what is fading as a result of missing the involvement of the churches in #4…..
-Chris
Chris,
Actually, #4 is referring to the result on the field. The churches mentioned are not SBC, but baptist churches overseas.
I’m not sure I understand your comment.
It seems to me,…whether oversees or at home would make no difference. The method of biblical missions would be the same,…extending from the churches directly.
Can you clarify…
-Chris
“4. We evangelize through proclamation, discipling, equipping and ministry that results in indigenous reproducing Baptist churches.”
I thought you were referring to churches in the States when you said, “Maybe core value #4 can be slightly modified to include the churches more directly where the IMB organization serves those churches in a similiar missions strategy.”
The churches referenced in #4 are the churches we plant overseas, not the SBC churches here in America. Was your commment referring to the churches planted overseas or to the churches in the States? If you are referring to churches planted overseas, in what way should those churches be more included and how should the IMB serve them in a similar missions strategy?
Chris (and perhaps Andrew as well, and for that matter, anyone else who may have an opinion on this question),
You say: “There is little question,…in fact ,no question at all that the church and those members that constitute the local churches are where the Spirit works His mission to the world.”
And, “…it was not the IMB that Christ founded. Christ founded His church…”
We are dealing now, as I understand it, with questions of ecclesiology, specifically the concept of the autonomy of the local church.
I am open to being convinced otherwise, but my present understanding of scriptural teaching on the church does not lead me to a position of affirming that the IMB, made up of delegates appointed through processes set up in order to reflect the collective discernment of the various local churches that make up the SBC, is necessarily any more limited in its ability to be used by God and guided by His Spirit than, say, a local church missions committee or pastoral leadership team.
To simplify my question a bit: Where in Scripture does it specifically teach that a local congregation is authentically the church, and a legitimate reflection of the Body of Christ, only when it operates autonomously rather than in conjunction with other local churches?
William said “…I am satisfied that the IMB is more in touch with the Spirit’s leading than most individuals and churches.”
Since only “SB” churches, I believe, may send missionaries through the IMB, then I assume that William means “SB” churches.
The implication[s] of this?
This seems to imply that a national entity should be setting the agenda for missions instead of the majority of SB churches. How is that reflective of Baptist polity?
David, you said….
…..”We are dealing now, as I understand it, with questions of ecclesiology, specifically the concept of the autonomy of the local church.
I am open to being convinced otherwise, but my present understanding of scriptural teaching on the church does not lead me to a position of affirming that the IMB, made up of delegates appointed through processes set up in order to reflect the collective discernment of the various local churches that make up the SBC, is necessarily any more limited in its ability to be used by God and guided by His Spirit than, say, a local church missions committee or pastoral leadership team.”……..
_________________________________________
I would say, even in its most pure intentions, the working of the IMB (delegates, collective discernment, etc.) cannot replicate the authority given to the church as she gathers. Some may like to think so…and have agreed that it be so (in conventions, etc.), yet that type of pattern is alien to the Apostles simple mission doctrine, which always stemmed from the churches.
It seems practical (at least to those of us in the SBC) to run a campaign for donations (CP) and then divide those funds amongst entities and agencies that meet out certain goals of planting churches and providing centralized education. This pattern did not exist in the NT as such,… although the gathering of donations did exist, …it specifically existed for two things patterned in the NT…. The care of individuals in the churches, and preaching the gospel, …but all from the authority and distribution of some church (whether in Jerusalem or abroad), not an agency or an arranged entity invoking any command. So, the ongoing challenge within an SBC agency should be to maintain the authority that exists within those local assemblies involved in the distribution of funds and the preaching of the gospel. If done so… in my estimation, the giving to CP would only increase because of the effort to involve and communicate inside those fellowships; recognizing the needs in the churches (whether here or abroad), and increasing the preaching of the gospel. That is only a slight change from the current initiative,..but a much needed change to return to exalting Christ in the churches.
What must be understood better in my opinion….is that the churches are not some kind of functioning enterprise with better or emerging ideas. It is a group of people in fellowship with each other …where ever they may be…. Or at least that is how the Apostle Paul and other Apostles acted out their relationships. The church is the collection of those meeting together and have gone on before us,…even as dysfunctional as many fellowships may be in our world today.
A return to Christ is a return to the authority given in the assemblies that meet together in the community and report upon the needs and mission efforts among their people, and with those fellow workers passing through their communities. This is the NT pattern, and the SBC would do well to look closely at that pattern among the churches and maintain its connectiveness.
The mirage of “autonomy” disappears to some extent as the members of fellowships communicate and learn from each other in their own land and even as they go to other lands….. Unfortunately for now,…autonomy is essentially used as a defense mechanism, when actually the elements of autonomy are a wonderful offensive NT pattern given to the churches.
-Chris
As I read through the comments I can see that everyone here is continuing misunderstand what the IMB is doing. You say that you believe in autonomous local churches? Well, Mexico, South America, and many parts of the world are chock full of them. The entire issue of whether the IMB sends missionaries to these places has nothing to do with how many times lost people have heard the gospel. The issue is that if a local autonomous baptist church is working to reach its community what right does the IMB have in sending in a foreign expert who usurps the local leader’s authority? The point in reaching the unreached is not that they are more worthy to hear the gospel than those who live in a ‘reached’ community (which I grant is a great misnomer). The point is that if a local church exists in a community and it is reaching the lost there why are foreigners undermining the authority of the local church. We need to send missionaries to the unreached because that is very biblically where missionaries belong.
Chris,
I’m still not tracking with you altogether on this. Let me try to approach it a little differently…
1. What, technically, in your opinion, distinguishes a church from an agency or entity?
2. Is a local church missions committee (or any other committee) or elder board also an agency or entity of the church?
3. Is not the IMB, in a corresponding sense, an agency of a group of churches collectively?
4. You usually are very good to give specific Scripture references to back up your points. Do you have some references to include on this one to help me as I think this through?
Strider,
Though you are evidently coming at this from a different perspective than Chris (and Andrew, if I am understanding him correctly), it seems to me that some of my same questions apply to your comment #42.
More specifically, in your case, are you insinuating that it is always the responsibility of the local church, and the local church alone, to evangelize the people in the geographical area surrounding the meeting place of that church?
I agree with you that any foreigners working in a particular place should do so in cooperation with the church in that place, and not behind their backs, so to speak.
But that raises the question, how extreme do we go with this? If there is already one local church (congregation) in one city, and it is of a different denomination, or doctrinal leaning, do we not work there to establish new congregations? What if there is one church in a region, but not in the particular city, or town, in which we propose to work? What if the church(es) in a particular place are all working on evangelizing other people groups (or people group segments), and we feel God is calling us to evangelize a people group (or segment) they are not reaching (or targeting)?
Also, do you believe that, as Southern Baptists, through the IMB as our missionary sending organization, we should be dedicated exclusively to sending apostolic workers in the strictest sense, and not to sending fraternal workers to come alongside existing churches, and “impart to [them] some spiritual gift to strengthen [them}” (Romans 1:11)?
David,
I have to run into about three hours of meetings….but I will try to put a little more biblical meat on the bones I have put on the plate. Back in a while…
thx,
Chris
Brother David,
It is difficult to briefly describe these patterns on a blog, but I will give it a shot and try to answer your questions near the end.
Most of these mission patterns emerge in the letters to the churches and the pattern is also built upon Christ’s instruction to the disciples seen throughout the gospel letters.
When the Apostle Paul wrote his salutations to the churches, one aspect of those salutations is a familiar pattern with those in ministries and on mission. The continuity of those events is borne out in the life of the fellowship and as I said earlier, I believe it is intrinsic to the pattern established for missionary work. This pattern was never abandoned by Paul.
As the Apostle instructs….
1 Corinthians 16:1-7 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. (2) On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. (3) When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; (4) and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me. (5) But I will come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; (6) and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. (7) For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits.
Collections were for the saints…and in this passage the pattern clearly illustrates that the Apostle was aware of the need, and gave the instruction to this church specifically and to all the churches of Galatia. This illustrates a connectiveness, not only in the instruction given specifically to these churches, but also in the Apostles return to spend time with the churches and live among them. Notice the connectiveness he explains in verse six where he envisions that they send him on….
So technically (question #1),…and agency or entity of Christians can exist without necessarily gathering together at any point or very seldom. For instance,…the SBC or IMB could meet only once a year and still exist and function. This is not possible with the churches. Churches are maintained through this pattern of relationship as the Apostle so clearly exhorts and encourages. We know of Christ’s church only as they gather together. That is the pattern. Of course that is not to dispute that the church is many members uniquely gifted…..yet it is the togetherness that demonstrates the gifts and the body and the passion for obedience to missions.
1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
Collections were also for the preachers of the gospel……because without the churches the preacher is lost…..Apollos illustrates the issue. He was a talented and eloquent man,…yet without the assistance of the church members he could remain uncorrected….but the pattern of the churches exhorted him to correct his wayward message. His submission to the church is a wonderful example of missions molded in a right manner.
Act 18:24-26 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. (25) This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; (26) and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
The Apostle Paul in yet another encounter with the church at Corinth……
2 Corinthians 11:8-9 I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; (9) and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so.
The Apostle explains his connection to other churches where he allowed the churches of Macedonia to supply his needs,….this is importantly connected to the churches and the Apostle speaks in this manner. He is not alluding to any agency or entity established by these churches….he always speaks of them by name. Can we do the same? Is that the pattern we have established and maintained in the IMB?
A local churches agreement on missions and leaders of the church meeting about spiritual matters is the pattern (question #2). There is a very clear difference of accountability when comparing an agency and entity (board of directors / trustees) and the accountability within the local fellowship. Professional resignations when compared to leaving a fellowship are not of the same fabric.
Question #3 illustrates for us the wonderful paradox. Can we collect funds “and” continue to represent the pattern of the NT with respect to missions while using an agency or entity to help facilitate. I think so…. Even though it is a novel approach… (not really fitting the NT pattern) the more difficult task is to have this Apostolic pattern of connectiveness enjoined throughout the fellowships as the mission expands from local into the world. This is where I think we could do better as sister churches and benefit from the exhortations and encouragements of the churches. Maintaining the pattern is of first priority, while funding and reaching these “people groups” is a natural extension. For now, we tend to justify the reaching of people groups above and beyond the NT pattern of giving and connection to the local fellowships. In other words, if the local fellowships don’t get it…so be it….we (the agency) simply have a better program. That is opposite of the Apostle Paul’s approach.
This is the message of Christ to His churches in Matthew 18…. I mean,…if someone on an executive committee offends another on the executive committee or disagrees with a direction, etc., the solution is simply to resign. The church is not patterned in that way. The biblical pattern is to remain connected to the churches in such a way that the encouragement and the extension of missions is edifying to the churches with a biblical pattern of accountability.
Other biblical examples where this pattern emerges:
Romans 16
Acts (entire)
1 Corinthians 16
2 Corinthians 12 (near the end of the chapter)
Colossians 4
2 Thessalonians 3
Philemon (entire)
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for the time and thought put into continuing this dialogue. I think there are some important issues at the root of this discussion.
Here are some of my thoughts your last comment brings to mind:
1. In the scriptural examples you give (1 Corinthians 16:1–7; 2 Corinthians 11:8–9, and others), it is the Apostle Paul who forms the natural nexus between the various local congregations. There are several possible reasons for this, from a historical perspective:
a) at this stage in church history, given the complications of travel and long-distance communication, the only real practical way the various churches in different localities had of maintaining contact with each other was by way of Paul, and others like him.
b) Paul, as founding apostle (church planter) of several congregations, exercises a certain degree of authoritative oversight in relation to these congregations (I think you know the references already, so I won’t take the time to look them all up right now). From what I can tell, in the case of the church at Rome, Paul addresses them with a somewhat different tone than he does, for example, the church at Corinth…
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices…” (Rom 12:1)
“I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me” (Rom 15:30)
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe” (Rom 16:1)
“I ask you to receive her in the Lord” (Rom 16:2)
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions…” (Rom 16:17)
Yet, at the same time, there are places where Paul resorts to his general apostolic authority in his teaching and exhortation, even with the Romans, whom he has not yet visited personally:
“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought” (Rom 12:3)
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities…” (Rom 13:1)
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another…” (Rom 13:8)
“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Rom 14:1)
“I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me” (Rom 15:15)
2. Today, churches are not dependent on itinerant ministers in order to maintain contact with each other. It is also uncertain to what degree the type of apostolic authority exercised by Paul (and others) over local congregations remains in force today.
Personally, I believe there was a general apostolic authority reserved for the 12 and for Paul, to communicate the teaching of Jesus to them, and to set doctrinal parameters for the Church throughout the centuries. This type of authority is no longer extant in men living today.
However, there may well be a sense in which the founding apostle (church planter) of a local congregation has some degree of authoritative input into the affairs of that congregation regarding other secondary matters, even after he is no longer physically dwelling among them. He may, as in the case of Paul, exercise this type of authority over various different congregations at the same time. I think this is especially true in developing congregations in which they have yet to totally “cut the umbilical cord,” so to speak. More mature congregations will be less dependent on outside oversight. This is actually a delicate and important matter in church planting: knowing when and how to best “cut the umbilical cord.”
3. All this brings us to the point that churches relate to each other now, and once they reach a certain degree of maturity, in ways different than the Pauline congregations of the NT related to each other.
4. Early in church history, various congregations in a local area came to submit to the head bishop or “metropolitan,” as the authorized source of unity. This system opened the door for the abuse of a corrupt and, at times, heretical hierarchy imposing their will over the churches.
5. The solution, in my opinion, is not to do a pendulum swing to the other side, becoming isolationist and maverick in our approach to other members of the Body of Christ outside our particular congregation. It is interdependence rather than independence. And it is voluntary cooperation rather than enforced manipulation.
6. There must, however, be some structure or another to facilitate this cooperation. It doesn’t just happen by osmosis. Without an Apostle Paul figure to carry out the role of nexus between the congregations, we have structures, such as regional associations, state conventions, national denominations, and also interdenominational fellowships and alliances. As free churches, we are free to participate or not to participate in the joint ministry projects organized and supervised by these various entities. We can choose which ones we feel we ought to participate in. But, we should always do so in submission to the leadership of the Holy Spirit, as jointly understood in the context of the local congregation. However, once we “sign on” to participate in any one of these joint ministry projects, the normal and natural thing would be to participate with the other congregations and ministry partners on an equal basis, jointly seeking the will of God in the same way you would for decisions made locally within the confines of your own congregation.
Now, just as in a larger congregation, there are different processes for jointly seeking the will of God and reaching decisions than there are in smaller congregations, in inter-congregational ministry projects, there are similar processes. But, it doesn’t mean the Lord’s leading in the individual congregation is ignored. Everyone comes together, opportunity is given for input, decisions are made, and individuals are given delegated authority for carrying out the decisions made by the majority. This is, as I understand it, the way the SBC, IMB, and related agencies function. Individual congregations are always free to participate with the majority or not. They are also free to leave the partnership. Just in the same way that individual members of a local congregation are free to “move their membership” to another congregation.
This opens up the whole can of worms of church discipline, and should members be able to flee church discipline by continual church-hopping. Since this comment is already way too long, I will leave that for another moment, or perhaps another comment, if you want to continue this dialogue here.
In any case, my point in all of this is I am not so sure the biblical case for a clear-cut black and white division between local church autonomy and a system of trans-congregational voluntary interdependence is as strong as it is sometimes made out to be.