D.J. HortonI am a young pastor who is proud to be a Southern Baptist. I’ve been one all my life. I was dedicated, baptized, and married in a Southern Baptist church. I was raised going to RA camp, I participated in Bible drills, and I even prayed for Lottie Moon to reach China before I learned she was dead. I was called, licensed, and ordained to preach in a Southern Baptist church. I received a fine education from a Southern Baptist seminary, and I am currently completing what I hope will be my final degree from another Southern Baptist seminary. All of these wonderful experiences in my life are part of the motivation that has led me to write this article related to recent reactions to the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force report. I’ve read our editor’s views. I’ve read a director of missions’ views. I’ve read the views of a few of our institution heads. I’ve read the views of other leaders in other states. Most of what has been published has been clearly against the changes outlined in the GCR report. I have no special expertise in the dynamics of denominationalism, nor do I believe the GCR report is without weaknesses. However, I think what I am about to share matters because it captures the basic convictions of many in my generation.
Upon the release of the GCR report, all of us were faced with a rather large document to read, process, digest, and react to. Often, when new ideas representing monumental change are placed before us, we resort to questions as our basic litmus test. To date, this is what I have been reading. Many questions are being asked. However, these questions are being used in some circles to discourage support of the GCR. As a young pastor who supports the GCR, allow me to offer a different perspective to the questions everyone is asking.
What will happen to our state convention if it loses the funds we now receive from NAMB through partnerships and it is forced to send more Cooperative Program dollars on to the national level?
State conventions may very well have less money on which to function. Thus, they may also become smaller in relationship to employees and ministries. Does this scare young pastors? The answer is no. Decentralized state conventions equipped with gifted men and women intent on helping churches make disciples would be a welcomed addition to the arsenal of many pastors. The truth is, on any given day I am three to four mouse clicks away from the latest information and research related to any subject, including church work. I do not need experts or programs. What I need are authentic relationships with godly men and women who can help me contextualize the best information out there to my setting. Can a person in an office somewhere else in my state do this? Perhaps. But could a consultant assigned to my region do it more effectively? I believe so.
What will happen to our associations if they lose the funds now received from NAMB partnerships or other sources affected by suggested GCR changes?
All associations will be forced to make some hard decisions. Some of them may cease to exist. Others may have to call upon the local churches in their area to decide whether or not a traditional local association is needed. Is this not how associations first began? Local churches in a given area decided they would partner together to accomplish things they could not do on their own. If the churches in a particular area decide that a historical model of an association – complete with a building, director of missions, and support staff – is what they want, then let them create or maintain one. But if an association is constantly in a state of survival mode and the local churches do not validate its effectiveness through financial support, then we need not be fearful or surprised if it ceases to exist. Who knows? If struggling associations were no longer in the picture, it might even force churches to do what they ought to be doing: communicating, partnering, and encouraging each other directly, pastor to pastor, and layperson to layperson.
What will happen to the Cooperative Program if all Great Commission giving is celebrated and counted?
The truth is, no one knows. However, if CP giving decreases, it can hardly be blamed on GCR changes (if adopted). CP giving has been on a steady decline for years. So have almost all other categories of giving. Why? Because we have failed to make disciples out of our parishioners. One of the byproducts of immature Christians who have never been discipled is a complete disregard for the Lordship of Christ over their finances (not to mention every other area of their life). Voluntary cooperation is just that – voluntary. The mandate or hope that all Southern Baptist churches should give 10 percent of their budget is a thing of the past and will not be resurrected. Besides, it is sloppy hermeneutics to apply the biblical teaching of the tithe to churches related to their CP giving. If a church wants to cooperate by giving 15 percent, then praise the Lord. If a church chooses to give 2 percent, then we should be thankful for it and move forward. The autonomous local church freely cooperating is the heartbeat of the Southern Baptist Convention. Those fearful of what designated giving might do should ask the question, “Will God provide for the needs of kingdom work?” We know he will! So if each of us is impacting lostness according to the will of God, then we need not scurry around in fear of what might happen if the source of our finances changes or alters.
What will happen to our institutions if they receive less state funding due to the changes suggested by the GCR report?
This perhaps is the most-asked question of any I have heard of late. Before I give my thoughts, I think one point should be made. Just because a person supports the GCR does not mean he or she is not in support of our state and national institutions. I, for example, am continually blessed by what I see our South Carolina universities do for the kingdom. I am also touched every time I hear a testimony from a Connie Maxwell graduate. Just because I am a young pastor who believes in the general direction of the GCR does not mean I do not believe in our fine institutions. While it seems that some would want us to believe that to be pro-GCR is to be anti-institutions, it is just not that simple.
To sort through this, I think we have to keep a central question before us. Do our churches exist to fund and support our institutions, or do our institutions exist to serve our churches by providing ministries and services difficult to maintain on a local church level? I personally feel the latter is the right answer. Institutions are yet another wonderful product of Baptist cooperation. They should not lead churches or discourage churches from doing what churches feel is best for kingdom expansion.
Unlike the church, I also believe institutions have a shelf life. In other words, institutions should change, grow or cease as the needs of churches change, grow or cease. The type of institutions that have served us faithfully for the last 75 years may not be the same as the ones we need for the next 75 years. Most young pastors that I talk with have no desire to slash funding and watch our institutions suffer. On the other hand, pastors in my generation do want an open and honest dialogue about the future need for our institutions. In my view, it is obvious that we have a greater need for institutions devoted to training and equipping young leaders. However, I can hardly see how centralized care for the aging is the best use of our dollars. Perhaps in years past this was needed, when many pastors and/or pastors’ wives were not adequately provided for through salary, benefits and retirement. But now pastors have open access to services like GuideStone to prepare them for their retirement years. Additionally, the senior adults in my church who do utilize homes for the aging do not leave town. They want to stay close to their friends, family, church and doctors. Imagine if we did not have homes for the aging to staff, manage and maintain. Could we not use some of those funds to establish a foundation that awarded financial aid to our elderly ministers and/or their spouses, which they then could apply to their needs within the facility of their choice in their community, near their family and friends? It is concepts like these that belong on the table as we discuss our future.
Why should the International Mission Board get more dollars at the expense of other SBC causes?
Read your Bible. Not hearing the gospel is not an excuse when one stands before God. Theologically speaking, it can be said that general revelation is enough to condemn you, but not enough to save you. For salvation, one needs special revelation. Special revelation is Christ. Without Christ, people go to hell, an eternal place of pain and suffering where the full wrath of a holy God is poured upon sinners who deserve to be punished for their sin. Today, there is much need for the gospel to continue to be preached in South Carolina. However, I’ve driven most of this state, and I can attest that if any person wakes up tomorrow morning under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, he or she can find a church in that community or county that preaches the gospel. I’m not saying it would be a healthy church, nor am I implying that it would be a church that is ready to help this person contextualize the gospel into his or her life and culture. But I am saying that people in South Carolina can absolutely find churches that will explain how they can be saved into a new life in Christ and out from under the condemnation of sin, death and hell. What is my point? A person in northern Egypt cannot do this. A person in Pakistan cannot do this. A person in the Philippines cannot do this. A person in southern India, eastern Europe, or New Guinea cannot do this. Arguably, most of the population of the world cannot do this. How in the world can we believe what we believe, preach what we preach, and keep the vast majority of dollars given through the Cooperative Program on our soil? It just does not make sense. Frankly, one of the weaknesses I believe the GCR report contains is the relatively small shift of dollars to the IMB. I think most young pastors would like to see even more dollars on the national level going to the IMB.
We are a denomination of small churches. Many of these churches rely on services from local associations and state conventions. What will happen to the small churches?
There is one final fundamental question that no one seems to be asking, but all of us should be. In my opinion, this is the crucial question of our time. Do national conventions, state conventions and local associations exist to do what the church cannot do or will not do? The answer, theologically, is easy. The Scriptures clearly teach that carrying out the Great Commission is the assignment of the church. If someone from my association or state convention has to come reach the people in my community, then our church should be ashamed. We should repent before God and ask him to give us the faith, passion, and resources needed to reach those on our doorstep.
This leads me to another conviction shared by many young pastors. There is room for repentance among all of our churches. I believe some that have been stagnant for years would see growth if this came. However, some of our churches need to close. That’s right – I said close. Churches that have existed for years and done nothing to reach their community should either repent or get out of the way of others who desire to function as a local body of believers intent on reaching their community with the gospel. It is remarkable to me that some of the most ardent opponents to any type of change in SBC methodology are also members of churches that are doing nothing to grow the kingdom. They do baptize their kids, but other than that there is a lack of real effort to penetrate lostness. Often these churches are small or shrinking, and thus they rely more heavily on the resources from the local and state level.
Am I speaking of all small churches? Of course not. I was saved and raised in small churches that my father pastored bi-vocationally, and many of my friends who pastor small churches are impacting the kingdom in a powerful way. Interestingly, these kinds of churches all have something in common. They don’t sit still! Now I do not mean that every church is on its way to the megachurch status. To be honest, I think megachurches have a whole different set of serious challenges. But I do think it is time we face the obvious. If a church is being faithful to God’s call, then it should, at some point, experience growth, spiritually and numerically. I am not a church-growth movement proponent. I think much of modern church-growth methodology is borderline heretical because it elevates pragmatism above biblical methodology. I am, however, a firm believer that God is in the saving business, and he wants to see local churches reach people. God, his Spirit, his power, and his desire are not the missing ingredient. Willing people are. Should our cooperation produce resources to help small congregations of willing people? You betcha! But helping churches that want to reach people looks a lot different than servicing churches that believe the Cooperative Program is their missions strategy and yet have no problem receiving services funded by these dollars as welfare assistance so they can maintain their apathetic pace.
In conclusion, allow me to reiterate that these answers are my convictions. Could I be simplifying the issues? Perhaps. Could I be wrong? Of course. As Christian brothers and sisters, none of us should stand up and attempt to lead or speak with absolute confidence that we alone have the answers. Additionally, I refuse to allow differing perspectives of the GCR to hinder my fellowship with many respected friends, co-laborers, and leaders. Disagreements about theology can – and, at times, should – divide us. Disagreements about denominational structure should not! The fact is, I do have some questions about the GCR report that I have not dealt with here. For example, why were the seminaries not addressed when they receive almost as much funding as NAMB? However, I am willing to succumb to the fact that the GCR report, and any other document of its kind, will never answer all the questions. Nor is it without fault. But it is a necessary step in the right direction if Southern Baptists are going to continue to impact lostness. If we do not do something, rest assured, we will not die. It will be even worse. We will simply become irrelevant.
– Horton is pastor of Anderson Mill Road Baptist Church in Moore and chairman of the administrative committee of the South Carolina Baptist Convention Executive Board.