Great Commission

Worth Repeating : James Dennison

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

“The scene is one of the most breathtaking in all of Scripture. An itinerant Galilean carpenter stands surrounded by twelve very ordinary men. At the moment, the leaders of nations are plotting to destroy him as a dangerous heretic. He stands in an area which illustrates the conflict and power of religions more than any other place in the world – Caesarea-Philippi, north of Galilee.

At least fourteen temples to Baal lay scattered about the area, reminders of Canaanite paganism. Nearby is a deep cavern where the Greeks said their god, Pan, was born. The entire region is symbolic of Greek mythology. Adjacent stands the great temple of white marble built to the deity of Caesar by Herod the Great, emblematic of Roman emperor worship. And the Jews believed that their sacred Jordan River originated from beneath this very mountain. Behind Jesus stands a gigantic rock formation, with a cave which is deeper than we are able to measure to this day. It was called the “gates of Hades,” and was widely believed to be the doorway to the underworld.

It was and is an intimidating place. I’ve stood at this spot, and I remember it well. But here Jesus uttered words which astounded his followers: ‘On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18). Hades would not attack the church – this small band of men would attack Hades. And neither Hades, the pagan religions, nor the power of the Roman and Jewish rulers would prevail. Jesus’ church would assault the very gates of hell with the gospel – and win. The church was Jesus’ strategy for reaching a lost world.

And this strategy worked, amid some of the greatest ecotones in history. As Jewish and Gentile cultures clashed, the gospel thrived (Acts 10-11). As East met West, the church grew and prospered (Acts 16). When the gospel came to Rome itself, it took root and flowered (Acts 28). As the Roman Empire crumbled and fell, the church mushroomed in power. The strategy worked.

Across the centuries of ecotonic clashes, the church has remained Jesus’ answer to world evangelization. In a millennium of Dark Ages the gospel spread, and the church grew. In the midst of Enlightenment attacks it experienced Great Awakenings. The Industrial Age saw the greatest missionary expansion to point in history.

And our century, with two world wars and the greatest rate of change in human history, has witnessed unprecedented growth in Christian missions. According to church growth expert George Otis Jr, about 70 percent of all progress toward evangelizing the world has taken place since 1900. Seventy percent of that growth has occurred since World War II.

Now, in another ecotonic time, the church is still Jesus’ strategy for world evangelization. Change is nothing new. Only Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He still intends to reach the world through his church.”

James Dennison, from Missiology; An Introduction to the Foundations, History, and Strategies of World Missions. 1998

Missional Monday–What is Missional?

/ Steven Ruff / 2 Comments

Today’s post is the first in a new Monday series entitled “Missional Monday”. I would like to begin by defining and giving some attention to the word “missional”. Missional is a word that has come of use over the past eight or ten years in evangelical churches and denominational research. The term missional has a somewhat fluid definition and is more of a descriptor than an event or activity. While missiology is the study about missions and its methodologies, missional is a mindset. Missional is a way of thinking. In its simplest terms, missional thinking focuses the believer and the church on doing missions everywhere. It is holistic rather than programmic.

By the very definition of the word, it is impossible for the church to do missional. Instead, it is critical for the church today to be missional. Missional thinking causes the church to take a hard and prayerful look at how missions is viewed. A church with a missions program usually sees missions as one activity alongside other activities in the church. A missional church focuses all of its activities around its participation in God’s vision in the world. Instead of viewing missions as crossing sea as something that we go and do, missional thinking leads us to see the cross and to live as sent people; right where we are. This leads to a question that will help us gauge where we are individually and as the body of Christ. Do you see yourself as a participant in a mission program or as a missionary living within your own mission field? In his book, Breaking the Missional Code, Ed Stetzer wrote, “If we are going to join God on his mission, we have to recognize that we are missionaries…wherever he places us – just like the first disciples”.

Reflections on the 2012 SCBC Annual Meeting

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

This past week I attended the South Carolina Baptist Convention in Greensville, SC. I look forward to this time of the year. It is a time of encouragement found in challenging messages and powerful worship, as well as fellowship with other pastors and church leaders. Our annual meeting is also a time of information. We are able to hear the latest news and opportunities from our colleges and universities, mission boards, and other convention ministry partners and agencies. No annual meeting would be complete without conducting some sort of business. We heard and adopted resolutions, approved a ministry budget, and approved major bylaw changes in the eligibility and selection of institutional trustees. To some, these business sessions may seem boring and pointless. However, I believe they are invaluable because with them is a certain beauty. Here is what I mean. A messenger, the average person representing their church (large or small), can address the entire body, have their voice heard, and request some action be taken in an area of convention life they may have concerns about or feel an improvement could be made. During the course of the meeting as I walked around, listened, and talked with people, certain thoughts come to mind. I would like to share with you my observations from the SCBC Annual Meeting in Greenville, as I see it.

1. Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Messengers approved bylaw changes that made the BFM2000 the statement of faith for South Carolina Baptists. I believe this is a critical, wise, and timely decision. One that was long overdue. Our convention now has agreed upon theological parameters drawn from Scripture that will help to guide us in doctrinal integrity and cooperation. Trustees of our institutions will now be asked to affirm this statement of faith as part of their service agreement.

2. Debate Decorum. There was a spirit of graciousness present during this year’s meeting. Although everyone did not agree with everything being presented, their objections were offered in a spirit of grace and love. Brad Atkins, presiding president, moderated with compassion, a needed sense of humor, and a Christ-like spirit. He set the tone for the entire meeting.

3. Theme. The spirit of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations adopted last year is alive and well. This year’s theme, “Great Commission Living”, was evident and well presented. Messengers could not have left without understanding how committed South Carolina Baptists are to fulfilling the Great Commission. The theme interpretations given by the four speakers were spot-on and delivered with passion and conviction. The Committee on Order of Business and others responsible for the selection of speakers, musicians, and program features are to be applauded for bringing the theme from just words on paper to a passionate plea for life change.

4. Convention Staff. I just want to say a word about our South Carolina Baptist Convention staff. I found them to be helpful, gracious, accommodating, patient, and willing to go the extra mile to ensure messengers had a positive and encouraging experience. To an often under-appreciated staff, thank you.

5. Service. There seems to be a continual and growing dissatisfaction with the current breakdown in representation on our convention boards, committees, and agencies. Messengers have in past years, and again this year, voiced their desire for specific ways in which new voices and new faces can be involved denominational service. We often hear this referred to as “bringing more people to the table”. I am interested in seeing where the common ground will  be found.

6. Fellowship. The annual meeting is as much a place for fellowship as it is for anything else. It was interesting to see groups gathered in the hallways and the exhibit hall talking and catching up with each other. It is an opportunity to create new friendship, form new partnerships, and rekindle old friendships. I believe there will always need to be a time of coming together such as this. Over the past years, especially at the SBC level, there has been an increased call to be able to virtually attend a meeting and vote online. While I understand the logistical concerns of travel and such, that convenience cannot replace the need for the real reason for these meetings. After all, voting is one small part. People are the larger and more important part.

What’s in a Name? Thoughts and Reflections on the SBC Name Change Discussion

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

What is in a name? A great deal I would argue. Parents spend a great deal of time selecting just the right name for the newborn. A name that would be a blessing and sense of encouragement rather than a burden later in life. Businesses go to great lengths to make sure the name of a company reflect their purpose and passion. Auto makers assign names to their companies and brands to ensure they are interesting and appealing. As a society, we assign names to buildings, roads, bridges, ball fields, and wings of hospitals to communicate and celebrate the accomplishments, successes, and heroism of those who have made meaningful contributions in life. Names are important. Names matter.

I pastor a Southern Baptist church. This means our church has made a choice to affiliate and cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. Although we are first an Evangelical Christian church, our choice to affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention is found in the values, commitment to cooperation, and theological stance that the SBC is known for. In September of 2011, Dr. Bryant Wright, president of the Southern Baptist Convention appointed a presidential task force to study the prospect of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. A name which has been in place for 166 years. A final report, along with any recommendations would be made to messengers at the 2012 SBC Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Two reasons form his rationale.

“First, the convention’s name is so regional,”  “With our focus on church planting, it is challenging in many parts of the country to lead churches to want to be part of a convention with such a regional name. Second, a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century.”

Much speculation, discussion, and debate surrounded this upcoming announcement. Feelings were strong on both sides. In February of 2012, the task made its interim report to the SBC Executive Committee. A February 21st Baptist Press article says in part,

“The task force appointed to study a possible name change of the Southern Baptist Convention is recommending the convention maintain its legal name but adopt an informal, non-legal name for those who want to use it: “Great Commission Baptists. The recommendation would mean that the legal name of the convention would remain “Southern Baptist Convention” and could be used by any church which wishes to use it. But other SBC churches could call themselves “Great Commission Baptists” if they wish. Draper said the new term would be a “descriptor.” Dr. Jimmy Draper, Chairman of the presidential task force said, ‘We believe that the equity that we have in the name Southern Baptist Convention is valuable.’ ‘It is a strong name that identifies who we are in theology, morality and ethics, compassion, ministry and mission in the world. It is a name that is recognized globally in these areas. We also recognize the need that some may have to use a name that is not associated with a national region as indicated by the word ‘Southern.’ We want to do everything we can to encourage those who do feel a name change would be beneficial without recommending a legal name change for the convention. We believe we have found a way to do that.’  The goal from the beginning, Draper said, ‘was to consider the removal of any barrier to the effective proclamation of the Gospel and reaching people for Christ.’”

This issue of name change has come before us in years past. Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention heard similar motions entertaining the possibility of a name change in 1965, 1974, 1983, 1989, 1990, 1998, and 2004. Each time messengers decided to leave the name of the Southern Baptist Convention as is. I want to share my thoughts here on this issue. I am not in favor of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe it has served us well all these years and that it will continue to identify us as champions of biblical conservatism in the decades to come. At present, the Southern Baptist Convention has something that is very valuable: name recognition. When you hear the name “Southern Baptist Convention”, you know what you are getting. The same is true when you hear the names Harley Davidson®, Apple ®, Coke®, and Starbucks ®. I want to share with you the three reasons why I believe the name “Southern Baptist Convention” is worth retaining.

1. The Southern Baptist Convention has led the way in caring for the physical needs of those introduced to disaster, both here and abroad. When it comes to ministering to those who have been affected by tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis, no one does it like Southern Baptists. Often the first on the scene with feeding units, showers, and chaplains, Southern Baptist Disaster Relief, and Baptist Global Response (the disaster relief arm of the International Mission Board) are on site to meet the physical needs of people with the desire to meet the spiritual needs. Relief and compassion are synonymous with Southern Baptists. This kind of “equity” if you will, can’t afford to be lost through a name change.

2. The Southern Baptist Convention has led the way in the defense of biblical truth and religious liberty. Whether or not everyone agrees with the stance the Southern Baptists takes on doctrinal matters, at least they know where we stand and that we will remain consistent. In the late 70’s and early 80’s, Southern Baptists took a stand against the liberalism that was infiltrating our seminaries. Southern Baptists took a stand for the inerrancy of sufficiency of the scriptures. We are still reaping the benefits today. We owe a tremendous debt, one we can’t repay, to Southern Baptist statesmen such as W.A. Criswell, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Ed Young, Tom Elliff, George Truett, R.G. Lee, and many others. Southern Baptists have been a consistent voice “crying in the wilderness” of mainstream media against the laws and practices that seek to curtail the freedoms to practice our religion. We owe a debt as well to the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. I am fearful that a name change would call into question the integrity of all that has been accomplished in our 166 years.

3. The Southern Baptist Convention has led the way in pushing back the darkness through intentional missions efforts. Again, synonymous with Southern Baptists is missions and well-trained, well-prepared, and well-equipped missionaries. Some of our North American missionaries have expressed concern that the name “Southern Baptist” is a hindrance to the church-planting efforts in certain parts of North America. That concern is the genesis for the Dr Wright’s decision to study the name change again. Although there may be some merit to this concern, overall I believe the integrity and track-record of the Southern Baptist Convention will serve us well in future church-planting movements.

What is in a name? A great deal. We have in the Southern Baptist Convention a name that has served us well, is trusted, and respected. Although the committee studying the name change does not recommend a formal change, they do offer an alternative. Dr. Draper writes, “other SBC churches could call themselves ‘Great Commission Baptists’  if they wish. This new term would be, in Dr. Draper’s words a ‘descriptor’. From where I stand, this ‘descriptor’ will be more confusing. I understand the desire to draw attention to our efforts in fulfilling the Great Commission. In light of the past Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations, this has become more of a focus than ever before. But, it is possible for Independent Baptists to be committed to the Great Commission. It is possible for American Baptists to be committed to the Great Commission. For one, I will stick with the Southern Baptist Convention. It is that name that identifies us as a people of doctrine, a people of conviction, and a people of missions. I agree wholeheartedly with the with the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee Report of 1999 where they gave their rationale for not changing the name of the Convention. They wrote,

“The name Southern Baptist Convention” and term “SBC” have become brand names meaning more than just the sum of their parts. The Southern Baptist Convention no longer denotes a region as much as it does a position. It has come to mean missionary zeal, staunch Bible defense, moral rectitude, adherence to faith, and dependence upon the Lord.”

Book Review : Our Last Great Hope

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

For Evangelical Christianity, the Great Commission represents the very heartbeat of our Savior Jesus Christ. For in its’ words and commands we find, with absolute clarity, the mission that we are to devote our lives to. In his new book, “Our Last Great Hope; Awakening the Great Commission”, Dr. Ronnie Floyd examines the Great Commission in a way that I have not seen or heard before. As a Southern Baptist, I am familiar with Dr. Floyd and his ministry as the senior pastor of Cross Church, a multi-site church in Northwest Arkansas. When I read that he had written a book of the Great Commission, I was immediately interested. Dr. Floyd recently chaired the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force that took an intentional and exhaustive look at how we as Southern Baptists could do better at fulfilling  the Great Commission. He shares in his book how his service on this task force gave him a renewed passion for and a heightened sense of urgency in joining Christ in the work of taking the gospel to the nations.

Our Last Great Hope is not so much an academic work that dissects the Great Commission verses and explores all its’ nuances. That being said, this work is well researched and sits on a firm biblical foundation. Instead, Our Last Great Hope demonstrates how to move the Great Commission from the classroom to the driving force in every believers heart, family, and life.

Dr. Floyd walks the reader through the ways in which the Great Commission can become a personal reality. He begins with the individual. He builds his case that the Great Commission must first be personal before it can be public. He then goes on show how a commitment to the Great Commission will affect their families, businesses, local communities, and then the nations. He also says that a commitment to the Great Commission will affect our prayer lives, plans, and our giving.

Dr. Floyd has written a very challenging work. As a pastor, I am familiar with the Great Commission, however, I have been challenged to think about it differently. If it were possible, Our Last Great Hope should be required reading for all staff members and lay leaders. This is a book that I will read again. His balance of scripture and personal experience makes this book a joy to read. I highly recommended this book.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

 

 

Worth Repeating : David Platt

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

“There is a spiritual battle presently raging for the souls of billions of men and women around the world. The scope of this spiritual battle is universal. It covers and comprises every tongue, tribe, language, nation, person, and people group. There is no place on this earth where this war is not being waged.

The stakes in this spiritual battle are eternal. There is a true God over this world who desires all people to experience everlasting joy in heaven. There is a false god in this world who desires all people to experience everlasting suffering in hell. The enemy in this spiritual battle is formidable. He is like a lion looking for his kill, and he is dead set on defaming God’s glory and destroying God’s people. Where the church exists, he works to draw us in through temptation and discourage us in trial. He lures us with possessions and prosperity, and he lulls us to sleep with comforts and complacency. He deceives, deters, and distracts the church from knowing the wonder of Christ and declaring the worth of Christ to the ends of the earth.

Meanwhile, he holds thousands of unreached people groups captive through deceptive philosophies, hollow worldviews, and false religions. These people groups are virtually untouched by the gospel of the glory of God, and this is where the adversary’s stronghold exists. Any Christian and any church that desires to proclaim the gospel among the unreached people groups of the world can expect to be met with the full force of hell in the process.”

David Platt,  from the foreword of “Spiritual Warfare and Missions” by Jerry Rankin and Ed Stetzer

My Response to the Open Letter by the Alabama Baptist Conference of Directors of Missions

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Below is my response to the recent open letter issued by the Alabama Baptist Conference of Directors of Missions dated November 15, 2010 to the Southern Baptist Convention calling for a slowdown of the Great Commission Resurgence. Their letter can be read in its entirety here.

I would like to begin by saying that in the grand scheme of all things Southern Baptist, I am merely one pastor. I am merely one pastor among thousands across the SBC who day in and day out engage our people in the reality that we have been given a mission and that mission involves people. My love for Christ and a burden for the lost motivate me as a pastor to stand before God’s people and proclaim the only certain cure for darkness is light. I am certain that is your motivation as well. I would be amiss if I did not thank you for your service to the kingdom of God. I want you to know that I appreciate all that you do in a position that I can only assume is challenging at best. Your leadership and guidance on behalf of Alabama Baptists has no doubt been selfless and beneficial.

Your open letter dated November 15, 2010 was a letter to pastors. It was a letter to the local church leader. It was a letter to the local congregation. It was a letter to a denomination of churches that had spent a considerable amount of time (nearly a year) considering a request to evaluate themselves. It was a letter to me as a 38 year old Southern Baptist pastor. Therefore, I would like to respond.

I was in the convention hall in Orlando this past June when the GCRTF recommendations were presented, debated, amended, and accepted by a great majority of the messengers. I, for one, studied both the preliminary and final reports. When asked by Dr. Floyd to do so, I committed to be a prayer partner throughout the entire process. After the year-long build up, after all the articles had been written, after all the interviews had been given, after the almost hour of discussion, and after the final vote, it was clear to me that the messengers present that day sensed a need for change in order for Southern Baptists to have any hope of putting a dent in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. I left Orlando hopeful, optimistic, and more excited than ever about the future of the SBC.

To the best of my ability, I would like to reply to a few of your statements that I feel are especially troubling. As I read the reasoning behind your letter and the letter itself, there were certain words and phrases that I found not only surprising, but discouraging. The phrases, “pull the plug”, “backed into a corner”, “when the GCR comes to pass”, “causes division”, “knows the devastation GCR will have”, “superseded”, and “dismantled” collectively send a message of fear.

First, Tom Stacey, Salem Baptist Association Director of Missions said he “knows the devastation the GCR will have”. I don’t know how this is possible. I believe that any “perceived knowledge” as to how these recommendations will affect any agency in the future is speculation at best. The recommendations that passed in Orlando are just that, recommendations. The adoption of the report of the GCRTF did not change anything, realign anything, create anything, dismantle anything, or decrease any funding on the spot. These recommendations were referred to the respective entities (Executive Committee, NAMB, etc) for study. These were non-binding and no one fully knows what will happen or what the respective agencies and entities will do. It will not be until June of 2011 in Phoenix that we know how the entities respond to the recommendations.

Second, Steve Loggins, president of the Alabama Baptist Conference of Director of Associational Missions said “we all want to see the Gospel go to the ends of the earth, but we can’t abandon what we have here. It doesn’t have to be an either/or, but a both/and.” In all fairness, your letter does not come to the defense of the nations. Two of the recommendations of the GCRTF deal with NAMB having a greater emphasis on church planting in under-served areas of North America. They also ask the IMB to help NAMB with identified people groups located within in North America. I believe the thrust of the recommendations address your concerns: pioneer areas where there are people, but a lack of churches to serve them. You speak of a “both/and”, but one recommendation dealt with the IMB receiving an additional one percent and this was absent from your letter. Instead, you addressed the areas that would affect you and only defended the funding of those areas.

Thirdly, you stated in your letter, “in our understanding, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force and documents proceeding from the task force essentially have: superseded the Cooperative Program, Southern Baptists main funding for working together.” There were no new funding mechanisms put forward by the GCRTF. The GCRTF did not offer one channel of funding in exchange for another. You mentioned the “documents proceeding from the task force”. On page number nine of the pamphlet entitled Penetrating the Lostness; Embracing a Vision for a Great Commission Resurgence Among Southern Baptists, under Component number three, the following is written, “We reaffirm the definition of the Cooperative Program adopted by action of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. We honor and affirm the Cooperative Program as the most effective and efficient means of channeling the sacrificial support of our churches through undesignated giving which funds both the state conventions and the work of the Southern Baptist Convention. We call upon the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to increase the percentage of their Cooperative Program giving.” Although the GCRTF put forth a category of giving entitled Great Commission Giving in order to recognize all categories of missions giving, the Cooperative Program appears to have remained center stage for cooperative funding. In Orlando, the GCRTF embraced an amendment to their own report that added language of further support and recognition of the Cooperative Program as the main avenue of cooperative missions giving. The wording of the amendment and the willingness of the task force to listen to the messengers should put to rest your fears of the “dismantling” of the Cooperative Program. If nothing else, their spirit of cooperation should at least give you an inclination that their motives as pure.

Lastly, Stacey said again, “We’re praying [NAMB President] Kevin Ezell will start understanding more and more that these entities and agencies will do some studies before they pull the plug on whatever they are going to pull the plug on. We’re backed into a corner and we are trying to be as gentlemanly as we can.” Who backed you into a corner? Why is there a need to be so defensive? As leaders, we should always evaluate how our ministries are being carried out in order to determine if there if there is a better way to utilize personnel, resources, time, and the Cooperative Program monies that sacrificially flow from the pews of the local congregation. As leaders, evaluation and introspection should not frighten us. At its base level, the GCRTF has asked us all to do that very thing. In all fairness to Dr. Ezell, he has just begun his duties at NAMB. He has stepped into a difficult position. He has been given recommendations from the messengers of the SBC that call for a serious look at how NAMB does business. Please give him some time to understand his office and duties before any assumptions are made. You mention that you hope some studies are done before the plug is pulled on “whatever they are going to pull the plug on.” I would like to remind you that you are a part of “they”. What I mean by that is this. Any final action will be made by messengers who come from the local Baptist church.  The recommendations that were passed in June are the studies you hope that will be done. The GCRTF gave some detail to each entity as to what to “study” to better carry out the Great Commission.

I would like to ask two things of you as an association of directors of missions and as influencers of Baptists nationwide.

First, please let the process work before you make any drastic decisions. I believe that asking for a slow-down on a renewed passion and desire for the fulfillment of the Great Commission is counter-productive and not our place. How dare we ask such a thing?

Second, please keep in mind the nearly six billion lost people throughout the nations when drawing territorial lines. Turf wars are not God-honoring and never advance the gospel. We must never become fixated on our areas so as to miss what God is doing elsewhere.  

Many challenges lay ahead of us as Southern Baptists. We are challenged to put the welfare and future of the nations first. We are challenged to seek the kingdom of God first. We are challenged to seek unity first.  There are going to be issues and positions that we don’t agree on. It is impossible to believe that everyone will always agree on everything.  Although we don’t agree, we have to remember that we serve the same Lord and it will be our ability and willingness to bridge our differences that will determine how long we travel in separate directions hoping to reach the same destination.

Are We There Yet? Part #2

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

“Getting there”. In yesterday’s post, I began looking at the question that is being asked of all Southern Baptists during this Christmas season as we study about, pray for, and give to our missionaries through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. The question is “Are We There Yet?” The “there” is the lost world. The “there” is the culmination of our witness so that everyone has heard the name and gospel of Jesus Christ. Along the way, questions must be answered. The status quo has to be challenged. Priorities must be re-shuffled. Today, I want to offer two questions that surely will have to be dealt with before we can get “there”.

Question #1: Are we there yet in our willingness to place the funding of our missionaries as a top priority?

Our Southern Baptist missionaries are on the front-line in the battle over spiritual darkness and are funded solely by monies contributed through the Cooperative Program. This enables our missionaries to remain on the field engaged in training leaders, planting churches, building relationships with local people groups, and other gospel-proclaiming endeavors. The flip side of the issue is this. If churches decrease their giving, then less money will reach the mission field overall. If state conventions decide to keep for themselves larger and larger percentages of the CP dollar, then less money will reach the mission field.

It is a reality that ministry requires money. It is just the simple truth. Reaching the lost, and the nations for that matter, requires the individual believer, the individual church, the individual association, and the individual state conventions to give selflessly, in whatever manner is available to them in order for Christ to be proclaimed. Budgets reflect priority. It does not take an economist to tell that financially our county has been hurting for a few years, and continues today. I am also a firm believer that financial challenges further reveal priority.  When faced with financial challenges, churches can decide to either make missions and ministry a priority or play it safe and look within. At Port Royal Baptist Church, we have recently made decisions to further invest in what is fruitful and decrease what is not seen as fruitful. Associations, when faced with financial challenges, can either choose to cut ministries and play it safe or aggressively speak for the nations on behalf of the fellowship of churches. State conventions, when faced with financial challenges, can either decide that missions work beyond the state lines is as equally important and worthy of equal funding, or can allow the lobbying of the state agencies and entities to drown out the call for needed funding from overseas.

What makes me question whether or not the willingness is there or not comes from what I have seen over the past several months across the SBC. This willingness can be seen in several state conventions have voted to move their CP division to a 50/50 split, meaning the state retains 50% of funds sent to them from the churches and forwards the other 50% to the SBC. This is encouraging and exciting thing to see happen. It is at the very least a recognition that more funding is needed beyond the state in order keep already appointed missionaries where they are and fund the ones who are standing by. As I had mentioned in a earlier post, our state convention is South Carolina during it’s annual meeting voted to keep any excess funds beyond what is required to meet the operating budget within the state and divide the excess between the seven state entities, agencies, and schools. Do difficult financial times in our country give us a free pass on reaching the nations with the gospel? Absolutely not. Until we as Southern Baptists possess a willingness to make missionary funding a priority, “there” will remain just beyond our reach.

Question #2: Are we there yet in our realization that “business as usual” is no longer acceptable in our efforts to reach the lost?

 I believe this was the genesis for the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. Going back to the original motion in 2009, there has been a realization across the SBC that on present course we are, at best, treading water in our efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. This passion and desire to get our practice right as it relates to the Great Commission is real. It is just as real as the passion and desire was to get our theology right during the Conservative Resurgence of the mid-late 1980’s. From time to time it takes something to rattle us and wake us up from our slumber. I believe GCRTF has put before us as Southern Baptists the picture of lostness and legitimate recommendations that would enable us to fulfill the Great Commission. These recommendations, if implemented by the various agencies, will change the face of our denominational structure and how we do “business”. I was encouraged to read what Dr. Kevin Ezell, President of the North American Mission Board, said recently at a missionary appointment service. Dr. Ezell said “As we go through changes, absolutely every change we make and every reduction we make is to put more missionaries in the field.”

 It is very easy to get settled into routines, schedules, ministries, programs, and structures; and as a result, place our trust in them. Any changes to the present structure will be questioned and difficult. Territorial spats are already occurring and changes have only been proposed. Recently, a group of directors of missions from Alabama wrote an open letter to the SBC encouraging a slow down on the Great Commission Resurgence. I’ll be writing a response to that letter in the near future. How do you hope to slow down a renewed desire and passion to fulfill the Great Commission? Better yet, how dare you ask such a thing? I sat in the convention hall of the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Orlando this past June, it was clear that Southern Baptists were saying “business as usual” is no longer acceptable. It is a willingness to let go of “business as usual” and set aside turf wars and territorialism that will determine our ability to get “there”.

My Reflections on the 2010 South Carolina Baptist Convention Annual Meeting

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

I attended our South Carolina Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Columbia last week with a good pastor friend of mine. I enjoy annual meetings such as these. I have always made an attempt to attend these meetings and involve myself in the business of the state convention of which the church that I pastor is a contributing member. These annual meetings are times of fellowship, encouraging worship, challenging messages, reports from the agencies and entities owned by the state, and times for various business items to be handled.

As I look back on Columbia this year, I do so with mixed emotion. On one hand it was an enjoyable positive experience. I had the opportunity to represent my church as a messenger and participate in the voting process. Opportunities presented themselves for me to meet new people and form new relationships. Being new to the SCBC, this was important. I was personally encouraged by the messages I heard during the annual meeting and the pastor’s conference. Mike Stone, Ed Stetzer, James Merritt, and Ken Whitten and others personally touched my heart. I had been previously asked and was elected to serve on of the convention committees over the next three years. I am looking forward to this opportunity. I was also encouraged by a motion from the floor that called for the convention president to create a South Carolina Great Commission Resurgence Task Force whose purpose is to respond to the recommendations contained in the SBC GCR Task Force that were adopted back in June and bring their report to the messengers in Columbia next year. Anytime we can begin seriously focusing on how to better accomplish the Great Commission it is a positive step. Outgoing president Dr. Fred Stone has named this 35 person task force. You can read their names here.

On the other hand, it was a puzzling experience. To be honest, I don’t know any other way to say it than that. I was left scratching my head at times in disbelief. To put it plainly, there was a spirit of fear present during the meeting this year. As the budget was being discussed, this spirit of fear is something that could be felt. It is hard to explain, but can be characterized by statements like these, “let’s wait and see”, “what will happen if?” “we just don’t know”, “let’s make sure first”, and “how do we know what will happen?” To me, two motions demonstrate this.

First, under the 2010 SCBC operating budget, 40.44% of receipts are forwarded to the SBC. The proposed 2011 budget calls for 41% to be forwarded to the SBC. A motion was made to amend the proposed budget to freeze the SBC contribution at 40.44%. The argument was put forth that there was no way of knowing what kind of changes may be recommended or what revenue may look like. So, we should just wait before changing our percentage giving to the SBC. Unsaid was that while we wait, the nations wait. Thankfully this amendment failed.

Second, a motion was made that all receipts in excess of the 2011 budget be kept in state and divided among the seven state institutions, agencies, and schools. Again, the argument was put forth that the funding was desperately needed in the state due to the work that was going on here. I don’t doubt there is good work happening across the state of South Carolina. To ask that any extra, above and beyond what is necessary, be retained in the state and divided among the agencies who already, by percentage, receive budgeted funds is a mistake and a missed opportunity. A missed opportunity to send this surplus to the mission’s agencies whose sole source of funding comes from the gifts of the churches. Again, the nations will have to wait.

In my opinion, the upcoming year is going to be a crucial one for our state. As the task force meets to being their discussion over the recommendation the SBC has adopted and plan for the effects as the state level, a great deal is at stake. We could see a call for major changes or no changes at all. Will our state convention continue on the path of retaining large portions of the CP dollars from the member churches? Will there be a shift to move toward an even distribution of CP monies? I don’t know. I am praying for the latter. I don’t know how many more years we are Southern Baptists can absorb the number of missionaries having to leave the field due to lack of funding. I don’t know how long we can absorb the shrinking number of missionaries while the number of those without Jesus Christ continues to rise.  I do know one thing. I left Columbia convicted because I did not stand and voice my opinion and feelings on these crucial matters. That will be the last time that I walk away wishing I had said something.

 

Let’s Be Fair About This

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

The season of state convention annual meetings is upon us. Our annual meeting in South Carolina is scheduled for November 16th-17th in Columbia. All across the SBC, states are gathering for times of worship, encouragement, inspiration, and difficult decisions during business sessions. Many of the state conventions are in the beginning phases of making adjustments after the passing of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendations this past June during the SBC annual meeting in Orlando. The task force asked for SBC churches to shine the light upon how we as Southern Baptists can do better in fulfilling the Great Commission. So, state conventions, wrestling with struggling economies and fulfilling the desire of its messengers, are beginning to adjust their budgets accordingly.

Part of the budget decisions facing many state conventions is not just whether or not to increase or decrease their budget based on projected income from the member churches over last year. Another decision that states face is what to do with their percentages as it related to the Cooperative Program. The bare-bones question is this: “How much do we keep in state and how much do we forward to SBC causes?” Messengers from member churches make this decision. Historically, the percentage goal for allocation of CP dollars has been 50/50. At the beginning, Southern Baptists saw this as the ideal. In 1934, the SBC approved a distribution of receipts which called for “50% for Southwide (SBC) purposes and 50% for statewide purposes” 1

The 50/50 goal has not yet been embraced consistently across the SBC. Since that time, states have taken on their own buildings, agencies, schools, staff, and ministries. As a result, the distribution percentages have slowly but steadily shifted in favor of the state conventions. Since 1930, the division of CP funds between state conventions and the SBC has averaged 63.55% to the state and 36.45% to SBC causes.

Each state is autonomous. They can set their own budgets, choose which ministries to pursue, what and how much staff to employ, and decide what percentage of CP fund to retain. Currently, our South Carolina Baptist Convention retains 59.6% and forwards 40.4% to the SBC. Messengers to the SCBC annual meeting this year will see a proposal of (59% retain and 41% forward). I believe that our state convention is retaining too much of the CP dollar. Over the past years, and especially now with states being called upon to put more CP dollars to work on the mission field outside North America, the thought and necessity of a 50/50 split is being heard again. The state conventions of Kentucky, Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee will be at least considering  recommendations to move toward a 50/50 division of CP funds.

I am in favor of such an allocation. To my knowledge there has been no mention if South Carolina Baptists will hear a proposal to move toward a 50/50 split. I hope we do. I hope the messengers get a chance to speak to such a recommendation in the future. Here is why I feel this way. Even if our messengers approve a 59/41 split, proportionally it seems out of balance. Here in North America, the barriers to the advancement of the gospel are fewer. Think about it for a moment. Physically reaching the lost across North America is easier. Days of difficult travel to reach people groups do not exist in North America. Technology has made a variety of delivery methods available. It has also made communication between workers quicker and more efficient. Networks of church planters and those who provide resources and training to them are already in place. For the most part, the language barrier is not as great a battle here as it is in other parts of the world.

The barriers to the advancement of the gospel are greater overseas. Travel to and from remote cities and villages s difficult, time-consuming, and potentially hazardous. Limited technology in many parts of the world makes it more difficult for missionaries to communicate with each other and with those whom they serve. In turn, this limits the ways in which the gospel can be delivered. We have the luxury here in North America to be able to use social networking (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc), video, unnumbered styles and varieties of gospel tracts, different Bible versions, and advertising to get the gospel message out. At times, our missionaries are the only “professional” in a particular area. I worked on several work and witness teams with an IMB missionary who was responsible for the Miskito people group. His area of responsibility covered the coastal and inland sections of both Honduras and Nicaragua. Contrast this with North America where we seemingly have churches on every corner with pastors and planters having each other to give encouragement, support, and resources in order to better reach people.  The language barrier hinders any kind of work. Although our missionaries spend time in language school before arriving on their field, it still takes time to effectively communicate the gospel, especially when some of our words don’t even exist in native tongue.

 Despite the contrast, we are sending more money and resources to North America, and more especially our state, and less to the foreign mission field. If we have clearly been given a mandate to reach all the nations with the gospel, and I believe that we have, then our funding should reflect the priority. Lostness is lostness, here and abroad. Should we not be funding our missions efforts equally? I believe there are a number of our state convention agencies that have the ability to gain funding outside of the CP channel. I firmly believe that the missions agencies of the SBC whose sole support is CP monies should have what they need in order to active in pushing back darkness around the world.

Would our state convention in South Carolina have to make adjustments in order to get to a 50/50 split in Cooperative Program giving? Without a doubt. Would a 50/50 split challenge the state convention and its leadership to make hard decisions and sharpen their focus on the lost beyond state lines? Absolutely. Would this be the right thing to do? I believe so.

 

1 – SBC Annual 1934 (pp. 38-49)