We rarely point our hands at others. We generally use the classic "pointy" finger singling someone else out while our fist gives the authority. We all recognize, however, that that pose aims three fingers straight back at the old judge. Taking a moment to consider that physical position leaves an individual in a situation of self-evaluation, often a painful self-evaluation.
My recent reading has included some of those self-evaluation books written by individuals who are wise beyond their years. They leave me wondering where I have been during my ministry.
Without trying to do book reviews, let me simply say that the following books ought to be required reading for church leaders in the 21st century. The reader needs to ask herself or himself, "Why didn't I see this before?" Now that you have seen it, what will you do about it?
Jusst because associational directors of missions are not leading one church seven days a week, every week of the year, we are not exempt from being Christ imitators in every area of life be it work or family or leisure. We at least need to be good examples for the church leaders with whom we work. How do we allow our faith to inconvenience us? Where is the faith in our lives evident? Where in our daily schedules do we allow a sinful and lost world to impose itself upon us? When do we allow God's grace to flow through us to individuals who know nothing about grace or forgiveness or redemption or self-sacrificing love?
I recommend the following:
Lost and Found by Stetzer, Stanley, and Hayes
Surprising Insights from the Unchurched by Thom Rainer
The Christian Atheist by Craig Groeschel
The Next Christians by Gabe Lyons
The Trellis and the Vine by Colin Marshall and Tony Payne
Transformational Church by Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainer
May you be blessed in the wounding as I have been.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Finding a Balance in Cooperative Ministries
Current trends at every level of cooperative giving should be a concern for everyone. This includes the support provided by individual church members to their church, the level of support provided by a church to its partner organizations, and the division made by state conventions in conjunction with the national bodies. What standards are we willing to support, condone, or simply ignore in our current system?
The level of a spring-fed pond on the farm rose or fell based on numerous factors. The spring's rate of flow and rainfall were the only sources of water. Ground seepage and evaporation accounted for primary losses. As long as the water entering the pond was equal to or greater than the amount leaving the pond, everyone was happy. When the loss exceeded the input, the pond started going dry. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the application to the funding programs of our churches, associations, and conventions.
Church members who designate their financial gifts away from the unified budget may still get a tax deduction, but in the long run it hurts the ministry capability of the church. Churches that designate their gifts to the state and national conventions instead of supporting the Cooperative Program may feel good about their mission support, but they hurt the ability of the conventions to do their work. When national conventions demand greater slices of the financial pie and state conventions don't have a larger pie from which to draw, then the pond starts to go dry and eventually everyone suffers.
Some future courses of action might include:
1. Individuals find in their local church's unified budget the best way to support the work of the Kingdom of God from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth by contributing 5-10% of their income. This puts more money into the network even if organizational percentages don't change.
2. ALL churches get behind the Cooperative Program and support it at a percentage level that reveals their commitment to the unified budgets of the conventions as the priority mission support channel. This allows for a healthy flow of adequate funds into the state convention and then on to the national level. If the current SBC church average approximates 6%, then 7% would be a healthy initial goal.
3. Sufficient churches continue to demand the right to send their money anywhere and still make decisions about the unified budget system of the state and national conventions. Less money goes into the Cooperative Program pool and supplies less for all channels going out. Additional cuts have to be made to unified budget priorities.
4. Sufficient churches demand that more money go out of the unified budgets of state conventions to national and international causes while giving minimal percentages to the state unified budget themselves. The state resources continue to shrink forcing more cuts to be made, further limiting the state's ability to meet ministry and mission needs within its field. Ultimately the state has to decide what it can and cannot support among former priorities. The two sides of the Great Commission coin, evangelism and discipleship, appear to come into conflict. Because this will result in less impact on the local church, the process will contribute to the increased dollar shortfall felt by national organizations that depend upon the states' providing supportive funding even though percentages sent are increasing.
I wonder:
Will the North American Mission Board decide to depend upon retail sales, designated gifts, and the Annie Armstrong offering for funding and focus on its own church planting program divorcing itself from all state covention involvement?
Will the International Mission Board begin to partner as a priority with missionaries already supported by individual churches jointly commissioning them to maintain a higher missionary force?
Will Southern Baptists decide that six convention seminaries are unnecessary, closing at least one of the "Bible Belt" schools to save money while depending more upon independent seminaries that are quasi-Southern Baptist to provide ministerial training?
Will associations become more creative and effective in providing local church support for missions, ministry, and training through cooperative efforts among churches and with other associations on a regular basis? Will they develop their own mission partnerships focusing on areas where their churches have a specific interest?
Based upon the changes in the last thirty years, the next thirty may well end with nothing that looks like the organizational structure we know today much less with what we were familiar in 1980. Since associations are outside the Cooperative Program channel, their efforts to increase ministry funding may have a significant impact on the efforts by other organizations to increase financial loyalty.
The level of a spring-fed pond on the farm rose or fell based on numerous factors. The spring's rate of flow and rainfall were the only sources of water. Ground seepage and evaporation accounted for primary losses. As long as the water entering the pond was equal to or greater than the amount leaving the pond, everyone was happy. When the loss exceeded the input, the pond started going dry. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the application to the funding programs of our churches, associations, and conventions.
Church members who designate their financial gifts away from the unified budget may still get a tax deduction, but in the long run it hurts the ministry capability of the church. Churches that designate their gifts to the state and national conventions instead of supporting the Cooperative Program may feel good about their mission support, but they hurt the ability of the conventions to do their work. When national conventions demand greater slices of the financial pie and state conventions don't have a larger pie from which to draw, then the pond starts to go dry and eventually everyone suffers.
Some future courses of action might include:
1. Individuals find in their local church's unified budget the best way to support the work of the Kingdom of God from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth by contributing 5-10% of their income. This puts more money into the network even if organizational percentages don't change.
2. ALL churches get behind the Cooperative Program and support it at a percentage level that reveals their commitment to the unified budgets of the conventions as the priority mission support channel. This allows for a healthy flow of adequate funds into the state convention and then on to the national level. If the current SBC church average approximates 6%, then 7% would be a healthy initial goal.
3. Sufficient churches continue to demand the right to send their money anywhere and still make decisions about the unified budget system of the state and national conventions. Less money goes into the Cooperative Program pool and supplies less for all channels going out. Additional cuts have to be made to unified budget priorities.
4. Sufficient churches demand that more money go out of the unified budgets of state conventions to national and international causes while giving minimal percentages to the state unified budget themselves. The state resources continue to shrink forcing more cuts to be made, further limiting the state's ability to meet ministry and mission needs within its field. Ultimately the state has to decide what it can and cannot support among former priorities. The two sides of the Great Commission coin, evangelism and discipleship, appear to come into conflict. Because this will result in less impact on the local church, the process will contribute to the increased dollar shortfall felt by national organizations that depend upon the states' providing supportive funding even though percentages sent are increasing.
I wonder:
Will the North American Mission Board decide to depend upon retail sales, designated gifts, and the Annie Armstrong offering for funding and focus on its own church planting program divorcing itself from all state covention involvement?
Will the International Mission Board begin to partner as a priority with missionaries already supported by individual churches jointly commissioning them to maintain a higher missionary force?
Will Southern Baptists decide that six convention seminaries are unnecessary, closing at least one of the "Bible Belt" schools to save money while depending more upon independent seminaries that are quasi-Southern Baptist to provide ministerial training?
Will associations become more creative and effective in providing local church support for missions, ministry, and training through cooperative efforts among churches and with other associations on a regular basis? Will they develop their own mission partnerships focusing on areas where their churches have a specific interest?
Based upon the changes in the last thirty years, the next thirty may well end with nothing that looks like the organizational structure we know today much less with what we were familiar in 1980. Since associations are outside the Cooperative Program channel, their efforts to increase ministry funding may have a significant impact on the efforts by other organizations to increase financial loyalty.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Initial Reflections on the 2010 NC Baptist State Convention Annual Meeting
Attendance continues to drop at the annual meeting which is sad. A lot of tremendous information was shared that would make for a much more highly educated membership in our churches. Hearing both what has happened and what is planned would help our churches decide more effectively their own type and level of involvement. But if you don't show up, it is hard to get the news!
How much should what we have been shape who we should be? Change in the church is necessary when we live in a world that will change whether we want it to or not. Why we should change in a particular area of life and ministry and what should change always become the points of discussion and division. The study committee that was approved by this year's convention will have to answer those questions. Do we throw out the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Statement as our doctinal document and replace it with the 2000 version or do we leave it as is?
1. Have we changed what we believe as Baptists? Then change the documents.
2. Are we doing it because the SBC did it? Not good enough, leave it alone.
3. If we have not changed what we believe, then don't change the documents.
4. If we are still an autonomous Baptist body, then any reference to the SBC should become irrelevant in the decision making process.
I don't think we have changed our fundamental beliefs about the Bible, its final authority in all matters of faith and practice, or our calling fron God to live God-glorifying lives before the world. Few associations and conventions on the state and local level across our country have felt a need to change. We don't need to do so either.
How much should what we have been shape who we should be? Change in the church is necessary when we live in a world that will change whether we want it to or not. Why we should change in a particular area of life and ministry and what should change always become the points of discussion and division. The study committee that was approved by this year's convention will have to answer those questions. Do we throw out the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Statement as our doctinal document and replace it with the 2000 version or do we leave it as is?
1. Have we changed what we believe as Baptists? Then change the documents.
2. Are we doing it because the SBC did it? Not good enough, leave it alone.
3. If we have not changed what we believe, then don't change the documents.
4. If we are still an autonomous Baptist body, then any reference to the SBC should become irrelevant in the decision making process.
I don't think we have changed our fundamental beliefs about the Bible, its final authority in all matters of faith and practice, or our calling fron God to live God-glorifying lives before the world. Few associations and conventions on the state and local level across our country have felt a need to change. We don't need to do so either.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Focusing on Kingdom Priorities
Throughout the week I am praying for the churches in our association. Each day I try to look at them from a different perspective: location, size, ministries, and visible priorities. This keeps my prayer time from becoming boringly repetitious and forces me to reevaluate my perception of each church on a regular basis.
The day that forces me to do the most critical prayer focus is Friday as I seek to see where each church stands against an outside standard and how I can be used by God to move that congregation closer to a Great Commission church.
I use three broad categories and break each of those into more focused groupings. They are:
1. Cathedral Builders: the focus is upon maintaining the facilities and the traditions regardless of the cost. These congregations can be subdivided into three groups reflecting how open they are to change.
a. Hospice: they would rather die than change
b. Critical: there is hope, but something had better be done fast
c. Stable: they are trying, but serious attention needs to be given to their vision before they slip into the critical stage or worse
2. Institution Builders: the focus is upon programs and success is measured by creating new programs and how many people are in attendance, especially members. This category has two categories
a. Inward focus: the priority is trying to retain all the members, keep them happy, and reclaim former members/chronic absentees
b. Outward focus: evangelism and missions are becoming more of a priority, but the focus is to get these new people involved in the programs taking place at the church facilities. The church buildings need to be used seven days a week with lights on every night in support of the programs.
3. Kingdom Builders: the focus moves from programs to relationships. Relationships are the priority wherever and whenever they can be developed and sustained. Homes, neighborhoods, and marketplace become the centers of the church at work. The life-giving relationship with Jesus Christ is the goal of conversations and activities. The facilities become one more tool for ministry rather than the center of ministry. Two categories help me evaluate these churches:
a. Traditional: worship services and their times vary little from other churches in terms of elements and order of service
b. Non-traditional: New and creative elements of worship expression are used regularly; times and places for corporate worship vary according to the need to involve people in the community.
Helping a church become a Kingdom Builder transforms it into a far more effective 21st century tool for the work of the Holy Spirit. My ministry as a Associtional Director of Missions is becoming more shaped by seeking to move these churches closer to being Kingdom Builders. How would you evaluate your church or churches?
The day that forces me to do the most critical prayer focus is Friday as I seek to see where each church stands against an outside standard and how I can be used by God to move that congregation closer to a Great Commission church.
I use three broad categories and break each of those into more focused groupings. They are:
1. Cathedral Builders: the focus is upon maintaining the facilities and the traditions regardless of the cost. These congregations can be subdivided into three groups reflecting how open they are to change.
a. Hospice: they would rather die than change
b. Critical: there is hope, but something had better be done fast
c. Stable: they are trying, but serious attention needs to be given to their vision before they slip into the critical stage or worse
2. Institution Builders: the focus is upon programs and success is measured by creating new programs and how many people are in attendance, especially members. This category has two categories
a. Inward focus: the priority is trying to retain all the members, keep them happy, and reclaim former members/chronic absentees
b. Outward focus: evangelism and missions are becoming more of a priority, but the focus is to get these new people involved in the programs taking place at the church facilities. The church buildings need to be used seven days a week with lights on every night in support of the programs.
3. Kingdom Builders: the focus moves from programs to relationships. Relationships are the priority wherever and whenever they can be developed and sustained. Homes, neighborhoods, and marketplace become the centers of the church at work. The life-giving relationship with Jesus Christ is the goal of conversations and activities. The facilities become one more tool for ministry rather than the center of ministry. Two categories help me evaluate these churches:
a. Traditional: worship services and their times vary little from other churches in terms of elements and order of service
b. Non-traditional: New and creative elements of worship expression are used regularly; times and places for corporate worship vary according to the need to involve people in the community.
Helping a church become a Kingdom Builder transforms it into a far more effective 21st century tool for the work of the Holy Spirit. My ministry as a Associtional Director of Missions is becoming more shaped by seeking to move these churches closer to being Kingdom Builders. How would you evaluate your church or churches?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)