In studying John 3:16, I took some time to research a question that I've wanted to examine for some time now. We all know the traditional translation of the verse says, "...God so loved the world..." The question I've wondered about is how to translate "so" (houtos in Greek). A Greek dictionary will give you a definition something like this: "so, thus, in this way."
That means, depending on which definition is meant by houtos in 3:16, we could get two different senses from the verse. Here are the two options:
1. For God loved the world so much...
2. For God loved the world in this way...
The first option means that houtos indicates "a high degree" whereas the second means something like "in this manner". I believe most people assume option #1 when they read John 3:16 because that's the most natural way to understand the phrase "God so loved".
The word houtos (so, thus, in this way) occurs 208 times in the Greek New Testament—a fairly common word. I went through all 208 times and counted how many times it was used in each of these ways. It is only used to indicate "a high degree" in four of those 208 occurrences. There is one more where I'd say it's 50/50 and could mean one or the other. And there are two other places it's used and is possible, but I think unlikely that it means "a high degree". So, at most 7 out of 208 uses of houtos coincide with option #1. The rest all indicate a meaning like option #2.
In only 2-3% of times this word is used does it mean option #1. (See * list below)
In 97-98% of times houtos is used, it means something like "in this way."
As I looked through the 208 occurrences, here are some of the ways houtos is translated:
|in this way||like this||as follows|
|exactly||in this manner||and so it happened|
|this way||just as||in the same way|
We know that understanding the Bible must take into account considerations besides lexical meaning. But there seems to be a pretty heavy weight just from the lexical data that we should be leaning toward meaning #2 when we get to John 3:16. I believe the context fits more appropriately with meaning #2 as well. The focus is not on the degree or intensity of God's love, but on the giving of the one and only Son.
This is why I believe John 3:16 would be better translated: "For God loved this world in this way, he gave his one and only Son..." The Holman Christian Standard Bible and the Net Bible are the only two translations I know of that use that translation. Most others use the traditional "God so loved..." (NIV, TNIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV). And one (eek!) actually uses "God loved the world so much..." (NLT).
*Instances of houtos that indicate degree: Definitely: Gal. 1:6; Gal. 3:3; Heb. 12:21 (houto); and Rev. 16:18 (houto). May or may not (50/50 chance): 1 Thess. 2:8. Possible, but doubtful: Mark 7:18 and 1 John 4:11.
|OT Passages||NT Passages|
2 Sam 7:8-16
This list isn't exhaustive, I'm sure there are plenty of others. Feel free to leave any that you would add in the comments section.
I think one of the most helpful is to simply take passages and compare them side-by-side. I'm preaching on Romans 3:1-8 this week, so thought I might take the opportunity to show the differences between the 1984 and 2011 versions of the NIV. That's my only reason for selecting this particular passage: it's the one I'm currently working through.
There are three changes that I see as I compare these translations: verses 3, 4, and 8. Let's look at each in turn.
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?
NIV Update (2011)
What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?
I found this one particularly interesting because as I studied yesterday, never looking at the NIV Update, I wrote in my notes on the passage that the NIV's "faith" would probably be better understood as faithfulness. It is not primarily the lack of belief, but lack of covenant obedience to the "very words of God (v.2)" that Paul is discussing. Though belief likely would be included in this understanding, the '84 rendering makes it sound as if belief is the primary focus.
So I count this one as a notable improvement over the 1984 NIV. To compare how other translations render the verse: Faith/belief—NIV 1984, NASB, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NET; Faithfulness—TNIV, NIV 2011, ESV, NLT, RSV, NRSV)
Let God be true, and every man a liar.
NIV Update (2011)
Let God be true, and every human being a liar.
The dreaded gender neutrality shows up! The text certainly flows and sounds better with "man" than "human being." And the Greek is certainly the noun for man (which is often used of humans in general). It is clear that this refers to both men and women equally so the meaning of the text is not obscured by the gender-neutral rendering.
I don't call this an improvement, but I don't think it's reason to criticize either. For readability reasons alone, I wish they had left it as it was in 1984. Translation comparison: Man—NIV 1984, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV; Human Beings/One/Everyone else—NIV 2011, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, NET.
Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.
NIV Update (2011)
Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
From what I can tell, the first change is an effort at clarity by giving a shorter rendering of the Greek. Is the meaning better presented even though "literalness" has been sacrificed? I think so. On the whole, I'd say this change is for the better. Longer reading—NIV 1984, TNIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV; Shorter reading: NIV 2011, ESV, HCSB, NLT, RSV, NET
The second change is from "deserved" to "just". This Greek work is from the "justice/righteousness" family of words and is certainly more literally rendered as "just." "Deserved" is probably a fair way of bringing the concept into contemporary English, though it does lose the word family association. Overall, I slightly prefer "just" here, but realize a case could be made fir either. Translation comparison: Deserved—NIV 1984, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, NET; Just—NIV 2011, TNIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV.
So as we look at the changes, overall, I think the NIV 2011 is to be slightly preferred over the NIV 1984. Probably most interesting to me is the fact that the ESV has made the same choices in the two areas (gender-neutrality and literalness) that the NIV 2011 has been criticized most for (and quite often by fans of the ESV)!
But can you think how silly the whole thing is?
The pilot has a gun in the cockpit and he's managing this aircraft which is a missile and we make him go through this groping x-ray exercise, having people feel in their underwear.
He's exactly right. If a pilot ever decided to commit a terrorist act, he has plenty of ways to do that other than smuggling a box-cutter through security in his underwear.
Several states voted to move to a 50/50 split in Cooperative Program funding—with half staying with the state convention and half being forwarded directly to the national level Cooperative Program: Florida (within 4-7 years), Kentucky (by 2017, with bulk of change in 2011), and Tennessee (by 2012-13) That is a major step and I am actually shocked (but glad!) they took that kind of action so quickly. It should be an indication to other state conventions that it is possible if made a priority.
A huge thank you to all those in these three state that worked to see that happen.
The new NIV is said to keep about 95% of what we now know as the NIV (from 1984). So this is more than a minor revision, but not really a new translation either. A few years ago, Zondervan tried doing this same kind of thing and releasing it as a new translation, the TNIV. The TNIV was heralded by some, but also heavily criticized for going too far in some places with how it translated gender-specific original wording into gender-neutral English. (ie. man, or mankind may have been translated as people; sons may have been translated as children; etc...) The TNIV was not widely successful.
So this time there is no "new" version. After next year, Bibles printed under the NIV name will have the NIV 2011 text rather than the 1984 text. Some of the TNIV changes have been kept, some have been discarded. They have tried to stake out a middle ground on the gender-neutrality question. Here's a brief video from highly respected New Testament scholar Doug Moo talking about the NIV update.
I'm still evaluating the NIV 2011, but there has been plenty of discussion about the update, so here is a rundown if you'd like to see how the conversation is looking at this point:
- SBC Impact blog has a post listing a few notable changes.
- Bible Gateway is also hosting a blog called Perspectives in Translation to address some of these prominent translation issues from both sides. The articles are short, but may be somewhat technical. However, don't let that deter you from taking a look. I think most anyone interested in Bible translation could benefit from it.
- Denny Burk has a couple of posts on the release and a few different translation issues:
The NIV on Romans 1:17 (links to some discussion that may be somewhat technical)
- Robert Slowly has an extensive list of changes and differences between the NIV, TNIV, and NIV 2011.
I expect a lot more discussion to follow. I look forward to it as I consider whether to continue using the NIV as my primary translation.
UPDATE: Trevin Wax posts The NIV 2011 Forces a Choice at his excellent blog, Kingdom People.
I haven't yet decided whether to try and introduce the resolution from the floor. Here's the text of the resolution. If you have feedback, I'd be glad to hear it. That may help me make a decision about trying to introduce it during the meeting itself.
Resolution Expressing Gratitude for the Work of the Great Commission Task ForceSubmitted by Brent Hobbs, pastor, Severn Baptist Church, Severn, NC
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention, on June 15th, 2010, adopted the recommendations of the Great Commission Task Force; and
WHEREAS, Three leaders from the state of North Carolina were members of that Task Force; and
WHEREAS, Those and other members of the Great Commission Task Force spent many hours thinking and working together for the benefit of our cooperative work; and
WHEREAS, The goal of the Task Force was to seek how Southern Baptists, including North Carolina Baptists, could work together more faithfully to fulfill the Great Commission; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, November
9-11th8-10th, 2010, appreciate the many hours of labor by members of the Great Commission Task Force; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we are thankful for an ongoing discussion about how we can most effectively carry the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost in this world; and be it
RESOLVED, That we
affirmappreciate the work and recommendations of the Great Commission Task Force and the vision they have presented to our churches, both nationally and across North Carolina; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we are grateful for the approval of the Task Force report in June and hope for greater Great Commission effectiveness as a result.
(EDIT: Updated resolution language with changes indicated by strikethrough and new portion by underline. See below for details.)
The committee's reasoning for declining the resolution for consideration? It (1) "did not seem appropriate" to "single out a particular committee for affirmation" and because (2) it was "directive in nature, calling on the Convention to take action".
At this point, I might point out one resolution that was accepted here. You might also note that it singles out a particular BSCNC employee for affirmation (paragraph 7) and calls the BCSNC to specific action, selecting leaders who have demonstrated support for the Cooperative Program (paragraph 6).
You can judge for yourself whether these are legitimate reasons for declining to consider the resolution.
EDIT (con't): After receiving some feedback on the resolution, I've decided to make a few changes as noted above. The biggest change is from "affirming" to "appreciating" the work and recommendations in order to make it sound less like an official endorsement. After making that change, I added the last sentence to make the resolution a little more clear that we are also thankful for the content of the report and its adoption.
I've also decided to go ahead and try to present the resolution to the BSCNC annual meeting next week. I'll do that by making a motion during the miscellaneous business session on Tuesday morning. It requires a 2/3 majority on a motion to "Suspend the Rules" so that we can consider the resolution. It's likely a long shot to even get it heard, but I sincerely want something to come out of our state convention this year expressing support for the GCR movement and vision.
The quote is from Luther's work known as his Autobiographical Fragment, written in 1545. I've merged a couple of different translations in the interest of clarity since I plan on reading it aloud as part of my message on Sunday.
… For I hated the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’, which according to the use and custom of all the doctors, I had been taught to understand philosophically, in the sense of the formal or active righteousness by which God is just and punishes unrighteous sinners.
Although I lived an irreproachable life as a monk, I felt that I was a sinner with an uneasy conscience before God; nor could I believe that I had pleased him by the satisfaction I could offer. I did not love—nay, in fact, I hated this righteous God who punished sinners, and if not with silent blasphemy, then certainly with great murmuring. I was angry with God, saying, “As if it were not enough that miserable sinners should be eternally condemned by original sin, with all kinds of misfortunes laid upon them through the Old Testament law, and yet God adds sorrow to sorrow through the Gospel, and even brings his righteousness and wrath to bear on us through it!” Thus I drove myself mad, with a desperate and disturbed conscience; persistently pounding upon Paul in this passage, with a parched and burning desire to know what he could mean.
At last, God being merciful, as I meditated day and night on the connection of the words, namely—‘The righteousness of God is revealed in it, as it is written: the righteous shall live by faith’—and there I began to understand the ‘righteousness of God’ as that by which the righteous man lives by the gift of God, namely by faith. And this sentence, “the righteousness is revealed,” to refer to a passive righteousness, by which the merciful God justifies us through faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ At this I felt myself straightway born again and to have entered through the open gates into paradise itself. From that moment the whole face of Scripture was changed…
And now, in the same degree as I had formerly hated the word ‘righteousness of God’, even so did I begin to love and extol it as the sweetest word of all. Thus was this place in St. Paul to me the very gate of paradise…
After Sunday, you can find the audio of this message, along with many others, on the 'Sermons' page at our church website.
I am relieved and joyful that this report was adopted by the convention. From my perspective, this was a strong statement by the majority of Southern Baptists present that our convention is defined by more than simply a giving formula. The adoption of the report means that not only do we share the Cooperative Program (CP) as a means of funding various ministries, but we are also together because of a common mission. This week the convention clearly stated that the CP is not preeminent. The CP exists to serve our common mission. This importance of this cannot be understated. It opens up the CP to a whole new level of evaluation and scrutiny - which the GCR task force used over this past year to recommend some pretty important changes for the sake of its own effectiveness.
As David Platt said at the Nine Marks gathering Tuesday night, passing the GCR was a good step forward; not passing it would have been a very big step backwards. We leave the Orlando 2010 annual meeting of the SBC better situated for a future of missional engagement, at home and across the world.
Now it's up to us to make sure Orlando was not the end, but only one more step along the way of a true Great Commission renewal movement in evangelical and specifically SBC life.
Component 5: IMB Allowed to Operate Within North America
This component recommends removing the limitation currently placed on the IMB and its personnel. So as not to step on NAMB's toes, they are not allowed to work in North America (U.S. and Canada). In initially it makes sense, but the problem comes when you consider the vast populations of internationals living here with cultural and language barriers that NAMB is not prepared to cross. This frees the IMB in situations where it would be beneficial, to work with groups like these. For more on this component, see my earlier post, The IMB Without Limits.
Component 6: CP Promotion and Stewardship
This recommendation places the leadership for promotion of the Cooperative Program (CP) and stewardship primarily with the state conventions and away from the SBC Executive Committee. For more in this component, see my earlier post, Stemming the Tide of Duplication.
Component 7: 51% of CP funds to the IMB
The task force wants to see us break the "50 percent barrier". This component redirects 1% of the national CP budget away from the Executive Committee and to international missions. A one percent shift represents around 2 million dollars. For more on this component, see my earlier post, Breaking the 50% Barrier.
1. Church Planting as the Priority - The task force envisions NAMB making church planting, which is the most effective means of evangelism, central to its strategy and work. The call is for at least 50% of NAMB ministry efforts to be channeled to "assist churches in planting healthy, multiplying, and faithful Baptist congregations in the United States and Canada." (pg. 10)
2. Cities and Underserved Regions as the Target - Two thirds of our Cooperative Program dollars in North America are spent in Southern States, where Southern Baptist presence is already strong. The task force wants to see our resources going to places in the U.S. and Canada where there is a limited number of churches and little gospel witness.
3. Missional Strategy as the Means - To some, the ideal church plant would be a remake of First Baptist, Some City, Alabama, merely relocated to New York or Michigan, or Oregon. Thankfully, the task force has called us to look at all of our settings as mission fields, which means the churches we plant will be designed to effectively reach and communicate to the populations in their respective communities. This may even include (gasp!) planting churches without 'Baptist' in the name. The point is reaching people with the gospel, not preserving SBC culture and tradition. In fact, in many (most) contexts, Southern Baptist culture gets in the way of helping people to hear the message of salvation by grace through faith alone.
4. Phasing Out Cooperative Agreements - In place since the 1950's, this is the method through which NAMB has partnered with state conventions. The way it currently works, too much is sent back to areas where Southern Baptist presence is already thick. Instead of phasing them out over a 4-year period, as the progress report recommended, the time period has been extended to a 7-year time frame. Also an addition since the progress report, they've called for a strategy to replace this method that will better reflect NAMB's new priorities and areas of emphasis.
5. Leadership Development - The task force is calling on NAMB to take the central role in developing pastoral leadership with particular attention to contextual evangelism and church planting. This is one area of the report where I'm not personally convinced it's the best idea. It may be appropriate for NAMB to take on this responsibility as long as it remains a small, small part of what they do. The fact that it's geared to equip pastors in contextualization and church planting makes it better. To me, it seems to fall in the not-quite-essential category. I think there are plenty of leadership development opportunities available from various groups and ministries. I'd rather see NAMB point pastor and church leaders to those already available resources than trying to do what's already being done.
6. Decentralization - The progress report mentioned NAMB from seven regional offices rather than one single national office. The final report does mention decentralization (11) but doesn't include specifics of what that decentralization looks like. Of course the decision will be up to NAMB leadership and trustees, but I suppose we have to look back at the progress report for the clearest idea of what the task force has in mind.
Even with some slight reservations as mentioned above, I believe it is essential that the SBC messengers adopt component 4 in Orlando. We cannot continue to operate as we have in the past. NAMB has lacked effectiveness and doesn't inspire confidence among too many Southern Baptists. This is an opportunity to mark a new chapter in the existence of the North American Mission Board.
I support the move to Great Commission Giving because churches should have the right, without others criticizing or sneering at them, to bypass the inefficient state convention system with their missions giving. I maintain that it is irresponsible for churches in states where 2/3 of missions funds are kept in-state to make the Cooperative Program their exclusive means of supporting missions. When churches decide to take ownership of their missions giving, still supporting SBC causes, they should be celebrated and not stigmatized.
I am thankful for churches who have decided to give directly to the national level Cooperative Program so that a higher percentage of funds gets to ministries that they (and I) consider priorities. Great Commission Giving affirms these churches and makes the Southern Baptist Convention a place that is welcoming. Welcoming to those of us who will not toe the line to let state convention executives divvy out funds as they see fit.
That, in short form, is why I support the Great Commission Giving Recommendation.
Other Aspects of Component 3
There is a call for Southern Baptists to give sacrificially "as never before." This stems from research showing abysmal giving statistics for average church members. If more of our church members practiced biblical stewardship (note I didn't say tithing), a floodgate of resources would be opened for our cooperative missions work.
One aspect about which I've heard very little mention is the call to include estate planning and planned gifts (9) to undergird Great Commission work after we've departed this life. I like this inclusion and it's something we should think and hear more about.
The task force also calls us "to support the Cooperative Program as never before." It may seem counterintuitive to what I've said above, but I believe that the attitude change signified by the adoption of Great Commission Giving will make me and others more willing to support the Cooperative Program; because we feel a resonance once again with the direction of the SBC, and because state conventions will receive the message that more needs to be forwarded to the national level.
I really believe that, over the long term, this proposal will help increase the funding going to Great Commission missions work and the Cooperative Program itself.
- Christ-likeness (reflecting Jesus' attitude and character)
- Truth (inerrancy)
- Unity (secondary issues will not distract us)
- Relationships (others more important than self)
- Trust (honesty, transparency with one another)
- Future (importance of coming generations)
- Local Church (central to the Great Commission)
- Kingdom (working with other groups where possible)
I think this component is even more important than I realized at first. There is an argument that appeals to logic for being a part of the SBC. It has to do with the great job our IMB does with reaching the nations; the great job our seminaries do with providing a high-level education at a relatively low cost; the ways many of our other ministries succeed in doing effective Great Commission work. This is a practical argument and I think in many ways it is effective to those who will listen.
But many (and more all the time) refuse to listen to that argument because they cannot get past SBC culture. In order for someone to partner with the SBC for ministry, they must first feel an affinity toward the SBC. They must feel drawn to this fellowship of churches. And if we're being honest, our culture is more likely to drive away than to attract. Until we own up to this reality we can't fix the problem. Until our culture looks more like these values, the exodus of young leaders will continue, regardless of how effective we make our giving program.
A new culture is essential to turning the tide in the SBC. The GCR task force has done us a service by placing this reminder in their report.
Between the Times continues to have some excellent posts on GCR matters. That's the first place I'd point you to. They are also reposting articles from other places so have become an aggregator in some ways for pro-GCR thinking. (Think: Balance for Baptist Press)
Also, keep an eye on Baptist21, specifically Recent GCR Articles of Note.
I've noticed some anti-GCR voices becoming rather unreasonable in their criticisms of the task force and the report. This tells me they are worried that support for the report is too large for them to overcome. I won't link to the discussion I'm talking about because I don't want them to receive any more attention in light of their recent conduct.
I'm also trying to figure out the best way to continue with my analysis of the final report. I'm trying to decide whether to continue going component-by-component is the best approach or whether I need to take a different direction. I'll think about it some more and have some new content next week.
We knew it was missional. We knew it should be compelling. But how clear could it be without a concise statement of this vision? The task force answered by providing the following sentence and asking the Convention to adopt as its official mission statement:
As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.
I didn't see this coming but I think it is a good addition to the progress report. It's concise, simple, and should be easy to memorize for anyone so inclined. There's a lot packed into the one sentence.
"A convention of churches" recalls the centrality of the local churches of our convention - it is not the convention's role to fulfill the Great Commission, but to assist churches in fulfilling it. "Our missional vision" calls attention to the need for us all to see our own contexts as mission fields. "To present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world" encompasses both missional living at home as well as pioneer North American missions and the farthest reaches of international missions. "To make disciples" calls us to remember the priority of discipleship, not stopping at conversion, but the need for growing and maturing believers. "Of all nations" points to the heart of Southern Baptists in making the gospel known among all peoples of the earth.
This is actually a split of Component #1 in the progress report. So what was Component #1 in the earlier series of posts has now become components 1 and 2, and therefore rearranges the entire numbering system from all my previous posts. In other words, they made it all complicated for me trying to write these blog posts! But in all seriousness, I think they were right to separate the vision statement from the core values.
I'm happy with the statement as it's presented. Could it be improved in some ways? There's no doubt many will think they should have said it a little differently here or included something there. But I think it's a good statement and worthy of our support. I hope it will help us channel our energy and resources even more as we're reminded of our priorities.
Pages 2-6 of the report gives an introduction to the report and a summary of why many think a Great Commission Resurgence is needed. It begins with a call to reclaim our identity for a new generation. The GCR Motion from the 2009 meeting in Louisville is reviewed along with a few words about the work of the task force (pg. 2).
A section on the urgency of the Great Commission task is next, filled with statistics showing the vast numbers of people in the world who are lost and the billions who have little or no access to the gospel. There is great cause for concern in a world with 7 billion people and the most generous estimates put the number of followers of Jesus at 1 billion. 3.5 billion have never heard the gospel and 6,000 people groups are identified who have no Christian witness. Our own baptism numbers are down and our growth (or lack of) is nowhere near keeping up with population numbers. (2-3)
The report also details how a lack of funding contributes to our situation. Average Southern Baptists give 2.5% to their church, average churches give 4% to the Cooperative Program, average state conventions keep 63% of all CP money. The report calls for all of those percentages to increase in order to open the floodgates of funding to our SBC entities. so that they might not be hindered in helping us fulfill the Great Commission because of a lack of resources. (3-4)
A Theological Center
"A Great Commission Resurgence grows directly out of a Great Commission theology." (pg. 4) A breath of fresh air! We often hear calls to cooperate in spite of theology; but there is the one way that gives us a true foundation for lasting fellowship and cooperation: a common theology.
We are united in believing that Jesus is the only way to be delivered from God's wrath and that all those who don't believe in him stand condemned. We are united in believing that unreached people must hear the gospel in order to be saved. We are united in believing our mission is to take this gospel to the ends of the earth and to everyone on this planet we are capable to reaching.
The report calls us to rally around this biblical understanding of reality and our purpose here. For a Great Commission Resurgence, theology is not to be abandoned or ignored, but becomes a new and more solid foundation for cooperation and mission.
"We will be ready to do whatever it takes to see a Great Commission Resurgence change our priorities, reshape our plans, and fuel our lives for God's glory." (5)
A New Missional Vision
Along with the gospel as our theological center, we also agree that the local church has "primacy and centrality." "The New Testament identifies the church as the central instrument of the kingdom of God." (5) The task force rightly sees the Great Commission as something churches must own themselves and stop thinking of the convention as the place where we outsource the work.
Because the local church is central, the task force issues a call for churches to rally around "a new missional vision." (See "Missional Described" for further explanation.) "Each individual congregation must accept the responsibility to reach their village, community, town, or city with the good news of Jesus Christ." (6) So our churches must begin to view their own setting as a mission field and all Christians as missionaries.
These two aspects, a theological center and a new missional vision, come together to form the root form the the rest of the report grows. Here's a good summary statement from page 6:
All of our Baptist work beyond the local church must exist solely to serve the local church in this mission. This is true for every Baptist association, state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. None of these exists for itself – all exist for the churches. Every pastor must be a missionary strategist, and every church must be a missionary sending center. Every congregation exists to replicate itself and to plant other Gospel churches. Every entity of Baptist work must exist to serve our churches in this missional vision.
A Work of God Needed
Just before getting to Component #1, the task force saw fit to remind us that we are dependent on God for seeing any real fruit from this movement: "So, how can we make a Great Commission Resurgence happen? In truth only God can bring this about." (6)
After walking through the introduction, it's hard for me to understand the criticism that the report is heavy on structural changes but light on recognition of the need for spiritual renewal. The task force has clearly set the stage - a theological center and missional vision that provide for both spiritual and structural renewal.
Component #1: A New Attitude (supplemental post: Missional Described)
Component #2: Reinventing NAMB
Component #3: The IMB Without Limits
Component #4: Stemming the Tide of Duplication
Component #5: The CP Loses Its Monopoly
Component #6: Breaking the 50% Barrier
Look for the new series on the final report over the next week or two.
The report and videos may be viewed at the Great Commission Resurgence website, http://www.pray4gcr.com/. You can read the report or watch a video where Ronnie Floyd presents the report. They've posted an additional short video to be shown in churches about the GCRTF's work. You can see it below.
The Biblical Recorder printed a Baptist Press news release that is a good summary of the report. It may be the quickest way for you to get an overview of the report.
I also wanted to point you to a post at Southeastern Seminary's all-star blog, Between the Times, written by Steve McKinion. Steve makes the case that the Great Commission Resurgence movement is the direct descendant of the Conservative Resurgence movement of the last few decades.
Here are two others takes on the report, one positive and one negative:
For a positive assessment , see “Penetrating the Lostness”: One Enthusiastic “AYE” for the GCR Report! at SBCImpact.
For a predictably negative negative view on it, see My Take on the Final GCR Report at Les Puryears' blog. I'll probably interact in detail with Les' criticisms in an upcoming post because they seem representative of most people who dislike the report. I link to it here so you can stay well-informed.
In order to show an even greater emphasis on international missions, the GCR task force has recommended that this percentage be increased from 50% to 51%.
The text of Component #6:
We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, that a greater percentage of total Cooperative Program funds should be directed to the work of the International Mission Board. Therefore, we will ask Southern Baptists to support this goal by affirming an intention to raise the International Mission Board allocation for the 2011-2012 budget year to 51%, a move that is both symbolic and substantial. At the same time, we will ask Southern Baptists to reduce the percentage allocated to Facilitating Ministries by 1% as part of our initial effort to send a greater percentage of total Southern Baptist Convention mission funds to the nations.
Note the language that says this increase will be both "symbolic and substantial." They say it will be substantial because, though one percent doesn't sound like much, when we're talking about a budget of just over 204 million dollars, it does mean a lot of money. To be specific, we're talking about just over two million dollars going to the IMB from this change alone. That is a substantial increase, even for an organization with a budget of over 317 million when the IMB is being forced to suspend some programs and hold trained missionaries off the field because the money is not there to send them.
In my opinion even more important than the substance of the increase is the symbolism of the fact that, as the report states, "for the first time, in our history, more than one-half of all monies that come from our churches through the SBC cooperative program will go to the reaching of the nations." In recent years, when percentages have been altered, the IMB was left out of those entities receiving an increase. It seemed like they had reached the magic number, the invisible ceiling of 50% and they would never see an increase in that number.
So I am very thankful that the task force is recommending we do away with this limit. In future years, as giving begins to increase again, I hope it will climb even further (growing at a slightly faster rate than other entities). Or, in case of a continued decline, I also hope the numbers can be adjusted so that the decline is absorbed in other areas rather than international missions.
Where Does This 1% Come From?
If the IMB portion is increased by one percent, that percentage point must be cut somewhere else: Facilitating ministries, according to the report. That means the Executive Committee. Luckily, part of component #4 was eliminating CP promotion and stewardship education from the role of the Executive Committee. That reduction of responsibilities paves the way for the IMB increase.
You can imagine those in and close to the Executive Committee haven't been too pleased with what will amount to a significant reduction in their budget. In fact, some have claimed this change will "gut" the work of the Executive Committee. Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of millions of Southern Baptists weeping because the work of the Executive Committee is so near and dear to their hearts. They just can't bear to see it "gutted."
Now that you've stopped laughing, it shouldn't take you long to realize that this kind of change is exactly what the GCR Task Force was called to do - make recommendations to get more of our money to actual ministries while spending less on things that aren't necessary. That means some painful cuts in some areas that may be doing good work, but just are not essential to our mission.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow's final report. It should be released by 9:30 Eastern time on the website http://www.pray4gcr.com/.
Because of this "overhead" at the state level, many churches have opted to withhold part of their would-be Cooperative Program gift and send it instead directly to ministries they want to see flourish. So a church might send money directly to the IMB, NAMB, or one of the seminaries, or a NAMB-affiliated church plant, but that money doesn't "count" as CP giving.
Here's the text of Component #5:
We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to reaffirm the Cooperative Program as our central means of supporting Great Commission ministries; but in addition, we will ask Southern Baptists to celebrate with our churches in their Great Commission Giving that goes directly through the Cooperative Program, as well as any designated gifts given to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.
So instead of the Cooperative Program gifts being the only measure of how much a church "participates" in the SBC, that will become only a part of the measurement - that is, if the GCR task force recommendation is adopted. It will be CP gifts plus any direct giving to SBC causes totaled together for the new category of "Great Commission Giving."
Now there are some people who really, really don't like this recommendation. After all, can't we all just get along, cooperate, and let some people in a budget meeting somewhere determine where our missions giving is spent?
The reality is that some churches don't feel like they can allow the CP to be their primary way of supporting missions. It's a sad day when churches are giving around the Cooperative Program precisely because of their commitment to the Great Commission.
Important Only for the Change in Attitude It Represents
While I do support this recommendation, I think, in actuality, it accomplishes little. Churches who want to give around the CP are going to do it anyway, regardless of whether or not it "counts" on their church profile. There may be a few who see this as an endorsement of other giving methods and decide to pull back CP support, but that number will be small.
The reason Component #5 matters is that it shows a acknowledgement by the convention that we are going to respect churches who choose a different giving formula than the one assigned by their respective state conventions.
When pastors like Bryant Wright lead their churches to decrease CP giving and forwards that same amount directly to the IMB, is he to be celebrated or chastised? I think that should be celebrated. And so, apparently, does the GCR task force.
They said those who make the charge that the task force's work is political and ignores the need for spiritual awakening have missed a significant part of what the task force has called Southern Baptists to do. (The first 1/3 of progress report focused on this area.)
There's a lot more I'd like to mention. I may go through and give some more detailed descriptions in a later post.
Baptist21 has said they'll get the video up on their site as soon as its available. I'd look for it in the next day or two and I'll update this post with a link to it when its available. I really recommend you watch it if this is an issue you're concerned with.
UPDATE: Video is now available at: http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/?p=4026
In the meantime, check out these two reflections from two people who were also there. Norman Jameson of the North Carolina Biblical Recorder gives a fair and detailed take on the session here. Alvin Reid gives some of his thoughts on revival movements and the role the Great Commission Resurgence and Baptist21 are playing in Southern Baptist life.
Let me give an example from our state. I hope it won't step on too many toes, but I think its a perfect example of what I mean. Over the last few years, the state WMU has moved out of our state convention offices in order to avoid state convention leaders' influence over the organization. (The state convention was too conservative for the liking of WMU.) Also, issues with appointment of trustees have led Baptist Retirement Homes and the BSCNC to part ways as well.
These were two fairly prominent organizations the state convention had been involved with, and now no longer was. So what did they do? See it as an opportunity to shed some layers of organization? Take the opportunity in a time of declining budgets to downsize? From a standpoint of mission and vision, did they see it as a chance to narrow the focus of what the state convention does? None of the above.
Instead, the BSCNC started two new ministries so they could continue to be involved in women's ministry and senior ministry. NC Baptist Aging Ministry had a budget, as a new organization, of over $900,000 in 2009 and of $800,000 in 2010. That's right around 2.3% of the entire state convention budget. Now this is not to discredit the work of NCBAM or Embrace. I'm confident they have great people involved and do a good job with their respective ministries. But that is not the point!
Maybe we don't have to be involved in every possible ministry. Maybe we could just leave women's ministry to some groups out there who are already doing women's ministry well and simply put our churches in contact with those groups! Maybe it's not the job of a state convention to teach our churches how to have exercise classes for senior adults. Again, there's no doubt a lot of good has been accomplished by both of these groups. And I'm sure the people working with them are wonderful. The real question is: Are these essential to our mission?
The Result of Everyone Wanting to Do Everything
When we have so many organizations around the country with this same kind of attitude, that means there are a lot of people doing exactly the same job just for a different geographical region or different constituency. Instead of having 2 or 3 things we do really well, we all have the same 10 things that we're working on and our attention and resources are divided.
Add to this the fact that it's not just 41 state conventions we're talking about, there's also NAMB, local associations, churches, parachurch organizations... That means that in addition to ministry staff for each of these different ministries in each organization there are also administrative and organizational costs. Overhead increases exponentially. There ends up being a lot of wheel reinventing going on.
Can't We Delegate?
As an example, here are five items that are often available at the state convention level and also in some area of Southern Baptists' national organization:
- Church planting
- Mission trips
- Church consulting
- Stewardship education
- CP promotion
Makes sense and sounds easy, right? Well, I'll be the first to admit that theory is easier than reality here. It's not realistic to make such clean-cut distinctions and divvy out jobs like we're task manager on Celebrity Apprentice.
But at some level this is what Component #4 is about and attempts to do. Here's the text of Component #4:
We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to move the ministry assignments of Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education from the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and return them to being the work of each state convention since they are located closer to our churches. Our call is for the state conventions to reassume their primary role in the promotion of the Cooperative Program and stewardship education, while asking the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to support these efforts with enthusiasm and a convention-wide perspective.
So what we're talking about is making clear that the Executive Committee will no longer play a role on stewardship education and Cooperative Program promotion. That job will be left to the state conventions, who are already involved in this area as it is.
In my view, this is a fairly modest proposal considering the amount of duplication that exists. The task force could have called for more here and I would have been happy. But as a jump out of the starting block, I'm happy with this proposal.
Morris Chapman and Failure
One final note on this item. I came across an interview with Morris Chapman (HT: Les Puryear), head of the SBC Executive Committee yesterday. He said if this proposal is adopted, it "will be the first time since 1927 the convention will fail to use its own money to promote its own ministries." This is nonsense. To decide not to do something, and then to follow through and not do it does not equal failure. It really is beyond me why some people can't see past the way we've always done it. There are other options. The only failure here would be to allow duplication in this area to continue.
Then you have a thought... "Wait! I know! The IMB already ministers in many of these international contexts so they might be able to show us how to reach these groups."
And then someone tells you, "No, the IMB isn't allowed to do that."
It isn't that the IMB doesn't want to help, or that they can't afford the personnel. (Though either of those may be true at different times.) The real reason they can't is because it's on page 325 of the Official Rulebook of the SBC. Ok, not really, but it is a real rule the IMB has to abide by.
The Text of Component #3:
We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to entrust to the International Mission Board the ministry to reach the unreached and under-served people groups without regard to any geographic limitations.
The IMB has already indicated that even if this recommendation is accepted, they have no intentions of appointing missionaries stateside. The thrust of this recommendation is to remove the artificial barrier preventing IMB personnel and resources from being used to help equip others to minister to these groups.
Here's more from the report:
So the expertise of our missionaries overseas can be channeled to help us (local churches primarily, I hope, along with state conventions and NAMB) reach these groups with the gospel. Let's use the resources we have available to us and stop limiting based on barriers that are no longer as significant as they were 50 years ago.
Most of the 586 people groups that do not speak English in the United States have strategy coordinators working overseas with the same groups. With geographical limitations removed, a new synergy can be created in international missions.
The Text of Component #2:
We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, that our North American Mission Board needs to be reinvented and released. Therefore, in order to do this, we will ask Southern Baptists that the North American Mission Board prioritize efforts to plant churches in North America and to reach our nation’s cities and clarify its role to lead and accomplish efforts to reach North America with the Gospel.
The task force is recommending that the restructuring be centered around a strategy for church planting. They call for at least 50% of NAMB's budget to go toward church planting. The church planting should focus on metropolitan areas (especially outside the Southern Baptist South) and underserved people groups (pioneer areas of North America).
In addition to church planting, the task force envisions NAMB:
- assisting churches in evangelism and discipleship
- assisting churches in leadership development
- assisting churches in having a missional impact in their various contexts
- becoming the leader in Southern Baptists' strategy to reach North America
- becoming streamlined in order to be a true leader in reaching North America
- directly appointing missionaries to fulfill NAMB's strategy
- mobilizing existing church to plant new churches in metropolitan and pioneer areas
- become decentralized to serve more efficiently
- be released to budget for a national strategy (including ending cooperative agreements, see below)
- developing a Leadership Center of North America
So a few minor changes should take care of things, right? Absolutely not, and that is one point I think the task force is trying to convey. NAMB is broken, complicated, messy, confusing, and inefficient. Do they do some good things, and even some great things? Probably so, but that misses the point. Overall the organization is in turmoil (see recent leadership turnover) and lacks focus. Major restructuring is necessary to stop the bleeding that has been going on for some time now.
I like the fact that the task force is calling for a major renovation to NAMB. There are specifics in these recommendations that I still have questions about. There are some I would either like to see dropped and given totally to state conventions, or have state conventions get out of the business and leave it entirely to NAMB in order to avoid duplication. But the emphasis on church planting is rightly placed. That is where the resources for a "home" mission board need to go.
On Ending Cooperative Agreements
The most discussed aspect of Component #2 is the recommendation to phase out cooperative agreements over a four-year period. NAMB currently sends back over $50 million to the state conventions for various projects and staff. Some have argued that the state conventions will be dramatically harmed by this elimination. Let's be honest here: The larger state conventions will feel the difference, but it will not be dramatic when considered in light of the size of these organizations. The smaller state conventions, those in pioneer areas, may actually be seriously harmed by a decrease in funding in this way.
There is no doubt in my mind a better system can be invented and implemented than the current system. In reality, the 14 largest state conventions (represented in blue on the map to the left) do not need money returned to them. They are large enough to support themselves completely and should be called on to do so.
It is exciting to think of the possibilities of a reinvented North American Mission Board. I think the task force's recommendations could still use some tweaking here and there, but overall the vision cast in Component #2 is sorely needed and a breath of fresh air for those of us who want efficiency with our resources and deep impact on our continent for the gospel.
A few weeks ago, I preached on What Does it Means to Be Missional? I set up a list of contrasting attitudes between missional thinking and conventional thinking. I thought it may be helpful to post that list here.
|Sees our community as "home field."||Sees our community as a mission field.|
|Waits for people to come to us. (Welcome mat)||Reaches out and meets people where they are.|
|Assumes people are saved.||Assumes people need to hear the gospel.|
|Sees missionaries as a separate class from the rest of us.||Sees every Christian as a missionary.|
|Attitude of complacency.||Attitude of urgency.|
|Church is mostly same race, same income class.||Reaches a cross-section of the community.|
|Treats "sinners" with contempt.||Treats "sinners" with compassion.|
|Comfort is king - change is the enemy.||Mission is king - change is a tool.|
|Sees value in today's world but lives in history and tradition.||Sees value in history and tradition but lives in today's world.|
|Timid, conservative, mind set on safety and control.||Bold, risk-taking, mind set on making an impact.|
|Gets excited about giving to facility upgrades and maintenence.||Gets excited about giving to missions and the spread of the gospel.|
|Assumes we already know the culture and how to communicate.||Studies culture and looks for bridges to cross.|
Even though there has been relatively little discussion of it so far, it's difficult to underestimate the importance of Component #1. This is foundational to the other components. It's in many ways, I believe, a summary statement of what the rest of the components seek to accomplish.
The Text of Component #1:
We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to rally towards a clear and compelling missional vision and begin to conduct ourselves with core values that will create a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention.
There are two aspects that deserve highlighting: First, a missional vision, and second, a new and healthy culture described by eight core values.
A Missional Vision
Component #1 calls Southern Baptists to a "clear and compelling missional vision." Some might point out that using the words 'clear' and 'missional' together is a little ironic since it might be hard to define 'missional' with any kind of clarity in the first place. It's a word that's been used by people in different ways and with a wide range of intended meanings behind it.
So what does 'missional' mean and what does the task force mean by it? Missional means, in my understanding, being wrapped up in the mission of God as a lifestyle. In other words we see the Great Commission, the spread of the gospel of God's reconciling sinners through faith alone in Christ, as the job of every Christian, not just the jobs of pastors and missionaries. It means we see our own places (towns, cities, workplaces, families, etc...) as mission fields. We have no home field. Everywhere we go is an away game. You look at your life and every day as a mission trip whether you're on another continent or living in the same community where you were raised.
So for Southern Baptists to have a missional vision is for us to see ourselves as missionaries and the places we go daily as mission fields. This is emphatically not to the exclusion or to diminish those full-time, vocational missionaries we send various places. In fact, we we understand 'missional' correctly, we are going to see the importance of missions all the more. But there's a shift from the us (non-missionaries) and them (missionaries) mentality to a way of thinking that says we're all on the same team, working toward the same goal, only in different locations.
'Missional' is a newer term and therefore its definition is still somewhat fuzzy to many Southern Baptists. And its also been misused at times by people who do not have the gospel as the focus of their message to the world. But these shouldn't keep us from rallying around this concept. Can you imagine what the SBC would look like if our people and churches grasped this vision? It's staggering to imagine the impact we could have.
A New and Healthy Culture
Al Mohler reminded us recently that we have a reputation and tendency to be grumpy. Some might say it's easier to define Southern Baptists by what we're against than what we're for. We could point out examples of where our interaction with each other is filled more with sarcasm and cynicism than love and trust.
Our Southern Baptist culture, in many areas, is not a healthy example of how Jesus' disciples should act toward one another. The eight core values we should operate with are, according to the task force: Christ-likeness, truth, unity, relationships, trust, future, local church, and kingdom. When we are at our best, these items describe us well. But until these qualities begin to describe the norm instead of the ideal, we will rightfully keep our reputation as a grumpy, disagreeable group.
The Bible tells us that we should live at peace with everyone, so long as it depends on us. Too often we look like we're ready to pick a fight with anyone available. Mark Driscoll, Disney, calvinists, Ed Stetzer, Barak Obama, private-prayer language practicers, bloggers, anyone who's not 'Baptist enough', Rick Warren, etc... When it comes to other believers, when will Southern Baptists emphasize what we have in common more than what separates us? Can't we rejoice loudly at how many lives Rick Warren has touched with the gospel and have some quiet, private discussions if we wish he used a different methodology?
I'm thankful for the task force for calling us to put aside abrasiveness for a new, healthier culture.
If you want to hear the task force report on Component #1, watch the video at http://www.pray4gcr.com/ between 26:08 and 31:30. You can also download the audio file of the report here.
- A lot of discussion about the GCR Task Force's Interim report. My plan is to jump in the discussion with several posts examining each of the 6 components. This will lead up to the May 3rd release of the final report by the task force.
- Les Puryear is launching an initiative to have more small church pastors elected and appointed to leadership positions in the SBC. He's explained what difference he thinks it will make. I'm not opposed to having more small church types in leadership, I just don't think the problem is as pressing as he thinks it is, and I don't think it will help solve the issues to any real extent. Besides, we have more important issues to deal with right now.
- Ergun Caner has a lot of splainin' to do about some inconsistent statements he's made about his past. Even some questions about whether or not he even knows Arabic like he claims (Youtube video of him speaking some gibberish, passing it off as Arabic). No such explanation seems to be forthcoming, at least not yet. We should expect better from someone who's president of Liberty University's Theological Seminary.
- Baptist21 has announced the details of their lunch and panel discussion on Tuesday of this year's SBC Annual Meeting. Sarah and I attended last year and it was a highlight of our trip. You can see the details and reserve a spot here. If you'll be in Orlando, don't miss it.
Feel free to let me know your thoughts on this new system.
The criticism of Tim Tebow for filming a Superbowl commercial has been hard to miss. For what? Reports indicate the ad tells the story of Tebows mother, who decided to have Tim instead of abort him like the doctors were recommending because of an illness she contracted during pregnancy. It sounds like the ad doesn't even mention abortion. But for many in the pro-"choice" movement, evidently hearing a story that encourages women to keep their babies is inappropriate for national TV. The National Organization for Women has condemned the ad and CBS' decision to let the ad run during this year's Superbowl.
There's a great article of the nonsense of all that written by Sally Jenkins, who described herself as a feminist and pro-choice. Take the time to go read it.
In addition to that, Denny also posted a link to a video of some of the 1986 Superbowl Champion New York Giants who decided to film and anti-abortion segment. It talks about the game itself and has several players making an appeal for us to put an end to the killing of our children. Its good to put in perspective that Tebow is not the first nationally recognized football player to take a stand like this, and in actuality, Tebow's looks to be a more positive statement on the value of life rather than a condemnation of abortion. (Both of those are necessary, BTW.) Here's the video: