What I've learned, part 1

I was going to save this for one or two big posts on "what I've learned and will take home with me" on this stateside assignment, but a couple of blog posts I just read changed my mind. I know there has been a movement for some time now to rebuild or eliminate the Cooperative Program. Today, a post at Twelve Witnesses quoted several sections of a post by Bob Roberts. [As a disclaimer, I have to say that I don't know Bob Roberts and I haven't read his book, though he seems to be pretty hot right now.]

Both of these guys are advocating an overhaul of the CP, saying that it in our world today, we are in need of something different. I agree that the CP could use some serious improvements. Roberts is right when he says that "churches can't just send money and read stories of what other people are doing." CP giving is not a substitute for living and proclaiming the gospel. He is also correct that we should probably take a look at how well we're spending CP money.

That said, though, here's one thing I've learned and will take home on this stateside assignment:

1. The Cooperative Program is still the best way for churches to work together to accomplish the Great Commission.

The problem with Roberts' post is that it is bad history and makes false assumptions. He sees the CP as some kind of "tax" similar to that which sparked the American Revolution. The fact is the the CP addressed some serious issues affecting churches in its day. First, churches were looking for a way to accomplish the Great Commission, and the best answer was to do it together instead of separately. Roberts is apparently blessed to work in a large church with big resources. My churches aren't like that. In fact, the vast majority of SBC churches aren't like that. Do many churches substitute CP giving for living the gospel? Maybe so, but those small churches still accomplish more around the world together than apart.

Second, the CP addressed the society model. Churches faced constant appeals for money from individual missionaries and organizations. How do you choose? For huge churches, no problem. For churches I've been associated with, big problem.

I realize I am a beneficiary of the CP "tax." I am blessed and well taken care of by the giving of thousands of churches. I am also freed from the having to return home every other year to raise money as many of my colleagues are. I can continue my ministry without that fear of a church deciding to build a big building or hire another staff member and cutting their giving. I know that happens often anyway, but the impact is not as great. I am a beneficiary in that I recieved and am still receiving the finest theological education you can get without having to break the bank.

I understand Rogers' and Roberts' concerns. I really do. Some things need to change with the givers and the spending. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. To return to the societal model or to the time when only big churches could support missions would be a shame. Should churches be more "missional?" Absolutely. Does that mean we should get rid of CP? Not at all.

Thanks for listening.