Much of the Great Commission Resurgence discussion these days seems to revolve — at least from a funding standpoint — around the topic of mission priorities. Southern Baptists are legitimately asking, “How can we make sure that the dollars we put in the offering plate do the utmost good in fulfilling the Great Commission?” Most are not questioning so much whether the current missions and ministries endeavors we as Southern Baptists are supporting are worthy causes, but simply if they are the absolute best and if we can do better.

I don’t have the total answer to that question and I suspect that if you surveyed 100 knowledgeable Southern Baptists in detail about their ideas, you’d have at least 100 different variations in thinking about what our best would look like. That’s why we need to be praying for the Great Commission Task Force as this committee seeks to provide leadership in what will hopefully be a time of consensus building among Southern Baptists in the days ahead.

I will offer a couple of what I call “hinge points” in the discussion though because it seems to me that these are some of the key questions for reaching common ground. These are questions on which people don’t have to completely agree but understanding the answers helps everyone get a better handle on the different perspectives that are coming into play in this Great Commission conversation.

To me the first hinge point is the definition of missions and what constitutes a valid support of missions. One definition I’ve seen and like is: “Missions is joyfully advancing God’s Kingdom by making disciples of all the nations until Jesus returns (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 28:31; Matt. 24:14, Acts 1:8).” I like it because it sounds a bit like the Great Commission itself in that it captures both the concepts of evangelism (sharing the Good News) and discipleship (helping believers grow in their faith). To me this also encompasses the Acts 1:8 imperative that we are to be sharing the Gospel locally, regionally and internationally at the same time.

I’m not sure that anyone would disagree with this definition in general but there are definitely variations in emphasis that figure into the GCR discussion. For instance, I’m seeing some come close to advocating that it’s only missions if it takes place “overseas.” Others seem to me to be saying that missions work in our own state and nation should only be carried out by the local church and that there’s not really a need for a cooperative effort among local churches, associations, state conventions and national entities. Still others suggest that conducting ministries (such as reaching out to abused children, teaching people to read, providing disaster relief, etc.), while worthy, are not technically doing ”missions” and maybe shouldn’t be included in the funding mix.

I realize that this is an oversimplification of what for some are very well thought ideas and that there are many other views as well. My point is simply that when we as Southern Baptists say that we “support missions,” we need to realize that there doesn’t seem to be consensus on exactly what that means and that we will all have to work toward understanding the other viewpoints and not make assumptions.

Personally, I tend to hold a pretty broad view of the definition of missions in that I see it as both what we do across the street as well as what we do across the world. I guess I have a hard time separating the work of discipleship, ministry, missions and evangelism because to me they all go together and are vital parts of fulfilling the Great Commission.

A second hinge point and one that is closely related to the first is the perception of the Cooperative Program’s role. Some see the Cooperative Program solely in terms of international missions and are deeply concerned about wanting to see more CP dollars get to the “mission field,” which typically means “outside of the U.S.”

(As a quick aside, I think every Baptist wants to see more go to international missions. Baptists love missions and we have especially always loved doing international missions. I, myself, came to Christ through the ministry of a Southern Baptist missionary on the island of Okinawa and we have at least three former International Mission Board missionaries on our state convention staff right now. I also want us to find the best way to increase our international missions funding.)

Others see the Cooperative Program primarily in terms of its historical role. CP was orginally established to help Baptists move from a “societal” method of giving where every ministry had to solicit funding directly from the churches to a “cooperative” method of giving where churches gave to fund a pool of money that would then be divided between missions work and ministries deemed worthy of Baptist support.

Getting consensus about the percentages of this cooperative giving has been difficult since the very beginning and is a special focal point in the conversation today – especially in states like Kentucky that use Cooperative Program dollars to not only fund the work of the state mission board and Southern Baptist Convention causes but also Christian education, children’s ministries, camps, etc. Some of the newer state conventions, which do not have institutions and agencies that share in CP giving, are able to both keep more for state mission board work and also give more for SBC causes because they are dividing CP gifts only two ways rather than three.

What is the right answer? What is your definition of missions? What do you think about the role of the Cooperative Program in funding missions and ministries? This is an important conversation and I think that through prayer, educating ourselves and talking about the various viewpoints, God will bless us in strengthening our individual commitments to fulfilling the Great Commission and give us wisdom about how best to use our various Baptist organizations for His glory.