I suppose the answer could be yes - but that is something the pastor needs to be on top of.
Otherwise - I think the statement is a bit unrealistic.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can Music and Missions be a "Golden Calf?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I suppose the answer could be yes - but that is something the pastor needs to be on top of.
Otherwise - I think the statement is a bit unrealistic.
Yes
Any strategy of man can be a golden calf we exchange for God. Churches that exist due to the "cult of personality" created by a dynamic pastor (example, John MacArthur) may have a golden calf.
I saw this marketing video on Facebook from a church named Eagle Brook. Many were lauding it as wonderful. I find it entertaining as a human marketing scheme, but biblically void. Take a peak. Am I wrong? Is Eagle Brook not creating a golden calf?
I saw this marketing video on Facebook from a church named Eagle Brook. Many were lauding it as wonderful. I find it entertaining as a human marketing scheme, but biblically void. Take a peak. Am I wrong? Is Eagle Brook not creating a golden calf?
A church would have to have a very twisted view of missions for it to become a golden calf, because--pay attention--missions is the actual task of the church, given by Jesus in the Great Commission. To say that missions is a "golden calf" is like saying that handling pipes is a failure for a plumber, or learning the piano is a failure for a musician.
Having said that, the SBC approach to missions has serious problems, because much of the money given to the cooperative program and sent to "missions" does not get to actual soul winning and church planting efforts, though there are many laudable such efforts by SBC missionaries.
Having said that, the SBC approach to missions has serious problems, because much of the money given to the cooperative program and sent to "missions" does not get to actual soul winning and church planting efforts, though there are many laudable such efforts by SBC missionaries.
Last edited:
There is also a problem when Cooperative Program money supposedly given specifically to missions ends up paying various administrators large six-figure salaries to be glorified CEOs.
Better to imitate the Christian Missionary and Alliance churches, whose mission board is simply a rotating group of pastors already salaried by their home churches.
Better to imitate the Christian Missionary and Alliance churches, whose mission board is simply a rotating group of pastors already salaried by their home churches.
I think they quite often are.
I see it all the time, great musicians on stage but they have a questionable walk with the Lord. They are good and people like them so they continue to play.
Then you have missions who are not nearly as concerned with true conversion as they are with putting numbers on the church role.
Thats too practical an idea.
Actually, a few years ago - the Home Mission board took many individuals off the payroll who were not in direct misson work. Director of missions was one on the chopping block.
But how about independent mission boards- there are probably hundreds of small mission boards - why dont several of them combine and there would be a large savings. Suppose there are 3 home mission boards - each with 75 missionaries and a home staff (say 10 per board)- by combining all three - you now have 225 missionaries and it could be run by the staff of 15 people - thus saving the cost of 15 individuals.!
Why wont those very small mission boards merge - is it because "their" mission board is a "golden calf" ?
Yes, the SBC home and Foreign mission CEO may make a large amount - but they each are in charge of some 5,000 missionaries.
Not just the CM & A board, but this is how the interdenominational "faith missions" boards and independent Baptist boards operate. The board of the mission board I was with was all pastors who got no money for their work there. We did have a headquarters with a director and a staff, but they certainly did not get six figure salaries, and the number of positions was low.
Denominational boards are problematic. They end up ruling the missionary instead of letting him fulfill the great commission in however the Holy Spirit leads. I just read in One Hope and Doctrine, by Kevin Bauder and Robert Delnay, how the Northern Baptist mission board told medical missionary Raphael Thomas to stop doing evangelism and just be a doctor (p. 190). (By the way, I recommend this book.)
Nope. This situation is a function of the Baptist distinctive of the autonomy of the local church. Each church has the right to do missions they way they feel led. "Golden calf" indicates worship of some kind. I know many missionaries from these small boards, including some close friends, They are sincere about obeying the Great Commission, and many are doing a great job. Merging boards would not necessarily be more economical--depends on how it was done. Larger boards tend to produce a bureaucracy that hinders rather than helps missions.
The question is, how many of those missionaries are actually doing soul winning and church planting work? 5,000 is great, but only if they are actually obeying the Great Commission.
The term "in charge of" bothers me, too. It is contrary to the Baptist distinctive of "soul liberty." A mission board should not be "in charge of" the missionary, The "field council" is often the tool of the mission board to rule the missionary in the place of the Holy Spirit: where should they go to start a church, how should they evangelize, etc. This is why I completely oppose field councils as denominational, and therefore unbiblical.
In case of doctrinal or moral problems, the mission board can release the missionary, but its main task should be to notify the home church (and supporting churches), who has Biblical authority over the missionary (not the board).
Last edited:
So what happens with this is, there the missionary is on the field living frugally and sacrificially--a place he built himself in inland Africa (I know a missionary like this), a tiny apartment or house in China or Japan (the Home Board does provide a house, I've heard, but Japanese houses are small), a hut in the jungle while reaching a tribal people group in Latin America or Indonesia, etc. But not the CEO in the States! He's living high on the hog with a big house, lots of meals at restaurants, and other luxuries because of his great salary.
So what happens with this is, there the missionary is on the field living frugally and sacrificially--a place he built himself in inland Africa (I know a missionary like this), a tiny apartment or house in China or Japan (the Home Board does provide a house, I've heard, but Japanese houses are small), a hut in the jungle while reaching a tribal people group in Latin America or Indonesia, etc. But not the CEO in the States! He's living high on the hog with a big house, lots of meals at restaurants, and other luxuries because of his great salary.
Well, I would say the standard of living is much lower in Tim-buck-Two, Africia than in Atlanta, GA.
Maybe the term "in charge of" may not be the exact term used. As a former foreign missionary, I am sure you realize that your mission board was more aware of situations, national requirements, and ect that your supporting local churches (as well as your home church) were.
In our case - we are a very small SBC affiliated church. In fact, before I arrive, the church was only supporting a local pro-center. We are now supporting the Co-op - with a very small offering, as well as one missionary from Bap Mid Missions. The SBC or the BCNY does not tell us how much we give. And they can not prohibit us from supporting an independent missionary, since we are believe and practice the Baptist distinctive of "soul liberty."
I am not aware of any SBC missionary being discipline thus I can not speak on this subject. Though I see no reason why the NAMB or the IMB would not inform the missionaries home church of any misconduct.
Though, I can relate one instance in our local association. We had a church (which I once candidates at) which needed a pastor. For reasons unreated to this discussion - they chose not to call me. Some time later, they did call a pastor. After a while (not shure how long) the new pastor divorced his wife and married the church secretary. Our DOM was not too happy. He did go and talk to the church - they had no problem with with the decision of the pastor. Well, even though that independent Baptist church (now disbanded) was SBC affiliated - we as an association - was not able to take any action against that church; except for one thing. Our association voted to withdraw fellowship from that church, which the BCNY and SBC followed suit.
Unless you have a six figure salary--then you are quite rich in Africa. Then you can afford to buy luxuries in the big city, or have stuff sent over. I've been to Africa. I've seen it. But you'll still not be in as much clover as the mission executive in the US with the six figure salary. Just sayin'!
The mission board should consider itself to be the agent of the local churches, a ministry that does for the missionary things the typical local church cannot do (international health insurance, extracting them from danger, etc.).
That would be their duty.
Sounds like the right things were done, except for by the church itself.
"Would you choose to join that holy train of martyrs and prophets, missionaries and soul winners who have best served God through the centuries and have turned a multitude of souls to Christ? Then prepare for poverty, for the Lord Jesus had not where to lay His head. Paul was in fastings often, and labored with his own hands to provide bread. Prepare for misunderstanding, for those who really follow Christ must love Him so much that all other loves for father, mother, brethren, and houses and land seem but hates! Prepare for persecution, for 'all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution' (2 Tim. 3:12)."
John R. Rice, A Know-So Salvation (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1953), 147. Underlining added.
John R. Rice, A Know-So Salvation (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1953), 147. Underlining added.
Last edited: