In the March, 1999 issue of the Baptist Monitor there was an article published with this title which
stated, "The adoption of the new mission policy violates church sovereignty and independence in
several areas." I will state in this article why I believe it does not.
The article began by saying, "Missionary Baptists have always believed that each individual
church is sovereign and independent of any other body, answering only to Christ and His Word."
I whole-heartedly agree with that statement.
Now concerning churches, missionaries and the new mission policy. A church votes to sponsor a
missionary and puts him on the field. She is the only one who biblically can do so. The
missionary is a missionary of this church and this church only. He is not governed by any policy
other than that which the church has set. The church has several options on how to support him:
1. She can support him fully herself. Most churches can't afford to do this but if one can that's
great. 2. She can support him with partial salary and allow him to work secularly to suplement his
income. 3. She can personally solicit funds from other churches or individuals for his support by
calling them, writing them, making appointments for the missionary or someone else to visit them,
etc. Those wishing to contribute would usually send their funds to the sponsoring church who
would distribute them according to her own mission policy. This is the way independent Baptists
generally raise funds for their missionaries and it is perfectly scriptural to do so. In this way the
sponsoring church is still 100% in control. I personally prefer this way but it's not always feasible.
Maybe the church is sponsoring a national missionary who can't come to the States to raise funds.
Maybe she is in a hurry to get her missionary on the field and doesn't have time to send him out to
raise funds.
There is a fourth way. She can solicit salary from the churches of the American Baptist Association but if she chooses to do so she must follow the policies that the messengers of the churches of the ABA have adopted. The churches are in effect saying, "You can send out a missionary. That's your business. You send him and you determine his qualifications. But if you want us to support him then it becomes our business too and you must be willing to agree to certain expectations that we have of the missionary and the sponsoring church." We will also look at his qualifications and may determine that he isn't qualified. That doesn't mean you can't send him out. It just means that we choose not to support him and you'll have to raise the money yourself if you still want to send him. We may after several years choose to quit supporting him for any reason. Again, that doesn't take him off the field. Iit just means that you will have to raise the support yourself if you want to keep him on. The churches didn't put him on the field and the churches can't take him off but they can choose whether or not they want to support him and they have already chosen not to support any missionary cooperatively whose church isn't willing to abide by our mission policy or who himslef isn't willing to do so. That does not mean that individual churches can't choose to support him directly.
The same principle is followed if a church borrows money from a financial institution to build a
building. She must submit to the loan contract of the institution in order to receive the funds.
Does this violate church sovereignty? I don't think so. A church voluntarily accepts these terms
in order to get the money. She could raise the money herself through building fund offerings,
pancake breakfasts and car washes but this would take a long time. Instead she chooses to
borrow the money according to the terms of the lending institution.
Brethren, if a church chooses to request support from our cooperative salary funds then she must be willing to abide by our policies. If she doesn't want to do that then she shouldn't recommend her missionary for salary and should find some other way to support him.