I posted this by Ronnie Floyd because it is a very meaningful, helpful post:
In Component #3 of our GCR report, Penetrating the Lostness, we have introduced a term called Great Commission Giving. The term is engaging and does represent the heart of all we do to support the work of the Great Commission through our Convention. Surprisingly, it has received so much attention that the intent is questioned, the facts are ignored, and the great things in the report about the Great Commission are being overlooked.
Let’s Get the Facts On The Table
Fact #1: The Cooperative Program is affirmed and highlighted nine times in this section and communicated overall as being our central and preferred conduit of Great Commission funding.
Fact #2: Bold challenges are provided in this component related to the Cooperative Program such as, “call upon Southern Baptists to give as never before and support the Cooperative Program as never before.” More challenges to our churches and state conventions about the Cooperative Program are given in the final section of our report called “Challenges.”
Fact #3: Eight of the twenty-three members of our Task Force are employed by Southern Baptist related entities, from local associations to state conventions to national convention entities. There is absolutely no way any one of these people would ever entertain being a part of demeaning or attacking or dismantling the Cooperative Program. By the way, neither would the rest of us.
Fact #4: Great Commission Giving does NOT add another type of giving.
Fact #5: Great Commission Giving is a simple change to the Annual Church Profile Report that on last year’s report was called “Total Mission Expenditures.”
Fact #6: Great Commission Giving tightens the reporting that exists presently. The current method is to report whatever designated mission gifts are given, even if those gifts do not go to Southern Baptist mission causes. Southern Baptist mission gifts should be those that apply to Southern Baptist causes only. This proposal will provide an avenue for reporting designated mission gifts that are given to Southern Baptist causes only and would include gifts given to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, state conventions and associations.
Fact #7: We are asking you to adopt the following recommendation:
That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, request the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider recommending to the Southern Baptist Convention the adoption of the language and structure of Great Commission Giving as described in this report in order to enhance and celebrate the Cooperative Program and the generous support of Southern Baptists channeled through their churches. We further request that the boards of trustees of the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board, in consultation with the Woman’s Missionary Union, consider the adoption of the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offering goals as outlined in this report.
This recommendation, which is the third recommendation in our report, is all you will be voting on related to Great Commission Giving. It provides an additional year for this to be studied by the Executive Committee of our Convention. This recommendation reflects upon the report when we call upon Southern Baptists to adopt goals of giving no less than $200 million annually through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions and $100 million annually through the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions by 2015.
Do you have any idea what we could do around the world and here in North America in pushing back on lostness if this recommendation is adopted and Southern Baptist churches step up to the call? We believe our churches will step up to follow and finance a compelling vision that calls us to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.
LifeWay Christian Resources has the responsibility of determining the Annual Church Profile. Our churches are requested to complete the Annual Church Profile. In this profile, there is a section where financial data is requested from our churches.
Dr. Thom Rainer, President of LifeWay, has informed us that they are studying the format for the Annual Church Profile. He and I have been in several conversations about this. He is ready to lead LifeWay in whatever needs to be done concerning the Annual Church Profile.
If the Southern Baptist Convention affirms recommendation three in our report, we are suggesting the Annual Church Profile could reflect what we are calling Great Commission Giving. How? I want to show you how we suggest it could look to reflect our priority of the Cooperative Program and Great Commission Giving in comparison to what was on last year’s Annual Church Profile. We are suggesting that we should place the Cooperative Program as our financial priority. Please see what we are suggesting for the future if this recommendation is adopted in comparison to what exists presently.
- Cooperative Program
- Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions
- Annie Armstrong Offering for North American Missions
- SBC Designated Mission Gifts (Local Associations, State Conventions, and National Entities)
- Total Great Commission Giving (Please add #1 through #4.)
- Undesignated Receipts
- Designated Receipts
- Total Receipts (Please add #6 and #7.)
- Total Receipts
- Undesignated
- Designated
- Total Mission Expenditures
- Cooperative Program
- Annie Armstrong
- Lottie Moon
- Congregational Debt
- Value of Congregational Debt
As you see, our proposal emphasizes the Cooperative Program and puts the Southern Baptist Convention in a stronger position to penetrate lostness. It is critical that all communication accurately portrays our proposal to insure each messenger is well informed and educated about it. The future of the Southern Baptist Convention is unlimited if we continue to work together to fulfill the Great Commission.
What is really at stake? What is really at stake is the eternal destiny of billions of people who do not know Jesus as Lord and Savior, most of whom have limited or absolutely no access to God’s message of forgiveness and hope about Him.
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (42)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
cb scott (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
Does Fact #2 mean that the members of the task force who are pastors of churches lead their churches to up their CP giving? Or are they just asking everyone else to support the CP?
Yes, that is what that means. It’s a sad day Tom when everyone uses these types of situations to show their quick wit. Ohhhh- Tom, that is soooooo clever! Good one! How about we focus on the Great Commission and stop living in our flesh, and pray God would do a mighty work! Rankin said it best with “We can’t afford to do nothing.”
Did you even read past fact#2? From what I can tell, they tightened it to only Southern Baptist causes, where before, churches could report ALL missions giving.
Wow, Hugo, from my post you know that i am living in the flesh, not praying and stopped reading after #2?
It’s not a matter of wit, it’s an honest question. I agree we cannot afford to do nothing, it’s just that I am not sure that having people tell me to give more to the CP but won’t do the same themselves is the way to go. They want me to give more, to support it better, I just want our leaders to do the same.
My first paragraph in the reply was in the flesh. But my question was an honest one.
What makes you think the leaders aren’t going to do the same?
You are merely assuming the leaders are telling everyone to give more to CP, but not intending to do so themselves. Why is that?
Matt,
My first question was would they? Their history over the last few years has been to decrease their giving to the CP. This is fine because that decision is a local church’s decision.
But I want our leaders to lead us and not just tell us what to do. This would be the same question my leaders would be asking if I stand before them and ask them to give. If I have a history of decreasing my giving to the church, they have a right and an obligation to ask if I am committed enough to increase my giving.
Their track record. It appears they only increase giving when running for office.
Tom and Jeff,
The leaders are calling for the entire SBC to increase their giving and commitment to the SBC-GCR-CP… Of course they include themselves. We have no reason to think otherwise.
Over the last few years MOST churches, big and small, have decreased CP giving(which is why it is down), now they are trying to turn that around, including big and small churches.
It seems somewhat of a contradiction to me in that the TF encourages CP giving and then develops a plan to give around it. Am I missing something?
Les
Yes, I think you are. The honorable men on the Task Force have said in the document and over and over that they honor CP giving. We have always had “other missions” and reported designated missions giving. All this does is change the accounting procedure for the ACP.
Bart Barber said this, and I thought is was great, “The future of the Cooperative Program will not be determined by the design of the ACP. It will be determined by the design of your church’s budget and mine.”
Dave,
So according to what you’re saying, the honorable men of the TF are saying “Do what I say, not what I do.”
If you think this is about a change of an accounting procedure, then you really don’t know what’s going on.
You know, Les, that just because someone thinks your logic is flawed and your perceptions are unrelated to reality does not mean that they “do not know what is going on.”
More directly and honestly, Les, I find that comment offensive.
I don’t know what’s going on? Because I disagree with you? Because I believe that Akin et al are men of honor and are speaking truth? Man, you have a high view of your own opinions.
I have read the entire report and read widely the perspectives about it on both sides. To assume that because I disagree with you I “don’t know what’s going on” is kind of self-important, isn’t it?
I will continue to disagree with you and hope the SBC rejects the failing status quo that you defend. You have the freedom to disagree with me, but you might consider not insulting me because I do not agree with you.
Dave, If the SBC is failing…should be jump from one sinking ship into another sinking ship. The GCR is a band aide it will not solve the problem. The focus must be on the local church, not on agencies.
Jeff, I really don’t agree with that. Of course, only time will tell. But I think the recommendations made here in the GCRTF are needed and genuine steps toward where we need to be.
The call to sacrificial giving. The call to put more money on the field. The spiritual challenges.
I just do not believe that it is fair to say that this is a sinking ship.
They say they honor—what does the percent of their giving say?
Of the six GCRTF members who participated in a recent panel at Southern Seminary (Hunt, Mohler, Floyd, Akin, Gilbert and Greear) three are in churches reporting CP giving below 2% and three are in churches reporting CP giving below 3%.
Hunt’s church increased its CP giving from almost two percent to almost three percent of undesignated receipts. The other five serve churches which actually REDUCED their CP giving while having the audacity to serve on a Task Force calling on everyone else to INCREASE theirs.
Recently I have heard it said: “Prove to me the value of what you are doing and then, and only then, will I support you.” Why should anyone be surprised that this argument works both ways?
Prove to me, by your actions and not merely your words, that you do indeed value and cherish the Cooperative Program, that it will have no rivals when it comes to promotion and celebration, and then, and only then, will I support your leadership, for your actions will give credibility to your rhetoric.
Rick and Les,
Amen.
David
If you included Great Commission Giving what would the totals be???
Rick,
Amen, brother. Amen.
Les
Le me add to what Bart Barber said
“The future of the Cooperative Program will not be determined by the design of the ACP. It will be determined by the design of your church’s budget and mine.”
Yes Bart, and more and more churches are designing their church’s budgets based upon what they view as unacceptable policy, discrimination, and abuses of authority by those who determine just how the Cooperative Program funds are divided up and used within the Convention.
Anything short of addressing the real reasons why more and more churches, and church leaders, are bypassing the Cooperative Program will accomplish absolutely nothing… and if the GCRTF recommendations do not do this, then the GCRTF will have been a colossal waist of time!
Grace Always,
Rick, I am not on a panel telling small churches to give more, when they give so little. They are leaders—its time for them to lead. BTW, my church gives 10% to the CP.
Rick, I think I misread your response. Jeff
That’s okay, Jeff. We are indeed on the same side of the table here. (I’ve done exactly the same thing commenting on another blog.)
Like yours, the church I serve also happens to give 10% through the CP. I think that must color our viewpoint a bit. I certainly don’t harbor any ill feelings or personal animus toward the fine men on the Task Force. They have blessed me on occasion with their preaching and their ministry. I just don’t find them particularly convincing when it comes to the one specific matter of waving the Cooperative Program banner.
Dave, What field are you talking about? A certain part of the country?
We need a real GCR. We need to see our structures change and more money go to the mission field but i am deeply disturbed by changing the way we count cp giving. What if we allowed this in our churches (yes i know this happens in some)? Aunt Sally loves the youth ministry so she designates all her gifts towards the youth program. Brother George has 23 of his family members buried in the cemetery so he gives all his money to cemetery maintenance. The Burns family only wants to see their money go towards missions so they designate everything to sister Moon and Armstrong.
People in our churches trust the leadership to decide where money needs to be spent and this whole GCR shows the lack of distrust with these mega church pastors and others who give a tiny percentage to the cp how little they trust the system we have. I have seen the massive waste first hand and it saddens me. What we need is accountability so the massive waste is eliminated not basically tearing down what has worked so well for us in the past.
Aaron,
I get what you are saying, but the problem is that A LOT of people are saying the CP isnt and hasnt been working very well in quite some time.
Okay, Matt, so which is it? Trying to understand the CP perspective of a real GCR proponent is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
Either (a) the CP isn’t working and hasn’t been working for a long time so we are justified in redirecting our missions support through other channels, or (b) the CP is worthy of our full support as the preferred and central conduit of Southern Baptist missions emphasis which we have declared nine times in our report. They can’t have it both ways.
Personally, I get the impression that many of the GCR folks actually BELIEVE (a) but since it would not be received well by the convention they have DECLARED (b) in their report. This perceived discrepancy between what they seem to BELIEVE and what they publicly STATE is responsible for much of the skepticism and confusion.
It’s not about the Annual Church Profile reporting terminology. It’s about what the SBC’s current leaders, particularly the Task Force members, really believe deep down in their hearts about the Cooperative Program.
Rick,
The CP is the main avenue of funding in the SBC- as the report shows.
YET, the TF realizes people want to be giving more money to international missions as well.
Therefore, they keep the CP the main avenue of giving and make a way(Great Commission Giving) for churches to give directly to foreign missions.
I dont see why ANYONE would have a problem with that. Convention pride seems to be getting in the way.
There is nothing wrong with a church deciding to give 5% to the CP and then deciding they would like another 5% go directly to international missions. Local churches need to give according to where their hearts are and where they feel led. If a church is especially burdened to give more internationally than the Convention is serving them by making this an option now(an option with an official name).
The TF has found a way to serve churches out of what they heard churches wanted- a way to give directly to international missions.
This is not an abandonment of the CP- it is merely a way for churches to give to the CP and directly to international missions. Clearly, while people believe in the CP, they also want more money to go to international missions- THIS IS HONORABLE!
You can not call it giving directly to the CP if it is not going through the CP.
Call it what it is “designated giving”. I coordinated untrained volunteers post Katrina in New Orleans. Everyone and there brother wanted to come do a mission trip to New Orleans. People donated millions of dollars to state conventions for relief. There is still money with the conventions that has not been used because it was designated for this purpose. The problem is that people will give and go to what is hot at the moment. Haiti gets support and New Orleans gets support, (which they both need) but what happens to the support for ministries that need help but do not get the publicity or are not exciting enough to get the attention of these big churches. Our mission agencies are gate keepers for where dollars need to be spent.
You write: “I don’t see why ANYONE would have a problem with that. Convention pride seems to be getting in the way.”
Listen carefully. It has NOTHING to do with convention pride. It has EVERYTHING to do with the simple fact that redirecting funds AWAY from UNIFIED CP and TOWARD DIRECTED IMB will simply rob Peter to pay Paul leaving other Great Commission ministries underfunded and contributing to the deterioration of the unified budgeting principle foundational for good stewardship at both the local church level and the denominational level.
If not a full blown societal missions funding approach, it is at least a giant step in that direction. Some of us believe not only in the CP itself but also in the cooperative missions funding approach that undergirds it. Once the convention gives its official blessing to that kind of “cafeteria style” missions giving, we believe the cooperative approach itself will crumble like a house of cards as church after church designates for their favorite cause while needed infrastructure falls apart.
It’s not convention pride. It’s a different philosophical approach toward missions funding.
Rick,
You can believe that it will crumble like a house of cards, but their is no evidence of this.
If churches give to the CP as first priority and also choose to give directly to international missions this in no way means everything collapses, at all.
What mission field?
CP giving has been emphasized up til now. Churches have been encouraged to give more to the CP. We’ve made an intential effort to support giving cooperatively to missions thru the CP…as a convention of Baptist Churches. But, if this new buzzword is passed, GC Giving, then I’d bet’cha a krispy Kreme doughnut that you want hear the CP being promoted as much. You’ll hear GC giving emphasized more and more. And, CP giving will go down and down and down until we have nothing more than a Southern Baptist societal giving thing going on.
Now, if that’s the way everyone wants it to be, then so be it. My Church could start designating a lot of our monies to the things that we think are most important. We can quit giving 20% to the CP, and 3% to the Association. We can start picking out 2 or 3 SB ministries that we feel the best about…and all the other SB ministries and TN Baptist ministries can be neglected. Cause, maybe that’s what we need to do in order to fit in with the feeling of the day in the SBC. Designated giving could be the way to go…for us, as well.
But, I’d bet’cha that a lot of ministries out there…helping retarded people in TN…reaching out to vacationers in the Smokey Mtn’s…Southern Seminary…Golden Gate Seminary…Southeastern Seminary…and many, many other ministries might just miss what we give to the CP…along with all the other churches, who start celebrating GC giving and designating.
CP giving has been emphasis until now??? Who isnt emphasizing it?
Matt,
As I said, I’ll bet’cha a cup of white mocha coffee at Starbucks that GC giving will be what’s emphasized….if we vote this report in. I’ll bet that we wont hear as much as about the CP anymore. Designated giving will increase even more.
That is my concern. I hope I get to vote NO to component #3. If I dont get to vote on each thing separately…if we have to vote on the GC Task Force Report as a whole….then I’m not sure how I’ll vote. I”m leaning on voting against it at the moment.
David
Volfan,
Well, you can say that we wont hear about CP anymore and that GC giving will be emphasized, but again, there is no evidence for this.
David, the only way you can make that claim is to ignore the specific words of the members of the Task Force. The document itself emphasizes the CP strongly. The Task Force members have said repeatedly that they support and want to promote the CP as our primary missions support tool.
The document says it. Those who prepared the document have said it. If the Task Force is comprised of people of honor, then your concerns are unfounded.
Dave,
It’s not about them being people of honor. I concede that they are people of honor. It’s about what this part of the GC report will end up doing. I think it will lead to more designated giving. I believe that it will lead to a Southern Baptist societal giving type of thing.
So, Dave, I’m not really sure how we got onto the people on the task force being honorable or not. I never said they weren’t. I just have concerns about what this will lead us to.
But, hey, if this report gets voted in, then so be it. Maybe I can lead my church….in the spirit of the report….to quit giving 20% to the CP. We’ll pick out the 2 or 3 SB ministries that really float our boat, and tell the rest of them to fend for themselves. If….if that’s the way everyone wants to do it.
David
My point, David, is about comments like that. Your comment assumes, contrary to all evidence and the specific statements of Task Force members, that the intended consequence of the GCR report is to undermine the CP.
I believe that your statement – “Maybe I can lead my church….in the spirit of the report….to quit giving 20% to the CP.” – is an insult to the intent of the Task Force members.
To say that it is in the “spirit of the report” to reduced CP giving is false and slanderous to the people who put the report together.
Matt,
You said there is no evidence that CP will crumble as a result of increased designated giving.
Actually, there is: Over the past 20 years, as more and more churches have designated their giving, CP giving has declined from 10.2% per church to 6.6% per church.
Once designated giving is promoted and given a fancy new name, the situation is bound to grow worse. To put it simply, designated giving has increased at the expense of the Cooperative Program. Some of us want to completely reverse that situation rather than to encourage it and celebrate it.
Rick,
That isnt exactly what I said… I was referring to the overall point that there is no evidence that the GCRTF Report will result in everything crumbling like a house of cards. I was not specifically talking about “only designated giving.”
I think the OVERALL Report will result in churches increasing their CP giving, even while some also give directly to international missions. If more CP went to international missions this wouldnt even be a problem- CLEARLY, churches and pastors are wanting to give more money to international missions- which is a GREAT thing!
Matt,
How could there possibly be any “evidence” one way or the other regarding the effect of a report that has not been adopted? You don’t have any “evidence” for your belief that CP giving will increase, either.
So we can at least agree that both sides are speculating. We’re taking educated guesses.
For what it’s worth, my educated guess is that the promotion of a new title for designated giving that recognizes and celebrates such giving — even when it comes at the expense of our allegedly preferred CP channels — will result in a kind of official SBC endorsement of the practice which will only increase its frequency. If more and more churches take away from CP to give directly to IMB (or any other SBC institution) our unified budget system cannot help but fracture.
Woe to the SBC institution that cannot drum up enough enthusiasm to support itself through emotional and societal appeals directly aimed at the churches. Cooperation will give way to “specialization” as one church supports IMB, another supports NAMB, another majors on a particular seminary and another directs its gifts toward the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. I still think all of our agencies would continue to exist. I just believe they would all be more poorly funded.
I don’t see more money going to IMB as we transition to a societal approach. I see less. And don’t forget about the resources of time and money that each institution will now begin to spend in directly raising funds. Increasingly, more of the money going to institutions will need to be spent by those very institutions to promote this directed giving.
To summarize, the best way to get the money to the nations is to give strongly through the CP (more like 10% than 6%) and shift away from the designated giving approach which only undermines cooperation and forces divisive competition among SBC agencies and institutions.
Rick,
I dont think I said it will increase… I said the leaders are calling for an increase and I suspect that the leaders themselves will increase… What’s my evidence? They are the ones calling for the increase.
The best way to get money to the nations is to give it directly to them. It is CLEAR, people are not happy about how much of the CP doesnt get to international missions. Quit ignoring that FACT.
Matt,
Fact One I Am Not Ignoring: You DID say you thought CP giving would increase. I quote you: “I think the OVERALL Report will result in churches increasing their CP giving.” (Comment 39)
Fact Two I Am Not Ignoring: I admit, okay, that SOME people are not happy about the allocation of their state’s CP budget. (You also have to admit that SOME people are fine with theirs.)
The way to address differences of opinion regarding stewardship priorities is not to circumvent the system and redirect church giving. It is to work through your particular state convention’s CP budgeting priorities and make your feelings known.
I disagree that the best way to get money to the nations is for a church to subtract it from already declining CP gifts supporting ALL of our boards in order to give it directly to the International Mission Board. This may sound counter-intuitive, but in the long run, such designations start a chain reaction in which OTHER churches subtract from CP to support OTHER designations to different SBC causes. While the IMB would receive more from “direct designations” this would be more than offset by the loss of giving through “traditional CP channels.”
Rick,
FACT ONE- I do think CP giving will rise due to the overall Report… What is your point? Earlier you said that I said CP would not go down because of the GC Giving, which wasn’t true- it misrepresented what I said. See comment 39- first sentence. I said I think CP giving will increase due to the overall report and it will not crumble like a house of cards as you claimed.
FACT TWO- I do admit that some people are very happy with their state convention- I wish everyone was! But we have some bad bureaucracies and state conventions that are unhealthy and need reforming.
Rick- I know I havent been around a long time, but I do know that people can “make their feelings known” and yet the same broken system continues to get support and run. If churches and pastors have tried to reform the state convention and nothing has happened; then, I encourage every church in PA to quit giving to the CP because of their pathetic state convention and for now to give directly to the IMB. What do you think would happen if churches did that? CHANGE! People would realize that churches are really unhappy with the state convention and they would be forced to reform. And when reform happened I would encourage churches to give through the CP again.
First priority is to the Lord and if your state convention are being bad stewards you are in no way obligated to to give to them- in fact, you are obligated out of obedience to Christ to NOT give to them.
Listen people- I WANT the CP to succeed! But only if that means it succeeds in an honorable way! If it werent for the CP I would of paid double for my education- I love the CP! But it needs fixing.
I think seminaries like this idea so they can promote further churches designating directly to them.
I am amazed at the distrust and ill-will that many are expressing toward the SBC. Above, David assumes that this is some kind of anti-CP thing. Here, Aaron assumes a deep dark selfish motive on the part of the seminaries.
Could it be that the members of the Task Force actually care about the Great Commission? could it be that they believe that their recommendations will actually help us refocus on our mission?
It is fair to disagree with the GCRTF. But I wonder why people have to continue to assume ill-will and hidden motives.
Dave,
I for one believe the Task Force members do care about the Great Commission and that they believe their recommendations will help us refocus on the mission, even though I disagree with them regarding their specific proposals. At the same time, I join people like David and Aaron in asking what I believe are legitimate questions underlying the Task Force’s original motivations and intentions.
Clearly, the GCR proponents invited at least a measure of distrust upon themselves with the whole “bloated bureaucracy” charge initially leveled at the SBC and then quickly removed. Cut us a little slack if we have not quite forgotten the “distrust and ill-will” toward the SBC reflected in those comments.
Isn’t it fair to wonder what these GCR architects really believe about the SBC and the CP: the bloated bureaucracy charge or the retraction?
Absolutely, it is fair to ask questions, to disagree and to question the wisdom of their recommendations.
What I am surprised at is the number of people who are essentially saying the Task Force is operating on hidden motives (“they are really trying to undermine the CP” or “its a megachurch conspiracy”).
I have read so many criticisms of the GCRTF that essentially IGNORE the words of the report and assume dark motives behind the report.
I think criticism and dissent is ALWAYS acceptable. But I just hope people will deal with the report, not their own fantasies about the report.
Dave,
I am with you…
This, “what is really behind the Task Forces thinking” attitude is pretty telling. People ignore what the Task Force says and then come up with their own fantasies.
I am all for people disagreeing, heck, I am a Baptist, but disagree honorably.
All this talk about giving more money to the “Nations” ignores the fact that were short of money and there has been no talk about the “lostness” of money that has been squandered and how to operate more efficiently. Throwing good money after bad fixes nothing. If they want the churchs to give more , then give them the confidence that what they are giving is being well spent.
Matt,
Did I really understand correctly that right now you are encouraging every church in Pennsylvania to STOP giving through the Cooperative Program?
Wow! That’s gonna take a while to sink in.
Just out of curiosity: If the Task Force Report is adopted in Orlando, will you then, beginning June 17th, start encouraging every church in Pennsylvania to START giving through the Cooperative Program once again since the Task Force endorses the CP nine times in their report?
Rick,
Let me ask you this, if your state convention was a joke and throwing money away, would you still encourage your church to throw money away like that?
I encourage churches to give money as God leads them. Their first loyalty is to the Head. If people are in a bad state convention I encourage them first to try every avenue possible to reform the state convention without bypassing the CP, but if their voices wont be heard then that is the only other option. Isnt it? You wouldnt continue to throw Gods money into a broken system would you? We will be held accountable by how we are as stewards…
Just because the GCRTF passes doesnt mean the state convention reforms… People should give money to healthy state conventions that are helping the churches and advancing the Kingdom, it is foolish to give to state conventions that do more harm than good.
Here is an example: In PA there was a state convention worker that was sometimes used as pulpit supply in PA-SBC churches… At my Father-In-Laws church one Sunday the man preached Annihilationism! My Father-In-Law contacted the “people above” and told them what was going on- what happened??? Nothing. This is just one example of MANY that is wrong with the PA state convention: no doctrinal integrity. (not to mention there problems in how they distribute money and help(or dont) churches, especially church plants.) The PA is a big problem and it needs addressed, but no one is willing too… Yet, if churches made their voices heard by bypassing the state convention things would get done, change would happen… People who preach Annihilationism would no longer be well-paid by the SBC! A guy that gets paid by the churches giving to the CP goes into those very same churches and preaches a false(heretical?) view of hell. And what, you want them to continue to blindly support through the CP so guys like that keep getting paid??? No way, that is a shame and I am certain that type of blind loyalty does not please God.
Matt,
I am saddened to hear that a Pennsylvania State Missionary does not believe in eternal punishment for the lost in hell. That is unfathomable to me. I would think that one of his supervisors would address his false doctrine. I can see how such a state convention could lose credibility. It’s also clear that the state convention budget does not currently reflect the church planting priorities you feel passionately about.
Still, for me personally, it would take more than a bad sermon and a weak line item to pull the plug on the Cooperative Program. It’s not really “blind” loyalty if you “see” the problems and are working through the system to call attention to the need for improvements.
I would say: (1) Keep giving through the CP, (2) Make a personal appointment with the annihilationist preacher and, if necessary, his supervisor, and (3) talk to someone on the state budget committee to explore a decent hike in the church planting line item.
I believe you will affect more change as an insider supporting convention life while desiring change than you will as an outsider who no longer really has a stake in what goes on since you no longer provide any finances.
Rick,
Thank you for the cordial dialogue. You make a great point in your last comment. Usually an “insider supporting convention like” can be a better catalyst for change.
To me, though, there has to come a point when more must be done. The difficulty is finding when that is!
Dave,
It is not slanderous. I told you that I think they are wrong. I’m not saying anything about their honor, or their character. I’m talking about what this report will lead to….in spite of what the task force says or thinks about it. Can you see the difference?
Why do you keep saying that I’m slandering them? talking bad about them? I’m not.
I absolutely do think that the 3rd part of the report will lead to more designated giving….as I described in my sarcastic description of leading my church to designate to the 2 or 3 SB ministries that float our boat. It has absolutely nothing to do with the character of the task force…you…Matt…or anyone else out there in SB land. It has to do with what concerns me about this report…what it will lead to…in spite of what they think or say about it. They can be wrong, you know. They’re not infallible, nor inerrant.
Is it okay that I disagree with them, and you? Is disagreeing with yall a slight upon your character and honor?
Gracious.
David
David, if you said what you said above in the way you just said it, I would have no trouble. Here, you are stating a disagreement and a belief that that this is a consequence of recommendation 3.
Above, when you said it was in the “spirit of the report” you are assigning intent and motives to honorable men and I think that was wrong.
Dave,
The only thing I meant by the “spirit of the report” was the spirit of the people want designated giving being emphasized instead of just CP. In fact, I was including all the people in favor of doing #3…not just the people on the task force. What’s wrong with saying that? Its not slanderous. Its not impuning their character. Its not being mean to them. Its just saying what they are presenting, and what some people in the SBC are wanting… including you and Bart Barber and Matt. Nothing slanderous.
Dave, I think you read a little too much into things that are said. Maybe you’re too sensitive, and you take everything said as “hard, harsh, and mean” when it goes against what you think; I dont know. But, you’ve said things like this to me many times thru out the past. And, I’m always left scratching my head and wondering how in the world you could take it that way.
Oh well, I love everyone on the task force. I love everyone that disagrees with me about #3. I think they all love Jesus, and they all are good, honorable people.
David
David, if you wish to make this some kind of personality flaw in me, please feel free to do so. You will not be the first.
I do not believe your comment was fair or right – to say that the “spirit” of the report was to encourage churches to give less to the CP was an insult to the intent of the authors of the report. To disagree with the report is one thing, but to question the motives and intent of the authors is something very different. I think you crossed the line.
But, again, I guess its just a personality flaw in me.
Dave,
sigh…whatever….
David
Glad I could make your day
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }