This afternoon Baptist Press reported that Prestonwood Baptist Church would resume their Cooperative Program giving. The article specifies their giving will be without designation, meaning there will be no redirection of funds away from any specific entities. This is a welcome resolution to an issue that had gone mostly quiet since Russell Moore and ERLC trustees released their ‘Seeking Unity’ statement more than a month ago.
“After a time of prayerful evaluation, Prestonwood is renewing our commitment to Southern Baptist missions by giving to the Cooperative Program without designation,” Prestonwood executive pastor Mike Buster told Baptist Press in a statement.
The BP article mentions the Executive Committee studies that are currently underway, but it’s too early to give any updates on what effect this news will on their work. I remember it being implied somewhere along the way that if the Prestonwood issue were resolved, then the need for the study committees would greatly diminish since Prestonwood seemed “representative” of those churches who had expressed concerns. (I wish I could remember the source, was it Rummage on the SBC This Week podcast who said that? If someone remembers, please jump in the comments.)
While I’m glad to see Prestonwood restore their previous funding for CP missions causes, I remain firm in my view that this whole episode was unhealthy and unnecessarily divisive in the life of the SBC. I’m concerned about this tactic being used in the future, regardless of the “side” or cause that chooses to employ it. We shouldn’t use missions funding as a bargaining tool. Every church has a responsibility to steward their missions giving in a way that supports the causes they desire – you won’t see me criticize a church for directing funds toward this or away from that entity. But when demands are being made (We’re not giving to the IMB until this action is taken… or We’re stopping CP giving until our concerns are addressed…), whether spoken or implied, that ought to be treated as out-of-bounds by all of us.
Disagreements about their tactics aside, I want to thank and express appreciation for Prestonwood for their past and future missions giving, along with many other large churches who give huge sums of money to support our missions work, seminaries, and other cooperative efforts. We’re not a perfect convention, and we have our disagreements, but we do a lot of good things as we work together for the Kingdom of Christ.
This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It was reported that RM had to apologize to at least seven prominent pastors. I’d rather our entity heads feel accountable to any SBC pastor or layperson rather than a handful of big dogs. How much gratitude should the rest of of feel now that PW put a gun to the CP head and then decided not to pull the trigger?
Glad to hear Pastor Jack Graham is allowing his church to return to support for the Cooperative Program. He is simply the last in a long line of leading pastors who have withheld or reduced CP funds in order to exert their influence on our convention and its entities. Do they send the CP funds through their state convention or directly to the SBC? I think Graham has already accomplished part of his purpose. To the best of my knowledge the ERLC and Russell Moore have made no comment on President Trump’s desire to utterly destroy the Johnson Amendment which… Read more »
Ron, you’ll have to remind me of others in this “long line”. Other than the guy Tennessee who recently resigned from the
ERLCIMB trustee board, I don’t recall any.(And as I’ve made clear before, deciding to give directly to Nashville or to the IMB is not the same thing, and I reject those comparisons.)
Direct giving to the Executive Committee is rare but where it’s found it is manifestly not in accord with the cooperative program. The churches that do that generally have a beef with their state convention.
We’ve been accustomed to giving directly to the mission boards for over a century.
I don’t think direct EC giving should be viewed as “not in accord” with the cooperative program. I reject the idea that the cooperative program is about bowing the knee to the percentage setters. The CP provides, or any given SBC church, a default allocation and I will continue to contend that churches should be able to adjust that allocation without us acting like they’re somehow betraying the CP. If a church decides to give more to national causes or less to a particular entity, we shouldn’t see that as contrary to the CP.
Except it is contrary to the CP. Perhaps it’s not contrary to cooperation, but it is by definition contrary to the CP.
I disagree that shifting allocations is contrary to the CP. Didn’t some churches in Georgia decide to exclude SBTS from their giving? Under this definition, they’re no longer giving to the cooperative program. That doesn’t make sense to me.
I don’t know what the churches in Georgia did, but if they are designating their offerings, they are not giving to the CP. The CP is a giving program. If you give outside of that, you’re not giving to the CP. I’m not making any judgment about whether designation is right here. I’m simply saying that CP giving is giving that is done without designation through the State Convention.
The point about direct to the executive committee giving is that such cuts out the state convention. The most obvious point about the CP is that it is a cooperative agreement between the state convention and the SBC national entities. Cut out the state conventions and it can’t be CP. B21 suggested direct EC giving a few years ago. I don’t see it as a reasonable alternative to normal CP giving. If I don’t like the way my state spends CP dollars, or how much they keep of a CP dollar, I can take a number of other paths. I… Read more »
This shows part of the good reason GCG was implemented – arguments about whether or not giving officially qualifies as “CP” giving aren’t really all that important. My point remains that whether CP or GCG, it’s all good and should be welcomed, regardless of the allocation. What’s out of bounds is placing demands on it and releasing news to reporters about missions giving in order to exert influence.
One church in GA said they would not give to SBTS or SEBTS. I don’t know how they achieved this. Some state conventions allow for a certain number of negative designations within their CP agreement. The point you are missing is that if the SC is cut out of the formula because a church sends driect to the EC, it isn’t CP giving. It is GCG and, as we all know, the GCRTF affirmed the CP as the primary giving plan for Southern Baptist churches. The direct gifts from churches to the EC for distribution to the SBC entities hasn’t… Read more »
Seriously
Do pastors really follow the Johnson thing?
I am truly amazed if so
Brent Hobbs, Jimmy Draper once stated before me and a group of other missionaries that if the candidate he supported for President of the SBC did not win, his church would reduce their giving to the cooperative program. Through the years, other pastors have made similar statements. A former state convention president in my state wrote in our state paper that his church and others had not supported our home and foreign missionaries through the cooperative program because of “liberal influence”. I told him that there had been no liberal influence on me or my colleagues so he was mistaken… Read more »
I think those cases illustrate my point. If Draper said that to a small group, privately, I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. If it had appeared as an op-ed in the Baptist Standard, that’s very problematic. If someone convictionally can’t support the CP or specific entities, they have the right and even responsibility to let their giving reflect their values. It becomes toxic when that is used as a bargaining tool. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make clear.
Churches of all sizes have lowered their support for the CP for several decades running. A church may decide if 1% or 10% is their level. Thank God for whatever level any church chooses to give but if it bypasses state conventions it isn’t CP. CP deserves our support. Trustees or messengers may use CP percentages or GCG or both in electing and hiring folks. Lately, press generally tosses out both for candidates for SBC office but I’ve never seen BP or state papers attempt to pass off direct gifts to the EC as CP giving.
I read back from the start and let me clarify what I mean this way: You’re right that giving through Nashville doesn’t count as offical CP giving on the church profile. I’m fine with that and that wasn’t my point. I said it wasn’t contrary to CP giving, by which I mean don’t think churches that employ that method should be seen as working against the CP.
Brent, it is clearly agains CP giving and churches that eschew the CP for direct giving to the EC should be seen as working against the CP. I don’t see how you could argue otherwise unless you do not consider state conventions as an integral and indispensable part of the CP. Besides the schools, ministries, and staff states have, they have the primary assignment of promoting the CP. That someone as involved and informed as you seems to miss this completely shows how the CP faces some difficult days ahead. Nothing personal here. I’m just surprised at your arguments on… Read more »
Glenn, That is my point. There has been no reason for our pastors to fear the Johnson Amendment. I fear there may be harm if it is removed. Destroying the Johnson amendment has the potential to do great harm I fear. The following is a letter I published in our state paper and sent to the ERLC for comment but they did not respond. Russell Moore needs to speak out on this. At the February 2nd National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump promised to “get rid of and totally destroy” the IRS regulation which states that as a condition of their… Read more »
Bro. West, You write: “Those who know Baptist history and doctrine realize that supporting a repeal on this amendment would be a betrayal of those Baptists who were persecuted because they would not pay taxes to support state churches.” I’m not following you on this. Isn’t the Johnson Amendment a government obstruction to religious freedom that Baptists of yesteryear contended for? At some points, “politics” interfaces with theology. At those interfaces, no preacher who affirms religious liberty should be restrained by the IRS to address them all the way down to endorsing a particular candidate if that’s what it takes.… Read more »
Brent, actually Draper said it more than one time and it was reported in Baptist Press. You may be too young to remember the time when these type threats were fairly common in the 80s and 90s by both sides in the battle for control.
I’m still waiting on Jack Graham’s apology for using CP fund escrow as blackmail.
*crickets*
Jim, what exactly was Jack Graham demanding when his church withheld CP funds? Have his demands been met?
Jim Perry, while I am not on the same side S Jack Graham is on this matter, but it’s neither blackmail nor extortion when the funds that you withhold are your own. Church autonomy is supposed to be somewhere very near the top of the list in Baptist beliefs. Never forget the CP is not supposed to be an end unto itself.
Dean, he could have been demanding a gallon of rocky road ice cream, who cares about the demand? The demand isn’t the point. It could have been made privately, as it should have.
John, frankly it IS blackmail when you’re using that to exert public pressure on someone. When you are holding it out as, “we’re mad at you so we’re not doing this thing.” The key is about making it public, in order to get your way. It was wrong, and should have been apologized for.
No sir it isn’t wrong and he shouldn’t apologize.
John, In calling for Graham’s repentance and apology – there is no suggestion that the local church “owes” the convention CP gifts or that there is any sense of ownership of offerings. I affirm, as do others that I know of, who have mentioned the words “strong arming” or or “blackmail” in relation to Prestonwoods tactics, that any autonomous church can halt (and then resume), reduce, and/or increase cooperative giving with the SBC at their good pleasure – for any reason they choose. What is being called out here is the fact that a significant pastor in our denomination, one… Read more »
Jim, You say JG blackmailed somebody by withholding the CP. Any definition of blackmail will include a demand for a payment.
Until you can say what payment was demanded you are the one who should apologize.
I’m sorry, Tarheel, but I disagree. I want to reiterate that I am not on the same side of Dr. Graham, but refusing to support what you don’t agree with is fundamental to Baptist thought. Using whatever influence you have to effect change is also fundamental to us as Baptists. This no different than a boycott.
No reason to apologize….disagreement is OK. I still hold respect for you. Leveraging money (admittedly a strong source of power) should be reserved, in SBC life, to issues of fundamental doctrine and I do not think that strong arm tactics designed to intimidate and obtain your way as godly action. I view that as sinful. Refusing to send money to fund the advancement of unbiblical doctrine or another gospel is a horse of a different color. (Which I assume is the angle you are taking with your appeal to history? The resurgence?) I am not a fan of boycotts either,… Read more »
Strong arm? You are not entitled to your own language. Words have meaning and strong arm involves taking by force or violence.
I am puzzled why people can come to Voices and say things that are unmitigated lies about a Brother in Christ.
Weren’t Dr. Moore’s statements made publicly? So why should PBC’s actions be kept secretive?
The problem was that some pastors took public positions supporting Trump while at the same time Russell Moore was calling out people in the SBC for “repudiating everything they believe” because they supported Trump. According to a press release from Prestonwood, they escrowed CP funds because of “various significant positions taken by the leadership of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission”. [see article by Baptist Press — 22 February 2017] People can differ on their views of Trump vs. Hillary. But in any case, for an agency [or a pastor] to publically endorse a particular candidate or political party is… Read more »
Dean,
The payment demanded was an apology/explanation acceptable to Jack Ghrahm.
Dwight, was the demand also that the ERLC take no public position opposing Trump’s policies. For example, the ERLC has remained quiet on the President’s desire to utterly destroy the Johnson Amendment and therefore open the way for churches to endorse political candidates from the pulpit while issuing tax exemptions to those who support their political activity. This is an issue the ERLC should be speaking out on but they are strangely saying nothing.
Dwight, I have no problem with a church withholding funds from any entity until the pastor is satisfied the entity is one they can support or continue to support. That is not extortion, blackmailing, or strong-arming. That is a pastor doing his job. I also don’t have any issue with someone disagreeing with what Dr. Graham and PWBC did. I do take issue with Jack Graham being spoken of in terms that are not applicable, blackmail, extortion, strong-arming. Bart Barber demonstrated the way when he was quoted in the BP article, “I love and appreciate” Jack Graham “but am an… Read more »
I understand you defending the name of a friend, Dean. Amazingly though there has been a lack concern when on this forum baseless accusations and intense character assassination was going on against Russell Moore??? I never once saw a single post from you defending this fellow believers honor. That said – Admitadly I have used strong words including extortion and blackmail In an attempt to express my disagreement and displeasure relating to the actions – not the person or character of JG. ( as I said in another thread good and honorable people do and say things that are unwise… Read more »
Tarheel, If I ever heard anyone accuse Russ Moore of blackmail, extortion, or strong-arming I feel certain I would defend him. As to my “amazing” non-defense of Russ Moore, you do realize SBC Voices turned into the Russ Moore defense league for the better part of 3 months with post after post supporting RM and the ERLC. Every criticism, much less character assassination, was answered immediately with a throng of unified voices. To be fair, I haven’t addressed much at all in the blog world lately. I certainly wasn’t going to jump in and add my voice to the dozens… Read more »