Before I say some things that might rankle some feathers here, let me say that I am a supporter of the Cooperative Program. In the nearly 30 years that I have been a pastor, I have served 4 churches (3 as “senior” pastor). Two of those churches gave 20% or more through the CP. My last two churches have hovered in the 12 percent range. I say all that to point out that I am not saying what I am going to say to excuse my own CP failures. I’m not sure what you consider an acceptable CP standard, but all four churches I’ve served have, I think, met that standard. When I was convention president in Iowa, I developed and distributed a teaching tool to help people in Iowa understand the CP syste – something wholly foreign to them. I think I can claim to have supported the CP in word and in action
Additionally, I think it is a little weird that people whose churches have been spotty in CP giving are now being handed the keys to run the store. When you look at the churches represented on the GCR task force, there were several that had spotty denominational support records. We are a convention of autonomous churches and no one has ever set an official standard for acceptable CP giving (nor should they). Its CP giving, not CP taxation. As I recall, Frank Page’s church had a pretty strong record of CP support. Obviously, Kevin Ezell’s church did not. With a questionable record (at best) of CP support and Annie Armstrong generosity, Kevin Ezell has been given charge of NAMB. Nothing wrong with that, I just find it strange that we are turning over the reins of our denomination to people whose support for our denomination has been weak.
Now, to Make Everyone Mad
Having said that, I wonder if we have not, in the immortal words of my hero, Adrian Rogers, made the Cooperative Program something of a sacred cow. In the early part of the 20th Century, Southern Baptists saw that their current system was not working. They developed the Cooperative Program system that has served our denomination well for the last 85 years.
I think it has been a genius system. But I also think we have made the assumption that this genius system is somehow divinely ordained and any departure from it is a sin against God. Yes, I know. I’m overstating it. But we act as if the CP is God’s infallible system of denominational support.
Southern Baptists tend to look back for direction. I remember a man in my Cedar Rapids church who had a solution to every problem we ever faced. If we would only return to doing things the way that they were done in the 50’s and early 60’s in Baptist churches, all would be well. If only we’d go back to singing hymns and get rid of the drums and guitars. If only we’d have weekly SS department meetings like we used to. We need to start having revivals every spring and fall like we used to. The solution for Southern Baptists often seems to be to return to the way we used to do it. We look at the past as the standard for the future.
But just because we used to do something in the past and it worked then does not make that strategy the only one God will bless in the future.
Let me spell it out. I love the CP. I have supported the CP. But can we accept the possiblity that the CP could be improved? Is every change to the CP necessarily destructive to the SBC? There is no shortage of voices out there saying that the changes that are going on are the “end of the CP” or even “the dismantling of the Southern Baptist Convention.” Perhaps a little melodramatic?
Do we even hold out the idea that as God showed us a new way back in 1925 that blessed us in the 20th Century, that he might show us another new way in the 21st Century?
Could it be that our refusal to grow and change is one of the problems we have as a denomination?
What Does the Future Hold?
It seems that the powers-that-be are going to, at the least, tweak the CP system. I have to admit that I have some reservations about that. It is very possible that the new system may be less effective than the one I grew up in. But is it not also possible that they could come up with something improved, something better? It seems wrong to assume that all change to the CP system would necessarily be destructive.
If they are going to develop a new system, I hope it keeps the benefits of the old system while addressing some of the problems inherent in it.
Positives of the CP
There are some real advantages to the CP system. If those in charge are going to change our system, there are aspects of the CP that they need to keep in place. For me, that would include the following:
1) The genius of the CP system is its cooperative nature. Duh. I serve a church in Iowa with a budget of around 450,000 bucks and an attendance that only sporadically reaches 300. We simply do not have the ability to fund missionaries or church plants on our own. We have a mortgage, three full-time staff and other employees, and Iowa-sized utility bills. We simply cannot do it all by ourselves.
By being involved in the CP, we can be a part of a worldwide missions program supporting 11,000 missionaries in the US and around the world. We can do more together than we can do separately.
Mega-churches like Highview can start and support churches on their own. We can’t.
If we are going to adapt the CP system, we cannot simply go to an every-man-for-himself system. That may be fine for the mega-churches that now run the SBC, but it leaves us decidedly non-megas out in the cold. So, I’m willing to see changes in the CP, but whatever replaces it must be a cooperative system.
2) The CP I’ve known was very effective in funding missions, theological education, and administrative ministries. If we are going to tweak the system, whatever we come up with must also be effective in funding our entire work, not just pet projects or appealing ministries.
Problems with the CP System
Please do not pick up stones to stone me, but I think there are some problems with the CP system. It is a human system designed by human beings and is therefore not perfect.
1) The CP can lead to impersonal missions support.
In a church of several hundred, we only have a handful of people who would identify themselves as Southern Baptists. It has been a challenge to explain the CP. Frankly, the most belligerent I have become in committee meetings has probably been in opposing moves by some of our leaders to leave percentage missions giving behind. They just don’t get it.
But one of the points I hear makes real sense. In others systems, missionaries go from church to church raising support. Our church might give a few dollars a month to 25 or 30 missionaries. That is certainly not as extensive as the CP program, but it is more personal. The church has a personal relationship with a small group of missionaries.
This may be more of a problem outside the SBC stronghold areas. Not many furloughing missionaries want to enjoy Iowa winters. I think this is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the SBC CP system. It is effective, but impersonal. It is harder, in this day, to get people to give to a particular ministry or missionary than it is to support a “system” like the CP.
2) The CP lends itself to Bureaucracy.
Do we have bloated bureaucracies in the SBC? I will let you have your opinion on that. But the effectiveness of the CP system may lend itself to bureaucratic tendencies. In a direct support system, every piece has to produce or it will tend to lose support. But when we cooperatively support institutions, it becomes much easier for bureaucratic bloating to occur. People and institutions get their piece of the pie even if they are not producing.
I’m not casting aspersions on anyone (not intentionally, anyway). We are human beings though. All human work tends toward institutionalization and the SBC is no different. I was in a discussion recently with some denominationally active folks. We agreed that the economic downturn may actually have some positive effects, forcing us to streamline our structure and focus our efforts. That is a healthy thing for churches and denominations.
3) The CP can force me to support what I oppose.
If the CR had not happened, I would not be Southern Baptist now. My conscience would not allow me to give to support some of the men who had taught me in college and had gone to SBC seminaries, men who were teaching that which was in direct contradiction to my beliefs and convictions.
Now, I often disagree with our leaders. I have been frustrated with the actions of one of our seminary presidents from time to time. I was vehemently opposed to the philosophy of our IMB when they wrote the policies on PPL and baptism. But none of these things rose to the level that I would have considered withholding support.
But the CP forces me to support not only that which I agree with and am enthusiastically in support of, but also that which I oppose or disagree with.
I’m not sure that there is a solution to this problem. Denominationalism by definition forces you to take the good with the bad. But this is a root problem with the CP system. Calvinists have to pay the salary of people who preach that Calvinists are awful, and non-Calvinists have pay Al Mohler’s salary. If you believe that the Bible mandates tithing for NT Christians, the CP means that you are paying the salary of Andreas Kostenberger who has written a scholarly refutation of that belief. When you support the CP, you fund the SBC – warts and all.
Perspectives
1) I do not know the future. I do not know the heart or intent of Bryant Wright, of Kevin Ezell, of the new IMB president (whoever that is) or any of the other key leaders. I know that all of them have expressed support for the CP. But it also seems clear to me that the CP is in transition. They may not be doing away with it, but neither are they leaving it as it was.
2) That may or may not be a good thing. The God who led us to the Cooperative Program could lead us to something better. But that should include the strong points of the current CP while addressing whatever faults or failings the CP has.
3) We must not make a sacred cow out of the CP. It is not divinely ordained or biblically mandated. It has been an effective
4) We should remain open to change, but skeptical. The burden in on the leaders to show us that they have discerned a better way. If they can show us the way to a better solution, we should walk that way. But they must show us. Enough of the manipulation used by Ted Traylor, Bryant Wright and NAMB about the nomination of Kevin Ezell. When questions were raised they simply told us that Ezell was “God’s man” – if I understood it correctly, they were telling us to shut up, stop asking questions and do what we are told.
My Conclusion
I do not share the caustic cynicism that some have shared on this board and especially on other blogs about the future of the SBC or the motives of its leaders. But I’m through carrying water for anyone. During the CR I supported our leaders even when I disagreed. That ain’t happening no more!
If the leaders of the SBC want a change, they need to spell it out and demonstrate that they are improving the system. I’m willing to listen, but not to follow them blindly. Don’t ask me to buy a pig in poke.
So, we are seeing the fulfillment of the ancient curse, “May you live in interesting times.” For Southern Baptists and the Cooperative Program, we are going to live in interesting times.
Note, I wrote a response (Or respHonse) to the Stetzer interview with Kevin Ezell. I accidently published it during the editing process. I took it down, but I know that the half-written article appeared in feeds. I will post the complete article (already vastly different than the one that got prematurely posted today) tomorrow or Monday.
Dave,
I am most assuredly unsure of the future of the SBC at this time as never before in the years I have been involved, but I am sure of one thing here today.
Your post took some sand to put in a public venue. I admire you for it and respect you for your observations. I have, of late, had similar thoughts. Thank you for being willing to state what, in my opinion, many of us are thinking in these days of uncertainty in SBC life.
I hope people will read the whole thing (not likely, right?) Parts of it seem anti-CP, parts of it just the opposite.
CB, I hope this doesn’t distract from the sports blog I created for you.
Dave,
This was just a pause. I will stay with the really important stuff until after New Years. Don’t you worry. You can count on me ’cause I was born in the SABANATION.
Somehow, I really believe you . . . .
this is a courageous post. i’ll have to think about it for a while and come back with more of a response, but let me say at the outset that i applaud you for setting this out there.
The Cooperative Program is a good system provided everyone contributes.
In many of my posts and in answer to Dave Miller’s question that he has asked me in the past, I feel that there is a standard for churches in Cooperative Program giving and that standard, in my opinion, is ten percent. The reason that I come to that number is because I feel that ten percent basically means that you have to be wise in your financial decisions, whether you are a person tithing or a church wanting to support the efforts and missions of the denomination.
I am also one of those who feel that if you are tithing, then you should have unfettered access to the financial workings of the church provided your heart is in promoting stewardship rather than discord. I’m on record on an earlier post stating that I don’t care if, in this case Kevin Ezell, if he drives a bentley provided he loves the Lord, loves his family, and does his job with excellence. I do, however, also feel that a person, or in this case an entity, should not be allowed the keys to the kingdom unless they are also reaching the very same standard that they are now going to have to champion.
The Cooperative Program fails when we stop cooperating. It’s so simple that it sounds stupid.
What we have become is less of an organization that encourages cooperation and shared sacrifice. We are now an organization that has put a premium on keeping up with the Jones in that we celebrate our authors, our multi-campus churches, our conference speakers, and our churches who give hundreds of thousands of dollars to our Cooperative Program only to find that it’s a pittance when you talk in terms of percentage.
Sure, these churches are doing their own mission work, but what happens is that they begin to undermine the very foundations of what makes the Southern Baptist Convention unique.
Cooperation requires humility, it requires admitting that you can’t go it alone. By remain autonomous as separate entities, yet bound by our mutual desire for cooperation, Southern Baptist Churches have humbly admitted that no church can change the world, only the sharing of resources to share Christ on an exponential scale can groups of like-minded believers reach a lost and dying world for Christ.
We, the Southern Baptist Convention, were once humble and our actions openly demonstrated that alone, sure we can reach a few people, but when we come together in Christ and share our offerings in humility, there is not one time that you can point to and convince me that God hasn’t bless our efforts and our humble spirit.
This isn’t a Conservative Resurgence thing at all. I know that there are people on both sides who have various opinions of the Conservative Resurgence, but the one thing I feel like neither side is claiming is that we were once a humble people. Now we celebrate our celebrity pastors, our book tours, our conferences all over the country and yet we forget that God doesn’t bless us in our prideful moments, he blesses the broken, the humble, those who seek God rather than those who claim to speak for God.
Regardless of your opinions of any given tertiary doctrine, you cannot convince me that we have not become a very proud and very arrogant group of people.
The reality check isn’t in the Cooperative Program. Sure, maybe it’s time to make some changes here and there, but the reality check is coming to all of us for our arrogance.
The only option apart from our Cooperative Program which relies on faith and humility, is for a systematic hierarchy from the person in the pew to the President of the Convention. It would be a mandated system and then we’d have a church tax rather than a church tithe.
I agree wholeheartedly about our denomination being a backwards looking denomination is absolutely spot on.
Look at our track records:
We never give our programs a chance to become effective or even really tested, i.e. EKG, GPS, etc.
We have never truly embraced that worship styles and music have changed not just in the decades of our denomination, but in the centuries of Christianity. Now, we have churches splitting over music preferences rather than coming together in unity to worship.
We have never truly embraced technology. As a media person, it saddens me that we don’t have any Communications degrees in our Seminaries at all, but we’ve got Home Econ classes in full swing at our flagship seminary. I, for one, would think it would be a priority to put seminary trained people working in the fields of technology which are becoming the most effective ways to reach people rather than teach women how to cook. We have Food Network for that.
We have never embraced change. It amazes me that people still want to do outreach the same way it was done thirty years ago. Your typical family is statistically out of the house four to six nights a week. Therefore it’s not entirely worth the hours of manpower to go home to home knocking on doors as much as it is effective in training our people to talk to their cubicle mates, their classmates, the person sitting next to them at a high school football game, at the mall, at the grocery store, any place where the people are now.
We have never embraced humility. It’s now a sign of weakness. We promote the facade of “I’m Saved” and now my bills are paid, my marriage is perfect, my grass is green and my dog doesn’t bite anyone. Are you surprised that we have a world cynical of us? I’m not. Many of our churches are so backwards that deacons will ask visitors to move their cars so the pastor’s wife’s parking spot is clear.
We are staring at the reaping of what we have sown. This ain’t conservative versus liberal/moderates. This isn’t north versus south. This is about us being arrogant and abandoning the humble spirit that allowed the concept of a Cooperative Program built by churches of a likeminded focus and dedication to sharing the gospel become one of the most effective tools to ever be used by God in this world. If we reclaim that humbleness, then all the other junk falls into place.
Bill, I appreciate that you can set a standard for yourself and your church of 10%. My quarrel would be with an attempt to impose that standard on one another.
That was my quarrel with the IMB policies before. We can only impose on our participation that which we have agreed to impose. The SBC has never agreed to impose a 10% standard.
I think it is a great guideline, but it is not a prerequisite for denominational involvement or fidelity.
There is a lot in that comment to chew on, Bill. Some really good comments.
Bill–
Change is inevitible. The question is, “Has such change diverted our ‘basic mission?'”
I think our “basic mission” is MISSIONS. Outside of that, we have no real reason to cooperate and spend the money we do.
Dave,
I appreciate your post and your analysis of what is going on in the Convention regarding CP and how we do missions together. While I would probably view things more skeptically than you, I think that your overall conclusions about CP — both good and bad — are close to mine. As for the politics of all this (and yes, there are politics in the SBC), I may have a slightly different take than you. Maybe I’ll write about that for Voices next week. God bless,
Howell
I look forward to that.
The main arguement that I’ve read against adjusting/changing the cooperative program (and this may just show my need of geting out more) is “We can’t take money away from the state conventions. They’ll dry up and blow away”. But, in reality, would that be a bad thing in some cases. I mean, the BGCT and the BGAV has needed to go “poof” for quite some time. If changing the cooperative program would affect the leadership of thoses associations so that people who believed the Bible and held to Christian theology were given the reigns, I say “Go for it”.
Let me just clarify how the CP works – you probably know this.
My church sets aside a percentage and sends it to my state convention. They take their cut and send the rest on to the Exec Committee which distributes it by formula to IMB, NAMB, the seminaries, ERLC, etc.
So, the question is how much the states keep and pass on the the EC – that’s what is at discussion.
The current tendency is for churches that are not happy with their state conventions to bypass them. That is having all sorts of backlash.
Now, in the two situations you mentioned, there are alternate conventions in both VA and TX, so churches that are dissatisfied with those conventions can change.
Dave–
You have described it in a nutshell and totally accurately!!
Thanks!!!
Dave,
Thanks for your very thoughtful writing, analysis, and commentary on our highly complex convention decisions. Max DuPree [Leadership guru] says the first responsibilty of a leader is to define reality. You have helped define our denominational reality while still being a cheerleader for CP.
While I am saddened by CP percentages given by many of our SBC ruling class, I am very happy that the Executive Committee has called a leader and statesman like Dr. Frank Page.
Dr. Page has been a bright light for cooperation and Cooperative Program giving in his pastoral ministry. He will be able to stand before Southern Baptists with moral courage and clarity because he has led by example. When he asks Southern Baptists to sacrificially give to CP and other SBC missions causes — there will be no snickering behind his back.
Let’s give him a chance to grab hold of the reins at the EC and make some exciting changes and challenges.
IMB Trustees can make Dr. Page’s job and everyone’s much easier by calling a new President with impeccable CP credentials. If they do not, our denominational days are numbered.
I am in 100% agreement about Dr. Frank Page. He’s great. I am so glad that he’s got the big chair.
Funny story, I was eating lunch at the convention with David Rogers, Chris Johnson and Benji Ramsaur. A group sat at the table next to us and we recognized Frank Page. We greeted him and congratulated him on his new job. He had this kinda nervous look on his face, but was gracious. We didn’t know it, but right after lunch was the board meeting at which they were voting on him. No wonder he was a little nervous. We had no idea, but we looked pretty clueless.
I’m so glad we were right and he got elected.
The “10% recommendation thing” is what got me involved in SBC matters in 2006. It was that proposal, to add a percentage recommendation to a resolution encouraging CP giving by the local churches, that stuck in my craw and wouldn’t leave until I had my say.
I think this is where I came in….
When the local church members pays money into the church, that IS God’s money right then. The pastor and the members (in congregational churches, anyway) have an awesome responsibility to see that it’s spent in ways God wants, for that particular congregation in that particular place.
I can understand a pastor thinking that the way he does it is the only way, but that smacks of a certain seminarian I know of who said he knows how every Baptist church ought to be built .. with no center aisle.
🙂
You’ve been around the blogging world a long time, Bob – just like me. It seems sometimes that we keep fighting the same battles over and over.
And it’s OK, when they’re worth fighting.
My pastor is fond of saying “A bobcat can whip a skunk any day, but it’s not worth the stink”. The battle for the future of the SBC is.
Personally, I think the GTRTF Report and its implementation, including the characteristics we see in the people being elected to certain positions, may be what it takes to wake everybody up and bring the CP, NAMB, and the IMB forward into the 2000’s.
I hope, at least.
Most of the time, I think it is worth it.
When you consider all the ramifications of the term “contend for the faith”, it’s always worth it. Until, of course, one is led to high-tail it away from the SBC boat.
Barge might be a better word.
(I’m off to ponder what kind of hidden meaning. for GTRTF there might be .. this could get interesting.)
Dave–
This is so well put–I commend you for your observations.
I think we could back up a little and make a couple of important observations as well:
(1) As long as Autonomy prevailed, the diverse churches calling themselves “Baptist” could find a great way to cooperate and do bigger things. As you wisely said, “We can’t start many churches like Ezell–and run the local church.
(2) Just like our Federal Government, with its power to tax, things go better when the taxed feel like they are getting something from all the money they give. The problem with taxation over cooperation is that a local church can choose whether to participate or not. (By the way, our first Income Tax was “temporary” to pay the debt of WWI)
(3) Our real problem is the transition from using CP funds to mostely support missionaries–to the current heavy and high-salaried Institutions and Agencies we now support. People are asking to know the salaries and they NEVER get an answer.
(4) Once there was a reasonable comparison with what missionaries got paid and what their leaders were paid. EVERYTHING was in the SBC budget line-by-line. That has gotten way out of kilter in the last 40 years and churches are saying, “Foul!!!”
(5) I sat on the first Title XX (Welfare) Funds put together under LBJ’s “War on Poverty.” I asked the man representing the Federal
Government if he could tell us what part of the dollar collected in taxes comes back to the Santee-Wateree District of SC in funds–vs. what part is consumed in management. He could not answer.
I, then followed up with my “Baptist observation:” When we take up money at Christmas and Easter for missions, it is said that 5% is consumed in management while 95% goes directly to the missionaries!
Is this still true for CP funds today????
If it’s not, then we are perfectly within our Baptist rights to ask questions and decide whether we want to participate.
Sadly, today, there is little trust between the local church and the Denomination. Churches now get excited and give greatly to support a “Mission Team” going somewhere to do missions. Equally sad, is the fact that effort is limited to no more than 2 weeks. It gets great emotional support, but “does it really produce a long term effect???” The EXACT same situation when missionaries had to spend 4 years getting funds so they could spend a year on the mission field!
Frankly, I think we are returning to the pre-SBC days of local church greed—and a desire to use the funds given only under strict local church control.
The solution to the mistrust was a magic word, AUTONOMY! It meant, we can do anything we want locally without a larger body telling us EXACTLY what to do or profess in our local church theological statement. As long as we baptize by emersion and believe the Bible is God’s Word (without “inerrant” inserted) and have Communion open to (here was another debate) members or believers who are not members (closed communion vs. open communion) we can claim to be members of the Baptist movement.
In short, Bible belief / mode of baptism / cooperation locally and nationally were the criteria–and it was rather simple. Now we have a large Executive section / multi-million dollar budgets / secrecy / hidden agendas / conflict / confusion.
A Cooperative Program is based on trust and shown results of that giving. I think we have lost some key ingredients and–until we regain them–there will be endless conflict—and a plateau in giving and growth.
I pray we will overcome the suspicion. Only time will tell.
What is really interesting is that Ezell must now encourage churches to do what he did no in his own ministry.
By the way, if a local church can’t, at least, tithe its income to larger causes–I fail to see how it can ask any member to tithe either.
And, for another off-the-wall observation from the pew, if God were unhappy with the SBC, just how might that be manifested? Would we expect lightning to etch something in stone? Some longhaired guy with a staff and halo to appear at the convention, out of thin air? A mysterious voice .. baritone, of course .. to show up from nowhere?
Or maybe what’s going on right now?
Hmm…….
Dave,
Great post. We see things from a similar perspective.
The CP is central to the SBC, but not critical. The SBC existed for 80 years before the CP was created.
The bigger issues in the SBC, in my opinion, are the breakdown in cohesion among the churches. There have always been differences, but the differences today seem to be discussed a whole lot more than they used to be. Deep theological differences were addressed in the CR, so we took some losses there. But that was a good thing. The CBF, Mainstream groups and others often have a different theological set up, so it’s good that they are separated. I hope it stays that way.
But other differences, which are not nearly as important, in my opinion, constantly threaten to boil over. Discussing them takes a lot of energy. It just shows that in many corners there is often a lack of agreement about what to emphasize, how to do church, how to be Baptist etc. This disagreement, in my opinion, impacts the enthusiasm level for cooperative ventures. So, the CP is affected, not because of the CP itself, but because of this lack of agreement that exists out there.
Now, to the CP. You are right about the giving percentages. Imposing a level for service or loyalty is not only contrary to the SBC bylaws, but it would have the exact opposite effect of what is intended by those who might promote it. It would push them more toward independent missions efforts. You cannot force people to give more. This would reduce the CP even more.
Great Commission giving is THE way to go. It celebrates giving, at whatever percentage or through whatever channel it is given. That will increase giving. Maybe not to the CP. But overall giving will increase (if we continue to have agreement – see above).
Finally, on the leadership issues, I am not worried about people who are not on the top of CP giving taking the leadership posts. Adrian Rogers was one of the best SBC presidents ever, and he was low in CP giving (moderates insisted the SBC presidents should be high in CP giving).
I doubt that these guys are trojan horses. That is, I doubt that Ezell will take the helm at NAMB will argue for less giving. I think that he will argue for more, and that he will be in a better position than many to try and convince those churches with low giving to increase their giving.
Keep up the good comments and blogging, Dave. Don’t get discouraged about all the denominational stuff.
I have said this before, but as you have noted, if a church is going to be connected to a large denomination it will have to put up with some things.
“Rejoice in the good, endure the bad, and ignore the absurd.” That’s my quote, and it’s the advice I would give to any SBC pastor when it came to SBC matters.
Interesting conversation; more to say on it, but first, your first point about problems with the Cooperative Program, Dave. It’s impersonal, you say.
I have talked with pastors across the nation, and have learned from them that CP is as personal as you — the pastor — want it to be. We have more than 5,000 international missionaries serving at the present time. Probably every single one has an email address. Assign someone in your church to find out about one, or one per region. Give them 3 minutes every Sunday — or 2, even — to tell the congregation one thing about this missionary. Maybe a prayer need. Maybe something new they’re starting. Maybe some successs they’ve had. Do this every Sunday, with a different region of the world each week, or once a month. Either way, it apparently will be more than you’re doing now!
Then you, the pastor, say, “This missionary is one of the more than 5,000 you help support with your gifts to the Cooperative Program.”
You can have the same level of contact with a CP-supported missionary as you can with someone you personally send $25 a month to. It just takes the desire to do it. If you don’t have that desire, you might want to ask yourself why you don’t have it. Peel away your layers of thought until you come up with the real reason, teh bottom line reason, you don’t want to support the Cooperative Program.
Maybe you really don’t want to be a Southern Baptist. That’s okay! A lot of good folks doing God’s work in this world are not Southern Baptists.
Now, on to everyone’s comments. Someone ALMOST said it. A big part of the problem people have with CP is that it provides support for our seminaries, which don’t always/haven’t in the past/might not in the future teach what we want taught.
I actually have wondered about this for years: Why do CP dollars go to the seminaries? I say, drop the funding completely. Let the seminaries fend for themselves. Let the alumni get the churches to send $100/mo (or whatever) to the seminary the pastor graduated from.
I say this as a SWBTS graduate.
I say this as someone who learned within the last year that it costs less to go to Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary — which is Southern Baptist all the way, except that it doesn’t receive CP funding (and why is that, I wonder?) — than it does to go any of our CP-funded seminaries. Check it out for yourself! I was so shocked I called some of the seminaries to see if I was reading online their rates correctly.
I also found out this year about Mid-America: it was started as a conservative response to then-wayward teaching at NOBTS. (Which has since come back to its conservative roots; I mean no disparagement of NOBTS.) If Mid-America can make it without CP funding, why can’t our other seminaries?
The seminaries should be the subject of an entirely different post, probably. But since I’m typing, let me write that if the reason we want seminaries is that they help strengthen God’s work in that locale, why don’t all the seminaries do it Golden Gates’ way — several campuses — instead of the monoliths we have helping out the work in five cities? Why pour so many CP dollars into these five cities?
Enough for this post.
There are ways to make the system more personal, of course. But the point is that the CP system is inherently less personal. And, while we can, as you said, communicate electronically with missionaries, personal contact is not as easy in Iowa as it might be in Texas.
I’m not sure about your point in the fourth and fifth paragraph, but if I am understanding you right, I think I take umbrage at your suggestion. I’ve been Southern Baptist since 9 months before I was born and been a member of a SBC church for nearly 47 years. Just because I see flaws in the SBC system does not mean that I do not want to be Southern Baptist. It means that I am open to the Southern Baptist system being improved, if they can demonstrate that the new way is the right way.
Again, I have to hope I’m reading you wrong. I hope you aren’t saying that questioning the system makes one a disloyal Southern Baptist? Maybe you could clarify, because I hope I’m reading you wrong.
As to the seminaries, I haven’t thought that through much. I think we have decided that it is to our benefit to train our pastors without forcing them into deep debt.
Frankly, whether the suggestion has merit or not, it is not likely that we are going to change our seminary support system soon.
Forgive me if my words were ill-advised, Dave. I meant no disrespect.
That being said, I COMPLETELY disagree with you and all who would agree with you on this topic of the CP being “impersonal.”
My question remains: Why are you unwilling to do what it takes to make CP personal in your church? (I ask this not of Dave specifically, but of all pastors who choose to not do so, and who then complain it’s not personal.)
I see no difference in “personalization” of a missionary that comes with supporting a specific one rather than supporting 5,000 of them. They are ALL over there, doing God’s work. You don’t have any more access to that “one” than you do any one of the 5,000. He/she isn’t going to be flying home once a month to report in. He/She’s going to send the same type of prayergram/newsletter that an IMB missionary would.
What I do know, from talking over the years with dozens of missionaries, is that Southern Baptist missionaries oftentimes find themselves taking care of direct-supported missionaries when their money runs out or an emergency happens the non-SBCers are ill-prepared to deal with. I have talked with non-SBC missionaries — not nearly as many as SBC, but still, a half-dozen at least — and each has told me how fortunate our missionaries are to have in place the system they do. On this point I figure we agree.
Where we disagree, is that apparently you think supporting one person Of Your Choosing (I think that might be the rub) is much more personal than supporting 5,000 — one or more of whom you will have to make an effort to get to know.
I see the value in a church sending out and supporting people from that congregation to be missionaries. The problem is when a church says “this person is where we choose to allocate or mission dollars.” When one church does this, no biggee. When 500 do this, the CP suffers. What is more important: That your church gets to support the one missionary you want to, or that the system of supporting 5,000 stays in place?
My pastor preached brilliantly on this very subject today, from I Cor. 10:23ff. “No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person.” I can’t begin to do justice to his sermon, but what I got from it was that we and what we want are not as important as is the other guy.
If I have the scenario correct, you [I speak in the theoretical] have a person in your church who for whatever reason, chooses to not be affiliated with the IMB. (If that is not the case, why the discussion? If he/she is with IMB, then you’re already supporting him and your “extra” support is the same as is the “offerings” part of “tithes and offerings” — it’s an extra gift.) You say, “Though we think Southern Baptist missions are great, because this guy/gal is one of us, we choose to support him/her. This way, we’ll have a personal face to our mission giving.
What I see you’re saying with this is that your church is more important than is the SBC as a whole. This is the crux of the matter. Denominations don’t matter the way they used to. Churches have become used to thinking of themselves as islands rather than part of a whole. As others on this comment section have noted, that’s the situation with big churches like Ezell’s. They don’t need the state convention. They don’t even need the SBC. So why does the guy want to head NAMB? It boggles my mind.
Bottom line, I think you’re great, Dave. You run a great, thinking person’s blog and I appreciate the opportunity to wet my beak at your trough.
You are both hitting on the problem =
Autonomy / Control
Trust / Mistrust
Since the SBC is diversified far and wide over being initially a part of Southern Culture, you add another dimension to the diversity of activity which was more simple in days gone by.
At one time our qustions were:
Do you handle snakes?
Do you have a split chancel?
Do folks get “slain in the spirit?”
Is it a mill church / country church / city church?
Check it out with some really old Baptists. They used to not let questions like the above keep them from sitting down together / eating that covered dish Associational Meeting meal / enjoying the fact that they were sending more and more missionaries.
And then . . . we decided there were more important measures of “being Baptist.”
Sheila has one / Dave has one / we all have one!!!!
Is there still a reason to work together like Jesus was asking his followers to do—without ego / fighting / criticism / etc. ???
I know you’d love to pretend like Baptists used to be allowed a range of beliefs and they tolerated that happily. The fact is, Baptists stand/have stood for solid, biblical theology and have never found it ok to cooperate with churches or have teachers in seminaries that held to unbiblical positions. When it became apparent that there were professors in seminary (like those Dave Miller encountered or John Durham at Southeastern) the Christians in the SBC moved to remove those people and those who permitted them to teach. Southern Baptists affirm the Bible’s inerrancy–all Christians affirm inerrancy–and therefore changed the language in the BFM so that it no longer read that Jesus Christ was the criteria for interpretation so that moderates could not longer say “Well, that can’t be what Paul meant because Christ would never have been that exclusive”.
In short, anyone who wants to be baptist and diversified rather than Christian and unified around the truth of God’s inerrant, inspired word can always go to the Coopeerate with anyone Baptist Fellowship. After all, that’s what that organization was created for–baptists who want to hold to unbiblical beliefs.
“After all, that’s what that organization was created for–baptists who want to hold to unbiblical beliefs.”
A-MEN.
The question is not Biblical inerrancy when Joe posts, it Joe’s belief that He is inerrant.
It’s his e-mailing that causes even more concern.
Joe–
Do you EVER get tired of playing your scratchy 45 rpm record???
We all know you have it / we all know the lyrics / it was a hit record in 1979, but today Baptists are miserably failing to meet budgets nor send missionaries.
Can we get you to put it away for a little bit? We know how much you love it, but it’s just not appropriate here. Dave is on one of the most important issues we face this year, in my opinion.
We are trying to address getting the CP back on track, if you haven’t noticed!!!!!
Well considering you don’t believe and praech the biblical gospel**, your help getting the CP back on track is no help at all. People that believe like you should stay in the CBF where they belong. After all, it’s not like the CBF is concerned with the gospel.
**You believe that mormons are real Christians. You believe that God will save muslims through the islamic faith. Christians know that both of those statements are contradicted by the word of God and have no scriptural support.
Joe Blackmon comment = overstatement / mistatement = anything which will cause argument over good discussion!!!
We are trying hard to be discussing this important issue over the scratching 45 rpm record you are trying to play with the volume turned up to the max!!!
Joe—do you have one of those super base speakers in your car? You should add the “jump jacks” so you buck like a bronco at the stoplight in addition to hurting our ears with the “boom boom base!!!”
Gene=bald faced liar.
You blathered for almost two pages offering an apologetic about how mormons are real Christians beginning at this comment:
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/12/senator-blanche-lincolns-biggest-re.html?showComment=1261142326418#c4622341734117522169
Some of the highlights:
“They, like us, believe Jesus is the Christ!!!”
“I will pretty safely bet money such is the case with today’s information cited as critical of our fellow Christians: Mormons. ”
“The Mormons start their relationship with our kind of Christianity with what Jesus says: “I have other sheep ye know not of.”
Now, since you don’t believe the biblical gospel because you believe that Mormons are Christians and I have proved that wirh your own words and a link to a comment thread where you blooger account is logged in as having posted those comments I most certainly did not overstate or misstate anything.
Therefore, you have nothing to add to a discussion of how to improve the CP since you’re not a Christian and do not believe the gospel.
Why don’t we discuss the future of the GP gentlemen.
What is a split chancel? For that matter, what’s a chancel?
“High church”, baby, “high church!” = robed clergy / litany / classical music / traditional hymns from 1700-1800’s / preacher might be reading his transcript rather than running around the “stage” putting on a big show!
For many “cool people of the 70-80’s” just “old hat” and “uninspiring.”
For some of us, an anchor of worship. Applause means entertainment—and God doesn’t need our cheers to do his works!
“handle snakes?. . . sitting down together / eating that covered dish Associational Meeting meal”
Now, that is an Associational Meeting that gets my West Virginia blood flowing 🙂
SSBN–
We got that one together—didn’t we!!!!!
Now you know that I know what really goes on in the SBC!!!
Are there alternatives to societal giving and giving through the cooperative program? I mean, I’m not studied up enough on the history of the SBC but is it possible that the convention has reached a point where what had worked before (CP) no longer work today?
By “…between socital giving and giving through the cooperative program…” what I mean is there seems to be the idea that it’s one or the other. Could there be a 3rd alternative the SBC could consider?
Yes, Joe. There is.
Churches can bypass the states and give directly to the SBC. That way, 100% of the contributions goes to the SBC for distribution in accordance with the percentage division adopted at the SBC annual meeting.
That would leave the states out in the cold, so that may not appeal to people.
But now our state, for example, takes 65% before sending 35% to Nashville.
Showing my ignorance here—how is that different than “societal giving”? I thought bypassing the states and giving directly to certain causes is what that was. Again, showing my ignorance. 🙂
You would be giving “cooperatively” at the national level but not supporting your state convention.
I would only do this in the most extreme circumstances – my state convention would have to be really sorry for me to even consider suggesting such a thing to the church.
“Societal” giving is a reference to giving to specific ministries, as opposed to a unified budget, to be divided up in percentages agree upon in advance.
The word “Societal” comes from society, which was a word used long ago in ministry names. Like the “Billy Graham Evangelistic Society”.
If a church wrote one check to the IMB, one check to NAMB, one check for Southern Seminary, one to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission – that would like societal giving. It would cause havoc because each entity would then start raising money, coming to churches to put on a program etc. That is what was happening before the CP was started. Churches had so many people coming in to do presentations, that it took lots of time, and it was unpredictable as to who would get money and how much from year to year.
If a church writes one check for all it’s giving, then that money is divided up in percentages according to various ministries, that is not “societal” giving.
Don’t worry Joe, we’re used to it. You show your ignorance every time you post.
Louis,
Thanks. I see the distinction.
Louis has made about the most accurate description of “societal giving” I have yet seen—and the wisdom of putting it together under “mission giving” so the local church could do worship / ministry / cooperation without the constant string of “money raisers for my cause.”
Dave, I think you have written a well-thought-out piece, which should provide food for thought for all of us. And amazingly it has already stimulated conversations between some folks who are frequently at each other’s throats.
I think you are exactly right when you say that the CP is an impersonal structure. And certainly it should not be a sacred cow. My concern with an emphasis of Great Commission Giving over CP giving is that it is a subtle move to undermine the state conventions–perhaps even a passive-aggressive way of weakening them in favor of national structures and organiations, but doing it in than name of efficiency or theology or some other convenient labels. This bothers me; I would rather that we, as Baptists, decide forthrightly what structures and organizations to we would support, and plainly say, “I want the state conventions to shrink because they do not reflect the priorities I think they should,” or “I want national/SBC structures and organizxations to shrink because they do not reflect the priorities I think they should.” Perhaps your post will help us to move to such a candid and honest discussion. Thanks!
John
I wonder if that antagonism toward state conventions is more of a regional thing. I don’t think there is much of that up here. The state convention is a lifeline here. I don’t know of anyone in Iowa who bypasses the state convention, though there may be some that do.
Dave,
While some of the antagonism may be regional in nature, I think that there is an underlying philosophy which does not see a need for the State Conventions or local Associations. When your church is so large that it has a bigger budget than some State Conventions, then you simply don’t need the State. To answer John, I don’t think that those with disdain for State Conventions would be so bold as to say it directly. But, their actions sure do make you wonder. I’d love to know if State Conventions were discussed by the GCRTF, but I’ll have to wait 15 years to find that out.
What we are witnessing is a makeover (and I would submit a radical one) of what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist. This is seen most clearly through the primary means by which SBs cooperate, namely the Cooperative Program. But, the idea of cooperation goes back to the founding of the SBC in 1845.
Can the way we cooperate together for the sake of missions and ministry be improved, including CP itself? I think Dave answered that clearly. Which is why I voted to authorize the GCRTF in 2009. However, at some point you begin to wonder whether some within the SBC are non-demoninational churches who support some Southern Baptist causes or whether they are truly cooperating in every sense of that word. Of course, everyone has a definition of what it means to cooperate. But, when you systematically cut your CP giving, give little to nothing to cooperate with other churches in your local area or state, and designate your national giving, some might say that’s not very cooperative.
Hey Dave, what time does Sunday night church start out in Iowa? I better run myself. God bless,
Howell
Howell–
I”m going to sound like a “good old days” guy, but I remember attending the Atlanta Baptist Association meeting with my father as a teenager. It was composed of some 160 churches in the first “fast grow” city of the South. Baptist churches were big and new mission churches were going up everywhere.
At that meeting, my father introduced me to Roy McClain (Atlanta First) / the Pastor of Second Ponce de Leon / Bill Self at Wieuca Road (mission out of 2nd Ponce) / Druid Hills / the list could go on. Almost every large church pastor actively participated in the local Association. Their church’s giving began right in their own back yard.
Now, I would challenge any large city Association attendee to find a single large church pastor among them!!
I have talked with some who clearly state, “I have more important things to do with my church / I have to attend a Conference down in Orlando / I am speaking somewhere at a large gathering / etc.” In short, they have more important things to do which deal with being big!
In most cases, the other local churches are the competition.
In the Rocky Mount, NC, area (N. Roanoke Association), some 15 years ago, we worked for about 2 years to establish a fund for “New Mission Starts.” We took up a yearly offering which was named after the first DOM, Hilda Mayo (oh my God–a woman!) who spent the balance of her career with the NC Sunday School Department. It was a multi-thousand dollar success!
While I chaired the Finance Committee, we noticed small amounts of unused funds in savings accounts just sitting and left over from their initial purpose. These were brought in as well so that, after 2 years, we had sufficient funds to buy property in 2 locations / provide some funds to start a new church / do what the churches said they wanted to do.
We spent another year with city planners in Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids and determined 2 areas of growth and need with no Baptist church. Then we had the “big meeting” in each town so pastors and church members could vote. By golly, the large church pastors showed for that one—and torpedoed the whole effort with large numbers from their church there to vote it down!!!
It was quite simple: They didn’t want the competition nor did they wish to encourage a single current member living in the new church area to help form the basis of a new work—funded, by the way!!!
This was a total 3-year effort / done by the book with total transparency / the standard way to start mission churches according to the NC Baptist State Convention and NAMB—BUT the large church pastors refused to cooperate!!!
Compare the late 50’s when I was in Atlanta to the late 90’s when I was in NC. You can make up your own mind as to why we are foolishly saying, “We don’t need an Association or State Convention because it just takes money away from missions—-REALLY?????
Dave, I can say that we are not mad at our state convention. It’s just that the heartbeat of our church is for international missions. So we want a larger percentage to go there.
Our state leadership has been poor for many years, though. But it’s not an anger thing.
We still give to the state. Just not as much.
I am surprized that on this string no one has mentioned what Nevada is preparing to do at it’s annual meeting, as reported in Friday’s Baptist Press.
They are combining their state conventions and several associations into one, and calling it a “network.”
I wonder how many positions this will eliminate?
I wonder how many other new work state conventions will follow suit. It’s nearly time for the annual meetings to start.
John:
I think that churches will give to what they value. Opening the door to allow for recognition of all giving is not trashing the states.
It does give churches an option.
Whether churches do exercise this option will reveal what the churches think about the states.
I think that it is high time that this option was available. Coercion, or not allowing for options to protect states, is not a good thing.
Didn’t the GCR report … reccomend seven regional centers for NAMB?
If this direction is taken, how would these regional centers …
* relate to local assocations in their sphere of influence?
* relate to state conventions?
* will churches be asked to send their “CP” funds to the regional centers instead of the state conventions?
Just wondering … and at the same time … I’m sure it’s written down in the “game plan” and held in the hidden vault where all the GCR “wheelings and dealings” are being kept.
Ron,
Great questions!
I’ve noticed in my own thinking that one thing seems to be true about every SBC issue we are currently facing, from the election of our key leaders to the reorganization of NAMB to our church planting strategy to the future role of the Cooperative Program, and so on.
And that one thing is….they all point back to the stinkin’ vault! Is this what we can look forward to for the next fifteen years? No matter the issue, after everyone weighs in with their opinion, they will speculate about the contents of the vault and conclude their remarks with, “I guess the master plan for this is hidden in a box in Louisville.”
Maybe the key to unlocking some of these mysteries lies in opening that box! I know Al wants to “preserve history” while also keeping the agenda “confidential.” I just don’t think that’s how it works. The accomplishments of men recorded in history must be judged at the time by their contemporaries and not hidden in a box.
Fifteen years is 5,475 days. We have 5,374 left. Someone needs to do a countdown and put it on their website.
Don’t bother—-
Unless things change, the next 15 years might just lead to the minimalization of the SBC.
Unlike the Roman Catholics, our system does not allow for commanding the local church to give anything!!!
Has anyone noticed the multitude of new “non-demoninational” store front churches of late????
The “home church” movement is growing as well.
When you are spending too much on the orginizing and too little on spiritual growth, people with a brain and desire to find the “joy of salvation and a peace that passes understanding” will find it for themselves = Jesus way rose in the face of the Temple at Jerusalem / Pharisees / threat of death itself!
It’s Friday night, BUT Sunday’s coming!!!! You just can’t stop the Holy Spirit no matter how much you try to organize it into a Donomination!!!
I would really like to see a study done on just how much the average pew sitter knows about the CP. I do not know, but I suspect, that the average PS (pew sitter) in the SBC only vaguely knows that the CP is for “missions.” I have a hunch that the average PS has no idea a great deal of that money does not in fact go to missions. I suspect they have no idea that they are funding seminaries and seminarians. I’m almost positive they don’t know that it funds the ERLC and its activities.
Suppose for a moment that I’m right. What would happen if they all DID know? Do you think the CP would be strengthened, or weakened through increased knowledge of what it is used for? Would we see more designated giving? Or less? Is ignorance bliss?
What do you think?
In our church, most everytime we explain the CP, I have found that they like it better with each explanation. We deal with the problems of the CP such as less real person interaction with missionaries. But they see it as a way that even an average size church can be involved financially in international, national and local missions as well as theological education, lay and pastoral training etc. It doesn’t take the place of being Acts 1:8 people ourselves, but complements it.
YMMV
“Average Pew Sitter”—I like that!
Things have not changed over the years with Pastor / People relationships. Most people are at church just to get through another week. They could care less about theological nit-picking, nor do they understand much of it.
They grew up with a Sunday School religion and want more of the same given them so as not to trouble their work week too much with things like “compassion,” honesty,” “integrity.”
What many do not realize is that whatever they are told about the Denomination, they believe. Hence, mega church pastors are able to con a good Baptist church into spending 95% on themselves and 5% on outside causes.
If the A-C works well / pews are comfortable (theater seats more often these days) / PA and Video screens are properly managed by the Media Minister / choir and orchestra are properly “brilliant” / and their traffic jam in the parking lot is offset by proper golf carts so they don’t walk too far—-they are happy and claim to be “spiritually fed.”
I won’t criticize. All I will do is wonder how Jesus did the Sermon on the Mount without all the above “tools of ministry????”
By the way, he had no CD-ROM of all the verses in the Bible and their multitude of analysis available at the punch of a button and flash of the computer. Wow—it sure is hard to put together a sermon these days—especially without plagerism!!!
“”I won’t criticize.””
Oh, really 🙂
Louis, you said, “I think that churches will give to what they value,” and I agree; churches will give to what they value–or at lest to what their leadership values. Some value cooperation and the addition of their mite to an overall missionary effort. Others value specific items which are consistent with their agenda, and devalue other items which others find more important than do they. Neither is wrong in and of itself, but each does emphasize a different core value. Then you said, “Opening the door to allow for recognition of all giving is not trashing the states.” Again I agree, and I don’t think I said it was, but it does–at least in some instances–allow some churches to bypass their state conventions and not suffer criticism from their peers. We all know peer pressure is a powerful force.
Howell Scott, you said, “To answer John, I don’t think that those with disdain for State Conventions would be so bold as to say it directly,” and unfortunantly I agree with you. This is one aspect of Southern Baptist life where there is dysfunction.
John
…and God created an insane asylum for the planet earth—over the door of which he printed: “Baptist Church!”
We have our quirks, but I’m not sure that “insane asylum” is accurate.
Maybe so—but have you been fired twice by big churches with moral and ethical chaos at their core????
For sure, schizophrenia too often reigns = we put on a righteous show on the outside, but are corrupt in our business walk and actions.
I think some of this discussion pretty clearly shows a disconnect between the mega church outlook and CP giving ideals.
The only way a church would have hired you is by not asking pointed questions specifically adressing basic theological points of Christian doctrine which you deny. They were either blind, ignorant, or both.
In much the same way, it is important for the SBC as they decide what to change about the CP if they decide to change anything at all.
Well Gene,
If that is what your experience was during your “leadership” of Baptist churches, may I suggest you continue to live among the trees as you do now and never again enter another Baptist church.
A-MEN!!
Now “bully boys”—
Be nice. Let me hasten to say that in my 16 years full-time and balance since 1968 part-time, the vast majority of them have been more positive than words can describe.
I brought up 2 firings because it has to do with personal integrity–of which I probably have too much.
I just happen to believe “it’s not how high you jump, but how straight you walk when you hit the ground” which counts.
Both of you might just re-read what Jesus said about people knowing you are my desciples if you love one another. Sorry, but I don’t feel the love here, boys!!!
Well, considering you’re not a disciple of Jesus Christ that would make sense. After all, as I pointed out above, you believe that Mormons are real Christians. In contrast, real Christians know that isn’t true.
That’s actually very similar to what is going on with decisions about the cooperative program. Just as the SBC needs to apply biblical principals to determine what, if anything, needs to be changed about the CP, Christians need to apply biblical truths to determine if people preach the biblical gospel or, if like you, they preach a false gospel.
Gene,
You say you “don’t feel the love here? Well, I can understand that coming from you.
In my case though, when you make a comment Gene, it not the love I don’t feel. When you comment Gene, I don’t “feel” the truth.
Its the absence of “feeling” truth that bothers me with you far more than my not “feeling” the love, what ever that means when you say it.
Don’t make get out my delete button, young men!
But Dave, I said “Cooperative program”. It was on topic. 🙂
Thanks, Dave!!!
I have said the last that needs to be said in rebuke.
How I wish we could be more like Christ and less like the disciples fussing and fighting.
John:
You definitely did not say “trashing the states”. That was my phrase.
You have expressed some good thoughts.
John,
Most Southern Baptists have forgotten (if they ever were really aware of it) that an extensive study on CP was conducted by an ad hoc committee of the Executive Committee of the SBC and their report and recommendations were presented and voted upon at the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro.
What most people do not realize is that some of their recommendations, which were overwhelmingly approved by the messengers, are at odds with the GCRTF Report approved by messengers at this year’s Convention. In reviewing the 2006 report and comparing it to the GCR Report, it almost makes me think of the Supreme Court and the balance of power. Even though you have a recent precedent, if one Justice changes, you could have a completely different outcome even a few years later.
I’ll have my first post here at SBC Voices in the next few days where I will analyze the two reports. Read together and in context, one begins to see a picture of the two competing philosophies within the SBC. If people don’t think that there is hard-ball politics at the highest levels of the SBC, then they are blissfully unaware. The dsyfunction in the SBC is that we have too many in power that say one thing in public to grass-roots Southern Baptists (“I support CP”) and then say and do the opposite behind closed doors. Like the politicians in Washington, sooner or later, it catches up to you. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell–
I can’t wait to see that one. You said “Greensboro.” Is that NC or where?
I have a couple of questions and statements for your consideration Dave and the rest of the bloggers.
Is it not interesting that some of these who give poorly to the CP are involved with the Acts29network, which, as I understand it, has certain standards that include things like the church must be run on a plurality of elders and must give 10% to planting churches also related to the network? Please correct me if this is wrong information. If true,while they will support this, they will cry foul if someone tries to recommend that we have a baseline percentage for CP giving as a minimum. What is the difference between the two?
The second question has to do with the CP disbursements between the states and the national SBC. Many churches and leaders today say that one reason they have cut back their CP giving through the state and do more direct giving through the national entities is that they do not agree with how much money the states are holding back for their own ministries. (I do not want to debate that issue, everyone can do better.) I believe most would at least like to see a minimum of 50% of their CP dollar going especially to SBC. If that is true, I would like to challenge each of these same congregations to look at their own budgets and ask how much do they spend on themselves and their own ministries? Can we really get mad when we spend 95%+ on our local congregation and ministries and then be mad with our state conventions when they do not send at least 50% on to national causes? Is that not a double standard to say you must do this but, we do not have to even come close to the same standard? What would be the cry within our church be if we asked the local church to live on 50% of the offerings and send the rest to help reach the world?
Now to the impersonality of the Cooperative Program way of doing missions. Dave and Sheila have some interesting points earlier in these comments. Fact is both of you are right and we all carry the responsibility of making it more personal from the leadership, through the pastors and mission leaders in the congregations, to the individual in the pew. Having served under the IMB and NAMB, I know the greatness of the Cooperative Program and I have also seen some of its warts. Without showing me the end game of something better, I would not trade it for societal giving or what people affectionately call Great Commission Giving at this point in time. As I believe Dave alludes to in his original post, we need to look for ways to make it better, more efficient, more effective and yes, even more personal and while for me, not throwing out the baby with the proverbial bath water.
WJ, I know little about Acts 29, but my understanding is a little different.
Good thoughts here.
The Baptist Heritage and History society has just released today an article which cites the things which bring Baptists together:
It is no surprise that we found affirmations of the following: believer’s baptism, personal “heart” experience of God, the priesthood of all believers, personal and communal devotion to God, a commitment to the church as the body of Christ, the autonomy of each local church, congregational polity, the regular practice of ordinances (baptism/Lord’s Supper), voluntary cooperation among churches, and strong voices for religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
As the foundation for all of these Baptist principles, we have seen a commitment to sola Scriptura—the belief that the Bible alone, neither creeds nor tradition, is the authority for religious faith and practice.
In this year’s reading, the emphasis found among seventeenth-century Baptists that was most provocative was the affirmation of the role of individual conscience, especially when voluntary faith was threatened with coercion or compulsion. Baptist writings from prison were a reminder that Jesus Christ is “the one and the only Lord over our Consciences, and Law-giver to our Souls.”
You will please note the “voluntary cooperation among churches” part. Their specific focus of time changes from year to year and this year’s meeting is focusing on the 1600’s. It was before the formal organization of the SBC in Augusta, GA, and Charleston, SC, just prior to the Civil War.
The seeds of cooperation have been with us for hundreds of years. How we implement them in the next few SBC years, is yet to be seen.
Thanks again, Dave, for letting us discuss our perceptions on the Cooperative Program. As a small boy in Royal Ambassadors I first learned of the marvelous concept.
Now, I wonder if AWANA Clubs teach such????
“”Now, I wonder if AWANA Clubs teach such????””
Gene, I think you hit on something really significant in the declining support of the CP. Mission education used to be “front and center” in the typical Baptist church. Now, most S.Baptists do not even know what a Royal Ambassador was.
Very significant post.
PS–Just a personal note: I’ve been out of commission for a few days. I had a heart attack last Thursday. It put all this blogging stuff into a whole new perspective for me.
I’ll be on the mend for a few weeks, but the Devil learned you can’t kill that which is already dead (Gal. 2:20). Keep in mind that your next post may be your last.
Praying for you Bro!
Question: When a Baptist Blogger has a heart attack, how many days off does he take? Answer: About four. SSBN, you have set the “toughness” bar very high. And to think some people consider bloggers housecoat wearing wimps! Get well soon.
Rick, I never thought of it that way. I simply thought of it as friendly conversations with my family 🙂
It’s actually relaxing when everything has been jolted into a proper perspective.
In reality, today is my first full day in the office and I really feel pretty good. I pastor a smaller church 90-100 but we have a pre-school through high school. So, I could overwork really quickly except I have a great associate and three secretaries spread across the church and school. They are watching me like sisters and moms. Plus, my wife works for me as the director of our preschool. She comes down and takes my blood pressure frequently.
I love serving Jesus and I am truly sorry for every second I allowed the process of ministry to distract from the purpose.
I don’t want to sound like a super hero because I am really taking it easy as much as my Type A personality allows me.
My sympathies!!! I am age 64 and had my “Scarborough stroke” at age 50 while preaching. It was slow and affected my right arm and leg. I assumed I had just penched a nerve in my back by extra hard work on Saturday.
Here is what I learned:
All of us are mortal and can take only so much
God will see you through and protect you
In sickness, you appreaciate your well/young body
You can’t outrun your genetics
Now, when my limbs feel weak or tingle, I pay attention and back off activities. Now, instead of doing it all, I rely on younger people whom I can direct.
My greatest blessing is that my limbs rather than my mind were affected. God is good to me and I thank Him alone because medicine could only take pictures and wait.
“”Can we really get mad when we spend 95%+ on our local congregation and ministries and then be mad with our state conventions when they do not send at least 50% on to national causes?””
Yes we can and here’s why: Jesus created the local church and controls through its leadership how the money is spent. Churches created the other entities and we have every right to dictate how they spend the money we sent them.
Beyond the local church and the association, there is no biblical warrant for any other entities. They are all manmade so the rules are different for them than for the local churches and associations.
“” Is every change to the CP necessarily destructive to the SBC?””
Dave, I think you have some keen insight in this post. I don’t think the answer necessarily has to be “yes” to your question, but probably is.
We have so identified the SBC with the CP that any major change in the latter is probably going to cause a divorce of some kind. Changing the CP is walking on very thin ice, not because of reality, but because of entrenched perception.
I for one will jump ship in a minute if something better than the CP comes along. I just can’t imagine what something better would look like. I feel the CP transplant has become so much a part of the SBC that the demise of the latter will bring the funeral of the former.
PS — It is like what I’ve noticed when I’ve buried the spouse of someone married 60 plus years. In an uncanny number of instances, the other spouse soon died (usually within a year).
The two had become one. I think that is how it might be with the SBC and the CP.
That’an interesting but erie observation concerning the CP & SBC.
jack, I guess that is a bit eerie. Let me say, I don’t think such an outcome is certain. I think honesty and openness with any changes will be received positively — even if there is some disagreement.
But, any kind of “back room shennanigans” that give the hint of vested interests by power brokers will bring a backlash to any proposed major changes. I don’t think the current leadership has the moral capital to make any significant changes at this time. If they try I see one of two possible outcomes: 1) a tremendous reaction against the leadership; or 2) many congregations will simply cut their ties and go their own ways.
SSBN,
Unfortunately, there has already been “back room shennanigans” in the entire GCR process. From the appointment of the chairmen and the committee members to the promise of the meetings being opened, later unilaterally rescinded by the Task Force, and the opposition to any Task Force records being released, we have a major trust issue. Especially when one of the components of the GCRTF was “transparency.” To call for transparency and then do all within their power to seal the records from grassroots Southern Baptists for 15 years leaves a very bad taste.
I believe that the reaction to the SBC establishment leadership is building. If a member of the Task Force or someone associated with the Task Force is named as the new IMB President, then the reaction will intensify. God bless,
Howell
Could a motion be introduced to undo the sealing of the records? I don’t see why it couldn’t be brought up as a motion to unseal the records immediately.
I didn’t see any language in the motion or in the bylaws that say things like this can’t be overruled and unsealed.
I love to see the look on everyone’s face when someone passionately argues that you can’t say your transparent and open when everything is done with closed doors. However, these are mega pastors who’re used to having it done their way with opposition usually quietly crushed (word chosen intentionally).
Right now, I’m praying for our leadership. I hope that my desire doesn’t shift to praying for the hastening for new leadership to arrive.
We’ll see, but sealing records set back a lot of potential supporters who have very long memories…
Actually Roberts Rules of Order allows for “reconsideration of a motion.”
That motion can only be brought by a person who voted with the majority in the previous meeting.
Should it get a second then discussion begins anew and the majority rules when a vote is take to “reconsder the motion.”
“”I love to see the look on everyone’s face when someone passionately argues that you can’t say your transparent and open when everything is done with closed doors.””
This is what frustrates me: the obvious is ignored. Only in a totalitarian expression of an body politic can this happen: a lie hide in plain sight. It does not at all bode well for cooperation.
Now, if they are unsealed and something unseemly escapes, this will be a major hit to future cooperation. It could lead to a meltdown.
SSBN is the MAN—“you can’t say you’re transparent and open when everything is done with closed doors.”
So here’s the Motion for next year’s meeting:
“Brothers and sisters. I voted last year with the majority to seal the discussions of the GCTF. A part of their preleminary promise was that all things in the future would be transparent and open. Upon a year’s reflection on what they said and what we did, we mistakenly prevented them from doing what they promised—
Therefore, I make a motion we Reconsider the Motion of last year.
If I am given a Second I ask for the priviledge of speaking to my motion. A quick check of Roberts Rules of Order will clearly show this is a proper motion if made by one who voted in favor of the previous motion.”
After the 2nd on the motion it’s treated like any other motion and the chairman asks if there is any discussion. You raise your hand and hopefully someone forces the chairman to see and recognise you or maybe someone else. You “Don’t Have To Ask Permission”. You are either recognised to Speak or you’re not. The purpose of Robert’s Rules is to make sure the Minority is heard – thank you very much . He could say your out of Order. You Appeal his Ruling and he goes to the Friendly Parlamentarian who Agrees with the Chairman. So you appeal Him! And by now everybody in the place knows the Chair is Stonewalling. I have to get the Book now it’s been a while but he will have Two Go To People to make and second a motion for a Recess which is Out of Order with a Motion on the Floor. It’s a fight but it’s not your fault that the rules Demand you and others Speak. Tip Oneil could “ram rod” the Senate but he couldn’t break the rules because the Oppsition knew them also. They get togeather and practice and so should you and like thinking people.
Actually–when clearly read and used fairly, Roberts Rules of Order provided for everyone to be fairly heard.
The wise person would purchase the paperback book. The one I have has an outline of all possible motions / the order for consideration / the rules purtaining to their use.
I you ever feel run over, there is usually a misuse of the rules. As I recall, there is also a simple motion to appeal the ruling of the Moderator which gives the voters present the right to make the Moderator be fair. The bottom line on Roberts Rules of Order is to give everyone a fair chance to be heard / debate any issue for and against and in a reasonable fashion.
Just like rules of law and courtroom matters, most laws and their enforcement involve common sense over pulling the wool over someone’s eyes.
Tip Oneil could NOT “Ram Rod” the Senate as he was the Speaker of the House. If you notice they always include the words ” May not be reconsidered” on passed Legislation as a routine Amendment at the end. If everything and everybody acted like they were supposed to the world would be a better place and that includes Congress and the SBC in my opinion.