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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“”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… Read more »
…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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
“”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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
“”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… Read more »
“” 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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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).… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.