Yesterday morning I reflected on a sad picture that Jon Acuff posted. I closed by promising to answer this question:
If an entity no longer serves the local church should they continue giving to that entity?
That is admittedly, a sticky question, and one that I believe hinges on the meaning of the word “serves”. It seems to me that the chief purpose of the entities is to serve the kingdom of Christ through serving and strengthening the local church. We give to the CP to build the kingdom. The beneficiaries of that giving then go about doing the work of the kingdom through this partnership with local churches.
We continue to give even when a slice of that kingdom might play the drums a bit too loudly. Let’s be honest here. Every one of us could probably point to something within the SBC that we would like to see change. We could all put our own “drums too loud” on the bottom of our voided CP checks. But we don’t do that because we have decided that the mission of the kingdom is much bigger than those petty squabbles.
I am a Calvinist. I believe that the kingdom is better served and built through embracing the doctrines of grace because I believe that is what the Scriptures teach. I also know that the entity head of SWBTS opposes Calvinism. Yet, I have never, nor will I ever, because of this issue seek to divert money away from SWBTS. As long as they are affirm the BF&M, actively promote the gospel, and train ministers to proclaim Christ then I will gladly partner with them even if we disagree on the doctrine of election.
Refusing to give money over this issue is about as petty as a curmudgeon voiding a $75 check because the drums were too loud. I understand that one is a matter of doctrine and one is a matter of personal preference. But they are both third tier issues, which are differences that can be held between two people and still worship together in the same local assembly. Therefore, refusing to give for such differences is petty.
Being “served” by an SBC entity does not mean that they are doing things the way that you want to. It does not even mean that you are directly influenced or impacted by these entities. What it does mean is that you share a mutual concern for advancing the kingdom of God. They serve you by doing the same work that you are tasked with doing. They don’t serve you by putting on a show that you like. And you don’t give to the CP to advance the kingdom as you want it to look. You give money to the CP to advance the kingdom as the Lord sees fit at this present time using the broken vessels that He is at present deciding to use.
When would it be okay to shifts funds away from an SBC entity?
When they abandon the gospel or Baptist distinctives. Anything else is as petty as a middle school boy taking his ball and going home because the game isn’t going quite the way that he wants it to.
Pastor, if you are encouraging your people to divert money because of personal preferences and tertiary doctrinal matters then you are training them to do the same under your ministry. Do not be surprised when carpet color become more important than community. Model for your people how to partner even while you disagree.
When you look up lists of Baptist Distinctives down through our Baptist History it is hard to find Cooperation as a Level 1 distinctive. However, Autonomy always makes the list. So don’t be surprised as more and more churches weigh and evaluate their previous commitments to the CP in light of all the good and sometimes better options available every day.
In a world driven by fast communications and instant access to an ever increasing world of data – old ways are changing even faster than the executive committee can imagine or react.
Dave Miller wrote an outstanding article on The Tie That Binds? on August 12. If anyone hasn’t read it – they should.
https://sbcvoices.com/the-tie-that-binds-southern-baptists-changing-culture/
I hear that Miller guy is an idiot.
You haven’t seen a voided tithe check with that written on it, have you?
Amen.
Mike:
I’ve enjoyed these two posts and the discussions which followed, but, honestly, the biggest point you’ve made, in my opinion, is in the final paragraph here:
Pastor, if you are encouraging your people to divert money because of personal preferences and tertiary doctrinal matters then you are training them to do the same under your ministry. Do not be surprised when carpet color become more important than community. Model for your people how to partner even while you disagree.
Heck, you could’ve written an entire post on that issue alone.
Sermon Spice dot Com has a wonderful video called “Paint On the Walls.”
I show it often before our quarterly business meetings.
Hi Jim,
Our church seeks to be the best stewards possible of that with which God blesses us. You mention that there are better (than the CP) options available for churches, and I was wondering if you would mind listing some of them? Our church would be grateful.
Blessings, brother
Sure Randall, be glad to.
At least half the churches in our association are increasingly concerned with the redundancy of the SBC in many areas of ministry, for example – Church Planting at the NAMB level, at the State Convention Level and at the Associational Level. We seem to be paying administrative costs for Church Planting at three levels in the SBC BEFORE any dollars get into the field to plant churches. Then there’s the Biblical debate over who ought to be starting churches anyway – Local churches or the denomination?
So we got to thinking. Since we believe that Local Churches plant Churches why send money to the State Convention and the National Convention in order to apply for some of that money later to start churches? Why not just spend the money in our association before it gets sent and maybe trickles back down?
So here’s our proposed associational solution. We are proposing that Local Churches in our Association have a Plan A or a Plan B for giving. Plan A is the status quo. Nothing changes. A church gives to CP like it always has and includes the Association in its budget at whatever level it chooses. That’s Plan A. Plan B is forward thinking. If a church selects Plan B the church sends its total CP offering to the local Association. The Local Association keeps 50% and forwards 50% to the State Convention.
We’re not proposing eliminating Cooperative Program Giving. We’re just suggesting that there may be a better way and we’re gonna give it a try to see if our theory is correct.
You see, we believe if Local Churches drive the SBC Bus instead of the denomination chauffeuring us around we’ll get more accomplished for the kingdom, grow our churches, plant more churches and in the long run increase our Local Churches’ participation in the Cooperative Program.
We are high on the Local Association and believe because it was the First Denominational organization formed among Baptists and still is the closest to the Local Church that it remains the most important Baptist denominational body we have.
Just to be clear I don’t see this as curmudgeonly. I am all for churches being wise stewards of money. This isn’t taking your ball and going home. This is taking your ball and trying to find better ways to play the game.
Jim,
Thanks, brother. Innovative stuff. Glad to hear that you are doing this in conjunction with CP and not it lieu of.
Grace to you
I have never heard of an association being in the distribution system of Cooperative Program dollars as they move from the local church to the state convention.
What association is this? I would like to see the proposal.
Thanks.
William Thorton,
I would be interested in the identity of that association myself. Like you, I have never heard of a local Baptist association affiliated with a state convention or the SBC that was/is in the distribution system of the CP.
As a former contractor in the, now non-existent, Associational Initiatives Dept. of NAMB, I have worked with associations on both sides of the Mississippi River and never have I read such a thing in print in the various documents of any association, nor have I heard of such an arrangement.
CB – I have no problem identifying our association – it’s the Grand Crossings Baptist Association of Missouri. I think we’re getting a reputation of not only being the birthplace of the Missouri Baptist Convention but also the birthplace of the “SBC Tea Party”.
William,
As soon as the Associational Missionary and I finalize the proposal it we will be more than glad to send you a copy.
It is our belief that the Association was left out of the Cooperative Program Giving Plan simply because in 1925 it would have been logistically impossible to have it any other way. With computers and the internet today those collection and distribution problems virtually disappear.
We hope this can be a successful model for revitalizing the local association and in turn ultimately generating more CP giving for state and national causes.
Thanks, Jim. As soon as there is anything I can see on it, I would love to read it.
Me also.
Jim Shaver,
Maybe you could get Ole Dave Miller to let you post it here on Voices.
My church gives 10% to CP and 5% to the association. Under your proposal, the full 15% would go to the association. They would keep 7.5%, sending on the other 7.5%. I would not expect a shuffling of the money to result in a change in our giving, which means less money going to CP, not more. In fact, we would have to increase giving to 20% just to get CP back to original levels. Higher, if we wanted to see growth in CP. Realistically, these things are not going to happen, which means less money for distant mission fields originally targeted by CP dollars.
Being good stewards is both praying and giving wisely. We need knowledge, understanding and wisdom in our daily walk. The church must do the same thing. Where will the money be more productive for the kingdom? The church is not tithing or giving an offering. It is supporting the efforts of those that are truly being led by the Holy Spirit. If the church members are being led by the Spirit, they should know who else is being led by the Spirit. It just works that way. Organizations shouldn’t be seeking our funding necessarily. We should be seeking organizations that are doing the very thing we desire ourselves. We have gotten lazy in that area.
Mike, thank you for the two post. I have never led any of the churches I pastor to negative designate any CP money. I don’t I believe I would have an issue doing so in the right circumstances. The church I pastor now is a 14.5 % church. We believe in CP. I have served in many capacities in the SBC governmental system that demand my time. I love the SBC! I have a few issues with the article. However, I will just share my main concern – you equate a church member’s giving to the local church with a church’s giving to the CP. Without opening a big can of worms on tithing, one is mandated by Scripture and the other is not. The SBC had absolutely nothing to do with the church I pastor coming into existence or our ministries. We are under no obligation to the SBC at all. The two are not the same.
Is everyone who isn’t a Calvinist an opponent of Calvinism?
Nope.
He who is not with me is against me. Applies to theology, sports, and food preferences.
Ummmm…no. Sorry.
There is such a thing as not having an opinion. There’s also being equally pulled between both options. Oh, as well there the concept of holding position A while being thrilled that others are thinking deeply enough to agree or disagree without opposing those who feel differently.
Sorry, I should have added an emoticon. 🙂 I hoped my additional references to sports and food preferences would show I was being less than serious.
Actually, I know folks who would say that sort of thing about their sports, too, so it looked like 2 out of 3 were dead serious. As for the food, I just chalked that one up to eccentricity.
My bad.
People typically attribute most of my actions to eccentricity.
Actually, I believe Jesus applied “He who is not with me is against me” solely to himself. On the other hand, he tells us “whoever is not against you is for you.” (Lu 9:50)
I’m just wondering how Mike knows that Dr. Patterson is an opponent of Calvinism.
I serve on the board at SWBTS. I’m the chair of the Academic Administration Committee. I interview every faculty candidate at SWBTS. Intensely. Thoroughly.
And a year of board service hasn’t gone by yet that I haven’t interviewed and approved multiple Calvinists recommended to the faculty by Dr. Patterson and his administration.
So, I’ll be happy to share what I know—and I really do know it: Dr. Patterson is not a Calvinist. In the general sense in which all of us wish that all people saw things from our personal point of view, Dr. Patterson wishes that all were non-Calvinists. In the general sense in which every teacher, by instructing according to his understanding of the scriptures, necessarily instructs against theological perspectives contrary to his own, Dr. Patterson teaches non-Calvinism and thereby teaches against Calvinism. Also, I know that Dr. Patterson knows full well how to oppose something effectively and vigorously. Therefore, I submit that Dr. Patterson is a non-Calvinist who is not an opponent of Calvinism.
Bart,
Thanks for the comment. Opponent is probably too strong of a word.
Truer words have not been spoken. Dr. Patterson is well able to make his opposition known! I lived thru the CR. He did not demonstrate a reluctance to express an opinion.
I appreciated Dr. Patterson’s words about Calvinism at the Baptist 21 panel at this past convention. Made clear he wasn’t one, but showed respect and appreciation for many who are while also making clear that the SBC is big enough for both without putting restrictions on either.
Then I’m not sure what qualifies as being an opponent of Calvinism: Being a jerk about it? For the record, Dr. Patterson opposing Calvinism does not bother me at all, but since he actively teaches and preaches specific refutations of Calvinism, what other conclusion is there? That doesn’t make him bad, just an opponent.
My point is let’s not take a perfectly good and morally neutral word and gut it of meaning in order to play nicely.
Perhaps Dr. Patterson is a gracious opponent of Calvinism, as opposed to some anti-Calvinists who are ungraciously threatening to withhold CP offerings, place quotas on Calvinistic leadership, etc…
It’s one of those semantic challenges – like the use of the word cult. What does cult mean? To us, it means a group that identifies itself as Christian but denies certain doctrines and adds its own scriptures to the canon – etc.
To the general public, a cult is a mind-control group of nuts like the Hale Bop guys or Waco (the Koresh group, not the town as a whole – though if the shoe fits).
Same word, different meaning.
Is Dr. Patterson an opponent of Calvinism? He would teach contrary to it, so in that way, he is in opposition to it. On the other hand, he has not, as some seem to have done, committed himself to driving Calvinism from the SBC ranks.
I guess we need to discuss what the meaning of is is.
I’m a man, and I speak from a male point of view, but I am not an opponent of women (just wanted to get that on the record in case my wife stops by the thread).
In our present-day Southern Baptist milieu, plenty of people opine freely that Dr. Patterson is the mastermind of an agenda to rid the convention of Calvinists. I’m sure we’ve all—those people who would be aware of this blog and participate in it—heard that from somebody. And so, given that context, whatever the author means by “opponent of Calvinism” and whatever Bill Mac understands from the phrase “opponent of Calvinism,” some significant number of readers of this post are going to infer the theory that I mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph.
And so, I believe that it is helpful to clarify for those who are reading this that SWBTS is hiring Calvinists like Matthew McKellar on faculty, that SWBTS is enrolling and graduating Calvinists like David Norman, that SWBTS is hosting Calvinists like Mark Dever to speak, that SWBTS has Calvinists like Jonathan Leeman on her board, and that SWBTS is partnering with Calvinists like Barry King to reach the nations with the gospel.
It’s just that we’re a seminary where you can also get a job even if you’re NOT a Calvinist. 😉
Odd. There are a few names I would insert into that mastermind blank, but Dr. Patterson’s wouldn’t be one.
Of course, Mike’s overall point of the post is excellent.
I am not a Calvinist and have no problem with reasonable rigorous theological and exegetical critique of it, but this post makes a great point and is indeed good wise counsel for pastors and churches to consider.
Buttermilk is what binds good cornbread together. Buttermilk is what binds a Calvinist and Non-Calvinist together.
What is the definition of buttermilk?
buttermilk-The key ingredient through chemical reaction, and heat produces a mouth watering pone of delight.
I believe the true doctrine is the combination of Calvinism and Non-Calvinism. Only then it will produce a mouth watering delight.
Bart Barber- only you can figure this one out.
Only when the extremes of Calvinism and Non-Calvinism are omitted they are much closer together than can be imagined. I preach a combiniation of both and they are in harmony with one another and scripture. They are also in harmony with the Baptist faith.
By the way, buttermilk= doctrine
Bart- this is all the hints I’m going to give you.
Sorry…
1. I was in a meeting.
2. I’m a sweet milk man, myself!
But you can ask Peter Lumpkins and Dwight McKissic about buttermilk. They got into a rip-roaring fight over that very subject once upon a time years ago! 😉
Wow. I can’t believe you went there.
I probably shouldn’t have, but that’s what came to my mind.
I had completely forgotten about that one! It was very early in my blogging days.
If you are discussing buttermilk and praising it and haven’t read the wiki article, I offer it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttermilk
I just can’t believe the crazy stuff you guys come up with. I thought this was a serious blog.
I believe you left the ‘ly deranged’ off of the last sentence in your comment.
I notice something here. CP money doesn’t serve the local church and it shouldn’t. It should serve to build the kingdom remotely. That said, I know remote churches where drums are all they play to accompany their music.
That observation made, it’s indicative of a larger issue. This check-writer is of the mind-set that the purpose for his church involvement is ultimately so that he can ministered to and made to feel comfortable. That’s a real problem in the un-persecuted Church. Ironically, the CP money will send people to areas that see more persecution and likely have a higher percentage of Christians who well understand the difficulties of being Christian in a hostile land. Drums in these churches are often a welcome sign of life. Drums too loud? They can be a call to worship in the neighborhoods of some remote locations. We need to get over our aversion to other cultures and beat them louder!
“”””I just can’t believe the crazy stuff you guys come up with. I thought this was a serious blog.””””
What would ever give someone THAT impression?