Twenty-four days to our Grand Confab, the Annual Meeting in Dallas. Here are some things rumbling around:
On B21, megapastor, former SBC president James Merritt endorses J. D. Greear and offers a withering criticism of loud, loutish critics:
All of this to say this to that I believe this is the most pivotal SBC presidential election since the conservative resurgence. Make no mistake—we will make a loud and clear statement of just who we are and where we want to go. Will we give in to those who want us to always be “battling Baptists,” who show more passion for what they want to “stop” than what they want to start? Who get more excited about political rallies where they spend more time falsely accusing and attacking a brother then they do about sharing the gospel and being about the Father’s work? Who shamelessly treat this entire process as if it is a secular political convention replete with attack ads that spew lies and half -truths and show more zeal for getting their voters to the convention than they do with getting the gospel out to the nations?
Everyone is calling this election “pivotal.” I’d just call it ugly at this stage and Merritt the Elder assesses it correctly.
Continuing the tradition of strange resolutions offered, a pastor in Texas has one on social justice. He’s agin’ it. Calls it “evil.”
Whereas social justice activism should be considered evil in that it is a vehicle to promote abortion, homosexuality, gender confusion, and a host of other ideas that are at antithetical to the gospel, the Christian worldview, and of God’s call to holiness…
Naturally, folks read this and headlines are composed: “Preaching social justice is ‘evil,’ a Southern Baptist pastor in Texas says”; “Pastor warns that social justice is ‘evil,’ calls on Southern Baptists to reject it”; “Meet Grady Arnold, social injustice warrior”; and the like. Likely, most folks don’t understand our sausage making resolutions process and think Southern Baptists are behind this. Well, some are, the talk show, fire Russ Moore, conspiracy wing of the SBC.
Ken Hemphill is strongly in favor of getting back to the Cooperative Program as in the days of old: 10% giving and none of this “neo-societal” nonsense. Understand he has found a guy with lots of hair, none gray, and no tie to nominate him, a very fine pastor in Louisiana. I’m a local church autonomy guy and a thank-God-for-whatever-a-church-gives-to-the-CP guy but it is reported that the nominator’s church is way below the average percentage for CP giving. Is that true? Such would make the church, presumably, one of those deplorable “neo-societal” givers a “not fully cooperative” church according to some supporters. You can’t script this stuff. It just happens naturally in the good ol’ SBC.
Robert Jeffress, fresh from a quick visit to Israel and hanging around President Trump and Paula White, likes Hemphill. Good to know he takes an interest in matters that don’t involve the White House.
As does Bobby Welch, who thinks Ken Hemphill needs a full time job and can pull the SBC out of its “nose dive.” Welch used to think a lot about baptisms. One would have thought over 700 per year (that’s J. D. Greear’s record) would at least get a sniff from him.
‘J. D. Greear doesn’t support the Cooperative Program,’ sayeth one Trad sage. Really? No church in North Carolina gives more to it than The Summit. I’m guessing that most state convention CEOs would love to have that level of non-support.
This business of Cooperative Program percentages vs dollars, the battle cry of the false war on dollars by some of the brethren, needs but a two word rebuttal: “Adrian Rogers.” If the brethren can manage three words try these: “dollars pay bills.”
If this is a ‘pivotal’ election I just hope the pre-convention nonsense and election results don’t cause people to pivot completely out of the SBC or away from our cooperative efforts.
The 2016 election was a great moment. Everyone seemed to win. I can’t see how 2018 can match that. Perhaps there’s a secret conspiracy to make it work out to God’s glory. If so, it’s only in the mind of God. One can always hope.
Your post drips with sarcasm. I am taking SBC Voices off my RS Feed Reader.
Mostly not, Bob, but at our ages we should spend time doing what we want. I wish you well.
William, I rather admire your ability to joke about some of these things without getting sharp or seeming like you’re angry. I have to disagree with your critics on this one. Keep up the good work.
Yes, I clicked on this post because you wrote it, William. Thank you! I love having your “voice” on this blog.
I am already on record for not making my decision for whom I will cast my vote (and when I do – I’ll continue to be ‘old-fashion’ and not announce it). Everytime I read a blog (not just yours, WIlliam), I find myself wanting to stand and shout at one of the emphasized points and then 3 sentences later wanting to ‘regurgitate’ on the screen. But that’s just me as I haven’t found anyone that I totally agree with on the plethora of issues which surround us in the SBC. “Raised eyebrows” is my constant facial expression as I read… Read more »
That’s a fair comment… will respond later.
Most of the SBC is made up of smaller churches who do focus on a percentage of budget, rather than a certain dollar amount given to CP. That is the normative way our state and national entities are funded. Yet with the relatively few larger “mega” churches their operation and budgets are really totally different. We run into trouble when we compare apples to oranges. Surely there are incredible, dynamic leaders in our smaller churches, but we tend to see the larger church pastors on the platforms and ballots in state and SBC convention work. I think it is a… Read more »
Hey Chad, I understand your point – but it only enhances the question. Larger, okay “Mega-Churches” have made a decision to operate differently, I know that. I’m not sure that is good, but it is a fact. No argument. Years ago, a close friend (who was in one of the large churches (probably a “Metro I” church) taught me about ‘relativity’ in church budgets. A particular line item in my church was $16k while he had a $39k budget for the same line. SO we talked and he helped me see that ‘percentage wise’ & ‘ministry wise’ my smaller budget… Read more »
And adding to what you are saying: People in secular jobs usually make far more thanwhen doing missions or being a missionary. So Summitt is sending people out into the field constantly, and thus depriving [voluntarily] them that higher income they would make if they stayed home and worked a secular job. Thus there us a saxrifice being made, and in Summitt’s case, on a large scale, to forgo income in order to send missionaries. But there still are the same amount of families and kids and all, There is just less money to go around. Meanwhile another church,like Dr.… Read more »
This is the conundrum, Jerry. Praise God for the mega-churches that give big dollars, but spare me the “two-words, Adrian Rogers” stuff. If we are really “Cooperative” then rich churches shouldn’t get to define the argument over the style of giving and belittle the small churches by saying dollars pays bills. William has written extensively on the two styles of giving in the SBC, but throwing out the Adrian Rogers line is worn and tired. If all the small churches that sacrifice through percentage giving started sending dollars in line with the percentage average of the mega-churches, Adrian Rogers line… Read more »
Sometimes a little sarcasm is the best way to put things in perspective. William generally has a pretty good ear to the ground about all things Southern Baptist. The SBC is a decade inside a significant membership and attendance decline that flies in the face of the theoretical and traditional responses of “more’ can handle. More missions support, more evangelism, and thirty plus years of conservative resurgence megachurch pastor control, and the convention is shrinking at a rate that rivals some of the more rapidly declining mainline denominations. The CP is plateaued, with the few financial gains it makes not… Read more »
Lee, Do you think the decline is due to the changing way America looks at church attendance and membership? Wasn’t’t it once a neccesity to be a memnber in good standing at a decent church/denom in order to get elected in this country? People joined churches because their parents went. If we go back far enough, church membership was almost required to do business in this country. But now, people are saying to themselves, “Why” do I need church? It is no longer [in most places I reckon] a social thing needed, so why should one bother? And if we… Read more »
I’d agree that’s part of it. Most denominations are now declining in membership, including most of the other “conservative evangelical” ones. Being conservative theologically was supposed to be Southern Baptists’ ticket out of the membership, baptism and attendance doldrums but the last real period of growth in the SBC came in the late 70’s and early 80’s under moderate leadership. I think wading into secular politics, or at least, the perception of it, has contributed to some of the walking away and attendance decline, the other part of a protectionisn belef or
Jerry Watts wrote, ” I never remember a time when the concept of giving to the CP was a ‘dollar amount’. It was always promoted and taught to be our ‘front line’ of Partnership Missions and was promoted, encouraged, and even NEEDED to be a percentage. (Again, that is another debate for another time).” The dollars vs percentage discussions in my experience are at least four decades old. When pressed about Bellevue’s unacceptably low CP percentage, Adrian would state that “dollars pay bills, not percentages.” I understood his point to be that it is counterproductive and harmful to the CP… Read more »
Jerry Watts wrote, again: “But here is the dichotomy of what I hear: We are being told to not be concerned about the PERCENTAGES given by the church but focus on the DOLLARS. At the same time, the move is to attack State Conventions, focusing on their PERCENTAGES they pass along to the National Convention, and insist that these PERCENTAGES be increased. Hmm. Surely, this isn’t a double standard?! While I’m not going to use the word that comes to mind, it seems to me that what is good for the goose – well, you know…GRIN” I wish that this… Read more »
Jerry: “I cannot figure out what is “SO BROKEN” about the CP – that it cannot be fixed and that our system is “SO BROKEN” that churches must work around this system which has been the envy of evangelicals for years, to actually perform missions. It appears to me that churches giving a very low percentage to the CP instead of even a moderate percentage (Like 5%-7%) have begun to weaken our Mission Organization to the point that the push for a bigger slice of the pie is the desire of some. (The same thing has happened in a few… Read more »
Hey William – as I have watched and read your words from time to time, it is true that we see things quite a bit differently. (even though we are likely from the same generation – 🙂 ) YOU WROTE: “Someone should figure out WHY churches are making autonomous decisions to shift their mission support mix from CP to direct support…Many reasons, I suppose, but one is that churches would rather more of their limited mission dollars go to NAMB and IMB than the state convention.” With your first sentence, it came across that there is a really good reason… Read more »
Jerry, I appreciate the interaction. I’d like it to be understood that it appears to me that churches are not so much pulling out of the CP as they are adjusting the mix of their designated and CP missions giving. The sums the EC receives directly from the churches that is for the CP allocation budget is in low single digit percentages.
I don’t disagree that the states have the most difficult job and I expect that generational changes in leadership will bring greater relevance of the SCs to their churches.
William, I believe you are hitting the nail very close to the head. It appears more and more churches are sending their money directly to national SBC and by-passing the state conventions. People want more of their offerings going directly to what they see as “real” missions, (IMB, NAMB). I believe this is a trend that will continue. When churches and pastors discover that state conventions are keeping up to 65% (in my state), they are taking a hard look at their giving. State Conventions could be running scared and that very well may be why we are seeing some… Read more »
My church gives 10% to the CP and 3% to the local. I dont see or hear of anything the state convention is doing with themoney we send them and they keep. That is not to say they aren’t doing anything, its just that i never hear about it. I dont hear about it in our business meetings, nor in our pastor’s emails and blogs, nor from the pulpit. Nothing, nada, zilch. But we do know where our IMB and NAMB money is going. And we seek to give a higher amount each year than the year before. And if… Read more »
That is the State convention conundrum. How to convey their value to the churches. The info is available. I surmise that states understand that there is difficulty in promoting their use of 60% of each CP dollar. As a pastor, I’d take time to explain exactly where the money goes. Truth is, many of the big southern SBC state conventions are locked into a lot of legacy spending patterns that may not be as valuable in the 21st century as they were in the mid-20th century. Not sure if this is applicable to your state.
William,
Ohio.
William your end a thought provoking comment with a statement that has brought a question to your understanding of the meaning and purpose of the cooperative program. You say, “This business of Cooperative Program percentages vs dollars, the battle cry of the false war on dollars by some of the brethren, needs but a two word rebuttal: Adrian Rogers.” You give a three word follow up, “dollars pay bills.” I will give you a four word rebuttal. “Percentage giving is Biblical.” Think of the story of the widows mite. Jesus didn’t say to his disciples, “Mites pay bills not percentages.… Read more »
Ron, I don’t object to percentage giving. After all, whatever a church gives is both a dollar amount and a percentage. I reject denominational employees setting an arbitrary percentage as a threshold. I object to anyone telling another church that their dollar givIng isn’t sufficiently sacrificial. The widow’s mite has nothing to do with a church CP giving plan. I see no profit for the CP in disparaging any church CP giving plan. This whole debate about dollars vs percentages is destructive. No one wins. The CP loses. I only use Adrian because he is held in such high regard… Read more »
William we pretty much agree on most things you say here. I also don’t object to percentage giving and I don’t think denominational employees should tell a church their giving isn’t sufficiently sacrificial. I haven’t observed that recently, but I guess you have. I do remember in the early days of the CR, leaders of that political organization disparaging those who gave sacrificially to the CP by saying they were supporting liberalism. That was about the time Adrian Rogers made the statement you quote. If you are going to quote Rogers, you should find one of his excellent statements he… Read more »
The $ vs % business is always a lively discussion. The backdrop for this one is the presidential election where, arguably, the SBC’s strongest sending church is a below average % CP church. The church gives enormous sums no only to the CP but directly to other SBC work. Somehow, it offends high %, lower $ CP giving churches, as if all types of faithful, evangelistic, mission minded churches cannot be celebrated if their mission support yields a below average CP percentage. The absurdity of it seems self-evident to me but this is what we get every time. But I’d… Read more »
William, I do not see the SBC returning to the 10% average church CP giving we had when I started with the IMB 40 years ago. I am an old timer, so I realize I have a different world view than many of the younger people on this site. I am not opposed to churches giving directly to the IMB and NAMB, but I would not advocate churches lowering their CP giving in order to increase their giving directly to the IMB through the Lottie Moon offering or other direct giving methods. I served alongside many close friends with OMF,… Read more »
Future of IMB…lots of questions…later.
Fact is, churches have been choosing to shift $ from CP to IMB/NAMB because they think their mission $ are better used that way. Churches should drive this thing, not programs or legacy giving.
William: Your writing is superb! Keep it up. Your age and background also contribute in a big way to this blog. I hear that 627 Resolutions have already been submitted. If that’s so, one can see where the energy is going in the SBC these days. That’s the real story. Kind of a sad one, really. I don’t think it matters whom we elect, really. If we all agreed to keep the main thing, the main thing, we’ll have very few problems. But there is way too much talk in the SBC today about tertiary matters and spending time on… Read more »
Thanks, Louis (and Cathy, earlier). My age contributes to a lot of things.