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 what I am reading about us. Most of what I read I do so in disbelief. It seems to me that we are brothers in Christ and will, one day (soon) find ourselves in a place where we will spend ETERNITY TOGETHER. That should be interesting. (my attempt at humor – 🙂 )
Here is my one comment. You wrote:
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.” – He was right “Dollars pay bills.” No argument.
My comment is; Having been a Southern Baptist for over 60 years and ‘behind the pulpit’ for over 40, 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).
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 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 churches)
Please understand that I am a ‘nobody’ and desire to remain that way. However, this could be the view of the rank and file person in the pew within the SBC. Gosh, I am more concerned about the SBC than at anytime in the past.
God bless you in the days ahead.
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 bad indicator, because of the unusual and non-normative nature of the larger churches. I think the percentage issue is just something people use if it suits them to attack a candidate. I think reasonable people understand this and realize the issue is complicated by a lot of factors.
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 went farther then his larger budget did. All I am saying is this: the larger (Ok-mega) churches can do things without partnerships of other churches (I.E. CP). But just because we ‘can’ do a thing doesn’t mean we ‘should’ or ‘have to’ do that thing.
With Missions – Obviously our two Presidential nominees both know the power of cooperation. J.D. expresses this as he speaks of the fact that Summit alone could not send and support all the missionaries they have on the field. At the same time, Ken has been a huge CP supporter over many years. But the concept from the beginning of the CP has always resembled the ‘clarion call’ we sound when leading our churches to build a new building or make some other ‘capital funds’ purchase, “NOT EQUAL GIFTS, EQUAL SACRIFICE.” Gosh, I certainly used that when we built a new Worship Center around the turn of the century.
I am not mad at anyone, have no desire to ‘one up’ anyone, & certainly am not smarter than anyone, but I (like you) KNOW that we are stronger together than we are apart. While the CP is not born in the Bible, I do believe the “Spirit” of the CP is written on the pages of scripture and even in the hearts of God’s redeemed people. When we have ‘equal sacrifice’ for our ‘flagship Mission Program’, I believe, we can carry the gospel to the nations and the peoples. God bless you.
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. Hemphill’s is not sending out nearly as many to the mission field. Their people are working those higher-paying-than-missionary jobs and more money is available to pass on to support the actual people on the field, many which are from Summitt.
Gosh, its like a body with different parts working together to produce a desired outcome!
The lungs have to do their part so the legs can run that race.
So no one should be a petty Corinthian and complain that one part isnt doing as much as another part. Its called a cooperative program for good reason.
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 falls flat, because we wouldn’t be paying the bills. In fact, as you noted, we are struggling to pay bills as it is. So, if that’s the case, then perhaps the mega’s should buck up and pay some more bills by sending some more dollars. Then perhaps those “two-words” might actually be of consequence.
For the record, I am thankful for The Summit and their giving to the Cooperative Program. I’m just not going to fawn all over place because they are rich and can give more money than my small church. Equal Sacrifice not Equal Amount should be our Cooperative battle cry. It is at my small church. Most of the SBC are far more like the Widow rather than like the Rich Man. Or perhaps I am just naive in believing the small churches sacrifice more to the CP because we can’t afford to do the things the rich mega churches can do apart from the CP.
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 dependent so much on increased individual giving, as on state conventions that increase their allocations incrementally. A divisive election won’t help, but neither will electing a pastor with lots of baptisms and a great record of CP support. It’s symbolic at best.
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 aren’t going, why send money? So attendance is down and consequently giving is down. The social aspect of church no longer meets the needs a the quasi-Christian.
And part of this downturn is because the church itself got away from the Gospel truth and sought after numbers: more baptisms, more members, more giving, etc. It focused on getting people “in” but not so much on why theywere in, and not on displing the after they where in. Thus ‘Once saved always saved’ was the mantra in the church’s thrust, but instead of real baptisms, we were just getting people wet.
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 to disparage churches whose large gifts pay considerable bills for state conventions and the SBC entities.
I have no problem with any SBC or state convention leader promoting percentage giving. That’s a good way to approach the local church budget. I like the way Frank Page did it – respectfully *ask* that churches increase whatever percentage they are giving rather than demand some arbitrary threshold percentage (10% for some, the average of a bit over 5% for some) or be considered to be not sacrificing or worse, not “fully cooperative.”
If a church chooses to give a dollar amount, thank God for that dollar amount. After all, a church doesn’t have to give a nickel to the CP to be considered “in friendly cooperation.”
All that said, our leaders should show a level of support for the CP. I’m satisfied that the churches of Ronnie Floyd and Steve Gaines, both big givers, seven figures, but below the average when they were elected president are cooperative and supportive of the CP. Same for the largest dollar giver in one of our largest state conventions, JDG’s Summit church.
But, messengers may apply whatever standards they wish when casting their presidential ballots.
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 old and smelly red herring would be discarded. It’s not a dichotomy. It’s an irrelevance for this reason: churches are king in SBC life. Their choices are inviolate and should be respected, whereas the decisions of state or national level SBC leaders are not. If SBC *messengers* from SBC churches vote to *ask* state conventions to return to the historic 50/50 division of CP receipts that’s their priviledge. States may agree or disagree. Some states are moving towards that because they believe that is what their churches desire. If they thought otherwise, they can certainly move in the other direction. No one gets to dictate what percentage churches should give to the CP but messengers at state levels may certainly dictate what percentages states must give to the national entities.
If it is an “attack” on state conventions for the national body to ask for 50/50 then state conventions are in the odd position of fighting their own churches if they agree to move to 50/50.
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 churches)”
I think you are on to something here, Jerry, seriously. Someone should figure out WHY churches are making autonomous decisions to shift their mission support mix from CP to direct support. This is a long term trend – declining CP average percentages along with declining SBC direct mission support but with the latter being less than the former. The result is that national CP is flat but designated gifts (mostly the big mission offerings) are increasing.
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. What might need scrutiny (I wouldn’t call it broken) is the spending priorities of the state conventions, and these still consume 60% of every CP dollar. Are the states failing to set a compelling vision before their churches? That should be figured out.
…but I’m grateful that folks like you think deeply about these things even if we disagree on some.
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 for churches to pull out of the CP and go their own way or better said, ‘to reduce their CP gifts’ . Honestly, I guess an argument can be made for that, but it’s lost on me. (I am not the ‘sharpest knife in the drawer’)
The amazing thing is that I visit in and preach in about 30-35 churches each year – and the problem with the state convention, CP, IMB, or NAMB is not a part of the conversation. And – as you said – the Church is supposed to be the King. All I’m saying is that, while I am angry or mad at no one – the debate which is raging does not seem to be among the churches with their ‘rank and file’ (bad word, but the best I can think of) members – it is raging elsewhere. Whether we get to a 50-50 split in states is irrelevant to me, what I find relevant is the level of partnership participation (IE CP contributions) of the member churches. In my old man’s math – 40% of a huge pie is larger than 50% of a small pie.
State Conventions; “Are failing to set out a compelling vision before their churches.” In their defense I, probably like you, happen to personally know almost a half-dozen State Execs. I don’t envy their jobs. Most churches (who provide the funds) desire for their State to interface with and assist their local church like they always have, through training, offering ministry opportunities, and in other ways. The Execs that I know, would like to continue helping and assisting, but find themselves in a precarious position. In several states which I am personally aware, ONE MAN carries the responsibilities that used to be a 3 or 4 man job. While ‘if I were an Exec’ (and I thank God I am not), I might lead the state to do a few things differently, but generally these good and Godly men do a pretty good job of stretching resources, maintaining connection to the church, and providing ministry opportunities for all.
I have served in a number of states and have yet to find one (IE a State or Exec) who doesn’t have an eye on Kingdom Growth and the Gospel.
Finally, please know that I have engaged your more than I have engaged anyone on these subjects. Part of the reason I have is because you do indeed think through things and are not ‘angry’ about it- and I deeply appreciate that.
One thing we will agree on is that these are difficult and trying days for the Convention that we both love. I join you in praying for God’s hand to prevail. Grace
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 of them (mine in particular) getting so involved in this upcoming election. Just some observations.
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 that lack of information is the way it is at our church, than it might be that way at many of the 47000+ churches in the SBC.
I don’t know about you guys, but I dont like giving money if I dont know how it is being used. [Now we give as a pct. of our income, so in our case that is neither a motivating factor for or against]. But in other churches, especially with declining enrollment [ours is growing], the expenses remain the same somewhat, so then when it is a choice between giving more to the CP or paying the electric bill, the bill wins out.
Then to add to that, there is every year an opportunity to give directly to Lottie and Annie, where we know what our hard earned dollars will be accomplishing.
Just some thoughts
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. This widow’s gifts are not as valuable as those who give out of their abundance.”
I would have been more impressed if you had given a reason for you percentage versus dollars comment from the Bible and not just naming Adrian Rogers. The Bible is inerrant, not Adrian Rogers. Adrian Rogers was a great preacher and Bible teacher. This comment was not one of his finest hours. He made it in reaction to criticism of his churches percentage giving to the cooperative program. I would like to think he would take it back on reflection.
His statement makes no sense logically or mathematically. 10% of $1000 is $100. Would you rather your church receive $10 or 10% of $1000. Why don’t you tell your church members, give dollars not percentages when you tithe? After all, we can’t spend 10% of your income we only spend dollars.
I have spent many years encouraging churches to give to the cooperative program. I do not talk about percentages. I talk about how their money furthers the Kingdom of God. That doesn’t mean I think percentage giving is not important.
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 by the CP scolds…and no one ever paid a bill with a percentage. If mathematics is of value, there is no realistic manner by which we might expect any significant IMB or NAMB advance through increasing CP giving. But, my view is that all SBC churches should give to the CP.
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 made concerning theology or the Bible, not one that is nonsensical and silly.
The widows mite story has to do with giving sacrificially to support the church’s mission. I think that can relate to many church’s cooperative program giving.
The beauty of the cooperative program is it allows all size churches, large or small, to feel equally supportive of our SBC missions programs. It is not always measured by the amount given by an individual church but by the members of those churches. Someone in a small church may be giving 10 cents of every dollar they put in the offering plate to the cooperative program while someone in a large church may be only giving 2 cents out of every dollar even though the large church gives more money. They can all feel they are supporting our missionaries in reaching the world with the Gospel.
I believe mathematics is of value.
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 ask a resolute SBCer and former IMB mssy like yourself what you think might enable IMB to significantly expand their work overseas? Do you see any indication that CP giving will double and return to where it was 40 years ago and in doing so add another $100m or so to IMB’s budget? Or, is it a more realistic possibility that churches who share IMB’s global vision for reaching the nations will increase their direct giving by half or so and accomplish the same thing. Do you think that the right SBC president will usher in an era of 10% CP giving? Does anyone think this is realistic?
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, TEAM and other independent mission organizations. They are wonderful God called missionaries just like our IMB personnel. One blessing we have that they do not is an entire denominational structure supporting us. They have to seek out individual churches to raise their support. We do that also, but we also are blessed with state conventions, associations, seminaries, BSM and Baptist colleges, and the WMU who help us raise support and provide a pool of missionaries. I do not want to harm any of those entities by trying to go it alone.
One way we “expand our work overseas” is to increase the number of churches that “share IMB’s global vision for reaching the nations.” We can do this by re-evaluation of the ways we communicate and relate to our churches. I am all for using the modern methods of communication to millennials, but I also think we made a mistake when we stopped publication of the Commission magazine and recently fired the entire communications section of the IMB. Platt and Taeger have placed more and more people in key leadership positions who have not only never served as missionaries but have little understanding of the IMB and its relationship to the entire SBC.
The new SBC president will not issue in a new era of 10% giving but I hope the new SBC president and the new IMB president will work together to usher in a new era of cooperation and trust between the state conventions, the seminaries, the WMU and the mission boards.
It is difficult for this to happen when you have a seminary president like Paige Patterson who has called for the firing of 750 IMB missionaries and has launched personal attacks against IMB leaders and missionaries in order to further his own political agenda. We need a new SBC president and IMB president with the courage to speak the truth about the self-serving political activity that dominates our convention.
Thank you for referring to me as a resolute SBCer. That is a far cry from your buddy Dave Miller who once told me I should leave the SBC.
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 such things.
We exist as a Convention to do the things we say we are going to do and that our institutions exist to do. Unfortunately, too many of us are trying to add to that list, and in some cases, add to the Gospel (or at least almost).
I like Dr. Merritt, but even this statement quoted at the beginning of your post reveals some of the problem, IMO.
Thanks, Louis (and Cathy, earlier). My age contributes to a lot of things.