On Wednesday, Dave linked to a blog post by Micah Fries entitled, “The Tie that Binds?” Micah wrote his post in response to a Baptist Press article reporting on the Louisiana Baptist Convention’s recent passage of a resolution in support of the Cooperative Program and in support of Executive Director David Hankins’ open letter to the trustees of NAMB regarding the nomination of Kevin Ezell to lead that missions agency. Micah confessed that he was “startled” when he read the article. The following quote by Dr. David Crosby, Pastor of FBC New Orleans, particularly jumped out at him:
The CP is the glue that binds us all together…. I feel strongly we should make this statement.
I would submit that Micah, in responding to Dr. Crosby’s “glue” language, either misunderstands or fails to understand the language that Dr. Crosby and others use when speaking about the Cooperative Program and the tie that does bind us together. In his analysis of Dr. Crosby’s language, Micah writes:
I lead a church that gives 8% of her undesignated receipts to the CP, and whose giving ranks as one of the top 10-20 churches in our state. There are many churches in our state larger than we are who give less. If I did not believe in the CP, we would not be supporting her. With that being said, I find the thought troubling that the CP is the proverbial “glue” which holds our partnership together. Over recent days, as I listen to discussions within our tribe known as Southern Baptists, I am increasingly hearing a sentiment that affirms this very viewpoint. (emphasis added)
I do not believe for one minute that Dr. Crosby or Dr. Hankins or the churches of the Louisiana Baptist Convention or the thousands of churches and pastors (including me) across the Southern Baptist Convention believe that the CP – as opposed to the Gospel – is what binds us together. But, apparently when Micah hears this statement by Dr. Crosby, he hears someone who not only advocates for the worst kind of pragmatism, but also evinces misplaced priorities:
In fact, believing that any program is that which binds us is tantamount to the worst kind of pragmatism. It shows evidence of a misplacing of priorities. The alternative option, and the preferred option in my opinion, is to unite around a purpose, a theology, a Gospel, and to serve that Gospel with any and every appropriate means possible until we have achieved said purpose.
I think Micah’s post, along with other recent posts from Jimmy Scroggins (a classmate of mine in the MDiv. Program at SBTS in the mid-90s), former Dean of Boyce College at Southern Seminary and current Pastor of FBC West Palm Beach, and the folks at Baptist 21 gives a clearer translation of the language being spoken by one side of the increasing divide in SBC life.
These pastors are using language like “marvel of financing expertise,” “business model,” “opportunity cost,” and a system into which churches “invest money” when describing CP. That’s all well and good, but I believe this language reveals an underlying philosophy that is at play within our Convention. This philosophy, which comes to the surface most clearly in discussions about the Cooperative Program, is about much more than CP. If we focus merely on the Cooperative Program, then we miss focusing on the underlying philosophy which, if followed, will lead to a dissolution of the cooperative missions partnership that Southern Baptists have enjoyed since 1845, long before the Cooperative Program came into existence.
Perhaps the best way to present these two competing philosophies within SBC life is to ask a simple question: “Can you really spell SBC without a C and a P?” For those of you who may not know the history of this question, let me refresh your memories. The late Forrest Pollock, then Pastor of Bell Shoals Baptist Church in Brandon, FL, gave the nominating speech for Frank Page at the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC. The Cooperative Program was front and center in this pivotal election because one of the establishment’s most well-known candidates, Ronnie Floyd, had led his church, FBC Springdale, AR (now known as Cross Church), to give .27% to CP (yes, you read that right). Yet, he desired to lead Southern Baptists as President of a Convention known for its cooperation in missions.
In addition to Jerry Sutton, another establishment candidate, Frank Page, Pastor of FBC Taylors in SC, was also running. At the time of the election, Dr. Page had led his church to contribute 12.4% of undesignated receipts to CP. After one of the most impassioned speeches in support of cooperation and the Cooperative Program, Forrest Pollock ended his nomination speech for Frank Page with these famous words, ringing out like a shot across the bow of the ruling class within the Convention:
“My granddaddy didn’t have a seminary degree but even he understood you can’t even spell SBC president without a C and a P.”
In what must have been a stunning setback for the ruling elites, Dr. Frank Page was elected on the first-ballot, defeating both Floyd and Sutton in a three-way race. To this day, I am firmly convinced that the nomination speech, particularly the rousing ending, was what sealed Page’s victory. Since the repudiation of the “more independent, less cooperative” model in 2006, we have seen a resurgence from establishment leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention who openly advocate “Great Commission Giving,” a society-like giving model, while still professing a “love” for the Cooperative Program. And, even though the Cooperative Program was supposedly “strengthened and saved” when the GCR was amended on the Convention floor, the reality is much different. For some, like Scroggins (who probably voices what many other establishment leaders believe, but do not say openly), the Cooperative Program is just one of many ways that churches can do missions:
And its not like the CP is the ONLY good way for churches to partner in Great Commission ministry. Organizations that share our goals abound and they are enthusiastically asking us for financial support. Many of them are smaller, more agile, and more laser-focused than the sprawling behemoth that is the CP.
I wonder what “smaller, more agile, and more laser-focused” organizations he is talking about? I don’t want to contribute to any myths, but could he have been talking about a certain Seattle-based church planting organization? After all, many of those other organizations must look pretty good up against such a “behemoth.” Does that “behemoth” need to get in better shape? No question. But, does that “behemoth” need to be destroyed in the process of getting it into better shape? And, if the “behemoth” is destroyed in the process, would that be such a bad thing, what with all these other organizations that are “enthusiastically asking” for partnership dollars?
How you tackle these questions comes down to the philosophy that you subscribe to when you look at the “behemoth.” For you see, that “behemoth” is not just CP. That “behemoth” is not just a “sprawling” business model that needs to be replaced. That “behemoth” is not just some organization that competes for money on an opportunity cost basis. That “behemoth” is so much more. That “behemoth” is us – Southern Baptists at the local, associational, state, and national levels!
For many of the ruling elites within our Convention, I am firmly convinced – by analyzing their actions and words – that they believe that they do not need to cooperate with other churches that make up this grand “behemoth” known as the Southern Baptist Convention. They can fund and send out their own missionaries. They can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go on their own mission trips. They can plant their own churches. And, with the proliferation of the satellite model of doing church, they can become their own mini-convention.
Oh, they might throw a bone to CP or speak about cooperation with other Southern Baptists, especially when they are running for SBC President or positioning themselves for the next step up the ladder, but they have embarked on a “more independent, less cooperative” model of doing missions. And, if a local, autonomous church – under the Lord’s leading – wants to become more independent and less cooperative, then no one is stopping them!
But, when those same establishment leaders seek to exert their influence and control over the grassroots majority of Southern Baptists and seek to radically alter what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist, then they should not be surprised when rank and file cooperating conservatives begin to stop listening to strange voices and start listening to those who speak the same language! That’s what I and the majority of messengers did in Greensboro in 2006. And those words still ring loud and clear today:
“My granddaddy didn’t have a seminary degree but even he understood you can’t even spell SBC president without a C and a P.”