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.”
I would agree that the nomination speech was powerful for Frank Page. But I like to think that there was something else that made a difference that year. A little phenomenon called blogging spread a lot of information about the CP-giving of the candidates.
On a human level, I’m not sure that Page would have won if it had not been for the information dissemination by the blogging world. How else would people have gotten the straight scoop about CP giving out to the voters?
Maybe that is just a blogger’s conceit.
Can we have a contrarian blog article that leaves out all the snarl phrases, like “ruling elites”? Maybe not.
I voted for Frank Page because Ronnie Floyd’s church gave 0.29% to the CP, somewhat below my threshold. I favored Bryant Wright because I thought his 3.5% and other SBC missions support was quite sufficient.
Churches of all sizes, even those who have no ‘ruling elites’ in their membership, have been giving less and less to the CP for about a generation. This past SBC fiscal year, churches cut CP giving at over twice the rate of designated giving.
There aren’t enough megachurches or elite SBC churches to account for this.
Scott: I do not believe for one minute that … the CP – as opposed to the Gospel – is what binds us together.
bapticus hereticus: If Scott is unwilling to include being bound, programmatically notwithstanding, to CBF, AoB, ABC, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Catholics, and other Christian bodies, he might wish, then, to revise his comments and focus more on CP, instead. Regardless of theological orientation, to be considered a community there is an assumption of a measure of commonality and a means for supporting such. Commonality does not preclude a wide measure of diversity; yeah system equifinality and differentiation may facilitate a highly functioning and viable institution. Actually, the greater the complexity in the external evironment, greater complexity in the internal environment needs to exist in order for institutional responses to be timely, relevant, and effective.
Are you saying that, in strongly discouraging what had been the existing diversity in the SBC,
( by mandating that certain ’employees’ sign the BFM2K, together with increasingly emphasizing the importance of CP giving, by ‘disfellowshipping’, by voting down certain requests that were important to members of a racial minority, by excluding members from knowing what happened ‘behind closed doors’ for fifteen years, and on . . . . ),
by strongly discouraging what had been the existing diversity in the SBC, the SBC may have unknowingly set itself up for this:
“This past SBC fiscal year, churches cut CP giving at over twice the rate of designated giving.”
????
The ‘percentage’ differential does not seem to be a marker that is affected by the decline in the economy. So, if I am not understanding you, can you clarify please.
Here’s some thoughts on the some of the other, and it has to do with promotion/asking:
1. An organization that makes contact, asks for support, and explains a lot about itself helps its cause with church budget committees.
2. The SBC and CP ministries have been improving on this, but there’s still a large level at which CP promotion is done as: “We’re Southern Baptists. Give to the Cooperative Program.” Without, perhaps, as clear of a reason why or as good of an explanation as to where the money goes.
For example, I’ve seen some missions organizations that solicit funds explain what percent of that money funds the home offices, and what funds real missionaries, and I don’t know that I’ve truly seen that from IMB. Maybe I’m missing it. I know that when Mid-America asks for church support as a Seminary, you get the breakdown of what school would cost a student without donor support, and what it costs with it, so people see it better.
So, I think we could promote CP better than just “It’s the SBC way.” It is, but that doesn’t connect really well. Partially because of the perception of either “ruling elites” or “hidden liberals” or “bloated bureaucracy” or whatever term you want to throw, people want to support missions work, seminaries, and all the things that, basically, CP money supports, but there’s a hesitance to support “The SBC.”
That being said, one thing that CP giving does, especially for us small church is this:
I don’t have to background-check every missions money request. Or at least, currently don’t feel like I do. With any non-SBC related entity, you’ve got to wade through their Statement of Belief, their financial statements, their practices, look at wherever else the money comes from, look at this, double-check that, all to make sure you’re leading a church to be a good steward of God’s resources, and not funneling money to a cult-like group or a group that’s, shall we say, “too liberal” or “too fundamentalist.” It helps the local church focus on sharing the Gospel and being good stewards where they are, without spending lots of man-hours checking up on who’s leading what organization.
Just my 4 cents worth. If you take away the blog bureaucracy’s portion, it’s only 2 cents worth.
The elites at the national level are often pro GC giving.
The elites at the state level are often pro CP giving.
Given the SBC’s history noted above (one that preceded the CP by 80 years) and the SBC Constitution and Bylaws, which require very little contribution in the way of CP giving, from a formal standpoint, the CP is not the glue that holds the SBC together.
What keeps people together in religious circles is usually a common belief system and a common goal. The CP could fit in the belief system, but it does not rise to that level of importance.
Many churches are giving lots of money directly to Nashville for distribution according the the allocation budget (not “societal giving”). Last year (before the adotpion of GCTF report) direct church giving totals was 15th in size when compared on a state by state basis. Look at the Book of Reports for last year’s convention.
My belief is that unless a church is an elite state church (with lots of ties to the state conventions) that traditional CP giving may continue to decline. Whether it does nor not is not really relevant. Churches are going to do what they want to do and the world is such that they have other options now when it comes to missions. Not so much when it comes to theological education and other work.
Interesting post.
Something held Southern Baptist together before 1925, so obviously, you can spell SBC and SBC president “without C and P.”
That’s an interesting observation.
I love the CP and hope we will make it work. But there is a deeper glue that binds us – theologically, ecclesiologically. CP has been the way we carry out our united efforts. But we have an essential bond beyond that.
Dave,
The essential bond is not the CP, but rather the cooperative missions spirit that is best embodied in the COOPERATIVE Program. Gene below makes a good point when he references someone like Dr. Stanley’s model of ministry at FBC Atlanta. I have seen similar things happen with larger churches, both in NM and before in FL. Generally speaking, the larger the church, the less involved that church is at the Association and even State levels (unless of course they want to run for office).
I think what this discussion, originally started by Micah’s article, will show is that the language barrier is stark and that it is growing by the day. When the new IMB President is named, I will predict that the divide will further expand.
The sad thing is that this did not have to happen. If you look at the 2006 Ad Hoc Cooperative Program Committee’s report, you will see a formula and plan for reaching a 50-50 split. It was incremental and not radical. It looked at all giving rising, not being radically re-allocated. Four years after that report was overwhelmingly approved, we have “Great Commission Giving” and moving rapidly to a 50-50 split. What changed in that four year period? I believe that there is more than meets the eye in all that is taking place within the Convention. What that is remains to be seen. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
You know, Howell, I’m enjoying this discussion. But I think there is an underlying issue that goes beyond even the two languages you are describing.
Micah’s comment below is insightful. His church gives generously to CP, but also does a lot of independent minisitry and mission.
But a lot of churches today have little concern about worldwide missions. The discussion of CP/Independent missions is a good one. But the underlying issue may be the simple loss of passion for world missions by churches.
The church I grew up in gave 23% annually to the CP back in the 1980s. Recently, this church (which runs only slightly over 100 in SS and has an annual budget of around $350,000) built a $1 million “Family Life Center.” Now, the church has had to suspend all CP and all missions giving for 2010 in order to make the debt payments on the $1 million “Family Life Center.” It seems like a lot of churches are spending so much on themselves that they have little money left over for missions.
That is one of the things that I appreciated about the David Platt book “Radical” – Platt cut back on a lot of the fancy stuff at his church to spend much more on missions. By the way, Platt’s church gives only a tiny percentage to the CP – probably because Platt is radically devoted to international missions and realizes that most CP money never leaves the deep South and goes towards huge salaries in the bloated bureaucracies of state conventions.
Jeff–
If you think executive salaries are “bloated” at the state level—why is it we can’t even get a read on what SBC Agency heads and Seminary Presidents get paid + expense accounts and travel????
Thanks Howell–
I simply told the truth as it was played out. It is a terribly sad story for me. My daddy advocated a 1% increase in mission giving each year—Stanley advocated a 49% reduction so that FBC Atlanta could grow and he could shine.
Got him elected SBC President, didn’t it????
Okay, Gene – we get it – you hate Charles Stanley. Don’t you think you’ve rehearsed that grudge often enough? Let’s move on.
Succinct and well stated.
Sometimes a behemoth won’t get into shape until you cut back on what you feed it. Keep throwing food at it and there is absolutely no incentive to change. There may be some who are quite happy that their “missions” money is going to the ERLC and the Seminaries, for example. But no doubt there are many who are not. If there is a glue that holds us together, it is the BFM, not the CP. The BFM is a statement of what we believe. The CP is a means of disseminating what we believe. It is not the only way, and for some churches it may not be the best way. I think the quality of the leadership of a church is not how best they support the denomination, but how best they support the great commission.
Are you saying BF&M is just a statement—or has it become a Creed for previously non-creedal people????
The BFM is a confession. Boyce, Broadus and Manly (the founding faculty at Southern, the SBC’s first seminary) called the Abstract of Principles a creed. All professors are required to sign it and “teaching in accordance with and not contrary to” the Abstract.
Another great statement.
Before the late 1980s, it was actually the moderates and the liberals in the SBC who were the biggest advocates of the Cooperative Program. Remember, it was Adrian Rogers who called the CP a “sacred cow,” and most of the Conservative Resurgence leaders were pastors of churches that gave very small percentages to the CP. Since they did not trust Southern Baptist seminaries or colleges, they founded their own institutions like Mid-America seminary and Criswell College. Their churches sometimes sent out their own missionaries. The moderates and liberals would say that these conservatives were not good Southern Baptists because they didn’t give much to the CP. Before the late 1980s, the moderates and liberals would say, “It doesn’t matter what professors in our seminaries believe or teach. It doesn’t matter what Southern Baptists believe. Let’s just all come together for the sake of supporting the Cooperative Program.” I grew up in a moderate SBC church in the 1980s that gave 23% to the CP, and I probably heard more about why our church should support CP than about why we should believe in the Trinity. For many years, the BGCT has allowed money designated to the CBF to count as CP giving. So, at least in my experience, I have seen the Cooperative Program emphasized at the expense of doctrinal orthodoxy.
We are not required to choose between the two, at least not in theory.
We can support the CP while we also hold the line on doctrinal accountability. We need to find a way to make this happen.
I am not saying this is impossible. I am just pointing out a time in the recent past when a liberal pastor whose church gave a lot to the CP was portrayed as a better Southern Baptist than a conservative pastor whose church did not give a lot to the CP. Also, during this recent time period, attempts at doctrinal accountability were dismissed by many who argued that the CP was more important than doctrinal orthodoxy. This is why it is so dangerous to define CP as so essential to SBC identity.
Jeff:
I remember that line of argument very clearly.
It was made right along side of “we will never do anything to hurt our missionaries”.
Dave,
Just got back home after being out all morning. The discussion thus far confirms what I already suspected. Namely, that there (at least) two different languages being spoken when it comes to talking about SBC life and the Cooperative Program. I think that we will probably talk past each other, because, at its heart, this is not about CP. CP is the most visible aspect of our cooperation together as Southern Baptists.
Brent,
Obviously, something held SBs together before the advent of CP in 1925. It was cooperative missions. Since 1925, the Lord has allowed Southern Baptists to touch the world through the mechanism of the Cooperative Program. But, without a heart of cooperation, that is not possible, regardless of whether you have CP or not.
In the end, we are seeing a “more independent, less cooperative” model of doing missions take root. If that model becomes dominant, we not only lose our identity as Southern Baptists, but I believe we will be less effective in our mission. I certainly could be wrong and hope that I am. But, what if the “Great Commission Giving” model doesn’t work? Will we be able to recover what has been lost? Questions to ponder. God bless,
Howell
Hardly an original thought, but I think the growing desire for independent ministry is part and parcel of the megachurch movement. My church wants to participate in the CP because we are not big enough to do it all ourselves. We have to cooperate, even if sometimes we do not agree with everything done on a national level. We don’t have any option.
On the other hand, a mega church has the resources to do things their own way. Kevin Ezell’s church could adopt a “do-it-yourself” strategy because they had the resources.
Ezell did not have to share control because he could do it his way with his church’s money.
“Doing it his way with his church’s money” certainly sounds like what is going on in Federal Programs these days.
Since when did Ezell become the King and his church the people who had taxes imposed on them so the King could do what he wished with it????
Too much trust—too little control from the givers of the money!!
Howell, While I think there is validity to the idea that we are speaking two different languages, I think you are probably way off on the independence concept. I know many pastor’s who are leading significant churches, and who do much in missions outside of the Cooperative Program, but who cooperate extensively with other churches organizations. Be careful that you are not equating cooperative missions = Cooperative Program. While CP is one way of doing cooperative missions, it’s not the only way.
I think the more important question to ask is why some SBC churches, many historic ones at that, are choosing to continue being faithful in cooperative missions but are doing so outside of the CP? Jimmy Scroggins is right on this point, I think. In an era where we can instantly have access to information, churches will support the places where they think there missions dollars are most effectively spent. If they think there dollars being spent with the CP are not being spent well, they will choose to cooperatively spend those dollars elsewhere.
Micah,
Thanks for the dialogue. The church I pastor also does missions outside of the CP, but our main missions partnership is through partnering with other Southern Baptist churches through the Cooperative Program. I do not think anyone would argue that there are other ways of doing missions besides CP. The question becomes whether it is the best (not perfect) way to accomplish more together than we can apart. I simply do not think that some within the Convention believe this anymore. Hence, the “more independent, less cooperative” model.
But, herein lies the problem. I do not think that Jimmy Scroggins is on point. I don’t think that either you or Jimmy are “bad” because you think the way that you do. However, what this reveals is that the language barrier, which seemed to be narrow or even non-existent during the CR, is now growing larger by the day as a result of the GCR. Whether this barrier can be bridged remains to be seen, but my optimism is waning in light of what I see and hear going on within the Convention.
What I think that Dr. Crosby and others, including myself, see is that the nature of what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist is being radically redefined. The most visible manifestation of this redefinition is coming through our cooperative missions endeavor known as the Cooperative Program. Thanks again and God bless,
Howell
Howell-
I agree, thanks for good spirited dialogue. Let me add what I think might be one more caveat. This would not be as difficult if churches were to reexamine their priorities. Let me explain. Our church gives 8% to the CP, which I believe is still above the national average (though I may be wrong). It is not, however, our primary method of doing missions. We give another 15% to various other cooperative missions efforts in addition to the 8% we give to CP. In fact, my desire is to see us move to a place where 50% of our budget walks out the door for mission efforts. Whether we can get there or not remains to be seen, but that’s my goal and that’s what I’ve asked our staff and ministry leaders to help push towards.
My point in this is simply to point out that it is possible to give well to the CP, while also having a strong commitment to other cooperative ventures if you determine that your church is going to have a substantial commitment to mission.
A strong commitment to the CP and a strong commitment to various other cooperative missions ventures, possibly even over and above the CP, don’t have to be mutually exclusive ideas.
I’m only 53, still a young man, of course. But it is my recollection that in “old days” it was almost considered heresy – certainly scandalous – for an SBC church to do missions outside the SBC.
That mindset has certainly changed.
Dave-
Remember that I never said we were doing missions outside the SBC. I simply said we were using money to support missions that weren’t necessarily being done through the CP. In fact, off the top of my head the only thing I can think of that we support which is not SBC is our local Pregnancy Resource Clinic which our church originally founded and which is now independent.
With that being said, if the missions effort was the right one and was worthy of support, but not necessarily “SBC” I would have no problem recommending that we invest in it. Our default, though, is always through SBC partnerships.
I meant outside the CP, not outside the SBC. I was saying that years ago, a church that supported missionaries outside the CP would have been viewed suspiciously.
Micah,
Thanks for the reply. Could you clear up something in your above comment. When you say that your church gives “another 15% to various other cooperative missions efforts,” could you be more specific? Are you saying that you give funds directly to SBC causes (agencies, entities, seminaries, etc.) without necessarily going through the State Convention? You indicated to Dave that you didn’t give that additional 15% to non-SBC causes (apart from the crisis pregnancy center) but that you just didn’t give through CP.
If that is the case, then in essence you are giving a set amount to the unified budget (CP), but then are giving directly another 15% in “offerings” above and beyond your original 8% to SBC causes that your church has determined most needs the additional funds. I think that is a commendable model. There are other models out there that I do not find commendable, especially when folks want to lead a Convention of cooperating churches. Look forward to the continued dialogue. God bless,
Howell
Howell-
You are close to accurate with your description. We give some to the association, some to our local BSU Director, some directly to the IMB & NAMB as well as a good amount to our own church planting efforts. We are currently helping plant churches in North Dakota, San Francisco & Guatemala as well as a Hispanic congregation here in St. Joe.
There are other things as well that come out of that money, but hopefully that communicates the idea.
Interested in investing in a church plant in NE Sioux City?
Might be raw analogy but viscerally; next time you see the Movie Mystic River; think about the line the Sean Penn Character says when was the last time he saw Davey Boy; And if I got my characters right, Penn’s character said he was going down that street right there in the back seat of the car.
Last time Southern Baptists saw the Cooperative Program was in Houston, 1979 and its been fogged for 30 years now and it ain’t comin back. You cannot deceive good trusting people in the pew for 30 years and expect good to come of it.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a Wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great Fall
And all the King’s Horses
And All the King’s Men (BFM 2000 bans women you know from the decision makin process you know)
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty
Back Together AGain
Tom, if you don’t have something to talk about other than to complain about the CR, maybe you should find somewhere else to comment.
I hate to be the one to inform you, but the CR happened. Its done. I’m glad about it even if you aren’t.
Move on.
Howell–
So well said!
I was born in 1946. The first real memories of SBC growth was a Watch Night service we had at the Clarkston Baptist Church (outside Atlanta) where my father was pastor. The theme was “A Million More in ’54.” It was followed by “Flying High in ’55.” The focus was on growth in numbers.
HOWEVER, that was equally focused on a growing commitment to have churches, at least, tithe their budget to Missions. The really great churches gave as much as 50% to Mission causes!!! My father was leading Clarkston to add 1% per year to their mission giving.
It was unheard of that any candidate for the SBC Presidency did not pastor a church giving, at least 10%. In most cases the percentage had to be 30% or more! If men of equal public appeal were running, the one with the church giving most always won the “position of honor.”
In my day of growing up and becoming a SEBTS trained minister, the Presidency of the SBC was more one of honor than power. The real power rested in the Committee on Committees which was closely selected from representative Baptists from all states and church size. The goal was to have all churches represented fairly.
Now, we have criteria like “great Preacher / growing church / numbers of people coming and being baptized / you name it based on pure size.” It has been years since a nominator used “what this pastor’s church gives for missions.”
A good case in point is Atlanta First Baptist. It was a given that the pastor of this large church would, sooner or later, serve as GBC and SBC President. It took a gifted pulpiteer and a dedicated SBC supporter to even have a chance at being called to serve as Pastor. You had to have a “proven track record of preaching and denominational support” for the Pulpit Committee to consider you.
When Roy McClain retired early, Charles Stanley was asked to become Pastor. It had more to do with pulpit furvor and conservatism than anything else. Within a year that church went from 50% giving and “top 10 giving in the SBC” to almost nothing. In the meantime they started an expensive bus ministry / building program / TV prime time presence on WTBS.
The simple observer would often say, “Dr. Stanley is a godly preacher who only preaches the Bible.” The neighboring pastors were saying, “Why is he sending his bus into my community to pick up children and why doesn’t he still believe in denominational support. He never comes to the Atlanta Baptist Association Pastor’s meeting each week. He refuses to participate in GBC activities and has more important things to do than be on any committee. It seems he doesn’t care about anything but himself and his church and he is a competitor for people over cooperating fellow pastor.”
It’s just that simple. What was in the 50-60’s no longer exists. The mega church is the focus. You can’t grow one–and at the same time do more than minimal giving to the larger organization.
Anything reminding you of non-cooperating churches before the organization for mission support is purely—–PLANNED / INTENDED!
Gene:
What a small world. I lived in Decatur from 1986-1989 (where my Grandmother was a member of First Methodist from 1943 to 1998), and I attended a church in Clarkston called Christ Community Church (SBC) pastored by Barry St. Claire. He was a youth guy at the HMB before pastoring that church.
Small world.
Yeah, the 2006 CP study group had a great plan for increasing CP giving. The plan was, “You churches give us more money.” As far back in my memory as my very first days as a pastor, almost 30 years ago, the same plan was put forth. Didn’t work. Hasn’t worked. Won’t work.
What might work is a radical transformation of the CP along the lines that Bryant Wright advocates.
Frank Page is working on a ten year plan. Let’s see if he can put forth something new.
William,
The radical transformation and redefinition of the SBC that Wright advocates will decimate the State Conventions. I personally do not believe that is a wise move. If you think that a nationalized and centralized command and control can do a better job than the State Conventions, then so be it. But, I’m not prepared to do away with State Conventions and channel money to an increasingly out-of-touch establishment. God bless,
Howell
The word “decimate” originally meant “to reduce by 10%.” Therefore, I think that “decimating” the state conventions is a great idea. Most state conventions are bloated bureaucracies that need to cut their expenses by 10% so that they can send more CP money to international missions. Right now, the majority of CP money never leaves the deep South where there is a church on every street corner.
Jeff,
Could you explain to me how many State Conventions that you are currently affiliated with through your church? I would be curious to know how you came to your conclusion that “most state conventions are bloated bureaucracies?” Seems like I’ve heard that language somewhere before.
Also, how much is enough for “international missions?” A large Lifeway survey of pastors and laypeople, completed at the beginning of 2008, showed overwhelming support for the current allocations between State and National and between NAMB and IMB. Despite the rhetoric, I wouldn’t think that those numbers would be radically different today.
I suppose that you and others, when talking about the Great Commission, mean international missions. I live in NM where the population is 90% lost. I would venture to say that the “deep South” numbers, while not as high, are just about the same, regardless of whether there is a church on every street corner. Lostness is lostness. I’ll lead my church to pursue an Acts 1:8 model of doing missions and ministry, which is both local, national and international. God bless,
Howell
My perspective is probably different since I live in Texas. The BGCT is definitely a bloated bureaucracy that keeps too much of the CP money in Texas – partly motivated by the hatred that many BGCT leaders have towards the SBC. The SBTC does run a much leaner operation and sends 51% of CP to the SBC, partly a result of being a new state convention that does not have many institutions.
Based on Romans 15:18-24, I would say that more money should be targeted for international missions. In that passage, Paul leaves behind partially reached areas in order to go to totally unreached areas. He does not neglect partially reached areas – he leaves behind pastors like Titus and Timothy in partially reached areas. Nevertheless, the unreached peoples are the priority for Paul. Based on the money given, it does not seem like unreached peoples are the priority for the SBC. What percentage of money given in a SBC offering plate ends up on the international misssion field? 2%? 3%? What percentage of total CP money ends up on the international mission field? 20%?
Howell,
I think there are lots of people who think well of the states, as you do. They will have plenty of support.
I am a newbie here and no experienced insider to SBC debates. I am a leader in a local SBC church and have been for a couple of decades.
The CP/GCG debate has revolved around where the money is going. I suggest that more attention be given to where and how the money is spent. While the CP is a good idea for us to combine and cooperate, it is essential that the money be spent most effectively. Too much of our resources are used in the deep south and not deployed effectively for global missions or into unchurched parts of the US. We are not debating about good uses for our money but about the BEST uses for SBC resources.
Welcome to the debate floor when the state nor national meeting is taking place!!!
Actually, with the vague nature of the reported budget for NAMB it is almost impossible to tell exactly where money is going. The is particularly true of Administrative salaries which used to be given in detail.
As to there being too much spending in the South, I have to differ with you. Urban growth is taking place more in the South than any other part of the country.
Some practical matters: I was part of the first HMB Partnership Mission in the 80’s to the Southern Tier Association along the border of NY and PENN. I was assigned to the largest SBC church in Binghamton, NY–Lincoln Avenue. I did not find quite the “lostness” depicted to us by the SBC in Northern Cities.
Here is what I actually found:
(1) There were churches of every kind all over Binghamton.
(2) The other towns in the Association are somewhat small and rural.
(3) Southern Baptists were perceived as a cult group alongside Jehovah’s Witnesses / Mormons / etc.
(4) The large size and growth of the Lincoln Avenue church was mostly due to Binghamton being headquarters for IBM with many southerners directed to move there. They found a spiritual home by attending the only SBC church!
(5) The church was undertaking a major Sanctuary Building Program which had come to a sad and sudden halt—WHY?
(6) IBM had made a corporate decision to move headquarters to Texas and southerners were the first to sign up and go home to the south.
This troubled me that we were not seeing other denominations like Methodists / Lutherans / American Baptists as valid churches with spiritual input to the community. It was as if “we were the only group being used of God.”
I don’t see it that way! The money spent in NY could have definitely been spent better where we are not fighting a “cult” image. We haven’t helped that image much in now being perceived as an understudy to Jerry Falwell.
Gentlemen (and ladies if you happen by) – I’m weary of the constant CR-bashing by a few of you. No matter what we write about, you use it as a reason to vent your hatred for the leaders of the CR.
It’s done. Unless the subject is the CR, or you are responding to someone who addresses the CR positively, I’m deleting the comments. We’ve given you a chance to demonstrate your hostility. Now, lets move on!
Some of you are just obsessed. No matter where the blog starts all you want to talk about is “The CR was evil.” Fine. It happened. Its over.
We are here to discuss the Cooperative Program and how we can improve the SBC as it is. Stick to the topic.
I’ve had enough of the broken records!
Dave,
Good for you. I really think that will be helpful to the discussion of the CP.
Bill wrote me a comment which I hope he will post here. I want to clarify my last comment in light of what he said.
I understand that the CR was a significant event in the life of the SBC and that it is incredibly polarizing. Sometimes, the CR is germane to the discussion and can hardly be avoided. It was a formative moment in SBC history. Some of us think it was a work of God. Some, like me, feel it was a good thing though many mistakes were made in the conduct of the movement. And some think Paige and Adrian and Charles wore horns and carried pitchforks.
Any discussion of the future of the SBC will have to touch on the CR. If you are making a point and your perspective on the CR is part of that (pro or con) go for it. No problem from me.
However, some of you seem to be stuck in the 80’s.
My comment was directed at about 4 or 5 bloggers who seem to ignore the topic of the post and use whatever topic we write on as an excuse to rant about the evils of the CR. They have no balance or perspective. They don’t care what the topic of the post is. They simply rant about how the CR ruined the SBC. They make the same comments over and over again about the same subjects regardless of what is posted.
If you are making a point and the CR is germane to that in some way, we want a free and open discussion.
However, the CR-obsessives (and we all know who I am talking about ) who simply don’t want to talk about anything but what took place in 1979 – your rants are getting tiresome.
We got it! You hate the CR. My IQ is well into the 80’s. I figured out that you don’t like the CR or the men who led it. We all understand. You do not have to say it over and over again.
One blogger has posted dozens of comments over time excoriating Charles Stanley. Okay, we got it. You think Charles Stanley was a creep. We heard you the 25th time you said it. Move on to something else.
So, address the topic. Join the discussion. If something related to the CR is germane to the discussion, go for it. Bill, again, I hope you will post the comment you made.
But to those four or five bloggers who have logged comment after comment repeating the same rants over and over, now is the time to stop. Now is the time to move on.
Join the discussion or open your own blog where you can write all you want about whatever you want.
Those who will not learn from the past (or admit the truth of the past) are destined to repeat it.
Is that an original thought from you Lydia? 🙂
I kinda figured you were close to my age. I did not realize you were that much older. 🙂
It is the Lydia variation of Santayana.
That’s OK. Just as long as you “Remember the Alamo.”
“Based on the money given, it does not seem like unreached peoples are the priority for the SBC. What percentage of money given in a SBC offering plate ends up on the international misssion field? 2%? 3%? What percentage of total CP money ends up on the international mission field? 20%?”
All I could find was this, and it is not clear to me, so maybe you can sort out answers to your questions using this info:
“North American Mission Board 2009 Revenue/Expenses
REVENUE (actual)* Percent
Cooperative Program 30.17%
Annie Armstrong Easter Offering 37.53%
Unrestricted Gifts 6.74%
Investment and Interest Income 21.60%
World Changers/Power Plant Participant Fees 3.81%
Conference Fees & Other 0.14%
TOTAL 100.00%
EXPENSES (actual)*
Missionary Appointment Support and Equipping 41.64%
Evangelization and Christian Social Ministries 15.32%
Church Planting 16.79%
Communication Technology 2.05%
Mission Education 3.65%
Volunteer Ministries, Disaster and Associational Ministries 8.47%
Administrative (Executive Office/Related Support Services) 12.08%
TOTAL 100.00% ”
It doesn’t seem to be clear about what percentage actually makes it into the mission field . . . but I may be confused about the info.
Christiane:
According to the info you posted, 87.92% makes it to the mission field. 12.08% is spent on administration.
If almost 88% of NAMB’s money reached the mission field, Kevin Ezell wouldn’t be emptying the grand HQ building in Alpharetta by offering incentives for NAMB people to retire. You cannot learn much of anything about NAMB’s budget from the figures above. Southern Baptist administrators know how to classify just about any and every expense as ‘missions’ because they know that is the money term.
“Southern Baptist administrators know how to classify just about any and every expense as ‘missions’ because they know that is the money term.”
Exactly.
EZELL OFFERS RETIREMENT INCENTIVE TO NAMB STAFF
Telling North American Mission Board (NAMB) staff “considerable change” is coming, President Kevin Ezell shared a retirement incentive with employees during a Sept. 30 meeting that will be the beginning of an overall reduction in force in the months ahead.
“There are a lot of changes and some things coming down the road. I don’t know what all those are,” Ezell said. “Knowing that there are changes coming and not knowing who exactly that would involve, we wanted to offer an incentive to those who might already be thinking about retirement.”
Ezell described the incentive as “the first phase” in what will be a series of staff changes to NAMB.
“Is this it? No,” he said. “We don’t know the extent as to what will happen, but we do know that this will be the first phase. That’s why we want you to at least look and see.”
Under the plan, staff who are age 55 and older will be credited additional years of service in order to qualify for health insurance benefits. Additionally, a retirement incentive bonus will be paid, based on years of service. “To be sure, we are being very clear–this is the very best incentive we could come up with,” Ezell said. “It’s the best option that will be available.”
Ezell compared the changes coming to NAMB to a company that had been making washing machines and now will be making cars. “There is going TO be considerable change,” Ezell said. “A lot of changes will not be directed to competency of people because we are going to be doing some things drastically different. What does that look like specifically, I don’t know yet. But we are working on that as fast as we can.”
Currently, 258 people serve on NAMB’s staff in Alpharetta. An additional 34 direct-paid missionaries who serve throughout North America are among those eligible for the incentive. Those taking advantage of the plan will need to retire by Dec. 31, 2010.
–Oct, 7 edition of THE ALABAMA BAPTIST–
And how much of a cut in salary will the NAMB president be taking?
That is, actually, a very good question. If Ezell wants to reverse the negative perception of him in blogs, that might be a great first step.
First thought is that if Ezell is really going to work and has to ” take the heat ” from reductions in employment and burn some midnight oil, he probably deserves his money if it can be allowed. Second thought is about cb’s “Remember The Alamo”. All Texas Baptists know that the Alamo was a Spanish Mission and was Catholic. Yup, they were there first.
Ezell doesn’t seem to have the character it is going to take to “pull it off” in my opinion. I don’t mean “moral character,” but leadership character. He’s whinny and condescending.
In today’s Baptist Press interview he basically had this answer for his critics: “I made it in, now you are obligated to support me.”
If he had been elected Pope and I were a Catholic, that might work — but he’s not the former and I’m not the latter. I know of know place in the Bible that compels me to blindly follow someone who is an obvious hypocrite — the numbers do not lie.
He also said that his church did not send money to NAMB or very little to the CP, because he did not think it was “worthy.” And . . . now that he is there we are supposed to think it “is worthy.”
I had hoped that the more I learned about him, the better he would seem — not at all the case.
Could you reference where he said NAMB wasn’t “worthy” of support. I would love to see that quote.
SSBN,
I probably have some thoughts that run similar to Dave’s here. What was the date and title of the article you reference here?
I have heard reference to some disturbing comments made by Ezell about CP, state conventions, Annie, etc. Just haven’t seen the comments themselves.
I’d love to do a post called “Actual Quotes by the Real Kevin Ezell” and put up some of the things he has said. Maybe then he will take responsibility for his words and answer some questions.
But we either need to get the quotes and document them or not put words in Ezell’s mouth.
I’m not saying the quotes don’t exist, SSBN. I’m just saying I’d like to see them. So, I guess I’m making a general appeal. You got Ezell quotes? Document them and send them in!
I wasn’t quoting exact words but summarizing the interview with BP. I believe it was Friday.
I was commenting more on Ezell’s “tone” than his exact words. I think my summary was accurate. He is either very naive or very pompous — I don’t know for sure which, but I have my suspicions.
The tone is no different from that which he used in his first volley with people who have questions. I think the article brings this out even though Baptist Press threw underhanded to him to help his batting average.
This is the kind of stuff that Geoff Hammond was unable to pull off. Some key staff were at odds with him from the moment he walked in the door.
Ezell looks like he will have a stronger hand for whatever reason, and may actually be able to set the course he needs to lead the organization.
Louis, I have been deeply disturbed by some of the things Ezell has said and some of the attitudes he has displayed. But I think that you are precisely right that NAMB needs the strong hand and Ezell seems to be the strong hand.
Dave, I completely disagree that what is needed is “a strong hand.” What is need is a strong character. I don’t think the way to build a “cooperative spirit” is with stronghandedness, in my opinion.
In my short history with the SBC (three plus decades) stronghandedness has usually brought short term results at the expense of long term harmony. Our agencies are just not set up with the trustee system to work well without a strong, free give-and-take spirit.
Hopefully they didn’t hire a “pawn” , someone they can push around, guide and direct. If he doesn’t have the authority then he has nothing as every person will be guarding their own ox. Not knowing Ezell, I hope he wouldn’t accept the job with those conditions. I also think it would be easier on everybody if things were out in the open.
I guess in my view Ezell, or any agency leader is a “pawn” if by that one means he can only make small moves in a limited direction.
The trustees are the chess masters, not the president.
My fear is that Ezell does not possess an understanding of the NAMB agency that is going to be able to build a concensus, but will only create more controversy which is something we do not need in the SBC at this point.
Back to the original post I have to say that I consider CP the glue for SBs. It seems that we can say that the ‘glue’ is the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or His Gospel Mission but those are just words. It reminds me of James, if you see someone hungry…. The CP shows what we really are. It is where the rubber meets the road.
The mega church deal is a two edged sword. There is a lot of good that can be done by mega churches. A lot of resources can be created and put to use. But what is happening in too many cases is the opposite. I know of a couple of large churches who brag about all the mission work they do outside of SBC life. One of these has over 40 missionaries from its church on the field with the IMB! They give a pittance to CP and Lottie Moon. In the past this would not have mattered much but consider now. We are severely limited in our new appointments. We can not support the number of missionaries we have on the field now. This means that while these large and well off churches can spend millions of dollars on their own programs the smaller churches will be actually paying for their church members to go overseas on missions. Now, when the smaller church has couple who want to go with the IMB the answer will be ‘no room in the inn.’ Is that right?
By the way, we just got the numbers. For our overseas budget for 2011 we have 13 million less dollars from CP than we did two years ago. And for the record two years ago was a tough year for me!
I was raised hearing the phrase The Rope Of Sand, in reference to the Cooperative Program.
Maybe others can let me know if they are familiar with that characterization as well in RE the CP
There was a movie of that title describing CP giving. It is simply what holds us together without having strands which bind us.
With CR it is a steel cable compelling churches to do what the leaders don’t do!!!
However, it is getting rusty and frail after 40 years of brine being poured into the wounds of broken relationships.
The “glue for Southern Baptists” has always been and always will be theology.
Without biblical theology the CP will be a “Rope of Sand” but never have the “Strength of Steel.”
cb–
History of the SBC which has not yet been redacted will never support your theological contention.
Autonomy allowed for each church to do it’s own minisistry and exact theology. It was clear that there was never to be a Creed since each church spoke for itself (BF&M 2000 destroyed that idea). Further, the convention did the bidding of the local church as decided at the Annual meeting with all churches represented and voting (the Executive Committee is destroying that one).
Ours was a “bottom up” governance rather than “top down.”
If you want more clearcut legal proof, then I will gladly share with you the transcript from 1959 where the N. Rocky Mount Baptist Church minority took a slight majority to court over who got the property of that church—the new Independent-minded followers of Rev. Johnson / the SBC-mission-minded folks who paid for it.
The crux of the court case was “who is the real Southern Baptist here.” The definition given by SEBTS professors / local pastors / written documents describing Southern Baptists proved the above beyond any doubt in a Court of Law which takes truth-telling seriously. That was in the late 50’s when we were growing by leaps and bounds.
Now that it is 40 years into a “new definition involving control from the top down” there is even a false attempt to say the Convention is autonomous and has the right to delete any church it wants—NOT SO!!!
If you want to redact history and turn black into white, go ahead. However, you will never find historical facts to support your false contention—SORRY.
Like I said,
The “glue for Southern Baptists” has always been and always will be theology.
The SBC was the SBC before the CP. It was the SBC because of the theological persuasions of the churches comprising its structure.
It was a theological persuasion that brought the CP into existence.
CB,
How does cooperative missions play into the founding and subsequent history of the SBC? There is no question that theology is an integral component of any organization, including the SBC. Obviously, the SBC predates CP. Would it be fair to say that the CP, while functioning as a funding mechanism, is much more than that? That the CP embodies the cooperative spirit that Southern Baptists have been about since our founding in 1845?
The problem that I and others see is not just a “tweaking” of a funding mechanism, but a radical redefinition of what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist and a move back to a “more independent, less cooperative” model of doing missions. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I really do not know if what is happening today is a “tweaking” of the funding mechanism. It is my opinion that the jury is going to be out on that one for a while.
My point is that it was theology that brought the specific group of Baptist churches together to become the SBC.
Has the CP been a symbol of of something for Southern Baptists through the years beyond its primary function as a missions funding methodology through the years? There is no doubt that it has.
Among established missionary sending denominations it has been the Flagship of such endeavors. “CP” has, in the past been synonymous with “SBC” in identifying a people of faith. That may no longer be the case.
The CP as we have known it may cease to be. Yet, the theological moorings of the SBC will continue.
What you are describing in this mega church is EXACTLY why the CP was brought into existence.
Pre-CP, missionaries had to go about soliciting funds for some 4 years to spend 1 on the mission field supported by many churches. Another type person would just join the big church capable of supporting him and have nothing to do with smaller churches wanting to send missionaries too.
The wise leadership of the SBC noted far more can be done collectively than when separated. They also formulated the idea of AUTONOMY so that no church had to give up its individual freedom to minisister or theologize. As long as you baptized by immersion / required individuals to declare their faith by public profession of it / there was virtually nothing more required.
The church decided to participate. The Association / State Convention / SBC simply received, with joy, their participation. There were NEVER requirements in reverse toward churches except their number of Messengers to the National Convention was dictated by their level of giving. No church could send more than 10 voting messengers, no matter how much was given. This kept any big churches from monopolizing Convention action.
I am surprised at what is being said about Ezell here. So far as I know, none of the commenters here know him or have even had a conversation with him.
I expressed an opinion that he didn’t consider NAMB “worthy” because he chose not to give to it believing direct spending was a better choice. His explanation was that he just did as a pastor what he thought was right. Now, as NAMB CEO, where $100m of his $130m budget comes from the sources he disdained, he will have to finesse that earlier attitude. We will see how well he can do it.
He would help himself by being open and transparent on finances. Disclose to the SBC public his employment contract including compensation and severance provisions. He has a tough job and ought to be paid well.
He had some early cringeworthy statements but seems more settled and I get the sense that he is genuine and reasonable.
I see no profit in bashing him early and often. NAMB is our dysfunctional agency. Let’s see if he can get it right this time.
William–
What you say is wise and insightful. In a way it is “poetic justice” that he now has to solicit funds from churches just like the one he lead = doing their own controlled thing!
We used to have budgets with line item disclosure of every employee’s income from the top down at the HMB headquarters.
Do you think that might be wise?
Most churches disclose line-by-line what the Pastor and Staff are paid. It works for the good, should a church be underpaying according to what members are making. They see it and insist on fairness. Really, 10 people tithing their income = pay to the preacher of equal value.
It seems in corporate America and mega church budgets, when you want to hide from the stockholders how much the CEO gets paid, it is probably too much.
Honesty and full disclosure is always the best policy when many people and their money is involved. It prevents scandal, should someone go snooping and cry “foul.”
“He had some early cringeworthy statements but seems more settled and I get the sense that he is genuine and reasonable. ”
No, he just learned not to express his own thoughts publicly. He is outside his protected Highview Bubble so he had to learn the hard way.
Read the Baptist Press interview on Friday, Oct 8. It doesn’t seem to me he has learned anything.
My question is: Wouldn’t it be more wise to treat everyone fairly at the NAMB by saying, “We have a shortfall in income, therefore we will all take equal percentage cuts to match that shortfall–starting with me as the newly elected leader.”
Now that is an honorable and honest approach to a problem brought on by his own church’s giving practices! He made it, now he can solve it by personal sacrifice at the receiving end of mission giving.
If he had the guts to do this, along with honesty, I would immediately give him the respect he deserves!
His church is not in trouble. The SBC and the NAMB are. Probably some of the solutions his church put into effect immediately without playing the “mother may I game” were necessary to keep it profitable and are some of the changes needed to keep the SBC from hemmoraging money. It might not be as simple as to where it’s spent but just not spending as much. That can’t happen without someone feeling the effects. Some much more than others. I , after 5 years senority, as a result of the Iranians turning the oil spicket off was laid off, sued for “specific performance” because I wouldn’t go ahead with a contract to buy a farm, and had a child born all in the same month. Ezell like most of us has experienced some of this but has to hand out the pink slips because it’s his job. No amount of belly acheing which is understandable is going to change anything but those numbers aren’t even out yet !
“”I am surprised at what is being said about Ezell here. So far as I know, none of the commenters here know him or have even had a conversation with him.””
Two things. 1) Ezell does not return communication, so he doesn’t care to talk with anyone not of his personal chosing (which is his right); 2) I only commented on what he said in print. “From the aboundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Words matter.
SSBN–
I was–and am–a critic of the way Dr. Ezell ran his church budget with respect to Missions.
I was also assured by one who knows him personally that he would be fair and open as he assumed his duties. That is all we can ask.
In return, I think we should give him a chance to show what he is made of.
It is my personal opinion that, rather than severely cut back on personel, he might consider all people taking cuts–including himself–so that staff salaries coincide with the current level of support.
As a small businessman I am dealing with earning 30% or what I did 3 years ago. I doubt the NAMB situation is that severe, but it needs addressing in honesty. If a church member it tithing on 70% less, he is still being faithful and the church needs to get in line with the realities of a failed economy.
Let’s just see what he will do to enlist churches like he led to change their mission giving attitude. If they don’t, we are lost in the area of cooperative giving in trust.
SSBN, so far you have criticized Ezell by putting words in his mouth, by referencing an entire interview, and by saying you don’t like his “tone”.
Can you do any better than that?
Yea, William, I can quote him but it won’t sound any better and I assumed you could read, so I didn’t want to be condescending. I did not put any words in his mouth — there isn’t room with his foot in there 🙂
CB,
I do think that there is more than a “tweaking” going on within the SBC and with CP. Where we end up is anyone’s guess at this point, but I am not confident that we will even have the same “identity” as we have had up to this point. I think we are moving back to a pre-1925 “more independent, less cooperative” model of missions, which does not bode well for the Convention as a whole.
My belief, which is why I have been so outspoken on this issue, is that when CP is so radically changed, then the very nature and identity of Southern Baptists will be radically changed, regardless of whether we have the same theology or not. Isn’t it interesting that you have conservative inerrantists who hold to basically the same theology but who are now at odds over methodology and, in some respects, ecclesiology? Phoenix should be a blast! Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Your sentiments are similar to mine. That is why I said the jury is still out as to the “tweaking” on this one.
I do think change is coming. And some of the change will be radical in nature. So I agree with in in that a “tweak” may become a complete “overhaul” in the end.
Isn’t it interesting that you have conservative inerrantists who hold to basically the same theology but who are now at odds over methodology and, in some respects, ecclesiology?
Well, as I see it there are conservative inerrantists and then there are conservative inerrantists. For instance there are conservatives who would be willing to work with moderates, give them representation and a voice in how the SBC is run. They themselves are not moderates and disagree with the mainstays of moderate theology (rejection of inerrancy, pluralism, etc) but are willing to agree to disagree with moderates and have no problem cooperating with them.
Then there are the real conservatives who not only reject (rightly) moderate theology but would never accomodate moderates or allow them to have any voice or representation because their beliefs are completely unbiblical.
The SBC should not unify itself around the structure of the Cooperative Program. The SBC should unify itself around a conservtive theology that rejects moderate theology and marginalizes moderates at every turn.
Joe,
Don’t have much time to respond today as I will be moderating our Association’s Annual Meeting starting in just a few hours at our church. But, since you quoted part of my comment directed to CB, let me take a moment and answer. If you think that those of us who question the prevailing movement regarding the Cooperative Program and the future of the SBC are not “real conservatives,” then I think we have a real language barrier. But, I’m not surprised at this reaction, since some within the SBC establishment, including at least one former SBC President on the floor of the Convention, threw out the “liberal” tag against those of us who were opposed to the GCR. Try as you might, you will not be able to tar all of the rank and file SBs who oppose the radical redefinition of the SBC with the worn out trope of liberalism.
Now, as a conservative, do I think that conservative, Baptist theology should be the criteria by which we lead as well as select our leaders? Yes. However, I’m not sure what you mean by “accomodating moderates” or “allowing them to have any voice.” Am I will wiling to talk to people and listen to people of all different theological persuasions? Yes. That doesn’t mean that I agree with them or would want them in leadership. But, I do not have to be obnoxious in my dealings with people that I “agree to disagree with” (I am even trying to follow that principle with you).
But if theology trumps cooperation at all levels, then someone should inform Dr. Richard Land that he doesn’t need to be a part of the black robe regiments that are being led by a Mormon by the name of Glenn Beck! Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
“radical redefinition of the SBC”???
I do not think the true “SBC Majority” who voted by an overwhelming majority in Orlando to approve the recommendations of the GCR task force would agree with your use of such “Radical Hyperbole” to describe what their actions.
Grace Always,
Greg,
The word “radical” was not used by me initially, but rather by Bryant Wright, the new President of the SBC. He used it both before his election as President and has continued to use it after his election. Therefore, I will continue to use the word, even if you or others do not think that it fits. And, I am most assuredly not using the word as hyperbole.
As to the true SBC Majority, I guess if you think that 75% of those who voted for the GCR, who in themselves represented about 10% of all SBC churches, constitutes a majority, then we will have to “agree to disagree” on the math. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I do not think opposition to the prevailing movement regarding the Cooperative Program and the future of the SBC makes one something other than a true conservative. My point was that there are people who call themselves conservative but would be willing to allow moderates to serve on boards and be employed by the SBC and there are real conservatives who would never consider such a thing. However, people who are pro-the current direction and anti-the current direction may not fall on one side or the other theologically.
As if not being sure about the future and direction of our Mission-sending agencies weren’t enough—now we are not sure if “evangelical” should be our banner or not.
NOBTS Provost undertakes its discussion:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11735&Itemid=53
Interesting—velly interesting—some of us remember “Laugh-In.”
My last comment, SSBN. You can do better but you will not? Got it. Good bye.
I like how William doesn’t mince words. I enjoy the relative hospitality and good sense at his blog though I disagree with him strongly on many points.
I wrote this to David Miller because I only wanted to address him rather than anyone else. At the time I wrote this post, I thought that all dissenting, rather than all dissenting with intent to impugn, discussion into the Conservative Resurgence was being shut down. I wanted to address my concerns to David Miller alone because public back and forth sometimes does more harm than good.
Here is my comment in its unedited fashion per David’s request:
“The problem with this stance is that the Conservative Resurgence is to the Southern Baptist Community as the Cold War, The Great Depression, or insert last major war here is to the global community.
It’s such a large, polarizing incident or event, that it paints much of the decision making, if not all decision made, over the past thirty years. It’s just like letting World War II paint much of what happened in the 1940s and early 1950s or acknowledging how much of the Cold War affect our view on the world during the 1960s all the way to the late 1980s.
Don’t arbitrarily delete any and all comments that reference the Conservative Resurgence because for many of us, it paints much of what has and what is going on in the Southern Baptist Convention. To deny discussion into the Conservative Resurgence is to stifle discussion and suppress opinion and that goes against what I’ve come to believe that this blogsite is trying to be here on the internet.
I’ll concede that there are some people who use this as nothing more than character assassination and I do have a problem with that. However, during the Conservative Resurgence did have instances which are questionable, regardless of theology, in how they were handled by the people in charge at that time. I think that it is healthy to discuss these instances so that maybe we can prevent either the build up to such extreme actions or find ways to avoid repeating these actions which have proven to be providing repercussions decades later.
You can’t tell me that the seminary climate during the height of the Conservative Resurgence didn’t have an impact on not only the student body, but also the professors and leadership at that time. I think that it’s going to be healthy to discuss this climate in order to prevent a future generation of academia from being afraid to teach because some student may be out to get a quote or something that could be used against them. Many of my friends were in seminary during this time and they all, to a man, agree that it was a very tense time and it distracted from the learning environment of the time.
I think it’s going to be healthy to look into the events leading up to the removal of the Baptist Press editors, the rapid installation of new editors, and the creation of the Associated Baptist Press. With blogging giving rise to Southern Baptist Commentators as well as alternative Southern Baptist News outlets, it’s going to be interesting to see how one entity views events compared to competing, alternative journalists.
I think it’s going to be healthy to compare and contrast the theological stances taken by our seminary professors before, during, and now after the Conservative Resurgence. To gauge and measure just how the pendulum is swinging and how to either stop it, slow it down, or set it swinging back to a favorable direction.
I think it’s going to be necessary to evaluate the decisions made by committees and individuals over the past thirty or forty years. By dissecting and objectively examining the decisions made, it will allow us to either spot mistakes and prevent them in the future or spot decisions which have proven to be very wise and figure out ways to implement them in other ways.
The problem is that those who have a negative or unfavorable view of the Conservative Resurgence, as well as those of us who agree in theory with the Conservative Resurgence but not all of its methods, have either associated the movement with just men and cannot separate the two, or simply run into a wall of stubbornness from those who choose not to discuss any aspects of the Conservative Resurgence.
For me personally, I am one of those who agree with the Conservative Resurgence in principle though I disagree with some minor doctrinal stances that have been taken and I also disagree with how some things went down in our leadership, our mission fields, and in our seminaries. That’s simply my own personal opinion.
It was a good thing overall in my opinion, but many things could have or should have been done differently.
If you don’t allow people to voice a dissenting opinion on something as significant as the Conservative Resurgence, then SBC Voices loses the one thing that other prominent Southern Baptist blogsites have already suppressed: Open discussion and debate. ”
I purposely was away from the computer all weekend. I had some projects to work on as well as visiting family. I also got to spend some time with my Great-Grandmother, who turn 103 a few days ago.
I hope everyone had a great weekend.
Thank you for posting this. I appreciate it.
The continued attacks on the GCR task force recommendations that were approved by an overwhelming margin in Orlando, and the continued sniping over the decision of the Board of Directors of NAMB to call Kevin Ezell as the new President of NAMB, are perfect examples of why many in my generation have washed their hands of the SBC. My question is not whether Kevin Ezell is worthy of leading NAMB or not… my question is “Why in the world would he want to?”
Some of you guys don’t believe in the Cooperative Program… all you are interested in is power and who is in ownership/control of the sacred “Cash Cow” of the SBC…. And YES I can spell SBC without “C.P.” My God is not limited by any “Program” of man.
P.S. – I have it on good authority that “Someone in the SBC”, who shall for now go unnamed, is organizing bloggers to write negative articles (Hit Pieces) attacking the general direction of the SBC as outlined by the GCR task force, and the new leadership of our agencies. I can’t begin to express to you how “Utterly Disgusting” this sort of behavior is to me!
Grace Always,
Greg,
I agreed with the 20% who voted against the GCR Task Force Recommendations. I also understood those recommendations to be “referrals” in nature, asking the entities to “consider” the actions proposed rather than necessarily “implementing” them. That’s the kind of language that was used and the substance of Dr. Mohler’s comments left the same impression. Now everyone is talking about “implementing” rather than “considering” which has me wondering about a false mandate.
Later, I disagreed with the 37 who voted for Dr. Ezell, agreeing instead with the 12 who opposed his candidacy. I don’t know if I’m “sniping” at him. I didn’t call him names like a housecoat wearing blogger living with his mother. (Maybe HE is the sniper.) With his poor record of NAMB support, unlike you I do question whether he is worthy to lead NAMB. However, I do agree with your excellent question: “Why in the world would he want to?” What might his motives be? Is there an agenda? Was it discussed in Task Force meetings? What are they up to? How exactly did the Pastor of the man who made the motion to form the Task Force wind up as the President of NAMB?
Is it your position that whoever is organizing the writing of articles in opposition to the new leadership is somehow doing something wrong? Can we tolerate no dissent? Must everyone agree and walk in lock step? Surely you don’t mean to imply that. Many of those with questions have principled concerns.
Which is worse? To have an open agenda in opposition to some unpopular decisions or to have a hidden agenda (say it with me again everybody, “fifteen years!”) which only breeds a level of distrust. Personally, I trust the people with the open agenda because they are very upfront about what they believe.
The hidden agenda folks are not nearly as forthcoming. Even in the announced retirement incentives, Dr. Ezell said he’s not sure what all the changes will be, but evidently he knows enough about what they will be to start downsizing. Does anyone else get the feeling he knows exactly what he is planning to do but is not telling anyone? That perhaps he has talked about how he might change NAMB with one of his influential former church members?
One final consideration: Why is it “utterly disgusting” to question our new leaders today when many of these same new leaders are the ones who openly questioned the old leaders a few years ago?
Rick, great post, thanks.
Rick,
Thanks for the comments. What you wrote is exactly where I am right now. And, for the record, I do not know you personally. I do not know personally the other folks that are coming out against the GCR Task Force Recommendations. I have not been asked to write “hit” pieces. That is so ludicrous, but is right out of the playbook that grassroots Southern Baptists are growing weary of. When things are done blantantly and when people say that they are for transparency and then unilaterally seal their own records for 15 years in an act of hubris, I will not be silent. And Greg’s comment above clearly illustrates that we are speaking at least two different languages in the SBC right now. And, I’m not sure they can be reconciled. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
The two languages thing is absolutely true.
I’m still not completely sure which I want to become fluent in.
Howell,
Perhaps you have not been ask to write “hit” pieces, but then why would anyone have to ask you to do what you are already doing? And you can be assured that I would not make such a claim if I did not have prof…
And yes we are speaking two very different languages in the SBC right now… One group is pressing forward toward a greater future for the SBC, a great commission future if you would, while another group is clearly afraid to let go of the past.
Greg,
It is my sincere hope that the SBC is heading toward a “Great Commission future” as you referenced.
Yet, a question does arise about the “past” of which you referenced also.
How much of the “past” should we let go? Are there specific elements of the past that we should maintain for stability as we seek a Great Commission future? Foundations are important Greg. They stabilize us as we venture upward.
Does that make any sense to you? Or am I in left field?
CB,
That makes perfect sense to me… and apparently it makes sense to the vast majority of those at this years convention in Orlando who approved the recommendations of the GCRTF but made it equally clear that we should not abandon the foundation of the Cooperative Program.
Support for the Cooperative Program, and support for the GCRTF recommendations (including Great Commission Giving) is not an “either or” choice… And I reject those who try to put forth this “False Dichotomy”.
The SBC is made up of a very diverse group of churches and it is pure ignorance to say that what works best for one type of SBC church in one location of the country is always what will work best for all others, and that we are going to limit participation in SBC leadership to only those who look, act, and function just like my church.
Grace Always,
Rick,
If we use your logic that a 75% vote at the annual convention is not reflective of the will of the churches of the SBC then we might as well stop having a convention.
You, as well as I, know that the convention does not have the authority to mandate anything to the entities of the SBC… the convention can only make it’s wishes known by “recommendations”… in this Dr. Mohler spoke with absolute integrity! Each Board of Trusties is now “Considering” how they will implement these “recommendations”.
I get the impression that your real problem is that you “lost the vote” in Orlando, and somehow can’t imagine that the majority of those in the SBC (at least the majority of the board members of our entities, and those who went to Orlando this last year) do not agree with your opinions… and now to make matters worse the Boards are actually moving the convention forward without asking Rick for permission.
“Which is worse? To have an open agenda in opposition to some unpopular decisions or to have a hidden agend…”
What “unpopular decisions”? Those that were approved by 75% in Orlando, or those that have been approved by the BOT of NAMB? News Flash Rick… Just because you do not like something does not make it unpopular with everyone else in the SBC.
Greg,
My hope is that the autonomous entities will not only consider “how” to implement the suggestions, but “whether” to implement them. The SBC was asking, not telling, right?
I don’t have a problem with boards doing things that I personally disagree with. They don’t have to ask me first. But I think you may be underestimating the opposition to the GCR. The articles by State Convention Presidents, the blogs, the split trustee votes for EC and NAMB, all these facts point to more division than the 80% motion to refer would indicate. In fact, as time goes on, I think we will see a trend. The Task Force was formed with 95%. The report passed with 80%. As the specific details unfold this percentage may continue slipping.
Granted, “popular” was not the right word. The decisions in Orlando, though sometimes clouded in parliamentary confusion involving only a partial debate of only one recommendation, were by definition “popular.” However, they were undoubtedly “questionable” in the minds of many. We should be allowed to continue asking those questions as long as our consciences dictate that we do so.
Greg,
I’m sorry that you see what I have written as “hit” pieces. Certainly that is your perogative to view them as such, but no one is forcing you or anyone else to read them. I am happy to write publicly, both here at Voices and on my own personal blog, and to take full responsibility for what I write.
From both your response to me and to Rick, I would assume that you are a supporter of President Obama and his policies, especially the Health Care Reform Legislation that will radically altar our nation’s economy and health care services. Why do I say that? Because you use the same rhetoric and arguments against GCR opponents that he used against conservatives who oppose (and still oppose) his policies. Just wondering. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
You can “assume” there is Cheese on the Moon if you like… but you better pack some peanut butter just in case, our you will be eating saltines by themselves.
Grace Always,
I’m not sure, Howell, but I have not seen anything that would indicate to me that Greg has many liberal-leaning bones in his body.
I don’t think Greg has “Liberal” bones, but I bet some of them are beginning to “lean.” He is not as young as he once was. 🙂
CB,
I don’t know about “leaning bones”, but they sure hurt more at 46 than they ever did at 36 🙂
I am learning first hand that “Getting old is not for the faint of heart!”
Greg,
No more true statement will be made today than “Getting old is not for the faint of heart!”
No doubt about it. A young person does not have the stamina to handle being old. Only an old guy has the heart for it.
Greg, CB, and Dave,
It is quite evident that we are speaking different languages on this issue. I should have been more clear in my writing and am tempted to try one more time, but I do not think that it would be productive. For the record, I believe that all folks that are proponents of the GCR, including Greg, are tried and true conservatives, both theologically and politically. When it comes to the GCR and the “radical” changes that have been proposed, I just find it interesting that these same theological and political conservatives are using some of the same rhetoric and tactics that they would abhor if used by President Obama and his allies in Congress. And Greg. I much prefer cheese or peanut butter on a Ritz! God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I think maybe you missed a couple of my comments. I don’t think we (you and I) are speaking “different languages on all things here.
CB,
My apologies, cousin. I missed the smiley face at the end of your earlier comment about Greg’s “liberal bones.” Based on your other comments, I did indeed misread your last comment. Sorry about that. I’m still not sure that some understand my use of Obama in my comparisons, but I trust that you got it. Thanks for the understanding. God bless,
Howell
WOW!!!‘
I think you are exposing some things which don’t want to be exposed.
It is a shame that the “back room” is running a show that the “front room” can’t quite believe could actually be happening! It’s not very pretty and it certainly does not follow the spirit of Christ in our day.
Just my opinion as one wishing the SBC could find it’s former success.
Greg:
I think that you have hit the nail on the head.
It’s not that talking about theology or developments in the SBC, pro or con, is a bad thing in and of itself.
But it’s the constant argument and the unfriendly nature of that argument that many people find to be a turn off.
I don’t believe that a church or denomination can make any decision and it not have consquences. But I do believe that churches or denominations that are following a positive direction for where they want to go spend their energies are acting more wisely and drive fewer people away with bellicose behavior.
Baptists may have always been this way – fighters. I don’t know. I joined my first Baptist church when I was 16.
Baptists dominated the religious press from 1979 through 1992 (the CR years) and they still get a healthy chunk of attention.
While I do not believe that it is possible or approriate to completley shut down all discussion regarding the CR or divisive topics, I do believe that Baptists should take all the energy they can possibly muster toward moving forward. The arguments can and will exist, but I sure wish they took up less energy and attention.
I, also, believe that you are right about the efforts of some who blog. If that effort is coordinated, that’s a pity. But there is nothing to do about that.
Those who are excited about the future, and I am one of them, simply need to do all that we can to talk about God is doing and where He may be leading us.
Going along with Martin Luther and Louis, I shall say of Louis’s comment: “Here I stand.”
BTW, I think Dr. Patterson said the same thing once. And he did…….stand, that is.
I don’t know if my solution will work, but I am weary of EVERY post becoming a CR free-for-all. So I just published a post on the CR and now everyone that wants to comment on the CR can do so there. I will delete CR-focused comments on other comment streams where they are not germane.
Maybe a bad solution, but its the one I came up with.
Thanks, Dave!!!
Good move!!!!
Gene,
Truthfulness should be the order of the day, don’t you think?
Dave, Howell, and CB,
What is your take on the response of the Louisiana Baptist Convention to the Great Commission Resurgence as reported here: http://baptistpress.net/BPnews.asp?ID=33803
(verses)
The response of the Florida Baptist Convention to the Great Commission Resurgence as reported here: http://www.gofbw.com/News.asp?ID=12172
???
Its clear to me that the people and entities of the SBC are most certainly NOT on the same page.
Greg,
I think that this shows that the language divide is much broader than some might want to acknowledge. Over the summer, I talked with my brother-in-law, who is a pastor in Florida. When he told me that there was an equivalent GCR Task Force for the Florida Baptist Convention and who was on it, I predicted to him that this committee would recommend a 50-50 split.
In state conventions like Florida and Kentucky, you have folks in leadership who are 100% behind the GCR. In states like Louisiana, you have folks in leadership who have serious concerns about the direction of the Convention. And, in both cases, you have solid conservatives. If one were to merely look at the vote in Orlando as providing a mandate for radical change while ignoring the “too close to call” vote on CP and “Great Commission Giving” and while ignoring the growing chorus of grassroots Southern Baptists who have expressed concerns, I think that this would be a strategic mistake.
In politics, whether of the government kind or the SBC kind, if you only surround yourself with people who share your views, you quickly get to a place where you don’t know anyone who would even think differently. The establishment leaders don’t need my advice, but if they were so inclined to listen, I would tell them to pull back, publicly acknowledge that people have legitimate concerns, and try to build bridges with rank and file Southern Baptists at the local and state convention levels. If they are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as trying to push something through from the top down, then I think the groundswell of opposition to the reorganization of the Convention will continue to grow. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Do you think it is healthy for the future of cooperation within the SBC to have the leadership of one entity (Louisiana Baptist Convention) publicly question/criticize the decision of the Board of Trusties of another SBC entity in selecting their leadership?
How do you think the leadership of the Louisiana Baptist Convention would feel if the roles were reversed and the Board of Trusties of NAMB passed a resolution calling into question the wisdom of LBC selection of it’s leadership?
In the past there has been an unwritten rule of decorum in the SBC that the leadership of one SBC entity does not publicly criticize another SBC entity. In my opinion these actions by the LBC are completely inappropriate, and instead of helping to create a greater atmosphere of cooperation and unity in the SBC as we seek to move forward they have the potential of creating a major devision in the SBC.
This may currently be playing well to the “home crowd” there in Louisiana but this could end very badly for all Louisiana Baptist if it turns out to be the spark that leads to an explosion within the SBC, or the actions that lead to a division within the LBC as we have seen in Texas in the past.
Grace Always,
Greg,
I’m not sure that you are saying this, but if you mean that no other autonomous state convention of Southern Baptist churches can publicly question/criticize a decision of another entity, then I think we would have had a problem with the CR back in the day. However, I think the bigger issue is how folks are seeing what is happening today. When there is dysfunction and a move in a direction that churches or conventions believe is harmful, then I think it is incumbent upon them to speak out. That should always be done in a spirit of love, but sometimes that will be forcefull.
What is unhealthy in our Convention is a group who says that they want to create an atmosphere of transparency and trust within our Convention, but then does the opposite. I would encourage you to read Peter Lumpkin’s comments about the CR at http://www.peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2010/10/do-gcr-opponents-talk-to-each-other-howell-scott-thinks-so-by-peter-lumpkins.html(full disclosure — the post is a link to one of mine). Peter sees the GCRTF and the CR as totally different and I agree, which should not surprise you.
Of course, the NAMB leadership is not “their” leadership but “our” leadership, in the sense that NAMB should serve the churches of the SBC, which is what we are constantly told. By the way, those unwritten rules always come in handy if you are on the side that the rules would benefit. Otherwise, not so much. Thanks for the continued dialogue and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
“When there is dysfunction and a move in a direction that churches or conventions believe is harmful, then I think it is incumbent upon them to speak out.”
Again you make an unfounded accusation against the current leadership of the SBC… What “dysfunction” are you referring to?
Those who were opposed to the GCRTF recommendations did speak out… We had a lengthy discussion leading up to the convention in Orlando and a spirited debate at the convention itself. Then the vote was taken and the recommendations were approved by an overwhelming majority. The debate is over… and now many of us want to move on toward a era of greater cooperation and renewed focus on church planting and missions in the SBC. But unfortunately, what we are confronted with is a group of “Anti-Great Commission Resurgence” activist who are attempting to undermine and make null and void the will of the convention expressed in Orlando.
No thanks on anything written by Lumpkins… his reputation is w-i-d-e-l-y known.
Yes! “the NAMB leadership is not “their” leadership but “our” leadership” and our leadership at NAMB has selected a highly qualified and godly man to lead “our” NAMB. Now you need to respect their decision and move on… just as you ask those in your church to do when they loose a vote. Or do you allow the sniping and bickering to go unchecked for months or years afterwards?
And whether you agree with the current leadership of the SBC or not, what LBC has done is a “Major” breach of acceptable SBC conduct. It will have consequences, and I can see nothing good coming out of this very unwise decision.
Grace Always,
As we used to say (for those old enough to remember him): “It’s as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face.”
“”Of course, the NAMB leadership is not “their” leadership but “our” leadership, “”
In the same way President Obama is “my president” 🙁
Greg,
I suppose “dysfunction” is in the eye of the beholder. That you don’t see it just goes to prove the point of my original post, namely that we have folks who are speaking two different languages mainly because they are seeing things differently. As I have already referred to some of the dysfunction prior, it would do me no good to keep referring to it because you either do not see it or wish to see it.
Can one still be in favor of a Great Commission Resurgence within our churches and Convention and yet oppose the recommendations of the GCRTF or do you equate the two?
Last I checked, NAMB and IMB and the organizational structure of the SBC, including the seminaries, is not a church. Therefore, your church analogy simply does not apply, although you took a good shot at it.
The entities represent and serve the churches that make up our Convention. The Trustees are supposed to represent the churches of the Convention. The “will of the convention” may have been expressed in Orlando, but it was the will of about 10% of all Southern Baptist churches. You might think that this reflects the will of the 42,000+ churches that make up the SBC, and you may be right. But, common sense and political wisdom would indicate that you might not be.
I know that the establishment would love for Southern Baptists to just “shut up and move on,” but that is not going to happen, as is evident by the LBC. And, those in power have no one to blame but themselves for how the GCRTF was handled, from start to finish. When you go from 95% in favor one year to 75% in favor the following year, that’s not a good trajectory. The major breach started long before Lousiana had their say, but you probably will not see it that way. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
“Can one still be in favor of a Great Commission Resurgence within our churches and Convention and yet oppose the recommendations of the GCRTF or do you equate the two?”
When it comes to those who are truly in favor of a Great Commission Resurgence “actions speak louder than words.” So far I have seen absolutely nothing form the Anti-Great Commission Resurgence activist (including the LBC) that would indicate they are in favor of pursuing anything even closely related to a Great Commission Resurgence. If they are truly committed to a Great Commission Resurgence but just do not like the recommendations of the GCRTF then where are their recommendations? What is the LBC planning to do differently? Keep 100% of the CP for themselves?
“Last I checked, NAMB and IMB and the organizational structure of the SBC, including the seminaries, is not a church. Therefore, your church analogy simply does not apply, although you took a good shot at it.”
That comment sure came from left field… Go back and actually read what I wrote, I never said they were a church… and Yes the analogy does apply… sniping and bickering is sniping and bickering no matter the context.
“The Trustees are supposed to represent the churches of the Convention.”
So it is you assertion that the Trustees of NAMB have gone rouge and are not representing the churches of the Convention? Wow!
“The “will of the convention” may have been expressed in Orlando, but it was the will of about 10% of all Southern Baptist churches.”
Again your lack of respect for the “will of the convention” when it is not in agreement with your opinions is just staggering! I will say it again, if we are just going to ignore the will of the annual convention each year because my church, my local association, or my state convention did not get what they wanted… then why even have a convention at all? If that be the case, then all cooperation is out and the convention is dead.
“The major breach started long before Louisiana had their say,”
Finally we agree…Yes the major breach started long ago, when the State Convention executives began to view the Cooperative Program as “their money” to do with as they pleased, and not “our money” entrusted into their hands in order to further the work of the Great Commission… That, my brother, is the root of this division.
Grace Always,
“”How do you think the leadership of the Louisiana Baptist Convention would feel if the roles were reversed and the Board of Trusties of NAMB passed a resolution calling into question the wisdom of LBC selection of it’s leadership?””
I think this is a mistaken understanding of the polity of the SBC that is an underlying problem: NAMB does not have the same rights as a local church.
The implication of your question has the tail wagging the dog, or the cart before the donkey. NAMB is not the local church and therefore has a “limited autonomy” when compared to the local church.
I should clarify: the State Convention is closer to the local church so shares more fully in the autonomy of the local church.
I would agree that neither the State Convention nor NAMB should be having these types of volleys. It should be the local church making these types of determinations.
I think we have two many hogs at the trough.
SSBN,
“I would agree that neither the State Convention nor NAMB should be having these types of volleys. It should be the local church making these types of determinations.”
EXACTLY!!!
Greg,
I am sorry that you have such a poor opinion of State Conventions and the faithful men and women who strive to carry out the Great Commission on a daily basis. That you have “seen absolutely nothing from the Anti-Great Commission Resurgence activist (including the LBC) that would indicate they are in favor of pursuing anything even closely related to a Great Commission Resurgence” says more about your views than I could ever hope to elicit from you in ongoing dialogue. And, by the way, I’m sure glad that conservatives back in the 1970s and 80s showed a “lack of respect” for the will of the convention. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
It is clear that you wish to end our little debate, so I will let you go after this comment.
You say:
“I am sorry that you have such a poor opinion of State Conventions and the faithful men and women who strive to carry out the Great Commission on a daily basis. “
For the record, I believe that there are many faithful men and women who are doing a great job in our State Conventions… I did not say otherwise, and I will not let you hang that stone around my neck. This debate is not about the quality, or commitment, of those who serve in our State Conventions… this debate is about examining our priorities as Southern Baptist and reallocating our mission recourses accordingly.
You say:
“I’m sure glad that conservatives back in the 1970s and 80s showed a “lack of respect” for the will of the convention.”
When I say “the will of the convention”… I mean the will of the churches as reflected by the resolutions passed at the annual conventions of the SBC, and not necessarily the will of the current leadership of the convention, whomever that may be. And please don’t take this personally, but I do not think those who are currently positioning themselves in opposition to the recommendations of the GCRTF as approved in Orlando are on the same side as the conservatives who took back control of the convention from the liberals in the 70’s & 80’S.
The convention has spoken… and what the convention has clearly said is: (1) put more of our recourses into church planting and missions work, and (2) do not abandon the C.P. Now, what I find very telling is the response to the will of the convention by the leadership of some states verses the response of others. (Louisiana vs. Florida) One has clearly taken a “Confrontational Stance” while the other has taken a “Cooperative Stance”… And if even I can recognize this difference for what it truly is, you can bet others throughout the SBC recognize it as well.
Grace Always,
Greg,
I do believe that our debate has hit an impasse. That you think Florida has taken a “cooperative stance” while Louisiana has taken a “confrontational stance” goes to the very heart of my post. In regards to the “Great Commission Resurgence,” we are speaking different languages.
Although I do not know you personally, I don’t believe that I have ever questioned your personal commitment to fulfiling the Great Commission. I don’t believe that I have questioned the establishment’s commitment and passion for the Great Commission. I don’t believe that Dr. Hankins and or Morris Chapman have questioned others’ commitment to the Great Commission. What has been questioned is the structural reorganization that is being proposed through the GCRTF Recommendations. If questioning or opposing the implementation of some of those recommendations and structural changes is now considered to be “anti-Great Commission,” then I’m afraid we are headed for some very rough seas ahead.
Thanks for the spirited debate. And, even though we may agree to disagree, I hope that you will continue to experience a true Great Commission Resurgence where God has planted you and that you and your church have a great Kingdom Impact. God bless,
Howell
Just for the record: I doubt Greg’s opinion of State Conventions can be any lower than my opinion of California’s. It’s a money pit that recycles the last names of generations of new theocrats.
Greg,
Does this unwritten rule of decorum in which the leadership of one SBC entity refuses to criticize another SBC entity also apply to, say, the President of Southeastern Seminary criticizing, say, the North American Mission Board, the State Conventions, and the Executive Committee?
Rick,
I know where you are going… and just to show you that I believe this sort of thing is harmful to our cooperative efforts as Southern Baptist no matter who is doing it… YES!
Your consistency is admired. So would you also agree, then, that the driving force behind the GCR was rooted in the kind of public criticism that should never have taken place? It follows that if the earlier criticism never happened, then the later counter-criticism would never have happened either.
Rick,
I agree that some things were said that should not have been said, and that our cooperative efforts are now suffering because of these statement.
However, what the LBC has done is far more egregious because it is targeted directly at the BOT of NAMB, and is not the sort of general criticism of the SBC priorities as a whole we saw leading up to the convention in Orlando.