Dr. Hillard has led the churches he served to give generously and sacrificially to the Cooperative Program. He has a passion for partnership missions and for reaching unreached peoples with the gospel of Jesus Christ. As he has shared his thoughts with me, I invited him to present them in a post here at SBCVoices. Dr. Hillard currently serves as Director of Missional Coordination for the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana.
Southern Baptists are among the greatest people on Earth. We have accomplished much in this world. We have done more good than any other faith group in history. For nearly three decades, I have been committed, invested, and a glad partner with other Southern Baptists. I have been privileged and blessed to serve through the local church, association, state convention, and Southern Baptist Convention. My experience has been broad and has greatly enriched my life.
Yet, I am becoming deeply concerned over some things appearing on the horizon. We are being led down a slippery slope of drastically redefining what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist. The ability to cooperate in Kingdom advance is the Biblical model.
The Cooperative Program is truly a God-send, and the primary tool of the greatest missiological movement the world has ever known. We are better together; we accomplish more as a group than we can accomplish alone. Why do we see churches and ministries working in isolation?
If we don’t stop our drift, the ecclesiological footprint of Southern Baptists, will become less apparent. We can avoid this awful tragedy by becoming more intentional in our efforts of cooperating in Kingdom advance I would like to offer three suggestions to the Southern Baptist Convention.
- Stop Recognizing Great Commission Giving.
The spirit of cooperation among Southern Baptists has slipped to the point that for the first time in Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) history, dating back to 1929 when a unified national budget was first proposed, designated receipts topped Cooperative Program gifts distributed by the SBC Executive Committee for the last three years running (https://www.baptistmessenger.com/designated-receipts-top-cp-gifts-the-sbc-ship-of-state-is-in-peril).
Churches have always been free to support projects they feel strongly about. The church I currently am a member of does this and so does many other strong mission minded congregation. We give 13% through the CP and have also partnered in church planting, and in several international settings. We recognize though that the chief way we partner with other Southern Baptists is our giving through the CP.
Of course, Kingdom work happens apart from the CP but the CP is the best vehicle we have to work together. The philosophy of celebrating societal or designated giving will be the death of us. The category “Great Commission Giving” celebrates and encourages what is done in isolation instead of together. Does that make sense in a Spirit of unity and cooperation? Doesn’t it seem arrogant and prideful to demonstrate that we don’t need the help of others? Yes, and yes.
- Elect Stronger Examples of Sacrificial Giving through the CP.
A great disconnect exists between many leaders paraded in front of us and those who make up the majority membership of our Southern Baptist churches. I would never want to attack the character of anyone, but many among smaller and medium-sized churches, which make up the overwhelming majority of the SBC, are becoming wearied with the elected and appointed leaders in strategic positions.
Too often, these leaders give only token amounts to that which has always defined what a “Cooperating Southern Baptist Church” looks like.
Here is the question I ponder; “do we have the right to expect that those representing us should cooperate sacrificially through Convention causes?” It is my opinion that we should never award the mantle of leadership to someone who gives well below the national average of giving through the CP. The national average of CP giving is somewhere between 5.5-6%. Why would we even consider someone who gives 2-3% through the Cooperative Program? That is not strong enough, not by a longshot.
We need to start demanding more from anyone who wants to lead.
- Raise the Bar as to the Expectation of Healthy Cooperation.
I have really appreciated the conversation the 1% CP Challenge has brought. It has been healthy for the Convention, and has shined a needed light on mission and ministry fueled through the Cooperative Program. If you have brought your church through the 1% Challenge, we are grateful for your leadership.
However, I am a dreamer. Can you imagine with me what we could do in Kingdom advance if every church in the SBC gave at least 10% through the CP? WOW, what resources we would have. If there were more 10%ers there wouldn’t be a need for an IMB draw down of nearly 1100 missionaries. There wouldn’t be a need to let off the gas pedal of church planting because of lack of funding. We would have a surplus instead of a shortfall!
I don’t know, perhaps I am off base. And it could be that I’m alone in how I view things. But, I have really thought about it and don’t think so. Surely there are others, who see a tremendous disconnect between what our leaders are saying and what they are doing.
Here is the question I want to ask; “Is it time for rank and file Southern Baptists to define the kinds of leaders we want?” Should there be a stronger expectation for someone to be elected to positions like convention presidents, agency heads and trustees within Southern Baptist life?
I am concerned and thinking…
Rick Hillard
I’m Bart Barber, and I approve of this post.
But, to be honest, I can’t imagine that we could go from 11% CP to 21% CP.
Bart, the vision is for every church to give at least 10% through the CP. Not a 10% increase, but to give at least 10%…
I agree wholeheartedly with these thoughts. My name is Rob Ayers by the way.
Rob
Rob, thanks! Feel free to share the post…
We will not go back to the days of 10+% average CP giving for some very good and persuasive reasons, reasons that have led to churches of all sizes decreasing their percentages. The CP is still a powerhouse of SBC cooperation, almost half a billion dollars flow through it. These laments for yesteryear rarely address or even speculate about why we have had a decades-long trend of declining percentages. Wouldn’t that be a logical inclusion?
On the author’s points.
1. We could drop GCG and maybe we should. I’m open to being persuaded about that, but the convention saw fit to create the category. Is it a realistic expectation that dropping the category will lead to increased CP giving? I think not.
2. I believe that a threshold CP percentage should be expected for elected leaders, committee members, and trustees. Is the author afraid to state flatly that Ronnie Floyd is an unacceptable president even though his church give $1 million to the CP? The percentage is low. The author chose not to do this, perhaps because SBC messengers have consistently elected low percentage, high dollar presidents. Who then is out of step with the SBC’s declared wishes?
Let a high percentage pastor be nominated to run against Gaines and Greear. The latter’s church has had 149 missionarys appointed and serve through IMB. Should greear feel guilty because his is a 2% or so church?
We all support cooperation but I’m flummoxed about this type of article. It looks like the same kind of boilerplate CP promotion I’ve read for almost 40 years.
I’d be interested in finding out what good and persuasive reasons of why it is appropriate to drop giving percentages through the CP. I have heard the arguments and haven’t heard a good one yet.
Would love to know what you are thinking…
What I think is that it is manifestly arrogant for anyone to argue that the measure of healthy cooperation is 10%, as if the percentage is a birthright.
In general, churches of all sizes have evaluated their CP giving and concluded that they have better uses for some of that money, simple opportunity cost evaluations. Such has been persuasive to these thousands of individual, autonomous churches. I suspect that you have heard thousands of reasons that proved good enough to individual congregations. That you have never heard a reason sufficient for you to be persuaded is irrelevant, though I respect your opinion.
One common trend is that churches have considered that it is more efficient for reaching the nations to increase Lottie Moon (or maintain it while decreasing CP) rather than increase or maintain CP giving. The difference is about fourfold.
State conventions, which consume about 63 or so cents of a CP dollar, have not been good stewards of the funding.
The CP has been and is our primary cooperative funding mechanism but we have never NOT had a dual system, cooperative and societal. That the latter has (at the SBC level) surpassed the former is not surprising.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate that. I just am trying to spur a healthy conversation; one that I think needs to happen.
Let me respond by saying I am not sure that 10% is the exact measure of a cooperative spirit. I use it as an example; it t is the only % I can find mentioned specifically in the Scripture.
I have heard it said that State Conventions are poor stewards of resources entrusted to them from churches.
I can only speak about Indiana, but I don’t think you will find an “in the know” Hoosier Baptist that would say this. And in Indiana, there is a plan in place that increases the % forward on to the Executive Committee.
If problems exist in a State Convention somewhere why would those involved not work to solve the problem? It seems like solid leadership works to fix an existing problem instead of ignoring it.
We all know about the IMB and NAMB’s mismanagement of resources. It has handicapped the Kingdom greatly, but I would never recommend not giving through Lottie and Annie. Instead, we should “work together” to solve any problems.
Also, to me it is interesting to watch the actions of some of those who have been mentioned in some responses. The song they sing is always different just before an election. These always seem to become very traditional just before their election…
Or, one could wonder what it is about a way of missions funding that it would inspire 40 years of the promotion of its benefits.
Still does. I’ve always been a supporter.
WT-you beat me to the punch. I am more than tired, frustrated and flummoxed with such articles.
I thought that
1. SBC churches prized their autonomy. What is wrong with GCG? Churches have long been lamblasted, frustrated and made to feel guilty by the “powers that be” long enough. Does the CP want us to stop giving to the GCG all together? I personally think that GCG actually makes churches feel more personally involved in missions.
2. Again, small church pastors are continually frustrated by the “in crowd” and many feel like they myst follow the “party line”.
3. Its the blame game ie “you people are not doing enough”. Again, these old canards are a shame to those who promulgate them only they are too slow to know.
I know this has come off heavy handed.
May God grant us all grant grace in these times
Bill Mercer
Romans 5:1
Can’t quite figure out what you are saying here, but I do love Romans 5:1!
I appreciate that Rick has responded to some of the comments.
Perhaps he would answer a few questions:
1. Why the tirade against GCG? GCG is mostly Lottie and Annie. Is it arrogant and prideful to give to those? It is uncooperative to combine with almost all other SB churches to put $225 million or so into the mission boards, a few thousand dollars per church?
2. Who inscribed in stone that 10% is the measure of healthy cooperation?
3. What kind of scheme to increase cooperation among churches begins by labeling half or most of them insufficiently cooperative for their members to be elected or put on boards?
4. Haven’t we learned that attempting to shovel a load of guilt on a pastor or church whose giving is below the SBC average doesn’t work?
5. Token amounts? Floyd has a million dollar token. Gaines and Greear, several hundred thousand dollar tokens. These are unworthy?
I’m among those who are wearied of our celebrity system and who would like to see a non-celebrity SBC president, someone like Bart Barber or Dave Miller. But it’s tough for me not to think that people like Bryant Wright, Ronnie Floyd, Steve Gaines (and his predecessor Adrian Rogers), and J. D. Greear are not good examples of cooperative Southern Baptists.
State conventions and their associated staff had better start getting some fresh ideas about cooperation. They have the most to lose if they don’t.
“State conventions and their associated staff had better start getting some fresh ideas about cooperation. They have the most to lose if they don’t.
William Thornton,
This is a bold statement on your behalf and I give a hat’s off to you for making it publicly.
Every time I read an article like this from a state convention guy I can’t help but wonder if the salaries of the administrative employees in his state convention are known by the affiliated churches in his convention.
William Thornton, I know and maybe you do also, some state convention guys are living way too high of the hog on CP funds.
Forbid that I would ever disagree with CB on one of these blog things (I cannot think of any time I have in ten years on blogs = wow) but I will just a pinch here. Suffice it to say I do believe that much of he work of the State Convention is duplicitous with what the church and the local association does (and would much prefer proximity to resources than distance) but you are here pretty much throwing out the whole thing = baby, bath water and all. While I will bow to your estimable experience and knowledge on these matters, is it true that all state convention workers and leaders are only concerned about their jobs? Can a person who represents the State Convention who writes about the work of the Cooperative Program have godly and good intentions in mind besides their own livelihood? As example is a Pastor only thinking about his pocketbook when he preaches on the worthiness of sacrificial giving to his congregation?
Rob
Thanks for your comment Rob. It is my heart to see Southern Baptists Cooperate in Kingdom advance as we never have before.
It breaks my heart when there are thousands of unreached people groups who need the gospel of Jesus and we have to lessen what we do in reaching the nations. It breaks my heart to know that we (Indiana) have been asked to not plant so many church because of funding issues.
To me it is pretty clear that we need to be able to divvy up more resources instead of learning to do with less…
“I do believe that much of he work of the State Convention is duplicitous”
I think you need a different word there.
Rob Ayers,
I can’t properly respond now, have to go to Lexington to visit in hospitals. I will respond later. But take note, Rick Hillard did not respond to my comment. Rather, he thanked you for your comment to me and then stated, “It breaks my heart when there are thousands of unreached people groups who need the gospel of Jesus and we have to lessen what we do in reaching the nations.”
Reaching the nations was not what I raised as a concern. My concern is bloated bureaucracy over-paid personnel in state conventions
CB Scott,
I hope your hospital visits went well.
I wound reply that if there is a “bloated bureaucracy” found in State Conventions why wouldn’t those who are part of that Convention work to fix it? That would seem like wise leadership to me. I can’t speak to what happens in others places, but I feel like if that was the case in Indiana we’d have some wise and godly pastors nip it in the bud!
The answer to mismanagement of God’s resources is to fix the problem; not to pull funding away and divert it to some other cause…
I don’t buy the ‘wise leadership’ presumption that a pastor or church who concludes that there are better ways to spend his church’s mission funds than his present CP percentage needs to try and change his state convention (or SBC) allocation formula. His church need only adjust their budget, something done without making motions that would surely mark him as uncooperative in his state.
You start with an assumed position that 10% is the measure of a cooperative church and then try argue that what departs from that has to be justified by working within the present system to effect changes. Nonsense. The starting point is that the local church is king and whatever a state, association, or national entity receives should be justified by those entities to the local church rather than handed down by fiat from the denominational structures.
No one has said anything about bloated bureaucracies here and you err in resurrecting that phrase.
William,
C.B. mentioned bloated bureaucracies just above Rick’s comment.
Yeah, I missed it. Being the diplomat that I am, I merely said that state conventions were not good stewards. CB has license to be more pointed, since he knows more than I do.
In Rick’s defense, he’s only been a state convention guy for a few months. For the last 20 years, he has pastored SBC churches and has lived out what he’s proposing here. He and I had the same conversation (debate) when I was supporting GCR and Great Commission Giving a few years ago. I invited him to share his views here.
Token amounts William in comparison to what their church has received in terms of non-designated giving. Seems to me I read something somewhere…perhaps it was the New Testament, I don’t recall…what was it…something about a treasury and the the rich guys walking by and giving a lot, while a poor widow putting in the mite. What was the Lord’s reaction to those gifts…something to the effect, “they gave out of their surplus, while she gave out of her want.” Something to that effect, right?
Now I know why the larger churches of the Wright’s, Grears, Gaines, Floyds and the like give only a small percentage toward the Cooperative Program. They have a fairly extreme and large set of expenses, and they prefer to give to their preferences (often cutting out the State Conventions to boot). Call that cooperative or not. I know what I call it :-).
Rob
This. And often times just before an election the traditional approach suddenly become more appealing…
Call it what you will, Rob, but the million dollars pays a lot of state convention bills, far more than the dollars represented by the higher percentages of hundreds of smaller Arkansas Baptist churches combined. The dollars don’t mean that Floyd’s church is superior but neither do the smaller percentages mean they are inferior.
It’s tough for me to see a pathway to greater cooperation by use of this business of demeaning churches that give less than the overall SBC average, yet we see this attempted regularly.
While I wait on my ride, I want to say, “Ten Ring at One Thousand Yards” to the following statement of William Thornton:
“It’s tough for me to see a pathway to greater cooperation by use of this business of demeaning churches that give less than the overall SBC average, yet we see this attempted regularly.”
You are right as the rain, William Thornton. The way of the “strong arm tactic of shaming” will not work any longer in Southern Baptist life.
Not wanting to “strong arm” or “shame,” or even bully anyone. Asking for stronger support across the board of convention life is hardly that.
I wonder how the local church would be affected if this same spirit of cooperation is sen there?
I still remember that struggle I had at my first church when some sweet ladies in our fellowship decided to give their tithe to remodel the church restrooms. Man, that hurt everything our church wanted to do. We finally had to nip that in the bud! The same principle should apply across the board in Convention life.
The SBC isn’t a church.
Put this under the category of “divine blessing” William = somthing that is lacking these days it seems in an environment that only sees what we can do versus what God can do. It used to be that thousands of churches banded together and sacrificially gave to the cause of the Kingdom of God = doing together what they could not do alone. God blessed those gifts and multiplied them to where those churches (mainly small churches) put together a couple of formidable mission sending agencies that went about the world sharing the Gospel. Now those churches did not give much but they gave sacrificially = for many they gave above their own comforts. Now we have churches who invest in facilities, staffs, programs, expensive video and audio equipment, stage lighting, youth buildings, children’s buildings, multi-purpose centers, fancy baptistries, yada yada yada. We forget the words that the Lord Jesus told the church of Ladocia thinking we are rich and put in much when we are merely poor. God uses the five loaves and two fish to feed the thousands = while the millions given as mere excess loses the jobs of 1,000 missionaries and staff.
Rob
The use of the tenth/tithe found in the Bible relative to the CP is old, tired, inapplicable, and phony. But Greear’s church “tithes” their massive budget TO THE SBC, yet Rick Hillard has a problem with that. I suppose you do too, but you are welcome to state yea or nay on that for yourself.
I appreciate anyone who gives through the CP and I am grateful for the 2.5% that Greear’s church gives. But I do know this; many people model what they see in the elected leaders of our convention. Powerful statements are made with how we direct our resources. My desire would be for leaders to be all-in in all phases of SBC leadership.
It is concerning to me that the two candidates thus far mentioned have demonstrated a disconnect I the local and regional level. They have led their churches, until just recently, they completely cut out the regional level (State Convention) from their resource distribution.
Again, I think great leadership demands attention to be given to where a problem is occurring instead of cutting and running. I know it is convenient and easy to cut and run, that is what our society all too often does, but it is not good leadership.
Seems like we would need good leaders as heads of our organizations.
I am a strong believer in the CP, and passionate about it. Sorry if it comes off corny, but the old, “we can do more together than we can separately” is a fact for my church!
But I have no objection to the GCG. It’s not “lone ranger” giving. It’s giving to (as I understand it) SBC causes, but not through the specific channels.
For instance, what we spend on our mission trips to Africa is GCG. If we gave directly to IMB or NAMB, that would be GCG. World Hunger money is GCG.
Why is there any problem with tracking and reporting BOTH CP and GCG? If CP was no longer reported, and it was completely replaced by GCG, it would be a problem. But if both numbers are reported, no problem. If a candidate for office is giving a certain amount through the CP, then massive amounts directly to the IMB, it is a factor I consider in my vote.
Maybe he and his church aren’t happy with their state convention.
Maybe they just have a particular passion, Is that wrong?
But as long as CP giving is reported, there is NOTHING HURT by also reporting GCG – not instead of CP but in addition to it.
BINGO! (wanted to steal CB’s ten ring at a thousand yards…but am afraid that might be trademarked by now O:-) ).
Dave, I think you’ve nailed it here regarding the definition of GCG. It’s not a detriment to the convention at all. Both CP and GCG should be reported and celebrated. We should all be challenged to determine what more our churches could be doing in both avenues of giving.
More simply, can someone give me one good reason why that GCG # should NOT be reported? If they said that it was going to replace CP giving, fine. I’d oppose that. But have both numbers reported – what’s the problem with that?
Some state conventions do not ask for GCG on their version of the ACP. Such is their option.
GCG is giving to southern baptist causes, mostly Annie, Lottie, and CP. Those who object to such a figure believe, I presume, that it is a measure of how uncooperative a church might be.
Very few churches take their “CP” money and send it directly to the Executive Committee, bypassing their state convention. But many churches have put more emphasis on the two major mission offerings that we have had for a century. Those who want to make a problem out of GCG may be said to have a problem with Lottie and Annie, because GCG’s major components aside from CP giving itself, are made up primarily of those two.
My concern is that GCG is working to downplay the importance of our cooperation together. Just look at the last three years running; more designated money is given than cooperative money. I think that hurts the Kingdom. The problem is that people follow ascended leadership and the example they set…
We all know that the biggest portion of CP money goes to IMB, NAMB and the seminaries. Isn’t the
IMB drawdown concerning? If there were more CP dollars, of which a big portion goes to the IMB, would the drawdown have been necessary? I think it would have made a big difference. The same scenario is now currently be played out @ NAMB with church planting. Suddenly resources have dwindled to the point that church planting has to be suppressed. If there were more CP dollars both of these agencies, who do great work, would be helped.
How is GCG not cooperation? It is money given by a local church to SBC causes.
It is not CP. True. It is generally bypassing the state convention. But it is money given to mission causes by Baptist churches.
.
Of course, it is not shared by our formula, so in that sense, the church, not the CP, is deciding it’s destination. I don’t think it’s destructive, though.
Dave, I appreciate you very much.
The local church must be free to direct it money as they see fit. That is a hill worth dying on to me, but I do want to use whatever voice I have to cause us to think through our actions.
Many times GCG is included in a category that is separate from the CP, Lottie, or even the Annie offerings. More and more churches are reporting as GCG what their investment is on an international mission trip, sponsoring of a non SBC missionary, (e.g.) etc.,
I am not saying churches shouldn’t do this. The churches of my involvement along with being a 10%er in CP giving, and top 10 Lottie and Annie giving in our State Convention has given given thousands and thousands of dollars to such causes and I felt great about it.
But when we have designated funds this way it wasn’t done in cooperation with others in the SBC. It was done apart from them. One of the things that has made Southern Baptists great over the years is what we chose to do together. It is my opinion that leaders ought to demonstrate this.
If I can speak of pride here I will share about my church. Our church gives 13% to the CP. We also give generously to Lottie and Annie, being most always in the top 20 or 30 in our state per capita giving. We give 6% to our Association. We support a couple of local ministries yearly (which we don’t count to GCG). We have an IMB missionary currently being processed into the world = we have given generously to that purpose (which we don’t count). We have had a Wycliffe translator come share with us and we have contributed to his ministry (which we don’t count). We have had several members go on various mission trips about and around the world and have supported them (which we don’t count). I think this illustrates the issue here = things that we have been doing and are doing and will do we have always done. We are debt free (and always have been) and we keep the pews comfortable and the heat and the cool on. Yet approximately 25% of UNDESIGNATED receipts we send off to missions around the country and around the world. Add in the designated gifts for certain offerings and our church has done well = the people have the vision and it is not about us. It is about Him.
Rob
Well, I guess you and I have different understandings of GCG. Frankly, I’m not sure we report GCG at all, but if we did, any money we give to non-SBC causes wouldn’t be part of that. I’d only report SBC-related $$
Rick said, “We all know that the biggest portion of CP money goes to IMB, NAMB and the seminaries.”
That is an inaccurate statement. Would you care to correct it?
The statement is accurate; the exact breakdown is that 95% of the SBC Cooperative Program budget is channeled through these mechanisms.
http://www.sbc.net/pdf/cp/2014-2015CPAllocationBudget.pdf
I suppose you might be thinking that these numbers are skewed because most of the time channeling of CP dollars goes though the State Convention. any you most likely think it is wrong for State Conventions to keep a portion of CP funds to encourage and support healthy ministries in their State.
Don’t lose sight though that 50% of CP Allocation budget went to the IMB alone. While another 23% of that budget went to NAMB.
I believe William’s point is that IF a church’s primary concern were IMB drawdowns and NAMB cut-backs, then it would absolutely make sense to immediately move all CP giving to those to avenues, since the current church giving $100 to CP will see about $25 of that go to the IMB.
Granted, it won’t support other ministries, but it WILL support the #1 reason that leaders often give for increasing IMB giving.
In fact, regarding Greers church, which has been mentioned…If they immediately moved all their GCG to CB giving, it would have a net decrease of thousands of dollars reaching the IMB.
In fact, I’m convinced there are ONLY 2 possible things that could convince large numbers of churches to increase CP:
1. If state convention(s) moved to a drastic national/state split (75/25, or higher), AND there was renewed zeal for the mission work that the national convention was doing through IMB & NAMB, that could do it.
2. If a state, or states, kept their current CP splits close to 50/50, and was somehow able to communicate effectively to the churches that the ministries the state is doing is WORTH half of their GCG, igniting a zeal for the work of the state convention, that could do it.
BUT…what will NOT work is telling me that with my $100, instead of giving $50 to Lottie, and $25 to Annie, and $25 to CP…I should instead give $100 to CP, such that the IMB & Namb get LESS…and that the REASON I should do that is because the IMB and NAMB need more money…that will never work. It doesn’t make sense.
This Rick agrees with the author Rick, but please don’t hold that against him.
I have argued elsewhere that it makes no sense only to set an ideal standard for the last third of the money trail, namely from state conventions to the national convention, if you are not willing to set an ideal standard for every transaction along the way.
I believe we should start talking about a 50-10-10 plan. State conventions forward 50% of their CP receipts. Churches forward 10% of their undesignated receipts. Christians tithe 10% of their total increase.
Not because the tithe applies to churches or conventions. Not because any of these groups lose any autonomy. Not because we’ve always done it that way before. Simply because it works. It will adequately fund our ministries.
And our Presidential problem boils down to this. First, the SBC President virtually MUST be a Megachurch Pastor for two reasons—in order to have the financial and staff resources to do two full-time jobs at once, and in order to have the name recognition to be elected. Second, the Megachurch Pastors generally come from churches who give low percentages, perhaps due to all that overhead or perhaps due to their “high dollars, low percentages” philosophies.
As long as the President of the SBC has to be a Megachurch Pastor, for all practical purposes, we are likely to have these low percentage Presidents.
My thought is along your lines for sure. My dream is for elected leaders to demonstrate a high level of cooperation along every level of of our playing field.
I think there are dozens and dozens of potentially great presidents and agency heads that could come from churches that demonstrate this high level of cooperation. We have an opportunity to find these kinds of leaders and hand them the mantle of leadership and others would surely follow their example…
Why must it be a “Mega” church Pastor? Why? Why?
O we of little faith.
Rob
Yeah. Very few call out Megas for not giving 10%, but they hound smaller churches to death over giving
Especially State Guys.
This is one “State Guy” that cares very little about the stigmata attached to him for being brazen enough to stay that CP giving matters. If you are a smaller church it should matter and if your are a mega church it should matter!
The only difference is that mega churches are more visible and as a result are in a better spot to set the trend. The trend set over by many (I hate to say most, but I am thinking it) is that CP giving matters little. The primary way we cooperate together is through the CP and 2-3% demonstrates a value seen in cooperation.
Rick Hillard said:
“This is one “State Guy” that cares very little about the stigmata attached to him for being brazen enough to stay that CP giving matters.”
You should be very concerned about stigmata. The SBC does not normally endorse Catholic Charismatic signs.
Don’t worry; there is no rosary in the house!
I think he meant stigma.
From the perspective of just one Indiana church, but when the GCR/Great Commision Giving thing happened those years ago, it did not affect our church’s giving at all…simply because we don’t give for the purpose of seeing our percentages on a list.
It’s not as though we were wanting to divert CP funds to Lottie Moon, but we’re afraid of our percentage going down…but then the GCR “allowed” us to do it. We simply mak our giving decisions the best we can and don’t care what the state or national convention calls it.
Keeping or getting rid of GCG will make no difference to us…and I find it difficult to believe it will make a difference to most churches….the exceptions being those churches hoping to have leaders elected to convention leadership.
You hit the nail on the head. The primary reason for the existence of the CCG is to give a fig leaf to those churches whose Pastors were vying for elected office but were being embarrassed (put the name “Floyd” here) because of their small CP percentage giving.
Rob
I meant GCR of course.
Rob
This is my assessment as well. I think it is the “only” reason why the GCG category was invented.
And I appreciate Ronnie Floyd and think that he has done an excellent job as our convention president. He has led his church, while convention president, to up their contribution through the CP. I pray that he continues to be an advocate in increased giving though the CP
The narrative that GCG has hurt cooperation is false. You cannot even get good data on GCG because some churches and even state conventions don’t report it. It is easy to get data that tracks designated and CP giving received by the Executive Committee and there is a long trend of CP percentages declining. Designated offerings have declined as percentages of church receipts (a figure never reported) but less so than CP. Churches have given to GCG causes, all of which are Southern Baptists, from before the beginning of the CP almost 100 years ago.
Rick H. starts out by classifying most of the churches of the convention into some degree of non- or sub-cooperation and adds to that what looks like an inherent dislike of megachurches (not a single one of which are in Indiana, btw) and a suspicion that calls into question the motivation of megachurch pastors. This is supposed to be some recipe for moving the convention towards greater levels of cooperation? This is classic church-CP-shaming that we’ve seen for decades. The moderates did it back in the 1980s. It didn’t work. It’s been trotted out periodically even since. Never has it worked.
“megachurches (not a single one of which are in Indiana, btw)”
What???!!! I guess we Indian folks just can’t get it done… 🙂
I always supposed there was something in Indianapolis that qualified as “mega.”
OTH, I did some math, and our 200 person church in a county of 30,000 actually has a higher percentage of the surrounding population than a 4,000 person mega church in Louisville, KY. So there.
There is no dislike here from me in regard to mega churches. There is no jealousy, or vendetta against anyone. I love the churches in the SBC, big or small. God uses all of our churches and I am glad He does.
If my desire of seeing every SBC church become a 10%er shames those that are not; then I am guilty of that. It is a label I will gladly wear because I do think so much more could be accomplished through the wonderful people called Southern Baptists if every church gave 10% or better through the CP.
And the fact exists that for the last three years designated giving has outpaced CP giving and that has not ever happened before. And at the same time the ministry, mission and ecclesiological footprint of the SBC is becoming less apparent. Is this just a coincidence? Anecdotal?
But to me it isn’t even plausible to think that the way to a stronger impact is to work at it all by yourself. Shaming tactic or not; we are stronger together and accomplish more when we come together. It is a simple, basic element of Scripture.
Friends,
I’d really like for someone to investigate the reasons churches don’t participate in the CP. Until these are dealt with, no amount of pleading or guilting is going to make a difference.
Here are some quick and incomplete thoughts:
1. CR — Conservatives stopped supporting CP in the 60s, 70s, and 80s because seminaries and state conventions couldn’t be trusted theologically.
2. Poor Management — See NAMB and IMB (even the appearance of this causes trouble)
3. Other Political Statements — Disagreements over theology (SBTS) or decision making, frustration over convention politics
4. Apathy toward CP, SBC, institutions — Leaders that aren’t invested
5. Mega’s that don’t need CP to accomplish Kingdom Advance
6. The general independent church climate brought in by the CR
Once a church stops giving it becomes very difficult to start giving again. The monies have been reallocated and consumed by other competing budget items.
The problem is wrapped up in who we are as a people, not in our lack of telling the churches to “pony up.” Neither information nor guilt will fix this. I’m not sure that it will ever again be “fixed.” We are who we are.
Jim, I hate that you write this and know you are prolly right.
We need to come together and make sure we have a good hearted discussion. There are good and godly people on both sides of this issue. People that are capable of wading through the quagmire and finding a way for Kingdom advance.
We shouldn’t be afraid to disagree and discuss things as godly individuals. The Cooperative Program is the only way I know of in which every church has opportunity to be in touch with the Kingdom work of Southern Baptists.
I agree; if there is a perceived mismanagement somewhere then lets fix it. That always seems to be the reason why some are proponents of societal giving. This “I don’t like what someone is doing so I am going to take my sack of marbles and play by myself” stuff is becoming worn out. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water because we don’t have the ability, or motivation to straighten things out.
The math is elementary; the more we give through the CP the more we will be able to attempt for the Kingdom.
Some thoughts on your thoughts of which in the main I do not disagree.
There have always been a problem with bloated bureaucracies and concerns with theology. It is the Baptist way. Even those these issues were manifest throughout time (including funding what for many is an outdated State Convention model) still funding for our missions causes, while admittedly has fluctuated from time to time, it has hardly ever been in the state of crisis it is in now until recently. The Apostle Peter said it well, “….keep fervent in your love for another, because love covers a multitude of sins.” – 1 Peter 4:8b NASB. When Christians discovered the meaning of sacrifice, then their churches discovered it as well and then this extrapolated into the Convention(s) and Associations. When Christians become like the world and demand that their fellowships become more in tune with the comforts of the world, then love toward the mission of the Kingdom grows cold. Even the Mega’s who give large amounts toward their causes do not give generously nor sacrificially – they are limited because of the great expense that maintaining their kingdom costs on a daily basis. If one wants to talk about guilting need only watch some of those sermons when the mega pastor needs to rake in some dough in a quick hurry.
Rob
I think there’s another thing underlying much of it. Dave, I may actually author a post.
Well, we are up and running ,Dr. Barber. Post away!
Is giving to Lottie Moon reported under Great Commission Giving?
I don’t see how any amount given through Great Commission Giving causes vs CP should be called “arrogant and prideful”. Seems harsh to me but perhaps I am misunderstanding.
Just for the record Great Commission Giving is not the combined figure of your CP, Lottie, and Annie gifts as some have wrongly suggested.
GCG is an aggregate figure of all giving to SBC and state convention causes including Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, any direct gifts to one’s local association, to the seminaries or other SBC entities, and any direct gifts to any state convention entities such as children’s homes, etc. Any giving to a cause that can be labeled “convention causes) can be included in a church’s GCG figure. Anything can be labeled GCG.
Another thing to consider is that GCG is a “self-reported” figure by churches not independently verified by another entity. Churches decide what they want to include in the GCG. The idea that it is just your combined CP, Lottie, and Annie offerings is untrue…
Maybe someone made that statement but I don’t think so. I said that *the bulk* of the dollars making up of GCG would be CP + Annie + Lottie. You can get data and show me otherwise. No, actually, you can’t.
Baptisms are self-reported. Finances are self-reported. Direct gifts to entities are effectively self-reported.
I’m the guy who says that the aggregate, SBC GCG figures are not very useful to compare from year-to-year because some states don’t collect the data and some churches don’t report such a figure.
An individual church’s GCG (Greear’s = ~13% for 2014; Gaines’ = ~6% for 2016-7) is a useful tool. Of course, any of the self-reported figures could be made up but I presume integrity in reporting by my pastor colleagues.
I agree Lynn. For many SBC pastors, its a piint of contention though.
Question from the pew:
In the comments a story was told of ladies wanting use their money to redo bathrooms, and that had to be nipped in the bud.
How? I mean, I can see where the church as a whole might refuse to redo the bathrooms. But of course the ladies might decide in that case to just go pay down the light bill, or send a generous check to the Children’s Home, or go up to the casinos or whatever.
Wouldn’t that be the same with the CP? Churches that disagree with how the funds are spent might withhold those funds?
I know I’m dating myself when I tell you my childhood SBC church did not teach storehouse tithing as a necessity. Those amply blessed were excited to have the privilege IF they so chose. The not so amply blessed felt no guilt over giving where, when, and as they felt led. In the amount they felt they could give.
So this article and thread make me think maybe the pewpackers have been expected to “storehouse tithe” but up the line wasn’t. Until money got tight, that is. It would seem to me that either a “give what you can when you can” rule applies to both, or a “give 10% off the top” rule applies.
Your thoughts re my ramblings?
You are correct to notice that this IS related to the old idea of “storehouse tithing” (which I reject).
a. On the one hand, it seems that in the NT, the apostles and church leaders were not telling their people how much to give, or where to give, only to give generously to those in need, to support widows and orphans, to send to other struggling churches, to support traveling ministers/missionaries. There was a reprimand to Ananias & Saphira for lying, but no requirement that they give a certain amount….It seems that if someone wants to give some of their regular gift to a haiti mission trip, there is very little wrong with that impulse.
b. On the other hand, a church CANNOT operate effectively this way if EVERYONE only gives to their favorite ministries. If it did, you would have a bunch of money going to missionaries, and to remodel the bathroom, and no money going to purchased toilet paper or pay the insurance bill. While I reject a requirement of storehouse tithing, it makes sense for a church to have MOST of it’s giving go to a General Fund, which is then budgeted and divided according to the congregation’s pre-established wishes (voting on the church budget).
I believe this is NOT a perfect analogy when exploded to the convention level, however. I think a parishoner in a church “owes” a higher level of commitment to their church than a church does to it’s partnerships. If a Church believes it can designate it’s money for Kingdom impact better than the state & national organizations can…it WILL do so, and it is up to the state and national conventions to CONVINCE them otherwise.
The most Common appeal so far has been, “Give more to CP because IMB & NAMB are short on funds to do their mission.” But if churches lowered direct IMB & NAMB giving and transferred that money to CP, then IMB & NAMB would actually get LESS. So that argument doesn’t work.
At every level, it’s a question of stewardship. Those who make the case for CP today, in my opinion, must do so on the basis that giving through CP is the best stewardship of our partnership mission dollar.
Here’s the thing, Todd. For me and my church, I think it is. But as autonomous Baptists, each church gets to make that decision for themselves.
Which is exactly my point — each church must make the decision for themselves. My church sees the value in CP and gives accordingly, but we do so because we believe that for our church in our situation with our options, it is good stewardship to do so. Don’t appeal to me with sloganeering about loyalty or cooperation – demonstrate for me that among my many options that the CP is the best avenue for our missions giving. Make the case for qhy the percentage allocation is appropriate and let the various entities show that they are responsible stewards of the monies we send them.
The idea is not to rob Peter to pay Paul. The idea is to do both not either/or.
Rob
Yes, you are right “Storehouse Tithing” is clearly the Biblical model of funding what God wants done.
These little ladies at the before mentioned church stopped tithing and really did divert their tithe money to a designated bathroom fund. As a result, the church struggled with simple things like keeping the lights on…
Thanks! No, I don’t think it good to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Just wondering if some individuals and some churches feel “I gave to pay Peter and Paul but you spent it on new curtains for Mavis. So now I’ll jus send my check directly to Peter and Paul.”
Good analogy here.
And that is what has happened with the IMB, and NAMB for sure. There has been incredible, almost incomprehensible amounts of mismanagement there. I hope that our convention churches don’t respond the same way that proponents of GCG have by keeping more of their money for their own favorite projects…
Better explain yourself here, Rick. What is the “incomprehensible” mismanagement? What are the favorite IMB and NAMB projects? Sending missionaries and planting churches? You are dangerously close to slander.
Yeah, I too would like to hear what “incomprehensible amounts of mismanagement” means. That is a harsh accusation against IMB and NAMB and their trustees.
I would appreciate some factual specifics on that one.
I’ve always thought that our fundamental goal is to put more missionaries on the field and to do more for the advance of the Kingdom. As such I think we have to look at a church like Greear’s and ask why is it that they at least appear to be accomplishing more by giving 2.4% to the CP?
I’ll just say it. I think local, state, and national was necessary before the internet and such shortened the world. But now there are way too many middle men getting paid salaries.
I’m finding it increasingly difficult to see the value in the state conventions. I’m not saying there isn’t value but I’m wondering more and more if we couldn’t be better stewards of our resources. This is why I support Great Commission Giving because we are still partnering with the SBC to do missions but we just so happen to believe we can do more by giving directly to IMB.
For full disclosure I’ll confess that I have a bit of a bad taste in my mouth from a former state convention. A couple years ago, in a season where my wife and I could have really used a couples retreat with some ministry encouragement, we were told by the state that because I wasn’t “a real pastor” we couldn’t attend. We weren’t asking for money to attend or anything. Just to be able to go. I was at the time an associate pastor and they informed us it was only available to real pastors. The philosophy was that they’d build up the senior pastor and he’d go back and build us up as staff. Even when our senior pastor informed them that he’d really like for me to go instead they continued to say that this event was only for the real pastors.
I’m not sharing this because I have an ax to grind. I’m sure that the person who referred to me as “not a real pastor” was just unaware and didn’t mean harm. I also understand budget constraints and such. I’m sharing this because it’s part of my experience of wondering what in the world the state convention does that couldn’t be done with local associations.
If local churches and associations bought into something similar to what Summit Church is doing I can’t help but think that we’d actually be planting more churches. So here is my very blunt question, what do state conventions provide that local associations couldn’t? My knowledge on SBC politics and such is very very limited and so this is a very legit question. I’m willing to learn anew the unique value of the state convention. But from where I’m sitting (as a real pastor now) I find it hard to see what the state can do that the local association and the SBC at large cannot do.
So so so sad. Of all people, you should be classified as a fellow laborer.
Sadly that is all part of being an associate. As one who is now a “real pastor” I’m very sensitive to making sure our fellow laborers are well treated. The pastor I served with modeled that well. And I’m thankful he never treated me like a second class pastor.
I don’t think it’s fair to judge leadership for limiting an event to senior pastors. I’ve been a church planter, senior pastor, and twice an associate pastor in that same state and have felt supported, encouraged, mentored (and even patiently put up with) by the state convention. In can honestly say that I am the pastor I am today because of the ongoing investment of state leaders in my life. Sorry your experience was not the same.
I’m not judging leadership based on this one event. I’m saying there was one time when I could have used help from the state and the door was closed to me. I’m glad your experiences were better. I did meet some great people who were part of the state. I’m simply asking here what the state can do that local associations can’t.
It is my observation that associations have been able offer very little for me personally. The level of training and teaching I can get there is elementary, if at all. I have found the State Convention to offer a completely different level of training, resourcing, encouragement and a much larger opportunity to participate in Kingdom advance. The first call I would make when needing any help is to State Convention.
So are you saying that the State does what the local association does but only better? Or maybe more opportunities for helping local churches?
If that is the case it seems to me that if we made a plan to transition into cutting out one of the middle men (the state convention) and put efforts into improving local associations perhaps we could cut out a significant amount of overhead and accomplish much more.
Just thinking out loud….which is probably dangerous.
This is a very insightful and incisive comment and I think it exposes some fundamental flaws in the thinking of the OP author. The CP is not the goal. Cooperation is not the goal. If 10% GCG (Summit’s figure) is used to cooperate with IMB, NAMB, and their state convention to put as many people on the field, plant as many churches, and see as many people baptized, is it worth not only celebration but scrutiny to see what can be copied and used elsewhere?
I agree the goal for me is Kingdom advance; that and that alone. How much more could be accomplished if every church become 10%ers through the CP.
I wouldn’t want churches to copy the strategy of Summit. Since the average giving of SBC churches though the CP is between 5-6% that would mean to adopt Summits strategy they would have to drop their giving percentage by about 3-4%.
The idea that more can be done when churches cooperate systematically less is unique indeed…
Summit hasn’t asked any church to copy them but if churches do and were successful, what would be the result? If churches dropped their CP to 3-4% they would presumably do something with the mission money. If they did what Summit has done and are successful, it would result in exponentially more church planting and overseas personnel. If churches doubled their CP the result would be vastly greater sums for state conventions. If their track records mean anything then the states would hire more people, build more money and increase some funding.
Mine’s a “cheap shot” and this one isn’t?
Yeah, because NOBODY at a state convention is doing ANYTHING to increase money going to reach the nations for Christ. Iowa? They’re just keeping it all at home. Florida? Stingy, greedy, so-and-so’s that they are, they’re looking every day for a way to keep more money in the state. SBTC? Jim Richards sits in the vault everyday cuddling his gold.
I’m not even sure that these people working at state conventions are Christians.
Oh…wait a minute…
http://www.bpnews.net/35908/1m-to-embrace-unreached-voted-by-sbtc
http://texanonline.net/archives/5204/
http://www.bpnews.net/43760/iowa-baptists-approve-5050-cp-split
http://www.bpnews.net/45844/fla-baptists-send-51-of-2016-cp-budget-to-sbc
Oh, and I wonder what happens if churches send more money through SBTC? I guess once SBTC meets its budget, it just hoards the surplus.
http://www.bpnews.net/45828/reach-houston-initiative-set-before-sbtc-messengers
Sorry, don’t buy it and don’t accept that this is even in the neighborhood of a cheap shot.
As CP receipts increased, states maintained and sometimes increased their ‘keep’ while denominational stats trended flat and then downward. Here, we built an enormous and enormously expensive centralized HQ building, one we’re using 4 days a week now.
I like a bit of sarcasm myself…but I’ve always maintained that the SC staff I’ve known and worked with were fine people. SBCT, of course, got to shed the accumulation of legacy staff, institutions, and interests and start a new thing. Florida is making a notable shift in percentages. Other states are making small shifts. If these will mean significantly increased funding for any SBC entities it isn’t evident, but I think the movements are positive.
The CP as a funding engine is still enormous, but aside from nostalgic references to the past 10% days, I don’t see any state, seminary, or mission board acting as if the amounts will increase much.
The one possibility of CP revival probably would cause too much collateral damage: if all the legacy states started new, competing state organizations as have TX and VA.
William,
It is hardly fair to call the BGAV and the SBCV in Virginia ‘competing state conventions’.
Of all Funds given to the the BGAV by its member churches only about 10% of those funds actually end up at the SBC Cooperative program.
That’s hardly competing with the SBCV where around 50% ends up at the SBC cooperative program. (the 3% or so of “shared cost” that the state keeps explains why this report shows around 47% instead of 50%) The SBCV has never reduced the percentage sent to the CP but we are now reporting it different than we used to. I like this way better – seems more transparent – and also would like the SBCV to absorb the 3% and literally send off at least 50% to the SBC. 😉
Well, it’s your choice to buy it or not. I’m happy to leave everyone else in the thread to compare my comment with six linked news articles from the last few months with your comment citing as authority…
you.
You don’t like your state convention as a ministry investment. Fine. I might feel the same way if I were in your state.
But William, these discussion threads are not just about your state. You’re on here advocating that churches in MY state convention—where we’re hiring missionaries that the IMB is showing to the door and reaching the nations for Christ, where our state convention is very scrupulous about forwarding as much CP as is possible and prudent to national and international causes—that churches abandon CP support of THAT convention, not just your own. You’re advocating that churches copy the Summit model and divert support away from DAVE’S state convention, where although they are absolutely not living in the opulence that you believe is going on elsewhere, they have moved to a 50/50 split. You’re advocating that churches do so in Florida, where they’ve heroically gone to a 51/49 split.
Your beef isn’t with the Cooperative Program as a system; it’s with your own state convention. I don’t begrudge you that. But stop getting on here and discouraging people who are working with different state conventions where the conditions you perceive may not be in place.
I take that point, Dave. There is a difference that figures into this in that SBCV, presumably, got to choose what state causes their CP revenues supported. To state differently, SBCV had the chance to start fresh and new without an accumulation of legacy constituencies with a stranglehold on their budget. Whatever part of that statement is not quite true, I’d appreciate you informing me.
Bart, that’s why I think there is a need to recognize GCG. A church can’t separate a beef with its state convention from actual support of the CP system. If a church thinks that the State Convention is a bad investment or poor stewardship and instead cooperates with Southern Baptist causes in other ways, they necessarily must devalue CP in practice, even if they agree with it in principle.
In MY state I believe the State Convention does great work and is a good investment and a fine with the current allocation so I invest in CP giving. I’m thankful for my predecessor (the author of this post) who led our church to give generously to CP.
If, hypothetically, our church felt that the state was NOT a good investment and was poor stewardship of our mission dollars, should we just continue on giving to CP because we agree with it in principle even if we believed it was poor stewardship in practice?
Todd,
I never argued against the reporting of GCG. I haven’t weighed in on that. I’ll do that below the fold.
But first, to answer your question. The church who believes that its sister churches (because that’s what a state convention is) are not being good stewards of CP money should, before all else, labor to persuade those sister churches to amend the budget accordingly. The church who cannot successfully persuade the churches to make changes probably faces some tough choices.
However, I’m not so sure that it would really be terribly difficult to persuade your state convention (hypothetically) to forward a greater percentage of CP funding. It seems that a lot of churches want that. It would just be a matter of getting them to show up and vote accordingly.
If I were going to disengage from both the decision-making structure of the convention and the funding apparatus of the convention, I don’t know why I’d bother to be a member church. I’m quite certain that the IMB would cash my check whether I were affiliated with the SBC or not.
Now, as to “Great Commission Giving,” sure, I’m fine with its being reported, depending upon how comparisons are made to Cooperative Program giving. Let’s all be clear that.
1. Nobody knows what GCG amounts to. In this very comments section we’ve already seen more than one definition. It’s not just Lottie & Annie. I guarantee you that The Summit is counting their missions spending.
FBC Farmersville is. We give 11% through the CP, but then we’re also funding a missions project in Senegal. We’ll spend an additional $50K on that little enterprise in 2016. It’s IMB-related, so we count it as a Southern Baptist cause. All of that $50K will appear in our GCG line on next year’s ACP (unless someone can show me some definition by which it isn’t supposed to be there). So, every dollar we spend on every mission trip and project that is connected with IMB, NAMB, SBTC, etc., is counted as Great Commission Giving.
So, some percentage of GCG is money that has remained in the control of the “giving” church from start to finish.
2. Whatever GCG comes in is designated giving. We ought to treat it PRECISELY the same way we treat designated gifts in our churches. We’re thankful for them. We celebrate them. But we make it clear that it is undesignated giving that keeps the church operating, and when we see people cutting down on undesignated giving and increasing designated giving, we rightly take that as a warning sign and recognize it as dangerous.
I agree with Bart and Todd. The SBCV has always been one that I have been proud of and church church has always felt incredibly supported by. We greatly appreciate the partnership in the gospel and ministry that takes place between us and the state convention.
I could go on and on. Suffice to say: The SBCV is a great state convention and its leadership is incredibly helpful to pastors and churches.
William, you are right. The SBCV is not bogged down with budget drains because they did and do have the opportunity to avoid those when setting up the convention and in going forward. It is however, I am sure, a constant effort to remain a decentralized, church/pastor focused state convention – but clearly they are doing an outstanding job!
We are not only satisfied, but excited about sharing 10% of undesignated gifts we receive almost 50/50 with the SBC and SBCV. I find that other SBCV churches are as well.
Bart,
Good point about the definition of GCG.
“It’s not just Lottie & Annie. I guarantee you that The Summit is counting their missions spending.”
Do not know about Summit – but we do – I would speculate with you that the Summit does too.
I like my imperfect state convention as a ministry investment, just not at the level necessary to gain the stamp of approval of some, and that the issue here. One thing done here that I have never heard a GBC staffer do is criticize any church or pastor for their level of CP giving.
If churches can replicate Summit in results (in Texas, Iowa, Georgia or wherever), then why wouldn’t anyone say it is worth examining a 3% or so CP and high GCG, all of which is SBC? After all, IMB, NAMB, and the seminaries have provided direct channels through which this is possible. These are all cooperative, they are just not the COOPERATIVE PROGRAM. Jesus could appear, write a check to IMB to put the thousand missionaries back overseas but if He didn’t put it in a Lottie Moon envelope or make the check about three times larger than IMB needed (so that everyone would get their ‘share’) He would be criticized by some for being uncooperative.
I like that you actually try and sell your state convention’s programs and work. Rick Hillard didn’t think that necessary. I am vaguely aware that there is a universe outside of North Georgia, a conference outside of the SEC and even, I hear, other Southern Baptist state conventions.
These robust CP and state convention discussions are profitable, I think, though not so much buried down in the triple digit comment stream. Perhaps a more fruitful exercise would be to take a narrow issue and have an exchange. I don’t think the differences are fundamental (we all support the CP, the dual cooperative/societal system that we have always had, state conventions as a necessary level of SBC life) but rather in degree.
You asked: “If churches can replicate Summit in results (in Texas, Iowa, Georgia or wherever), then why wouldn’t anyone say it is worth examining a 3% or so CP and high GCG, all of which is SBC?”
I say that my church’s results through the CP are better than the Summit’s results outside of it. Many times more people saved. Many times more churches planted. Why would I go to a plan that accomplishes less? If you wish to dispute, do so with statistics, please. Or if you will say that there are no suitable statistics available, then I’ll stop making the comparison when you do so.
You stated: “These are all cooperative, they are just not the COOPERATIVE PROGRAM.”
No. They are not cooperative. They are generous, but they are not cooperative. “Cooperative” = “MULTIPLE local churches cooperate together to fund or do something, in this context, working through MULTIPLE entities who cooperate together to share the money.”
Me “cooperating” with myself is not actually all that cooperative. I’m not “cooperating” with AT&T when I choose which plan and phone I want and then pay my bill.
But if you and I were going to go in together on some sort of a family plan in which we’d have to agree on the size of the plan and on how to divide the bill, then THAT would require that we cooperate.
It simply requires no cooperation whatsoever in any sense of the word for my church to forego every other church’s opinion and just make decisions for ourselves about what we wish to fund.
Now, it’s certainly AUTONOMOUS. And as Baptists, we’re autonomous, too. Southern Baptists have, previously, struck a pretty good balance that maintained autonomy while also encouraging cooperation—real cooperation, in which multiple churches had to work to build consensus about missions priorities. That balance is falling apart.
I could be wrong, I’m not sure of what stats are available, but I think the way you could figure this (at least closely) is to consider every dollar the SBC took in for the CP. Find out which percent went to a various ministry (like say church plants) Divide that # by the # of SBC church plants. That will give you a figure of it takes X amount of CP dollars to plant a church.
Now see how much your particular church gave to the CP and what percent of that giving went to church planting and that’d tell you how many churches your church planted through the CP.
I think….
But I’m not so good at math, so I’m probably wrong on some of these #’s. Perhaps my rambling here though will inspire someone who is actually good at math to figure this out.
I think not. Churches that participate directly with entities are cooperating with other churches and they do so as a part of approved channels. We’ve always had this dual system. Unless summit starts their own seminary or mission sending agency, they are indeed cooperating with the thousands that do. But no, it’s not THE CP.
If you want the data that show summit/mssy per capita or per dollar, it’s available to you. I make no argument that my church’s $10,000 CP+LM equals *part* of 3,800 mssys and that number is higher than summit’s 149. I wouldn’t deny any church their apples. I like to brag as much as any SB.
I don’t buy your chicken little stuff. It may not be accepted but the system as it has slowly evolved, and that through autonomous churches making decisions one at a time, is unlikely to be reversed. CP is flat, perhaps slightly increasing. Maybe 5% or so is the floor.
It’s easy to marginialize each other on this because the extreme arguments are available to both of us. I’d be interested in your proposals to correct what you see as wrong in our giving/support system.
You know you’re having to cooperate when you’re not the only one with a say in how the enterprise goes. That’s just what the word means.
Sorry that you have been treated poorly by any of God’s people. I am glad you are still serving the great King!
I don’t know if “treated poorly” is really even correct. I only brought up the previous story–and maybe I shouldn’t have–just to say that my experience with state conventions is likely a bit clouded and biased. I haven’t really received much help on that level and was frankly quite bothered by their view of me as a minister. I quickly moved beyond taking it personal to being bothered about what seemed to be a systemic view of fellow laborers (support staff).
Amen, Mike…Amen. It is systemic across the SBC. The second and third class pastor mentality is pervasive and unbiblical and sad.
I have been involved in numerous pastor search committees to fill positions in church (Youth, Music, etc…) I always emphasize to the committee. We are looking for another pastor. If you would not consider a candidate qualified to be “senior pastor” – then he is not qualified to be a Music pastor either.
Committees should actively strive to combat the unbiblical notion that they are looking for a lesser pastor or the establishment of a hierarchy when looking for a music pastor, or education pastor or student ministry pastor – they must be mindful that a pastor is a pastor is a pastor. Period.
Tarheel, can you give me the chapter and verse reference for the qualifications of a music pastor? Thanks in advance.
As soon as you give one to back up the “senior pastor” is the only real pastor motif / hierarchy. Thanks in advance.
Tarheel, I do not believe in a plurality of elders but that is not an argument we need to have. I am confident if you live 100 more years you will believe exactly like you do now on everything verbatim. I am just curious as to why you use a term that is completely foreign to the New Testament, a music pastor. Forgetting the debate of plurality of elders, what are the qualifications of music pastor? We see in the Bible elders who handle the Word correctly are worthy of double honor . We see the ox shouldn’t be muzzled. He must not be a recent convert. He must be able to teach. I am puzzled as to the qualifications of a music pastor, does he have to read music and be able to sing? No list of qualifications for elders, overseers even give a hint toward music. I guess an office manager at a church is the pastor of management??????
I’m only speaking that should a church desire to have a plurality of pastors (having multiple pastors) – some who specialize in different areas – like worship (instead of music?) they should not then turn around and treat some of those pastors as “not real pastors” or “second-rung pastors”.
It just appears that Baptists don’t like hierarchies – except the ones the like, that is.
Heel, I’m not being confrontational, well not right now, I will ask a simple question, no trap, do music pastors have to be apt to teach, handle the Word correctly, not be a recent convert, etc…? None of those requirements seem necessary for a musician.
As to staff members, elders in your circles,
we are having A revival meeting next week with a fairly well known evangelist. I am having a Monday noonday minister’s conference. All staff members from the area areinvited and will be treated like royalty. In my circles all may not be called pastors but all are real ministers and should be treated with honor.
I will add that if a church has a plurality of elders and does not treat all the same they may believe the Biblical model is a church has one senior pastor, kind of like Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and Crete.
“do music pastors have to be apt to teach, handle the Word correctly, not be a recent convert, etc…? None of those requirements seem necessary for a musician.”
I would argue that when churches looking for a person to lead their music or youth ministry, or education, or pastoral counseling or what haveya – and they as a church choose to bring on a pastor to fill that role – they should seek out a qualified pastor who also has giftedness in the desired specialty. The qualifications listed in Timothy and Titus and first Peter, etc… for The office of Pastor apply – and he should then be treated as one Who holds the authority that pertains to the office of pastor.
If not then get a director or a helper – but don’t pretend that they’re a pastor and then treat them as if they are one on a “lower rung of Pastorhood”.
What is the difference between a director, minister of, or helper and a “pastor” if the both do the exact same thing?
Dean,
I think the point is that if the person is a pastor or an elder, he has to be qualified to be an elder or pastor. And that means he should be able to teach, for example, and thus probably should teach.
If he is just a music director, he is not an elder or a pastor, his qualifications don’t necessarily need to be the same, and his role is limited to directing music. {not that he couldn’t teach].
A pastor/elder has a certain role in the church and there are certain qualifications for the man appointed. A director does not.
My church, which is small, has a senior pastor, an associate pastor, and 4 other elders, one of which also happens to lead the music ministry. He was doing so before we went to elder led.
Dean,
I believe the biblical difference would be that it is perfectly fine to hire a “song-leader” who is not a pastor/elder…someone who leads music but does not otherwise take responsibility for spiritual guidance and leadership of the church.
However, IF you are intentionally hiring someone to be a spiritual leader, pastor/elder of the church who focuses on the area of music, or youth, then he should be a biblically qualified elder.
Thank you Parsonmike. I am in agreement. If a person is going to have the title pastor he must meet the qualifications that are given in Scripture and one of those is he must teach. That is what I was looking for; I even asked that question directly.
If a church that has a plurality of elders puts the title pastor on a man but he will not teach they seem to be ignoring Scripture.
Thank you Andy, I am in agreement a person who has the title pastor should meet the qualifications found in Scripture. A music pastor would have to teach and handle the Word. I asked that question verbatim several comments above.
Not for nothing, Dean – but parsons and Andy are saying the same thing.
If a church has a music director – and that’s that’s what they do and are not pastor/elder they don’t have to meet the qualifications of a pastor/elder –and shouldn’t be viewed as one they should work under the authority of a pastor/elder (like Sunday school teachers) — but if the church chooses to hire a pastor to fill that role than he should be treated and viewed as a pastor that is an equal to all other pastors on staff.
yep,… Andy hit the proper balance. As Paul told Tim,….as men aspire (normal thing) into the group known as Elders in the local churches, they are to be, and remain qualified. If not, “you be looking for much grief”.
Tarheel, I hope it is apparent that I know Andy and Parsons said the same thing in that my response to them was the same. They stated clearly what I was searching for. A music “pastor” must teach and a minister/director/leader of music is not required to teach. We who do not use a plurality of elders often give the title of pastor such as worship pastor, administrative pastor and never require them to teach the Word. That seems contrary to the Word. I was wanting to know if that was also the case with a plurality of elders. Parsons and Andy have stated that is not the case in their experiences.
Heel, if you have a beef on this issue it seems to be treatment. A music pastor should be treated the same as the teaching pastor or senior pastor. I do not know what treatment such a person is missing, maybe it’s what they are called, maybe it’s salary, maybe it’s office size, maybe it’s sharing in the decision making, maybe it’s getting to go to pastor’s retreat, I don’t know but I hope they get it if they desire it. If it is a lack of appreciation then that is a shame. I wouldn’t be a youth minister for all the cows in Texas. Anyone who does it well is a hero. However, I would love to be the senior adult pastor. Who wouldn’t love loading the bus headed to Branson, popping in the latest Gaither video and talking about how the music pastor is ruining the church? Senior have money and go to bed early. Those are my kind of people.
Dean…love it… that is funny! (the Senior part)
LOL…money and going to bed early…what else could a guy need? LOL
I was saying that they were saying the same thing as I was saying.
I think we actually agree too…all pastors (no matter their “role”) are to meet the qualifications/expectations of pastor/elder as delineated in scripture one of which is that should be teachers of the word. Otherwise – they do not meet the biblical mandates for one who holds the office of pastor.
I guess its not accurate to say I have a beef – except in stressing that a pastor – one who desires the office and who meets the qualifications, is a pastor, is a pastor, is a pastor. Being a worship pastor, or a children’s pastor, or a youth pastor, or….is no less a pastor than a “senior pastor”.
Now I guess we need to stop this and let the conversation get back in the ball park of the original post – LOL – boy we are way off topic!
“No less a pastor…” This phrase keeps coming up, but I hope you are talking about a difference in roles, not in value (kind of like husband/wife)…
The reality is, unless the Elders do some kind of preaching rotation and leadership division such that there is no senior pastor…there WILL be one pastor who is seen as not just “A” pastor, but “THE pastor.” He will likely have the biggest salary, preach a majority of the Sundays, and be responsible for guiding the direction of the church. If the Youth Pastor, or Music Pastor, or Discipleship Pastor feels belittled SOLELY because he makes less money and preaches less and is not the person people look to for primary leadership, then He just needs to get over himself and realize he has a different role.
Andy…bingo! “Gotta know your role” and be happy with it…is critical.
Right on, Andy. Pastors are not to be serving out of greed – that’s a disqualifier – I actually think the husband and wife is a good analogy. Maybe (?) another might be that Peter and Bartholomew were equal when it came to the office of apostle but its clear that Peter had more of a leadership role than Bartholomew did.
Equal in value and worth and position serving in different roles.
I totally understand the idea that one elder/pastor will be the leader of the group – there has to be a leader – but he is no more a pastor than the worship pastor – they are equal in calling and pastoral authority but serve in different roles.
http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/keep-calm-and-know-your-role-34.jpg
I wonder how Paul treated the Worship and Youth Pastors at Corinth. I think there may be something about that in Two Corinthians. We already know what he had to say to the Pastor of Charismania.
Tarheel … .jpg 🙂
I don’t know that Summit’s approach results in more church plants and more baptisms. I only know that skipping cooperative giving in favor of my-church-only-directed giving results in more-definitively-claimed-for-my-church church plants and baptisms. It’s far easier to take credit.
Indeed the ole “You are not doing it right (meaning my way) so I am gonna take my bag of marbles and play by myself” narrative is becoming threadbare.
I don’t know if it results in more, either. And I don’t know if I really am able to articulate my thoughts well enough on this. But I’m wondering why is that bigger churches often give less to the CP? Why do they view it as being able to do more ministry/missions by giving less? That to me indicates a problem. Maybe you are correct that what it really is saying is, “I’m able to do more ministry/missions that I can control and see with my own eyes.” But I’m just wondering what does it say about our present structure that many churches believe GCG is helping them do more missions?
That’s a cheap shot, Bart. I do it occasionally but don’t recall you doing so.
Gaines and Greear are alike in this regard. If such is objectionable, then you or dave run against them. I’ll vote for one of you two.
It’s not a cheap shot because the value judgement you read into it is inferred by you, not implied by me.
These are simply facts: If my church and only my church decides where to allocate the funds, then we can easily take credit for the results. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Perhaps it will help for you to know that at the time when I was writing this, I was at the same time corresponding with a local pastor about a charitable organization our church is launching, inviting him to participate. This pastor had been criticized by another local ministry because he wanted to bring his church in to work on a day set aside for his church. The leaders of that ministry said, “He just wants to take the credit for his church.” I replied, “Well, of COURSE he does! His church has been through two difficult pastoral transitions before him, and they NEED some things to take credit for.” So, I was telling that pastor, “We’re going to do this in a way in which you can bring your church, participate, and celebrate what you did.”
So, William, your presumption that I am taking a “cheap shot” when I say that this my-church-only-directed giving allows for churches to take credit for the results is just that—a presumption, and an erroneous one.
My critique is not that these are bad people, but that this is a bad comparison.
According to the cooperative giving method, my church puts funding into a group pool. A group of us decides what to do with it. The group is very large. Both in terms of the number of churches participating and in terms of the dollars contributed, my church’s contribution is way down in the noise by itself. Of all of the believers won to Christ through IMB’s efforts, NAMB’s efforts, SBTC’s efforts, CBA’s efforts, how many of those are attributable to First Baptist Church of Farmersville? If there EXISTS any way to parse that out, I don’t know how to do it and I doubt that it would be worth the investment or defensibly accurate in any way.
However, the plain truth of the matter is that BOTH methods plant churches and win people to Christ, while only ONE method yields a press release for the church counting noses and institutions. Therefore, statements like “If 10% GCG (Summit’s figure) is used to cooperate with IMB, NAMB, and their state convention to put as many people on the field, plant as many churches, and see as many people baptized, is it worth not only celebration but scrutiny to see what can be copied and used elsewhere?” are simply an example of shoddy thinking.
I question neither your character and motives nor Greear’s; I question your mathematical abilities. 🙂
Also, I don’t know why you are casting my comments as some sort of politicking in the presidential race. As though I only started caring about the Cooperative Program when Steve Gaines announced?
?????
I’m not…the platform for this discussion included the two, for obvious reasons and introduced by the OP author’s comments.
Perhaps you are reading a value judgment into what I wrote?
It has been a long 12 hours for me once I discovered sbcvoices was down. I was afraid I would miss some of Tarheel’s words of wisdom or Plodder’s gift of encouragement. Glad it’s back up.
I certainly missed Dean’s smart aleck comments. 😉
Unfortunately, Dean by be a smart aleck by both private and public channels, Adam.
Dave, I thought my recommendation last night that you unplug your cpu and plug it back in to see if that would fix Voices was pretty funny.
LOL….DM, did you try that?
I am betting Dean has a sign like this someplace in his office/home or perhaps both.
https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M2cb38a2ad0cd72b0640585e9f746d84fo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300
I can identify, Dean. 😉
Fluently!
I’m supportive of the local Baptist Association, the state convention, and the national SBC.
I’ve received help and encouragement from each of these entities, and to some extent I’ve helped and supported each of them as well.
Each do things the others do not or cannot do.
All three are worthy of our continued prayers and support.
And, of course, the Cooperative Program is worthy of our prayers and support.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I too have found encouragement on each level of our cooperative workings together. That is one of the reasons why I think it harmful to ignore any level of our cooperative work…
I do appreciate the spirited discussion that the blog post has brought about. Sorry if I have not kept up as well as I should. I have been traveling some the last few days and it’s hard for me to do on a cell phone. So, if I have missed an opportunity to respond don’t hold it against me.
I have read through the comments and considered everyone’s thought provoking reply. I have really appreciated them.
I wonder if it would help to define, as a convention, what Great Commission Giving is? “If” it is the combined figure of your CP, Lottie, and Annie gifts I would think it would be an acceptable measure of cooperation. I am not in the know as to how everyone reports GCG, yet I do know how some report it, and many report “any mission type activity” as GCG. Churches must and should become more missional in their behavior, but what churches do alone shouldn’t be used as a measure of their cooperation…
It’s been defined. I haven’t filled out the ACP since I retired but I feel sure that there a definition there as well.
SBC Life had this quiz question a while back:
Contributions calculated as part of “Great Commission Giving,” a giving category created in 2010, includes each of the following except:
A. Gifts to local Baptist associations
B. Gifts to state Baptist convention missions offerings
C. Gifts through the Cooperative Program submitted to a cooperating state Baptist convention
D. Gifts to state Baptist convention ministry entities such as colleges, children’s homes, or state convention church health initiatives
E. Funds used by a local church to fund its own overseas missions initiatives
Answer coming shortly…
Here’s the GCRTF final report: “We will recognize the total of all monies channeled through the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, the state conventions, and associations as Great Commission Giving.”
SBC Life quiz answer: “E. Contributions calculated as part of “Great Commission Giving,” a giving category created in 2010, does not include funds used by a local church to fund its own overseas missions initiatives”
I don’t think GCG will prove to be a useful metric save for an aggregate percentage for a given church, say, the church of someone running for office or up for a trustee appointment.
“SBC Life quiz answer: “E. Contributions calculated as part of “Great Commission Giving,” a giving category created in 2010, does not include funds used by a local church to fund its own overseas missions initiatives””
What if those overseas mission initiatives include partnerships with other Southern Baptist churches where the churches work cooperatively? 😉
The idea, I presume, was to get a figure for combined giving TO southern baptist causes. My approach was to report on the ACP what I wanted to report how I wanted to report it…but I’m a curmudgeonly renegade anyhow.
It’s easy to see how reporting this figure can be confusing. I’ve already mentioned that some states don’t collect it and we always see in these discussions that many don’t like the category.
Simple enough to get the biggest numbers: CP+LM+AA+association+state mission offering+associational mission all offering+world hunger+mission dignity+ERLC+historical commission+blogger appreciation fund.
“The idea, I presume, was to get a figure for combined giving TO southern baptist causes”
That’s a reasonable presumption.
My question though is; when 2 or more SBC churches partner/cooperate together to, for example, plant a church is that not an SBC cause?
If I have a joint cooperative evangelistic picnic with my neighbor SBC church is not the pavilion rental a reportable GCG expense?
No…but if I do the same but run the money through the association…it is.
Like I said, I didn’t worry too much about ACP stats as a pastor. If I were still a pastor I’d give a GCG stat and a ‘total mission giving’ stat. The picnic would go in the latter.
The ACP has, I believe, the highest rate of non-compliance ever. Stuff like GCG only feeds that trend, IMO. If BP wanted a figure to report on candidates they could have created their own.
Also, if we are concerned about increasing rates of direct giving to the entities, those figures are available from recipients even if they don’t get passed through the state convention or XComm. IOW, if GCG were dropped, there would be nothing missed.
“If I have a joint cooperative evangelistic picnic with my neighbor SBC church is not the pavilion rental a reportable GCG expense?”
If a NAMB church planter did that – that expense (universally?) would be accepted as proper for an CP expense…so why not “count” it as great commission giving when several SBC churches in the same town cooperate and do it? Is it not a great commission “cause” executed by SBC churches?
No argument from me on this. The ACP/LifeWay got the numbers exactly as I gave them.
More accurately, though, money that flows through NAMB to a planter is GCG. Money spent by the planter is under the same definition as your church. Money that you send to the planter directly for block parties is not GCG but is total mission giving.
I saw the ACP about like the 1040, an unpleasant task. Once our church secretary did all she knew to do on it, I’d fill in the rest and not worry too much about jots and tittles.
Oh, its as easy as pie now. I just fill it out as I see fit…LOL (Please no one alert the Lifeway/ACP police. 😉 )
The Problem is NOT that we give too little to the SBC via the Cooperative PGM…..the pblm is the SBC does TOO MUCH. If SIMPLE CHURCH is a good idea (and I believe it is wisdom) then why not SIMPLE SBC? We need to reduce the SBC back to its original mission…assisting churches in sending missionaries overseas. IMHO, we need to GET RID OF:
1) NAMB – There is nothing they do that the states could do better…ESPECIALLY CHURCH PLANTING. Throw them a party, eliminate their organization and sell their palace of a building!
2) The ERLC – With the diverse nature of today’s SBC there is no one person who can speak for us. Let the ERLC seek support as one of the many political advocacy groups already out there. I believe Dr. Moore would do fine and even flourish in that free enterprise environment.
3) 3-4 Seminaries. We simply do not need that many preacher boys dumped into the market every year. ALSO, Brick and Mortar seminaries are becoming less necessary and less popular. All of our Seminaries are already have online options and satellite campuses. So pick 2 or three to keep (for now) and let the others go independent like all the other seminaries out there.
4) ALL TIES TO LIFEWAY – They are NOT SBC and they most certainly are NOT a nonp[rofit org. Dump them in the marketplace where they belong…and reinstitute the SBC SS Board to create SBC education material available via the internet ONLY!
5) GET rid of anything else that is mission creep so the SBC can get back to their true mission; ASSISTING churches in putting missionaries out on the international mission field.
THE change to SIMPLE SBC will give the IMB more resources and reestablish the State Conventions as those best able of assisting the churches in their states, culture, etc with church planting, cooperative missions and all the rest. I am sick and tired of being told by NAMB and Russel Moore what to do and believe AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE!
This is among the more ironic comments in the history of this site. Among the original purposes of the Southern Baptist Convention was the defeat of this very idea.
You have confused the original purpose of the SBC with the original purpose of the Northern Baptists. One of the reasons (alongside slavery) that led to the formation of the SBC was the idea that a convention of churches (as opposed to the northern “societal” approach) should join together to do multiple things. Paring everything back to international missions alone (or even predominantly) would be going back to what the Triennial Convention did in the 1820s, much to the chagrin of Baptists in the South. The 1826 meeting of the Triennial Convention, especially, featured the domination of the meeting by northern delegates to try to restrain (generally) Southern efforts to broaden the Triennial Convention’s reach.
Southerners wanted the Triennial Convention to pursue John Mason Peck’s Western Mission, Luther Rice’s Columbian College, and the Columbian Star newspaper (now the Christian Index), among other pursuits.
“This is among the more ironic comments in the history of this site. Among the original purposes of the Southern Baptist Convention was the defeat of this very idea.”
“Ironic comments”??
Bart Barber,
You are being highly gracious in your response to Allen Calkins’ comment. And may I add, that is one of the reasons so many of us think you would make a grand SBC president. You are a gracious man.
Anyway, I do so want to interact in this comment thread regarding the content of the post, but I have more two funerals and the great possibility of a third in the next few days.
However, we have had two more folks confess Jesus as Lord in the last three days. So, we are having home goings of saints and the birthing of new ones.
Rick Hillard,
I do want to interact with your post. So, if Dave Miller does not shut down comments as the thread gets longer, maybe I will have that chance later, but for now, let me state that I am not against state conventions or the CP. However, I am against corruption, greed, and waste of resources in any SBC entity be it an SBC entity, state convention, local association or up to the higher level of importance and authority, a local Baptist church.
” that is one of the reasons so many of us think you would make a grand SBC president. You are a gracious man. ”
Here, here! Likewise – I can think of no more gracious and yes – unifying – candidate for SBC President than Bart Barber. I’m not saying past presidents or current candidates are not gracious and unifying – not at all – but I am saying I think of no one more so than Bart.
I’d vote for Bart in a NY second.
I like JD but if Miller or Barber ran, I’d vote for either of them over the two megas.
Well…I’d call that a lot of things but not ‘simple.’
Churches can easily control where they spend mission dollars without a decade-long CR-type of movement.
Bart Barber,
I am with you in the waste of resources, corruption, greed, or pride when it comes to the Kingdom. I would encourage anyone who finds it to work prayerfully and diligently in your circle of influence to solve a problem. Leaders, should do what they are meant to do and that is to lead; they shouldn’t desire to cut and run. We really do need each other to (borrowing a line from Trump) “make the SBC great again.”
I welcome any continued conversation with you…