RNS has a story on the top religious news stories for 2015. To the chagrin of many among us who see our beloved Southern Baptist Convention as the center of the religious universe, only one SBC event made RNS’s top 25. See if you can guess what that one is…shouldn’t be hard.
Here is my personal list of top SBC stories for 2015. I’m presuming, of course, that nothing much will happen between now and December 31st. It shouldn’t, since most SBC pastors get past the Christmas church events and skate for the rest of the year.
1. The International Mission Board announces mandatory reductions of 600-800 personnel.
IMB has been overstaffed for years and the financial chickens finally came home to roost. Past IMB leadership used a secret sauce of financial reserves combined with revenues from overseas property sales to avoid bursting the over-inflated personnel bubble. It wasn’t really a secret but not until David Platt and current leaders declared that current and projected revenues will only support about 4,000 or so personnel was any action taken to spend within the normal revenue stream; hence, downsizing by 600-800 personnel.
Several important news stories are related to this: the positive response of Southern Baptists to providing for returning missionaries, questions about previous IMB managers and their decisions, and issues about overseas property sales and tracking those revenues; however, nothing tops telling our overseas missions workers that hundreds of them will have to retire, resign, or be terminated. Thus far, reductions are being made by voluntary acceptance of retirement incentives.
I’d call this the second biggest SBC news story of my lifetime. The Conservative Resurgence would be the biggest.
2. Millions in direct gifts sent to IMB
After IMB’s announcement of shortfalls and personnel reductions NAMB sent them an astonishing $4 million for missionary support and transition. This deserves its own listing here as a top news story. It is astonishing that one SBC entity would voluntarily give this sum to another entity…and to think, NAMB was our dysfunctional entity not long ago. No longer, thank God. The South Carolina Baptist Convention just voted to send one million directly to IMB as a year end gift. The SCBC is the only state convention (of which I am aware) that sends some funds directly to IMB apart from the regular Cooperative Program channel through the SBC Executive Committee.
3. The Supreme Court’s approval of same sex marriage.
Hey, we all knew this was coming, so, how has this affected SBC churches and ministers? Thus far, churches have began adopting formal policies that prohibit their ministers and facilities from being used for SSM events. How our institutions and individuals are affected by SSM is still being litigated.
4. Our declining numbers.
We report about 15.5 million members now, down from the 2003 peak of 16.3 million. No one is surprised but it’s still news. Lost in reporting of numbers is the fact that we have more congregations than ever, 46,449.
5. The SBC portion of the Cooperative Program was up slightly.
The $189,160,231.41 in CP receipts by the SBC Executive for their fiscal year ending September 30, 2015 was more than the last fiscal year and more than budgeted. CP money is always big news and this is good news.
6. State Conventions are making some pretty significant changes.
More than half of the 42 state conventions affiliated with the SBC increased their percentage of CP gifts forwarded to the Executive Committee. This is no small thing although we have yet to see a decrease of the 62% average of CP giving that the states keep. Aside from this, there has been a hodge-podge of changes by state conventions. My state did a name change that will take me some time to get accustomed to (Georgia Baptist Convention to Georgia Baptist Mission Board). Some states dropped the confusing business of calling some CP funds “shared” and will just report plainly what the state keeps of a CP dollar and what is sent to the Executive Committee. Some states significantly reduced personnel.
7. No major Calvinist blowups, blowouts, or meltdowns.
Frank Page called Calvinism our number one problem a few years ago. Perhaps we have found a way to tolerate each other on the SBC level. I don’t recall any big controversies this year although we are never far from the next Cal/non-Cal blowup.
8. NAMB had a mammoth SEND North America conference in Nashville.
IMB was involved as well. The attendance of around 13,500 was about two and a half times the registration for the SBC annual meeting in Columbus.
9. LifeWay announced the sale of their downtown Nashville property for $125 million.
Cash. NAMB gave IMB $4mil and didn’t even have a property sale windfall out of which to do it. Will LifeWay trustees consider doing something similar? Don’t bet on it.
10. The Georgia Baptist Convention gets bailed out of massive building debt.
A small, but wealthy GBC-related foundation gave the GBC the $25 million to pay off the debt on the oversized, overbuilt GBC headquarters building. The GBC declared their intent to sell the building when an appropriate offer is made. That will be a top news story for another year.
This is my list. What would you include in the top ten?
William, a great list and fun too. I do think items 1 & 2 fall under a larger umbrella. Not sure how to title it though. Perhaps IMB Financial Chickens Come Home to Roost.” At the least there should be some form of bird metaphor in there. Good job.
William….
“NAMB gave IMB $4…”
FOUR WHOLE DOLLARS! Wow!
🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂
Well, Mr. Emoticon, the word “million” is there.
Lol. Good article.
(The word million is missing – it looks as if you’re saying the North American mission board gave the international mission board four dollars)
Just playin’ dude.
I know you are just messing with me but I see the word “million”. You got software that filters large numbers out?
nope…here is what is appearing on my screen…
“Cash. NAMB gave IMB $4 and didn’t even have a property sale windfall out of which to do it. Will LifeWay trustees consider doing something similar? Don’t bet on it.”
The word million is not there, sir.
Admit it. The great William Thornton made a boo boo. 😉
Suppose I could have said I salted the article with a low number because I knew Dave Cline could manage single digits…but in a selfless display of magnanimity, I admit it – I made a mistake.
Hard to believe the massive prayer for revival at the SBC did not make your list but an obscure event with the Georgia convention did. Also SEND NA should be much higher.
William is a GA Baptist, so his list (these are always subjective) will tend to be Georgia-centric.
But I would agree with you, Scott, that the SBC led by Ronnie Floyd was a big deal and probably should have been included on the list. I’m not sure what to bump, William, but the SBC was a pretty grand thing, even if attendance was not record breaking.
I wasn’t at the SBC. Perhaps the event would have impressed me had I been present. Massive rallys and similar events are fairly routine in SB life. We have them. Then we go home and forget about them.
But I appreciate hearing what would have made someone else’s top ten.
William T
“Massive rallys and similar events are fairly routine in SB life. We have them. Then we go home and forget about them.”
Been there, done that, bought the T shirt….in fact several times over several years. It took me a long time to learn that national initiatives are of little value. If I take care of my backyard I can make an impact.
Btw, Baptist Press usually releases their list, maybe after Christmas. Let’s see what they include.
If I were Baptist Press, I’d CREATE some big newsworthy event between now and then, just so my list could be different and I could claim that you hadn’t scooped me. 🙂
Bart,
You could announce your candidacy for Presidency of the SBC and thereby blow any other list out of the water.
😉
Would amend my top ten…
I hereby announce my intention to nominate Dr. Bart Barber for President of the SBC. He has agreed to (not) accept the nomination.
Definitely time to fire up the “Draft Bart” website and start collecting signatures.
Bart may be in a part of the country with limited internets. You might build some momentum before he finds out and crashes it to a halt.
Can’t. Too busy. Running for Chief of a village in Senegal.
Koulandiso supports you.
Blahhhhh….the village chief thing shouldn’t overly impede your candidacy.
Ronnie Floyd pastors multiple churches and still finds time to be SBC president.
😉
#bart4prez
Related to Item #1: The personnel reduction at the IMB —>
I just went over to the IMBs website to see what the latest is on the “voluntary package”. I believe that the date to either sign up or not to the voluntary package has now passed since the deadline was Dec 11. However, as far as I know, the IMB has not released any information about how many have signed up for the voluntary package and what the approximate financial impact to the IMB is as a result of those signing up.
Maybe the idea is to wait until the Phase II portion of the package — in January 2016 — before the IMB announces any results of the downsizing. I don’t have the IMB FAQ web page in front of me as I type this but I believe the Phase II portion of the packing — i.e. the Jan 2016 portion — is called something like the “hand raising” phase.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
Change last sentence from “portion of the packing . . . ” to “portion of the PACKAGE. . . . ”
I need to proofread better over here!!
BTW, The January 2016 phase is officially known as “Hand Raising Opportunity”
I haven’t seen anything either, Roger. Phase Two is the Hand Raising Opportunity. Not sure exactly what this means but I have a little on that for week after next.
Have a nice Christmas.
My addition for 2015: Despite a history of supporting the person whom they perceive to be the most moral candidate, many Southern Baptists are inexplicably supporting Donald Trump for president, arguably the most immoral candidate in the current Republican field.
Oh, no…Bill Mac dropped the Trump bomb!
I was wrong.
I shouldn’t have used the word “current”.
Here’s an interesting tidbit from FactCheck.Org regarding Donald Trump:
In the 12 years of FactCheck.org’s existence, we’ve never seen a match for him.
Trump stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong.
Now google “FactCheck.org liberal bias”. They are not to be trusted, even if they are accidently right one in a while.
How did I know that was coming? Ad hominem?
I knew that was coming, too! You don’t seem to mind FactCheck.org’s Ad Hominem attack on Trump, do you? LOL.
“attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.”
Look: 1: Factcheck’s liberal bias is in no way established.
2. Liberal bias, even if established, does not disprove their claims against Trump. Bias does not equal lies.
3. Trump is not a conservative, so I’m not sure liberal bias even means anything when speaking of him.
4. Trump is an animated lie machine. The Trump untruths listed by factcheck don’t even scratch the surface of the obvious lies he has told.
I am absolutely biased against Trump. But that has no bearing on whether the ridiculous story he told about watching people jump out of the twin towers from 4 miles away is true or not. It is obviously not. My bias leads me to jump on things Trump says or does, but I have lots of material to work with. I don’t need to make stuff up.
Bill,
Look! I think character matters so I don’t mind an Ad Hominem attack – if it is accurate. FactCheck.org is generally not trustworthy. Unfortunately other sources that should be trustworthy have not been when it comes to Trump. Some of the stuff said on this site (e.g. the proposed Muslim travel ban) has not been accurate. We have an obligation to be accurate and precise. This sort of general name-calling should be beneath us.
Politifact returns similar results. 75% of Trump’s statements checked were found to be mostly false, false, or pants on fire. They also named Obama’s “If you like your plan” as the 2013 lie of the year.
But did you look at the individual items. Here is one “lie”:
“The birther movement was started by Hillary Clinton in 2008. She was all in!” – Trump
And then there’s this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/
Donald, you might want to be careful getting “facts” from Breitbart. Like most political sites, the “facts” are usually slanted into a political narrative and are often not accurate.
What seems to be true is that the birther narrative grew among some extreme Hillary supporters but there is little real evidence that Hillary’s campaign was behind it.
I’ve read too many Breitbart and similar right winger site articles recently that have been just plain factually wrong. I’m used to that when the left wing stuff is wrong. I don’t expect truthfulness from them. I don’t expect Hillary to tell the truth – I pretty much expect every word out of her mouth to be a lie. I’ve seldom been disappointed.
But as a conservative I want conservative sites to hold to a high standard of truth and Breitbart and several others (including Fox, at times) have let political expediency overwhelm factual accuracy.
I tend to be unforgiving when they do that.
All that to say that for me, until they demonstrate to the opposite, footnoting Breitbart anymore carries about as much weight as footnoting a Dr. Seuss book. They have twisted the facts to fit their narrative too many times for me to give any credence to their words.
Yes, Dave… bias is everywhere. For example, who on SBCVoices has talked about this other “lie”: June 29, Sen. Ted Cruz said “the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008,”? It really doesn’t seem like he is talking about a group of fringe supporters operating outside the campaign but we all like Cruz and we give him a pass. It’s Tribal. The biggest lie in business is that it’s not personal, it’s just business. Everything is personal.
You have demonstrated your own bias when you repeatedly commented that Trump said he was “gonna get Bill Gates to shut down the internet to stop terrorism”
What was actually said by Trump was “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way ” – Trump
So the fact is: Trump mentions Bill Gates and references other people who understand (e.g. top guys in the field) to see what can be done for some sort of internet counter-terrorism initiative.
You statement and his statements are not congruent. A fact-check would call you a liar. Would you agree with that analysis of yourself? I do not think of you as a liar, but like anyone you allow your bias to make your speech a bit less than accurate at times. Do you hold yourself to less of a standard than you hold conservative pundits? Anytime I have ever been witness to a situation that was later reported in the press they always get details wrong, yet somehow we all believe it is only done by others and that they are intentionally lying, whereas we might just over-speak or get carried away.
Fact-check sites are opportunistic folks who are making money and have been given way to much credit, despite George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs empirically demonstrating their anti-Republican and anti-conservative bias.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto has consistently reported that fact-checkers often – way too often for anyone’s good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of “fact.”
Breitbart explained in the article exactly why he came to his conclusion and it seems that Cruz, Trump, Limbaugh, and a bunch of other commentators agree. It has some merit. The factcheck.org article on the same subject does not consider much of what Breitbart reports and was written before the Breitbart article. All things considered, Breitbart is at least one-up on the fact-check sites.
All this to say, your conclusion on Breitbart does not make me accept factcheck.org as a better source — and that really makes my original point about bias and reporting only the conclusions of others.
I do not much appreciate being called a liar, Donald. I may be wrong (it has happened) but I consider being a accused of lying a serious accusation.
I think my interpretation of your guy’s statement is pretty fair. He blustered as if he could have Gates “turn it off.” Certainly, you are going to defend anything he says. Forever.
But since you think I’m a liar, there’s little point in me saying anything else to you. I’m done.
Donald: This is the difference I see, my anti-Trump bias in full view. Politicians are often inelegant in what they say, and people often unfairly jump on what they say rather than what they obviously mean.
I honestly don’t think that is what is happening with Trump most of the time. I think he says whatever pops into his head, and people like you build a plausible narrative of what he meant. Your explanation of what he meant for the Bill Gates things is remotely plausible, but frankly I don’t think he thinks that deeply.
Bill Mac, you are a hoot! Who are “people like me”? What else could he have meant by the very words that he said? I guarantee he did not mean what Dave said (“gonna get Bill Gates to shut down the internet to stop terrorism”) because he didn’t say that.
Let me compare what I said with what he said and see if it is only “remotely possible”. Please explain the difference since “people like me” are just out there making up plausible narratives:
Trump: “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening.”
Me: “Trump mentions Bill Gates and references other people who understand (e.g. top guys in the field)”
Trump: “We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way ”
Me: “to see what can be done for some sort of internet counter-terrorism initiative.”
I will grant I got the word “terrorist” from the immediate context. Outside of that one word, how am I just making up a plausible context? It is what he said, I only said it different because “people like you” can’t seem to read it right in his words.
Donald, clearly nothing will stop your honorifics to the Donald – or your insults to me. I’m through discussing with you. Neither time nor interest to continue it.
But he did make an utterly stupid statement about the Internet, asking Bill Gates to turn it off – as if Gates had any such power. He thinks he can do such things.
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way.”
This reminds me of Trump and the reaction of Christians and the American people to Trump’s statements.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=a+face+in+the+crowd&view=detail&mid=596DE35F75E06A9E3C9A596DE35F75E06A9E3C9A&FORM=VIRE8
Donald: I used the term “people like you” simply to mean “the people who do”. You present a very reasonable explanation of Trump’s words, and you imply that must be what Trump meant. Maybe so, but I wouldn’t guarantee it. I think it was you who suggested that maybe Trump’s ridiculous claim to have seen people jumping off the twin towers from 4 miles away was true and he was using binoculars. That’s what I’m talking about.
We need a leader who doesn’t continually say stupid and/or offensive and/or untrue things, one who doesn’t need an army of apologists with interpretations of his/her words.
Dave said “But he did make an utterly stupid statement about the Internet, asking Bill Gates to turn it off”
No, that’s not what he said and that is the point…
Bill Mac said “you imply that must be what Trump meant.”.
Actually I clearly say that is what Trump said. I assume he meant what he said.
Bill Mac said “I think it was you who suggested that maybe Trump’s ridiculous claim to have seen people jumping off the twin towers from 4 miles away was true and he was using binoculars.”
What I said was that on a clear day you can see four miles with quality binoculars. I refuted the claim the he must be lying because he could not possible have seen it. I have no idea if he was lying, but the bias that ignores the possible in favor of calling it a definite lie is beneath us.
This is the point so many seem to be missing. It’s about being accurate in the things we say because we also proclaim the Gospel. If we spin Trump what else will we spin? Will we lose our testimony over these things?
Donald: If Donald Trump had a history of being honest and truthful then yeah, we could take a generous approach to much of what he says. Always better to give the benefit of the doubt in those circumstances. But he doesn’t have such a history. His pattern is clear. He says something offensive (about Carly Fiorina’s looks, about Clinton getting “schlonged”, mocking the disable reporter, etc, and then he says that’s not what he meant). He says things that are beyond doubt untrue (thousands of muslims celebrating 911) and he just doubles down. And his minions just lap it up. I’ve never seen such willful blindness since the saga of a certain SBC celebrity who was caught in a massive web of deceit.
So no, I’m not inclined to believe much of anything he says, especially those things that require turning common sense on its head to make them true.
Bil Mac, i’m with you for the first half of your post, and also the last paragraph. Trump exaggerates easily, speaks boorishly, and will not back off a statement even when it is wrong. The “minion” name-calling serves only to minimize and dismiss those who disagree with you and such is beneath us.
The issue that I am bringing up is when pastors join the feeding frenzy to the point of being plain wrong also (e.g. Trump’s comments about combating the spread of Isis’s message over the internet, even if that restricts their free speech).
Some of the popular criticisms are more spin than fact, and that is wrong for those of us who also share the Gospel. Disliking Trump is not reason enough to spread misinformation.
It is especially ironic when Trump is criticized for “doubling down” by people who will only “double down” even when they are wrong. Anyone who still claims that Trump said he’d get Bill Gates to cut off the Internet is guilty of this criticism, as that is simply not what he said. Why not simply speak true? Criticize that the plan is unworkable, criticize that is really is no plan but is simple name-dropping for something that even the US probably can’t do, criticize it as being ignorant since nobody in Cyber-Warfare would say such a thing and that Trump is just running off at the mouth. Why not real criticism rather than a misleading sound-bite?
But, the bias here is simply too strong for simple reason to prevail….another inconsistent moment from you guys.
Donald: I will concede the internet thing, with the criticisms you outlined. He name dropped and said something naive and oversimplistic. But he was touching on terrorist’s use of social media.
I watched part of CNN’s focus group of Trump supporters, and have seen others at other times on TV. I’m inclined to stick with the word minion because these people are scary. Trump said it, they believe it, that settles it.
Ok, I get the “minions” comment. I was taking it too personally.
I’ve liked Trump since I read his book back in the late 80’s. His advice helped me a lot in my business. As an entrepreneur I really enjoyed The Apprentice. The early shows were master classes on business, and showed time and again how you can get a business up and running in just a few days – plus make a profit. I’m a fan and the Trump I see now is really the same guy that I’ve seen for years and so do not think he is lying or putting on any more of a show than his entire life has been.
I do like the paradigm where men are successful in their industry/career and enter into politics later in life. Thus far, the offerings that match this have been less than ideal (Forbes, Trump, Perot, even perhaps the Paul’s as medical doctors).
I have no idea what Trump would do with judge selection. I would love to see Rand Paul pick a couple of Supreme Court Justices.
My primary vote will be for Rand Paul and on election day I will sheepishly tick the Republican box. I will try to “go away and calm down” as Dave has suggested to some posters in the past. Thanks for the interaction Bill Mac. I may not sound like it, but I always respect your posts even when I disagree.
Same here Donald. I’ll admit I’ve never read his books or watched his TV shows. He’s always seemed to be a bit of a clown to me, and until this year, a harmless one. I am a university professor in a school of business and I haven’t heard anything but horror from my colleagues regarding Trump. (Information Systems is my area of expertise, so I’m not an authority on business in general).
We should probably move on to something less controversial: Like how the moderate use of alcohol affects the gun control debate in the context of a Calvinist takeover of the SBC spearheaded by the ERLC, which is secretly controlled by a surprising partnership between Mark Driscoll and Ergun Caner.
“We should probably move on to something less controversial: Like how the moderate use of alcohol affects the gun control debate in the context of a Calvinist takeover of the SBC spearheaded by the ERLC, which is secretly controlled by a surprising partnership between Mark Driscoll and Ergun Caner.”
You, sir, win the Internet!
What was actually said by Trump was “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way ” – Trump
You forgot the rest of the quote Donald. “Somebody will say freedom of speech, freedom of speech. These are foolish people.”
Did not forget, but it is not the subject. Rand Paul’s analysis of the problems with this are spot on. However, I’m just tired of the spin. Simply, there are many reasons to criticize Trump without doing this, especially from people-who-should-know-better (i.e. Pastors).
I remember how we all rallied around Jimmy Carter. He was certainly a moral President. Yep, good times. I’ve got a gold painted railroad spike from Plains, Ga from when we took the Beta Club there on a visit.
Carter was before my (voting) time, but it’s a fair point. Moral does not equal strong. But I’m not sure grossly immoral is justified even if he/she proved to be strong.
I’m really just for accuracy and truth. I am not planning to vote for Trump but the anti-Trump rhetoric is eerily close to what some accuse Trump of doing.
BTW, the faith of Reagan and Bush contributed a lot to my support of them. Southern Baptist have generally not been great Presidents (Carter and Clinton).
That’s because they were both liberal southern baptists (theologically and politically) .
Let’s elect a conservative one for once and see what he does.
#TrusTed
😉
You’d never know that you were not going to vote for Trump by your words Donald.
Bill Clinton, for example.
I did not vote Carter. But I’m absolutely convinced that few negatives can be said about Trump that are not 100% true. He is as evil as anything we’ve seen in recent years.
If he is the nominee, I will no longer be a Republican.
One of the things that both Factcheck.org and Politifact noted, beyond the sheer volume of untruths spouted by Trump, is his absolute unwillingness to EVER admit that he is wrong. Even now throngs of his minions are convinced that there were thousands of muslims in the streets in New Jersey celebrating 9/11.
I heard one of his advisers on TV, saying with a straight face, that he’s never known Trump to be wrong. He’s got some kind of Jedi-mind power that switches the poles on people’s moral compass.
Dave
If he is the nominee who do you see as an alternative?
Probably despair of politics altogether.
I could never be a democrat – the party of death and perversion.
If my party supports Trump it won’t be my party anymore. I will not support a party that would nominate someone who is immoral, amoral, xenophobic, borderline racist, misgynist (if you respect women it is impossible to respect Trump, in my view), and a megalomaniacal blowhard of the highest order.
Those are reasoned, considered opinions having watched and read his statements.
If my party is debauched and depraved enough to nominate him, I will change my registration.
Who will I vote for? Who cares? If our options are Hillary or Donald, the America we’ve known if finished and it’s time to simply fold the flag and get on with kingdom work.
Agree Dave.
Dave
I am not ready told the flag regardless of who is elected. However total agreed that it is time to move ahead with Kingdom work. I favor Cruz, maybe this will happen.
Confession. I was 18 years old when I cast my first vote in a prez election. Voted for Jimmy Carter. not sure why except he seemed like a good man. I wasn’t a Christian at the time so I had no real idea that I wanted a Christian prez.
Lesson learned. Reagan twice and never a Dem again. My vote for Carter is why I think 18 year olds should’t be given such a privilege as to pick a prez. Too young and stupid, mostly. 🙂
lol. I agree with you, Les.
I am thinking 30 or so should be the voting age (maybe higher). 😉
This would certainly be a different society.
No smileys. New icon.
?
I don’t know about 30 being the minimum age but the older I get the more I am convinced a democratic process of electing a president where everyone has a vote may be the worst way of electing a leader.
yep
I got my email from the ERLC asking for money. Did yall? First of all, is this not taken care of by the CP? Secondly, is this a good idea whenever we are in the middle of taking up the Lottie offering, and missionaries are being sent home? That another SBC Entity is asking for money?
David
ERLC has a few specific initiatives where they ask for donations. What was in the email you received?
Criticizing Dr. Moore and the ERLC is pretty much SOP in some circles. Can’t really be helped, I guess.
My supposition is that this was something that went outside the general SBC family to the broader evangelical community. It doesn’t bother me. I’m going to ignore it. We support the ERLC like we support all the others – through our CP gifts. But as IMB, NAMB, and the Seminaries are allowed to solicit special offerings, so is ERLC.
Nothing to see here folks.
I know that several of my Pastor friends got emails from the ERLC….Southern Baptist Pastors. So, it was not just to the broader, Evangelical circle. It was sent to Southern Baptist Pastors….during the time that we’re trying to raise more money for the IMB thru the Lottie Moon offering….during a time when we’re telling missionaries to come home.
So, you see nothing wrong with this? Really?
David
So, just don’t give the ERLC the donation. Not a big deal. Really nothing to see here.
Here’s a crazy thought guys…what if…now bare with me…what if…and I know this sounds crazy…but what if we didn’t scrutinize every single decision the ERLC made? (Gasp!).
Seriously though, they asked for money, decline the money if you don’t feel led to give, and move on. No one will look down on you. This is a non issue.
Yeah. Don’t give.
Not sure why you have to publicly complain about it as well.
Because I don’t like it, and I don’t agree with it. I think that’s something that everyone in here does. In fact, some people right whole posts about why they don’t like things that are happening in the SBC. Or, about things they don’t agree with.
Sheeeesh. Is the ERLC and Russell Moore off limits? Are they above any scrutiny, whatsoever? Must we agree with everything they do?
I love Dr. Moore, in the Lord. And, I pray for the ERLC….although, it wouldn’t make me shed a tear if we did away with the ERLC. I’m really having a hard time seeing why we should pour so much money into something like the ERLC. And then, they’re asking for more.
David
Off limits? Hardly. You guys pretty much complain about everything Dr. Moore does.
You have the freedom to complain and gripe all you want. I have the freedom to think it’s kinda silly.
Dave,
“You guys???” Who is that? Who are the “you guys?” Also, I haven’t agreed with Dr. Moore about several things that he’s said, but I don’t remember talking about them, all the time?
Scratching my head.
David
I support Moore being in his position – I think he’s doing a pretty good job. I’ve supported his right to hire his own staff. I’ve shared more than a few of his blog posts on Twitter and FB. I like Dr. Moore.
I don’t however always agree with him. When I don’t I feel is acceptable form such as this to voice that opinion.
That said – I agree with VOLFAN – if we don’t want our missionaries making direct please and requests for money in addition to the cooperative program – then why would we want our entities/entity heads doing it?
I’m not talking about long standing and excepted offerings like Lottie and Annie nor do I object if a church decides to give additionally and directly to an entity (I see no problem with that if a church chooses to do so) but I am not a fan of direct solicitation for such no matter the entity. IMO, such action undercuts the CP.
On phone – trying that again:
I support Moore being in his position – I think he’s doing a pretty good job. I’ve supported his right to hire his own staff. I’ve shared more than a few of his blog posts on Twitter and FB. I like Dr. Moore.
I don’t however always agree with him. When I don’t I feel is acceptable on a forum such as this to voice that opinion.
That said – I agree with VOLFAN – if we don’t want our missionaries making direct pleas and requests for money from individual Southern Baptists and SBC churches in addition to the cooperative program – then why would we want our entities/entity heads doing it?
I’m not talking about long standing and accepted offerings like Lottie and Annie – nor do I object if a church decides to give additionally and directly to an entity (I see no problem with that if an individual or church chooses to do so) but I am not a fan of direct solicitation for such no matter the entity. IMO, such action undercuts the CP.
Every seminary raises money, as does IMB and NAMB. Every other entity is allowed to do it but not ERLC?
Do individual SBC persons (other than alumni) receive personal direct solicitation from a seminary or mission board?
(On another note – I hope that Dr. Moore co-author articles with other candidates in the contested republican primary so as to not be implying an endorsement.)
Mr, Coach Cline, I can answer with a definite yes to the question if seminary presidents solicit contributions from individuals who are not their alumni. One of the primary duties of our seminary presidents today is to increase contributions. They have to reach out to affluent laymen who usually are not seminary graduates.
I don’t think the email from Dr Moore is a big deal. Most ministries solicit at the end of the year. However, my church protects Lottie each year. Only an extreme benevolence case would cause us to take a special offering in Nov and Dec. If Vol and others believe our entity heads should show the same respect for Lottie I have no beef with their convictions and certainly dont begrudge them sharing them. After all we have listened all year to the nonsense about Big Ten football = to SEC.
Yeah, I see that – Dean. Come to think of it though – It’s understood that our academic institution presidents do that – I still personally feel uneasy about the ERLC doing it during Lottie, though. That’s just my opinion though.
Tarheel, I certainly respect that position.
While I am not troubled by his request there is no way I would contribute to the ERLC during Lottie time. VBC gave a small donation to one of the missionaries forced off the field as a Christmas present and I plan on sharing with my secretary to cut a check to Les Prouty’s Haiti Orphan ministry because he has a donor who is matching gifts in Dec and our small gift will double but other than that, Lottie is our date right now.
Truth is, there are always different “kinds” of money in the church. As an example it is hard to get people to give more to Lottie Moon, but we were able to get the same people to donate Hogs, time, and Brunswick stew and raised twice as much as was given for Lottie Moon (all of which went to the IMB). At the same time we were raising money for our Children’s missions group and the people were very generous, to a total of four times our Lottie Moon offering in monies received. This gave us three times as much for foreign missions and fully funded a new initiative in children’s missions. It took finding the right money for the right cause. My point is that it is never absolutely a wrong time.
One evangelical top ten list includes:
10. The Ascent of the ERLC
Just as important to all these events and more were the responses of evangelical statesmen and leaders. Many traditional evangelicals have flocked to the newly appointed head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. Russell Moore. Assisted by a dynamic team of fresh evangelical thinkers and communicators, Moore has offered timely and incisive responses to controversies over marriage, race, life, immigration, religious liberty, and the presidential debates.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/evangelicalpulpit/2015/12/top-10-news-stories-for-evangelicals-in-2015/
I also got the E-mail from the ELRC. For some reason I’m not getting e-mail for any other SBC entity asking for money. But I don’t mind getting these e-mails. My first priority this Christmas season regarding what could even be loosely called “Church Related” is: [in order] (a) periodic giving to local church, and then (b) gift for what our church calls “Global Missions Offering”. This “Global Missions Offering” happens each December.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the ELRC making direct appeals to individuals. The other entities have been doing this for many years. Look at all the buildings at the seminaries named after someone.
At each board meeting of the IMB the board acknowledges people who have given large bequests [usually from their estate].
Many of the entities have “development officers” [or some such title] that develop sources of giving. I’ve been taken to dinner several times by them. I don’t mind this. However, I think this practice has just about reached a critical mass because when extended across the whole SBC population people are just about maxed out in terms of what they can give. Instead people are looking at bills for property tax running into the thousands, health insurance premiums running into the thousands, and medical bills running into the tens of thousands. I’ve probably spent $50K in the last several years with expenses related to my wife’s MS.
In the ideal world people wouldn’t be broke all the time. Then they could support various Christian ministries and causes. My favorite niche item in the SBC fold is the seminaries. I was too dumb to ever finish my seminary training. But if I could help others attend seminary I’d do it. But truth be told the seminaries are going to have to demonstrate some real-world improvement in terms of cost / benefit. A good first step would be combining some of the schools and shutting down some of the campuses.
With business enterprises companies are under constraint by shareholder groups and venture capitalists to keep their operations under control. With the SBC entities they just spend and spend until they run out of funds.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK
CP funded entities making direct appeals is a legitimate issue. I suspect that this not a mass appeal to SBC churches but any church that gives as heavily to the CP as does David’s church (or any cooperating church) is entitled to ask questions.
…but it’s Christmas Eve…maybe we could be all on the same side about other, more weighty matters.
Merry Christmas, everyone. I’m off to our Candlelight Service.
David
Have a blessed Christmas everyone.
We will discuss the trajectory of SBC funding for [and potential economies by merging some of] the SBC entities next year.
In the meantime, please forgive me for my untimely remarks.
Roger Simpson — Okla City
I wish David or Roger or someone else who received the email would forward one to me or post it here…and start a separate topic.
Here’s the “money” part of the email – the rest of it is a recap of the year and projections for next year’s activity. It’s dated December 23, 2015.
“Would you consider making a tax-deductible end-of-year contribution to the ERLC to invest in our most strategic opportunities in 2016 to prepare and protect pastors and leaders? The situation is urgent. The stakes are high. But the opportunity is great, and our Christ is greater still. Please prayerfully consider supporting the ERLC financially by contributing to this opportunity.
Russell Moore, President
Support the ERLC by giving online safely and securely below. Email us at info@erlc.com if you have any giving related questions.
GIVE NOW
?
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
of the Southern Baptist Convention
901 Commerce Street, Suite 550
Nashville, TN 37203″
Tarheel: et. al.
I received the exact same e-mail. I am a layman. I am not sure why I am on the e-mail address list.
Previously, I have shown some interest in SBC governance. I attended an IMB trustee meeting back in circa 2006 — on my own dime — when there were a lot of “sparks flying” with various groups of trustees dividing into camps and openly fighting each other. I didn’t then, and I am still not, taking any sides on the merits of the arguments on either “side” of that dumb argument.
Ostensibly the argument was about “continualism” vs. “cessationism” [spelling?]. It seemed to me then that reasonable people could agree to disagree on such 2nd (or 3rd) order stuff. It is probably the case there was a clash of egos by members of the IMB BoT such that people’s own personal agenda took precedence over actually keeping an even keel on the helm of the IMB.
In any case, I somehow got on the IMB “donor list”. Within a year of my attendance at the IMB BoT meeting people from the IMB were knocking on my door [actually they were calling me up on the phone] to set up lunch dates.
Along the way I became involved in some communication with Lifeway and the Exec Committee relative to Annual Profile statistics.
I am incredibly animated in the topic of the ability of the SBC to stay on track. I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say the SBC is the strongest force going — at least in North America — to perpetuate conservative evangelical values. I support the ELRC 110% in what it is doing.
However, I’m not exactly sure what to say regarding direct e-mail fundraising. Right now my position regarding the ELRC fundraising tactic is “no comment”.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK
I suppose the appeal is made on the basis that any entity can build their own donor/potential donor list and work that. I presume the appeal is not made to churches which would violate some cp agreement.
I’m with David Worley in wishing that Lottie moon would have the priority but it’s partly a tax thing, year-end giving.
Bill Mac,
I am popping popcorn and awaiting the start of the show….
“We should probably move on to something less controversial: Like how the moderate use of alcohol affects the gun control debate in the context of a Calvinist takeover of the SBC spearheaded by the ERLC, which is secretly controlled by a surprising partnership between Mark Driscoll and Ergun Caner.”
That would be (an hilarious) thread from down yonder that will undoubtedly smell like smoke! 😉
Well Tarheel,
I was having a beer the other day with a brother after shooting at the range. We were talking about the time I baptized his baby some years ago when lo and behold he asked me about the ERLC. His question came out of nowhere. Go figure. 🙂
Shhhhhh! Lol
Les,
Glad you had the beer after.
If a baby asked you about the ERLC during his baptism, I can see why the brother would still be talking about.
Mike, good catch. My HS English teacher would definitely drop my grade. 🙂
guns, babies, baptism, politics, ….how could you go wrong! 🙂 I got a chuckle…