What makes you sure it has congregational polity? I get the impression SBTS emphasizes elder rule only.

I think you are missing my point. On the one hand you have a pastor who takes CP funds, and on the other you have a church that doesn’t give to the CP. It is two different people/groups. The only connection between the two is that he pastors the second. How could it be considered hypocritical if the church, by the congregational form of government so dearly followed by SBCs, decides not to give to the CP? The only thing that makes it suspect is if he is telling them not to give (or something similar).

But …

Were this scenario to actually exist, I would still think it hypocritical.

I know that in the world of SB church planting, most states REQUIRE a 10% return to the state’s CP (and also a percentage to the local association) for state-sponsored NAMB support. So, what that amounts to, is that in order for a church plant to receive a few thousand dollars in sponsorship, they must covenant to give this percentage … which, naturally, will amount to far more than the original support in the mid to long term.

But in this pretend scenario, there is a tenured professor who receives (maybe?) 60-80K a year from the CP gifts of other churches, yet his own church is (functionally) a non-contributor to the source of his own income.

Were this to exist, I would think it something of an ethical inconsistency (in the very least).

But, remember, it’s all pretend … right?

Regarding my question as to who was being a hypocrite, I was responding to this paragraph in your original post:

“But I also see a blatant mass of hypocrisy here. There is not a week that passes by when I do not receive literature that lifts up the CP, or challenges the local churches to give more. So, as I consider a scenario like this one, I am a bit (pretend) offended. I find it outrageous that someone who receives a full-time CP salary (and another full-time pastor’s salary, to boot) leads a church that gives a mere whisper to SB causes.”

My point is simple, I don’t think you have even come close to proving that this professor/pastor is a hypocrite. It would be an entirely different matter if he was discouraging his flock from not giving to the CP. This may in fact be true, but you haven’t published anything of that nature.

Just wondering if the ground is shifting under our feet.

David

Is it legal? Yes. The systems dictate that and it seems to be an axiom that some people learn the system, manipulate or milk it for all its worth. So, And, there must a great “buzz” for a preacher-professor to be “in demand”. Is that a “ministerial cocaine”? Systems must be reviewed and changed from time to time. If the system allows this (both church and seminary), then one or both need to change their system. Otherwise, the complaints are mute. Church and seminary created the system. The individual has just learned an economically advantageous loophole.

Is it moral? Can the person in question give that which is required of both employers and at the same time give to God and family that which they require and deserve? I don’t think so. No matter what the system with its regs, we still only get one body and 168 hours per week. So some choices have to be made and those choices made will reflect the true values of the hypothetical person in question.

Maybe someone should ask this person’s wife???

Just my hypothetical thoughts.

Except, now it’s, “First Baptist Michigan only gave 100$ to the CP last year… but we know they bring in 100,000$ in tithes every year!”

It’s not a requirement to be a SB, it’s not a requirement from God, and there are a number of other ways a church can support SB’s without giving to the CP. A number makes it much to easy for us to judge, but without more information, than maybe we should just trust that these brothers are following what God is leading them to do.

Lew

Lew

I don’t think I catch your drift.