It is indeed sad. From what I understand, they had already been appointed for the 2 year appointment. They had just completed about a year when they got the news. They are coming home soon, and they will live in Bellevue Baptist’s mission house for a couple of months in Memphis until they can get things worked out. That’s all I know…all I was told.

David

Yesterday’s BP articles included a story about new ISC appointments being halted until at least the beginning of 2010. If the person you were told about was trying to re-up for ISC, then he may indeed have been not reappointed for budget reasons. I wasn’t questioning the veracity of your story. It just didn’t seem to fit. In light of this sad news form the trustee meeting, it now makes sense.

There is no gift of “laymen” in the church. It sounds to me like you may have the gift of teaching and are able to lead. Everyone cooperating in the SBC is a voice. I hope you continue to have your voice heard.

Blessings,
Chris

It is a matter of public record that I signed the GCR web page. This was done a couple of weeks ago before my decision to disengage.

My previous comment does not violate my self-imposed embargo because my comments are only addressing the children’s homes in Oklahoma as they relate to CP funding. I only mentioned the GCR document in passing because the advent of the CGR document served as a stimulus to cause me to begin to think about funding various ministries here in Oklahoma into the 21st Century.

I am not drawing any conclusions as to what, if any, linkage there may be between the funding for the Oklahoma children’s homes and some outworking of the GCR document and/or any commission that arises to implement Section IX of the document.

I’ve become aware that there are negotiations going on “behind the scenes” relative to the GCR document. As a layman, there is simply no way for me to know what is going on with the negotiations so obviously
I can’t be constructively involved. Any comments or advocacy on my part would be uninformed and not helpful.

Once something is on the table for public comment then there will be a time for “guys in the pew”, like me, to weigh in. It is my expectation that after Louisville there will be at least “something out there” laymen like me can begin to discuss as the “restructuring committee” (or whatever it is going to be called) starts its deliberations.

Roger K. Simpson Oklahoma City

I am the lowest guy on the SBC totem pole so I was not going to say anything but this issue of the “children’s homes” that Volfan has brought up been bothering me also. In fact, it has been troubling me for the last two weeks since this call for “cutting bureaucratic waste” came up when the GCR came out. The fact is that these homes are not cheap to run. Here in Oklahoma we have deep-pocket Christians that give big time for capital needs of the homes. However, there are still “significant” salary expenses involved in running these homes. In Oklahoma there are several homes — both boys homes (called “ranches”) as well as other children’s homes. There is one here in OKC and also one is Owasso and maybe some others. I think any proposal involving tossing out “waste” in the state conventions has to address this issue specifically to be creditable.

If it could be demonstrated that “missionaries” from local churches would volunteer their time 24/7/365 to manning these homes (and that is what it takes) then I think the CP is likely to be the only viable tool to finance these homes. But I’m open to listening to any proposal anyone might have.

I’ve signed on the the GCR document, but not to the elimination of the children’s homes.

Roger K. Simpson Oklahoma City OK

I agree that it takes both…balance. I agree that the SBC could be streamlined….state conventions could be streamlined as well. I agree that people at the top are making too much money. But, at the same time, the 50% of CP giving that doesnt make it out of many state conventions support things like Church planting in that state, and children’s homes. So, while I would agree with you that streamlining and not raising exuberant salaries at state levels would get more out to the mission field, let’s not forget that some really good ministries and outreach efforts take place at the state level. They have to have money to exist and do the work.

David

But what ticks me off is that so much of what we now have under the umbrella of “Cooperative Program” has little to nothing to do with missions. The average church member, faithfully dropping his or her dollars in the plate each Sunday, feels satisfaction for giving to “missions” through the cooperative program … yet less than 50cents from each of those dollars even make it out of their own state convention building … and even less makes it to the real mission field. Most SB’s don’t have a clue. At least the events at NAMB a couple of years ago opened a few eyes.

There are simply too many hands sticking out, too many lavish office buildings, too many executives on high-dollar salaries with fleet cars and expense accounts. Piles of money create the opportunity for waste and excess.

I support Lottie … big time! But if what I’m reading on the web is true, we may need to start mailing our gifts straight to Richmond instead of sending them to our state conventions.

Of course, if God’s people would stop spending God’s money on themselves, then this wouldn’t be an issue would it?

But I still believe that far too many SB’s “hide” behind the proxy of the offering plate. It’s just too easy. The Great Commission instructs the church to go and make disciples of all nations. That task cannot be accomplished by hiring 5,000 or so people to go and “do it for us.”

It takes both. We need balance.

I was told by this man’s cousin, who is a member of my Church, that this family was a year into thier ISC, or Journeyman appointment, or whatever you call it….with the hopes, of course, of becoming career missionaries at the end of the 2 years. But, they were told that they had to come home due to finances, or the lack of. All I know is what I was told.

David

You are right,…the priority, at least from this string of guys, is that missions are what all of us want….and I agree that one of the great strengths of cooperating churches as SBC is to be able to keep men and women in the field.

One thing is certain, the SBC machine created by the SBC dollars… for whatever reason, has lost its passion for missions and has gained a passion for “other things”, “comfort”, and “worldly pragmatism”. Several important things to remember:

1…is that local churches have money and if they are encouraged and understand the need for mission, the Christ follower’s will give.

2…..local churches are also filled with Christ followers that are not confident in large organizations spending money on whatever passions or rabbits that come along (just this list of “get rid of’s” bear that out). But churches will give to ministry that is clear and understood,…not some marketing scheme that “may” promise results or yield to the latest environmental or pragmatic scheme. Clarity comes from a more local approach, because it is the responsibility of the leaders to explain to the flock the need for money…not just talk about an offering that comes up several times a year, or a percentage of budgets. There must be a real or authentic connection.

The accumulation strategy of these SBC monies and operational requirements for distribution can and should be drastically reduced. This will keep men and women in the field working the ministry, but it will also send “some” of the SBC machine into the marketplace to find work. We must understand the difference and distinction of where ministry takes place though,…it is in the field. Sometimes we convince ourselves that the money spent in the machine is more important.

Blessings,
Chris

I want to be sure I understand what you’ve written. Are you recounting that a couple who was serving under ISC or Masters appointment applied for a career position and was declined because of a lack of funds?