;)
"Penetrating the Lostness": One Enthusiastic “AYE” for the GCR Report!
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
On January 28, 1986, I was sitting in my home in Jupiter, Florida, just hanging out. Suddenly my sister rushed into the house and said, “Dave, the shuttle exploded.” We went outside and could see the twisted cloud in the clear sky to our north. It was a shock to us – we had come to believe that the shuttle was about as safe as commuting to work. We had no clue that Christa McAuliffe and the rest of the crew were doomed as the shuttle lifted off the ground.
Well, that is not actually true. There was an engineer for Morton Thiokol named Roger Boisjoly who knew the problem was on the way. He sent memos warning of the danger of o-rings that let gas escape, especially in colder weather, endangering the solid rocket boosters that powered the vessel into space. The night before the launch he and other engineers tried to convince NASA that launching in the cold Florida weather was a disaster in the making.
NASA refused to listen to the people who knew and a disaster occurred. Had they listened, the lives of seven people could have been saved and a tragedy averted.
We, the leaders, pastors and people of the Southern Baptist Convention need to hear the warnings and act now. We cannot afford to hope, as NASA did, that everything will turn out okay if we do nothing. It is time to act, time to change, time to grow, time to refocus and reenergize our mission.
In my opinion, it is time to adopt the Great Commission Task force recommendations. I plan to be in Orlando to vote “aye” for the recommendations – each and every one!
The Great Commission Task Force Final Report, “Penetrating the Lostness” has been published. Every Southern Baptist should read this report. I will share a few thoughts about the document. Obviously, I cannot comment on this lengthy document without writing a book. I will copy the titles and subtitles used in the report so you can refer back to the GCRTF report.
Urgency: A World of Lostness
The statement of the needs of the lost world and the failures of the church to penetrate that darkness in recent generations are spelled out clearly.
- There are nearly 7 billion people in the world now and by the most generous estimates no more than 1 billion are believers. In addition, 3.5 billion have never heard the gospel. It is not a time for the status quo.
- As the population explodes, the church is treading water. In 2005, we baptized 33,000 fewer people than we did in 1950. In 1970, we baptized 140,000 teenagers. In 2008, we baptized 75,000 – just over half as many.
- Perhaps the most disturbing statistic for a patriotic American such as I am is the fact that generational studies have shown a gradual but inexorable drifting away from Christianity in America. Every American generation since early in the 20th Century has been less Christian than the previous generation.
How can we argue for the status quo in the face of lostness such as this? The report shows the need to do something we have not been doing. There is an undeniable need. But does it make the right diagnosis and give the right prescription? That is yet to be seen.
Reality: What is Holding Us Back?
This section gets to the heart of the problem and I believe accurately diagnoses the root problem. Jesus told us that our treasures and our hearts would walk together in this world. The average Southern Baptist gives around 2.5% of his or her income to the Lord’s work. I am not one who believes that tithing is a legal requirement for New Testament Christians, but I believe that the fact that the AVERAGE giving among Southern Baptists in America is 2.5% demonstrates one thing beyond disputation.
The problem is a heart problem.
We love the world too much. We are investing in the treasures of earth more than the treasures of heaven. We are buying things and enjoying life while the world around us goes to hell. We need to deal with the heart issue of our commitment to Christ and the priority of the work of the Kingdom.
The problem does not stop there. Not only do Southern Baptists keep 97.5% of our income for ourselves, but Southern Baptist churches keep 94% of their income for their own ministries and only send an average of 6% to the Cooperative Program. The me-focus of the individual seems to have become an us-focus in our churches.
The average state convention keeps 63% of its money for work in its own state. While at the national level we give 50% to internation missions, at every other level we keep the vast majority of our money for ourselves.
As harsh as this may sound, I believe these statistics give evidence of a deep heart problem among Southern Baptists. We talk about being missional, but the way we handle our money does not back up our words. The Macedonians described in 2 Corinthians 8 gave themselves first to the Lord and then gave their money generously. They were deeply impoverished and under intense persecution, but they had an overflowing joy in Jesus Christ that produced a rich generosity. They gave “as much as they were able and even beyond their ability.”
We don’t have a money problem. We have a heart problem that shows up in the way we spend our money.
I appreciate the affirmation in this section of a great number of great churches and great people. There is a faithful remnant. But that does not change the fact that we have a big heart problem.
Back to Basics: A Theology for Great Commission Faithfulness
This section powerfully trumpets the need for everything we do to be gospel-centered and for our missions efforts to be church-centered. I appreciate the fact that they affirmed that which we share in our theology and ecclesiology. They did not take sides in the Calvinism debates or the Baptist Identity issues, but called us all to that firm theology that we hold in common.
The document then turns its attention to seven components, each with a recommendation.
COMPONENT ONE: Getting the Mission Right
We will be asked to adopt a mission statement as follows. Not much to debate here, is there?
“As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.”
COMPONENT TWO: Making Our Values Transparent
The document then spells out eight “Core Values” that we are to let guide all our interactions. I appreciate every one of these. I am glad they spell out that inerrancy is a core value. I am glad that they indicate that being part of the greater Kingdom of God should be a core value for Southern Baptists.
Again, not much to debate here.
COMPONENT THREE: Celebrating and Empowering Great Commission Giving
The third component is where the controversy with this document may begin. To this point, it would be hard to argue with much that has been said. No one will argue with the affirmation of the Cooperative Program or its importance for the task.
The problem is this statement:
“We also call upon Southern Baptists to celebrate all giving to our common work. 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.”
If I understand this correctly, any money given to SBC missions causes will count as “CP” or Great Commission giving. Some of the criticisms of the original report asserted that any missions giving, to SBC causes or not, would be counted and reported. It is clear in this report that only money given through Southern Baptist causes will be counted as part of the Great Commission giving category.
Here is my humble opinion. WHO CARES? Is it really that important how giving is recorded on the Annual Church Report? People are dying and going to hell and we are arguing over the ACP? I honestly don’t care how you report the offerings. Just give and give generously and record it however you please. This is NOT the issue.
What we need to focus on here is the call to sacrificial giving by individuals, churches and SBC entities and the emphasis on the missions offerings we support.
COMPONENT FOUR: Reaching North America
The conflict, of course, continues in the discussion of the role of NAMB in SBC life. Would that it were not so, but NAMB has been the dysfunctional agency of the SBC in recent years. It was thought that NAMB might be folded into the IMB, but that was not recommended. However, the report does recommend a radical refocusing of the NAMB ministry.
The interim report raised a hue and cry about ending the cooperative agreements between NAMB and the state conventions. In NAMB-dependent states like the one I serve in (Iowa) there was fear (fairly well founded) that the end of the cooperative agreements would be the end of much of the work of our state convention. There was also opposition to the idea that NAMB would be working independently in our states without necessarily coordinating with the state conventions.
Those concerns seem to be addressed here. The cooperative agreements will still be phased out, but will be replaced by something very similar. NAMB and state conventions will still work in “partnership” on the basis of “agreements” – even if the old-style cooperative agreements fall by the wayside.
There are two emphases here that are powerful and important. First, NAMB is instructed to focus on lostness in America – to go where the lost people are. There will be a new emphasis on the population centers. This makes sense.
The second emphasis – and the one that warms this Iowan’s heart – is the recommendation that NAMB focus its work outside the Deep South, outside the established Southern Baptist areas. We send our international missionaries where the unreached people groups are. We need to send our North American missionaries where the lost people are and OUTSIDE the SBC-dominated areas. We should be focusing on the areas outside the Bible Belt, outside the old-line states.
COMPONENT FIVE: Reaching Unreached and Underserved People Groups Within North America
This recommendation gives the responsibility of reaching “unreached people groups” in the United States to the IMB, in cooperation with NAMB. I’m not a missiologist, but this makes sense to me. We sponsor a Korean church. It makes sense to me that they relate to our International Mission Board.
Again, this is not a big issue to me, but I can see why it might be a good thing to do.
COMPONENT SIX: Promoting the Cooperative Program and Elevating Stewardship
This recommendation gives the responsibility for the promotion of the CP to the state conventions instead of the Executive Committee. Again, this does not seem like a huge issue to me, but the logic seems to make sense.
COMPONENT SEVEN: The Call of the Nations and the SBC Allocation Budget
The task force recommends raising the IMB percentage to 51% of undesignated receipts. That percentage will be taken from the Facilitating Ministries budget. This will not solve the financial problems at the IMB, but it is an important symbolic act of prioritization. We are saying that we will fund missions over institutions.
It may only be a gesture, but to me it is a good one.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
This is, essentially, the motion that we will be voted on, based on the rationale described in the document.
We will vote on this recommendation in its entirety unless someone makes the motion that we split the question and vote individually on each one.
CHALLENGES
This lengthy section addresses a series of challenges to all Southern Baptists, to individual Christians, to families, to local churches and pastors, to associations, to state conventions, to Lifeway, to the seminaries, to the ERLC, to Guidestone and to all Southern Baptist leaders.
I appreciate that the task force gave these are challenges and respected the autonomy and interconnectedness of SBC entities.
I agree with the most of the challenges.
My Impressions
- We cannot afford to act like NASA and pretend we do not have a problem as American Christians and as the SBC. We are losing the battle and change is needed.
- We cannot afford to protect turf or defend the status quo in the face of radical lostness. The call to focus on the Great Commission and to prioritize the gospel, a missional mindset, and sacrificial giving needs to be heeded.
- Perhaps each of us can find something we do not like about the document. It does not side with any of the “camps” in the SBC, but calls us to the root of our unity and the heart of our beliefs. It is not a Calvinist document, nor an anti-Calvinist one. It neither enshrines nor condemns Baptist Identity. It is neither a big-church or a small-church document. It is a Baptist document. But most of all, it is a Great Commission document.
- “You cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” Crass, I know. But change always comes with a cost. There will be some disruption to state conventions and to the current iteration of our interconnectedness. But from the ashes of the status quo may rise a more effective SBC – redesigned to meet the challenges of today’s world.
- I am not a fool. I’ve got an IQ well into the 70’s, and I realize that adopting a report at the SBC will not change things in the real world. But I believe that the challenges of the Great Commission Task Force Report are the challenges we need to hear. Missional lifestyles. Sacrificial giving. Gospel focus. Penetrating the Lostness. May these become more than just slogans. If not, we may look back with the eyes of the future and regret our decisions.
There is so much more to say, and we will be saying it, won’t we. Count me as one “yes” vote – unless you guys can change my mind!
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Dave,
I will bet my 2008 Honda Ridgeline that there will be a motion to consider the components separately. Frankly, one and two could be considered together. All in favor of Jesus? Aye.
The reason component three matters is not for accounting or administrative purposes. Thousands of missionaries depend on Southern Baptists to hold the rope through a cooperative missions approach. If we give our blessing to a societal missions approach and pretend that it is okay for a church to reduce their CP budget in order to finance some direct partnership, even an SBC one, it will create two classes of SBC missionaries — the “haves” who enjoy such direct partnership support and the “have nots” who depend on the old and shrinking cooperative missions strategy. Still, I wonder, if you don’t care how the money is given, why not vote “no?” If it doesn’t really matter, why is it even in the report? Frankly, it sends the message that for all our talk about CP giving being our primary channel, any other channel is really just as good. I don’t believe that, so “no” on three.
Sounds like they negotiated some changes in component four that allow for a new type of cooperative agreement to continue to exist. If the state conventions can live with the new arrangement, I’m fine with that, but this is the one that seems pointless to me. Are we really just replacing old cooperative agreements with new ones? I’m also glad there’s no longer talk of the seven regional centers, especially in light of the “bloated bureaucracy” charge. This one is a definite “maybe.”
Regarding component five, was there really some reason why international missionaries could not cooperate with NAMB before? Will this create confusion over the task? I suppose this is a “yes” but I’m confused as to why we need to vote on international missionaries helping with people groups here, perhaps with materials or directly when they are on stateside assignment.
Component six? If we are going to give the states the CP promotion task, we need to give them more money not less. Unfunded mandates are for Washington. At this point, “no.”
Seven? I disagree with the significance of a symbolic gesture that reduces the Executive Committee’s budget by one-third. Even if we must, for some reason, push the percentage to 51, why not share the burden among all SBC entities, including seminaries, children’s homes, the mission boards and others? This seems like picking on the EC to me. So, because I don’t like singling folks out and picking on them, “no.”
There you have it. At this point, I’m a 3 and a half point GCR-ist and, for what it’s worth, only a two point Calvinist. I guess that totals 5.5 out of a possible 12. I hope this doesn’t make me only half a Baptist!
Dave M:
Even if this report were to be passed unanimously, my prediction is little will change in the SBC in the years to come.
Dave,
I plan to be in Orlando and cast my “yes” vote for the GCR. However, a few amendments here and there could make this report stronger. For example: You wrote… “We will be asked to adopt a mission statement as follows. Not much to debate here, is there? ‘As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.’”
I think there is something here to debate. Why is baptism not mentioned as part of a GC missional statement? Are we not Baptists? Was Christ not compelled to list baptism separate from making disciples in the Great Commission?
I think a few timely amendments could make this report even better. I just hope those in charge of arrangements are planning ahead and will provide enough time for us to discuss this important document. I for one will be upset if we “run out of time” and are hurried into a vote.
Listen up leadership… those of us making the trip to Orlando are not coming to enjoy 4 hours of music; we are coming to discuss and vote on this report… so make it a priority.
Dave,
My biggest problem with “Great Commission Giving” is that it appears to give a nod to mega churches and their “designated giving” to the IMB and other in-house projects, while a small token amount goes to the CP. Every pastor knows that designated giving by a significant number of members would be very damaging to the church. So, why should we accept that as a convention? Sure, people can do what they want with their money, but should we encourage and promote giving in this way? It’s very short-sighted.
As the IMB continues to limit appointments of new personnel and not allow current short-termers to return for subsequent terms due to lack of finances, we have heard the idea tossed around of allowing Masters personnel (short-termers who are 50 years old and over) become partially self-funded. For decades missionaries have been told not to make personal appeals for support that bypass the Cooperative Program. Creating a class of missionary who must do that very thing is very unwise.
I certainly hope that neither “Great Commission Giving” nor self-funded IMB missionaries become part of the new SBC game plan.
But, having said that, I still agree with you that, like NASA, there is a problem and we can’t ignore it. I just don’t know what the answers are.
Katie
Dave,
While I generally favor a restructuring and re-invigorating of our churches to reach the world, I oppose this proposal on some issues as I understand them.
1. As I’ve stated before I am against making the IMB more of a focus than it is today. I also believe the plan to work with people groups in the U.S would prove counter to our attempts to assimilate them into America. The tendency will naturally tend toward maintaining the integrity of the group. A more effective method, I believe, is reaching them by teaching them English and assimilating them into local churches.
If the Book of Acts teaches us anything it is that The Holy Spirit overcame every barrier to the effective assimilation of ethnicities into the body as a whole. This thing of having an Hispanic church, a Black church, a Polish church, et al is, to my mind contrary to the New Testament concept. So I believe the problem we face in America today will be exacerbated by this policy if implemented.
2. If we’re going to make NAMB a church planting entity, we’re going to see a proliferation of underfunded, understaffed starts with no future. NAMB should operate like the IMB in the respect to funding. After identifying a mission site, NAMB and the local sponsoring church (es) should make a five year commitment to the mission with both staffing and mission expense. We must commit to undergirding the work for long enough for it to become established.
If you ever look at a Mormon mission you’ll find that they come into an area, erect a facility, offer programs to the locals and soon have a growing assembly. Now they do it without the help of the Holy Spirit, think what we could do WITH His help.
3. While I agree that some existing churches should be allowed to die, I think that a great many could be turned into productive and effective ministries, if we identified those with opportunity for growth, a heart for growth, and a willingness to restart. Then we could apply the same principles to those churches as to new starts.
4. I think there is way too much emphasis upon “getting on board.” There is a strong tendency toward a hierarchal organizational structure, even though it is explicitly denied within the document, it is implicitly advocated.
That being said, I think it is an excellent start to the discussion process. With feed back and time to digest the implications of it, it could become a framework. However, it is far from a finished product that I think will help us effectively reach the world for Christ.
Good analysis Dave.
I suspect the majority of the discussion is going to center on component three.
On the one hand are the aforementioned megachurches who give relatively small percentages to the traditional CP, but who do spend large amounts on missions through other SBC-related channels. I suppose its understandable that they’d want that other giving to be acknowledged as important and meaningful to the SBC as a whole.
And on the other hand are the countless numbers of churches who do not have the resources to give large sums directly to some entity, but who do very faithfully give 8%, 10%, 12%, or more through the traditional CP. My church falls into that category, and I’m wracking by brain trying to figure out why I should be so vocally opposed to a new terminology. About the only thing I can come up with is that some in this overwhelming majority begrudge the “percentages don’t pay missionary salaries, dollars do” line of explanation that has come from some megas over the years.
So one group feels like the change would legitimize their giving. Another group feels like the change isn’t fair to those who’ve faithfully followed the “rules” over the years. But feelings aside, does anyone really think the change of terminology will hurt the CP long term? I just don’t see how. Those who are already giving through designated ways, will keep doing it. Those who aren’t won’t. It’s a stretch to think that either implementing or denying #3 will change anything.
So I’m in a quandry. I wouldn’t vote yes on #3 just because it might make some large churches’ giving look better in their state paper’s list once a quarter. But I wouldn’t vote no on #3 just because others don’t think it’s fair. So, what’s an ambivalent person to do? All things being equal, if they come up separately, even though I don’t share in the outcry against it, I’d vote no on #3 for the simple reason that I don’t see that it actually changes anything except perception.
Tom, I was shocked that you gave a negative assessment of the SBC and its future. Next, someone will tell me that the sky is up, that water is wet and that ice is cold. Shocking.
Honestly, you ought to try to get past your animus and look at this thing. Maybe God isn’t through the SBC just yet, Tom.
Rick, this is a Baptist site and gambling is strictly forbidden. However, if you want to make a donation of that Honda Ridgeline, we will give you a tax-deductible letter!
I agree that the motion to separate the question will be made. I would guess that the vote to separate would be instructive. If the vote is defeated, the GCR report will pass with a high level of support. If the motion to separate the question passes, it will likely be a long and difficult meeting.
My feeling is that the recommendations will be voted together and pass comfortably. Just a feeling.
I do not agree with you that component three gives a blessing to “societal missions”. I just don’t think it does that. ONLY money given to and through SBC causes will be counted. It allows people to designate some of their money past their state conventions and directly to the SBC and still be counted as Cooperative Program.
I do not see how that component allows direct support of missionaries to be counted as SBC giving.
I think it is mostly a statistical thing.
Lostness is the Definition of the SBC right now. It cannot find its way.
In 1988 David Montoya reported Ronnie Floyd as Pressler and Patterson’s man in NW Arkansas if not the entire state. The was a Map in Patterson’s office at the time with Map STaples everywhere a Criswell or PP operative was located in the logistical design to takeover the SBC.
Now Ronnie Floyd is about to run into a brick wall in Orlando.
For example look at the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina. Read Norman Jameson’s recent glowing interview with Daniel Vestal.
Or even better, in contradistinction to Ronnie Floyd and this endorsement here by DAvid Miller on this blog; check out this latest assessment of Tony Cartledge, the former editor of the NC Bib Rec:
http://www.tonycartledge.com/2010/05/98-point-sermon.html
Joe, I just don’t know if baptism is that big of an issue. Let me clarify.
We all agree that we should baptize those who come to Christ, by immersion, as a symbol of faith.
The problem in the SBC is with our evangelism, not our baptism practices. I have no big objection to mentioning baptism, but we are Baptist. Its who we are. Our problem is not with how we are baptizing, but how many. And that points back to our priorities, our passion, and our practices in evangelism.
Mike,
Would you draw out a little more about your comment about assimilation. I’m very interested in what your viewpoint is on this issue. I could take your comment, “A more effective method, I believe, is reaching them by teaching them English and assimilating them into local churches” a number of different ways.
Katie, read my comment #8 to Rick, it says many of the same things I would say in response to you.
I just don’t think this sanctions the “megachurch” giving plans as some have said. They can continue to do that, as any autonomous church is free to do. But as I read the component, I did not see anything about “counting” direct funding of missionaries or local projects as a part of the GC giving plan.
Rick and Katie (and anyone else who sees this) – I’d ask you to read component 3 carefully and tell me where I am misinterpreting this. I did not parse every phrase of the GCR document, so I could have missed something. But it seems clear to me that only SBC-entity giving is counted.
Dave M:
Time will tell if my negative assessment of the SBC is true or not. The SBC can not be fixed by a report, but I’m sure you are confident that this report is going to turn the SBC around.
Stephen, we are engaging in a (hopefully) constructive discussion of the GCR final report. If you have a perspective on the report, feel free to share. But please stick to the topic and abide by the commenting policies.
Mike – excellent and insightful comments. You know your stuff.
1) As to the IMB, I just don’t know on that one. It seems that both IMB and NAMB experts think this is a good idea. I’m not sure that IMB personnel would necessarily oppose assimilation. Honestly, this was one component I just had no clear opinion about.
2) As to NAMB’s church planting role, I think the concept is great. NAMB’s problem has been implementation.
In Iowa, they bring a guy up from the south, a recent seminary grad with little experience, give him a subsistence wage and wonder why he struggles. I agree with you.
However, I think your concerns are not so much about the GCR but about the way NAMB will implement the recommendations, right?
In new-work states, NAMB has helped to fund our DOMs. I think they ought to stop doing that. They ought to fund regional church planters who work to establish churches then pass them off to other leadership and go start something new.
3) Again, an implementation issue, isn’t it? I agree with your assessment, though.
4) I think I disagree with you on this one. I thought that the document was very careful to honor Baptist polity, autonomy and cooperation as opposed to hierarchy.
Here is the introductory statement to the “Challenges” section.
We hold to an ecclesiology that honors and affirms both autonomy and cooperation. The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is well aware of this, and we realize that we cannot direct individual Christians, local churches, associations or state conventions to take any particular or specific action. This is as it should be. However, our doctrine of the church does not prevent us from challenging and encouraging, admonishing and advising, one another at all levels of SBC life for greater passion and effectiveness in pursuing the Great Commission.
They are careful to honor our Baptist polity.
No, Tom, I am not confident that the report is going to fix anything, and I again would admonish you to read what I write and not to misinterpret it. You get to have your opinions, but you do not get to twist mine.
I think that what the report recommends is what we need to DO to fix the denomination. If we adopt the report then DO what it says, I think we will be on the right track.
I’m sure that is what you want as well, right?
Stuart, please read the comments above that I made to both Rick and Katie.
In the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya, “I do not that that (component) means what you think it means.”
There is nothing in there that allows megachurches to count self-funded mission work as Cooperative Program giving.
TO ALL,
Great discussion so far. But please, if you haven’t already, READ THE DOCUMENT!!
I think that there has been some misinformation out there about the intent and wording of the document. I think people are reading some things in to the document that are not there.
This is especially true of the “Great Commission Giving” section, Component three.
Here’s the statement: “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.”
Only money channeled through “causes of the SBC” will be considered GC giving.
As I see it, the only question here is whether it is a good idea to allow people to bypass their state conventions and give directly to the SBC nationally, and still count that as CP giving.
We can debate that. But the idea that this document allows churches to fund missionaries directly and call that CP or GCG is not what the component says, as I read it.
The component affirms strongly the CP and calls us to greater stewardship.
By the way, Stuart, I really appreciated the humility and reflection represented by your comment. Would that we all looked to ourselves more and pointed the finger less.
Thanks. (I hope you got my Inigo Montoya reference above).
We have several missionaries on our writing team, and I know a few stop by here from time to time. I would love to hear opinions from both IMB and NAMB missions personnel about the wisdom of component 5.
Dave; I am not here to be snippy with you.
This is another big moment in the SBC as it defines itself under new leadership; the relatively new leadership of the CR.
The GCR can only virtuously be talked about in its larger framework and its historical context.
The latest big picture nuance appears to be the effort of my friend Randall Balmer and I offer it here for influential bloggers like yourself and folks now in charge of the SBC to be aware of.
I think it would be grand if Al Mohler, and Ronnie Floyd, David Rogers, even Mike Raspberry read this book by summer’s end as you navigate the troubled seas now tossing and turning the SBC:
http://www.baylorpress.com/en/Book/51/The_Making_of_Evangelicalism.html
Andrew,
What I mean by “a more effective method of reaching them…” is that English is a great tool. It is especially so, for those living in the states. There is excellent curriculum designed to teach English while introducing them to Christ. This does not need the IMB to accomplish it.
My concern is that the IMB will have a vested interest in NOT assimilating these people groups. I believe that churches should not “Polish,” unless they’re in Poland. Paul, in the Book of Acts did not have a “Greek” church in Ephesus, and an “Aramaic” church, and an “Asian” church. He emphasized all coming together.
We must learn to cross cultural, linguistic, and ethnic barriers if we’re going reach people.
Before Hurricane Katrina wiped us in Slidell, we had Vietnamese, Korean, Guatamalan, Mexican, Thai, Chinese, Black, Whites, Texicans, Creoles, and Cajuns in our church. Some listened with remote translation devices, but we worshipped together. We didn’t have a “Spanish” service even though we had about thirty Hispanics.
The State convention wanted me to sponsor a “Black” congregation, I said, “No.” We’re reaching Blacks, why segregate us.
So my primary objection concerning this matter is that we will further isolate and segregate the body rather than assimilating it.
Now, maybe that won’t happen, but accustomed as I am to institutional proclivities, I believe it will.
Mike,
Assimiliation is a very emotionally charged word. What do you mean by assimilation? Do you oppose denominationalism? How about a town with more than one church of the same denomination?
I think, Andrew, that he is specifically talking about racial and ethnic integration. Assimilation may or may not be the best word, but he is referring to bringing different people from different backgrounds into the same church.
It is one of the fundamental debates of modern ecclesiology. Do you have different churches/different styles for different backgrounds/different preferences or do you try to bring everyone together in one? I think unity is the ideal but is difficult in this world.
Mike, the objection Andrew is getting at may be the implication of the word assimilation. We cannot ask others to just assimilate into our white, middle class culture. I think you would agree. It is all of us together becoming one in Christ, not trying to make others like us.
I think Mike is raising some interesting points here. At the root of what he is talking about is the Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP), first articulated by renowned missiologist Donald McGavran. My impression is that the IMB has been operating for some time with a tacit acceptance of the HUP in the way they work, and, with the new Affinity Group reorganization, have entrenched themselves a bit more into this line of thinking.
As I have expressed on other occasions, while I agree that, at least from a pragmatic viewpoint, there is much uncontestable truth behind the HUP, I have my reservations about it at several key points as well, especially with how it relates to a biblical perspective of church unity.
At the same time, in order to reach people from different cultural backgrounds, we must “become all things to all men.” I believe there is a tricky balance in all of this. But, in the end, I agree our ultimate goal should be cultural assimilation in the Body of Christ.
Here is a post of mine in which I go into greater depth on these matters:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/06/04/the-homogeneous-unit-principle-and-racial-segregation-in-baptist-churches/
I agree, David. I think I am theologically opposed to the homogeneous unit principle, but I see its pragmatic value. Paul worked to make Jews and Gentiles, slave and free into one church. He did not start separate churches for each group.
In my opinionthe reason for the GCR giving is that so many establishment nominees for sbc president were shot down by the people due to their pathetic CP gifts Now, presto GCR giving and problem solved. I think the small to medium sized churches are and will get the message and overal CP gifts will continue to plummet
the report also dealt w the seminaries and seemed to emphysize master and PhD work, will be interesting to see how SWBTS handles it. Last I heard the were down to 1000ish students in post grad work down from the 4-5k in the Dilday days.
I believe that unity is possible in division (to be defined in a moment). I thank God for the examples of the NT church having difficulty achieving unity because of divisions over ethnicity, tradition, and gifts. Without it we might be tempted to think that the early church had it easy getting everyone to get along.
When I say that unity is possible in division, I initially think of small groups and churches. Unless we consider the Adult Bible Study group as being divisive from the rest of the church, we all accept that not all separation (division) is a reflection of non-unity. If it were, we’d have to consider a women’s Bible study and a one-on-one discipleship session to be divisive. Likewise, we find geography to be a sufficient reason for division (separation), while at the same time expressing unity to the Body of Christ.
I like that there’s no hard and fast rule about geographical division and unity. Are we going to say, “Oops, our church is only 10 miles from another of like faith and practice. We need to join together and be unified or move our location to be at least 12.34 miles apart to maintain a geographically acceptable division?” Likewise, I think we need to be careful about setting rules for what constitutes unity and division amongst people of differing ethnic groups.
Assimilation is a dirty word for me because we have a tendency of denying the multiculturalism of America. American is not just hotdogs and baseball. I’m sure I’ll be participating in some kind of Cinco de Mayo celebration today. But assimilation doesn’t address the issues related to illegal immigration and permanent residency. Does the ambassador from Mexico need to assimilate? What about Mexican citizens with green cards?
Teaching people English sounds great, but it only helps people who want to learn English or who can learn English. Being an immigrant with little to no English language skills doesn’t leave a lot of opportunities to find a job that will give you with sufficient time to take classes and still raise a family. For that reason I am okay with maintaining some degrees of separation based on language. That’s not to say we can’t be unified or work together. As a white Bohemian Spanish-speaker, I have a unique opportunity to build bridges between English and Spanish believers in my community.
Andrew,
I believe that Baptists have a distinctive witness. I believe we offer a distinctive approach to a theological understanding of Scripture. There are many baptistic churches out there, and many I could support. However, I am not ashamed to announce that my understanding of Scripture is closely aligned with those who call themselves Baptist.
I do believe we need a Baptist witness in every neighborhood. However, it is NOT as imperative in those areas where a genuine NT witness is actively ministering. Just because one calls himself evangelical does not an evangelical make. Church of Christ people are called evangelicals, yet they believe in baptismal regeneration. Should that be the only witness their, I would certainly hope a Baptist witness could be established.
As to assimilation, emotionally charged or not, it is an honorable term which has stood the test of time in American Culture.
Should you have read my earlier post you would have learned that I do, indeed, understand the social, ethnic, and racial differences, I just don’t think those are barriers to the community of Christ in worship.
Assimilation as traditionally meant in American Culture means, (1) a commonality of language, English, (2) a commonality of government, tri-cameral Republicanism, (3) a understanding that we are a nation of laws, guided by an established constitution, (4) we are a nation under God as revealed through the New Testament.
To be assimilated politically means that.
To be assimilated into the body of Christ means that each individual brings his individual temperament, spiritual gifts, cultural proclivities into the body where he is equipped to more effectively communicate New Testament truth to the lost world.
In Andhra Pradesh, the culture is very different. However, the body of Christ still functions effectively. Christianity and U.S. Culture are not synonymous terms, and when I was in India, I lived they live.
I guess, I just don’t understand the problem.
Mike,
Is there something you disagree with that I said? You distinguish assimilation into American culture from assiimilation into the Body of Christ, yet your comment #5 speaks of assimilating people into American culture as some kind of priority in ministry. I think we can do the latter without necessarily doing the former. I don’t think that is the most productive use of our time.
Then again, I may be biased since I have no plans of picking up a southern accent and eating grits if I move down below the Mason-Dixon line.
Andrew,
I was simply trying to answer your question as to what I meant by assimilation.
Andrew, I do believe that those who live here should assimilate. Absolutely. And if you don’t learn to enjoy grits, with lots of butter, salt and pepper, then try it like cream of wheat with butter and sugar. They can be eaten thin & runny (my preference) or thick and solid, (like my dear bride prefers them).
Perhaps, I’m simply reading too much into your posts. I definitely agree that the focus of Believers should be on making disciples, not Americans. However, as I speak to the social issues of the day, I find it incumbent upon me to address citizenship. Something I rarely dealt with as a resident alien overseas.
Jim, again, I believe that you are operating on an assumption that is not in the document. Money given to NON-SBC ministries, to self-funded missions may be fine and well, but they are NOT going to be counted a cooperative Program or Great Commission giving as it is constructed in that component.
When I wrote my last comment, I had to leave all the sudden, without really thinking through everything I had written (part of the inherent pitfalls in blogging).
Looking over the broader context of the conversation here now, I would like to clarify a bit…
I agree that the term “integration” is probably a better term than “assimilation.” In Christ, just as there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, etc., I believe there is no host culture to be “assimilated” into, or guest culture that needs to be “assimilated.” Rather, we are all to adjust and defer one to another.
Language differences are a reality we cannot escape. If we are truly going to reach out to all the different people in all the different people groups in the world, we must be able to reach them, and preach the gospel to them in a way they understand, and that is meaningful to them. This usually means doing so in their “heart language,” even if they speak English as a second language, or some other “trade language.”
In a very real way, cultural differences are similar to languages, in this regard, as well. Some people may understand the actual words we are saying, but not really hear what we are saying because our cultural trappings are getting in the way of them hearing it in a way that makes sense to them. Of course, there is an inherent stumbling block to the gospel in and of itself, that the natural man cannot accept unless the Holy Spirit opens his spiritual eyes and ears. But, there are linguistic and cultural issues that go beyond this, I believe.
But, we must avoid, at the same time, the idea that Christians with different language and cultural backgrounds are, as it were, a whole separate wing of the Body of Christ.
And, I do believe the IMB (meaning specific IMB personnel) does have some valuable expertise to offer to churches in the States in regard to how to best communicate the gospel to certain people groups through their own linguistic and cultural grids.
And, in addition to this, I would be strongly opposed to a tacitly accepted mindset in the SBC that, in our missional strategy, we supported a politically motivated drive to “assimilate” people from other cultures into the “American way of life.” That may (or may not) be a legitimate political concern. But, I don’t think it should be confused with the goals and objectives of the Kingdom of God. And, as local churches, and as the SBC as a whole, we need to be specifically about the Kingdom of God, and not temporal political agendas.
Mike, I agree on a political and social basis that those who come to America should assimilate into our culture – the melting-pot concept. However, I do not think that is a gospel imperative and should not be a goal of Baptists as we minister to internationals in the USA.
Dave said, “I do not think [assimilation] is a gospel imperative and should not be a goal of Baptists as we minister to internationals in the USA.”
I agree with that statement. I find assimilating into American culture to be more complex than just learning English and accepting the structure of our government. If we include recognizing this nation as a nation under God, the illegal aliens are probably more assimilated than the citizens whom we’ve elected to run this nation.
If I say people need to assimilate, I probably have a very different meaning than the traditional Republican view, so that is why I avoid the term unless it is carefully defined. For instance, what level of English language skill is sufficient to be assimilated? I know many who consider a strong accent to be the sign of non-assimilation.
Dave,
I agree. However, I also don’t think our policies should mitigate against that assimilation. That is my concern with the IMB working with people groups. I’m afraid the tendency will be to encourage them to not assimilate. Assimilation would move them out from under the IMB umbrella.
I know that we are honorable men, but even honorable men can be self-serving.
Again, I find no disagreement with what you’re saying here, and didn’t mean to imply that I think we ought to have assimilation into culture as a goal of our mission thrust. I do believe the desire to assimilate makes our fluency in English a tool without equal for reaching them.
I think we are pretty much in the same place on this, Mike, with perhaps slightly different emphases on certain items.
The only thing I don’t see is that the component on IMB involvement in unreached people groups in the USA would militate either toward assimilation or separation. I think that would be a strategic decision that is not really part and parcel of the GCR report or recommendation.
I have lived the whole thing about assimilation, integration, etc. up close in my ministry in Spain, especially the last 8 years or so.
There are various factors involved. The Latin American immigrants to Spain speak the same language, but, by and large, have different cultural preferences.
When Latin immigrants have successfully integrated into traditionally native-Spanish congregations, this has been, for the most part, a win-win situation for all. It is one of the few social situations in which new immigrants are truly given the opportunity to rub shoulders with native Spaniards in a meaningful way. At work and at school, they are often not looked upon as equals. It is in the church where we really have the opportunity to demonstrate what it means for us to all be one in Christ.
However, when the immigrant contingent approaches 50% in a local congregation (which it has in many, many cases in Spain), there is inherent tension. The old-timers sometimes have a tendency to feel threatened. And, the immigrants sometimes have a tendency to get overly defensive, and feel they are being discriminated against. All of this is a good opportunity for the Holy Spirit to work on our character, and for us to learn to submit one to another in the love of Christ.
Immigrants who come in speaking a different language are a different matter. In order to effectively reach them with the gospel, it is necessary for them to have an initial contact group in which they can relate in their “heart language.” In such cases, the temptation on the part of the established churches is to virtually ignore the existence of these groups, and let them “do their own thing.”
I think there must be a diligent effort, though, to maintain open lines of communication between all. If necessary, this must be done through translation. But, these different language groups need to be known and recognized by the “established church.” They need to be made to feel they are an important part of the Body of Christ. Whenever there are united gatherings, and joint activities, they do not need to be left out, whether intentionally or inadvertently. There needs to be a special effort to ensure they are made to feel as equally legitimate participants in everything we do.
I’ve yet to read the entire report, so I comment with some caution. But I believe the first part of the article is headed in the right direction: The me first attitude that exists with Western Christianity is the root problem. For the last several years I’ve simplified most of my teaching to emphasize the importance of self-denial (Luke 9:23). The report may identify problems, but Christianity will only move in America when we begin to live lives that contradict those of the world – to truly live in such a way that confounds our families and neighbors. Uncommon behavior driven by a passionate faith in Jesus Christ and empowered by the Spirit of God! A person of the world is recognized by his name. The mark of a disciple is Christ.
I firmly believe we are working to apply principles that have a Biblical basis, but in recent years have failed to developed roots that can support a Great Commission vision. If we don’t move our theology, the GCR will be remembered as another attempt to invigorate our mission.
Landon, they don’t exactly word it that way, but I think that is exactly what they are getting at in the document. The fact that SBC folks give 2.5%, that churches average 6% is seen as an indication that we have a heart issue. We are self-affirming and self-centered more than self-denying. If I understand you rightly, I think my heart beats with yours, and both of ours identify with the GCR task force.
Lest I be misunderstood, When I use the term “Republicanism,” I’m referring to our form of government, not a political party.
Shouldn’t they be the same thing? (Just kidding – apologize to any of you democrats out there.)
Mike,
I recognized that. I should have realized that I left open the possibility of a connection when I mentioned “Republican” views. I wasn’t trying to make a comment about you.
Dave,
While I appreciate a Princess Bride reference as much as the next person, component 3 in fact does mean what I think it means. I read it yesterday and did, in fact, notice the distinction “SBC causes”.
As I read it, they’re suggesting that a “third” label to go along with “CP giving” and “other missions”. Dr. Mohler clarified this in the BP article yesterday, that by “GC Giving” they’re referring to SBC efforts. So, presumably, if a church gives 30,000 dollars (or 3 percent of its 1 million dollar budget) to CP through traditional channels, 60,000 dollars (or 6 percent of it’s 1 million dollar budget) directly to the IMB, 10,000 dollars to support a church member who works for Campus Crusade, and give 20,000 to Annie and 10,000 to Lottie, they’re breakdown would be:
CP $30,000
Great Commission Giving $120,000
Other missions giving $10,000
Total missions $130,000
That looks a whole lot better to the average Joe Baptist looking at the quarterly report in his state paper than:
CP $30,000
Other missions giving $100,000
I think I’ll go ahead and stand by my initial post about what might be motivating the push for the change of nomenclature. And while I’m at it, I’ll stand by the thought that I’d probably vote against it because I don’t see that it changes anything but perception.
But be careful calling me humble. I might be tempted to wear it as a badge of honor!
Doh. I know the difference between “their” and “they’re”.
Stuart, nothing I read in the component itself would indicate that the $10,000 for the Campus Crusade person would be counted in the Great Commission Giving report.
I believe that only SBC-related giving should be counted as part of our reporting process. That doesn’t mean that non-SBC giving is wrong or inappropriate.
Mohler seems to be saying that GCG will be SBC-related only. Am I missing something?
(Dangerous Question)
I think the question that should be discussed is whether monies given to the national SBC directly, and bypassing state conventions should be counted as CP giving.
I think if I was in some old-line state that kept 60% plus in their own coffers, I might be tempted to recommend sending some CP money direct to the IMB or whatever.
In Iowa, I would not do that.
Someone is going to have to show me where this component we will be voting on advocates including non-SBC missions giving as a part of Great Commission Giving. I have read several criticisms here and elsewhere of that, but do not see it in the component.
One last thing, Stuart, “My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father. Prepare to die!”
Watched “The Princess Bride” for the first time last week. Now, I “get” all “prepare to die” stuff I’ve been reading for the last few years.
Dave,
I figured out the disconnect. One of us isn’t reading the report correctly. But I honestly am not sure which one.
I’m reading it as adopting the language of GC giving as a new category ALONGSIDE CP, that includes but is not imited to CP as traditionally defined. You appear to be reading it as adopting the language of GC giving INSTEAD of CP giving altogether.
If you are reading it correctly, then add my voice to the chorus of people who think it will undermine the Cooperative Program. If I’m reading it correctly, then it’s just semantics an won’t change anything but perception.
Clarification: When I refer above to “instead of” I’m not referring to abolishing the CP, which they clearly aren’t suggesting. I’m referring to how the giving categories would presumably be broken down on the ACPs.
p.s. I’ve never said that the report says anything about including non-SBC causes as “GC giving”. It doesn’t. And Mohler’s comments made it even clearer.
Andrew,
I speak a smathering of Spanish, myself. I wrote material to teach English to non-English speaking groups, and have been using it for years. I’ve used it in Mexico, Korea, India, Texas, Louisiana, and at NOBTS where I taught students who could communicate but not well enough to do doctoral work.
Since this is not the proper forum for this discussion, I’ll wait until such an article is published to press my belief that English is one of the finest tools available today to gain an audience, and share the Good News of Christ to a sympathetic ear.
My Bible study for tonight was finished a while ago and I’ve got nothing better to do, so here goes…
I’m interpreting the report to indicate that giving would be categorized going forward like this:
a. CP giving (through state convention)______________.
b. Special offerings (SBC causes) Lottie, Annie, etc. __________.
c. Designated gifts (SBC causes)_______________.
d. Total Great Commission Giving (sum of a through c) ______________.
e. Other missions giving (non-SBC) ___________________.
f. Total missions giving (sum of d+e) _________________.
In this scenario, gifts through traditional CP channels are still cleary defined, even though the total in (d) is there to help frame the perception of the person looking at the ACP online or in a state paper.
I think you’re interpreting the report to indicate that giving would be categorized going forward like this:
a. Great Commission Giving (includes CP gifts through state convention, SBC special missions offerings, other designated gifts to SBC entities or causes) _____________________.
b. Other missions giving (non-SBC) ___________________.
c. Total missions giving (sum of a+b) ________________________.
In this scenario, “GC” assumes the former place of “CP” in the reporting. In this scenario, I think true CP gifts through traditional channels could very well get downplayed.
Or maybe the goal is just to get the ACP to look like an IRS 1040 and be just as complicated.
If two people as brilliant as you and I obviously are can read the same report and the same BP article and come away with two different conclusions, then perhaps some further clarification from the task force is in order. After all, it’s really all about you and me. Now…what was that you were saying about me being humble?
52 is addressed to Dave. Sorry.
I’ve now gotten a month’s worth of posts on a single thread, so barring something new and earth shattering being posted (which, Dave, quite honestly is “inconceivable”) I’m going to bow out and go work on “maawage” sermon for next weekend.
Stuart, its been a while since I filled out the ACP, but it seems that the only difference here is whether designated gifts to SBC entities should be counted as “GC” giving. Everything else is the same as it has been? Right?
So, If we give 50,000 to the CP, and 50,000 to the IMB directly, should we be credited for 100,000 bucks or not.
But if we support some other mission directly, that is reported as it always has been, right?
Mike,
I think you have a lot to add to the discussion, and I know that ESL has been a great way for missionaries around the world to reach people for Christ. I’m not saying anything, but there might be a post on the 19th dealing with English and Hispanic ministry where you might get a chance to share some of your strategies and techniques. I really am interested.
Dave,
I think (scary thought) that the church in your scenario (if the changes are approved) would still report $50,000 as CP just like always, but would also report $100,000 as GC. If I’m reading the recommendations correctly, both would be reported. So, technically, they haven’t tinkered with the definition of CP in adding the GC category. The consequence, perhaps unintended, isn’t a redefinition of CP per se, but an eventual devaluation of CP as a means of guaging a church’s commitment to SBC causes.
That’s why if I’m the church that gives $35,000 through my state convention channel and $450,000 directly to entities, then I’m going to be all for the new GC category. That’s also why if I’m the county seat church that gives 12% to CP faithfully year in and year out even in lean economic times, I might be against the proposal if I think it devalues my contribution.
The crazy thing in all of this is that the actual amount of real dollars won’t change regardless of how it’s labeled. The problem we’re having getting missionaries to the field isn’t antiquated nomenclature, it’s a lack of real dollars. Re-labeling some categories won’t change that. Which is why, even though I don’t think the addition of the GC category is the death knell for the CP as we’ve known it, I’d still be against it. I’m really not interested in a recommendation whose only long-term impact is to change a few people’s perceptions of a few churches’ giving commitments.
Now….the goals for Lottie and Annie…I like that. Real dollars will get real missionaries to a really lost world. (Regardless of how they’re reported on the ACP.)
Ultimately, (as you indicated) is not how we categorize or report offerings, but how we give them. If we give more, and churches share more, and state conventions share more, then the pie will be bigger, and each piece of it as well.
It all comes down to a heart that is willing to give.
Dave,
Great post… If I could make it to Orlando I would enthusiastically vote for it as well.
Sorry to hear you aren’t going.
Count me as another enthusiastic yes vote on the whole, or on each aspect presented separately, however it ends up being voted on.
Dave,
I do think the GCRTF Report, and especially component three, at least devalues the CP as our primary missions support channel, even while claiming that it does not.
I don’t really know how else to comprehend statements like the one below from Justin Nale when he wrote recently on the topic of the GCR in his “Thoughts From a North Carolina Baptist” blog: “I for one would be happy to see the CP die. It is a flawed system that requires an all or nothing commitment to an out of control bureaucracy.”
If I understand your reading of the document, it doesn’t really affect CP. That’s simply hard for me to believe when people like Justin after reading the very same report express a CP death wish.
Rick,
I couldn’t more strongly disagree with Justin Hale’s assessment of the value of the CP. In fact, I think his viewpoint, if it spread, would be the death-knell of SBC missions. He is basically saying that Calvinists should be able to give to Calvinists only, and BI to BI only and that sort of thing.
One of the things I like about the GCR Report is that it stayed out of Baptist sectarianism. We come together based on a certain theological stand (inerrancy, basic Baptist doctrine) on the gospel an on cooperative missions. The document was masterfully devised to emphasize these points without favoring one side or the other on denominational internal debates.
I think I agree with you that Justin’s view would be horrendously bad for Southern Baptists, if it spread. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that the GCR Report buttresses that viewpoint.
Two points:
1) We ALREADY have designated giving. You can designate money to SBC entities. Nothing in the report would change whether or not people can designate offerings. That already happens.
2) What is changing is reporting of that giving. That is the point I care less about. Do we really care that much how our statistics look when published in associational or state reports? If we care that much about our ACP reporting procedures, we have a problem.
In other words, I think Justin is reading into the document something that comes from his heart. I hope and pray that his attitude will not win the day in SBC work – or the SBC might be truly over as some have said.
First of all, there are many good things about the GCR report. I like some of the things that they mention.
Secondly, “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.” This will turn the SBC into a societal giving operation. It will mean that CP giving will go down…since it’s not emphasized anymore. GCR giving will be the new phrase that gets the ink. Thus, giving directly to the resort ministry in the Colorado mountains will count as GCR giving. Giving directly to the Unplanned Women’s Clinic will count as GCR giving. Mega Churches, which give .015% of their budget to the CP, but who give 35% to their own things, will get to talk about thier BIG Giving to the GCR…instead of being ashamed to mention their measely little percentage giving to the CP. And, this may be what a lot of this is all about…when we get right down to it.
For years, CP giving has influenced the way that SB’s look at the fellas that run for SBC Pres. and Vice and such. Their giving to the CP is mentioned, and people speak about it. Many of the “Big Boys” of the SBC have had a little red on their face when their CP giving is mentioned. I believe that not long ago a “Big Boy in the SBC” fella lost the SBC Presidency…and his CP giving probably had a lot to do with him losing that year. Now, surprise, surprise, surprise…he and some other Mega Church Pastors are on the GCR task force and are the ones promoting this GCR giving stuff.
IMHO, this will turn the SBC back to societal giving. High profile ministries will gain money. Low profile ministries…which may be more important than the ones that get all the attention…will suffer. Just as in societal approaches, the missionaries with the most charisma get more support than the ones that are meek and mild and faithful. The ministries like helping the hurricane Katrina victims will get lots of cash, while the missionary in Idaho with a struggling Church start will wonder how he’s gonna pay his electric bill.
This is not a good thing…in my personal opinion. This part of it should not be voted in.
And, BTW, I’m all for the Great Commission. I’m all for getting more money to the mission field. I’m all for a true, Great Commission resurgence. So, just because I’m not 100% behind this report doesnt mean that I dont love Jesus; nor does it mean that I’m not for a GCR.
David
Dave,
It’s not just about how money is reported. It’s about whether we’re gonna stay committed to doing “more together,” or are we gonna “all give to what we like best…thus, some missionaries will suffer.” It’s about a lot more than just reporting what’s given. If that’s all it was about, I’d care less to. But, I think you miss the bigger picture here. It’s about HOW we’re gonna give to missions.
Yes, people will designate to what they want to designate to..yes. But, right now, we dont count that giving when looking for SBC leaders. Right now, we want to see how they’re giving to the cooperative effort of supporting missions and ministries…which take care of everyone….not just the charismatic ones….not just the “exciting” ministries, etc.
David
Also, you talk about being divisive; if Ronnie Floyd, or anyone else promoting this GCR Report, starts talking about supporting this thing with the attitude of “People who love Jesus will vote for this” stuff; there’ll be division and strife. If the GCR report promoters start talking like only the people that really want to see souls saved all over the world will support this report…well, get ready. That will be very divisive. That kind of talk will be very much causing strife between brothers. If they start talking like the only ones concerned about missions are the ones who support the GCR report, then watch the fireworks in Orlando.
David
Dave,
Thank you for alerting me to your criticism and for being respectful even in disagreement.
My desire is that the CP be replaced with a funding mechanism that would give local churches more control in determining where the money from their church goes. This is a matter of conscience. I don’t think this would be the death knell in the SBC, but I do think, Lord willing, that it would be the death knell of a lot of national and state convention programs / initiatives that do little for the kingdom of God.
It is true that churches can designate their CP giving today, but the form I’ve seen only allows you to designate the agencies you’d like to give to and the amount you’d like to give. I have something much more detailed in mind that would allow churches to connect themselves with particular missionaries and ministries that reflect the heart of that church.
I do not believe, as I’ve heard others say, that given these kinds of options churches would choose not to give to the operating and administration costs of the convention. While there may be some Calvinistic churches that would give only to Calvinistic missionaries, etc., I think they would be few and far between.
My desire is a more streamlined, more de-centralized convention that isn’t afraid to trust the local churches with the decisions concerning where the money goes. Moreover, I desire a convention that seeks to connect churches to missionaries and ministries not just financially but in deeper ways. I have some ideas, but I haven’t yet had time to put them on paper (or on the blogosphere).
Oh, and just to be clear, I agree that the GCR report does little to buttress my position. It takes a small step towards ending the CP-idolatry of some by suggesting we should celebrate all kingdom giving, but other then that does little to move in the direction I wish we were going. I wouldn’t want anyone to misconstrue the GCR report as supporting my desire for a completely re-invented CP.
Justin, I would be interested in seeing your thoughts fleshed out, but honestly, the CP is why I stayed in the SBC in my younger days. I love the idea that through the CP we can be part of some great things worldwide. And I have no problem with designation.
But excessive designation is usually a sign of a fracturing that will bring the convention system grinding to a halt (or perhaps indicate that we have already fractured to that point).
Designation usually is an indication of dissatisfaction with some part of a ministry. If I designate to my church on a regular basis, it usually is an indication that I have a problem with the general budget priorities or leadership.
Again, I disagree with you on this, but would be interested in hearing you flesh it out a little in terms of how it would work.
David,
I will respond to your points later – have a meeting to run to. But I think you are misunderstanding the report.
1) NOTHING in the giving system changes, only in the reporting system.
2) Neither megachurches nor smaller churches will be able to report their personal missions projects as GC giving. Only money given to SBC entities will qualify.
3) SBC churches are autonomous, so their giving choices are their own. We are simply adding a layer of reporting. A church that gives .15% to CP will still be identified in the report.
As to your comment 65, David, I don’t think anyone will do that. However, I think it may be cast in terms of who wants to defend the status quo, the “we’ve always done it that way” brigade, and those who want to embrace some changes for greater effectiveness.
I think that is how it will be presented. I’m guessing there will be fireworks anyway. We don’t like change. I think this is the kind of change we need.
This is scary. Volfie and I said essentially the same thing…
Justin Nale:
Do you have a feeling for how many more people in the SBC would like to see the CP program reinvented to give local churches more control over their churches giving? My thanks in advance.
Dave,
This GCR Report will make it possible for a Church to give to Southwestern Seminary, instead of giving to the CP; and count it as GCR giving. A Church will be able to help a charismatic(not Pentecostal, but personality wise) missionary start a church, and count it as GCR giving. A Church will be able to give to the Adult Homes for the Mentally Challenged of the TN Baptist Convention, and count it as GCR giving.
It will turn into societal giving.
David
Vol, (and others) A church can already do that. They can give wherever they want. The only change here is that they now will be able to include that in “GC” Giving (not CP giving) – as long as it is going to an SBC cause.
Do you really think people care enough about that kind of thing to change their giving patterns on that basis? I don’t. I just don’t care that much about the Annual Church Profile (if that’s what it still is called.)
If someone gives .15% to the CP, that will still show.
David,
I see why you might not like that. But, I guess I think you are overstating the problem. The only way this would return us to societal giving is if people care WAY more than I do about the ACP or how their statistics are reported.
I think we can debate whether including designated giving in the reporting process is wise, but to say that it will return us to societal giving is in my mind and overstatement.
Be careful, Jim!
I re-read your comment, vol. I think you are factually wrong on a couple of things
You said, “A Church will be able to help a charismatic(not Pentecostal, but personality wise) missionary start a church, and count it as GCR giving. A Church will be able to give to the Adult Homes for the Mentally Challenged of the TN Baptist Convention, and count it as GCR giving.”
I do not believe those two statements are factual.
1) In the first case, giving money directly to a particular missionary is either not GCR giving or is not permissible. Our missionaries are not, I believe, supposed to receive money from churches directly.
If you are talking about a non-SBC missionary, it would not be counted as gC giving either.
Either way, it is NOT GCR giving.
2) Since the Home you mentioned is a Tennessee Baptist ministry, it is not an SBC entity and therefore would not qualify.
Some of this may come down to how we read words, but it is my opinion that you are misinterpreting the statement in component 3.
Dave,
I must respectfully disagree. Surprise. Right? Because, if you’ll notice, right now, the CP giving is always talked about when discussing SBC leaders. CP giving is emphasized as the way to give to support the missionaries and the ministries of the SBC.
But, when you get into the GCR giving thing, when it’s what will be the thing emphasized, and there’s no doubt in my mind that that is what will be talked about if this passes; it will make the importance of CP giving go away. CP giving will become less important, and people will start talking about GCR giving. GCR giving is societal giving. That’s what it is. Churches giving to ministries, instead of pooling our money together to support all the missions and ministries. So, it will definitely lead to societal giving.
Dave, I know that Churches can give directly to things now. I know that Churches do give directly to seminaries, or the IMB, etc now. But, that’s not just a difference in reporting. It’s not just about the ACP. Believe me, if that’s all it was about, I wouldnt care at all about the change. But, that’s not all that it is. It’s a change, a drastic change, in how we view giving to missions and ministries in the SBC. And, of course, it will cause CP giving to go down. Churches will start giving more and more to their favorite thing…and just like back in the days of societal giving….the more exciting ministries…the more exciting missionaries…the missionaries in the more exciting, exotic parts of the world…will get more. Others will get less. Some will get far, far less. Even though they’re doing just as great a work as the “exciting” ones.
Well, that’s my 2 cents, anyway. This is my concern. And, it’s not just about reporting money given. It’s about what we view, as SB’s, as the way to give to support missions and ministries. Also, I want to re-emphasize that this is a way that some of the people in the SBC, that only want to give to their “pet” causes, can give to their “pet” causes, and continue to give pocket change of a percentage to the CP, and still be looked upon by the SBC as a Church that “gives” to SB missions. That way, they’ll still be looked upon as worthy to lead the SBC….to get the positions of influence and power that they so crave.
Dave, ask yourself this….if it doesnt matter what the ACP says about your giving, then why are THEY making this such a big deal? Why are they so fired up about changing it? Why are they making this a part of the report? Why not just leave it alone…if it’s no big deal? Dave, it is a big deal….to them. Maybe not to you, and maybe not to the Pastor of a small church out in Oklahoma, or Alabama that could care less about serving as a leader in the SBC, one day. But, to these fellas, it’s a big deal. Otherwise, they would not have included it in the report.
David
Dave,
No, I believe you are wrong about that. The statement reads, as you have it printed in your OP above…”We also call upon Southern Baptists to celebrate all giving to our common work. 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.”
That says “ALL monies channeled through the causes of the SBC, the STATE CONVENTIONS, and ASSOCIATIONS.” SBC causes would be seminaries, church starts in Nevada, building a house for a missionary in Zambia, etc. State Convention causes would be the TN Baptist Adult Homes, TN Baptist Childrens Homes, Union University, etc in the TN Baptist Convention. And, the Associations…well, that could be a whole host of things that a local association is doing.
David
Dave,
You said, “Since the Home you mentioned is a Tennessee Baptist ministry, it is not an SBC entity and therefore would not qualify.”
But that would count as GC Giving because it says, “We also call upon Southern Baptists to celebrate all giving to our common work. 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.
I’m like you, Dave, I don’t really care about how it’s reported. But I think it would still count as GC Giving.
Dave,
Andrew beat me to it.
Some of the examples David cited would NOT qualify as GC giving, i.e. Resort ministry in Colorado (unless it’s run by NAMB missionaries, then it would probably qualify), local pregnancy center, pentecostal church plant, etc. The report mentions this distinction and Mohler’s comments clarified it.
But, a gift such as gift to a state Baptist childrens’ home, state Baptist college, associational retreat center, etc. would, in fact, fall into the “GC Giving” category.
Would a resort ministry at the beach fall under “SBC causes”? If it’s being supported by an association, state convention, or NAMB, then presumably yes. And a designated gift would therefore be “Great Commission giving”.
Would a large church’s full support of an overseas missionary fall under “SBC causes”? Well, unless that suppoprt is being channeled through the IMB (which I doubt happens), then no. So monies spent fully-funding a non-IMB missionary to Turkmenistan would not qualify as “Great Commission giving”.
Beach ministry in the states, yes. Missionary support overseas, no. I think I just found another reason why I don’t like #3.
Hi Justin Nale,
When you do flesh things out a little more, I would like it if you would spell out some of the things you consider pointless and wasteful at the state level.
This is a charge that is often made, but I hardly ever see specifics.
My pastor is on the exec. board of the Oklahoma Convention. He has stated to me that he believes the OK budget is no-frills and that things are well-run.
Stuart,
I did not mention a Pentecostal Church start. Where did you get that? Also, some crisis pregnancy centers are run, or could be run by either state conventions, or by local associations; could they not? Thus, they would be counted as GCR giving.
David
Off topic, but I’d be for any recommendation to stop using CP dollars to fund undergraduate education, whether through a state convention sponsored college or one of the undergrad programs at the seminaries. Or, at the very least, to stop using CP dollars to fund undergraduate programs at the seminaries and to reduce state contributions to baptist colleges to a level sufficient to maintain scholarship support for students with a declared intent to go into the ministry or full-time missions.
Justin,
I apologize for not posting my views on your CP opposition directly on your own blog before mentioning it here. I found the comment section a bit less than user friendly, not really wanting to register in order to comment. In hindsight, I should have gone to the trouble.
By the way, I appreciate your blog generally, especially the link a few weeks back concerning the way people use the English language today, ending every sentence as if it were an interrogative and not really voicing their convictions with authority. Really good stuff!
Apparently, I have also managed to misconstrue the relationship between your view of the GCR Report and your view of the CP. I was thrown off by the headline of your post, which was “Concerning the GCR” and the topic sentence of your final paragraph, which was “I for one would be happy to see the CP die.”
Along with Dave, I believe it would be a very good idea to flesh out a statement like that a bit more. I believe it’s one thing to be happy for the CP to die and another thing to be happy for the CP to be restructured in a way that you deem more effective.
Having said all that in a genuine effort to be conciliatory, I must now disagree with the thrust of your comment once again. I do not suffer from CP-idolatry. My worship is reserved for Jesus. I just think the CP is the best method Southern Baptists (or any other denomination, for that matter) have ever developed for supporting missions. Therefore, I for one would NOT be happy to see it die.
David,
Sorry. You said charismatic. Point stands.
David,
Okay, I see you meant charismatic in the sense of personality.
).
Whether or not that would fall under “GC giving” would depend on whether or not the church is being supported by an association or state convention. If so, then yes, I suppose it would fall under “GC giving” (regardless of the pastor’s personality
As would a crisis pregnancy center if it was an associational ministry.
As would the beat retreat if it was owned by the state convention.
But the point stands that not EVERY dollar a church gives to some missions cause would qualify as “GC giving”. If it has no connection to some “SBC cause” then it wouldn’t qualify.
I think we understand it about the same. I was just confused by how you described the hypothetical ministries in question.
I’m not sure exactly whether Vol (and Andrew and others ) are right about the “Tennessee Home” issue or not. There may need to be greater clarity on that. You guys may well be right.
Here’s the specific phrase: “We call upon all Southern Baptists to celebrate every dollar given by faithful Southern Baptists as part of Great Commission Giving, including designated gifts given to any Baptist association, state convention, and to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
I hate to be in the position of parsing verbs like this thing was scripture, but it says that we can give to:
-associations
-state conventions
-the causes of the SBC
If you interpret that strictly, it would say that you can only count those monies given directly to associations, to state conventions, or to any SBC entity.
You could also say it includes designated gifts to state conventions and associations as well.
Again, I maintain two points.
1) This is not “societal giving” – it is only a new means of REPORTING what we are already doing.
2) If you care that much about how your offerings are reported, you may not have a Great Commission attitude anyway, right?
Dear Component 3 Critics,
When I select a presidential candidate to vote for, there are a number of factors. His church’s CP giving is one of those things.
That would not change. I could still see both CP giving and GC giving – more information, not less. For an informed person, you actually get more information, not less.
Questions:
Do you really think that the GCRTF put this in so that megachurch pastors could stonewall critics and misrepresent their commitment to SBC Causes?
Do you think people REALLY care that much about how our CP giving is reported? Are we really that shallow and petty?
If we are, we’ve got real problems.
Stuart,
It really helps if you’ll slow down a little bit, and actually comprehend what someone was writing. Here is the direct quote from what I actually wrote…”A Church will be able to help a charismatic(not Pentecostal, but personality wise) missionary start a church, and count it as GCR giving.” As you can now see, I said a “charismatic(not Pentecostal, but PERSONALITY wise) missionary.” In other words, Stu, I’m talking about someone with a charismatic personality. You know, bubbly, outgoing, friendly, passionate type person.
I hope that helps clear it up.
David
Stuart,
Okay, I wrote that last comment, before reading all the comments down to the bottom. I see that you caught your own mistake. Okay.
Nevermind.
David
Dave,
Apart from the Component Three discussion, one can make a compelling case that the Task Force Report is anti-CP by coming at this from an entirely different direction.
Despite the autonomy of all Baptist entities at every level, the Task Force had no problem “challenging” others to take dozens of specific and sacrificial actions, from going on a mission trip every four years to setting the Lottie Goal at $100 million to increasing state convention percentages to restructuring cooperative agreements and so forth.
However, when it comes to making this simple statement: “We challenge every SBC church to give ten percent or more of its undesignated receipts through traditional Cooperative Program channels,” they just couldn’t bring themselves to do it. Why not? Their silence is deafening.
Their excuse will sound something like this: “Uh, your Great Commission Task Force believes in local church autonomy. Everyone should just pray about it and do whatever they want.”
But that same logic applies to every other component or challenge in their report. Frankly, apart from some nice sounding rhetoric, one is hard pressed to discover how the Cooperative Program really fits into the Task Force’s vision for the future.
On top of that, they want to give the task of promoting CP to the very same state conventions whose funding they envision reducing! “State conventions, here are fewer dollars. Let’s just SEE if you can promote the Cooperative Program NOW!” Yes, I suppose that is technically a challenge but it sounds like “Make more bricks but get your own straw” to me.
Do you see how those of us who are looking at the report from this particular perspective might read a bit more into Component Three than others? One gets the impression that they are trying to make GC giving the new standard for faithful missions participation instead of CP giving.
And that’s much more than a shallow reporting issue. It’s a hidden agenda.
Dave,
When you make statements like this…”2) If you care that much about how your offerings are reported, you may not have a Great Commission attitude anyway, right?” Do you not see how divisive that statement is? How inflammatory? Are you trying to make me, and the others that have a problem with this part of the GCR mad?
I’ve tried to explain to you that it goes beyond simple reporting. That’s the concern that I have…and apparently a whole lot more people have, as well. It most certainly does NOT mean that we dont have a Great Commission attitude.
I hate to do this, but I feel the need to do it….now. Dave, tonight, I witnessed to 4 people in their homes…out visiting…you know, doing the Great Commission. The Lord saved one of those people tonight. It was a glorious thing to be a part of leading that lady to Jesus. Also, my Church gives 20% to the CP; 3% to the Association; gave over $50 grand to Lottie; gave over $30 grand to Annie; gave over $30 grand to the TN Bapt. Childrens Homes; and gave a lot of money to other things. So, please, do not accuse me, nor my church, of not having a Great Commission attitude.
David
Dave,
HOw much someone gives to the CP does factor into my decision, and many other people’s decision, about who we will vote for in an SBC President. It’s not the only factor, but it is one factor…a pretty heavy one. So, if you want to call us names like “shallow and petty,” then go right ahead. But, in my book, how much a Church gives to support the work of the SBC is important in picking out people to lead that same SBC.
Also, Dave, I noticed that you dodged my statement and question above. So, I’ll say it again. If how the CP giving is reported is not that important, then why are the GCR task force addressing it? I mean, it’s apparently important enough to them to include this in their report to the SBC? Right? So, Dave, it may not be that important to you; but apparently, it’s important to them. Otherwise, it would have been a non issue for them…it would not have even been mentioned. So, how money is reported is apparently very important to the GCR task force.
David
1) I don’t think you need to cast yourself as a victim here, David. I just don’t see how the reporting of offerings is that big a deal. You are welcome to have your opinion on whether it is or not. I hope you will realize that I have one too and will express it.
Does it anger you that someone who advocate a position different than your own?
2) You seem to be misreading so as to find reason to take offense. I did not say you did not have a “great commission attitude”. What I said was that if someone has a deep concern about how their giving appears in denominational publications, that person does not have a GC attitude. I was not speaking of you when I said that.
3) I did not dodge any question you asked. I never saw it.
My answer is simple – I don’t know. I really don’t care. I do not think the issue of reporting of CP/GC giving is important. The only reason I even addressed it is because pretty much everyone who has objected to the Task Force report has done so on that basis. To me, it is a non-issue.
I think the key issue is the restructuring of NAMB. That’s what I’d like to talk about, but most who have commented have wanted to talk about the CP/GC giving issue.
4) I agree with you COMPLETELY about Cooperative Program giving being essential in determining votes for SBC officers. Everyone is free to give what they please, but if you don’t show your support for the SBC through Cooperative Program giving, you don’t get my vote. I have said that often. I voted for Frank Page instead of Ronnie Floyd 4 years ago largely on the CP giving issue.
But unless someone can show me how the new reporting system will hide the CP amount from public view, I do not think it is a sufficient reason to oppose the GCR.
5) I think the component 3 issue is being blown way out of proportion. I think it is a minor change in the REPORTING of our giving that will not significantly change the way churches give. It certainly will not change my church’s giving patterns.
To quote a well-known blogger, “It really helps if you’ll slow down a little bit, and actually comprehend what someone was writing.” (see comment 90 above)
007:
You said to Dave Miller:”So, please, do not accuse me, nor my church, of not having a Great Commission attitude.”
I do not see any where that Dave Miller did that.
You seem to go off the deep end every chance you get with those that hold opposing views.
Also: 007, you said”I hate to do this, but I feel the need to do it….now. Dave, tonight, I witnessed to 4 people in their homes…out visiting…you know, doing the Great Commission. The Lord saved one of those people tonight. It was a glorious thing to be a part of leading that lady to Jesus. Also, my Church gives 20% to the CP; 3% to the Association; gave over $50 grand to Lottie; gave over $30 grand to Annie; gave over $30 grand to the TN Bapt. Childrens Homes; and gave a lot of money to other things.”
007, Are you the least bit familiar with the concept of bragging?
It is unseemly.
Christianity Today this week has good story on NT Wright and Christian Character.
I would hope Ronnie Floyd and the SBC, even Al Mohler will concede Inerrancy is not the only ball game going when it comes to Great Commission strategy.
Eventually SBC will suffer for all those folks like NT Wright it excluded over the Shibboleth of Inerrancy.
It is interesting to me how this comment stream has progressed. To me, and to many of us outside the deep south, the reorganization of NAMB seems to be the biggest issue we face in the GCRTF. But 90% of the discussion here has related to component 3. That is a little bit of a surprise to me.
Dave,
No, it doesnt anger me that someone disagrees with me. You know better than that. In fact, I really have to wonder about your honesty when you make a statement like that. You know better. What I dont appreciate is the way you were calling people…including me… names, and accusing us of being anti-Great Commission; petty; shallow; etc. Also, give up the tired, old “dont play the victim” junk…okay? No one’s playing the victim, Dave. I just didnt appreciate your attitude and name calling.
Also, Dave, you are still dodging the jest of my statement and questions about the GCR including how churches report giving. So, either you’re really too dumb to understand what I’m saying, or else you’re dodging it. Which is it, Dave? It’s not really that hard to understand. Hint: It’s about WHY THE GCR TASK FORCE IS INCLUDING HOW GIVING IS REPORTED, AND WILL BE REPORTED, IF ITS NOT IMPORTANT? WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE IT IN THE REPORT IF IT WASNT IMPORTANT?
Good gracious, Dude. I really think you just like dodging statements that showed how wrong you were….dont want to admit when you’re wrong… and just try to aggravate those who disagree with you at that point. Is that it, Dave?
David
Tom,
I did brag. I didnt want to brag, but I felt like I had to…after Dave’s statement about the people, who are concerned about reporting may not have a Great Commission attitude anyway. I care about this. I’m one of those people. AND, Tom, I do have a Great Commission attitude. I shared the figures above to show Dave that I most certainly do have a GReat Commission attitude, and so does my Church.
Tom, you dont like me. That’s obvious. You take every opportunity that you can to jump on my back. You seem to be a very bitter, angry, unforgiving person. I do pray that you can find peace with God.
David
David,
I am more than willing to discuss this topic with you, but you seem to be consistently misunderstanding my words and assigning motives and intent where none exists. That makes productive discussion nearly impossible. Frankly, I have no desire to argue or bicker.
If you would like to discuss this topic, let’s do it.
I did not attack you, nor did I ever insult you. You are consistently playing the victim and it is unseemly.
Let’s talk about the issues, okay?
Here is the statement that seems to be at the root of Vol’s ezasperation:
“If you care that much about how your offerings are reported, you may not have a Great Commission attitude anyway, right?”
David, that statement was NOT directed to you. It was a general statement which you took personally. That comment (88) was not directed at you. It was a general statement.
I stand by the sentiment. I think our concern ought to be our giving, not how our giving is reported. If someone is deeply concerned about how their offering is reported, they have a problem.
That is my view. I never said you were one of those people. You can continue to be offended over what I said, or you can look at what I said and realize it was not directed at you.
Your choice, but I’m not dealing with it any more. I’ve explained it two or three times. I’m sorry if somehow I did not make myself more clear. But this is my last word on the subject.
I cannot do any more than explain the truth.
“exasperation”
Les Puryear has done a fantastic job of demonstrating the HUGE potential boost in CP giving if some mega churches increased their contributions to 10%. Included in the list of mega churches are Johnny Hunt’s and Ronnie Floyd’s churches.
I also see a strange disconnect when these guys appear on committees and in high-profile leadership positions in the SBC, but their churches give less than 3% (many less than 1%) to CP. Why is that? Small churches all across the SBC that average less than 500 in Sunday School manage to give 10, 15 even 20% of undesignated gifts to CP. Why do mega churches and their pastors get a “pass” in this regard? Great Commission Giving appears to me to be intentionally engineered to do just that.
I am a missionary with the IMB and it seems that our agency, more than others, would benefit from this change. People like to give to the IMB and, like Vol said, people see it as “glamorous” (most of the time it’s not, but that’s what people think). But, I am very opposed to introducing an element of competition for ministry funds. Promoting and embracing Great Commission Giving, alongside CP giving will do just that. I mentioned in my earlier comment (#4) the danger I see in allowing the IMB to open the door for self-funded short term missionaries. A church could decide to help pay for John and Mary, long-time members who want to serve in the Masters program, so instead of giving that amount to Lottie Moon, they support John and Mary. But what about all the other Johns and Marys out there, from smaller churches that can’t afford to support individual missionaries? They’ll have to rely on funds from the slowly shrinking pool of CP dollars. What the task force proposes really could end up being the end of cooperative missions in the SBC.
Katie
David Miller:
You said to 007:”I did not attack you, nor did I ever insult you. You are consistently playing the victim and it is unseemly.
Let’s talk about the issues, okay?”
This is a consistent pattern for 007 almost everywhere he comments. He has to make the issue about himself.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to carry on a conversation with him.
Last word on this by me.
David Miller thanks for letting me vent a little this morning.
Dave,
I left for a little while and look what happens! The conversation explodes with bunches of comments.
Just to clarify, I think for your gifts to be counted as GC Giving, you’re right, it would have to go through an association, state convention, or the SBC. So for the Tenessee Children’s Home or whatever it was, you’d have to give a designated amount through the state convention. Writing a check directly to the Children’s Home would probably not be counted, but then again, I could be wrong.
Either way, I don’t really appreciate the heavy focus on what each church is giving. I’ve read some articles about the presidential nominees and at least two were talking about how much they give to missions and how their church leads their association/state in giving. I think this only promotes boasting in something other than the cross of Christ, and it totally disregards the example of the poor women with her two coins.
There’s an article in the BP from Les Puryear criticizing component 3. I find a flaw in his logic: since when did God require churches to tithe to another organization?
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=32884&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0506
Dave,
When you said that those type of people dont have a Great Commission attitude, who do you think that it applied to? It applied to me, and to anyone else, who has conceerns about how giving is reported. Do you see that? How can you not see that? And, yes, it did insult me, because I be one of those people? lol.
Also, when you said that anyone concerned with how giving is reported is shallow and petty, you were calling me, and whoever thinks like me, shallow and petty. Do you see that? Yes, that insulted me. It offended me. I really dont care to be called shallow and petty.
Also, when Ronnie Floyd said that anyone that could not vote for this report was not for the Great Commission, or however he worded that; yes, it offended me. I am for the Great Commission. Just because I’m not for a report of a task force that he’s on does not mean that I’m against the GREAT COMMISSION. Do you see that? Do you see how that statement could kind of get under the skin of those that might have concerns with some things about the report?
Brother, it really offends me when you keep bringing up that “quit being a victim” junk. I’m not a victim. I’m not playing a victim. I’m just calling it like it is. I’m sorry that you dont want to see it, and that you use that old, worn out, tired phrase to try to “win the arguement.” I could care less about winning an arguement. I’m just telling you that the GCR report is not as wonderful and glowing as you make it out to be. Maybe you’re just thrilled to death about it. I’m not. I like most of it. I would be thrilled to vote for it. IF…if, they had not put that part about reporting our giving in it. I really dont understand why they felt the need to make a big deal out of this. I really have to wonder why they would choose to make this an issue. I dont for sure why they did, but they did. I do have my thoughts about why, which I shared a few with you above. But,they’ve made this an issue.
My concern is that it will lead us back to societal giving. In fact, when giving to different entities and ministries, instead of to CP, is societal giving. That’s what societal giving is. CP giving is putting all of our money together to make sure that all the missions and ministries are covered. So, Dave, when we begin to look at Great Commission giving in the SBC…if this report passes….we will be on the road to societal giving. We will not be looking that way; we will be on that road already.
David
Tom,
Hey, man, there’s a lot more to life than a computer and a blog. There’s a lot more to life than just being negative and attacking people all the time. Dude, we all know that you dont like the SBC. We all know that you hope for it’s demise. We all know that you hate the CR. We’ve heard you, man. Believe me, we’ve heard you. And, it’s really getting kind of old…like a broken record.
Tom, here’s some friendly advice, why dont you go and find some group that you do like. Join them. Be happy. Live a little. Get in the sunshine, and try to forget all about the SBC. The CBF and the American Baptist would probably love to have you. Have you ever thought about joining them?
David
Andrew,
I really think that your wrong about the woman and the 2 coins comparison. It’s not bragging about what they give. It’s about them supporting what they are willing to lead. I mean, if their church doesnt give but a measly little bit to support the work of the SBC, then why should they be picked to lead the SBC?
So, Bro., it’s not about bragging. It’s about seeing if their money is where their mouth is.
In other words, dont become a leader in the SBC, and tell me that my church needs to give more, or that we need to give more sacrificially to missions, when your Church gives .015% to the CP.
David
Vol,
I find it to be bragging when people acknowledge that they give a small percentage, but they are quick to point out that they gave a higher dollar amount than the rest of the churches in their association to the LMCO and AAEO. I think there is a good comparison here between that and the widow. I’m sure the rich people could have said, “Yeah, the percentage we give doesn’t reflect a real heart committment, but we give more than that widow over there.” You don’t find any parallels here?
Either way, I’m not really impressed one way or the other regarding churches giving to CP, AAEO, or LMCO. I’m more interested in vision, leadership, character, etc. CP giving % is a poor indicator of a good candidate for presidency. Their own personal tithing and offering practices are more relevant than their church’s.
David, I am left to believe that you do not want to understand what I said, but instead are simply looking for a reason to take offense.
Whether it offends you or not, you have unnecessarily played the victim on this stream. I never directed a single insult at you, yet you continued to cast yourself as the victim of attack.
Katie,
There is little doubt that if every SBC church gave 10%, we would do great things. Since the current average is around 6%, it would increase the SBC budget by 67%.
The flaw in Les’ argument is that we are autonomous, and do not have the option of telling churches what they have to give. We can “challenge” them – as the Task Force did – to greater sacrifice. To set an artificial standard would be a violation of our polity.
It’d been nice for me, though. Our church could lower our CP percentage to 10%. Maybe they could give me a raise!
Andrew, I think your parallel with the widow’s mite is interesting.
Thank you Andrew. Nothing disgusts me more than people calling for the church to tithe. One tithes to a greater. Tithes are paid to God through the church because it is the greatest institution on earth. No denominational entity rises to such level.
The idea of a church tithing to a denominational is but a subtle move toward denominationalism with the church being on the lowest rung.
It is more than linguistics, it is theology. One of those theological distinctions Baptists enjoy and employ.
David, one more thing – you said,
“Also, when Ronnie Floyd said that anyone that could not vote for this report was not for the Great Commission, or however he worded that; yes, it offended me.”
Again, you took offense at what someone said. What I am interested in is where he said that. I have never seen a statement like that. Could you document that? Give a link?
Dave,
First of all, I know that you did not say, “David Worley is a shallow, petty man, who does not have a Great Commission attitude.” Good grief, Dave. C’mon, Brother. But, when you made those statements, you were saying that PEOPLE, who looked upon the reporting thing as important were being shallow and petty, and they might not have a Great Commission attitude. Who are those people, Dave?
I am one of those people, Dave. So are many other people, Dave. All of us out here, who think it is important for all of the reasons that I gave you and more, are those people that YOU called petty, shallow, and….well, you know the rest….
Also, the exact quote from Ronnie Floyd was,”The report was written so that “Every Great Commission-driven Southern Baptist” will eagerly embrace it, Floyd said.” This was from the Baptist Press, May 7, 2010. So, if I…and others, Dave….others….all of us, who dont embrace it….arent Great Commission Southern Baptists? Please, take note, Dave, that I’m not playing the victim, here. I’m talking about all of us, out here in SB land, who may not embrace the report. Okay, Dave? Ronnie just inferred that anyone that does not embrace the report is not Great Commission driven.
I resent that implication. I dont agree with that insinuation. And, I think that’s a very divisive statement that could offend a whole lot of people.
I wont go into all that my church does for missions, again. Because, I sure dont want Tom to get all out of whack again. But, that statement is not true.
Dave, I really have not made up my mind, yet, whether I will vote for the GCR report, or not. As I said, I like a lot of it. I actually like most of it. But, I absolutely dont like the giving reporting part of it. I really hope they’ll let us vote on each component separately. I’d really like to vote against #3. But, also, #3 keeps me from being wholeheartedly for it. And, I just have to wonder why the task force is making such a big deal out of how we report our giving.
David
I just have to wonder why anybody is making such a big deal out of how we report our giving.
I think you are approaching the reporting issue from a different perspective than I am, David.
As I stated above, I AGREE with you that a church’s statistics are some indication of their commitment and involvement in the SBC. You and I agree on the fact that those whose churches give paltry percentages to the CP are not qualified for officers. I don’t think there should be a rule, but they won’t give my votes.
We agree on that.
I disagree with you that this is societal giving.
My point about the reporting procedure was in response to people who were claiming that “megachurch” pastors were behind this – so that they could hide their small CP amounts with GC giving.
People who care that much what other people think of them are “shallow and petty” in my estimation. I did not direct that at you and I think your offense was based on a misunderstanding – of my intent if not of my words.
If anything, I believe the intent behind this thing might be to allow churches in certain old-line states to bypass their state conventions and give directly to IMB or other national ministries. It roots in the feeling that some have expressed that these state conventions are “bloated bureaucracies” that suck up too much of the CP money.
We did that for a year or so. We gave an extra 2% of our offerings directly to the IMB.
Here’s my point. We cared about giving money. We did not care about how that money was credited in the ACP. It did not show up as CP giving. If our highest concern was how our offerings were reported, we would be shallow and petty.
That was my point and I stand by it. I actually thought you would agree with the point and did not intend it as an “attack” on you.
Andrew, I’m going to try to make David Worley’s point in another way – if I am right (correct me, David), then David and I are not so far off in this.
David is saying that he wants to know what people give to the CP as a rubric for analyzing candidates for office. I agree with him fully.
My point is not about that – if you run for office, you open yourself to public scrutiny.
You and I agree that people who are worried deeply about how their church’s offerings are reported are concerned too much about the opinions of others and should just get about the work and not worry about reporting and such.
I have to believe that David Worley actually agrees with that in principle. I do not think we have as much of a disagreement here as we do a misunderstanding.
Dave,
Yes, I do agree with what you said in #122. And, I, also, could care less about what people think about what we give from my Church. We give it, because we believe in missions, and we want to support missions…in a cooperative way…where it can do the most good for the most people.
And, yes, I, also, agree that when someone is being considered to be in leadership positions for the SBC, then what their church gives to the CP should come into play.
Also, Dave, I guess we’re gonna have to just disagree on why they task force is making this reporting thing such an issue. I really am having a hard time understanding that one. They are the ones pressing it. That makes me wonder why. And, I think I know a lot of the reasons why. Not all of them. But, I think I know some of them. Dont forget that Ronnie Floyd got beat out by Frank Page, and that was a big, big issue for many voting in Greensboro…including me.
David
I voted for Frank Page instead of Ronnie Floyd largely on the issue of Cooperative Program money.
Dave and Andrew,
Forget reporting for a moment. Most of us with concerns over Component Three cast them not as mere “reporting issues” like the two of you. We see this component as a symptom of a larger lack of FOCUS and EMPHASIS on the CP throughout the entire GCRTF Report.
Dave wrote: “The flaw in Les’ argument is that we are autonomous, and do not have the option of telling churches what they have to give. We can “challenge” them – as the Task Force did – to greater sacrifice. To set an artificial standard would be a violation of our polity.”
Really?
Our autonomy must not prevent us from autonomously challenging other autonomous bodies to reach certain specific standards in our endeavors because the Task Force Report is chock full of autonomous challenges to autonomous Baptist entities setting “specific” (not artificial) goals for everyone from autonomous Baptists to autonomous churches to autonomous state conventions to autonomous boards and autonomous committees. (For example, $100 Million for Lottie, breaking the 51% barrier, every Baptist going on a mission trip at least every four (not three or five) years, etc. If one of these challenges is “artificial” then they all are!
Here’s my autonomous challenge to the two autonomous people I’ve addressed in this comment: “What makes the historically successful “ten percent or more” CP challenge off limits due to autonomy when every other aspect of the report dares to challenge autonomous bodies to take the autonomous actions that the wonderfully autonomous GCRTF desires for the convention autonomously to consider?”
Please respond, although I am the first to admit you have the autonomy to refuse.
Rick, to me there is a difference between challenging people to increase their giving, and setting an arbitrary standard to which people must conform.
To call on SBC churches to demonstrate their passion for Great Commission work through the SBC by increasing their missions giving – that is a challenge.
To set a 10% standard is something different. It is an authoritarian standard and its not something I like.
This is not some kind of self-protection. We give 12% to CP, and a total of around 20% to missions causes in general (associational, local, etc). All my other churches (I’ve served 3 others) actually had higher percentages. I’m passionate and committed to CP. Its why I’m still Southern Baptist, honestly.
But I do not think we should designate a specific percentage by which we judge people.
And what about all the other “arbitrary” standards in the report? You okay with them? The hypocrisy I am trying to highlight is between their approach to CP and their approach to everything else. CP is apparently the only area in which Baptists cannot be specifically challenged.
Rick, I think hypocrisy is a pretty harsh word. Are you really accusing these men of hypocrisy? Do you really want to lay charges against the integrity and good will of the men (and women) who unanimously made this recommendation?
I think it is fine to disagree with the report. But you have thrown out some pretty harsh charges.
Your comment 92 charges these men with “making excuses” instead of dealing forthrightly. You accuse them of operating on hidden agendas.
I have no real quarrel with your viewpoint, even though I disagree with it. But I do not like the tone you are taking.
Can you not disagree with the task force without calling their motives, character and integrity into question?
Vol, one more thing.
I never saw Ronnie Floyd’s comment and so I have no way of putting it in context. However, if it is as you present it, then I would disagree with his presentation and defend you on that one.
I do not believe we should call into question anyone’s commitment to the CR because they might oppose this report.
However, let me defend Ronnie Floyd a minute (like he needs my voice to support him, right?). Ronnie has spent a year working on this thing and he is passionately convinced that this is what the SBC needs to do to refocus ourselves on the Great Commission.
He genuinely believes that these recommendations will bring a resurgence of Great Commission activity in the SBC. I think perhaps he really might believe that if you support the GC, you will support the GCR recommendations.
He is probably not coming from a place of offense, but a place of passion.
Dave,
Since it’s beginning the CP has brought Southern Baptists together, giving us a chance to do something corporately better than what we could do individually. Promoting “Great Commission Giving” as an alternative to or in addition to the CP, we are taking our first step away from this powerful thing that unites Southern Baptists.
Before the IMB underwent the restructuring of the past year, regions competed with each other for the hearts and minds of Southern Baptists. Most of the regions took a missionary off the field and put them in the US for a year or more to serve as a “personalizer” – someone to relate to local churches and associations and place before them opportunities to get involved in hands on mission efforts in their particular part of the world. So, in effect, missionaries from different regions were competing against each other for stateside resources. I’m glad that the IMB has moved away from this.
That is a small scale of what Great Commission Giving could turn into. The agency or entity that does the best PR and promotion will do better in gaining attention and resources; those that don’t won’t. Would you like to see the success and effectiveness of one of our seminaries or NAMB or the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission be reduced to who spends the most on “advertising?” If churches will be encouraged to give to “Great Commission Giving,” won’t that embolden some receivers to more aggressively compete for these funds? Since Great Commission Giving would be separate from CP giving, I think we will quickly see outright solicitation for donors.
I for one would hate to see us move in that direction.
Katie
Dave,
To be more precise, I’m not talking about the people on the Task Force. I believe they are people of good will and integrity. Rather, I’m talking about the report they have written, the actual ideas that have been reduced to writing.
If “hypocritical” is too harsh and accusatory, perhaps “contradictory” would be a better choice.
The report itself is contradictory in terms of its philosophical approach toward the idea of autonomy. If autonomy does not allow the report to read: “Churches, please give at least ten percent” then why does autonomy allow the report to read: “Executive Committee, break the 50% barrier” and “Baptists, go on a mission trip at least every four years?”
Regarding Comment 92, please substitute “reason” for “excuse” if this helps soften the tone. One problem with this form of communication is that one cannot hear inflection. If you could hear my voice and know my heart, you would understand that I am not being accusatory.
I would also like to withdraw the “hidden” agenda description as I no longer think it applies. It was primarily in response to the “simply reporting” characterization of Component Three. I happen to believe much more is going on with Component Three than just reporting. Several of the other posts have identified the issue of SBC Presidential elections and the affect of CP giving upon the outcome. I do in fact believe that some of the pastors on the Task Force are seeking to rectify what they consider to be a great wrong by introducing GC giving as a category that will compete with the category of CP giving in describing missions support.
However, on second thought, I no longer think the word “hidden” really applies to this agenda when so many people are talking about it besides me. By definition, it’s not hidden if everyone sees it. I don’t think making 2% CP giving Pastors feel better is a worthwhile agenda, whether it is a hidden one or not.
To summarize, I have no beef with the people themselves, just the ideas in their report, particularly at the moment, the inconsistency of setting general goals for certain autonomous matters while at the same time setting specific goals for other autonomous matters.
Does that approach not strike you as inconsistent at all?
Katie,
I am in full agreement with you about the importance of the CP and pretty much everything you say, except for the assertion in your first paragraph.
“Promoting “Great Commission Giving” as an alternative to or in addition to the CP, we are taking our first step away from this powerful thing that unites Southern Baptists.”
Could you connect the dots for me a little more directly?
1) The component extols the virtue and importance of the CP in great length.
2) It says that we should recognize that those who designate money within the SBC are also supporting Great Commission work and their gifts should be “celebrated.”
Nothing in the document undermines the Cooperative Program as far as I can see.
Rick, I don’t think there is anything inherently “wrong” in any of this. Its choices we make. They could have gone one way or the other. They chose one way to encourage CP support. I think it is inaccurate to cast that method as if it undermines support for the Cooperative Program.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the GCRTF challenging people to give more sacrificially to the CP. There were under no obligation to enforce a 10% figure and I am glad they didn’t.
Had they set such a figure and challenged people to work toward it, I would not have objected, but I am more comfortable with a more general challenge.
I’m afraid the 10% thing may be more symptomatic of the ongoing SBC debate about storehouse tithing and whether it applies in the NT era. I don’t really want to make that a big issue here. But Les Puryear has been perhaps the most vocal amongst the 10%ers and he is also the one advocating 10% here.
I’m satisfied with a challenge to sacrificial giving at every level of SBC life. I see no need to tie an artificial 10% standard to it, since each church is free to determine the amount.
I don’t think there is an inconsistency. There was just no mandate biblically or otherwise to demand 10% and they did not.
Rick, (and others)
The GCRTF issues a strong call to sacrificial giving at all levels of the SBC structure.
Why is that not enough?
Do you really think it would be that much more effective if you attached an arbitrary 10% figure to that? Why not 8%? 12%?
I guess I don’t get the passion to set a particular figure and why that is considered better than a simple call to Great Commission living and giving among all Southern Baptists.
Why 51% to IMB? Why 4 mission trips, not three or five? The point is that the Task Force is willing to be specific on the things they are passionate about. Why are they not specific about CP if they are truly passionate about it?
And to answer your question, yes, I believe I could much more easily support the report if they attached the “historically successful” (which I will now insert every time you use the word “arbitrary”) 10% or more figure. For what it’s worth, I would not feel the same about 8% but at least it’s more than our current 6.6% average. Since we need to bring that average up, the challenge should be higher than the current average. I prefer 10% or more, since it’s only a goal anyway, and everyone is autonomous to do as they please.
Another reason such goal setting is preferable, in addition to being more consistent with the approach in the rest of the report, is that simply calling on everyone to “do more” is actually less fair than you might think. Sure, the church giving 1.5% can accomplish the goal and “give more” than they are right now. But the church struggling sacrificially to give 10% or 15% or 20% may really be stretched to the place where they cannot really “do more.” They have already “done more.” They need others to come alongside and help by doing their fair share rather than just any old amount they like.
Specific CP goals would make me feel better about the Task Force Report. So would funding whichever group is supposed to do CP promotion. So would refusing to create a missions support promotion category like GC that will only compete with CP. Those three changes would make me feel much, much better about the report.
The 51% is completely different – apples and oranges. That is not a challenge, it is a recommendation. If we vote on that, it will happen. The SBC is speaking about the work of the SBC. We have authority over the SBC budget, not over the budget of local churches.
Where did you get the “four mission trips” thing? Haven’t seen it in the report. Not saying its not there, I have yet to memorize the entire thing.
When has 10% ever been established as an CP giving requirement? I’m still quarreling over the arbitrary/historically successful thing.
Tom,
I have not had conversations about these things with many people, so it would really be hard for me to judge if there are many who share my views. I do know of at least one other pastor in our area who has led his SBC church plant to give via the designation form and a couple others who have expressed to me that they share my views. All of these pastors are younger (under 35). Sorry I can’t be much help. To be honest, I think most of the younger pastors I know don’t have time to think much about these things, but seem to like what they see in the ACTS 29 Network and elsewhere and kind of wish the SBC was like that. Ask them what they mean by that and they may not be able to articulate it.
Karen,
I certainly apologize if I have made a false charge. In a sense, what I was proposing above dealt more with the fact that a system in which churches have more control over where their money goes would by necessity weed out those programs/ministries that seemed to be ineffective. Perhaps in OK these are few and far between, but such a system would still function this way should present programs/ministries that are functioning well eventually cease to do so. I have been a member of a council for our own state convention here in NC and, quite frankly, must say that my experience with the amount of money, time, and energy spent in accomplishing so little has been discouraging to me. I am genuinely thankful if such is not really the case in OK.
On a personal level, though, what I have in mind is less about financial waste and more about allowing churches to keep their convictions as they support the SBC. So, for example, I know many pastors and churches in the SBC who love and support church planting but think that affinity-based church plants (cowboy churches, biker churches, etc.) are not only unbiblical but also dishonoring to God’s own revealed plan for what local churches should be. I long for there to be a way these churches could still support church planting in the SBC but not have to support things they believe are wrong. That is just one example of several I could give.
Rick,
No offense taken, brother. I hope you didn’t read my compliment of Dave’s integrity as saying anything about yours – that was not at all my intention. I certainly understand your disagreement with my position and until I get some time to flesh out my ideas better I could hardly blame anyone for that. I am also thankful that you have been encouraged by the blog.
Justin, even though my reaction to your ideas was negative, I like to see people who think counter to the flow.
You really need to think through your ideas and flesh them out. I know I’d like to read them. Probably still wouldn’t agree, but they would likely be worth hearing and dealing with.
Its a debate I would enjoy having.
Justin,
You said above, “I long for there to be a way these churches could still support church planting in the SBC but not have to support things they believe are wrong.”
I think that is one of the responsibilities, perhaps downside, of denominationalism. I’m not a huge fan of some of what Paige Patterson has done in recent years, but my cooperative program dollars help to pay his salary.
But there are two kinds of “disagreements” (probably more than that).
1) A mild disagreement on tertiary doctrinal issues or a different in emphasis/style (like the one I mentioned above).
That is just what it means to be part of a denomination/convention. I support the overall work of the SBC even though I do not agree with everything in it. I lean Calvinist, but I fellowship and support non-Calvinists. I’m pre-trib but I have to support all those doggone amils and post-tribbers.
We look at our denomination and say that what we can do together is worth what we have to put up with in disagreements and such.
2) Serious doctrinal or ethical disagreements. If I had serious disagreements with my denomination, I would look to change denominations. I would not support a denomination with which I had fundamental disagreements. I would find another denomination or go independent bible church or something.
To a certain extent, being part of a denomination means supporting that denomination, even if you have minor disagreements with its leaders.
Dave,
Granted, the 51% goal is in fact a convention matter. While it is a specific and numerical challenge, it does not pertain to another autonomous body but to the convention itself.
However, other examples of specific and numerical challenges in the report offered to truly autonomous bodies are generally found among the bullet lists and include the following:
“Participate in a North American or international mission trip sponsored by your church or association at least once every four years.”
“Grow in giving as a faithful financial stewardship with at least 10% of your income going to your local church. However, see 10% as a place to begin in grace giving but not the place to stop.”
“Working with the IMB and NAMB, set goals for Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong that will enable us to send $200 million to the IMB and $100 million to NAMB in annual gifts by 2015.”
“Organize quarterly associational prayer meetings for the conversion of the lost and the planting of sound churches in the underserved and unreached areas of North America and around the globe.”
“Plan at least one annual foreign mission trip and one annual North American mission trip and encourage all the churches in the association to participate, especially smaller churches.”
“Work with cooperating churches to plan at least one mercy ministry focused outreach event every year.”
“Determine to return to the historic ideal of a 50/50 Cooperative Program distribution between the state convention and the SBC.” (What about the historic ideal for church CP giving?)
This is the one I feel might be strengthened to include a clear and specific numerical percentage goal similar to the ones found above without endangering church autonomy:
“Lead your church to grow and increase in sacrificial Cooperative Program giving.”
By the way, I’m not necessarily opposed to all of these numerical challenges. It just seems odd to me that the Task Force felt comfortable asking autonomous bodies to do things “quarterly” or “once per year” or to give “$200 million” or to split giving “50/50″ or to do something “once every four years” but they could not be specific in challenging churches regarding the historic ideal of CP giving.
I would point one thing out to you, Rick. There is a lengthy report, but the only thing we are actually voting on are the specific recommendations. We are not approving the rationale sections, nor the challenges.
The rationale section describes the reasons for the recommendations.
The challenges speak to the implementation and given as suggestions.
The only things we are actually voting on are the recommendations themselves (bold print in the document).
that would be another distinction.
In other words, the “challenges” are more like suggestions to churches. The recommendations, which will be voted on, are binding on the convention.
So, specifics are more appropriate in the challenges/suggestions section and are better avoided in the recommendations section.
A motion to establish a 10% threshold for faithful CP giving in the recommendation would be inappropriate to me. Had they made that a suggestion in the challenges section, I would not object.
Dave,
Praise God, brother! We are in agreement on at least one thing. Neither of us would oppose a “10% or more” CP giving suggestion in the challenges section. If I see you in Orlando, the coffee’s on me. (I was only kidding about the Ridgeline!)
Alas, however, I may not quite see the recommendations section as particularly “binding.” Yes, it is binding in the sense that the convention will have clearly spoken its recommendations to the autonomous entities. However, since the word “consider” is used six times in that section, all we are really doing as a convention is asking NAMB, state conventions, the Executive Committee and other trustee boards to “consider” these ideas. Thus, in a sense, the recommendations are also merely suggestions which may be embraced or rejected by the various autonomous groups.
Hi Dave,
You asked if I could connect the dots for you regarding this statement:
“Promoting “Great Commission Giving” as an alternative to or in addition to the CP, we are taking our first step away from this powerful thing that unites Southern Baptists.”
Let’s look at the mega church example. Many of them give 1% or less to CP. Their local associations and state conventions get very little support from these huge churches. If they really wanted to extol the importance and virtue of the CP, they ought to give more to it, not just write about how wonderful it is it in their report.
If the task force recommendations pass this June and “Great Commission Giving” is a new, acceptable channel for giving, it’s fair to assume that the mega churches will continue to do what they’ve been doing – giving very little to the CP. Since mega church pastors and personalities are chosen again and again as SBC leaders, we will continue to hear justification for this type of giving. The vocal CP champions like Frank Page and Rick Lance (Alabama’s exec.) will be outnumbered not only by the Johnny Hunts and Ronnie Floyds, but by the entity heads: Jerry Rankin’s successor, the NAMB president, the seminary presidents, because they will all start competing with one another for your church’s direct giving.
Over time, other churches which have been long-term CP supporters may decide to get on the band wagon with the mega churches, and instead of supporting their local association, state and national agencies through CP monies, they will pick and choose which individual entities should get their dollars. Who will be the advocate for CP giving? The task force recommends pushing that down to the State level. So, it will be up to your state convention folks to convince churches to continue (or increase) giving to the CP while any and every other national entity will be making impassioned pleas for support as well. Your state children’s home will now be in competition with the IMB for funds; the local crisis pregnancy center that the association supports will be competing with the seminaries; associational and state camps will be pitted against the ERLC. We’re starting with an uneven playing field as it is; IMB has been doing advocacy and promotion for a long time. All the seminaries do promotion. Is your state ready to come up with promotional materials just as slick and professional as IMB’s or Southwestern’s to educate churches about the vital, yet lower-profile ministries they do?
I fail to see how this will be good for the SBC and how it will help us work together to fulfill the Great Commission.
Katie
Morris Chapman expresses his concerns quite well at http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32895
A few choice quotes: Chapman said the task force has given “lip service” in praising the Cooperative Program because its final report “takes away with the left hand what it affirms with the right.”
Chapman said the GCRTF proposal makes the Cooperative Program “just another component of a conglomerate category” and that this devalues the Cooperative Program
“[T]he Cooperative Program IS our Great Commission Giving!” he wrote.
“If the GCTF is as serious as it says it is about retaining the primacy of the Cooperative Program,” he wrote, “it would seem logical not to create any new category of support that would threaten to displace Cooperative Program as the metric of participation in the Convention.”
I read Dr. chapman’s article. He’s pretty negative about it, isn’t he? Its interesting to see the key leaders of the SBC so opposed to one another on this issue.
I’m going to read his article a little more closely when I get some time (copied and pasted to a word document – its 13 pages long!).
I would say this about my initial reading of his article.
1) He has, through his long and faithful service to the SBC, earned a hearing for his views – and for them to be taken seriously.
2) I nonetheless doubt the severity of his charges. I do not think this report is SBC Apocalypse.
2) He is so negative about this it kind of startles me. Dr. Chapman has, in the last couple of year, given himself over to some inflated rhetoric (about Calvinists, about other things) so I have to think through this a little more.
More later.
As Southern Baptists, we have a long-standing commitment to the values of autonomy (primarily of the local church) and solidarity (primarily with other Southern Baptists). At times, however, there is a natural tension between these values that must be worked out in some kind of synthesis. This is one of those times. Some, it seems, lean more toward the autonomy side, and others more toward the solidarity side.
I think that a couple of other values that we must look to in order to help us find the appropriate synthesis are good (or, perhaps, the best, as opposed to just “good”) stewardship of the resources God entrusts us with, and the unity of the Body of Christ as a whole (as opposed to just solidarity with other Southern Baptists, and Southern Baptist causes).
I’m not saying the values of autonomy and solidarity, in and of themselves are, in any way, bad–just, they need to be tempered by the additional values of good stewardship and Christian unity.
Just what is the appropriate synthesis of all of these values remains to be seen. But, I think these thoughts may help to frame the discussion.
I appreciated that in the document, cooperation with the Kingdom at large was one of our core values.
David Rogers and David Miller’s last two comments were interesting indeed.
While I especially appreciate the earnestness and in my experience apparent good will of David Rogers and hold no particular animus toward Miller–just find him little vacuous on too many subjects he appears to think he has mastered; there is something pretty sophomoric seems to me in this framework they espouse for autonomy and solidarity.
Nice sounding words but for me it rings hollow given all the good Baptists that have been arbitrarily excluded from the conversation in the last 50 years.
To cut to the chase, Bill Hull’s new book on the differing approaches of Roy Honeycutt and Duke McCall to resolve a much greater conundrum they faced in the early 80′s as they tried to navigate the unwieldly baptist ecclesiology of autonomy and cooperation I think provides a much more substantive framework than Rogers has laid out abvove, though he expresses his point pretty well.
I mean this with no arrogance or nothing of the sort; just an honest take on your batting about here.
The virtue in the grand notions of autonomy and cooperation in Baptist life was taken down considerable notches in the 80′s, and there is something a little unwittingly simpleminded in your attempts here to act as if your chastity in this matter is intact.
Again I hope you appreciate my sincerity in this strong reprimand here.
SFox
Stephen,
Another traditional core value of Southern Baptists has been a commitment to doctrinal soundness. If, however, not all agree on the parameters of how you define doctrinal soundness, there will also be a tension between this value and both those of autonomy and solidarity. In my opinion (and evidently, that of the majority of Southern Baptists in the early 80′s, and an even greater majority today), the value of commitment to doctrinal soundness trumps the other two. If you compromise on key points of doctrine, you have “sold the company store,” as it were.
The problem is defining what are the “do or die” issues of doctrinal soundness. That is where the current discussion in much of Southern Baptist life centers today – dividing correctly between so-called “tier two” and “tier three” doctrinal issues. For many Southern Baptists (probably most), the doctrine of biblical authority (and the corollaries of verbal inspiration and inerrancy), are more of a “tier one” issue than “tier two” or “tier three.” A de facto denial of God’s sovereign authority transmitted by way of divine written revelation leaves us bereft of “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and of any reason to sacrifice our autonomy in order to join together in solidarity with others.
If we are not agreed on even the most basic issues, what sense does it make to try to cooperate on a common project of Christian ministry? How, otherwise, do you avoid constant in-fighting and bickering regarding the desired end-results of all joint ventures? And, if that is the case, the end-result will be a lessened efficacy in our stewardship. Would it not be better, in such a case, for those who have one set of core values to work together on one project, and those with another set of core values to work together on another project?
And, pretty much, that is what has ended up happening. Was the way it took place ideal? Probably not. But what’s done is done. And, there was probably no way of avoiding it. Oil and water don’t mix. Those who are wholly committed to biblical authority (at least, as they understand it) don’t have a common cause with those who are willing to compromise on these issues (or those who have a totally different understanding of what it would mean to compromise on these issues).
What we have left in the SBC today are, by and large, folks that pretty much agree on this point. Maybe you (and Hull and Honeycutt and McCall) might tend to think we have compromised on the values of autonomy and solidarity. But, as I said before, we who are now in the majority feel the value of commitment to doctrinal soundness trumps them.
That still leaves those of us who agree on this to sort out among us where we are going to divide between “tier two” and “tier three,” and how we are going to apply the values of autonomy and solidarity correctly, together with good stewardship, and a healthy commitment to Christian unity (at least, as we understand it). But, at least we agree for the most part on how we define “tier one” issues of doctrinal soundness.
David, thanks for your thoughtful response though you know I disagree. A family member needs to see a Mother’s Day recipe so I leave you with this link and will come back to it later.
Will get a link for you soon, OR at the end of the month check Larry McSwain’s review in the May issue of http://www.baptiststoday.org
May issue will not be available online till first of June.
Pardon me but all of a sudden things got hectic.
Link is for the Review of Bill Hull’s exquisite book on the Honeycutt and McCall eras at Southern.
DAvid Rogers:
I have taken your thoughts above and posted them in the BHHS forum at baptistlife.com. You may want to check there periodically to see if it takes traction.
In the meantime here is a basic link to the Hull Book.
http://www.baptisthistory.org/bhhs/books/seminaryincrisis.html
While at that site you may want to click on the link to the Tribute to Cecil Sherman, who my friend Sam Hodges says was a Mt Rushmore Baptist.
I do hope we can pick up the autonomy/solidarity discussion at bl.com framed in the reviews by Hinson and McSwain (Larry for a time went on to be President of Shorter in Rome, Ga) of Hull’s book.
David: Saw your note at bl.com and linked the discussion here to better frame the quote I shared there.
Thanks for checking in at bl.com.
Do sincerely hope you have the inclination and disposition to pick up Hull’s book soon.
I continue to hope within the year there may be an opportunity for you to retreat with Jim Henry’s daughter Kate Campbell, Charles Marsh, maybe Harry Dent’s daughter Ginny Brant of the IMB to see just where some of the children of the key folks of the SBC struggle of the last quarter of the 20th Century are on matters now.
May be some virtue to it; or it may be just stirring up dust.
I don’t know.
Dr. Jerry Rankin left a comment at his site (a blog which anyone interested in this ought to read.
I just don’t get the push back to the challenging and innovative vision that will enable us to send more missionaries and focus more on reaching the lost. I respect the prerogative of others who differ, but I wish I could hear some vision or alternative proposals from those who are reluctant to embrace the GCR. All I hear is let’s hold on to a system that is not reaching the lost and is not compelling giving to cooperative ministries. The trends are evident if we are not willing to take the risk and do something different. Does anyone really think that if we do not recognize “Great Commission giving” that churches are not going to designate gifts and channel it all back through CP? Does anyone really think churches in the 21st century are going to go back to the 1920’s? The task force is simply proposing what could appeal to the growing diversity and result in a massive increase of resources for convention work, at both the state and SBC level.
Good question: Someone on the “Anti-GCR” side needs to articulate a vision more than “let’s just stick with tradition.”
Dave,
A lot of the problem seems to be at the state level. I recently read a comment here on SBC Impact by someone who works in Alaska and he said the Alaska state convention does not even have a line item in their budget for church planting – one of, if not the MOST unchurched states in the US! What are they spending CP dollars on if not church planting??? We left Missouri for the mission field 12 years ago, just as their in-state controversy was heating up over who should have control of Windemere (conference center), Word and Way (newspaper), a state Baptist college, etc. After all this time, the lawsuits are still continuing. I’m not sure if CP dollars are helping pay legal fees; but, regardless, it’s sad that a state convention is using any money to pay for lawsuits! Other comments have pointed to dysfunction or disagreements about spending in the Kentucky and Pennsylvania state conventions. I’m sure there are others. The Great Commission Task Force has not (and probably should not) address problems at the state level, yet it probably needs to be done by someone!
The answer to these problems is NOT to undermine the CP. Creating an alternative giving structure (GCG) WILL undermine the CP. GCG sweeps aside cooperation and ushers in competition. It simply validates what mega churches are already doing – giving very little to the CP and using funds to pay for ministries they choose to do and control themselves. I have no reason to believe that mega churches, inspired by GCG, are going to suddenly give those funds to IMB or NAMB or any other SBC entity. They will continue to fund their own mission projects in which they retain 100% control over.
Like I said in my first comment, I don’t know what the answers are, but I simply can’t support this shift to less cooperation in name of doing more, because I don’t see it working any better than what we’ve got.
Katie
Amen to Katie’s comments about GC vs. CP giving!
Dave has challenged someone on the “Anti-GCR” side (how about “Pro-CP” side since I do support about half of the Task Force Report) to articulate a vision other than the status quo. Here goes:
The Southern Baptist Convention, having discovered the genius of the cooperative missions approach and the complete superiority of it over against the societal approach, is in serious danger indeed. The reason we don’t agree with the GCR solution is that we don’t agree that they have properly defined the problem in the first place.
We do not lack vision and creativity so much as we lack a submission to the great historic ideal of “ten percent” Cooperative Program Giving. The GCR vision seems to accept as its primary premise that we are in fact failing miserably. The CPR vision says that while everything may not be fine and we can all do better, we must not forget that no one in the history of Christianity has ever figured out a way to release more money for the nations. We are reticent to make sweeping changes to a system we don’t believe is broken beyond repair, but is rather merely challenged by a severe recession and the tendency among some of our churches to designate missions dollars by REDUCING their CP support to free up resources.
The CPR vision says that if there is a “bloated bureaucracy” it just might be found in churches paying for satellite holograms and multi-million dollar building programs while only contributing 1% through the Great Commission Mutual Fund known as the Cooperative Program. The CPR vision does not want to stay right where we are, content with only a 6.6% church average gift through CP. The CPR vision wants a genuine “resurgence” to the place we were twenty years ago when churches averaged 10.2% through the Cooperative Program. In other words, we believe the Cooperative Program will work if churches will only participate.
The CPR vision hears our GCR friends declaring that they will give more through CP channels if certain matters are changed to their liking but does not find that promise, to borrow a term, “compelling” for two reasons. First, the processes are already in place to change the percentage distributions, cooperative agreement plans and budgets within each autonomous Baptist entity and the CPR vision believes any Baptist wanting change should be willing to work within the system to bring about that change WHILE CONTINUING to strongly support CP. Second, once churches have shifted their missions giving through more designated channels, we believe they have already embraced a philosophy that makes it unlikely they will ever “switch back” to CP anyway. In fact, they like the way they do it right now so much they want to create a new terminology to get credit for the dollars they are subtracting from CP in order to give in a designated fashion. The CPR vision admits they may never come back to the CP table, but giving their strategy our blessing would be a repudiation of what we believe about the greatest and most compelling way for a denomination to support missions.
Finally, the CPR DOES have a positive solution that involves a genuine “resurgence” to a historically successful approach. It calls Southern Baptists back to a time when each church voluntarily and cooperatively gave “ten percent or more” through the Cooperative Program. It is important to realize that this should not be misconstrued as “status quo” because it really has not been tried for the past twenty years! If “resurgence” means going back to something that has worked in the past, our approach actually fits the definition better than an unproven new strategy that has never even been pilot tested or tried in any manner and is thus risky.
Make no mistake: Ten Percent CP giving by every church in the SBC would result in a level of missions support that would pay for our outreach in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria AND the uttermost without forcing them to compete with each other. Churches, associations, state conventions, seminaries, entities and mission boards would all be fully funded and the missionaries on the ground in Richmond could be unleashed to the uttermost.
The CPR vision says that we don’t need to totally change our philosophy, although we are willing to tweak it a bit through the proper channels. What we need is to return to the strategy responsible for supporting the greatest missions effort in world history, a proven strategy that works as long as we are cooperative, faithful and obedient to support it.
Just imagine what would happen if every Southern Baptist Church gave ten percent or more through the Cooperative Program? Releasing millions and millions of dollars to reach America and the nations in a spirit of exciting and unprecedented cooperation, It would be the greatest single act of Christian stewardship and sacrificial missions support the world has ever known!
Katie, I spent 2 summers of my youth working at Windermere. Great place. Missouri has been known as one of the most dysfunctional state conventions (no offense to any Missourians) in the SBC.
I agree with what you are saying. In fact, I think that is the motivation for much of the GC giving motivation. It is not a desire to undermine the CR, but the desire of some in certain states to bypass their state conventions and give directly to the national SBC.
I would never even desire to do that in Iowa, but I think that is what is happening.
I disagree with you on this level: “The answer to these problems is NOT to undermine the CP. Creating an alternative giving structure (GCG) WILL undermine the CP.”
NOTHING is changing except the way we report designated giving and I do not see how that will “undermine” the CR.
Lunch calls, Rick, so the GCR will have to wait.
However, you said, “We do not lack vision and creativity so much as we lack a submission to the great historic ideal of “ten percent” Cooperative Program Giving.”
Did the SBC ever establish the 10% “ideal”? I have never seen anything that said that SBC churches were expected to give 10%. You seem to be stuck on that figure.
Why?
I will return to devastate you with my wit and wisdom after lunch.
Rick,
In the forty plus years, I’ve been in ministry, ten percent has not been a requirement, rather it was an ideal to which most aspired. For years churches would give ten percent to the co-op & two percent to the Association. That percentage was generally increased to a total of twelve percent during the 1980′s.
However, your word “submission” troubles me in that it implies an order from above. The churches do not “submit” to any organization. To do so would implicitly create a hierarchal denominational structure. Each church can be challenged to participate to the degree they feel led, and the national organizations must operate within the constraints set by the giving of the individual churches combined.
A very large percentage of churches give only $150 per year to the co-op program and very little or nothing to the Association. You have them in every association across the country. Two or three churches which do not participate in anything. They may bring in $20-30,000 per year, but spend the bulk of their revenue on utilities, insurance, upkeep, and a preacher. No money for missions.
Dave,
No, the convention never established the “ten percent” historic ideal officially although it did realize this figure as an average about two decades ago. I don’t know if I’m “stuck” on it or if I simply favor it, believing it to be appropriate, fair, workable, cooperative and the answer to most of our missions stewardship problems. By the way, I borrowed the term “historic ideal” from the Task Force itself since they applied that term to the 50/50 convention splits. For what it’s worth, I also favor those “historic ideals.” I guess I’m kind of into historic ideals for a 45 year old.
Mike,
I agree with you. My earlier use of the word “submission” troubles me as well, implying some type of requirement. Thanks for helping me edit my proposal. Thank God we are autonomous. However, IF in our complete autonomy, we would all “prayerfully choose to voluntarily cooperate” in such a manner that we once again averaged ten percent giving through the CP, we would benefit as a convention from our free and voluntary autonomous cooperation. At that level of giving, the program would once again be both cooperative and successful.
To reiterate, I do not see “ten percent CP” as a top down requirement from headquarters but rather as a number that works, a number that, very practically speaking, will get the job done. After all, isn’t that what we all want?
Hi Dave,
I hope you’re right when you say, “NOTHING is changing except the way we report designated giving and I do not see how that will “undermine” the CR.” (I’m assuming you meant CP instead of CR at the end of that sentence.)
Both of us are just trying to predict what effect GCG might have and we’re each coming up with different scenarios. When/if the convention votes in favor of the task force recommendations we’ll have to watch and see. But there’s a lot at stake. It’s very difficult for me to see the task force recommendations as anything but the result of a committee of people who represent one model: mega church. If all SBC churches follow their example and recommendations it seems inevitable that we’ll move away from cooperation in the SBC.
Katie
Ultimately, people give where their heart and passion is. That’s one of the things I like about the Task Force report – it identifies the problem as one of passion and priority, not just of structure or reporting procedures.
Here’s the thing: perhaps people are not giving to the CP not because they are opposed to cooperation but because they are not seeing effective ministry from the SBC. If people believe that SBC entities are bloated bureaucracies (to use the overused term) they will not be motivated to give. If we feel that the SBC uses slogans and programs but is not genuinely focused on Kingdom work as we should be, people will give less. If we feel that the convention has become institutionalized and hidebound, we will tend to be less passionate about giving.
If people are convinced in the work of the SBC they will be more likely to support that work financially.
I wonder if perhaps the SBC has a credibility problem.
Katie, the problem is that we have to vote on this in June. We will only find out if this will undermine the CP in about 5 or 10 years. (And yes, it is CP, not CR).
Dave,
As there are many comments to your blog and so much to deal with, I will choose only one at this time.
The statement about “Great Commission Giving”
In the document they declare that this will be only money directed to SBC causes and list out Annie, Lottie, State and Associational mission offerings. Do you think that this is where it will really stop?
I mentioned to you the Baptist21 Forum that was held at SEBTS the week before the final report came out with a few members of the committee taking part.
Please go to their media section on the school website and listen to it. It is interesting what they say when they are in a friendly context. (Be aware that there should be a political disclaimer scrolling at the bottom of the screen.)
Ronnie Floyd or Dr. Akin (sorry cannot remember which one) points out that these recommendations are just the first step of things to come. One wonders what their long range plans are for the Convention, if the truth were told and this is indeed their first step. Will someone have the guts to ask Ronnie Floyd or the other taskforce members, what are the next steps they have in mind?
As you listen to JD Greere, he basically comes down to the point of saying, look and what you are supporting and send your money where you like. If this idea is not the first step back to societal giving, I do not know what is. When we choose to not trust those whom we have chosen with the task and make it so that when I do not like every little thing that you do with the money, I stop sending, we are headed for a quick demise.
For many of the people that want or propose this type of missions giving strategy, it comes down to a matter of CONTROL. I believe I can control and use my money more effectively and efficiently than if I trust it to your care. Bye, Bye CP!!!!
That has been one of the subtle beauties of the CP. We have to trust. We will not agree on how everything is done or when it is done. Neither does that mean we will never question or seek change in the organization and the way it does things. But, to a certain point, we have to trust those to whom we have given the task.
Therefore I vote “NO” on the section changing the nomenclature of Cooperative Giving.
If there is time, I will deal with the other points later.
Wes, that is only true if we accept the assertion that Floyd, Akin Greear and every other member of the Task Force (it was a unanimous vote) are acting in bad faith and with hidden agendas.
It seems to me that the primary criticisms of the task force report come from those who read between the lines, extrapolate that which is not in the report and assign motives to those who wrote the recommendations.
If you or someone else can demonstrate these hidden motives, that the Task Force folks are not men of good will, then I might reconsider. But based SOLELY on what is printed and assuming the good will of the task force, I do not see the things that you and others have alleged.
I heard a rumor today, Wes, about a plot by you and a friend of ours from up north.
Dave,
Reading between the lines has nothing to do with it. I did not set up the Baptist21 dialogue. Listen to it and then tell me I did not hear it out of their own lips. They are not specific as to what their “next steps” are but, it is a reasonable question.
We will see from the great north on Thursday!!!!!
Be watching.
I have to keep the rumor mill going somehow.
Wes, you are reading a lot in to a simple statement like “more to come.” That is such a broad statement that you are taking in a specific way.
The fact is that when the GCR Report is voted on, the task force has done its job. It’s over.
Anything else they would desire to do would have to be voted on by the convention, as this one was.
When the Task Force makes its report, its work is done. Floyd and Akin can do nothing from that point on but advocate for what they desire to do.
Wes, here’s my point. Looking back at your comment #168, your criticisms are not about anything in the report, but what you think might come after, or the unrevealed intent of the Task Force.
In paragraph 3, you said, “Do you think that this is where it will really stop?” The problem here is not with the recommendations, but with what will come next.
In paragraph 6 you queery, “Will someone have the guts to ask Ronnie Floyd or the other taskforce members, what are the next steps they have in mind?” Again, your focus is on the next step, not the current recommendations.
In the next couple of paragraphs you insinuate that “it comes down to a matter of CONTROL. I believe I can control and use my money more effectively and efficiently than if I trust it to your care. Bye, Bye CP!!!!” That is assigning a motive.
Bye, bye, CP??? Really?
We are, in effect, including other missions (which has always been in the ACP and adding a category of reporting call GC Giving. You’re telling me that this reporting mechanism (recognizing designated gifts as part of our missions giving) will destroy the CP?
That just seems extreme to me.
I think I’ll bring a motion to our next business meeting to instruct all our messengers to vote “AYE” on the GCR. Sound good?
http://apps.sebts.edu/multimedia/?p=878
You still have not listen to the Panel Discussion. See if I am putting words into their mouths or not.
Besides isn’t that what you are trying to do to me in you last statement.
Maybe we should listen to it together week after next at lunch.
Wes, that thing is 73 minutes long. I’m not a DOM – I’ve got work to do. (Now, I’m just being mean, aren’t I?) Are you in DM?
Okay, so I’m gonna listen – this better be good!
Wes, I listened to the panel video and I am more excited about the GCR than I was and frankly, a little befuddled at your representations in comment 160.
You said, “Ronnie Floyd or Dr. Akin (sorry cannot remember which one) points out that these recommendations are just the first step of things to come. One wonders what their long range plans are for the Convention, if the truth were told and this is indeed their first step. Will someone have the guts to ask Ronnie Floyd or the other taskforce members, what are the next steps they have in mind?”
I think you missed their point. The point was not that the GCR was some sort of Trojan Horse by which they would sneak their agenda through. Honestly, Wes, these are passionate men of good will who really believe this will advance our Great Commission effectiveness.
JD was speaking to impatient young pastors who wanted to make greater, more systemic changes. His point was that this is a step in the right direction.
They also make the point that the Orlando vote is a first step. It is not that they have some kind of agenda in their pockets. The point was that the vote is the beginning and then comes the long process of implementation.
The other aspect I would mention before I head off to slumber is your comment about what JD Greear says about the CP. Again, I think you misunderstood him.
You said, “As you listen to JD Greere, he basically comes down to the point of saying, look and what you are supporting and send your money where you like.”
That’s not what he said. JD was speaking of the fact that many younger pastors, who do not believe that the SBC CP is effective in reaching people, are giving in other ways. They have the right to do that.
He points out that last year 1.4 billion dollars was given by SBC churches to missions and only 550 million went through the CP. Churches are ALREADY doing this.
I leave you with a quote from Danny Akin – one I thought was powerful and spoke to fears here in the BCI and other new work state conventions.
“If you are out there and you are doing a good job at penetrating lostness, why would you think that we would defund you? If on the other hand you are out there and you are not doing a a good job of reaching lostness, why should we fund you?”
Powerful.
Has anyone wondered why the IMB and seminaries were not examined like the state conventions and NAMB? It seems to me that this committee missed the boat by not looking at all our entities. I know enough about IMB to be able to cut some things they are doing to fund another couple of dozen missionaries–and I haven’t even seen their budget. I have just seen waste.
It seems to me that the committee has decided–based on the opinions of a handful of mega church folks–that state conventions are worthless and IMB is a chosen child. I beg to differ on both. My state convention has been cut to the bare bones and has worked over the past several years to reach a 50/50 split on funds to SBC. I will vote “no” on any motion–SBC, state convention, or local church–that sends more money to IMB until there is a strong look at how they are spending the money already given to them.
Jon, I don’t speak for the Task Force, but I think that there are opinions that are pretty widely held that (and by stating these I do not say that these are necessarily my opinion):
1) NAMB has been the difficult child in the SBC family.
Leadership issues, a lack of clear vision – these have contributed to a general inefficiency at NAMB
th
2) Some of the state conventions have become “bloated bureaucracies” that keep too much of our CP dollars from national and international causes.
A denominational worker I talked to named two or three state conventions that are pretty widely believed to be in this category. I think that is the ultimate reason for this GC Giving category – people who want to bypass their state conventions to some degree.
3) Generally, while some disagree with Dr. Rankin’s priorities or methods, the IMB has been reorganized already for effectiveness (a couple of times). Could they do better? Probably. But they have been doing the work and getting it done, in general.
We do not know how much they were discussed at the TF meetings.
4) The seminaries probably could have been reviewed. But, again, they are doing well, in general. Frankly, Jon, perhaps they should have been looked at.
Overall, though, the thought of many has been that the heart of the problem has been sacrificial giving (which was addressed), the dysfunction at NAMB (addressed) and the relationship of NAMB to state conventions.
Good question, though.
Dave,
Do you have any idea how much it has cost the IMB everytime it has reorganized? It might be shocking. The idea long term may be stream lining and making it focused on reaching the unreached but, by the time it is set up and working it is time to change it again. It has actually changed at least 3 times sinced Dr Rankin took the lead. This does not mean that all the changes were bad nor were they all good.
Wes, I guess I don’t really have the expertise to judge the effectiveness of all that – I do appreciate that Rankin was trying to maintain effectiveness.
I had an idea, Wes – if you are interested. How about we invite pastors in the association to meet and discuss this whole thing? Over lunch or after.
I think next Tuesday may be a golf day, but we could push that back and make it a debate day.
As long as there is no face painting.
Love a good debate don’t you
)
Next Tuesday I am in DM
(
The next Tuesday I may or may not be in town as there is another meeting in DM but, I am not sure if I am required to be at it. So, it may be a possibility. I will find out next week.
I’ll bring the press on Tats. You can bring the perminant markers.
Dave,
I believe the reason NAMB has been the “difficult child” in the SBC family is because it has also been the “red-headed step child.” The only time NAMB is actually considered a mission entity is during disasters. The language ministries, deaf ministries, et al, are seldom considered.
NAMB has become a cash cow for the state conventions to establish positions they could not otherwise have justified in their regular budget.
“The Bridge” is one of the finest tools yet developed by NAMB and yet it seems to go unattended, and under promoted. God used “The Bridge” to send us several groups and individuals to minister with us, but most folk have never heard of it.
Until we begin to treat missions on the North American continent on a par with those in the rest of the world, NAMB will continue to be a roiling cauldron of inefficiency low expectations.
That does not mean that I think the new proposed direction is the proper course. You know my position. NAMB must have a plan for working with struggling churches as well as new churches.
Mike, count me among those who have never heard of “the Bridge.”
NAMB as a “cash cow” for the state conventions is one of the key issues that motivated the component, as I understand it.
I do not disagree with your analysis, but don’t you think NAMB’s problems go a little deeper than that? They have switched leadership more often than the Washington Redskins. They have lacked a compelling vision or strategy.
Dave,
“The Bridge” is a web placement service through which people can volunteer, or find volunteers to serve in various aspects of ministry. Some might come for a summer, a week, or the duration of a project. You can find it on the NAMB website.
Just as the Redskins problems can be traced to ownership, so can those with NAMB. It is not the fault of NAMB, or the old HMB, that they have had to go into battle ill equipped for the jobs with which they were tasked. The entity has unrealistic expectations placed upon it because of the attitude of Southern Baptist Churches, primarily in the deep South, concerning home missions.
In an environment where there is a Baptist Church every five miles in every direction, it is hard to imagine unchurched groups in this country. The typical Southern Baptist from the deep South cannot fathom a community 10,000 without a church, much less one of 50,000.
The impetus to start new works here in the Deep South has also soured many on the legitimacy of new work. Associational Directors of Missions are pushing new starts, while smaller churches struggle, a half mile away. They seem to expect the smaller churches to contribute to the building of better facilities, more staff, and innovative worship when the established church has no hope of attaining what they are supposed to help build next door.
It is little wonder that there is little sympathy, if not downright antipathy toward the work of NAMB when it is viewed as little more than building up the kingdom of men rather than the kingdom of men.
At least with the IMB there is some sense of vision, of purpose. Perhaps, in some strange way, it is easier for them to work in unchurched areas with unreached people groups than in the heart of the Bible Belt.
As someone what NAMB’s strategy is, and you’ll get a lot of blank stares. Ask them what NAMB’s strategy OUGHT to be and you’ll get 1000 opinions.
One denominational exec I talked to told me that what the GCRTF does is less important than what the NAMB search committee does in finding a new leader.
Excellent article by Micah Fries about NAMB and the GCR.
http://blog.micahfries.com/2010/05/charting-a-gcr-future-for-namb/
Especially powerful about the link above is the map and statistics added at the bottom.
It shows that currently, NAMB is investing the MOST money in the old-line, established states, and the least money in new-work states.
Stephen, this is a post about the GCR Task Force report. It is not a place for wild accusations against the character of Southern Baptist leaders.
Comment on the GCR or publish your bitter screeds elsewhere.
Dave,
I appreciate your comments regarding my post. While there may be state conventions who are bloated, I resent that all of them are being lumped into this category. The sad part to me is that there are people in my state and most others that believe all they hear from certain well known names. They believe this word is law instead of investigating the situation for themselves. The broad brush approach by some on the GCRTF will bring tons of issues into our state and it will be hurt by these comments. I hope I am wrong, but my mind tells me these guys have a personal agenda and are using this task force to push it. It may be a rub with their own state convention, it may wanting recognition for societal giving… I don’t know. But as I said earlier, IMB has been painted by this committee to be the recipient of the short stick when I personally have seen too much waste there to give them anything more until they can show what they are given is used wisely.
As for the seminaries—I am not so quick to agree that the job they are doing is stellar either. Why do we need undergraduate programs in our seminaries? Why do we need entire programs for seminary wives? Lots of things there that I would like to see some accountability for as well.
Are your issues more with one seminary or with them all?
As for the undergraduate programs, I am not sure that they are CP supported like the seminaries are. I think they stand alone.
Outside the SBC, don’t most seminaries have an undergrad school they are attached to?
I know this comment stream is dead, but I would recommend that anyone interested in the GCR Task Force report read “Between the Times” – a group blog of SEBTS profs. They have run an excellent series of articles about the importance of the GCR.
http://betweenthetimes.com/