Tim Guthrie: Moving Forward…Part 4
Posted byThe Money Trail
Anyone who has been around Baptists long enough knows that Baptists get real funny when one discusses money. Let a preacher start off a sermon with money and the pews or chairs start rocking. This is also true when one discusses the Cooperative Program and the giving plan of the SBC. A quick read of several discussions in the blog world also reveals that current giving levels are being spun in multiple directions to prove a point of one’s perspective.
* The percentage of money given by a church is noted as being lower now than in years past. The emphasis of this point usually goes with the discussion that “reform” is needed and the money shows the need.
This point however leaves out a clear point. It is one sided. It is not the whole picture.
* The total amount of money given to the CP is higher and at record levels.
Realize that more money is being given than ever before. Thus, there are two points that are separate in the information they provide. They are two points that should not be spun nor do they reveal a motive for political banner waving.
Here are my thoughts on these two points:
* I thank God for what He has provided.
* I am not concerned about the percentage given.
* I am more concerned about other issues in the money trail.
What issues? How about the amount that the state conventions are keeping? I like the approach that the Southern Baptist of Texas have taken. They send more on to the SBC – thus missions. I have never liked telling our people that we are supporting missions when we know that just 40% gets out of the state and then a percentage of that is all that gets to the mission field. This is the issue that troubles me the most. It is the issue that we as Southern Baptist need to evaluate as we deal with the next topic – Our Structure. These two go together and cannot be separated.
There is a real fact that we as Pastors need to address. Looking to the future, it will get more difficult to sell the CP to our people with the current approach and breakdown. In fact, I am hearing in my church and many others as I travel that it is not just the young crowd concerned about this, the older generation was not fully aware of the breakdown and they too are not happy with it. The fact is that the bulk of the money in the SBC is tied up in our state conventions. And when we look at the effectiveness of our state conventions, we must ask if this is good stewardship?
The month of March showed me a strange development in the money issue. I received 5 requests for “special offerings” while we were receiving Annie Armstrong. Now I will admit that I did not dwell on those requests for long. In fact, I enjoyed the throwing of such in the special file. But I did realize that we have lost our way in the money factor of the SBC. Surely there is some tweaking that can be done in this area.
To Be Continued…
50 Comments
April 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
The old saw, ‘dollars pay the bills, not percentages’ is one that Adrian Rogers used to counter the low percentages that the megachurches gave to the CP.
While CP dollars are up, it doesn’t lessen all manner of hand-wringing on account of the percentages are dropping precipitously.
When I think ‘reform’, I am thinking of both the state conventions and the national SBC entities. We are long past the day when denominational leaders could simply say, “Send us more money.”
April 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
In giving, the CP, & percentages…
I am convinced that in order for pastors to speak with integrity to our church families concerning stewardship and tithing…we must lead our churches to tithe as well. I’m not saying 10% must go to the CP, but our church’s CP & missions giving must be 10% at a minimum.
Beyond that, I am certain we could examine our stewardship from our local associations, state conventions, and national convention for needs we have in focusing our resources in the most productive ways.
SOLA GRATIA!
April 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Tim,
I agree with you that the state conventions should allocate more to the SBC. I would love to see our state go to the SBTC model of 50/50.
Good post.
Les
April 8th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I know you guys like the SBTC model – however the BGCT supports many many worthy ministries in the state, including Buckner Benovlence, several state Baptist colleges (Baylor may not need the support but most of the others do), disaster relief efforts etc – a good comprehensive list can be found at bgct.org. The SBTC’s main purpose is to plant churches – a worthy calling and task. They do provide support to a couple colleges but not a whole lot else as far as I know.
What do you think would happen to the ministries if your respective state conventions pulled out. You may say that those ministries should stand or fail on thier own, but I think that the sopport of those ministries has enabled the BGCT to remain viable, and stemmed the tide of churches migrating to the SBTC.
JIm
April 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The Southern Baptist Of Texas Convention has not one single institution to support. The BGCT has 27. Check and see if the total amount (since per- centage is not a worry) sent to the SBC from the BGCT is not significantly larger (double?). What should the older conventions do, tell all the institutions to take a hike?
April 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Concerning a church tithing? My problem is that it is not found in the Bible. I think it is a thought that can actually get you in trouble if you carry it out in thought all the way. The CP was never intended to be run on a “church tithe”.
As to percentages, Dr. Rogers was correct. And, if one looks at amount given – he was more than accurate. I do not think it was a mega only issue. As a stewardship guy and one who sees many a church financial report – you can sure tell the difference in total amount given when the percentage is somewhat below 10% (I do not recommend 2%)
!!!!!
As per institutions – do we really need all of them? Remember, the SBC gets little. The idea that the SBC is saying “send your money” is a farce. The states are the ones getting it!
April 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Just as Associations are re-thinking – the states need to re-think. I find it funny that the SBC is stated of needing reform yet it gets the smallest amount of money???????
April 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I “second” what Ken Coffee says above, because it allows us to see that comparing the SBTC with other state conventions is really comparing apples with oranges.
Also, I think we need to remember that all state conventions are not alike. I can’t speak for Oklahoma, or North Carolina. I can, however, speak for Maryland-Delaware. As a DOM within that state convention I can tell you that much missions work is being done within our own area, and is undergirded and empowered by our BCMD. With an unchurched population of 80%, our two-state area is in need of missions as much as anywhere else in the world.
Through our state convention, more than 100 churches have been planted since 2001. Full-fledged VBS programs and other childcare needs have been met for smaller churches and missions who needed them. This, in addition to retreats for pastors and their spouses, and other benefits afforded pastors in other state conventions.
Count me among those on the “reform” bandwagon. There is much that needs changing among Southern Baptists at all levels, but let’s not rush to “fix” a state convention until we are certain it is broken.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Okay Brothers, here we go…
Money, Money, Money. *kicks the hornets nest*
It is my opinion that the issues that relate to the lack of giving to the CP and other convention programs are simply symptoms of poor teaching from the pulpits on biblical giving in the new testament church. Is the bible inerrant? Then we should teach what the bible teaches about giving. It is not only 10 percent of what I have that belongs to the Lord, everything that I have possession of belongs to Him.
Teach the 10 percent, and you will get a flock that not only will be misinformed about the blessings of God, you will have a flock that misses out on the blessings of God because they believe that they are “required” to only give 10 percent.
Who do we think we are kidding? Is anything ours?
*donns flame retardant suit*
Grace and Peace to y’all…
ABClay
April 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Some have come on this blog and defended the BGCT as a model to emulate. To help those of you reading to know what they are defending, I provide this information. The BGCT is not a 60-40 convention. They are not a 70-30 convention. The BGCT keeps within Texas, at my last observation, 79% of CP funds. SEVENTY-NINE PERCENT!
To all of you defending the support of state-level institutions, do you think that it is necessarily an attack upon state-level institutions to urge the state conventions toward a 50-50 model? To read the arguments here, one would think that Tim was arguing for 0-100! Not at all. Everyone who has commented in support of the CP is a supporter of state missions. To be a supporter of the CP is ipso facto to be a supporter of state missions.
Some of us just think that “Half for us, and half for everyone else on the planet” is not an arrangement that makes paupers of us.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Its also incorrect to say the sbtc does not support institutions (Criswell TBCH and others including a family ministry in East Tx). Also the sbtc gives 54/46 in its ratio. Its crazy to suggest the BGCT gives the same. They also support other entities beside the SBC like the CBF.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions sends 42% of its receipts to the SBC. That is enough.
The people who work as missionaries of the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions are missionaries. They don’t waste money. I have never served in a better state convention. I have served in six.
Rick Lance and the other Alabama Baptist State missionaries are the best in the SBC. They get the job done.
I agree with Joel in comment #8. I also agree with Tim G that the Bible does not call upon churches to tithe 10% to anything.
The number one missionary any church has is its pastor. A church needs to properly take care of its pastor before thinking about giving more to the CP.
Too many little churches brag about their CP giving and are starving some young kid preacher and his wife and children on a minimum wage salary. That is a sin and disgrace.
I don’t say this as one complaining. I and my family are well taken care of here in our church. I just know a lot of preachers who are doing without things they need and I know there is great waste of CP money on the SBC level.
One more thing before I get off this soap box. Our church gave 27% to the CP last year. But if the SBC ever votes that all churches must give 10% I would ask our church to cut it to less than 5%. A mandated percentage within the SBC would mean we would need to change our name. We would no longer be a convention of cooperating churches.
The first time I ever saw and heard Bart Barber was when we were in Greensboro and he was talking about 50-50 giving between State conventions and the SBC.
Bart, you were wrong then and you are wrong now. But, I still like you.
cb
April 8th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Let me just go ahead and say why I agree with Joel by saying to Tim G that you are painting with far too broad brush strokes when you lump all state conventions into your statements relating to missions and effectiveness.
Some State Conventions are very missional and very effective and they are not wasting money by being self-indulgent. I hope you rethink some of this in part two of this fourth post. This one is lacking. But I still like you just as I do Bart.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
CB,
I’m not saying that our state convention does not do good things. My question is, in a state of a little over 4 million with over 3,000 SBC churches and over 80 local associations, why do we need 66 state missionaries and their staff? Why do we need to send millions upon millions of dollars to ALSBOM? Even though they do good work, couldn’t our local associations do the majority of this? Isn’t this why we have DOM’s?
I am also not in favor of sending more to the SBC. That seems to be an attempt to have an even smaller number of people control an ever larger amount of money. That’s a recipe for disaster.
No, missions money is best dealt with by the local church. Let’s partner most directly on the associational level. Let’s have smaller state conventions that facilitate cooperation across the state for mission. Let’s have even smaller national structures that facilitate local associations and state conventions working together to reach the nation and the world.
If I had my way, more and more money would be distributed by the people who give it. I agree that too much stays at the State Convention level. But, I think that too much gets to the State Convention level to begin with.
But, that’s just my opinion. I might change it tomorrow because it is, admittedly a pretty shaky opinion. I’m open to convincing, CB, especially if you come down to Montgomery and buy me lunch some time!
April 9th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Here’s the 2008 Budget for the BGCT. Bart is right with the 79% number. But good golly, look at that long list of ministries that Texas Baptists support.
http://www.bgct.org/texasbaptists/Document.Doc?&id=1877
The great thing about the BGCT is, I can go to my church, Southern Baptists who affiliate with the BGCT can go to theirs, my family can designate to CBF and the Southern Baptist can designate to the SBC. Or one can choose to keep their 21 cents on the dollar in-house.
Though, my parents have always sent many of their special missions offerings (especially around Christmas time) directly to Atlanta, with no stops at the Baptist Building. If you really want to support an organization, you’ll get more bang out of your buck that way.
It’s hard for an east-coast moderate to get excited about anything BGCT-related. I’ve always directed my personal tithe to specific local ministries and thus always avoided the CP.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Alan,
I think we have 75 associations and a little over 3200 churches in Alabama. As I said, I believe the Alabama State Convention is the best in the SBC.
It operates in a very accountable way.
I will be glad to buy your lunch anytime and talk about why I say what I say about Alabama Baptist in comparison to other state conventions of which I am familiar and also the SBC.
I think a better idea would be for you to call Rick Lance, buy his lunch (I will gladly reimburse you) and let him share with you what your state convention does with the money it has. I think you will be very surprised and pleased after your meeting.
Alan, I have taken the time to talk with many state missionaries. I have worked with the guys in the Sunday School department to do a training conference and a couple of other things. I have made a point of checking out the ministries and missions of the Alabama state convention. I have been greatly impressed with those people who serve as state missionaries. I stand by my statement that they are doing a very good job.
Make the call, talk to Rick Lance, do the homework, then tell me what you think. I think you will have a different testimony afterwards.
BTW, you know I will still like you, even if you are a LSU fan.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Yes, being an LSU fan does make me think I’m right about everything. But, I’m always willing to listen to you, even though you are a part of the Sabanation.
Again, please don’t hear me criticizing ALSBOM. Living in Montgomery, I’ve had quite a bit of interaction with them and I know that they are doing great work. I guess that I just see a different organizational model in my mind that would be more cost effective and successful in the long run. But, I might be missing a lot. I have done more than a little research into the matter, but do not think that my opinions are air tight, despite the confidence that I possess in regard to college football, being an LSU fan and all.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Brother Joel,
This is off-topic but raised my antennae. You said, “With an unchurched population of 80%, our two-state area is in need of missions as much as anywhere else in the world.”
While I understand the intent of this comment, every people group that I work with is at least 99.5% Muslim. And in most places ALL are unchurched. We are in agreement that your area is in need of church-planting, but you may want to stay within the western part of the world for comparison purposes ;^)
Check out this link for more information:
http://www.joshuaproject.net/unreached.php
His grace be with you,
From the Middle East
April 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Many of us do not accept the premise that the state conventions exist primarily to collect money for the SBC. Each of the state conventions has its own set of ministry priorities. I fact, I suspect the SBTC and the conservative convention in Virginia are the only conventions that exist primarily to promote the programs and ministries of the SBC. And I affirm that. Their cooperating churches understand that when they come on board. State conventions are not the “farm clubs” of the SBC. Therefore, it is an inaccuracy to judge the worth of a convention by how much it keeps and how much it sends out to the SBC. Judge them by how much they help their cooperating churches accomplish the Great Commission.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
why all of this talk about sabanation and lsu when the lady vols just won thier 8th national championship last nite!!!!! 8th!!!! pat head summit for president!
also, my church gives 20% to the cp. i’m glad that they do. i do wish that there would be more downsizing at the state and national levels so that more of that money would go to the missionaries out on the field.
david
April 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
From the Middle East,
Thank you for your dedicated service to the Kingdom in such a hard area. My comment above was certainly not with the intention of diverting from the difficulties involved in overseas work. I have just returned from Central America, and over the past year have also been in East Asia, and I thank God for all of our mission personnel who are at work in the name of Jesus all over the world.
That said, I’m not going to enter into a “whose mission field is most urgent” contest with any of our other missionaries, be they North American or International. The fact is that a lost nominal Catholic in my area is in the same situation as a lost Muslim in yours. Both are equally separated from God. Hell will be just as horrifying for both, and both are in desparate need of the Gospel.
Regardless of current statistics, North America is on a fast trajectory toward mirroring Europe, and if we don’t stop the spiritual hemmoraging, there may very well be many fewer places in our country from which guys like you can be “sent” into Muslim and other nations.
My point was simply that in my own context, the need is great….probably greater than most places in the states, and certainly as great as the total world need when compared to the worldwide unchurched figures. (i.e. there are currently more Christians, as a percentage of the population, in certain communist countries I will not mention here than there are in my area) Also, I do believe that while “reform” may indeed be needed in many state conventions, my own state convention is doing a wonderful job with the resources we have.
So, let’s not compare our respective fields to see who has the “superior” mission responsibility. I greatly appreciate what you are doing for the Kingdom, and hope you would value my own Kingdom work as well.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I must admit that this series of posts by Tim G. has been very rewarding to me. The posts have been challenging and cause one to think. I have been able to agree and disagree with parts of the post and also things said in the comment threads. Thank you Tim G and also to Robin for posting them.
Illustrations of the worth of the posts and comments here are ones like Ken Coffee’s #19 where he says;
“It is an inaccuracy to judge the worth of a convention by how much it keeps and how much it sends out to the SBC. Judge them by how much they help their cooperating churches accomplish the Great Commission.”
If that comment is not TEN RING I don’t know what is. Thank you Ken.
Joel Rainey’s comment in #21 is reality and gives proof that there are some very sharp and missional DOM’s out there in the field. Thank you, Joel.
Of course, we know we are still earth bound and not yet in heaven because Vol comes along in #20 and blasphemes about the godless pagans of the PUKE YELLOW football nation and their little girl’s basketball. In this life we will all have thorns in the flesh.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Brother cb,
You brought up an interesting scenario back in comment #12, while discussing the pastors of small churches that do not get paid enough to adequately feed and clothe their families. I take it to mean that this man (preacher) is an overseer of the church.
I understand that this was brought up in this context… “The number one missionary any church has is its pastor. A church needs to properly take care of its pastor before thinking about giving more to the CP.”
So,…I had to stop and ask myself,…. How would a problem like that surface since the overseer “is in” or “should have” some responsibility in ruling (humbly) that aspect of the church? In other words, how can an overseer not be able to remedy that situation himself? That just seems odd to me.
Why would an overseer have to rely or expect the church to remedy that for him, since he is the one leading the church in the first place? No doubt I have seen these types of conversations in the churches over the years, but it just strikes me as odd that the overseer has in an effect become self-relegated as an employee, not an overseer.
I agree that it should be the “first impulse” of any congregation to do whatever it takes to make sure that the overseer has ample study and teaching time, but that is rarely the case, and it seems these days that a church can become so immature,…they tend to hold themselves up as overseer, and lose sight of ministry. In other words, a flock without an overseer, ….just a hired hand (that may be underpaid and overworked).
Just some thoughts,
Blessings,
Chris
April 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Brother Joel,
You said: “So, let’s not compare our respective fields to see who has the “superior” mission responsibility. I greatly appreciate what you are doing for the Kingdom, and hope you would value my own Kingdom work as well.”
Agreed. There is no such thing as a “superior” responsibility. We all have one responsibility in terms of reaching the lost and that is obedience to fulfill the respective ministries He has called us to. I certainly do value the Kingdom work you are involved in.
May His Kingdom come in the Maryland-Delaware area as well as among unreached Muslim people groups!
His grace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
April 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Dear SBC Friends and Partners,
Greetings in Christ from Prague, Czech Republic. There is much I would like to say on subjects in this series by Bro. Guthrie. In order to move ahead well in the SBC, one area of needed reform is within the Board of Trustees at the IMB.
Let’s start with the money that does make it to the IMB and how our trustees of the IMB choose to spend SBC mission dollars on themselves. As IMB missionaries we are very grateful for the giving and partnership of Southern Baptists and the hard work many of our Trustees put in. However, our BOT leadership in particular continues to reject proposals to reduce the amount of BOT meetings annually and the amount of funds expended in the conduct of those meetings.
Dr. Rankin has repeatedly appealed for reductions in such costs to no avail. While many of our trustees have resonated with these attempts at cost reduction, a majority cannot be mustered. Such reductions could be implemented without sacrificing the oversight or fulfillment of trustee duties. This has been demonstrated. Cost reductions have been realized utilizing video and phone conference technologies by Personnel and other committees. However, the actual full BOT meeting is another matter.
I have witnessed multiple BOT meetings per year for 8 years now as a regional leader. While new missionary appointment services are most often held at an area Southern Baptist Church, the BOT meetings are usually held at 4 and 5 star hotels and convention centers rather than the local church or a sometimes nearby SBC or State or Associational facility. While not always available, most often there are multiple area Southern Baptist churches or entity buildings in the area that could support the necessary number of meeting rooms and functions needed–at a fraction of the cost.
Staff and overseas personnel are housed in the same extravagant hotel in order to facilitate and participate in the meetings. New missionary appointees also are housed in the same 4 or 5 star hotel and many are embarrassed or ashamed at the expense. I know I am. I share a room when I am required to attend in order to make some small attempt at reducing costs. Shuttle services usually are available from airports to these hotels, but cars are unnecessarily rented by some and rooms are usually not shared–except by spouses who are often flown from all over the country to accompany the trustees.
I love the trustees in the Lord, and appreciate the willing sacrifice many make to to serve in this capacity. Many serve with distinction and desire nothing more than serving the mission cause. However, we can and should do better with the existing funds entrusted to the IMB. It starts at the top with our trustees. I appeal to those within our BOT to reprioritize, and to those in the SBC who nominate and vote to retain our trustees to consider this issue.
These are not trifling amounts of money I am referring to either…rather we are talking about hundreds of thousands of mission dollars spent unnecessarily and without added value.
By the way, reduced giving to IMB through CP or Lottie will not address this problem. The real hurt in such a reduction would be on the part of the 5,200 missionaries…and more importantly, the engagement of the lost of the world with the gospel. The needed change is in the priorities and leadership of our BOT.
Respectfully in Christ,
Rodney Hammer, Regional Leader
Central and Eastern Europe, IMB-SBC
April 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The plain fact is that the Cooperative Program has been sold with pictures of foreign missionaries to Ma and Pa Southern Baptist for eighty years. The CP is a voluntary program. I’m not alleging that state conventions exist to fund the SBC. I’m merely noting the fact that foreign missions sell the CP, and then the preponderance of the money gets siphoned off at the state level in some conventions.
If state conventions want to keep all or the vast majority of the money, let them go to the churches and plainly tell them that very little of the money will go to foreign missions.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Chris,
I have never served an “established” church that did not properly take care of me and my family.
I have served church plants where I did have to use skills and talents God provided me and be a “tent” maker. If I am not mistaken, you also have talents and skills to use to provide for your family.
Using the little I know of you I would say you and I are blessed and fortunate men in being able to take a flat rock and turn it into a ham and onion sandwich. There are many of our brothers out there who are not able to do so well with a flat rock.
Also, there are many “established” churches who will not allow their pastors to work “outside” the church in order to take care of his family. They want to be able to say they have a “full-time pastor.” Yet, they do not take proper care of him. In some cases they actually give a larger percentage of their receipts to the CP than to the pastor. It is a matter of godless greed and puffed up pride on the part of the church in such a shameless manner. That is a sin and disgrace.
There are many good men of God being treated this way who have hearts of gold and so do their wives who will never say a word out of fear they would be considered as “not faithful” to their calling.
I am not talking about no count, sorry, good for nothing, lazy, bums, too worthless to tote guts to a circus bear, mommy called and daddy sent, hirelings who are not real in the first place and decided to go into the pastorate because they thought it would be an easy job kind of guys.
I am talking about real, God called men who are hurting because they serve mean churches. Chris, to our shame, the “woods are full” of those kind of churches within the SBC.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Rodney Hammer,
You are a bold and honest man. May your tribe increase.
I certainly hope your comment does not cost you your ministry as an IMB missionary.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Now you guys are bouncing around some but the thoughts are indeed exciting. Bart was correct in the fact that the CP has been promoted via pictures and videos of “M’s”. Yet, little of the CP gets to the mission field and even then, the little is stiffled.
Could it be that the whole SBC picture needs a re-focus and re-think as to priorities? Now that part of the discussion is where we find just how narrow our thinking is vs. how focused we are.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
OK, Tim G,
Define “mission field” as opposed to how some have established the need for missions is world-wide and the US is as lost as the rest of the world.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Tim G,
Give us your opinion on Ken Coffee’s comment in #19 and tell us if you think him to be correct or to what degree is he in error.
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Per #19 – I would agree that some state conventions are doing a great work. I would also say that it is time to challange our thinking even in those states and see if we are doing just what we think we are.
I would disagree in the terminology of SBTC and Cons of Virg. Here is why. The terms used imply that they are funding the “SBC”. Not true! They are getting more money to the Mission Agencies and Seminaries. Big difference when one really looks at. There is no cash cow in the “SBC” as the terms tend to infer. Now, each entity and their Trustees do need to examine there operations, goals, and focus to ensure that they have no cash cows.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
in other words, people say “show me the money” and I say “show me the cow” that the term discribes.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Tim G,
I “would also say” that some of those states are “thinking” and “are doing” exactly what “we think we are” and more.
BTW, the “Cons of Virg.” are a bunch of guys serving time in the prisons of the Commonwealth of VA. Some have been paroled and may be now serving in the SBCV.
I am not sure about that so maybe you had better call and ask if the SBCV has any ex cons serving among its ranks.
Just raggin’ on you, Tim G, just raggin’
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
cb,
I thought you would jump on that one! If you cannot have a little fun… now I know I will get emails from my Virginia brothers.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
cb,
As per your statement concerning some of the states… You are correct. It is interesting though that the original breakdown of the CP in the early days prior to CR – I mean the real early days – was 50-50.
I would add that I think everything is in need of re-think every 5 years or so. Structure always produces waste and loss of vision. I have learned if you follow the money you will find more than one might think and realize more that could be done than one might also think.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Tim,
You say; “I think everything is in need of re-think every 5 years or so.”
My brother, with all of my heart and soul I agree with you in that statement and for the very reason you give;
“Structure always produces waste and loss of vision.”
BTW, Some states do “follow the money.” That may be why it is not 50-50 if you know what I mean by that little twist on what you said.
cb
cb
April 9th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
It should be noted that the original agreement between each state convention and the national was a 50/50 split. And now only SBCT (in Texas) and the SBCV (in Virginia) have kept that original percentage.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Don,
You are correct. I also think it is time that other state conventions examine the fruit of what is being accomplished by the two you mentioned and consider the benefits to our “M’s” serving all over the world.
cb,
Not bad for a Sabanite! And would also agree with me on the statement that Summit is quite the coach even if her team wears orange? 
Wow, you get what I am saying.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:03 am
I would have to add that I think way too much money (people and resources) are spent here in the U.S. The following figures are probably not correct (but I think they are close) but don’t Christians as a whole, spend about 95% of their resources on 5% of the world’s population here in the U.S. Our local churches, especially in areas where there are large number of SBC churches, should be the ones doing the mission work in their state and associations, not CP dollars that keep the Gospel from going where there are no churches.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Blessings,
Ron P
April 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Tim G,
Obviously, when you said you did “not care about the percentages” given you were in reference to local churches only.
Yet, you are very concerned with the percentages given by state conventions.
Maybe you should be concerned with the percentages given by churches. After all, it is a simple fact that if churches gave more of a percentage of their undesignated receipts through the CP there would be more “real” money to use in fulfilling the Great Commission.
Also if churches gave a greater percentage maybe state conventions could get closer to 50-50 in their giving because they would have more “real” money to use.
Real money is realized when churches give a larger percentage. That cannot be denied. So for you to say you are not concerned with the percentage a local church gives, but you are concerned with the percentage a state gives is somewhat inconsistent, is it not?
In saying you are not concerned with the percentage is giving some large churches a pass. (right now, in the present “climate” of the SBC that is a very politically-correct position)
You are critical of state conventions for doing exactly what so many churches are doing. Tim, that is inconsistent. Please rethink this.
If churches gave a larger percentage then yours, Don’s and Ron’s concerns might be remedied in short order. After all messengers from local churches vote at state conventions just like they do at the SBC.
Our money problems (real or perceived) are local church problems. Local churches are the ultimate authority in our governance and polity as Southern Baptists in local associations, state conventions, and the SBC.
Messengers from local churches vote on budgets and elect trustees. Our money problems rest with local churches not with associations, state conventions, or the SBC.
You want more money to go to foreign missions? Then you fellows need to point your fingers in the right direction. Point them at local churches (of all sizes).
You need to be concerned with the percentages, Tim, because that is the visible sign of the systemic problem within the SBC, which is apathy among local churches and the desire of so many pastors to feather their own nests.
Of course, the feather their own nests thing goes hand-in-hand with some of the poor trustee leadership we have, but that is for another post, right?
April 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Tim G,
I had hoped it would be someone other than me who pointed out the things in comment #41. I waited for someone to state the obvious.
I did not want to be called part of a “reform” group and be labeled as a liberal. I am not part of any reform group, but I do think the SBC could use a good dose of repentance and stop playing “follow-the-leader” and begin to follow The Leader without checking the way the “theo-political” wind is blowing.
The SBC does not need reform. We need repentance and a return to our first love. Now, that would really bring change, would it not?
cb
April 10th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Brother cb,
I think you are correct,….reform is an overworked term. Returning to Christ would bring wisdom and understanding. The local church needs the return more than it realizes at the present. My prayer is that the shepherds do begin to look to the chief shepherd before they do any distribution of funds. We are stewards of more than we typically understand.
Thanks for the good word…
Blessings,
Chris
April 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
CB,
Tim labels everyone as liberal who doesn’t agree with his agenda. He has still neither apologized or defended himself for calling all of us who want to reform the SBC as liberal.
I think he resorts to name-calling to avoid logic.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Dave,
I really don’t think Tim G labels everyone who does not agree with him as a liberal. I really don’t think he would label you as a liberal. He did paint with a broad brush. I think we all do from time to time.
I think that is one of the ways we have gotten in trouble in the past and are possibly doing so even now.
In spite of that I do think Tim G is trying to do a good thing here. He is bold enough to set this series afloat and I respect him for it. He knew there would be some conflict before
hand and did it any way. I take that to mean he does care and is willing to listen.
Let’s wait and see how he answers our questions in the end. If he does not we can safely take the position you have laid out as correct. If he does answer we will all be better off and better informed for it.
cb
I, as have you, questioned him on some things.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I believe in reform of the SBC.
He said that the entire reform movement was just an attempt to reintroduce liberalism to the convention.
Ergo, he says I am attempting to introduce liberal ideas into the convention.
I have repeatedly asked him to clarify, retract and apologize or defend his blanket slander of all who want reform.
He refuses to respond.
I am disappointed in him. I interacted with him enough that he should know I am not liberal. Yet, he publicly accused us ALL of liberalism and has refused to clarify or retract.
Yes, I am upset with him. Does it show?
He wrote a blog on “whatever happened to the truth?” Then he writes a blanket accusation (which I think he KNEW was not true) against everyone involved in reform.
Now, he refuses to defend his accusation.
So, yes, I have lost respect for Tim.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
dave,
I was traveling today and was not were I could respond. As to me calling all reformers Liberal – not true. I do believe that there are those who are obviously advancing liberal ideas. I did not respond weeks ago because you jumped in without realizing what I was doing. I do not label for the sake of labeling. I do however call a spade a spade.
As to this series, the vocal “reformers” are pushing a liberal agenda. I cannot apologize for what is obvious.
As to this series, my comment related to “reformers” is going to stand from the simple fact that the reform they advocate is all liberal theology.
It was not a blatant broad brush. There are those, and Dave you may be one, who do desire change. No problem. Never has been.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Tim, that is not what you said. Here are your words. “…the reform movement has proven that it is nothing more than an new approach to old liberal ideas.”
“Nothing more” implies that the entire reform movement is devoted to liberal ideas.
I did not confront this out of ignorance, but because you said something false that slandered many people, myself included.
Are you now changing what you said?
April 10th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
At the time, the one’s advocating reform where those who supported what I said.
Dave,
You are trying to wrap up something simply because I took a stand about what was indeed liberal and what was being labeled as “the reform” movement. Sure there may be others. You may be in that group. No problem here.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Since you seem unwilling to deal with the clear implications of what you said in your previous post, I will only say this:
If you want to be a positive agent in the furtherance of the SBC, I hope you will decide to leave slander and false innuendo behind.
Deal with truth, with issues, and not with character assassination.