I was asked that very question today on our podcast. I am not asking for the meetings to be made public. What I am asking for is the data that they are making their decisions on. No one desires to know what they are saying about the date but it does seem that the data is being used to make decisions and we are being told to trust the decisions. I am just asking for the data.

Blessings,
Tim

I think Richard Harris and Frank Page are good guys. And I realize that is just my opinion.

I also have another opinion I would like to run by you.

I saw that you and Les questioned Danny Akin over at Between The Times about the Task Force maintaining private and confidential meetings.

You have been around a while and so has Les. Do you guys really think the Task Force could be truly efficient if all their meetings were public?

It is my opinion that it would be impossible to get anything of a substantial nature accomplished if the Task Force were under complete public scrutiny. It seems to me that such a burden would impede complete honesty and disclosure among the Task Force members. In all honesty, if I were on that Task Force; I would not vote for the meetings to be public. Would you?

cb

I believe you give some great advice. I think it is good that we heed this advice. At the same time I believe you would agree that this and this certainly resembles a hammer and chisel.

Blessings,
Tim

Is it possible that since nothing is written in stone yet, that the high road for all of us, both young and old, is to watch, wait and pray?

Wouldn’t it be something if the recommend comes to combine the two agencies. The result would be that a committee that was supposed to create a tighter, leaner missions effort would have created a larger agency with at least one additional layer of bureaucracy and a more cumbersome process of determining and implementing strategy. Furthermore, the idea that the ills of NAMB (if one believes that NAMB is utterly defunct which I do not believe) can be cured by combining it with the IMB is somewhat mindboggling. The chicken farmer who tries to cure a house of sick chickens by combining it with a house of healthy chickens would soon be out of business. If one of our agencies needs a complete makeover then so be it. A larger bureaucracy will result in a reorganization akin to the one we did in the mid 90s.

Tim B

Things are going well and I pray they are going well for you also. As to my statement about those with the most to gain, I believe we need to still ask the question. I have not accused Dr. Akin or Dr. Mohler of bringing about the GCR for the sole purpose of increasing funding for the seminaries. What I am pressing is a question that we need to ask if the recommendation is to combine agencies. If I believed that we Dr. Akin and Mohler were pushing for a GCRTF in order to benefit their entities I would have challenged that on the floor of the convention. Do I believe that combining the agencies will free more funds for the entities, especially the seminaries? You do the math. :)

Also, let’s say that a recommendation to combine the IMB and the NAMB were to come about. That is 85% of the CP funds placed in one super-entity. No SB pastor I know of will sit silent for that kind of control. So, if a combination entity is presented then 60% at the most should be at that entity’s disposal. Where will the other 25% go? It has to be dispersed throughout the rest of the entities.

Thanks for stopping by. Good to hear from you.

Brother Chris,

It is the desires expressed in Isaiah 56:10 that I strive to make certain are not operating within me as I seek to lead the flock God has assigned me to lead.

Blessings,
Tim

Thanks

I hope you are doing well! I just thought you might be interested in reading this in regard to the seminaries being the ones with the most to gain from the GCRTF, bit.ly/dpzxY. Thanks.

At least I know now that you are definitely the older man. :) As you explained your perspective, a scripture came to mind where Paul was teaching Timothy, when he said….

1 Timothy 6:3-11 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, (4) he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, (5) and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (6) But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. (7) For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. (8) If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. (9) But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. (10) For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (11) But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.

The section of your post which considered what Isaiah knew and …. “said these leaders, could not understand and he then gives the reason they cannot understand. They are looking for their own way for their own gain for their own territory.” Isaiah teaches us a timeless problem for those leading the church, and a specific trait that is militate against her as well. The love of money and the love of control contribute to the evil that exists within the heart of many in the church and within the cooperating SBC churches.

Overseers should be the first to demonstrate a lack of love for money and control. In fact, those that remain qualified do.

Blessings,
Chris