Well, it seems the Missouri Baptist Convention will not be out-done by our brethren in the South. Our church has just faced, at our first quarter business meeting last night, the distasteful decision forced upon us by our convention after our annual meeting this past October. As part of our budget approval process we had to make a decision regarding how we desire our state convention to allocate the Cooperative Program funds we give to them. The need for this decision comes from the ongoing battle within our convention…no, not the rival conservative factions and the ‘peace committee’…the other one (I never knew Southern Baptist life could be so ‘interesting’!). Welcome to Missouri!
By now most everyone is aware of the ongoing legal battle within the state of Missouri between our Southern Baptist state convention and the rogue agencies which unethically removed themselves from accountability to their founding churches by establishing self-perpetuating trustee boards thus making them independent of any MBC influence. For years the issues have been argued in the courts, and recently decisions have been handed down in favor of at least two of these agencies. While those issues appear to be settled, others remain. Depending on the ones with whom you are speaking, the situation either has a slight ray-of-hope or is lost altogether.
A major concern within this whole discussion is funding. Up to this point, our convention has established a legal defense fund (now the Agency Recovery Group) and asked individuals and churches to give directly to that fund if they so desired. Leading up to last October’s MBC annual meeting, the word got around that the ARG was going to ask that a fixed amount or percentage of Cooperative Program giving from our MBC churches be designated to the ARG fund. That information, coupled with feedback gleaned by our state Executive Director from listening sessions he held all across the state, motivated the Executive Committee to bring forth the dual giving plan for our churches. The following graphs show the breakdown of the plans:
The disconcerting factor for me in all of this is that Plan A is the default. If churches do not meet in a business session and intentionally decide to opt for Plan B, then they will be de facto giving to the ARG without having to make any decision. It seems to me that the Executive Committee and ARG presume that the majority of Missouri Baptists favor this kind of change away from CP dollars going to ministries and missions. That is not what I have gathered from the listening session I attended as well as in talking with friends from across the state! Consequently, I have also heard very little emphasis from our convention leaders, etc., regarding this issue since the annual meeting, which leads me to believe that we could have churches who did not attend the meeting and who would desire to be a part of Plan B who may be completely unaware of the need to make their desire known to our convention (I discovered on the MBC website today a link to information about the new giving plan structures, but that is all I have seen or heard of since the convention meeting).
As a church, we opted for Plan B last night. I still do not believe what the rogue agencies did was right. I understand the thoughts and desires of many within our convention when the course was set to take legal action. I was not in Missouri then, but I am not certain that I would have favored that action even back then. I am certainly favoring seeing a resolution to this issue sooner rather than later, even if it means ‘losing.’ I definitely do not want any of my Cooperative Program giving to go to anything other than the fulfillment and support of the commission and calling we have been given as churches of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the environment of the Great Commission Resurgence discussions, if tweaking the Cooperative Program involves issues like this, I am all for making those kinds of changes. If tweaking the CP means ‘blowing it up…blow it all up,’ I am most certainly against that mindset. We must be a Great Commission people gathered as Great Commission churches. That starts by being convictional about truth, living out the application of the Gospel in our lives. It most certainly includes being missional, intentionally communicating the Gospel message to other sinners who, like ourselves, need to know that there is a Redeemer who will save us from our sins.
By Grace Alone!
Scott,
Are these all of the available plans? Is there a Plan C forwarding 50% to the national SBC?
Bart,
These are the only two options. Plan A is the default. No C option. I know that our Exec. Dir. is moving us toward a direction in which we (MBC) will be forwarding more on to the SBC in coming years. I am not certain if the target is 50/50 or not.
I remember something like this when I was a pastor in Virginia. When they do this, they force churches to bring the political machinations of the convention into the local church.
I think, though, that I would definitely want to go plan B if I had to choose.
Brother Scott,
At the next annual session you, or someone, needs to step to the microphone and make a motion that Missourri Baptist return to one giving plan. We in NC embarked on this journey in 1992. It took us until 2008 to finally have the floor vote that would return the convention to one giving plan. We went from 2 giving plans in 1992 to 4 giving plans by 1996.
It sounds good because it is argued based on church autonomy. “Let the local church decide” is what you will hear. However, if the local church desires to support a continued lawsuit then let the lawyers petition the churches for their fees.
Blessings,
Tim
Dave,
Yes, it does. Not that I mind our church being informed, but this will not be our focus.
Tim,
I am hoping the reason for this action will go away so as to eliminate the need for all of this mess. And, trust me, many have stepped-up to the mic and will continue to do so until this issue is finally resolved or ended.
Sola Gratia!
Brother Scott,
That is great to hear. I do pray that something more will not come up in the future to make the leaders to impose yet another giving plan. Once these multiple giving plans start they are hard to stop.
Blessings,
Tim
Scott,
I echo brother Tim’s statements about what happened in NC. I’m sorry to see Missouri going down that same road. However, even one giving plan, though better, won’t satisfy many autonomous churches. Personally, I’m looking forward to the GCRTF expanding CP giving to include direct giving from the local churches to the SBC.
Les
Great comments by many here and I agree that once you start down the road of different “Giving Plans” that no one knows where it will stop. The TRUTH is that churches who were concerned with supporting legal costs to get back intsitutions we had spent millions to start and support for 60+ years could have designated their giving away from these legal costs without any action by the MBC anyway(remember local church autonomy?).
However, it was threatening letters from the “emergent crowd” like Micah Fries Frederick Blvd Baptist Church and others who basically said “give us an option or we’re leaving” that percipitated this option thought.
Odd isn’t it, you pay a lawyer to draw up a constitution/bylaws, file with the state, make sure you’re compliant with the state/IRS annually, he’s the first one you call when you might have a legal problem in the church…but somehow if someone steals hundreds of millions of $$$$$$ in property and agencies you can’t stay the course in what God has given you in protecting it/and/or getting it back. Many of us call this abrogating your Christian fiduciary responsibility(stewardship) to protect what God has so richly blessed you with.
Oddly, again, you wouldn’t let your SS Director hijack the Education wing of your church with the same irresponsible arguments…then why would you on the state or national level?
Casey,
First, there is no need to attack Micah here. First of all, the label is a 100% inaccurate straw-man, and secondly, has no bearing on the issue at the focal point of my post. I have spent time with Micah and count him among my friends. He’s just a friend who is not as right as I am ( O:-) sorry, Micah, couldn’t resist!). It is that type of ad hominem attack which has garnered a section of people within the MBC a problematic reputation, and a reduced voice among our churces.
Second, I thank you for the concurrence with the concern over giving plans. My greatest fear is that these plans solidify an unwarranted fracturing within the MBC. An unwarranted fracture much like the one some would foster over popular personalities who hold no control over the direction of our state convention’s ministries.
Thirdly, the analogy to the local church is fundamentally flawed. The church is an entity (singular) established by our Lord which is composed of varied parts, no part of which is greater than the whole but whose existence is necessary to the whole. The people make the church and not the building. If the SS Director commandeered the education wing, I’d be tempted to seal him off in there and continue that ministry of the church in another area!
The convention is an association of parts voluntarily established by local churches. It is not ordained of Scripture. The convention derives its identity from cooperative missions and ministry efforts of the local churches which have come together and exists to increase the effectiveness of those efforts. When these agencies broke away, seeking binding Christian arbitration was the only avenue down which to go. I know that was pursued and rejected by the representatives of those agencies. We should then echo the sentiment of Paul who turned over renegades to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. This legal pursuit has become unhealthy and embodies the very idea of the poor stewardship to which you refer. This level of indebtedness over legal actions resembles the type of irresponsible spending I find so objectionable within our secular governments. I would much rather pass on these funds to the MBC ministries, the IMB, NAMB, ERLC, and seminaries.
Sola Gratia!
No “attack” intended. Just highlighting a wrongful letter Fries sent to the MBC-Exec Brd. It was obvious he hadn’t done his homework before he wrote it…in fact he later apologized for some omissions but not the conclusions. If stating the facts is an ‘attack’ you have a strange sense of seeking truth in all matters. Try to be more specific what words were an “attack”?
Casey,
emergent
SG
To describe Pastor Fries as “emergent” seems kind of funny to me. You attempt to lump Pastor Fries into a camp with people such as McLaren, Pagit and Bell. Yet if that truly is your attempt, you know nothing about Pastor Fries to begin with. Maybe you should take a chance to watch his sermon he gave during the MBC state convention. FB should have Pastor Fries’ sermons online you can listen to. Learn about the man before you try and condemn him. In the current “seeker sensitive” world we live in, the fact that Pastor Fries does true biblical exegesis should tell you something. And here is a hit, McLaren does not, Bell does not, Pagit does not. So just what makes him “emergent”
BTW…I think I should take this time to say,in regards to the OP, that I do think that we should continue to fight to recover the break-away agencies. I also however think that some kind of system is needed, whether it is the Plan A/B that the convention adopted, or if it is direct funding to the legal fund from Churches, or line budget item of the state convention. Local churches should have a say in where their money is going to, and if they dont support the legal action, they should not be forced to have a “all or nothing” dilemma in trying to give to the MBC. Is this plan that was adopted the best thing to do? Maybe not…But it is alot better than the status quo (again says a man who supports the legal action), and a lot better than other options that could have been presented.
Stephen,
I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment of Micah. That was my problem with what ‘KC’ said, too. The ‘emergent’ label is far too convenient a demonizing factor utilized by some within the MBC. I agree with you, let those who have readily admitted it wear that label…McLaren, et al.
As to the plan structure and the legal matters…I’ll just agree to disagree. :-)
SG!
As a Missourian, we may have come in 2nd place for total battles in the Civil War, but we are determined to finish second to no one in our church and convention life!
That said, I really wish that my CP dollars weren’t being used for lawsuits. Had the MBC made the default giving plan Plan B (no CP money for lawsuits), we might have seen how important Missouri Baptists thought the legal issues were. As it is, average Joe Church member doesn’t even know that his “missions” money is being spent on attorney fees.
However, I do have to express a certain amount of gratitude for the MBC executive director and others who at least did propose an alternative giving plan for those who so choose. Perhaps, there will be an overwhelming response for Plan B (though doubtful since most church members probably aren’t even aware of the options there.) And as you said, Scott, hopefully the root cause of the split plans disappears in the next year or so.
I do find it interesting that people who are not even on this blog, are fellow believers in Christ, and fellow Missouri Baptists are being called out by name and falsely labeled by boogey-man terms such as “emergent”. If we as Missouri Baptists can learn to avoid the “label-and-shun” tactics towards those who agree to our statement of beliefs (BFM) and yet may disagree at times with our preferences in style or convention political issues, then there may be better days ahead. Thanks, Scott, for responding to that above commenter in the way that you did.
“Emergent” in my view doesn’t go to the extremes of McLaren(in this case)…you’ve taken it to a level not intended. You might ask the author what he meant by a word since(I think we can agree on this)the term “emergent” is a ‘moving definition’. There was no intention to link Fries and the McLaren crowd.
It is somewhat funny that you consider it offensive for me to suggest that Fries is emergent(or leaning towards/or/sympathetic with) yet turn around and ‘label’ me with “a section of people within the MBC a problematic reputation”. Now there’s an uplifting ‘label’ without specifics!
So are labels ok or not…or are they just objectionable when I make them?
Umm Casey, I could be wrong and Pastor Gordon can correct me if I am, but you misunderstood what he was saying when he said “It is that type of ad hominem attack which has garnered a section of people within the MBC a problematic reputation, and a reduced voice among our churches.” If I am reading this correctly, and I think I am, Pastor Gorden was saying that these Ad hominem attacks that are targeted against people like Pastor Fries, give people like Pastor Fries a “problematic reputation” and a “reduced voice among our churches”. It was not an attack at you.