If Brother Rogers will allow it, I will prepare a somewhat lengthy response after the snow here in Raleigh melts. I cannot pass up on a good opporutnity to play with my toddler in such a great snow.

The one point you rightly hint at, is that the law of diminishing returns swallows up my model at some point. I am fully aware of that and have been from the beginning. It isn’t nearly so bad as your analysis suggests however. The 1.31 does not have to be surpassed to achieve greater parity in our missions investments (your spend the whole 10B illustration) – the 1.31 can also decrease. And, we, the churches comprising our conventions (see I do know Baptist polity after all!), can also alter allocations on the SBC side as well. Okay, that’s a preview of a forthcoming longer reply as time permits.

Unless I am mistaken, I take it the greatest gulf you indulged on this thread surely involves, at minimum, me. Therefore, I for one take your comment seriously.

Do know to appeal to our Lord’s words in Matthew’s gospel as applicable to a blog thread concerning which engagement and division is not only expected, it is encouraged, seems hardly fair to His divine intention. From my understanding of both blogs and Matthew 18, if were we to consistently apply it, blog threads would cease. Period. Not to mention one would be asking of a text a question it was not intending to answer.

Presuming you may have been alluding to any thing in my contributions on this thread as “border-line defamation (maybe a harsh word)”, I invite you, if so, to spell it out, brother. To my knowledge, the only mistake I made in my exchanges with Daniel was attributing to him as saying “bloated bureaucracies” when he actually said “government bureaucracies,” an attribution for which I immediately and without qualification expressed my sincerest regret.

Further, since, other than Daniel and Tim, I am the only one who logged “sources,” presumably my linking the Florida Baptist and quoting Dr. David Hankins exist on your radar as well. Assuming my source is precisely that toward which you were referring, all I can say is, so be it, Jared.

When it comes to the place when we question whether sources—-not irrelevant sources, not eccentric sources, not questionable sources, but sources easily available and widely, publicly accessible–are to be tapped to both illustrate and substantiate a view–not skewed to illustrate, not exploited to substantiate, but legitimately cited to illustrate and substantiate–…when we come to the place when citing legitimate sources like that is questioned, and such citing (assuming the citing mine) is interpreted as belittling at best and possible defamation at worst, we may be past hope for reparation in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Maranatha. Come Lord.

With that, I am…
Peter

Thank you for your words. I presume you are referencing something you have seen written. Instead of me going back through all of the comments could you elaborate on your concern? Your challenge for us to return to Matthew 18 seems to point out that you have seen where someone has ought against another. I see a passion and nothing more. Can you help me with exact verbiage and comment #?

Blessings,
Tim

While indulging myself in the posts here I have viewed great arguments for cause and case. However, it seems we have a bit of a tif on our hands, with border line defamation(maybe a harsh word). Is there reason to refute someone in such a way as belittle them, even if you find fault in their statment, sources or not. If we are in fellowship with Christ I think the answer should be no. Sometimes with-holding one’s view on anothers is often the right thing to do especially if that one is going to regret posting their comment. This being said We could take Matthew 18:15-16 to heart here.

Jared

One of the reasons concerned scholars like Dr. Hankins has for the numbers Daniel offers is the simplistic method used to produce them. In fact, I pointed this out to Daniel in a phone conversation with him several months ago. And please understand: I am no more a ‘numbers expert’ than you claim to be (in reality, probably less!). However, just a surface look exposes the glaring flaw, a flaw which prompted Hankins to dub his method “not connected to reality.”

Consider: to get the $1.31 we spend on people domestically, Daniel apparently added together state convention CP totals & NAMB (including AAO), then divided the CP total dollars by the total population of the U.S. and Canada. Hence, the buck thirty-one.

Similarly, global numbers were tallied almost the same way. IMB (including LMO) total CP monies received divided by the world’s 6.4B people (minus, of course US & Canada). The 3-4 cents is the result.

No one has to be a numbers’ whiz to see there is something that just does not look kosher here. Since it is so blaring in the global numbers, let’s use it as illustrative of my point.

First, a question: while global evangelism is and will remain a priority for Southern Baptists, who honestly thinks we are presently & strategically targeting all 6.4 billion people on this planet, and if we are not, the only reason is, we have disproportionate amounts in our missions giving between domestic and overseas?

Example: Suppose state conventions took to heart Daniel’s plan and, on average, kept only 30% of what they receive rather than the present 60%. Apparently, at least according to what I hear Daniel saying, this would be fully acceptable.

However, according to Daniel’s own method of calculating, if state conventions kept but 30% rather than 60%, the expenditures on global evangelism would rise from approximately 3-4 cents to approximately 7-8 cents. Does 8 cents per person place us in a position to profess we are much more concerned about global evangelism now that we’re giving 8 cents to reach people rather than 4 cents to reach people outside the US? I’m uncertain how.

But let’s be more aggressive–in fact, so aggressive it’s absurd.

Let’s suppose all Southern Baptist churches gave not 2% of their tithes and offerings to overseas evangelism, not 10%, not even a whopping 50% to global evangelism, as incredible amount as that may be. Let’s say every Southern Baptist Church (43k+) gave 100% of their total income to global evangelism.

Do you know how much we would be spending on missions overseas if Southern Baptists did so?

Let’s use Daniel’s formula and calculate: $10 Billion (roughly what total receipts are for SBs) divided by 6.4B population = $1.56. That’s right. According to Daniel’s scenario, if all Southern Baptist Churches shut down domestic shop and gave all receipts to global evangelism, it would equal approximately a dollar and a half we spent on each person overseas. Sadly, this is probably why some have suggested his plan has a blown fuse and cannot connect with reality.

The fact is, even if the IMB gained another $150m yearly–enough to fund a staggering additional 2,800 missionaries–there is absolutely no reason to believe that all or even most of the additional missionaries would be placed in areas not already being served in someway by other missionaries. It simply doesn’t work that simplistically. Strategy will always precede funds (or it should). And, strategy may dictate placing more missionaries in an area which is soaking up the gospel than sending missionaries elsewhere where no receptivity is available.

Indeed such a scenario remains the precise reason why just because we have no funds for say this couple or that to be commissioned as missionaries to a particular area does not dictate that, if all of a sudden IMB had the monies to send them, it would be them who would be sent. Strategy may call for another missionary elsewhere.

To add CP dollars and divide by the world’s population has to be judged, as Hankins implied, as not connected to what is.

Daniel is to be commended for his passion for evangelism and global outreach. Understanding how the CP works and mission monies are actually allocated and spent is another question altogether.

Grace, Tim. I hope in some small way I assisted your conversation here.

With that, I am…
Peter

Thanks for your response. At the length you went responding to everyone, I must say, we may want to speak with you about becoming a contributor here at SBC Today. ;)

Seriously, as I told you I am not a numbers expert and I concede the calculus to you. However, as Brother Peter points out there are others that have openly responded to your figures. Thus, we find ourselves with conflicting positions.

However, in response to me, you said; “Percentages do not pay the bills. They do, however, reflect priorities. Further, they do produce the current inequities in our missions allocations/investments.” This is exactly what we have been saying all along. While 10% of undesignated gifts to the CP is not a standard that I believe we should suggest churches meet before someone from that church can serve on a board in the SBC, it still speaks volumes concerning their priorities. If a church give 2.75% of undesignated funds to the CP and then gives 8% to plant a church (that the church leaders would find the staff) through an SBC entity, it speaks volumes as to their priority. It says their priority is not cooperation. It is not “bad parachurch” to elect Prez of entities and pay them corporate exec salaries then expect them to get churches planted with the 5-10% we lead our churches to give through the CP. It is “bad parachurch” when leaders who give a small % of undesignated gifts to CP to then turn around and cry that we have missionaries not able to go to the mission field and we need to have a Christmas in August in order to get these folks on the Mission Field. It is “bad parachurch” to receive over $1M in the Christmas in August offering and then sit on $Millions in reserves. Couldn’t we have just moved one or two of those $M’s into the general account to place these M’s on the field that were waiting?

To conclude my thoughts, I believe my biggest concern lies in the fact we have people who give a small % to CP then call on us to give more. In the same thought stream they then turn around and blame the state conventions for their small %’s. Now you, as a denominational employee in another layer of the denominational structure, are calling on re-applying a formula for giving that will bring about more money to the institution you are employed. The formula is very easily applied that will increase the funds that each of our educational entities receive and that is to increase students. If students increase then the amount of funds received from the CP will increase. Of course another way of accomplishing this is to combine seminaries. That will create an increase in CP funds also. But I pray that isn’t something that is being bantered around.

Blessings,
Tim

Thank you again for your encouragement. If the Lord uses me in 1/4 the way he used Pressler, I’d be delighted. If you are at the SBC in June, I’d enjoy meeting you. Have a good day.

Daniel

The next step is energizing people on the ground in every state convention — mostly pastors in those states — that are [or will be]on the budget committees in each state — that share the vision of sending a greater percentage to Nashville over time.

I think Judge Pressler serves as a model. He barnstormed the country and got out the word. He worked for years building a team as he went along.

One thing is evident from Pressler’s book — change in the SBC doesn’t happen overnight. It requires a tremendous amount of effort over years.

Because of the autonomous nature of our state conventions, the work has to be duplicated in every state.

Time will tell who is going to be the “Judge Pressler” that is going to own this and drive it.

Roger