Part of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force report includes renaming the designated giving of Southern Baptist churches as “Great Commission Giving”. I believe the following two questions reveal some concerns that needs addressing. First, how does this plan promote cooperation when churches direct funds to a favorite SBC entity leaving non-favorite entities without? Second, how will the Cooperative Program be recognized as the central means of supporting our Great Commission ministries when it is combined with designated gifts and called by a nice name like Great Commission Giving? Where would I rather see my funds go–a line item that says cooperation or a line item that says Great Commission Giving?
First question first–Cooperation with Designated Funds. The GCRTF has defined “Great Commission Giving” (GCG) as follows: “Great Commission Giving includes Cooperative Program giving and designated gifts given to the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.” At present, we have on our ACP various sections that require response. However, the question that should be asked needs to center on how much the ACP documents will change? At this time the church’s money that goes to the Cooperative Program, association, and the state offerings, along with funds given directly to SBC Entities and any other funds given to any missions organization are placed in the section that is called “Total Missions Expenditures”. Total Mission Expenditures is defined as;
“Total amount of all undesignated and designated funds given to any/all mission causes (Southern Baptist and other mission causes) by the congregation. This includes monies given to: Southern Baptist church-type missions; any associational, state convention, or Southern Baptist Convention ministries (this includes the Cooperative Program); or any other Southern Baptist or non-Southern Baptist mission cause. A question that should be asked may concern the wording of the ACP.
Does the renaming of the total mission giving funds mean the GCG line item will overshadow the Cooperative Program line item and effectively result in the dumbing down of the CP? While many are advocating that only SBC mission causes be appropriated in the Great Commission Giving line item one pastor/blogger sees it differently as seen in his defined understanding of this new title;
I think the suggestion that “Great Commission Giving” by a church be recognized while reaffirming our commitment to the CP is healthy (component #5). The CP is ingenuous but when it is used as a stick with which to beat churches who sacrificially give to the work of missions in other ways as well, its effectiveness is greatly hindered by the very people who think they are promoting it.
Please note that the above quote does not distinguish between SBC, State Convention, association and non-SBC mission endeavors. Also, in the day and age of technology that we live we no longer turn in reports to associations and state conventions we go on computers and enter the data. If I give to Samaritan’s Purse then I may deem that SBC giving because I am an SBC church and I am helping a Great Commission organization. Therefore, the above linked pastor/blogger would see the GCG as a SBC church giving to the “work of missions in others ways”.
Another pastor/blogger also in agreement with the GCRTF preliminary report sees a concern:
…the primacy of the Cooperative Program will not be secured merely by the well-wishes of the task force. We must be diligent that we continue to speak from the platform about the Cooperative Program. We should not introduce speakers by talking about their “Great Commission Giving” totals, nor should denominational magazines or emails trumpet anyone’s “Great Commission Giving.”
This mentioned pastor/blogger observes the problem if publications and individuals begin espousing the virtues of GCG above the CP of a church. However, he also seems concerned that without a concerted effort to promote GCG will dumb down CP giving to the effect that GCG will become our central plan for giving to the SBC.
My second question deals with Great Commission Giving muting our Cooperative Program. The way GCG is promoted mutes the Cooperative Program while quashing local church autonomy. Why would I say that? The Christian Index recently ran an article by Joe Westbury. In the article Westbury has a neat little “before and after” charts. I have reproduced the charts for the sake of our conversation here.
First, the reason it quashes local church autonomy through defining the gifts. The local church decides where their mission funds are sent. They not only decide these mission monies, but they also define them. In the Georgia Baptist Convention ACP they have, at present, a line item #23 that calls for “Other Missions”. According to the explanation given in the Christian Index, GCG will now include only “Other SBC, State, and Association Mission Gifts.” (See After) If this is the case then where will a church show giving to say; The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Acts 29, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Campus Crusade for Christ etc. etc. While these items are not important for the convention to know it is important for surveys. Why do I say that? We are already being chastised by various researchers because we keep 95% of our funds here in the US. Can you imagine a church giving $100,000 to “Other Missions” and $100,000 to GCG of a $400,000 budget and then being chastised for keeping the majority of their funds for themselves and the SBC? I will admit to you that some may see this as a weak point, LET ME YELL TO MAKE IT STRONGER. :) No, it may be weak but I have been around long enough to know that churches need less incentive than this to stop giving. Therefore, either the church will stop giving and reporting or they will merely grasp the fact that giving to any cause makes it Southern Baptist because the church giving it is Southern Baptist. You may argue that isn’t a reality. To which I respond, if the church is king then convention leaders do not define what the funds represent. If they do, then autonomy has been thrown out the door.
The combining of the CP with other designated mission monies has not seen this problem in the past. Why? Churches were not supposed to be wooed by entities to give for special projects. No one knows when this changed but it did and we are reaping the bad fruit from this practice. Now we have churches giving more of their funds directly to various entities. By doing this these churches may say they see the CP as central to supporting SBC missions, but their actions do not verify their words. Thus they are muting the CP as being central to supporting SBC mission. The the muting of the Cooperative Program is a serious problem. The prime example of a dumbing down of the CP is see in the way these charts are set up. Line item #20 will overshadow Line item #18 because of where it is placed. Also, this is the way the Georgia Baptist Convention’s ACP reporting will look and North Carolina will probably be different and Florida will probably be different and so on and so on. By combining the CP within a new GCG term results in the dumbing down of the CP. Why? Look at the article in the Christian Index. Westbury writes;
Under the proposed wording, the distinction between historic Cooperative Program and designated giving will be more obvious, though both will be recognized as Great Commission gifts.(Emphasis Mine)
One cannot look at the “After” chart and say there will be a distinction. Line item # 18 will be blended into Line item #19 and both are added together to form Line item #20–the final line item. I can hear it now in a nominating speech; Candidate ____________ has led his church to give over three-million dollars in Great Commission Giving. Or it may be something like; Candidate ____________ has led his church to give over 24% of their undesignated funds to Great Commission Giving.
How can the GCRTF make this work without GCG overshadowing the CP? Well, the GCRTF has said they will not abandon the CP. In their report they stated;
We believe the Cooperative Program is Southern Baptist’ unified plan of giving through which cooperating Southern Baptist churches give a percentile of their undesignated receipts in support of their respective state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention missions and ministries. Therefore, please understand clearly, we are not recommending any changes to the Cooperative Program but are reaffirming it as our central means of supporting the Great Commission ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention.
If our task force is serious about this statement then to strengthen the CP they must remove the addition of the CP funds into overall mission funds thus, considering it all GCG. If the CP is our “unified plan of giving” then make it central without any other items added to it. In other words, set it apart to be a central part of the ACP. Combining it with all of the other designated mission giving does not clearly say “cooperation” it clearly says “societal”.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Great Commission Giving–The Dumbing Down of the Cooperative Program :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
Tim,
Great post. I could not agree with you more. My deep concern is that we not celebrate secondary missions giving (GCG) when it comes at the expense of primary missions giving (CP). Under the current proposal, a church giving .0001 % through CP and $10 million designated would be “celebrated” for its Great Commission Giving, which renders meaningless the task force rhetoric calling the CP our “central means” of missions support and our “crown jewel.”
If this cannot be defeated, someone with influence might consider an amendment only celebrating those designated gifts that are received once the “convention average” CP giving threshold, as established by the previous year’s CP giving, has at least been met. Last year, that percentage was 6.6%. Why should we “celebrate” anyone’s secondary giving when they have not at least met the average, reasonable standard for our “central means” missions channel, the “crown jewel” of the Cooperative Program?
I can already hear the cry “autonomy, autonomy” but churches would still be autonomous in what they give, just as the convention is autonomous in what we celebrate.
Brother Rick,
I submit that the convention defining other “sbc missions” is violation of local church autonomy. Why? What makes something “Southern Baptist”? A Southern Baptist Church donates to it or begins it as a mission. I remember being taught in seminary that a Southern Baptist Church is an independent church that chooses to participate in the Southern Baptist Convention and that participation is marked by giving to the Cooperative Program. The amount one gives to the CP does not determine how “Southern Baptist” they are, but it does determine how cooperative they desire to be. The less % given the less cooperative the church desires to be with other Southern Baptist churches.
Blessings,
Tim
Thank you, @timothy_rogers :-) , for this post. One great area of concern for me is that as this definition of Great Commission Giving continues to be shaped & reshaped, the promised emphasis on the Cooperative Program giving will be diminished.
Another area of GREAT CONCERN is one which I have not heard answered by the likes of those whom you have referenced applauding all missions giving as worthy GCG…what will we do as Southern Baptists when more ecumenical and moderate-leaning “SBC” churches include giving to the CBF as part of their GCG?
Sola Gratia!
Tim,
Amen, Amen, Amen! Nail on the head with your final statement: “Combining it with all of the other designated mission giving does not clearly say “cooperation” it clearly says ‘societal’.”
We purposely changed from societal giving to cooperative giving a long time ago and now people want to take us back to that which we have rejected. Excellent post!
Les
Brother Scott,
You raise an important point. We have state conventions that receive funds from churches designated to the CBF. Those state conventions operate only as a channel to send those gifts to the CBF. If a church so desires those gifts would be counted as GCG because it was given to a “state convention”. It works the same way with associations that act as channels to send gifts forward.
Brother Les,
To be honest we already have a line that calls for “Total Missions”. So combining the amounts from CP, Lottie, Annie, State Convention works and then outside mission causes that are not associated with the SBC is nothing new. What screams societal in a deafening decibel is we are now promoting this as a good thing. I do not know when the combining of these funds into one line item began, but previously they were never acknowledged. We are now embarking on the acknowledgment of this giving, which does promote missions, as something that we are more interested in. IOW, we are now becoming more interested in how one church funds missions than we are on how many churches cooperate together to accomplish more.
Blessings,
Tim
A statement like ‘We purposely changed from societal giving to cooperative giving a long time ago and now people want to take us back to that which we have rejected.’ begs the question ‘WHY ?’.
Who are the ‘we’ and who are the ‘people’?
And why ‘now’?
I suppose the most amazing thing about all this is that the leadership of the Task Force expressed surprise at the reaction to this portion (and other equally asinine suggestions) of the report.
If they didn’t see HUGE objections coming, they didn’t deserve to be on the Task Force at all.
Tim
A more appropriate title for this post might be, “The Dismantling of the Cooperative Program.”
;-)
L’s,
The “we” is a historical large group of Southern Baptists. The “people” is a present smaller group of Southern Baptists.
The “now” is the present.
L’s
Just a brief history. In 1925 we entered into an agreement among all SB Churches and State Conventions that funds would be sent to the SBC through the State Conventions. These conventions would determine the % sent to the Executive Committee and from there the Executive Committee would determine the breakdown to the various entities. Before this time each entity would petition different churches and the churches were overwhelmed, not only by the funds given to various boards, but the time spent in various boards petitioning churches to come and speak. The convention as a whole determined that it was better to combine the funds into a central distribution point and thus created the Executive Committee.
There may be some areas that are open to dispute within that brief history but suffice it to say that before 1925 we had a “societal” form of giving within the convention.
Blessings,
Tim
Thank you, Tim. Blessings and good in Christ to you also.
L’s
Mornin’, C.B. :)
Just a thought. And another question (sorry):
If the ‘people’ is ‘a smaller group of Southern Baptists’;
is the process of deciding how changes are made done by majority rule of the SBC, or by a hand-picked committee?
Is the complaint in the renaming of the giving? Or is the complaint that churches give to other forms of missions besides the cp? I’m not sure I understand the concern. I’m not sure that there aren’t other worthy baptist organizations for a southern baptist church to give money. What am I not understanding?
Darby,
The concern is in the adding of an umbrella category by a number of mega church leaders who comprise a significant constituency on the GCRTF and who seem unwilling to significantly support the long-standing means by which we as Southern Baptists have agreed together to be the way we will fund major ministry efforts such as missions, Christian education (especially training future leaders), and compassion ministries.
I agree that many worthwhile missions and Gospel-opportunity social ministries (disaster relief, crisis pregnancy, homeless shelters) exist which are worth of our support. Our church supports two such ministries here in KC…but they are not part of our CP missions giving…and I have no desire that our church be recognized on an associational, state convention, or national convention level for our involvement in such. Why? BECAUSE OUR GIVING TO OUR LOCAL ASSOCIATION, CP, & SBC MISSION OFFERINGS IS NO SOURCE OF EMBARRASSMENT TO US.
Sola Gratia!
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. When the blunt honest truth is required, we give you my good friend Scott Gordon. I believe he drove that nail through the plank!
:-)
Brother Darby,
It seems that Brother Scott has given an excellent response. We certainly have no problem with local churches giving to anything they deem worthy of their support. We draw the line when these same churches desire to have recognition of those gifts in order to be considered a viable leader for the convention. The only gifts that should be considered as viable missions gifts for a leader within our convention should be listed under the CP line item. That is the gift that speaks “doing together what we cannot do by ourselves”.
Brother Robin,
Brother Scott does come through when he is in a pinch. :)
Blessings,
Tim
@Timothy_Rogers,
Just try and pinch me once…
My Scottish ancestry recoils at those Irish fancies. :-)
Sola Gratia!
Thanks brothers, I understand your point. Should the percentage of cp dollars given be a prerequisite for a church to lead in the SBC, whether it be sending a member to serve on a committee or board or as an officer? Or are there other considerations that validate a leader? I am not challenging anyone, but seeking a better understanding because I’ve never appreciated the assumption that cp giving be the metric by which leadership should be based. But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
Darby,
I do not hold this to be the sole criterion by which we should esteem an individual as being forthrightly committed in such a way as to qualify them for leadership within our convention (national or state) or our associations. I believe that support for those ministries upon which we as local Southern Baptists churches have agreed to come together cooperatively for the sake of greater opportunity and effectiveness is crucial. Along with that criterion, I would also consider other aspects worthy of the label ‘necessary’ to be one’s personal piety/character as well as commitment to a well-grounded, biblically informed theology/world view.
Sola Gratia!
My concern is slightly different in regard to “Great Commission Giving”
I think that two sections of the task force’s interim recommendations are contradictory:
(1) In one section the task force calls for state conventions to underwrite increased emphasis on ministries in pioneer areas. This is because the task force passes an “unfunded mandate” to the state conventions — which is about $50,000,000 per year. According to the task force, the state conventions must “adjust” to compensate as the NAMB/cooperative agreements are phased out.
At the same time:
(2) The task force is de-emphasizing the main source of income for the states — which is CP receipts from the churches – even as the call for “celebrating” non-CP giving under the moniker of “Great Commission Giving”.
Do I have this right? At the same time that the task force is asking the states to give more to finance church planting and evangelism in “pioneer” areas in North America, it is also “celebrating” alternative giving methods that churches might implement so fund flows don’t come to the states?
People can argue each of the task force’s points on their merits. But independent of those arguments, I’d add that the task force’s report — taken in totality — is not logically consistent!
How can the task force require more participation from the state conventions to subsidize what will become NAMB operations, while at the same time making a recommendation that over time “defunds” those same state conventions?
I must state, for the sake of full disclosure, that some of the task force’s ideas are good. But on balance the task force’s interim recommendation, if implemented, will do more harm than good. And in any case, the task force’s recommendations do not address the core problem in the SBC.
The task force does not represent all of the stakeholders in the SBC family. That is why there is so much pushback from their interim report.
We will see what adjustments the task force will make between now and May 3rd when they issue their final report.
Brother Tim,
I think you have identified the “smoke and mirrors” once again. It seems that for some reason it is the distribution of the funds that is getting all the attention,….when it is not a distribution problem.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Roger,
Personally, I have no problems with the agreements being reconsidered and revamped. I have always had concerns with my church sending money to SBC and a portion then going to NAMB and then NAMB sending a large part of that portion back to subsidize the salary of someone working in my state convention and the only oversight NAMB had on that person was a signature on an employment agreement. That is connectionalism and it must stop.
Having said that, my concern lies not with the agreements being reconsidered on a state convention by state convention basis, but with the creation of a new name for designated giving from the churches. If you will notice the responsibility for the promotion of the CP will move to the state conventions. The GCG will then be free to be promoted by the national convention which will place state conventions in direct competition with the SBC for receiving funds. I can hear it now in about 5 years from now. State conventions will be chastised for keeping more money because the national entities will be falling on hard times. Why? Because only the megas will support the national entities directly and the smaller churches will support the state conventions. It seems that those serving on the GCRTF have forgotten that we give to the CP because we can do more together. Let’s face it, Dr. Floyd doesn’t need LifeWay. He can produce his own curriculum. Dr. Hunt doesn’t need the IMB he has a former IMB Missionary serving on staff and sending out their own missionaries. Dr. Greear doesn’t need NAMB, he is involved in planting churches through Acts 29. The issues are simple. The need for the CP to remain central is a need directly associated with the small churches and the educational, administrative, and ethics entities.
Brother Chris,
You have summed up in less that 20 words what it took me 1500 words to say. Agreed, it is not a distribution problem. Another question that I believe we need to ponder centers on the GCRTF task. What does renaming the designated portion of the funds received have to do with working together to get more funds to the mission field through the CP? I submit to you, Nothing. Now, Dr. Rankin is calling for a “reconstruction” of the Cooperative Program. He says;
Dr. Rankin seems to be revealing more in his article of what may be ahead in the final report coming from the GCRTF. Read it here
Blessings,
Tim
This is a good post, and these are the types of questions that people will need to answer as they go to Orlando this year.
I believe, whether the convention votes for the report or not, that the cat is out of the bag.
Even if the convention does not vote to acknowledge that many churches give sacrificially to SBC mission causes through non-CP channels, many congregations are doing this (not only through Lottie Moon, but through other sources, too), and this trend will continue.
I predict that the term “Great Commission Giving” or something akin to it will begin to be used as part of common parlance, regardless of whether the SBC meeting adopts the report.
First, again, it reflects what is going on – presently and as a trend.
Even some of the stalwart SBC churches in our town, who are hooked into the State Convention and the SBC, engage in all sorts of missions giving outside these channels.
My own church gives directly to the Executive Committee in Nashville. We started this when the church was founded in 1993. We give some to the state, but we give more directly to Nashville. We do not designate. The money goes to the EC for distribution according to their allocation budget. It’s just that 65% (or whatever) is not skimmed off first at the state offices.
I sense that the trend of diverse giving is growing, not only among new church plants but at established congregations, too.
Second, I believe that it is bad to promote dollar giving totals, and I believe it is dysfunctional for the SBC to continue to mix state and national giving.
I started attending the SBC meetings in 1985 when I was 24. I am almost 49. For years during the CR, I heard moderates and denominational executives deride Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley and others because their churches did not give enough money to the CP, and they gave to “other” causes. That was short sighted thinking then. It is short sighted thinking now. I believe that Adrian Rogers called the CP a “sacred cow.” (I think I have that right).
The generation of Southern Baptists who accomplished the CR saw CP giving as an issue that was secondary to good leadership.
I am afraid that the current generation sees giving totals as a primary issue. I fear we have returned to a bad place on this. Just consider that in the last few meetings, we have had motions made at the convention that would mandate a giving percentage from a church before an individual from the church could serve on a board. That’s legalism, pure and simple. And it is contrary to our constitution and bylaws (I believe) and our history.
Anything that is reasonable that can help minimize giving totals in the SBC psyche is a good thing in my mind.
Second, donations to the national organization and the state organization should be separate.
It makes no sense to me (except as a historical accommodation when the CP was started) to make ths states the gate keepers of donations to national programs. Why would anybody do that?
If we were setting up organizations today, and we had a national organization like the SBC that had its own meeting, its own messengers, its own Constitution and Bylaws etc., we wouldn’t have the giving routed through another organization.
The SBC and the states should relate as the association and the states. Separate meetings. Separate ministries. Separate messengers. Separate giving.
I think that the report doesn’t go far enough, myself.
Now, I realize why we can’t go as far as I would like to go. Because of the history of the thing.
But I am afraid that tells me more about the SBC and the state organizations than just about anything. That is, that there is a more efficient and clear way of operating but we can’t do that because it’s always been done a different way.
They have words to describe organizations that do things for that reason.
It would be clear, clean and simple if the states and the SBC just had their donations come in directly.
Until then, it is appropriate to at least mention that there are lots of churches that give sacrificially. They just do it a different way.
So, I think that using the term “Great Commission Giving”, or something like it, is a good thing. I do think there should be some understanding of what is given to SBC and SBC related causes versus other things, so that there is no confusion.
The SBC connsitution and bylaws allow for this (there is full participation in the SBC with minimal giving). And a generation of Southern Baptists who elected Adrian Rogers and other leaders of the CR understood this.
I am afraid that our desire to see increased ministry funds may cause us to try and force churches to give more. Churches will give more when they can, and when they are excited about giving more. Until then, all the manuvering to shut down all options and all talk about giving except the preferred option, will be seen for what it is – trying to force churces to give a certain way.
Shutting down options may work politically in the short and long runs. But it will eventually lead to a smaller convention, as churches who have other ideas may slowly trickle out the back door, or new church starts who have other ideas may not associate with the SBC because there are better, less restrictive giving alternatives.
Thank you for the good post and discussion.
Louis
I understand the concerns about possible re-structuring of the Cooperative Program. However, I agree it’s equally dangerous to make CP giving the “litmus test” by which we elect leaders in the SBC. We tried that in the past. As a result, we had leaders in our convention who were pro-abortion and who denied important biblical doctrines. I certainly don’t want us to go back to those days.
I’m in favor of keeping a central focus on the Cooperative Program. After all, it has served us well for over eighty years. However, as a friend of mine said, I also don’t want us to sell the SBC presidency to the highest bidder.
Brother Louis,
Just a couple of things because I could never cover the entire gambit that you did in my answer. :)
Seriously, your premise that the CR leaders saw CP as a secondary issue would be correct for a time that we found ourselves in the 80′s. Remember, the moderates were in leadership and the moderates were teaching and promoting many of the things that conservatives would not stand for. I know for a fact that Brother CB Scott fought tooth and nail to get a right to life Sunday School lesson each year in the curriculum. So much of the argument then was, we will not give money to moderate to liberal causes. That was the reason given and it was even argued that if the conservatives took leadership then the CP giving from these leaders would increase. At least, that is what was promoted and the reason many stalwart CP pastors supported the low giving rates of the leaders you mentioned. Dr. Rogers called the CP a “sacred cow” as a result of people pushing him to direct his church to give to moderate causes through the CP.
A second issue that you bring up I feel needs addressing is the statement; “Until then, it is appropriate to at least mention that there are lots of churches that give sacrificially.” All SBC churches give sacrificially. Why should we have line items that acknowledge sacrificial gifts of the churches? So they will give more? I do not think so. If I have to acknowledge the biggest giver in my church so I can get those who are giving less to give more, then I have defeated the whole purpose of giving. Also, secular organizations that raise large amounts of money use this tactic in order to encourage others to give. Those are lost people. We are speaking of putting together something for people that following Jesus as Lord. We should not have a line item that acknowledges other mission giving just so we can show how much we give to missions. The CP is the cooperative giving apparatus that Southern Baptist have acknowledged and promoted since 1925. With the renaming of “other missions” to “Great Commission Giving” we will have the dumbing down of the CP to the extent that it will be like a church with millions of $$’s in a cemetery fund but not receiving enough through the general budget to pay its staff. I do not think we want to get there.
Blessings,
Tim
Ken:
Who were these Baptists that were pro-abortion and who denied important biblical doctrines? Was it 1, 2, 100, 10,000?
How many of these did it take for the CR to be necessary?
Brother Ken,
You have presented a straw man in your argument. CP was not a litmus test for service in the convention and never has been. The proof is the CR leaders that were elected to serve. Plus your argument that churches that are strong CP supporters tacitly implies that they also support abortion providers. I believe that is a false argument and should probably be better explained by you. I don’t think you believe this, but it does seem to imply you do.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim:
Thanks for the nice response.
The way I have seen CP giving used is primarily related to SBC elections and such. You know, “Joe Blow’s congregation gives 15% to the CP” or “Jim Bob’s congregation gave a paltry 1% to the CP” etc.
I just think it would be good for those in the SBC to hear that Jim Bob’s Church also gave another 15% to the IMB or some other SBC cause. I think that would be relevant.
That is more of a cultural shift than an official programatic one.
Otherwise, I am with you. I don’t care who is giving what.
Take care.
Louis
Ken and Tom Parker:
Great to see you both. Don’t let this good post turn into wrangling over the CR. Tom, you already know the answers to those questions. Ken can try to tell you if he wants, but I hope he doesn’t waste his time. You and I have gone round and round on stuff like that. It is generally not productive.
I hope we can stay on topic – the Great Commission Task Force and it’s recommendations. And not Russell Dilday and Foy Valentine.
Louis
Brother Louis,
I have heard the first statement in a nomination speech, but I do not believe I have ever heard the second statement from one nominating a condidate. :) I will say that the first statement would be nothing wrong in a nomination speech. Also, if the opposing candidate’s church gave 1% to CP but also 15% directly to the IMB that would probably be stated as such, ‘Jim Bob’s congregation gives 16% to SBC mission causes.’ The hearers would know that CP was not the main mission giving funds used by Jim Bob’s church. None of that has ever mattered because of the term “SBC Mission causes”. With the new term “Great Commission Giving” it will not dileneate between SBC mission causes and outside SBC mission causes.
So, Brother Louis, Brother Tom Parker, and Brother Ken, along with you, if you so choose, could direct your churches to send funds received that are designated to the CBF National convention to your state convention and then they would send those funds to the CBF. Once that happened you could kill two birds with one stone. The state convention would give you credit for “Great Commission Giving” and the CBF would recognize your church along with your state convention as “partners”.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim:
It does matter. I think that the fact that Ronnie Floyd’s church only gave a small percentage through the CP played a big role in his not being elected President of the Convention.
Also, I know of one person who was being considered for a trustee position who’s church gives to Lottie Moon and other causes, but he was bumped by the nominating committee for a guy who’s church gave a higher percentage. The nominating committee representative told him why he was being bumped. The nominating committee thought he was a stronger candidate (smarter, had more business experience, would make a better trustee), but the representative also told him that the nominating committee wanted its slate of nominees to be approved as a slate. And one way to do that was to make sure opponents could not pick people off. So, they were jettisoning him for a guy who’s church had higher CP giving.
That’s 2 real situations that could be helped by improving the culture in the SBC on this issue. If it takes an official definitional change to “give permission” then I am for it.
Of course, the definition can always be tightened to exclude CBF stuff, if it isn’t already. I am not fearful that we cannot have definitions that work. I do think it would be a good idea to recognize other types of giving, if we are going to be talking about how much a church gives anyway.
Blessings to you, too.
Louis
Brother Louis
I am a Director of Missions in Southeast Georgia. Our pastors live in the real world when it concerns resources for small churches (according to the 2006 ACPs this represents 62% of Southern Baptist Churches) being a rural associaiton we do not have the budget that many of the pastors, who support the GCR recommendation, have available in their churches. We have no mega-church that has no need of the association or the State Convetion for resources. Our association works in partnership with the Georgia Baptist Convnetion (which gives 50% of CP monies to SBC causes)to provide training, finacial assistance, and mission opportunities. If the truth be told, I know of any assistance or ministry that is provided by a SBC organization for any of our churches. When we contacted the IMB in hopes of inviting an International missionary to speak at an event we always experience road blocks. There are men who set on the Great Commission Resurgence Committee, in which very few have a need for their associaiton or state convention that prefer to contribute their mission monies away from the CP to SBC designated with the intent of by-passing the state convnetion (which they have that right). However, since they do not need the assistance from their local associaiton and state convention they now want to force all other churches to contribute they way they do by changing the giving formular of the CP. It is agonizing when I find that if you exclude 2 members on the committee that the average giving to the CP is less than 2% (shame on Johnny Hunt for his one sided selection) and that only one individul is a memebr of a church that is the size of the majority of Southern Baptist Church. Many of the pastors in my associaiton have discussed this, they feel that it has more to do with power for the mega-church pastors and finacial gain for the seminary (it is rumored that our seminaries are planning to encourage thousands of students to be available to vote during the Southern Baptist Convnetion. Some of our pastors plan to recommend that their churches designate the great majority of their CP monies to the State Convention. They feel that if they have to chose between the SBC and the GBC that it is a no brainer. I also beleive that with our seminaries involved in this that it will cause our churches to question the loyalty of the students to the CP. They already have a problem with the Calvinism teaching.