I was definitely not for the 3rd component of the Great Commission Report. In fact, I was going to vote againt the GCR until #3 was tweaked. I felt that the 3rd component of the GCR would lead us away from the Cooperative Program, to a more societal approach to missions giving in the SBC. And, frankly, I did not understand the reasoning of including #3 in the GCR, and I really still don’t get why it was so important to have that included. But anyways, two men, whom I’ve admired thru the years, were on the task force; Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd. In fact, when certain groups were attacking these men, I stood up for them. I commented on blogs to defend them. But, I’ve always not liked the fact that their churches gave such a tiny percent to the CP, and here they were on the Great Commission Task Force encouraging “Great Commission Giving” being reported, which I felt would undermine the CP. So, I admit that I wasn’t real happy about this, which I’m sure caused a lot of you to lose a lot of sleep! :)
Well, I want to give Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd pats on the back for putting their money where their mouthes are. Johnny Hunt’s church has raised their CP giving already. And, according to Bart Barber, over at Praisegodbarebones, Johnny Hunt is tweeting often about the CP. He’s encouraging Pastors to lead their churches to give more to the CP. Also, Ronnie Floyd is leading his church to give more to the CP. Take a look at this report… http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=11921
So, I want to symbolically shake Johnny Hunt’s and Ronnie Floyd’s hands, and symbolically pat them on the back, and say, “Way to go! Thank you.” I really am happy to see these two leaders in the SBC encouraging more Pastors and churches to give more to the CP, and they’re actually doing it at their own churches, as well. In the words of that famous fella from Mayberry, “Thank ye, thank ye, thank ye!” And, may more churches follow their lead.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Kudos to Hunt and Floyd :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
I do believe that we are seeing what I call REAL leadership out of these two great men of God.
I echo a hearty AMEN!
Thank you DMan for posting this and thank you Dr. Hunt and Dr. Floyd for staying the course and taking the lead.
P.S. For Dr. Floyd to lead out by dropping T.V. for CP deserves an Atta Boy!!!!
When you are already giving such a little and you raise it a little it is still a little. I’m not impressed — at least not yet. There is still the matter of “0″ given to Annie Armstrong by Hunt’s church. Is he suggesting I should follow his lead and double my giving because he doubled his? Doesn’t sound like leadership to me.
I’ll wait and see. Still not a fan of Johnny Hunt’s style, though I think he is sincere and loves the Lord.
SSBN,
At least they’re going in the right direction….amen?
David
SSBN,
To be “sincere” is basically an abstraction in Christian service.
To “love the Lord” is an absolute necessity for Christian service.
A question for you: What do you mean by “Still not a fan of Johnny Hunt’s style” if you would be willing to answer?
What took them so long?
Wait a minute. Let’s examine this post just a moment and give ourselves a gut check.
Vol has written a post giving a vote of confidence, approval and appreciation to Ronny and Johnny for increasing their CP giving. Obviously both have cut other things to give the increase. This is evidence that they both are now taking the CP more seriously than before in their own estimations and as leaders of local, autonomous churches.
I for one am going to join Tim G and Vol and say, Well Done Boys. May your hearts continue to warm toward the CP and may the treasuries of your churches give you greater opportunity to give even more in the future.
JND,
Let’s just rejoice that they’re heading that way now. Let’s not dwell on the past…on what used to be.
CB, amen, Brother. And, you really need to come over to SBC Voices and look at the liberals coming out of the wood work over there, and what they’re saying. It’s like the CR all over again.
David
Vol,
I will pick up a couple of extra clips and some C-4 and be there “directly.”
David,
Anytime that a church of any size increases their missions giving — in this case through CP — that’s certainly to be commended. While I still have strong reservations about the GCRTF Report, especially component #3 relating to CP, we should encourage our churches and church members to be more faithful in giving.
Let me ask you two questions related to this post and one of your comments. How was #3 tweaked in such a way as to change your “no” vote to a “yes?” And secondly, what would be your definition of the “liberals” at SBC Voices who are coming out of the woodwork? Don’t know that I’m related to Bro. CB, but we certainly share a great last name. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Really, Howell, the only thing that was changed on #3 was that the CP was emphasized more, which made me go ahead and vote for the GCR. I really dont know how much the GCR is gonna change anything, or really do any good; but I hope it does.
Also, theological liberals in the SBC would be the fellas and gals over there, who believe that the Bible contains errors; that Jesus is not the only way to Heaven; in women pastors; etc.
And, hey, there are worse things than being related to CB. I cant think of anything right at the moment, but I’m sure that there’s worse things.
:)
David
David, I appreciate the post. I have said several times this would be a great step following the convention. The next great step would be for our newly elected leadership to follow suit.
David,
Other than what your “etc.” might include, I would certainly agree with your definition regarding theological liberals.
As to the change on #3, the changes made appeared to strengthen CP, but I do not believe that the language that was added will strengthen CP in point of fact. “Great Commission Giving” was not changed. The first addition, “We call upon Southern Baptists to honor and affrim the Cooperative Program as the most effective means of mobilizing our churches and extending our reach” was verbatim from the report itself.
The second addition does nothing to change the thrust of component #3. I believe that there were some, perhaps many, who voted for #3 and then the overall report because they believed that CP giving was somehow strengthened by the addition of this language. I do not believe that it was strengthened, but only time will tell where we go with CP and where we go as a convention. God bless,
Howell
David Worley, the conversation over at SBC Voices is interesting to me, and I probably believe about the same according to inerrancy as John Fariss does. Honestly, I think your standard of what constitutes liberalism is unreal and inaccurate, going above and beyond what is necessary for orthodoxy (and no, for the moment, I am not arguing that I myself am not a liberal, just that everyone your standard would classify as liberal should be classified as such). But that is all just my opinion, I realize.
Heh! Funny typo. I meant, “should NOT be classified as such” in my opinion.
Byron,
If you believe that the Bible is not factual about history, science, and whatever else it deals with, then yes, you are most definitely a liberal.
David
The discussion over there is proof that the CR was needed. The problem today is that one can be Reformed and still be liberal. One can be liberal and still desire to change the SBC.
Gives me a headache! Everywhere we turn people are out to change and re-write.
David,
I am not sure what you mean by “factual” but the definition I read online (at m-w.com) states the definition as, “of or relating to facts” and in my opinion this does not always require a literal interpretation to be just as factual.
Byron,
Do you not believe the Bible is factual in relating to history and science, etc, etc?
I always have believed that, but I am having some doubts, because some things are very difficult to prove and some have no evidence (even contrary evidence). I believe my doubts will prove unfounded and the Bible will be proven true.
Here’s a must see video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZa7hU6tP_s
I’m guessing that a lot of the “disappointment” with the GCRTF concerns the fact that some of it didn’t turn out the way some wanted it to. Well, that’s not supposed to be all that much of a deal-maker in stuff outside elements of the faith, is it?
If the important thing in all this is the work, and if the results of the GCRTF show the work benefits from it, shouldn’t that be the criteria?
Like CB said, let’s not overlook the good news. Let’s not adopt a “yeah, BUT….” attitude. There’s too much of that already.
Anti-Spam Word: Goodness.
Hallelujah!