By Tim Rogers, Pastor, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Indian Trail, NC

As one gets older time seems to be a reality rag that wipes away the rose color on the glasses of idealism.  At an earlier time of my ministry I would attend conferences and retreats just to be close to those leaders I admired the most.  I got married when I was 33 years old and my wife was 30.  Being a pastor, I wanted her to meet some of my heroes whenever we could.  I remember being on my honeymoon and it took us from Myrtle Beach to Atlanta and then back to North Carolina.  While in Atlanta I stopped by one of my heroes homes for my wife to meet him.  Dr. Johnny Hunt was so very gracious and accommodating as he was preparing for church members to come by for a Christmas celebration he would hold every year.  Of course, FBC Woodstock was not as large then as it is now so he could still accommodate the church family in his home.  We pulled into his neighborhood and saw him in the driveway and he insisted we come inside for some “hanging out” time.

If you have heard Dr. Hunt speak you will know that “hanging out” is one of his spiritual gifts.  Approximately two years later Dr. Hunt and Ms Janet were passing us in a convention and he stopped Gail and I in the hallway.  He reminded Ms. Janet of our visit to their home a couple of Christmas’s earlier and we picked up where we left off.  Now, when Gail and I speak of our honeymoon with others we tell them that part of our honeymoon trip was a visit to Dr. Hunt and Ms. Janet’s home.  Of course, people may think we are crazy, but it certainly is a fond memory of ours because he is one of my heroes in the ministry.

Over the years I have seen Brother Johnny and interacted with him but these times have grown fewer and fewer.  One of the reasons is I followed Brother Johnny and his ministry over the years and there have been some things about which we disagreed.  Instead of vocally and publicly stating my disagreements, I have remained quiet because I do not want to do or say anything that would cause him personal anguish.  One such area of disagreement is the area of Cooperative Program giving that Brother Johnny has led FBC Woodstock to give over the years.  I have tried not to make any public statement concerning this about Brother Johnny — that is, until now.

Brother Johnny is one whom I can truly say has placed feet to his words.  Around North Carolina there is a saying; “put your money where your mouth is.”  Brother Johnny has certainly done that.  Let me give you some facts straight from the Annual Church Profile.

2008

Undesignated Funds: $17,450,278

Cooperative Program: $432,977 = 2.5%

2009

Undesignated Funds: $16,963,244

Cooperative Program: $468,750 = 2.7%

2010

Undesignated Funds: $17,450,278

Cooperative Program: $920,346 = 6.3%

What a great example!!!! Dr. Hunt has led FBC Woodstock to double their CP giving.  While we have never held any church to a percentage of giving most Southern Baptists would agree that 3 percent or below is just not showing much loyalty to convention causes.  The average giving in SBC churches, the last I saw, was between 5 and 6 percent.  Dr. Hunt has increased to above the average and look at the amount.  $920,346 is nearly $1 million I do not care how you look at it. Also, if one examines the undesignated funds one will find an increase of $487,034.  This means Dr. Hunt led the church to increase giving to the CP more than the amount of what they increased in “undesignated” funds.  No matter how one slices this pie one will find that FBC Woodstock sacrificed in order to increase to this percentage.

Let me say this in closing.  Brother Johnny is one that I admire as I see in him the integrity that is so desperately needed in all of our leaders.  Brother Johnny did not increase his giving to be elected president of the SBC; he has increased his giving when it has no potential help for him in the SBC.  CP giving not only helps the SBC and gives small churches like mine encouragement, but it also helps the GBC.  Georgia is struggling in finances just as other state conventions, but they are certainly buoyed by the increase to the coffers by just one church.  Can you imagine what would happen in Georgia, better than that, across the convention, if all churches would increase their CP giving by just 1 percent?

Thank you, Dr. Johnny Hunt, for your leadership in doubling your CP giving.  Yours is certainly an example that is worthy of emulation.

By Tim Rogers, Pastor, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Indian Trail, NC

8. Undesignated Giving/Gifts
9. Total Giving/Receipts
10. Cooperative Program Giving
11. Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
12. Lottie Moon Christmas Offering
13. Great Commission Giving
14. Total Missions Giving

The above listing is a sample of the new Annual Church Profile (ACP).  Please notice something that is still there.  ”Total Missions Giving” (TMG) is a slot that we were assured, during the debate period, would be removed to make this a stronger Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) form.  The reason this would be a stronger SBC form, given from a member of the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) Task Force, was the deletion of the “Total Missions Giving” item.  Well, we still have a “Total Missions Giving” (TMG) platform.  While, it is not what we were told, I have no serious problem with it remaining.  This is for two reasons.

The True Level of SBC Cooperation

The way the ACP is now set up one can add all of the categories together and come up with a TMG amount.  That is, if the SBC missions agencies are the only missions agencies a church donates to missions. Thus, if one adds together Cooperative Program (CP), Lottie Moon (LM), Annie Armstrong (AA), and Great Commission Giving (GCG) and that amount equals the total in the TMG, then we will see that said church distributes their missions’ dollars throughout the SBC.  This is very important for the simple reason we as Southern Baptists believe in cooperating with other Southern Baptists.  Why do we believe in this cooperation?  The SBC places together our funds for the simple reason we can do more together than we can by ourselves. It is not that a local church is not free to distribute their missions’ dollars to other denominations and fellowships outside of the SBC. The issue for Southern Baptists is cooperation. Let me say it this way. I am a Baptist because I believe the Bible teaches a Baptist theology. I am Southern Baptist because I believe the Bible teaches a Baptist Cooperative theology. In other words, I am a Southern Baptist because I believe in cooperating with others of like mind and like practice to get the gospel to the nations.

However, let us say that after adding these items together one finds there to be a difference in TMG. That difference will tell us how much the church believes in cooperating with Southern Baptists. Thus, if a church with a one-hundred thousand dollar TMG reports a giving record of fifteen thousand dollars to CP; ten thousand dollars to LM; five thousand dollars to AA; twenty thousand dollars to GCG then we see this church is only half committed to the SBC. Their commitment to getting the gospel to the world may be 10% of their million dollar budget, but they have a half-heart commitment to Southern Baptists.

Why is this such an issue? If we as Southern Baptists accept this kind of commitment in support of our churches, then we owe the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship an apology. It is this type of issue that we fought so hard for when the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) was formed. Many states began directly supporting and forming giving plans for their churches that included the CBF. With the addition of the GCG along with the inclusion of the TMG we are now seeing the tent pegs removed and the tent being enlarged enough to bring the CBF back into the fold. I do not know of any CBF churches that may desire to re-enter the SBC but the opening has now been put in place. Within our geographical region we have two states that consist of state conventions giving to the SBC. With the inclusion of TMG, this door is open wide enough to ask a simple question. Why do we need two state conventions in those states?

The True Level of Cooperative Program Giving.

While many pushed for the GCG item to be added Dr. John Waters of First Baptist Statesboro, Georgia pushed hard for the CP to remain central in our giving during the 2010 Orlando, Florida SBC meeting. Dr. Waters was, prior to the Orlando convention and remains today, a stalwart for the CP. He eloquently addressed the need for keeping the CP as our central giving unit even going through the process of being over looked once his motion received a second and never received a vote. Then he was called to the platform to discuss his amendment where he was verbally put down and even received a finger tapping in the chest by one on the platform that did not want his motion to pass. Dr. Waters remained calm and discussed his disagreement with the task force and worked toward an amended motion that the convention could leave Orlando united around and moving forward with the GCR. Because of Dr. Waters motion we have in our reporting apparatus a separate line item apart from GCG and not a part of GCG.

Because of this new report we are now able to better assess a church’s cooperation among Southern Baptist. Certainly some churches do not want to cooperate with other churches in doing ministry. That is fine let those churches give around the Cooperative Program and be as independent as they desire. However, when one now sees a church’s CP giving at 3% and their GCG at 6% one will be able to tell how cooperative the church really is in our convention. A church that gives 3% to CP and 6% to GCG tells the world I will not cooperate with you on everything but I will give to my pet projects. When this ACP report is filed we will tell very clearly who cooperates and who is merely giving in order to advance their status within the convention political system.

Conclusion

One other issue that needs to claim our attention. I was informed that here in NC when a church does not file an ACP our state office contacts that church and tries to get the information. When I found that out I was astounded. Let me say, for the sake of our readers, I do not believe North Carolina is unique in this. I believe that if NC does this, then other state conventions are doing it also. I am reporting NC because I know this happens here. They do this because, it seems, some church pastors feel the ACP is some kind of invasion upon their autonomy. I was informed that when a church does not turn in their reports they usually do not do so because of the in-depth questions that are asked. Thus, through the state office contacts the church is asked a minimal amount of questions. This state office initiative ACP report is much less than the former reports. From what I understand the only questions asked concern baptisms and budgets. I know one church was asked by the state convention about their baptisms and budgets and the church does not maintain a membership. Thus, the question that begs an answer concerns the churches that now refuse to report. To be honest, I do not know the reason the ACP was first instituted. However, I do understand today it is an act of accountability for the churches. While I do not want to see the report used as a bragging tool, neither do I want to see it abandoned on the altar of local church autonomy. Certainly we can us autonomy to hide a multitude of sins, but if a church desires to cooperate they should not be afraid of report their statistics. While I understand there is nothing that demands a SBC church to file an ACP to be Southern Baptist, I certainly do not understand a church that refuses to participate in this process. Thus, with this new form I look forward to following our leaders as they lead in the direction they are advocating we go as a convention.

Dr. Brooks is Assistant Professor of Theology and Culture at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and Founding Co-Pastor of the Mosaic Church in New Orleans. He returned in January from a year-long deployment in Iraq as a Chaplain for the Louisiana National Guard.

God has allowed me the privilege of serving three church plants in fifteen years of ministry. I have served in various roles in these church plants, from staff pastor to lead pastor. While all of these church plants have given to the Cooperative Program (CP) in varying amounts, promotion of the CP has been a constant goal (and joy!) for our church members.

Being a professor, and church planter, I believe I have a unique perspective concerning the promotion of the CP. As a professor, I see more and more seminary students who are not familiar with many of our Southern Baptist mission-funding programs. As a church planter, I see the challenge of educating new believers in showing them the genius of cooperative funding of missions through the CP.

In this short essay, I want to offer some simple suggestions as to how church planters may promote the CP in a joyful way in their churches as we work to fulfill the Great Commission together.

1)   Start early in promoting the CP. From the start of a new church plant, it is important to help new believers and members understand what the CP is and how it works. At my current church plant, we start in our new members class by telling them about the CP and how our church gives. We show members how even though we might be a small church plant now, our money combined with other small church plants (and churches) can have a large kingdom impact.

2)   Show the end-results of CP giving. Most people in today’s generation could really care less about bureaucratic processes. While I am not stating that the CP process is necessarily like that, it can be overwhelming when the entire process of money collection and disbursement is explained. I have found that by emphasizing the end results of the CP, people are more receptive to learning. We have had great results by explaining to people how their money goes to help international missions, local missions, disaster relief, etc. By seeing their money in action and knowing the end results, I believe people are more likely to give and support the CP.

3)   Explain the kingdom impact at a local, national, and international level. The trend nowadays is for church plants to keep funding at the local level. Many church plants I know want to keep funding local because they are able to see a direct impact in their community. Yet, churchgoers also have a heart for helping when they see both national and international catastrophes occur. We can show our members the incredible advantage of the CP. Even with a small amount of dollars, a church can have a local and global impact, from their own communities to the farthest countries of the world.

4)   Share the joy of giving a “tithe” of the church. In our church plant, I explain that giving to the CP is our church’s “tithe.” Just like individuals and families give a tithe and offering for the blessings God has given, so our church gives a “tithe” for the blessings God has given us. We then share stories of how God has used our tithe and offering to make a kingdom impact. Stories connect to the postmodern generation because it connects people to the impact of their giving. The more stories you share, the more joy you may see in your congregation’s giving.

In the current church market where so many organizations and networks are vying for the attention of our church offerings, I pray these simple suggestions will help influence Southern Baptist church plants to support perhaps the greatest missions-funding strategy the world has ever known…the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention.

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.

PHOTO: FBW

Today, as I was perusing my Google Reader, I came across an article which has greatly encouraged me.  Florida Baptist Witness editor, James Smith, Sr., has posted an interview with pastors Johnny Hunt and Ronnie Floyd.  In this interview these men discuss their journey in leadership within our convention and the impact that has made on their desire and plans to lead their churches to be more supportive of the Cooperative Program of our convention.  As this has been a question for which I have been desiring an answer, I am grateful for Mr. Smith’s work on this issue and for pastors Hunt and Floyd in their transparent, honest answers.  I am under no delusion that I am the only one who has been asking this question…nor that my initial post on this was the impetus for the article in FBW (certainly I might be deluded in other ways, but like the presentation specialist in the FedEx commercial…I digress! :-D ).

I am most thankful for the comments these men made in their interviews expressing their desire to continue moving their churches in continuing their emphasis on this significant means of financial support for the cooperative ministries of our convention of churches…even once the spotlight of their time in high-profile leadership is completed.  I am committing this very moment to praying for and continuing in prayer for these men as the lead their churches in this significant emphasis and commitment.  I encourage everyone to join with me in this.

I am quite thankful for changeable men in positions of leadership.  It is the height of arrogance for any one of us who have been entrusted with the leadership of God’s people to think that we ourselves need not be teachable nor changeable.

On a different note, one quote from Ronnie Floyd which provided a “shake your head in disbelief” kind of moment came from this statement in his interview:

“I challenged them to come on board strong in the future,” he said, noting that he could never recall such a statement being made at the megachurch pastors’ meeting since he has attended, starting in 1988.

I pray this attitude of omission/de-emphasis of mega-church pastors toward the significance of the Cooperative Program is indeed being transformed in our present SBC culture.

SOLA GRATIA!

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”.

Listen by using the player embedded below, or subscribe in iTunes to have the podcast delivered to you fresh from the oven. Comment here with your suggestions for how we can improve our podcast, and while you’re at our iTunes page, click some stars to give us a rating, or better yet, write a quick review of the podcast on that page. And as always, thanks for listening.

Here’s a link to the post that got the discussion rolling:

• Praisegod Barebones: A Proposed Improvement to the Cooperative Program

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!

You can listen using the embedded player below, or you can subscribe in iTunes by clicking the sidebar link or the logo in this post to have the podcast delivered right to your iPod, piping hot from the oven. Leave your comments here to let us know how we can improve the podcast, and while you’re on our iTunes page, leave us a comment or give us a star rating. And as always, thanks for listening.

However, just the other day I saw the first post from Dr. Akin trying to do away with the “myths” purportedly being presented by many.  I do not mean this article as a rebuke to Dr. Akin in his assessment but one as to call on him to reconsider some of his statements.  I believe Dr. Akin should dispel any “myths” that may be spoken of by others that have no basis.  Thus I would like to offer an assessment of his “myths” and then present where some may be getting their information.

Myth #1-The goal of [particular members of] the Task Force to get more money to the nations is only a smoke screen to get more money to the seminaries. I personally have not heard anyone say this until I saw Dr. Akin’s post.  I have to admit that I do understand how some could present this as a possibility.  Why?  Daniel Palmer, Director of Financial Development for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary presented a paper that the Great Commission Task Force has as part of their “statistics” to review. In their first meeting in Atlanta, it was reported this paper was something the task force openly reviewed and discussed.  This paper was critiqued by Dr. David Hankins, Louisianna Baptist Executive Director. He stated that “it was not an efficiency problem that Southern Baptist had but a giving problem.” Something no one covered in this paper was tucked away in a postscript of the paper.  Palmer stated, “Southeastern, indeed all seminaries would stand to benefit and be in a much better financial position…” To be fair Palmer went on to say that if his plan was adopted he would probably be out of a job.

Thus, Myth #1, while it is not something that I have heard, may well have had a basis from which someone could speculate.  However, the myth itself is merely speculation because one would be judging the motives of Dr. Akin and others.  That is not something I do and I take his word that this was not even in his thought process as he presented the Axioms on a Great Commission Resurgence.  I believe he would be well served, at this point, to take this paper into consideration as he tries to further dispel this myth.

Myth #2-The goal of [certain members of] the Task Force is to turn North American church planting over to Acts 29 or to at least enter into a formal partnership with them. While I admit that as I looked at this myth I wondered if Dr. Akin was referring to my article that was picked up by Baptist Press.  I briefly considered that, but then thought better of it.  Why?  I believe that Dr. Akin has more important issues to concern himself than this small church pastor’s meanderings.  I recognize that his statement is quite similar to the question I asked.  Because of the similarity, and to give clarity to my question, I will present to you my thinking behind the question and the reason that others may be asking the same thing.

Dr. Akin has openly stated his reasons for following Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 was because his sons were telling him he needed to look at this ministry.  When he began to observe Acts 29 he apparently liked what he saw them doing thus he began to involve himself with them by speaking at a boot camp they sponsored  in Raleigh.  I believe that this ‘myth’, just like my above mentioned article, finds its genesis in the ties of some of our SBC leaders to this church planting network.  Dr. Akin, Pastor Greear, and Dr. Stetzer all have observable ties to Acts 29, the latter two in official capacities.  All of these men have ties to our entities and convention leadership: SEBTS, NAMB, LifeWay Research, and GCRTF.  Claims which have been made regarding the awareness, or lack thereof, of various entities and specific individual’s relationship to Acts 29 give rise to the present confusion regarding Acts 29 and our convention.  I believe that a more thoroughgoing, careful explanation would go a long way in making this concern go away.

Myth #3-The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is attempting to influence and even control the search committee process at the Executive Committee, the IMB and NAMB. If someone were to advance that the GCRTF was trying to control the search committee process involving the various entities, then I would agree that this myth is merely a myth.  I do not believe in a New York minute that anyone on the GCRTF is trying to control the process.  Dr. Floyd, as chairman of the GCRTF, is certainly not going to try and control any of these search committees.  But, by using the term “influence” mixed with “control” this myth becomes a partial reality.  Dr.Akin says the GCRTF is not trying to influence the various search committees.  However, a very brief perusal of various statements made and various vocational positions accepted would very clearly reveal an ‘influencing’ of the various search committees.  First, there is the statement made by Dr. Floyd in the Florida Baptist Witness, which Dr. Akin alludes to in his article.  According to the Witness article they asked Dr. Floyd on three different occasions if the task force had any recommendation regarding a major restructuring of the entities.  Each time Dr. Floyd “emphasized” (Florida Baptist Witness word) that the search committees should be “very prayerful and watchful of the work of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force”.  Dr. Akin needs to reconsider his statement that Dr. Floyd was calling on the members of the search committees to be in prayer for the GCRTF.  That was not the context of the article’s quote.  Second, let us look at the movements seen in the last few weeks.  For starters, we see that Dr. Frank Page has moved to the position of VP of Evangelization with NAMB.  It seems that the GCRTF did not take into consideration the suggestion of Gary Ledbetter with the SB Texan; “I suggest that the members of the task force commit that they will not, for at least two years, accept any vocational ministry position (job) or be paid for writing a book related to or growing out of the work of the task force.” Next we see that Dr. Ted Traylor was nominated and accepted the offer to be Chairman of the Search Committee that will ferret out the next President.  Both men are on the GCRTF and it is next to naive to think that this task force will not have influence on the search committee, especially with the chairman of the Search Committee serving on the task force.  Think what you will, the GCRTF has a huge influence on that search committee.  The other two search committees may be immune to such influence.  However, the entities may not enjoy such immunity.  According to Dr. Floyd’s blog he had a meeting with Dr. Chapman the morning before Dr. Chapman announced his resignation.  Did he influence Dr. Chapman’s decision?  I do not believe Dr. Floyd would do anything like that.  Also, remember the first entity head that was asked to come and give a report to the GCRTF?  It was Dr. Rankin.  Do I believe that the meeting consisted of the GCRTF speaking to Dr. Rankin about his retirement?  No, I do not.  However, what everyone on the GCRTF need to grasp is any discussion they do publicly and every move they make without a reasonable explanation will have every word parsed to the n’th degree.  Thus, they produce the fodder used in the “myth” mill.

Myth #4-The goal of the Great Commission Task Force is to dismantle if not destroy the Cooperative Program as we know it today. This myth is one that also has plausible statements under-girding it.  Dr. Akin refers to a Baptist Press article along with a rumor that he heard someone was saying about him.  If I stopped to battle every rumor that everyone said about me I would not have time to do what God has called me to do.  I am certainly not as busy as Dr. Akin so I would first encourage him to remember a word I am certain he has encouraged me with in the past.  Every person is not going to like everything that you do so do only what you sense God is leading you to do.  Dr. Akin then proceeds to produce facts about his commitment to the Cooperative Program.

I do not believe anyone on the task force questions the benefits of the CP.  Everyone can certainly see that the CP is a great source of funding and we have all benefited from this financial wonder.  I think what Dr. Akin misses is the statements that have been made by various task force members that insinuate a desire to return the SBC to a societal giving method.  For example Dr. Hunt made a point in Rogers, Arkansas to help people understand that his “CP gifts” were not just those that he gives through the Georgia Baptist Convention.  Dr. Hunt directs FBC Woodstock to invest huge amounts through a partnership with NAMB to plant churches in major metropolitan areas.  He considers that “CP Giving”.  Brother Al Gilbert stated that his “CP Giving” was not what defined him as being Southern Baptist.  I agree.  However, we have people serving on the CGRTF that bypass their state conventions and give directly to various entities.  That is their prerogative and their right.  However, that is not Cooperative Program giving as defined by the SBC meeting in 2007. It was not a resolution that made it through committee to the floor, it was a recommendation coming from the Executive Committee. (Found here on p. 60)  However, in May, 2009 Dr. Hunt was interviewed by Doug Baker, then Director of Communications for the North Carolina Baptist State Convention.  In Part Two of this interview Dr. Hunt replied to a pedantic scenario concerning funds bypassing state conventions and going directly to the Executive Committee.  Dr. Hunt described FBC Woodstock’s church plants and then spoke about his desire to see the task force make changes that would acknowledge his giving method as cooperative giving.  He said; “It has concerned many of us in recent days because of the various reporting.  It is almost as if we are penalized, though we are very missionary at heart, if we don’t give through a particular system”.  Dr. Hunt seems to forget that the SBC, as mentioned above, voted for this to be the system.

This “myth”, when examined closely, seems to have legs of truth.  Not that the GCRTF desires to dismantle or destroy the CP as we know it today.  I do not believe that neither Dr. Hunt, nor anyone else on the task force desires such.  However, it does appear that we are hearing from those on the GCRTF about a desire to move more to a societal giving platform–which will destroy the Cooperative Program as we know it today.

Conclusion

Here are the myths.  Do I beleive that Dr. Akin is wrong in his assessment of these being myths?  Not in the way he has worded them.  However a close reading of the myths he presents would give reasonable doubt to these being myths.  I would encourage Dr. Akin and the others on the GCRTF to examine his statements closely and then ask a question.  Are we, as task force members, saying things that may give reason for these anxious thoughts that SB are experiencing?  I want to support the GCRTF in their work.  I desire to see a Great Commission Resurgence.  I look forward to thoughts and ideas coming out of this committee that will allow Southern Baptist to “work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.”