What’s so wrong with increased seminary funding?

Having read Gerald Harris’ op-ed at Baptist Press, I have only one comment…why you all hating on the seminaries?

Dr. Harris lists Myth No. 1 about the GCRTF as “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.” Admittedly, I am a bit biased, being a seminary student, but what is the rationale for not wanting to provide for the best education for the most students of our Southern Baptist churches?

Point 1: We as SBC want to reach the world for Christ…but we don’t want to prepare new ministers to do that?

Harris also cites Axiom IX of the GCR Declaration, “We believe that North American church planting, pioneer missions around the globe, and theological education are three priorities around which most Southern Baptists will unite.” as the potential reason for this myth’s spread.

More irritating to me, however, is Daniel Akin’s own response to the myth: “The GCR is not and has never been about getting more money to the seminaries.  It has always been about international missions and North American church planting.  It is about getting the gospel to the unreached and under-served peoples of the nations and in our nation. ” How do we expect to have missionaries to send internationally and domestically, or even to our own churches to keep them mission-sending centers without theological education? Before we can tackle the bastions of Satan’s strongholds, we must have soldier-pastors who are more than adequately prepared!

Point 2: We want to fully fund our entities…as long as their names end in “Board”??

We already know that the seminaries are in trouble…the good news is that austerity measures in place at some of the six sisters have stemmed the tide of loss. Not to draw needed attention away, but why is that when mission boards run short in times of need, we offer to have special offerings for them, yet when seminaries run dry, we don’t? Perhaps it is the same reason why we prominently display missions during Christmas (Lottie Moon: international) and Easter (Annie Armstrong: domestic), but hide away SBC Seminaries Sunday and don’thave an offering for their support. Compounding this error is the requirement that missionaries have some seminary experience…”you need it, but we won’t fund it.”

Point 3: We as SBC started the Conservative Resurgence because of the drift of the seminaries…but now we just want to let them wither for lack of funds??

I have argued before about the need for a reworking of the funding formulae and to that end, I made two motions at this past Convention.  I remain speechless at how many seminary students struggle to make ends meet and pay for their schooling (EVEN with the SBC subsidy!) and yet our leadership is adamant that we are as fully funded as we need to be. It seems strange to make those assertions when some seminaries have put off necessary improvements or remodeling until money comes available and some seminary boards of trustees must pay out of their own pockets to build necessary facilities! Need I say any more?….

Thinking about what to do at Orlando 2010…

For those of you who care, I did make my two announced motions plus one more that I did not post. Of the three, all were referred to the appropriate SBC agencies and I have heard the response to two (both declined…which was expected).

Having had the drama of that all blow over, I now turn my thoughts to if I should make motions at the next Convention in Orlando. If so, what should they be about?Also, I don’t want to step on the toes of the GCRTF report…so what will they not cover?

I relish your thoughts and comments….

I would like to announce my candidacy for SBC office…

We have officially kicked off the 2010 SBC presidential campaign, but wait, there’s a twist…it appears that now you can vie for entity leadership as well.

Arena 1: The Executive Committee:

Morris Chapman, president of the Executive Committee, is embroiled in a controversy that may cost him his job . Starting the inferno were his “outrageous and shameful remarks” concerning Calvinism and the Convention. Feeding the flames was the hush-hush dismissal/resignation of vice president Clark Logan, which has drawn many questions and not a little ire. Anybody want to run the largest Protestant denomination from July until May?

Arena 2: The Mission Boards

This just in…it seems that attempts to dismiss the leader of one of the largest mission-sending organization (see also here) are now being attempted at her sister agency. Now, admittedly, there may be some historical overtones to this, but it does seem a little odd that Poe’s pendulum seems to try to cut the mission leadership away at regular intervals?

Arena 3: Will the Page-Hunt Revolution continue? More on this later…

Convention Countdown: Day -2

Today we continue our journey through the three issues that I feel will be important at this year’s Convention

Issue #3: seminaries and the future of the SBC

Issue #2: Tensions between perspectives on the faith

As I sat down to write this post, I first checked Baptist Press to see what articles had been posted. You can’t imagine my surprise and shock when the lead story is about the largest Christian radio network in the Midwest dumping a program featuring Mark Driscoll! Turns out Mark has been a bad boy and said some risque things in Edinburgh. When Baptist Press has to start their article with a Editor’s Note about explicit sexual content, you know that something MAJOR has gone down!

The issue underlying this is not really about crude language…well, not entirely. It is about the deeper, trans-biblical acculturation that we in the American church engage in and feud about regularly. Soteriologically, we are divided into at least three camps: Calvinists, non-Calvinists, and anti-Calvinists (sarcasm alert: I always enjoy when we in the Christian community can be against yet another thing!). Ecclesiologically, we kick out pastors over feuds about church leadership veiled in the elders vs. deacons debate. Pragmatically we deprive new church plants of support because their practical theology violates our teetotaling sensibilities. It even turns out the the movement de jour is also an arena of in-fighting among the power camps! And I am tired of it!

Perhaps I am naive to think that the largest Protestant denomination in the United States might actually try to work together and get along for the Gospel and the Kingdom. Perhaps I am short-sighted to think we could, at least on these non-essential areas, move beyond our Separatist origins and not “kick at the goads” everytime someone displeases us. Of course I also believe that local churches shouldn’t fight over the color of carpets or worship music selections!

Into this fray, I plan to propose a motion to form a reconciliation committee to address the first fracturing issue (soteriological disagreement). If that works (please hold your laughter for the end of the post!), I might work toward the next two in the coming years.

However, this motion is the last (of four) that I have planned to present…and I might not present it at all if the business sessions seem too full of GCR committee plans or in-fighting over the language of congratulatory resolutions. I also need to see the response to my first three and more controversial motions….for all I know, I might be stripped of my messenger credentials, put before the thousands of retirees and three-piece-suit-wearing-preacher-boys, and tarred and feathered!

Convention Countdown: Day -3

Well, it’s almost convention time and that means (at least this year) a preview of some issues that I think will be important this year…if only because I am making motions concerning them!

Issue #3: seminaries and the future of the SBC

I’m not trying to be selfish here (although helping the seminaries does help me, a seminary student!), but there are definite reasons why we might want to focus on this area in the near (read: immediate) future:

1. Demographic decline in young members and baptisms
2. Purported loss of young leadership to attrition
3. Tensions between the young innovators and the older status quo seekers

Some solutions/responses:

1. This year, seminarians in attendance at this year’s Convention will be recognized during the first Executive Committee report:

This is the text from an email sent out by John Kyle, on behalf of the Executive Committee:

During the upcoming meeting of the SBC in Louisville, as part of our Executive Committee report, we are planning to recognize seminary students who are in attendance. The focus of our report this year is the fruit of our cooperative efforts and people like you who are following God’s call to serve as pastors, church planters, missionaries, and other ministry leaders, are part of this fruit. Part 1 of our report is Tuesday morning and I would like to invite you to participate. We have reserved a block on seats at the front of the room on the right side of the stage. During our report, we’re going to ask that all the seminary students in that section rise, come forward, and stand in front of the platform. We will then extend an invitation to pastors, and other messengers, to come and surround the students. Following a song, we will have a special time of prayer asking God to bless you, empower you, and make you fruitful as you serve Him. Following the prayer you can return to your seat. It is our hope that this will be a meaningful time for you and for those in attendance.… I’m hoping we can have over 100 students participate therefore, if you know of other students who will be at the convention, please forward this invitation.

I am very appreciative of the effort to recognize the future of the Convention…and I hope that the Midwestern cohort (my group) will at least be second-highest in attendance. Perhaps we should continue this practice even when the Convention is not in the city of a major seminary! Perhaps we should subsidize (not ExComm, but willing pastors and churches) the travel expenses of the seminary students in your area to go to Convention each year.

2. Efforts (on my own part) to normalize seminary allocations:

• revival of an effort to have a seminary offering (inspired by this post)
• a motion to count where seminary students come from, so that the states can know how to help supplement the seminary budgets or direct their scholarship funds
• a motion to include extension site FTE’s into the allocation formula: this both smooths out inter-campus transitions like the one occuring at Golden Gate and catastrophic loss of campus facilities such as New Orleans in 2004. Also it modernizes the funding method to fit the more regional, less centralized seminary structure of the modern day.

I hope that others will give their input and ideas at the Convention this year. If you will be there, I’ll present these two motions at the afternoon and evening business sessions on Tuesday…be there to see me on the Jumbotron!

Time to get rowdy!

In the words of my good friend (and part of this year’s Hebrew crew) Kelly, “It’s time to get rowdy!” I try not to pour out the vitriol when I blog…but some issues require the sharpened tongue and the rapid-fire rebuke.

Let me begin by saying that I have the utmost respect for those who allow themselves to be nominated to denominational offices and trusteeships. Their sacrifice of time (and I am certain, money) to do this service for the Southern Baptist Convention is admirable and should be encouraged.

However, occasionally, well-meaning and passionate statements necessitate the response of those with less degree of tunnel vision about the issues. Such a scenario has arisen in recent days concerning the funding of the SBC entities and their inability to properly do their work.

I am fairly certain that this conversation has arisen as a watershed  from the recently released Great Commission Resurgence statement. I have read the statement and I agree in principle with all of its articles. Particularly, Article IX (A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure) has motivated us (The SBC, particularly her blog-friendly participants) to discuss what is effective and what is dead-weight in the 21st century world and church.

Therein lies the rub: The trustee leaders of  two oldest entities in the SBC have gone and made some rather ill-advised and half-thought-out proposals to remedy the lack of funds at the national level. The North American Mission Board chairman, Tim Patterson, has proposed merging the two mission boards to eliminate the “antiquated”, “duplicate”, and “overly bureaucratic and bloated” aspects of the organizations. The International Mission Board chairman, Paul Chitwood, has proposed changing the Cooperative Program formula “to ensure that the majority of money given to get the Gospel to the nations no longer gets held back in our own nation.”

Now both of these ideas on the surface are admirable. Rev. Patterson is simply asking for us to do what will eventually be needed: to take a very hard and very counter-traditional look at what each Southern Baptist ministry does and produces for the money we give to it. Rev. Chitwood is simply asking for the most money to go to the greatest need: to the lost.

However, both ideas are wrongly oriented. Both men miss the point (although Rev. Chitwood alludes to it): the problem is not the redundancy of the system (as is) nor the CP formula…at least not at the national level. THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE CONVENTIONS!

There is redundancy and deadwood in the system…at the state level. There is poor allocation of monies received…at the state level. There is a breakdown in how the Cooperative Program is supposed to function…at the state level.

Let us review the history of the CP: In 1925, the Cooperative Program was adopted with the guiding principles of:

1) equal division of church offerings between church needs and the Cooperative Program (SBC Annual, 1976, p.54)

2) equal division of funds between state and national conventions (see principle #4)

3) equal division of national money between domestic and international missions (SBC Annual, 1983, pp. 42-47)

4) funds given seen as a “sacred trust” which the states “were not to touch… for their own use” (principle #11)

I think that it is fairly clear that point #3 is being upheld…since every year, 50% of national CP money goes to the IMB. It is also clear that the other points are not being upheld!

After all the fighting over whether 10% CP giving was too high a threshold to require for participating churches, it turns out we aren’t even close to the original vision of the 1925 statement! When 36.2% (not 50%) of monies collected by the state conventions is allocated to go to the national convention, it is clear that we have a problem at the second level of trust! If we then consider the 13 state conventions that make up the core of the SBC (78.5% of combined Baptist budgets, 81.6 % of national CP budget, over 80% of SBC messengers, 83.1% of SBC members), the statistics are slightly better with 37.6% of the combined budgets going to the national convention.

In light of this, it does not surprise me that many state convention leaders were upset with the GCR statement. Admittedly, the plan has a glaring absence of “clear details, proposed plans or potential consequences.” But, with all due respect to Rev. Barrentine, it is a statement, not a plan of attack! Or is it…perhaps the state leaders fear the blue-haired ladies and the young whipper-snappers of the convention actually considering whether all those state ministries are necessary. Border states have little to fear…it is the core states, with breakaway retirement home systems, wayward colleges and universities, and convention centers that seize valuable assets who need to consider what fat they might be willing to cut to promote world evangelization.

In summary, let me add my own solution to the possibilities being bandied about: why not fulfill the 1925 vision as much as possible. Let’s start with the state conventions SERIOUSLY considering what ministries are indeed 20th century holdovers and how they can dispose, rework, or combine them for greater efficiency. Let’s start demanding that 50% of CP money go to the national convention NOW – not in 10-20 years when our 1% increment gets us there! An excellent idea (that needs to be more bold and go farther) is David Hankin’s Cooperative Program Advance Plan – coming from a state convention director nonetheless! Let’s start by increasing our churchs’ giving to Cooperative Program, as well as national and state missions offerings…and cut our own fat before we demand the pound of flesh from the conventions!

Let’s get started…it’s times to get rowdy, people!

*editorial note: Now I’m going to make some brownies…hopefully I’ll feel better after that! I relish any comments concerning this idea or the others highlighted, especially from anyone I have potentially offended…

Reflections on the “Generational Issues and the SBC”

I recently watched the “Generational Issues and the SBC” Panel Q&A conducted at Southeastern Seminary and found it to be most helpful for my own thinking about the future and the present of the SBC. I will treat the four speakers alphabetically and have included the approximate starting times (according the media player at the website) of the comments I quote.

Daniel Akin: (website)

“Bottom line: if you do that [violating a signed covenant],… your issue is integrity. Basically, you’re a liar, basically you’re dishonest, basically you are disqualified for ministry…. If you give your word to do something, then keep your word.” (63:00)

How appropriate in a day when we have a young man who chose:

1. to attend a fundamentalist school
2. to violate the covenant of that school to take his girlfriend to the prom

…and yet wants to whine and complain about their treatment (expulsion for violating the covenant he chose to sign and violate) of him!

“I am not a fundamentalist. I am an evangelical who affirms the fundamentals.” (16:15)

I have always found Dr. Akin to be a unfiying voice in the Convention in recent years. Yet again, I would like to thank him for encouraging me to move forward with a resolution to the 2007 Convention on soteriology.

Nathan Finn: (contributor at Between the Times)

“If your Calvinism precludes you from cooperating with non-Calvinists, then you would probably be happier somewhere else. But if your Calvinism is not the primary issue for you, but maybe an important issue, but you’re willing to work with other evangelical Baptist Christians who disagree with you on the doctrines of grace, then the Southern Baptist Convention is a great place to be.” (46:00)

I appreciate your emphasis on cooperation over Calvinism. I hope that others will agree to share a unified front against the powers of Satan and not let the friendly fire of theological discussions to weaken our ranks!

JD Greear: (blog)

“Good parachurchism…exists to assist the local church in her ministry…. Bad parachurchism tries to take local ministry from the local church,…thus separating it from the context God intended to move forward…. The Southern Baptist Convention was conceived in good parachurchism and over time, many parts of it have devolved into bad parachurchism.” (18:00)

I am glad that he has made a statement, recently reinforced by the Great Commission Resurgence statement (of which he is a signatory), that the Convention may need to be tweaked to be more effective. I’m sorry, state and national entities, but the years of programmatic and redundant ministry have passed. Just as we as a denomination need to trim our personal fat, we may need to reconsider if, for instance, each state convention really needs their own retirement homes system or not.

Greear later states: Take the lead (in doing ministry) and take what you’re doing to the institutions. See how fast they get onboard and those that don’t, “will probably get left behind.” (16:45)

David Nelson: (SEBTS article)

“I don’t think the major issue facing the Southern Baptist Convention is intergenerational. I think there are two issues. I think that there are competing visions for the Convention…. I think that we don’t all agree about what the gospel is. Those are two pretty big issues that divide us.” (22:30)

Nelson goes on to describe them:

Two visions:
1) those that enjoyed the CR and would like for things to be just like it was when the CR occurred:

• separatist stance: “Baptists have the way to do things”
• “Christian” subculture that isn’t and distance us from those we are trying to reach with the gospel

2) more ecumenical, willing to work with like-minded groups that are not Southern Baptist

• focused on cultural transformation or engagement
• interested in breaking out of the subcultures we have created

Two views of the gospel
“pray a prayer and get a better life” vs. “no life apart from Christ and maybe a life of suffering in this age”

Personally, I am in the second category on both terms (and I’m pretty sure the Bible is too!). I hope that the years ahead for the SBC will be a second Resurgence and not a second Baptist Civil War. I may blog on this issue in the coming weeks, depending on the ruling of my church’s elders about my plans.

The denominational stool revisited…part 4: trustee accountability

Four problem areas in SBC life:

1) trustee accountability

2) evangelistic emphasis

3) cooperative giving

4) discipleship and baptismal retention

It’s time, my loyal reader…onto the number one issue for the Southern Baptist Convention: trustee accountability. This is most definitely a touchy subject…and one that will most likely not be solved by my discussion of it. Indeed, this post may be my downfall for anyone who may in the future search this blog for dirt (there goes my denominational career!)

As I see it, there are three populations that interact with and interdepend on each other in denominational life. At least, they are SUPPOSED to interact and interdepend! Too often, in recent years, the pattern has been reduced to:
1) Entities and their leadership report annually to the messengers (6)
2) Messengers elect the annual slate of new trustees (1)
3) The trustees supervise the entites (3)
4) The entities report to their trustees (4)
…and the cycle continues.
Rarely, messengers will question and contact the entities (5). But I have never personally, in 5 Conventions in the past 12 years, seen the trustees or the entities report to the messengers about their decisions (2 or 6).

This is the problem: our view of church/denominational polity has become unbalanced in practice. We elect messengers and trustees in order to take care of our denominational well-being while we minister and live in our individual communities. Yet somehow we have lost touch with the entities, beyond the official annual report and any communications they may send to the churches.

Many have become disenchanted with this “party line” method, resulting in anger and discontent over some policies the elected boards have enacted. It also seems that there is no recompense, other than overturning the decisions by replacing the trustees. In fact, this method was effectively utilizied during the Conservative Resurgence to regain control of the entities. But this is not an option for us today.

First, we lack the grass-roots support to attempt to overturn the Committee on Nominations’ nominees (this may not even be a option, given Bylaw 15-K) or to elect Convention presidents for three consecutive years that will appoint Committees on Committees, which will appoint Committees on Nominations that will enact the new slates of trustee nominees (yes children, it requires five or more years of concerted effort to bring about top-down change!)

Second, it is not in the best interest of the denomination to force the trustees and the entities to “circle the wagons” and require a Convention floor fight over issue that those irritated themselves see as tertiary. In my opinion, this year’s controversy-free Convention was a refreshing respite, one that I personally would not sacrifice if I could help it.

Third, to be frank, it is those who are best at that method that it seems to be the ones who some want removed themselves! Again, it is not in the best interest for us to fight among ourselves. WE are not the enemy…we are just in disagreement!

So, you might ask, what is the solution? If I may be so bold, we simply need more communication and respect when it comes to potentially (or actually) controversial issues and decisions. But how can that be fostered in the present system? It must be (at least at some level) systemized itself…it must become part of our denominational/Convention DNA…a habit we begin and maintain.

Let us return to the two directions of accountability that I have found lacking or absent in recent years…I did research this phenomenon (in the Convention proceedings back to the late 1960’s) and have found little evidence of it since the early seventies, when the Sunday School Board changed the name of Training Union and was called on the carpet for it! So what is needed is a mechanism so that controversial trustee decisions, but not all entity choices, can be reviewed by the messengers.

First off, we do not need to hobble the trustees, making them bring every jot and tittle to the Convention floor for our approval. To do so would negate the need for trustees in the first place and would overwhelm the Convention. If we had to approve every allocation of funds, every appointment or hiring, we would become quickly bogged down with trivialities…think of how few messengers attend all the entity reports, much less actually pay attention and desire to ask questions!

No, the solution lies only in the area of controversy: policy making. I propose the following rough draft of a amendment to the ministry statements which govern the entities and the trustees in their decisions:

Any action by an entity which acts to interpret the Baptist Faith and Message, as approved by the Convention, or any governing policy set by the Convention must be, following its approval by the trustees of the entity, disclosed to the subsequent Convention and be approved by a majority of the messengers in attendance therein.

Thus hiring decisions, budgets, and other decisions which we can in good faith entrust to the wisdom of the trustees will not unintentionally be put on hold until the next June. However, any additions to or expansions of BFM or other Convention policies will be brought before the scrutiny of the messengers…again in good faith and as a check against the machinations of some thirty or forty like-minded individuals against the will of the larger community of Baptist churches.

Similar action is not unprecendented. First, the Convention has historically approved the governing charters of the entities, some of which include interpretations of Baptist views (i.e. the Abstract of Principles). Second, the Convention retains the right of review of changes to the ministry statements themselves….why not their application in the real world? In my opinion, my motion is in the spirit of and in accordance with the letter of rights #5 and #7. Third, most entities have yet to even seem to contravene the will of the Convention or her member churches…so very few of these reviews would take place at any time.

Having finished my expansion of my four needs in these past few posts, I will later discuss these lines of communication (see below) and they can be strengthened and used appropriately. I encourage you to respond with your thoughts and comments. Once I have processed any feedback you may have, I will forward this amendment to the trustee boards of each entity for their feedback, as is the recommended method for any major policy change. Again, if we work together, we can achieve harmony nad understanding on the issues that threaten to keep us distracted and divided.

Needed modes of communication for united denominational life:

1) messengers to trustees

2) trustees to messengers

3) trustees to entities

4) entities to trustees

5) messengers to entities

6) entities to messengers

The denominational stool revisited…part 3: evangelism

First off, please forgive the long delay in writing….got caught up in SBC/Indy mode….stories to follow!

+++++++

Many would think that the Southern Baptist Convention does not have a problem with evangelistic emphasis…but we do.

We can measure evangelistic effectiveness (yes, I know the Spirit moves, but we in the SBC still obsess about the numbers….) in two ways: as compared with primary worship attendance and as compared with resident membership. By the way, only 71% of church members are resident members and only 33.7% of church members are primary worship attenders…thus the growing demand for more accurate membership counts

PWA has only been collected since 1991 (thanks LifeWay Research for the data!). So in 1991, there was one baptism for every 11.55 primary worship attenders (think regular pew-fillers)…by 2007, it increases to one baptism to 17.77 attenders! That’s an average increase of 1 attender every THREE YEARS!

Resident membership was collected from 1950 (as far as I know!) to 2005…which means we can look at the decade averages! All of you statistical freaks like me can now rejoice! For the unintiated, the t-test number is the probability that the two neighboring averages from the same distribution of values…so the lower, the better! Anything above 0.05 means they are not significantly different.

Average Resident Members per Baptism (t-test with next group)

1950’s: 15.21 (1.65E-07)

1960’s: 20.69 (0.018 )

1970’s: 23.49 (0.007 )

1980’s: 27.34 (0.522)

1990’s: 28.02 (0.294)

2000’s: 28.86

pre-1980: 19.80 (4.04E-10)

1980-1994: 27.88 (0.821)

post-1994: 28.06

post-1979 : 27.95 (1.21E-12 w/ pre-1980)

Summary: The number of resident members per baptism has increased significantly, from 13.89 in 1950 to 30.51 in 2005, an average increase of 1 resident member every three years. But more specifically, the increases occurred before 1979…yeah, something that can’t be blamed on the Conservative Resurgence! Yet the flip side is that our efforts for doctrinal orthodoxy have done nothing to reverse the trend, since the number has only stabilized since then.

Let’s cut to the chase: we need to stem the flow…we need to DECREASE by 1 primary worship attender or resident member every three years…hey, let’s try every year! And for that to happen, we need some leadership…which I hope we will find in Johnny Hunt. He had the second highest baptism percentage (baptisms per PW attender) of the 2008 candidates. His 7.5% is DOUBLE the average of SBC churches! We have had the vigor of Bobby Welch…which didn’t motivate us. We had the irenic “blip” of Frank Page…which made us feel good, but didn’t kick us in the butt. Perhaps two years of Hunt will tip the trustee boards in favor of evangelistically minded representatives, that with God’s help might set the example we need in all our struggling churches and associations.

Personal note: Please pray for a revival series I am helping to co-ordinate. It will occur this October in the association(s) in my state with the lowest average baptisms. May others catch this vision to help one another bring in the harvest and may God bless our efforts and open eyes, ears, and hearts to the Gospel we bring!

The denominational stool revisited…part 2: giving

Based on the number of comments I received from my last post (one!), I am either overwhelming you (with my brilliance and humility!), boring you (with my length and content), or there are none of you reading to even comment! Nonetheless, let us(?) return to the third leg of the stool of the SBC.

+++++++++++++++++

“The stool is a little wobbly”

This rather obtuse phrase is my shorthand for four problem areas in SBC life:

1) trustee accountability

2) evangelistic emphasis

3) cooperative giving

4) discipleship and baptismal retention

What can I say that has not already been said (repeatedly!) from the pulpit and the blog? Not wanting to enter into a twelve-week (or more!) exegesis of the New Testament to support tithing and cooperative giving, let me continue my recent pattern (can one week make a pattern?) of commenting on the published reports/news of the SBC.

I strongly encourage you to read the Baptist press article, ” ‘Missional’ focus must include cooperative funding, report says“, first published in the Southern Baptist Texan, from which I will quote.

I also encourage you to read “One Sacred Effort” by Chad Owen Brand and David Hankins. We were given a copy as part of the CP seminar at the seminary and I found it to be a very enlightening read, both about the history and the continuing need of the Cooperative Program.

“From the early 1930s until the mid 1980s,…the percentage of churches’ aggregate undesignated receipts given through CP was consistently in the 10.5 to 11 percent range….But in 1984, while the total dollars continued to grow — reaching $522 million in 2005 — and the percentage of churches giving through CP remained remarkably high at 95 percent, the average portion that churches contributed began to sharply decline — from 10.6 percent in 1984 to 6.99 percent in 2004.”

What, you may ask, happened in 1984 to start such a rapid drop? While many (myself included) may be quick to say the Conservative Resurgence, I see it as more a symptom of the reasons for the CR. For many decades, probably from 1925 until 1980, we as a denomination has been lulled into the passivity and apathy of the 20th century American experience. We had endured the Great Depression and World War II and had bumbled into the Baby Boom and its consequent social changes (television, The Sixties, etc.). Through the patently American sentiment that good people go to the local church, we grew from a relatively insignifcant, regional religious association into the largest Protestant denomination in America. BUT we also became bloated with the influx of “good Christian people” and other social hangers-on.

In my humble opinion, ALL of the modern problems that we as the Southern Baptist Convention face and endure today are the result of this bloat. The loss of evangelistic fervor seen in the low levels of baptisms, primarily those of people above the age of five(!), is the result of unregenerate members transferring in from other denominations and softening of priorities and bilical fidelity in the modernist era. The second we combatted in the CR, but the first still plagues us…how many of our churches think they are doing fine because they look like they are growing due to the revolving door of church-hopping we tolerate? Our loss of trust in the boards of our entities is partly due to the perception of an “inner circle” of appointments and nominations for all offices at the national level, but more importantly is a symptom of the same trend that corrupts the local Baptist body: we have to appoint people who sit their butts in the pews each Sunday because they are the ones we are familiar with and the ones who vote in the meetings…regardless of whether they even resemble the characteristics of Christ-likeness or the biblical traits of the office! Our downhill slide in regard to discipleship and baptismal retention is the result of the burnout on “programs” which our parents and grandparents emphasized, programs that also soft-pedalled the gospel and its costs on our lives, and our tendency to preach to the most popular sentiment so as not to alienate anyone (missional, emerging types listen up!) and not the clear, costly commands of Scripture. Our fall-off in giving is the result of worldly sentiments to money and the Christian life…we have made the church so much like the American dream that we have forgotten that Christ is not of this world!

Perhaps it is time for us to pass a regenerate membership resolution (surprisingly, it looks like we might this year!) AND for us to get honest at the local level and cull our rolls…if we want to keep inactive members’ addresses on record, then move them over to a prospect file and stop reporting them on the Annual Church Profile!

When the CR got into full swing (1984 represents the first year when CR trustees held majorities on the entity boards), the distributions got cut…in my opinion, for worldly reasons. Many churches wanted to defund the SBC as they began to defund their pet liberal Christian policies/agencies/people. Other churches were divided congregationally and had to soft-pedal and compromise so as not to split. Still others got misinformation or poor information and thought they could better use their money and wait out the storm. A decade and more later, the first group has left us for the CBF and other groups, the second have moderated themselves into apathy as these percentages became “traditional”, and the third have found local mission projects to be effective and have forgotten the larger context and need. We still give to CP, but just not as much….we need to maintain our faithfulness and increase our funds!

“In a survey of Southern Baptists of Texas Convention churches responding to the Annual Church Profile,… the TEXAN found that congregations with fewer than 1,000 resident members averaged 7.4 percent in the amount of undesignated receipts set aside for the Cooperative Program — nearly a percentage point higher than the norm for all SBC churches. A decline occurs with a 6.7 percent average for churches in the 3,000 to 3,999 range, 4.3 percent for those between 4,000 and 4,999 and 3.75 percent between 5,000 and 9,999 members. Once over 10,000 resident members, the CP average falls to near 1 percent. The overall average among SBTC churches analyzed is 7 percent…. In [some] cases, churches have moved from a budgeted CP percentage, preferring a lump sum instead. As the church grows, that line item isn’t likely to grow with it.”

I find it both concerning and ironic that big churches dominate the national offices, but don’t pay for its services! But this trend also supports my previous statement, we as Southern Baptists have an unspoken maximum amount of money we want to send to the national level…as our budgets get bigger, we cut the rate of the distribution of undesignated receipts. I am all about helping all the blue-haired old ladies in the small country churches to support missionaries by collective action, but they shouldn’t be the only ones supporting them! Mega-churches are the problem…and this from someone who grew up in and whose family still attends a mega-church! First, they are the most likely to be swamped by those looking for “a nice youth group to baby-sit my kids”, “a big church where I can make social and business connections”, and other less-than-holy reasons. Second, they are the most concerned with programs and fiduciary efficiency…that CEO that sits on the finance committee wants more cost-benefit analysis from the mission field! Finally, they have the resources and the people to support missionaries themselves without CP…some of them actually do! CP was designed when we were small and is thus perceived as “useful only to small churches”.

“Many churches seem to assume they give generously through CP when tens of thousands of dollars are raised annually for the seasonal Lottie Moon Christmas and Annie Armstrong Easter offerings. But those are designated gifts limited to funding mission endeavors of the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board. When churches prioritize mission offerings to the neglect of CP, other SBC ministries take a hit, including six theological seminaries where ministers are trained, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and relief for ministers’ widows…. One participant in a TEXAN survey of CP and missions giving indicated CP support at a level four times what ACP figures reported the church gave. Most likely the church included seasonal offerings as CP funding.”

And from Les Puryear:

“During the IMB Pastor/Missions Leader Conference, I was stunned by the following information:
SBC Churches Involved in International Missions (2006)
Limited = 51.5% (24,700)
Supporting = 48.5% (23,300)
Exploring = 9.5% (4,500)
Partnering = 1.0% (480)
Multiplying = 0.1% (50)
Definitions of Involvement Categories:
“Limited” means no discernible involvement with international missions either through prayer or through financial giving.” (emphasis mine)

I love the missions offerings…each year, I give to them above my tithe (hence the reason they are called offerings!). But sadly, if these two quotes are mutually true (and I have no reason to think otherwise), over half the churches in our denomination have deceived themselves! They give generously, even sacrificially, and support the much-needed frontiers of the Kingdom, but fail to help the next generation of those at home. And others don’t even do that much! I might be a gadfly for CP giving and other critical issues, but even I am aghast that the most basic (and given the tendency of some of our membership to see the high holidays as the only ones needing their attendace, most supported) of giving tracks to be STILL insufficient and unsupported! Words having failed me, I move on….

“When some messengers to the Greensboro meeting bristled at the original language encouraging churches to give at least 10 percent of their receipts to support world evangelization through the Cooperative Program, others questioned what message is being delivered when SBC presidents typically come from churches with poor levels of CP support. Ultimately, the reference to a 10 percent goal was removed from the report put before the convention in June, though messengers gave 50.48 percent of their votes to the candidate who has demonstrated strong CP support at all of the churches he has led…. Page expressed his objection to any percentage becoming a mark of cooperation and for participation. “The question for me was, does your church give sacrificially to the Cooperative Program? Does it give in such a way as to show a missional mindset?” While calling it “bad theology” to assert that churches can and should tithe, “I do believe 10 percent indicates a serious commitment” to missions, Page said.”

We have yet another divide in our deliberative body. I was at the 2006 convention and I supported the language on 10 percent, even though my church had not yet reached that goal. I also voted for Frank Page for the reason deduced by many…he was the strongest supporter of CP giving.

In 2007 in San Antonio and this year in Indianapolis, I will reserve my feelings on secondary issues and even about mega-churches to vote for those I think are the best nominees to lead our Convention (and in the case of the President, to set the ball rolling for the appointment of new trustees). In my desire to set aside my ecclesiological biases, I use the most neutral of standards: baptismal percentage and CP giving percentage. And in future years, I will continue to put these first in my view for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Secondary issues will fall to the wayside or be seen as points of disagreement, but not division if we set our eyes on the prize of the gospel. Regionalism and protectivism will burn away in the fire of revival that will arise among us. The failure of our forefathers to finish the gospel push in this world will be remedied when we FULLY support missions and the future of the church through regular (might I say, regulated?) and sacrificial (might I emphasize, SACRIFICIAL?) giving.