“Component #5: We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to reaffirm the Cooperative Program as our central means of supporting Great Commission ministries; but in addition, we will ask Southern Baptists to celebrate with our churches in their Great Commission Giving that goes directly through the Cooperative Program, as well as any designated gifts given to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.”–Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 27

“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.”–Ronnie Floyd, Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 27

“[We] should acknowledge and appreciate [designated gifts as an] adjustment of nomenclature.”–J. Robert White, GCRTF Preliminary Report session

Because of a request from a fellow commentator (Louis at Praisegod Barebones), I have jumped to Component 5 to discuss what many see as the greatest weakness to the GCRTF report. In essence, a new term would be used in Southern Baptist life, Great Commission Giving, which would include both CP & designated gifts. Allow me to use the words of another commentator as a skeleton for my own response.

Steve Loggins, Director of Missions, North Jefferson Baptist Association, Alabama, wrote a scathing response to the GCRTF presentation, focusing at one point on Component 5:

“Component 5 is a big problem for me – I do not see how ‘celebrating designated giving’ is going to do anything but reduce support for the CP instead of enhancing it. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and I pray that Lord reveal this also to me – I do appreciate the gifts given to the association, to the state, to other mission causes – but if we put these along side of the CP as equal partners – then we will find that diamond of the CP will be lost in the setting of a host of other jewels – too numerous to count, for everyone has their own favorite mission enterprise.”

Rev. Loggins is correct in his cursory judgment…if the term is not defined correctly. If we indeed allow “gifts given to the association, to the state, [and] to other mission causes” to be counted as “equal partners” with CP, we are doomed to simply transfer our funds to a pseudo-societal model, much like the one we had before 1925. However, proper safeguards put into place should prevent this re-appropriation from taking place at too high a level. Will churches re-direct funds under a expanded definition? Yes, because they will have the liberty and the breadth to do so. Can we keep CP alive and even improve it? Yes, if we carefully determine how the money is considered as “equal” (more on this later).

“In fact, this is already part of the problem in the loss of CP giving which facilitates what we do as Southern Baptists.”–Steve Loggins

This would seem to be the case at first glance. Direct funding apart from CP is no doubt part of the problem of why CP is underfunded (poor stewardship by Baptists in the pews and churches are a large chunk, in my opinion). However, directed funding also keep our CP-supported entities alive.

The following data for the funding year 2007-2008 is taken from the 2009 Book of Reports, with page numbers indicated after each example. Direct contributions to Nashville for distribution through CP from individuals and churches makes up 3.09% of the CP budget (31). When distributed throught the CP allocations, that 6.3 million dollars constitutes anywhere from 0.84% (Southwestern) to 3.02% (ERLC) of an entity’s budget (20-26). Money from other sources (“designations”, “other gifts”, or “other sources”), make up anywhere from 1.47% (ERLC) to 22.67% (New Orleans) of the entity’s budget (20-26). By comparison, CP money allocated from the states’ contributions makes up 26.33% (Southwestern) to 94.83% (ERLC) of the entity’s budget (20-26).

In conclusion, we already give directly, either to get around uncooperative states (which I call support-with-dissent) or for direct one-entity funding, even before we expand the definition. We need to allow, maybe even encourage, direct giving, but be most careful not to revert to a societal, non-CP system in the process.

“We do not need to add more pieces to the pie – just enlarge the pie.”–Steve Loggins

I am loathe to re-hash old arguments of mine (so I will direct you to the post where I expressed them), but I will add two comments. The GCR will have to start with you and me and blue-haired grandma in the pew. If we do not give, whether societally, cooperatively, with the state, around the state, whatever, if we do not give, we will never fund the entities that we have commissioned to aid us in the Great Commission. We must “enlarge the pie” by emptying our wallets.

Secondly, we must encourage each church to feel free to autonomously give without encouraging them to undercut cooperative efforts. In consonance with the apostle Paul, set aside contributions for the good of the church, but also give to support common efforts.

The End of the Matter

What are our options?

1) We can refuse the recommendation:
This would preserve us from what many perceive is a watering-down (or at least, a putting on the back burner) of CP emphasis. However, it does not fix the underlying problem of poor stewardship at every level in our Convention. I then tacitly reject this option.

2) We can not define what “Great Commission Giving” and allow each church (association, state) determine it for themselves:
This would leave wide open the door to anemic CP giving and pseudo-societalism that Loggins (and I) fear. I actively oppose this option!

3) We can create a series of offerings, akin to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, to supplement and emphasize direct entity giving:
This option has been proposed at one level by some, including Bart Barber (and myself). This is a reasonable option at first consideration, but would be a scheduling and promotion nightmare. Consider the following yearly schedule:

JAN–promote Southern Baptist History emphasis
FEB–Historical Archives Offering
MAR–promote North American missions
APR–Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
MAY–promote state and national coordination?!
JUN–ExComm Offering (during Convention?!)
JUL–promote our professors and future pastors
AUG–J.P. Boyce Seminaries Offering
SEP–promote standing firm on social issues
OCT–ERLC Watchman on the Wall Offering
NOV–promote International missions
DEC–Lottie Moon Easter Offering

…and we think giving to the two mission offerings is already too low! This model also has the genetic problem of societal giving: pew burnout. And for thsoe of us who are passionate about supporting the work of the Convention, will we have to rob from Annie to give to the seminary? I must reject this option.

4) We can move the CP distribution to the state…or preferably to the local church:
Each body of believers, under our polity, has the right to direct their gifts to the needs of their community and their various inter-church associations. The role of promotion by the states and the entities would be directed from the Executive Committee’s subcommittee on Convention budget to the budget committees of the churches. collection of funds would then be at each endpoint: state office and entity offices. However freeing and patently Baptist this seems, this option also runs the risk of societal giving itself with the overwhelming flood of pleas and the need for expanded back offices to produce and distribute those pleas. I oppose this option as well.

5) We can define giving in narrow terms and promote CP as the best of all modes:
The best option, in my opinion, is to create a two-tier system of giving. Money given through the CP route of state-to-national would remain in place. A new category, “directed giving”, wold be created to encompass all giving not through CP: Annie and Lottie offerings and direct entity contributions. The two categories would be combined for a bottom-line “Great Commission giving”, that would replace CP giving as the (for better or worse) standard for Convention support (i.e. in our discussions about candidates for trustee or officer positions).
To give the designation “teeth”, a consitutional amendment to modify Article III, section 2 to read:

2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention through the Cooperative Program during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting; or for each $500.00 paid to the work of the Convention through directed giving during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting. (additions in bold)

This addition would privilege CP giving over directed giving, while also encouraging directed giving as legitimate for churches who desires to cut one or more participants out of their cooperation. (I know this is a somewhat anti-cooperative action, but I think it helps more than hurts. I am open for discussion and better ways of proceeding.)

Finally, giving to non-national, non-state efforts, such as church mission trips, would be excluded from consideration. This is due to the fact that a church might give $2500 to a team of three people to go to Africa (like my own church is doing this year) and under a broad/unqualified “Great Commission giving” definition, they would be able to maximize their allotment of Convention messengers (see Article III). In essence, we could all go to the Convention, fully enabled by the present status quo to vote on Convention matters, and not actually fund anything that the Convention does. We need a “narrow” definition that still allows for support-with-dissent,but prevents us from bringing to reality the fear of Loggins and others (myself included) of a bankrupt, yet fully “supported” Convention. I encourage support for this option.

We need to clarify the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendation so that what is a good idea in principle will be one also in practice.

“Component #1: We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to rally towards a clear and compelling missional vision and begin to conduct ourselves with core values that will create a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention.” — Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 13

Tonight, at 9:30 PM (CST), the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force of the Southern Baptist Convention delivered their progress report to the Executive Committee of the same. Over the next few weeks, I hope (and plan…provided school doesn’t continue to get in the way!) to blog my own thoughts/reflections on this pivotal action. I surmise that my fellow Southern Baptist bloggers will do the same….

The missional vision cast by the task force is as follows:

“As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present
the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to
make disciples of all the nations.” — Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 13

This is a noble endeavor and one I think that each church member and each local church should dedicate themselves to do even now. My own church is already planning for our summer missions efforts, this year to include our first international trip (to West Africa). But this vision must also include the local as well as the global. I committed myself to not speak at the Convention (which I did) until I had witnessed to ten people or had one person be converted by that testimony. Coming down to the wire (two days before), I was privileged to have my first person accept Christ as Lord and Savior after I presented the gospel to them (Tony, I’ve prayed for you daily and will continue to do so!) I challenge myself and you to sow seed in anticipation of “the brink of this global harvest” (p. 8)

Now for a history lesson:

I has occurred to me of late that we, the SBC, are yet again in the wake of our denominational inertia, which I have called the 14-40 effect. A brief study of the history of major events in the Convention’s 164-plus years has shown that major decisions about new initiatives occur about every fourteen years (see below) and major doctrinal/policy decisions every 40 years. (If someone would like to liken that the the Matthean pattern of generations in Jesus’ lineage or the 40-year length of a generation in the OT, feel free to spiritualize away!)

14-year  cycles
1845 – SBC founded
1859 – SBTS founded
1873 – L. Moon volunteers for China, first SSB dissolved due to fin. crisis, first meeting of Southern Baptists in Texas 1874
1888 – first Christmas missions offering (WMU)
1901 – proto-SWBTS at Baylor
1917 – NOBTS founded as BBI
1929 – WMU president first reports (women speaking in Convention)
1944 – GGBTS founded
1957 – MBTS founded
1970 – Denver meeting (Broadman controversy)
1985 – CR tipping point (majority of trustees now conservative)
2000 – BFM 2000

40-year cycles

1845 – SBC founded
1888 – WMU founded
1925 – BFM 1925
1963 – BFM 1963
2000 – BFM 2000
2004 – SBC withdraws from Baptist World Alliance

As we approach the next impulse (2013-14), I suggest that we think clearly these next few Conventions about what we really want out of our denominational cooperation. As you might expect, I have some ideas that I will share…but for those, you will have to tune in again!

A.1: “We don’t spend percentages, we spend dollars” – Ronnie Floyd, following the response of Johnny Hunt

Q.2: Tim Shrader (pastor of First Baptist Church in Litchfield) “asked how the task force ‘is assessing what needs to be done in the SBC.’”

A.2: “How are we going to change the world with the Gospel when 98 cents of every dollar given stays in the churches and 98 cents of every dollar earned stays in the pocket of the member?” – Ronnie Floyd, commenting on a “lack of biblical stewardship” as one of the Convention’s problems

(source: Baptist Press, 11/18/2009)

Did anyone else notice this? Floyd is right…and right again. We do spend dollars…but the dollars we spend come from the percentages we set aside…

Issue 1: personal stewardship

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

If Floyd is right in his assertion that “the average evangelical gives 2.4 percent to all charities” (and that of course includes non-church, i.e. non-CP, giving), we have one major hurdle before we pick at each other’s decimal points.

Does anyone else find it peculiar that many churches run behind on their budgets (at present, mine is techincally 3.5 weeks of bills behind) and yet their members find ample funds to take cruises or buy new cars? I once had an old pastor tell me he had calculated up how much money his church members would make collectively on welfare…if they then tithed that pittance, the offerings would have tripled in money collected. I then calculated what percentage my tithe was of the church’s income…approximately 15% and I was making only $18,000 a year! (i.e. below poverty level!) How strange it would seem to Paul that we are almost  required to have tithing/stewardship sermons to meet the budget (cf. I Corinthians 16:1-2) and we regularly come unprepared to the house of God!

Issue 2: ecclesial stewardship

But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and together with you be refreshed. (Romans 15:23-32)

Does anyone else find it strange that we are fighting over whether our denominational representatives (the trustees) are giving 10% as a church or not…especially when the original vision of the 1925 Cooperative Program was 50% allocation?! (SBC Annual, 1976, p.54)  I’ve made this point before, but it does seem odd that we throw around the 10% rule without a mind for what total sacrifice our Convention forefathers envisioned…no wonder that it was unpopular when first proposed! By way of an update, according to the 2009 state budgets, an average of 32.41% (when weighted by dollar amounts, the allocation is 36.23%) was set aside by the states to national causes. Perhaps we should fix the amount going to the state to be allocated before we worry (too much) about how it is allocated. Most of the states are glad to split equally any money above their budget..so let’s give it to them!

Issue 3: smokescreen or smoking gun?

The fault in logic does not lie in Floyd’s responses, but in our reluctance…to give and to do so sacrifically for the good of the Kingdom. We talk about Great Commission…but do we follow Great Commandment giving (as much to neighbor as to self)? We talk about Resurgence, but do we really mean Recompense? Isn’t it time we talk plain and walk plainer?

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?….

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….

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!

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…

Southern Seminary cuts budget by $1.7M (12/18/2008)

Bart Barber suggested a few months ago the need for a seminary offering to help meet budget needs. Having read the above stories, I must agree!

First, the gory details — let me (humbly) suggest the following plan:

1) Move SBC Seminiaries Sunday (presently first Sunday in April) to the second Sunday in August.

2) Adopt a new offering, named J.P. Boyce Seminaries Offering.

3) Distribute the money as follows:
100% collected goes to seminaries (through Executive Committee), allocated based on the percentage of seminary students from that state at a certain seminary

e.g. – If 55 South Carolina students go to Southeastern, 15 go to Southern and Southwestern each, 10 go to New Orleans, 5 go to Midwestern, then:
55% of SC offering goes to Southeastern
15% goes to Southern and Southwestern each
10% goes to New Orleans
5% goes to Midwestern

4) Direct that the collected funds be used for:
a) further subsidy of seminary student tuition, explicitly not for use in baccalaureate programs, if tuition increases are considered
b) faculty benefits and cost-of-living increases, if surplus allows

Now for the reasons why:
1) The logical time to take up an offering for the seminaries is the Sunday dedicated to them. Yet if you look at the SBC denominational calendar for the next few years, you find a striking conflict between SBC Seminaries Sunday and Easter:

SBC Seminaries Sunday vs. Easter
April 5, 2009 — April 12, 2009
the same day in 2010: April 4
April 3, 2011 — April 24, 2011
April 1, 2012 — April 8, 2012
April 7, 2013 — March 31, 2013

Thus for the next five years, SBC seminaries are overshadowed by the more important remembrance of Christ’s resurrection, and in SBC life, the accompanying missions giving to North American causes.

2) Why J.P. Boyce? He best exemplifies the pulse in SBC life for the seminaries, just as Lottie Moon is to international missions and Annie Armstrong to North American missions. He best exemplifies our support for pastoral education since he is (one of) the first to push for the creation of a seminary.

3) Why distribute the funds based on each state’s representation at each SBC seminary? To overcome a flaw in the distribution formula of Cooperative Program money.

CP money is distributed “to the seminaries on the basis of the number of credit hours students earn on each campus. Only a small percentage of the off-campus hours taken at extension centers are included in the distribution formula.” (NOBTS Report, 2008 SBC Annual, p. 205) As a result, the larger seminaries get more money than the smaller seminaries, so that each seminary is supposed to gets the same per capita money for its students. However, this in practice does not work. The SBC Funding Study Committee “noted that the SBC’s two largest seminaries (SWBTS and SBTS) have significant endowments and are less cash constrained than the three smaller seminaries (SEBTS, GGBTS, and MWBTS).” (Sixth and Final Report of the SBC Funding Study Committee to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, dated February 19, 2008, 2008 SBC Annual, p. 146). If (as seen in the articles at the top of this post) even the largest of the six are cash-strapped, how much more so those who are the smallest? As for the hoped-for per capita equality, it falls short so that “two of the six seminaries [GGBTS and NOBTS] annually have a significant number of credit hours taught but not funded by the Cooperative Program.” (NOBTS Report, 2008 SBC Annual, p. 205, brackets mine)

Each state convention should support the seminaries to which they send their students and from which (supposedly) they receive their pastors and ministers. Under this distribution plan, the frontier states support their local seminary and not (only) the largest one, which might be quite distant from them (geographically and culturally).

4) The purpose of this offering is not to fill the coffers of the seminaries’ endowments or building funds, but to help seminary students, many if not all who live hand-to-mouth during that time, and the seminary professors, who sacrifice much in order to dedicate themselves to the preparation of the next generation of missionaries, teachers, pastors, and denominational leaders. Also a complaint raised by the SBC Funding Study Committee was the perception of CP funds being re-directed to undergraduate programs and not post-baccalaureate education.

Please feel free to comment/complain/correct my thought on this. I hope to propose this as a motion at the 2009 convention, but hope that those of you who see the need for this will go ahead and collect money for the need now.

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

“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.