Wednesday, May 26, 2010

GCR: My Final Thoughts on the Final Report

I want to offer a heartfelt statement of gratitude to the GCR Task Force and to state my endorsement of the GCR Task Force Recommendations.

It was not always so. On Monday, April 27, 2009, I penned this post explaining why I would not add my name to an affirmation of the original GCR Axioms statement. Later, on May 29, when the website began to allow people to affirm the document with caveats, I clarified that, although I would not ask to be added as a signatory with caveats (and that only because of the troublesome outcomes I believed to come from the practice of affirming things with caveats as a general practice), I was indeed someone who agreed with the document just as much as did those affirming the GCR Axioms in that manner.

On May 14, 2009, I wrote in opposition to the abolition of NAMB, a theme that I developed on multiple occasions.

On October 17, I implored my readership to pray for the GCR Task Force and to give them input. Later that month, on October 29, I concurred with Johnny Hunt's public statements about the Cooperative Program.

On November 18, 2009, I somewhat nervously opined that the Task Force ought not to spring the recommendations upon the Southern Baptist people and expect them to rubber-stamp their work. This was the last thing that I wrote about the GCR Task Force's work before they began to release some of the fruits of their labors. As a result of these articles (or at least, as a result of the first of them), I was featured as a counterpoint critic of the GCR declaration in this article in the Florida Baptist Witness.

So, here I am, at one moment and in one article I was presented as the leading dissident criticizing the GCR, and now I am offering an endorsement of the final report. How did we get here?

They Listened

My reservations about the GCR (as they developed over time) can be summarized pretty tersely:

  1. I didn't think it wise to do away with NAMB.
  2. I didn't think it wise to change the name of the Southern Baptist Convention.
  3. I anticipated that the recommendations would be trotted out late and strongarmed upon the convention.
  4. I worried that the recommendations would undermine the Cooperative Program by redefining it.
  5. I didn't think that the GCR really had much to do with the Great Commission or could make a real difference. I regarded it as merely another round of bureaucratic reorganization that would waste our energy and passions over what is eternally trivial.

To put it simply, these people on this Task Force have suitably addressed every one of my concerns. They listened. They did not do away with NAMB. They did not change the name of the SBC. They brought forward their recommendations WELL IN ADVANCE and gave plenty of time for people to digest them and interact with them. Then, after everyone had their say, they ALTERED the recommendations somewhat to take into account people's feedback.

This may be the most Baptist thing that the Southern Baptist Convention has done in a long time. The entire process has sought, received, and respected the opinions of Southern Baptists in a way that just almost appeared congregational. And the result now is that I genuinely do not regard this recommendation as the personal recommendation of any of the individual personalities involved. This recommendation belongs to this entire Task Force as a team, and because the Task Force has responded to so much Southern Baptist input, I think we must say that in some sense it belongs to us all.

That's not to suggest that everyone got everything that they wanted. Quite the opposite. I know that I would have written a slightly different document...OK, maybe a profoundly different document...if I were High Potentate of the SBC. But I don't require that mine be the only voice listened to in the process, just that it be one among the voices heard, whether heeded or not. Certainly the GCR Task Force has demonstrated far more sensitivity to the input of rank and file Southern Baptists throughout this process than does the average experience of trying to make a motion from the floor of our Annual Meeting. In this age of the-Executive-Committee-decides-it-all-for-you and it's-all-cut-and-dried-before-the-first-gavel-falls, I have found it quite refreshing and encouraging to see the GCR Task Force process respond so much to public input.

They have bolstered my faith in what we can accomplish together.

They Found Some Things

I still believe that the most important things required for us to pursue the Great Commission are not contained in this report—could not possibly have been contained in this report. We will pursue or abandon the Great Commission this week based upon what you do in your life and in your local church, not based upon what any committee of the Southern Baptist Convention does or does not do. More about that later.

But I believe that the GCR Task Force has made some recommendations that can really help us. Our Byzantine flowchart of CP money could bedevil a career IRS bureaucrat. No, I don't mean that any entity or any servant touching that money is greedy or wasteful. I'm just saying that the pathway itself is unnecessarily bizarre and inefficient. Furthermore, it is embarrassingly connectional and undermines the autonomy of the local church, thereby violating our principles as Southern Baptists.

This is not a debate about whether the state convention needs money; rather, it is a debate about whether money destined for the state convention really needs to go to Nashville first before arriving at the state convention. It is also a question of whether I ought to be required to support state conventions other than my own. I support my state convention. I love my state convention. I support my state convention in a lot of different ways. I am not anti-state convention.

Nevertheless, my congregation has chosen which state convention we wish to support. In Texas, there are two state conventions. There is the state convention that is more supportive of the national SBC, and then there is the state convention of which the national SBC is more supportive, and they are two different state conventions. Why the SBC bites the hand that feeds it and licks the hand that slaps it I will never understand, but things are as they are. I love the SBC anyway. I'll continue to push for strong support of the SBC anyway.

You may disagree with or even dislike the sentiments that I just articulated. Fair enough. But that's not really the question. Rather, the question is this: Why should my church, having explicitly chosen to support one state convention rather than the other, be forced to have some of our money go to the support of the state convention that we have rejected, just to be able to support the Cooperative Program? Yet that is just what happens now. Some portion of our CP money goes up to Nashville and then to Alpharetta and then back to the BGCT.

That's just wrong, and unnecessarily so.

And it doesn't just have to do with living in a state with two state conventions. You're underwriting the operations of all of the state conventions with your CP funding, including any state conventions with which you disagree. Some portion of the CP giving of BGCT churches in Texas goes to the SBTC. Some portion of CP contributions in Arkansas goes to the Baptist General Association of Virginia. All of us are funding the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, the convention that gladly contains homosexual welcoming and affirming Calvary Baptist Church in Washington DC. Did you know that you were subsidizing such as that? Thanks to Cooperative Agreements, you are if you are giving through the Cooperative Program.

My idea is a simple one: Let my church support the Baptist entities with which we have chosen to affiliate and in which we have an opportunity to have our voice heard and to hold people accountable. We say that we are non-connectional as Southern Baptists, but we have not been practicing what we preach.

Ask a dozen Southern Baptists if they see anything wrong at all with our Southern Baptist funding system, and more of them will highlight this strange course of sending money away in order to get it back than any other feature of the program. The existence of this cockamamie way of shuttling God's money hither and yon is eroding people's confidence in the Cooperative Program. I've had laypeople complain about this very thing at nearly every church I've ever served.

The whole thing needs to go.

Yes, some state conventions will readjust the amount of money that they forward to national and international causes in order to adjust for the lost NAMB funding. Fine. If it all comes out to equilibrium and if the elimination of the Cooperative Agreements means that no additional money is gained for national and international missions, I would still be in favor of this measure. The simplification of the system will, in the long run, make the Cooperative Program more winsome to the Southern Baptist people and will result in a rising tide that will lift all boats.

By making the SBC funding system make more sense and by answering one of the key criticisms leveled against our funding system, we stand the chance of garnering more support for the Cooperative Program. If we can do that, we will indeed have done something that will make a difference for the Great Commission.

I'm also supportive of the reallocation of funds away from the Executive Committee toward the IMB, as well as the other nuances of the new plan for NAMB. Although I do not see that these measures will have as direct a potential effect upon the Great Commission as what I highlighted above, I do support them for other reasons.

The Cooperative Program

I still stand by much of what I said about "Great Commission Giving" in this post. We must acknowledge that the Southern Baptist Convention has always received, tabulated, and celebrated designated giving. Designated giving is a bellwether used to measure candidates for office already (try to run for SBC President if you don't give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering). The third recommendation of the task force report really brings us nothing new in the way of designated giving.

Also, the Cooperative Program has not been redefined. At one point I worried that the Task Force might recommend that designated contributions actually be incorporated into a new definition of the Cooperative Program. They didn't do that, and for that I am thankful. The recommendation pretty much preserves the status quo with regard to the basic princples of our funding system.

It does, however, exclude non-SBC giving from our ACP reporting form. Now THAT, my friends, is a positive step. The Southern Baptist Convention should not be in the business of tracking gifts outside of the Southern Baptist family. It just isn't any of our business. The fact that the Great Commission Giving category explicitly excludes all but SBC-related designated giving is important and worthy of our support.

If Social Security is the third rail of national politics, the Cooperative Program is the third rail of Southern Baptist politics. Address it at your own peril. And I very much FEEL that in my own heart. This whole "Great Commission Giving" thing makes me nervous—perhaps irrationally so. I worry that if we pass this thing I'll look back 25 years from now and see it as the beginning of the end for the Cooperative Program (because here's where we demonstrated a feeling of greater openness to societal giving). I worry that if we DON'T pass this thing I'll look back 25 years from now and see it as the beginning of the end for the Cooperative Program (because here's where we failed to reinvigorate CP support among a new generation of Southern Baptists).

Where's a crystal ball when you need one?

In the end, I come to this conclusion—the Cooperative Program will be what we make of it, and if we determine to make the most of it, this recommendation can do nothing to harm it. The future of the Cooperative Program will not be determined by the design of the ACP. It will be determined by the design of your church's budget and mine.

Ronnie Floyd is right, the text of component #3 is actually quite pro-CP. We may fear what some people will do with "Great Commission Giving," but nobody has been able to tell me why those people (who obviously are already not committed to the CP) will support the CP better just because somebody votes against this component.

If there's a way that voting "No" stands a chance of increasing funding through the Cooperative Program, then I'll enthusiastically—rabidly even—vote in the negative. Apart from that, in what is a very contested election in my heart, the ballot goes in favor of this recommendation in order to support the elimination of contributions going outside of the SBC from our Annual Church Profile.

Conclusion

Does this report contain everything that I wanted? No. But I guess that's what it comes down to. I just don't have to have everything that I want in order to get on board. I won't violate my convictions. I won't offend my conscience. But I will compromise on practicalities for the greater good. This, in my opinion, is one of those times. Every substantial objection that I've raised over the past year has been addressed. What kind of a churl would I have to be to remain in opposition?

Well, I may be some kind of a churl (be gentle in the comments, please), but I'm not that kind of a churl.

In conclusion, the most disappointing aspect of this entire journey, in my estimation, is how little we've paid any actual attention to the Great Commission itself—by that, I mean the actual text of Matthew 28:16-20. I worried that the reorganizational aspects of this process would overshadow the Great Commission aspects of this process. That turned out to be a fear unfounded—there were no non-reorganization aspects of this process to overshadow!

This report is a good step. I plan to vote for it. I hope that you will do so as well. But it is not the answer to our problems.

And on that note, I have to offer you an apology. Rather than curse the darkness, I should light a candle, and I haven't done that. For that reason, over the next several posts I plan to set aside political intrigue and give full-time consideration to nothing but the actual Great Commission. I hope you'll join me, and then I hope that we'll join one another in obedience to what our Lord has commanded.

31 comments:

Dave Miller said...

"The future of the Cooperative Program will not be determined by the design of the ACP. It will be determined by the design of your church's budget and mine."

Well said.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Bart,

Well, from one BI guy to another, and I know there is some unwritten law among some out there that we are not supposed to do this, but I disagree. :)

Allow me to express that I will not allow this report to divide fellowship with Brothers and Sisters in the convention. Having said that, there are some aspects of your expression I believe is being overlooked.

First, Recommendation #3 is being presented as this innocuous recommendation that nothing can be done until the EC studies it. In Dr. Floyd's explanation he gives us a contradictory example. He says; This recommendation, which is the third recommendation in our report, is all you will be voting on related to Great Commission Giving. It provides an additional year for this to be studied by the Executive Committee of our Convention. This leads one to believe that nothing will take place until after the Executive Committee studies it for a year and then returns their recommendation to the convention. However he later on says; Dr. Thom Rainer, President of LifeWay, has informed us that they are studying the format for the Annual Church Profile. He and I have been in several conversations about this. He is ready to lead LifeWay in whatever needs to be done concerning the Annual Church Profile.

If the Southern Baptist Convention affirms recommendation three in our report, we are suggesting the Annual Church Profile could reflect what we are calling Great Commission Giving. How? I am not saying that Dr. Floyd is intentionally misleading the SBC. I am saying that we cannot have this both ways. His last statement contradicts his first statement.

Second, it seems that GCG does indeed do what you said you did not want to see--A restructuring of the CP. While there is no overt strategical plan to restructure the CP by adding this component of GCG it tacitly restructures how churches view cooperation. For example, by removing any outside mission designations from the ACP the churches view cooperating within the SBC as cooperating for mission causes. However, if we are promoting a Great Commission Resurgence, isn't it a bit arrogant to classify only giving that goes to SBC entities as "Great Commission Giving"? I mean, are we now saying that any funds one gives to Operation Christmas Child does not go to aid in the Great Commission because they are not affiliated with the SBC?

(Continued)

Tim Rogers said...

Continued

One other item I believe you have overlooked. While you have openly acknowledged your bias against the BGCT, I believe you have not completely thought through this GCG. With this new line item any funds given to the state conventions and associations are reported as GCG. Thus, you have churches in Texas that are dually aligned. You have churches supporting say the Tarrant County association. Those gifts are classified as GCG and Tarrant County has not taken a stand against Broadway which the SBC has disfellowshipped. Plus, with the restructuring of the Cooperative Agreements, my funds that I give in NC will go to a church plant of NAMB that will jointly be sponsored by Tarrant County Association. My question is very simple. Who will oversee the decision of who pastors that church, Tarrant County, or NAMB?

Third, the addition of the GCG is taking away local church autonomy. I know pastors that do not appreciate the GCRTF report and recommendations. However, they are not going to vote against it because they feel they are voting against the Great Commission. These same pastors will begin to pull away from CP giving to support GCG because it has been labeled as Great Commission. Therefore, the local church is now being told what is and what is not Great Commission Giving. Certainly we can do better than that.

Now, as I said earlier, I am not going to allow fellowship to be broken over this report. I have admired you for sometime now and I plan to continue our fellowship at the convention and after the convention. As a matter of fact, I am planning to sit with you and hopefully on the same row with you when this vote is taken. That way, after the ballots have been punched and passed down the row, I can place mine on top and re-punch my ballot thus making your ballot ineffective. :)

Blessings,
Tim

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Bart,

One more thing. Sorry for the length of my comment. I am surprised though, that you have set a length on comments. :)

Blessings,
Tim

David R. Brumbelow said...

One thing that worries me a little about this report is the term “Great Commission Giving.”

If someone knew nothing about either offering and was just looking at the names, “Cooperative Program,” and “Great Commission Giving,” I think the term “Great Commission Giving” would be the preferred term and offering. After all, the term is more recognizable as coming straight from the Bible.

I understand this may be an ungrounded concern, it’s just something I wonder about. I guess I’d be more comfortable with the added word, “'Designated' Great Commission Giving,” but I’ve mainly just heard the term “Great Commission Giving.”
David R. Brumbelow

Anonymous said...

Bart:

Excellent post. I agree with your assessments.

Tim:

Good response, and the attitude that you display in lot allowing the GCR to be a dividing line in the SBC.

Louis

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

Thanks.

Bart Barber said...

Tim,

My responses:

1. Lifeway can stand ready to do something and yet still be waiting for word from the EC before doing anything.

2. Great Commission Giving does not redefine or restructure Cooperative Program giving. What qualifies as CP giving today will qualify as CP giving afterwards if this recommendation passes. No more and no less. Furthermore, we ALREADY track and celebrate designated giving outside of CP, as we will afterwards if this recommendation passes.

3. It is not that SBC churches could not or should not occasionally give outside SBC endeavors, it is simply that it is none of the SBC's business, as I see it, to track such things. What compelling reason is there for the SBC to keep a record of it?

Does your church keep a record of all that all of your members give charitably, or just what your members give THROUGH YOUR CHURCH? Is it any of your church's business whether your members are giving to the local police association or to the American Red Cross? Does your church need to report or track how much your members are giving to outside causes?

I doubt it.

--to be continued--

Bart Barber said...

4. Tim, my brother, it seems to me that you are the one who has failed to think the matter through with regard to your Tarrant Baptist Association example...

a. A church in TBA is ALREADY able to list its contributions to TBA on the Annual Church Profile. We list our contributions to our association on our ACP every year. I'm looking at your church's ACP, and I see that you reported both "Designated Gifts/Offerings" and "Total Missions Expenditures" on your 2009 ACP. Were your associational gifts included in that figure? If so, then I confess that I don't understand your point at all, for I don't see how the GCRTF recommendation creates anything new about reporting associational gifts.

b. Are you suggesting that I have no responsibility to worry about where OUR congregational contributions wind up, as opposed to where some other congregation's contributions wind up? The problem right now is that OUR GIFTS are used to support OTHER ENTITIES in which we have NO REPRESENTATION in governance and which we DO NOT WISH to support.

I used all-caps on the four critical elements of this problem. I have a special responsibility before God when it comes to our congregation's contributions that I do not have for yours. I will answer to the Lord for how I managed that portion of His money that he put into my care. You will answer for yours.

Also, the money is going to other entities, and not to SBC entities. That makes a difference, because...

...I am not represented at all in the governance of the DCBC or the BGCT or, for that matter, North Carolina. I disagree with the deceitful and gospel-ashamed Camel Method, but I have to fund it. I'm OK with that because I get to elect IMB trustees and I have a process whereby I can seek to correct that horrible error. But what can I do about seeing Calvary DC booted out of the DCBC? Nothing. Nor can I do anything about Broadway being booted out of TBA, but NONE OF OUR MONEY goes to TBA, so it is none of our business. On the other hand, our money DOES go to groups like DCBC, and that's where the problem lies.

For this is contrary to the wishes of our congregation, and the autonomy of our congregation to have a governance voice in the entities that we support financially is being set aside by this connectional and unBaptistic practice.

--to be continued--

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Bart,

Lifeway can stand ready to do something and yet still be waiting for word from the EC before doing anything.

(I am using italics for quotes as my last comments did not allow my "blockquote" tags.)

I agree completely with that statement, but Dr. Floyd needs to state that Lifeway is "standing ready". Dr. Floyd says; If the Southern Baptist Convention affirms recommendation three in our report... That is where I am saying he seems to contradict himself. This last statement doesn't give the impression that Lifeway is going to await the EC's decision.

Blessings,
Tim

Bart Barber said...

5. Finally, the circumstance that you described is not any violation of local church autonomy. You've suggested that lily-livered pastors will vote contrary to their consciences and will give contrary to wisdom not because they have no choice (for the exact thing that you wish for them to do...to vote NO and to give through CP...will be one of the choices freely provided to them by the convention), but because they feel like they might be embarrassed to make one choice over the other.

It is not to purpose of the SBC to grow a backbone and a brain for any local congregations that might lack either.

So long as these pastors' churches have the mechanism to choose to do exactly what you want them to do, then the autonomy of their churches has not been violated.

It is when their money is collected for SBC causes that they wish to support, but is then given to other entities in which they have no representation in governance for expenditure contrary to their wishes, and the local church has no real choice in the matter—that's when local church autonomy has been violated.

=========
My apologies for the comment length restrictions. That's a Blogger thing, and not something that I set out to restrict. It is inconvenient.

Like you, I do not make this a matter of division. I love you as a brother and appreciate your ministry. I've arranged for the shower in your hotel room to malfunction and for the hotel shuttle not to run for you on the day of the vote.

That's how we've been doing politics in Texas since the days of LBJ. :-)

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Bart,

We are writing such lengthy statements I am going to try and deal with my responses in individual posts.

Furthermore, we ALREADY track and celebrate designated giving outside of CP, as we will afterwards if this recommendation passes. I honestly believe this is the strongest point for the GCG. As a matter of fact it is this point that makes me almost persuaded. Because, as Dr. Floyd has presented and according to someone I have spoken personally to on the GCRTF, no other "mission" funds given outside of the SBC will have a place to show up on the ACP. That is the strongest point of the GCG.

Cont.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Bart,

3. It is not that SBC churches could not or should not occasionally give outside SBC endeavors, it is simply that it is none of the SBC's business, as I see it, to track such things. What compelling reason is there for the SBC to keep a record of it?

I can agree with you that it is not the business of the SBC what missions I lead my church to support outside of the SBC. However, we are told we want a GREAT COMMISSION RESURGENCE (caps mean emphasis, not yelling). I predict that within a year there will be some arguing for including a line item that says "Total Missions".

You know, as I, that perception is reality. By placing a line item of GCG the perception is that CP is moved from the CENTRAL giving apparatus to just one of another giving vehicle of SBC cooperation.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim Rogers said...

Cont.

4. Tim, my brother, it seems to me that you are the one who has failed to think the matter through with regard to your Tarrant Baptist Association example...

I am not sure if I was a clear as I wanted to be concerning the TBA. What I was trying to point out is that a church that is dually aligned can give to the TBA and to BGCT and receive credit as GCG. I can give to Samaritans Purse, BGEA, and Angel Tree and not receive credit for any gifts. I think you would agree that my gifts would be used more for Great Commission causes than a church in Texas giving to the BGCT and TBA.

Cont.

Tim Rogers said...

Cont.

I am not represented at all in the governance of the DCBC or the BGCT or, for that matter, North Carolina.

You are the historian and I will concede to your point on this one. But, isn't that why we call it COOPERATIVE giving? While I know my funds given through the state convention goes to the national convention I also know that my funds on the national level are going to other state conventions. Also, lets get real about the issue. If we have state conventions that condone such activities, do we not have a voice within the Trustee system in our entities that are sending money to these state conventions?

Cont.

Tim Rogers said...

Cont.

Like you, I do not make this a matter of division. I love you as a brother and appreciate your ministry. I've arranged for the shower in your hotel room to malfunction and for the hotel shuttle not to run for you on the day of the vote.

That's how we've been doing politics in Texas since the days of LBJ. :-)


As to the hotel room malfunctions. I am not saying that I would do something like cut the hot water off to your room as I honestly do not have enough sense to do something like that. But, I have found out that a Maintenance Man can get this operative done for $25. Plus for an additional $25 wake-up calls can be scheduled every hour one evening and crickets can be released in your room the next evening. Of course after all of this back and forth with you, I believe that I will go ahead and cancel my food order with Tracy. :)

Blessings,
Tim

Bart Barber said...

Tim,

Thanks for all of your responses. We are not that far apart.

Really, David Brumbelow's point touches upon my greatest concern about the whole thing. I'm 100% in agreement with his concern. It just hasn't risen for me to the point that I would cast a negative vote.

Regarding your final point about the trustee system, I would simply acknowledge that our political process is presently at work to give those trustees a good idea about precisely how they can address this situation. I am supporting that process and supporting this option for our trustees to pursue.

As to the idea of being cooperative, the Southern Baptist idea of cooperation is that we who support the cause financially also get to participate in the governance of the cause politically. We are cooperative in that, so long as our core principles are not being violated, we continue in this system even when we lose the vote. We try as hard as we can to win the vote, but sometimes we lose. When we lose, we don't take our toys and go home unless matters of grave importance are at stake.

I illustrated all of that pretty well, I thought, with my discussion of the IMB and the deceitful, gospel-ashamed Camel Method.

The difference with my money going to support someone else's state convention is simply that I have no representation in the governance of another state convention. It's not that I don't get a win; I don't even get a vote.

That's not cooperation. That's taxation without representation.

Scott Gordon said...

Bart & Tim,

Watching this tennis match has been quite exciting...but I think Blogger has a point...brevity is the soul of wit! :-)

As I have already started down this road with a post on SBC Today, Bart, I concur with your assessment here. I also find myself quite willing to support the recommendations of the Task Force's Final Report.

Please be sure to verify that it is Tim's room in which the mysterious malfunctions take place. I will need to be there to vote...I will also try to commandeer Tim's ballot so as to help him with the proper votes at the proper times. :-)

Well, it appears we have two renegades within the BI collective. What a wonderful thing this life in our beloved SBC is.

Looking forward to seeing one and ALL in Orlando.

Bart Barber said...

David Brumbelow,

Don't miss my comments about you in my response to Tim. You have a good point.

Tim G said...

David Brumbelow,
You have hit on a key issue I have heard voiced and you have actually come up with a great way of adjusting the issue.

The word designated is important on more than one level.

1. It would signify non CP giving
2. It would eliminate confusion in future SBC Presidential Nominating Speaches.
3. It would place DGCR giving back under CP giving rather than have them appear as equal or even superior.

Nice catch and possible adjustment indeed.

volfan007 said...

Bart,

The change in reporting giving is my greatest concern, and after reading what you wrote, it's still my greatest concern. I still think that this will lead to societal giving, and while it may not be the end of the CP, it will severely hurt it. Maybe end it...over time. And, when that's gone, what's left? Societal type giving.

And yes, while designated giving is done today, a Pastor being nominated for SBC President, or whatever in the SBC, his CP giving is looked upon as one of the factors in determining whether we will vote for him, or not. Under this new giving report, all of their designated giving will be the thing talked about in nomination speeches.

Also, I do know that some Baptist state ministries are very concerned that this could severely hurt what they do. They are very concerned.

But, overall, I like the Great Commission Task Force's report. I'm still not sure that I'll vote for it, or not. I just cant bring myself to vote for societal giving.

David

Bart Barber said...

David,

You'll find no more stalwart an opponent of societal giving than me.

Here's where I have trouble following: Can you show me how component #3 makes our system the tiniest bit more societal than it is today?

As for presidential candidates, the very fact that you hold the opinion that you hold is proof of why I don't think you are correct in your analysis. Here's what I mean. Southern Baptists are an independent-thinking lot. Baptist bloggers will still report CP giving percentages for candidates. Baptist newspapers will still report CP giving percentages for candidates. And the people voting in next year's presidential election will be the people voting in last year's presidential election.

How, oh how, is a redesigned form going to wave a magic wand and force people who chose how to vote one way last year suddenly start to choose how to vote a different way next year?

I love you, brother, but I just don't see it.

Bart Barber said...

By the way, David, regarding the needs of state conventions, we've got some ministries here at FBC Farmersville that could use an infusion of cash, and I was hoping to send a bill over to your church so that you guys could fund our ministries.

Should I send the bill to your attention? You can send the check to mine.

;-)

volfan007 said...

Bart,

In the past, CP giving is emphasized. I can certainly see Great Commission Giving being the watchword now...instead of CP giving.

Societal giving is when my Church can give more of a percentage to the Childrens Homes in the TBC, and we can give another high percentage to Union University, and we can report that we give a huge percentage to SB causes...all while leaving CP giving out of it. And, all the ministries that depend on CP giving will hurt...when they're not getting CP dollars...all because their ministry is not as high profile and "exciting" as the other ones.

Bart, do you honestly think that CP giving does not factor heavily in SBC Presidential races? And, if GC Giving is what takes its place, then a church that gives .02% to the CP, and 20% to Southeastern Seminary, can tell the convention that their church gives 20.02% to Great Commission giving. That sounds a lot better in a nomination speech, than saying that his church gives .02% to the CP.

I still cant understand why the GCTF is making this reporting on giving such a big deal? Why is this being pushed as an issue? Can you help me understand that one?

David

PS. I love you, too, Brother. And, I'll still love you, and everyone else that votes for the GC report...even if I dont. And, I'll continue to operate as a SB, whether we adopt this report, or not. But, I still dont like #3.

Bart Barber said...

David,

1. People who don't like the CP and don't give through the CP are people who ALREADY try to emphasize designated giving and de-emphasize the CP. All that they are gaining here is a different name.

2. Presidential candidates with sorry CP giving records already try to minimize their CP giving and talk about designated giving.

Why don't they succeed? Because the SBC hasn't passed the appropriate motion to enable them to succeed? No. They don't succeed because, regardless of what they want to talk about, the press, the bloggers, and the Southern Baptist people do their own research and do not allow any small group of people to control the terms of the conversation.

That's not changing.

Stuart said...

Bart,

It's easy to say "great post" because I generally agree with everything you've written.

But more than that, the thing I've always appreciated about your posts (even when I've disagreed with you on a particular matter) is that you think critically and write clearly, and in that order.

This article is no exception to that rule. And there have been far too few columns published, blogs posted, and articles written about the GCRTF of which that can be said. Thanks for this.

volfan007 said...

Bart,

But....but....CP giving has been emphasized up til now. Churches have been encouraged to give more to the CP. We've made an intential effort to support giving cooperatively to missions thru the CP...as a convention of Baptist Churches. But, if this new buzzword is passed, GC Giving, then I'd bet'cha a krispy Kreme doughnut that you want hear the CP being promoted as much. You'll hear GC giving emphasized more and more. And, CP giving will go down and down and down until we have nothing more than a Southern Baptist societal giving thing going on.

Now, if that's the way everyone wants it to be, then so be it. My Church could start designating a lot of our monies to the things that we think are most important. We can quit giving 20% to the CP, and 3% to the Association. We can start picking out 2 or 3 SB ministries that we feel the best about...and all the other SB ministries and TN Baptist ministries can be neglected. Cause, maybe that's what we need to do in order to fit in with the feeling of the day in the SBC. Designated giving could be the way to go...for us, as well.

But, I'd bet'cha that a lot of ministries out there...helping retarded people in TN...reaching out to vacationers in the Smokey Mtn's...Southern Seminary...Golden Gate Seminary...Southeastern Seminary...and many, many other ministries might just miss what we give to the CP...along with all the other churches, who start celebrating GC giving and designating.

David

Bart Barber said...

Thanks, Stuart. I appreciate it, brother.

Bart Barber said...

David,

Being the opponent of societal giving systems that you are, can I infer that you are in favor of doing away with the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering?

Bart Barber said...

David,

You don't have to answer that last question, brother. I'm just pulling your chain a bit.

Here's what I want.

Among those who support the GCRTF, there are a few thugs who are going to suggest that anyone who opposes the report is actually opposed to the Great Commission. Of course, that's not true, and they ought to know better. The people who oppose the GCRTF, for the most part, are people who support the Great Commission just as much as the folks on the other side. They just don't agree that this recommendation is the best way to advance the Great Commission.

You agree, don't you David, that it is unfair and thuggish for people to suggest that opposition to the GCRTF report is opposition to the Great Commission?

Now, here's my point.

It is also unfair to suggest that those who support the GCRTF report are actually in support of societal missions. Perhaps that allegation is just as unfair, and just as totally unsupported by the facts.

At least, I've not seen any facts that you've brought here to support the suggestion that the GCRTF report includes any expansion of societal giving in the SBC. All I've learned is that you have a gambling problem and that you vastly underestimate the value of a Kripsy Kreme doughnut. ;-)

So, what I want is a world in which the merits of this proposal are discussed fairly and in which opponents are not characterized as being anti-Great-Commission and supporters are not characterized as being anti-Cooperative-Program.

I probably won't get what I want, but that doesn't stop me from wanting it, anyway.

volfan007 said...

Bart,

:)

David