OK, I have read all of Baptist Press' pieces "GCRTF Viewpoint" but I have to admit that this one is near incomprehensible, or maybe byzantine, which is exactly what we have now with mission funding. Money changes hands all over the place and is touched by all manner of SBC people before it ends up being spent. And, of course, every place it temporarily parks takes a slice.
About increasing funding for international missions, Michael Watson says,
A better and more Southern Baptist way to increase the money the International Mission Board receives is for the churches of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force to do according to their own recommendations and increase their giving to the Cooperative Program to no less than 10 percent.
Huh? A "more Southern Baptist way"? Does he mean that the Southern Baptist way is to tell churches that if they want to give an additional $1 to the IMB then they have to put five times that in their offering plates? Not a workable plan.
Most SBC pastors and churches understand simple math: A dollar to the Lottie Moon offering (or a dollar sent directly to IMB) is a dollar to international missions but a dollar to the Cooperative Program is a few nickels to international missions. What should a church who wants to increase their support for international missions do? Duh.
Most SBC pastors also get a little weary of hearing that the funding solution for the SBC is just for churches to send more money, which is exactly what Watson is saying to GCRTF task force members whose autonomous churches have made funding decisions that don't suit him.
I think I can classify Michael Watson's piece above under "the sky will fall" or either "my funding stream is threatened."