Association calls on churches to cut CP giving by 25-35%

The longstanding general trend of churches giving less to the Cooperative Program is widely known at all levels of the SBC. We've gone from an average of over 11% thirty years or so ago to less than six percent today.

More keenly felt, though is the dramatic loss of CP dollars in state conventions in the past few years. The mortgage meltdown and subsequent recession has reduced individual giving and concomitantly,  the flow of CP dollars from churches to states.

Many state conventions like my own, the Georgia Baptist Convention, have made repeated, drastic cuts in spending, and, since most of the discretionary spending is in staffing, dozens and dozens of jobs have been cut.

Here in Georgia we also have the additional burden of a considerable amount of debt service for a magnificent HQ building that was built just prior to the economic meltdown.

Times are tough in this state convention.

It is not lost on state executives that when CP receipts are down, they are hit the hardest, since (a) they have always kept the great majority of CP gifts (convention wide average is that about two-thirds of CP gifts from churches stay with their state convention and do not leave state borders to go to NAMB, IMB, the seminaries, or other SBC entities), and (b) state conventions have little else in revenue aside from CP gifts (the IMB, in contrast, has other major revenue streams and the CP makes up only 30% of their budget).

One association in our state has passed a "RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR OUR STATE CONVENTIONS" which calls for its churches to "consider" cutting their Cooperative Program giving by 25-35 percent.

Really? Yep. Really, a sort of cut your nose off to spite your face resolution. Undermine the Cooperative Program as a method of helping the state convention which benefits most from the Cooperative Program.

The idea is that churches would take their present CP giving, cut it by  25-35%, and designate that proportion to state convention causes exclusively.

So, here in Georgia, with the Georgia Baptist Convention already retaining over sixty percent of the CP dollar, if churches made this designation it would effectively raise the Georgia percentage of a CP dollar to about 75% if all churches followed this plan.

I have read the resolution and also spoken with the association's director of missions and acknowledge that not everyone is happy with all the changes around the convention. I also believe that this is a well-meaning effort, however misguided. I understand our state convention wants nothing to do with it.

The idea that we would penalize NAMB and the IMB, remove funds from NAMB's church planting efforts or from IMB missionaries serving in places that don't have counties full of churches is rather absurd. Georgia has about 3300 churches, a million resident members, who collected over a billion dollars in 2010, and over $25 million to spend in this state on our own needs. 

Do we really think it proper to undercut that missionary in a place desolate of the Gospel to put back in staff in Georgia to conduct VBS training, or deacon training, or other local needs? 

Surely not.

If the GBC desired they could propose that we increase our percentage of CP receipts from 61% to 75% or 85%. It is up to us. If the churches feel this is best, we may certainly meet and vote these increases. I'm not persuaded that churches will recognize that associations in south Georgia are suffering enough to take money away from NAMB and the IMB to help our poor peach state brethren out.

So, what's the best way to help the Cooperative Program? Give more.

Below is the key part of the association's resolution:

  Therefore, be it resolved, that the administration committee of the  __________ Baptist Association encourages each church to “consider” to contribute a portion of their  cooperative program contributions  (25 – 35%)  to state missions and give the balance to the cooperative program (this is not binding on any church since each one is autonomous, we are only suggesting). The intent of the resolution is not to destroy the cooperative program, though some feel the Great Commission Giving has already accomplished this, but to encourage a means to balance the cooperative program so that state conventions are adequately provided. This will assure that our state conventions will receive enough contributions to provide assistance to our small town and rural churches. The state convention needs us as we need the state convention, and,

Be it finally resolved, that the ________ Baptist Association encourages all sister churches and associations to consider this recommendation.

Ironically, even though the resolution claims that Great Commission Giving has already "destroy[ed]" the Cooperative Program, were churches to adopt these recommendations, this association would be a leader in Georgia in Great Commission Giving. Go figure...

Even though the resolution was passed at a recent spring associational meeting and the document is public, I edited out the name. The DOM said they might want to tweak the document. Tweak? How about deep-sixing it?

But, ah, we are all autonomous. And, maybe this resolution should go to the place where lots of associational resolutions go - a cool, dark, place where it can be quietly forgotten.

I don't know that anyone connected with this reads my humble blog but I would happily provide a place for them to defend the resolution and disagree with your humble blogging semi-retired pastor.

Association yields doctrinal autonomy to the SBC?

The Surry (NC) Baptist Association made news last year as a result of their action to summarily and quickly expel a member church because the church had called a female pastor.

The association, presumably tidying up things after that mess is in the process of revising their associational by-laws. Sounds like a good idea.

Here is the proposed revision as concerns the association's doctrinal statement:

Bylaw I. DOCTRINAL POSITION. The Association affirms the Baptist Faith and Message as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention.

Perhaps the Association desires to have it in writing that the senior pastor of a church can only be a male and that is what the SBC's doctrinal statement, Baptist Faith and Message, says. Perhaps they want to say that without explicitly stating it, which they have done by merely linking their doctrinal stance to the SBC's.

But should an association, an autonomous, cherished, Baptist entity, one that precedes the establishment of the national Southern Baptist Convention, completely yield autonomy on doctrinal matters to the SBC?

I'm thinking no.

But that's what is being done, intentionally or unintentionally, when the association's by-laws reads as it does above. The practical effect of this is that whatever the BFM says counts for the Surry Association. This may be fine for 2012 but the wording is such that whatever changes the SBC makes automatically applies to the association.

Suppose in 2022 the SBC votes to allow female pastors, unlikely, but let's get wild with the possibilities here. That change automatically applies to Surry Association. Letters of apology to follow then, perhaps.

This is all inside baseball and is arcane stuff, but associations should maintain their own doctrinal statement, even if it only "affirms the BFM adopted by the SBC in the year 2000." That wording limits the matter to that document alone and doesn't automically commit the association to any future changes.

Every association I've ever been a part of has some brethren that I would call parliamentary and ecclesialogical geeks who pay attention to this stuff. Surely Surry Association has at least one of these folks who see this yielding of associational autonomy.

I'd hate for my association to adopt by-laws that simly ratify and automatically incorporate whatever the SBC does. The idea that a few thousand folks in Phoenix, or New Orleans could vote and change my association's doctrine doesn't suit me at all.

But...like I said, this is really arcane stuff.

And, yeah, I know that this is none of my business...but what would blogging be without meddlesome bloggers?

Kick the Calvinist church out?

Alternate title: Associations Gone Wild!

More accurately, 'Should this Calvinist church be denied membership in the local association?'

Tom Ascol called attention to the recent case of a Calvinist church in Kentucky being denied membership in the local Baptist association for being too Calvinistic.

The Kentucky paper, Western Recorder, reports the story (though you have to get to p. 3 to read it).

Associated Baptist Press does as well.

I don't see anything from Baptist Press but maybe they will get around to considering this to be news one of these days, especially since the BP boss man, Frank Page, has listed the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism as the number one challenge confronting the SBC today.

ABP has this quote from the association:

“Our concern in the initial stages of our investigation revolved around the fact that Pleasant Valley Community Church’s confessional statement is one that (is) Calvinistic in nature,” the newspaper quoted from a recommendation by the association’s credentials committee. “It affirms the doctrine of election and grace.”

“While we know the doctrine is not heresy, we do recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA,” the statement noted.

An associational pastor who supported the church's application for membership was quoted in the Western Recorder:

“In my dealings with the pastors from this church, I experienced good fellowship (and) good cooperation. These men love the word, they preach the gospel; … they are taking the gospel
around the world,” Rager told the Western Recorder. “I didn’t see any reason they shouldn’t be in the local association— whether their theology is reformed or not. I thought they would be of great benefi t to us.”

Apparently, the brethren and sistren of the association were persuaded far more by the former than the latter. The vote against acceptance was 104-9.

The church's confession of faith is a sprawling document, more a confession plus someone's musings, that makes mention of not only the historic expressions of Calvinistic doctrine but also Mark Dever, John Piper, and Santa Claus. Perhaps the church could rename the document an annotated confession of faith with bonus commentary about this that and the other.

Baptist associations are sometimes odd things. A few bombastic pastors can wield a lot of influence and perhaps there is more to this than is reported; however, I don't see a lot of profit in keeping this church out of a local association. The church remains a member of the SBC and the Kentucky Baptist Convention.

My answer to the question posed in this blog title is, "No."

Unity Through Purity

Restoration to doctrinal purity and a renewed sense of unity in the churches of our Association were our goals. Unity must always be one of our highest priorities; but it must never eclipse the priority of doctrinal purity.

The two sentences above come from the document described as “Article Concerning SBA Messengers' Decision Regarding Flat Rock Baptist Church which is found on the Surry Baptist Association website here. The authors are Dr. Joel Stephens, pastor of Westfield Baptist Church and Vice-Moderator of the SBA, and Rev. Jim Richland, associate pastor of Westfield Baptist Church and chairman of the Membership Committee of the SBA.

It's a pretty standard conservative treatment of the matter of women as senior pastors. I wouldn't quibble too much about it - standard, sterile, boilerplate seminary classroom stuff.

Unity through purity.  Work with me here, brethren: An antidote to doctrinal miscegenation?

I know the intent. There are things we must share in order to be grouped together in associations, state conventions, and the SBC. I don't argue that Surry can draw their lines anywhere they doggone well please. I just wouldn't vote to draw it as they have.

Of the list of requirements for overseer in 1 Timothy 3, referenced in the document linked above, at least half a dozen are always, always, violated by some pastors of some churches in every association I have ever been around. There's not an association in the SBC, anywhere, that this very day does not have at least one "quarrelsome" pastor in it. So, they get a pass? And you wouldn't have to look hard to find a pastor who is a "lover of money." Greedy with impunity?  Guess so.

Which doctrinaire associational officer, which membership committee in pursuit of purity will lead the charge to excise quarrelsome and greedy pastors from among us? Sixteen days, the length of time it took to get rid of the church which called a pastor with long blonde hair and lipstick along with her seminary degree, is too long for any quarrelsome pastor in an association.

Consider the thinking here: The association claims grave harm by one of its churches which called a female pastor. The offending church has damaged the unity in the association. The happy Baptist ship of Surry has been rocked.

The association as victim.

Plodder is not there yet. I can't see the poor pastors in the association and the unfortunate DOM wrapping themselves in the mantle of victimhood - the Woefully Beleaguered Majority.

One might reasonably conclude that the more damaged party is the church and their new pastor. Bailey Edwards Nelson shows up for her first Sunday at Flat Rock Baptist Church and that very week the church is notified that associational expulsion action is pending. There's your victim.

Consider more of the thinking here, words of the Dr. and Rev. named above:

Sadly, those in leadership at Flat Rock Baptist Church have chosen a different path. As you may have heard, the Surry Baptist Association‟s Membership Committee invited the leadership of Flat Rock to meet to discuss this situation. Flat Rock refused their invitation and thereby closed the door on any reconciliation with the Association. For that reason, a motion was presented to the messengers of the Surry Baptist Association last Monday to withdraw the SBA‟s affiliation with Flat Rock Baptist Church. The motion passed by a very large majority.

‘We-hate-it-but-they-forced-us-to-do-it’ Got it. “We hate it…we didn’t want to do it…they made us do it.” What’s next, “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.”

What’s that hollow ring I’m hearing?

Nonetheless, the deed is done, done badly perhaps, but done.

So, when can we hear from the estimated 20% from that associational meeting who voted against the expulsion of the church?

NAMB slashes travel budget, renames DOMs, swears off building buildings

So says Kevin Ezell - Ezell: 'New day for NAMB, states and ADOMs'.

"We're looking at everything at NAMB. We've also just reduced NAMB's travel budget by 50 percent across the board."

This was at the tail end of the Baptist Press article but it caught my eye. An SBC leader who cuts staff and staff travel is an unusual bird. Good for him.

"The staff reduction led to a savings of $6 million," Ezell said. "We cut another $8 million in our internal budget for a total savings of $14 million. Everything we've taken away is flowing back into church planting.

I'd like to know where in the budget he found more millions in cuts than in the cost of the 99 staff who left.

Sure, neither of these are the main thrust of what's going on at NAMB but such things resonate with the folks who give them their money.

Other notable things:

"We're not putting little 'Nambies' out there or buying buildings. We're not building a huge bureaucratic infrastructure in the regions," Ezell said. "It's not very glamorous."

Good. Very good.

Ezell said some 200 jointly funded ADOMs will see their job title change to "church planting catalyst."

NAMB borrows an old but apt mission term - "catalyst," "catalytic."

Ezell did do a little chastising:

Ezell told the associational and church planting leaders that skepticism and negativity must end among NAMB, some of the 42 state conventions and some of the 1,200 associations.

The negativity had a solid foundation in the actions of NAMB over the past decade or so. It is to be expected that our new CEO would like for all to forget the past and be positive about the future.

I'll happily meet him half way on that.

Money woes, budget woes, job woes

Woe is us, and about everyone else these days, when we look at receipts, budgets, salaries, and jobs. Things are tight. Things are tough.

NAMB cut 99 jobs, part of Kevin Ezell's plan to cut HQ personnel by 25%. I suppose one could attribute cuts to both lower income and the latest reorganization. Any way you slice it, it's drastic.

I commented back in November on our Georgia Baptist Convention's deep cuts in budget and staffing. They described it as rolling the budget back to 2000 levels. Staffing has gone from 168 to 103. That's deep, steep, drastic.

For those who watch or participate in The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, their national budget was cut, again, with about 25% of their national staff positions being eliminated. Their budget was almost $20 million just seven years ago. With the latest cuts it's around half that.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas, competing with the new Southern Baptists of Texas convention, dealing with assorted management issues and the economy, has lost tens of millions of from their halcyon budget years.

Pick a Baptist organization and get some of the same.

Most of us have more concern for our own church budget and mine was cut about 10% for this year. We are blessed not to have to take more drastic steps than we have. Other churches and pastors have had to endure serious cuts in pay and budget.

Of more concern to me is the reality that we may not make our goal for the Lottie Moon offering for our International Mission Board. While I was overseas last fall, I was asked by some of our field people and administrators what the attitude and feeling was about this year's offering. I responded that we would do our best to give a little more than last year. We're not there and this Sunday I will make one final appeal. We may make it. We may not.

I have some compassion for those employees of our state and national entities whose jobs have been lost but budget woes do cause these organizations to ask hard questions that otherwise would not be asked. Let's be honest enough to say that bureacratic inertia is a long time SBC staple. Unless the money flow is reduced budgets grow, staff grows.

That we have all these financial woes is probalby a good thing in the long run. Organizations at every level have to demonstrate the value of their mission and their competence. Churches take a good look at the association, state convention, and national entities and ask if these are wise expenditures - some are, some aren't. Those that aren't get cut or supplanted by those that are. This contributes to denominational health and is good.

Consider it all painful, but providential.